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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 9, 2021 | 讻状讝 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讗

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.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Pesachim 80

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Catriella Freedman and her family in memory of Zvi Stein zt”l, marking his second yahrzeit. “We miss his optimism, humor, and love of learning.” And by Carol Robinson and Art Gould in memory of Art鈥檚 father Joseph, Yosef ben Shlomo Shabtai v鈥橰achel z鈥漧. Today is his 22nd yahrtzeit. “Joe was an ordinary man of extraordinary dignity, decency and dedication. When my mother first saw him she thought him handsome and was immediately interested. Then he removed his hat; she saw his bald head and concluded he was already married with children. He wasn鈥檛. The rest is family history. They raised three children in a house one block from the synagogue and across the street from tennis courts. Joe would come out and watch with great delight as my younger brother and I – both accomplished players – played tennis. To this day I remember that he joined us once and showed off a booming forehand; bigger than either my brother or I could produce. I wish we had had more time together.” And by Tina Senders Lamm in memory of her wise and compassionate mother, Peppy Senders, a鈥檋, Pesha Rivka bat Gershon Ha鈥機ohen u鈥橞ina, whose 17th yahrzeit is today.

How do you define a case where the majority of the people are impure and we allow the sacrifice to be brought in a state of impurity? Is one tribe being impure enough? Can a majority of one be considered a majority? If it’s 50/50, do you do anything to change that? If so, what and why? What do you do if most of the people are impure from zav (who were not permitted to bring the sacrifice in impurity) and a minority are impure from a dead person? What happens in the opposite case? What happens if one-third are impure from a dead person, one-third zav and one-third pure? The gemara discusses more details of laws regarding a Pesach sacrifice brought through impurity. In which cases does the tzitz atone?聽 And in which case not? It atones for blood that was sprinkled in a case that the meat or blood was impure or the owner was defiled by impurity from the tehom (abyss) but not to owners who were defiled in a regular case of impurity of a dead person. An assumption made from the mishna regarding the order – it works if the blood was sprinkle dand then they found out the meat was impure, contradicts a braita. How can this be resolved. Does the impurity of an abyss allow even in the event that a priest is defiled or is it permitted only for the owner?

诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讝讘讞 讗转 讛驻住讞 讘讗讞讚 砖注专讬讱


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


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘讟 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛砖讘讟讬诐 讟讛讜专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 注讜砖讬谉 诇注爪诪谉 讜讛诇诇讜 注讜砖讬谉 诇注爪诪谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽住讘专 砖讘讟 讗讞讚 讗讬拽专讬 拽讛诇


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.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘讟 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛砖讘讟讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 讬注砖讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛 砖讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专 讞诇讜拽 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 砖讘讟 讗讞讚 讗讬拽专讬 拽讛诇 讜讛讜讜 诇讛讜 驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讜讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专 讞诇讜拽 讜注讘讚讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛


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.


讗讬转诪专 讛讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪讞爪讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜诪讞爪讛 讟诪讗讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讘砖专抓


It was stated that the amora鈥檌m 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.


讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬注讘讚讜 讛谞讬 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讜讛谞讬 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讚讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇诇讜 注讜砖讬谉 诇注爪诪谉 讜讛诇诇讜 注讜砖讬谉 诇注爪诪谉 讗诪专讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 讟诪讗讬谉 注讜讚驻讬谉 注诇 讛讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讞讚


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鈥檛 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.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 专讜讘讗 讟诪讗讬诐 谞讬注讘讚讜 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 诪转讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛讬讞讬讚 诪讻专讬注 讗转 讛爪讬讘讜专 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讚专 拽讜砖讬讬谉 诇讚讜讻转讬讛 谞讬注讘讚讜 讛谞讬 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讜讛谞讬 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜


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.


讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 转谞讗 讚住讘专 诇讛 讻转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专 讞诇讜拽 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讘砖专抓


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.


讜注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诪砖诇讞讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 讜讬讟诪讗谞讜 讘砖专抓


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.


拽住讘专 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讝讜专拽讬谉 注诇 讟诪讗 砖专抓


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.


讜讬讟诪讗谞讜 讘诪转 诪讚讞讛讜 讗转讛 诪讞讙讬讙转讜


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.


讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诪讚讞讛讜 讗转讛 诪驻住讞讜 讗驻砖专 讚注讘讬讚 讘砖谞讬


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 Pesa岣.


讘诪转 谞诪讬 讗驻砖专 讚注讘讬讚 讘砖讘讬注讬 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖诪讬谞讬 砖诇讜


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.


拽住讘专 注讜诇讗 讻讜诇讛讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讚专讗砖讜谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讞讝讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 讞讝讬 讘讻讜诇讛讜 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 讞讝讬 讘讻讜诇讛讜


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.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讝讬诇讜 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇注讜诇讗 诪讗谉 爪讬讬转 讚注拽专 住讬讻讬讛 讜诪砖讻谞讬讛 讜专讛讬讟


Rav Na岣an 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?


讗讬转诪专 讛讬讜 专讜讘谉 讝讘讬谉 讜诪讬注讜讟谉 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜转谉 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 讗讬谞谉 注讜砖讬谉 诇讗 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 讘砖谞讬


It was stated that the amora鈥檌m 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 Pesa岣 or on the second Pesa岣.


专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讚讛讜讜 诪讬注讜讟讗 讜诪讬注讜讟讗 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 讘砖谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚注讘讚讬 爪讬讘讜专 讘专讗砖讜谉 注讘讬讚 讬讞讬讚 讘砖谞讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 注讘讚讬 爪讬讘讜专 讘专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讬讞讬讚 讘砖谞讬


Rav explains: On the first Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣 in a state of impurity. On the second Pesa岣, 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 Pesa岣, 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 Pesa岣, the individual does not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesa岣.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讝讬诇讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讗 讜讬注砖讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛驻住讞 讘诪讜注讚讜 诪讗讬 注讘讚转 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讜讜 讻讜诇讛讜 讝讘讬谉 诪讗讬 注讘讚转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇讗 讗驻砖专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗驻砖专


Shmuel said to those who informed him of Rav鈥檚 ruling: Go and say to Rav, whose first name was Abba: What do you do with the following verse: 鈥淟et the children of Israel offer the Paschal lamb in its appointed time鈥 (Numbers 9:2)? Rav said to those who transmitted Shmuel鈥檚 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.


讗讬转诪专 讛讬讜 专讜讘谉 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 讜诪讬注讜讟谉 讝讘讬谉


It was stated that the amora鈥檌m discussed the following matter: The majority of the public were ritually impure from impurity imparted by a corpse on the first Pesa岣, 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 Pesa岣.


专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诇驻住讞 讛讘讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 讬砖 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诇驻住讞 讛讘讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛


In a case where the zavim became pure in time for the second Pesa岣, 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 Pesa岣, it cannot be sacrificed on the second Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣.


谞讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诇驻住讞 讛讘讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛 拽住讘专 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专


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 Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣 in a state of impurity.


讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诇驻住讞 讛讘讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛 拽住讘专 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜转专讛 讘爪讬讘讜专


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 Pesa岣 in a state of purity, and those who were unable to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesa岣 sacrifice it on the second Pesa岣.


讗诪专讬 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讞讜讬讛 讘爪讬讘讜专 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 住讘专


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:


讟讛专讛 诪讚讞讬讗 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 诪讚讞讬讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 诪讚讞讬讗


A Paschal lamb offered in a state of purity defers those who are unable to bring the offering to the second Pesa岣, but a Paschal lamb brought in a state of impurity does not defer those who are unable to bring the offering to the second Pesa岣. 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 Pesa岣.


讗讬转诪专 讛讬讜 砖诇讬砖讬转谉 讝讘讬谉 讜砖诇讬砖讬转谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜砖诇讬砖讬转谉 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪谞讬 讘专 驻讟讬砖 讗讜转谉 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 讗讬谞谉 注讜砖讬谉 诇讗 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 讛砖谞讬


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 Pesa岣 or the second Pesa岣.


讘专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讝讘讬谉 注诇 讛讟讛讜专讬诐 讚诇讗 注讘讚讬 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 诪讬注讜讟讗 讜诪讬注讜讟讗 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 讘砖谞讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 谞爪专驻讜 讝讘讬谉 注诐 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 讚诇讗 注讘讚讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 专讜讘讗 讜专讜讘讗 诇讗 诪讚讞讜 诇驻住讞 砖谞讬:


On the first Pesa岣, 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 Pesa岣. On the second Pesa岣, 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 Pesa岣. Consequently, they are the majority, and the offering of the majority is not deferred to the second Pesa岣.


诪转谞讬壮 讛驻住讞 砖谞讝专拽 讚诪讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 谞讟诪讗 讛讙讜祝 讗讬谉 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛谞讝讬专 讜注讜砖讛 驻住讞 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 讛讚诐 讜讗讬谉 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 讛讙讜祝


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 Pesa岣. 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 Pesa岣. 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.


谞讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛:


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.


讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚谞讝专拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讚注 讗讘诇 谞讜讚注 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讝专拽 诇讗 诪专爪讛


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.


讜专诪讬谞讛讜 注诇 诪讛 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讚诐 讜注诇 讛讘砖专 讜注诇 讛讞诇讘 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 讘讗讜谞住 讘讬谉 讘专爪讜谉 讘讬谉 讘讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讘爪讬讘讜专


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.


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讟讜诪讗转讜 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讛讜专爪讛 讝专讬拽转讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛


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.


专讘讬 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 讝专讬拽转讜 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讛讜专爪讛 讟讜诪讗转讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛


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.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞讟诪讗 讘砖讜讙讙 讜讝专拽讜 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讛讜专爪讛


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.


讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讚诐 砖谞讝专拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讚注 讟注诪讗 讚谞讝专拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讚注 讗讘诇 谞讜讚注 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讝专拽 诇讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 谞讜讚注 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讝专拽


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.


讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 谞讝专拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讚注 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 诇诪转谞讬 住讬驻讗 谞讟诪讗 讛讙讜祝 讗讬谉 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 讚讗驻讬诇讜 谞讝专拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讚注 诇讗 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 谞讝专拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讚注:


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.


谞讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讜讻讜壮 讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讻讛谉 讛诪专爪讛 讘拽专讘谞讜转讬讛谉 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讗讜 诇讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬 讙诪讬专讬 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讘讘注诇讬诐 讘讻讛谉 诇讗 讙诪讬专讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讝讘讞讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讻讛谉 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讘注诇讬诐


It was taught in the mishna that if one became ritually impure through impurity of the deep, the frontplate appeases God. Rami bar 岣ma 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讗诇讗 诇诪转 讘诇讘讚 诪转 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讚砖专抓


Rava said: Come and hear a resolution to this question, as Rabbi 岣yya 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?


讜讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讘讘注诇讬诐 讜讘诪讗谉 讗讬 讘谞讝讬专 诪讬 诪讛谞讬 讘讬讛 讻讬 讬诪讜转 诪转 注诇讬讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗


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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Numbers 6:9). This indicates that one鈥檚 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.


讗诇讗 讘注讜砖讛 驻住讞 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讝讜专拽讬谉 注诇 讟诪讗讬 砖专抓 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讝讜专拽讬谉 注诇 讟诪讗讬 砖专抓 讛砖转讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讬讚讜注讛 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


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?


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讻讛谉 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐


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


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讘注诇讬诐 讜讘驻住讞 讜诇诪注讜讟讬 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讚讝讬讘讛


Rav Yosef said: No, this cannot be proven from Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 statement. Actually, it is possible to say that Rabbi 岣yya 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.


讜讟讜诪讗转 转讛讜诐 讚讝讬讘讛 诇讗 诪专爪讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 砖砖讞讟讜 讜讝专拽讜 注诇讬讛


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鈥檛 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

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.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

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...
alon shvut women

Pesach in Impurity

Pesachim Daf 080 What happens with Pesach Sheni when the majority of the nation is impure Pesach Rishon and the...
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 80

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 80

诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讝讘讞 讗转 讛驻住讞 讘讗讞讚 砖注专讬讱


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


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘讟 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛砖讘讟讬诐 讟讛讜专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 注讜砖讬谉 诇注爪诪谉 讜讛诇诇讜 注讜砖讬谉 诇注爪诪谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽住讘专 砖讘讟 讗讞讚 讗讬拽专讬 拽讛诇


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.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘讟 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛砖讘讟讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 讬注砖讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛 砖讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专 讞诇讜拽 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 砖讘讟 讗讞讚 讗讬拽专讬 拽讛诇 讜讛讜讜 诇讛讜 驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讜讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专 讞诇讜拽 讜注讘讚讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛


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.


讗讬转诪专 讛讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪讞爪讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜诪讞爪讛 讟诪讗讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讘砖专抓


It was stated that the amora鈥檌m 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.


讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬注讘讚讜 讛谞讬 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讜讛谞讬 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讚讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇诇讜 注讜砖讬谉 诇注爪诪谉 讜讛诇诇讜 注讜砖讬谉 诇注爪诪谉 讗诪专讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 讟诪讗讬谉 注讜讚驻讬谉 注诇 讛讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讞讚


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鈥檛 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.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 专讜讘讗 讟诪讗讬诐 谞讬注讘讚讜 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 诪转讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛讬讞讬讚 诪讻专讬注 讗转 讛爪讬讘讜专 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讚专 拽讜砖讬讬谉 诇讚讜讻转讬讛 谞讬注讘讚讜 讛谞讬 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讜讛谞讬 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜


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.


讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 转谞讗 讚住讘专 诇讛 讻转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专 讞诇讜拽 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讘砖专抓


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.


讜注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诪砖诇讞讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 讜讬讟诪讗谞讜 讘砖专抓


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.


拽住讘专 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讝讜专拽讬谉 注诇 讟诪讗 砖专抓


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.


讜讬讟诪讗谞讜 讘诪转 诪讚讞讛讜 讗转讛 诪讞讙讬讙转讜


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.


讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诪讚讞讛讜 讗转讛 诪驻住讞讜 讗驻砖专 讚注讘讬讚 讘砖谞讬


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 Pesa岣.


讘诪转 谞诪讬 讗驻砖专 讚注讘讬讚 讘砖讘讬注讬 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖诪讬谞讬 砖诇讜


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.


拽住讘专 注讜诇讗 讻讜诇讛讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讚专讗砖讜谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讞讝讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 讞讝讬 讘讻讜诇讛讜 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 讞讝讬 讘讻讜诇讛讜


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.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讝讬诇讜 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇注讜诇讗 诪讗谉 爪讬讬转 讚注拽专 住讬讻讬讛 讜诪砖讻谞讬讛 讜专讛讬讟


Rav Na岣an 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?


讗讬转诪专 讛讬讜 专讜讘谉 讝讘讬谉 讜诪讬注讜讟谉 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜转谉 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 讗讬谞谉 注讜砖讬谉 诇讗 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 讘砖谞讬


It was stated that the amora鈥檌m 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 Pesa岣 or on the second Pesa岣.


专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讚讛讜讜 诪讬注讜讟讗 讜诪讬注讜讟讗 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 讘砖谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚注讘讚讬 爪讬讘讜专 讘专讗砖讜谉 注讘讬讚 讬讞讬讚 讘砖谞讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 注讘讚讬 爪讬讘讜专 讘专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讬讞讬讚 讘砖谞讬


Rav explains: On the first Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣 in a state of impurity. On the second Pesa岣, 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 Pesa岣, 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 Pesa岣, the individual does not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesa岣.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讝讬诇讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讗 讜讬注砖讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛驻住讞 讘诪讜注讚讜 诪讗讬 注讘讚转 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讜讜 讻讜诇讛讜 讝讘讬谉 诪讗讬 注讘讚转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇讗 讗驻砖专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗驻砖专


Shmuel said to those who informed him of Rav鈥檚 ruling: Go and say to Rav, whose first name was Abba: What do you do with the following verse: 鈥淟et the children of Israel offer the Paschal lamb in its appointed time鈥 (Numbers 9:2)? Rav said to those who transmitted Shmuel鈥檚 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.


讗讬转诪专 讛讬讜 专讜讘谉 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 讜诪讬注讜讟谉 讝讘讬谉


It was stated that the amora鈥檌m discussed the following matter: The majority of the public were ritually impure from impurity imparted by a corpse on the first Pesa岣, 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 Pesa岣.


专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诇驻住讞 讛讘讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 讬砖 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诇驻住讞 讛讘讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛


In a case where the zavim became pure in time for the second Pesa岣, 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 Pesa岣, it cannot be sacrificed on the second Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣.


谞讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诇驻住讞 讛讘讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛 拽住讘专 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专


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 Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣 in a state of impurity.


讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诇驻住讞 讛讘讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛 拽住讘专 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜转专讛 讘爪讬讘讜专


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 Pesa岣 in a state of purity, and those who were unable to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesa岣 sacrifice it on the second Pesa岣.


讗诪专讬 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讞讜讬讛 讘爪讬讘讜专 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 住讘专


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:


讟讛专讛 诪讚讞讬讗 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 诪讚讞讬讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 诪讚讞讬讗


A Paschal lamb offered in a state of purity defers those who are unable to bring the offering to the second Pesa岣, but a Paschal lamb brought in a state of impurity does not defer those who are unable to bring the offering to the second Pesa岣. 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 Pesa岣.


讗讬转诪专 讛讬讜 砖诇讬砖讬转谉 讝讘讬谉 讜砖诇讬砖讬转谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜砖诇讬砖讬转谉 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪谞讬 讘专 驻讟讬砖 讗讜转谉 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 讗讬谞谉 注讜砖讬谉 诇讗 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 讛砖谞讬


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 Pesa岣 or the second Pesa岣.


讘专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讝讘讬谉 注诇 讛讟讛讜专讬诐 讚诇讗 注讘讚讬 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 诪讬注讜讟讗 讜诪讬注讜讟讗 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 讘砖谞讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 谞爪专驻讜 讝讘讬谉 注诐 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 讚诇讗 注讘讚讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 专讜讘讗 讜专讜讘讗 诇讗 诪讚讞讜 诇驻住讞 砖谞讬:


On the first Pesa岣, 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 Pesa岣. On the second Pesa岣, 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 Pesa岣. Consequently, they are the majority, and the offering of the majority is not deferred to the second Pesa岣.


诪转谞讬壮 讛驻住讞 砖谞讝专拽 讚诪讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 谞讟诪讗 讛讙讜祝 讗讬谉 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛谞讝讬专 讜注讜砖讛 驻住讞 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 讛讚诐 讜讗讬谉 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 讛讙讜祝


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 Pesa岣. 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 Pesa岣. 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.


谞讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛:


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.


讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚谞讝专拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讚注 讗讘诇 谞讜讚注 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讝专拽 诇讗 诪专爪讛


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.


讜专诪讬谞讛讜 注诇 诪讛 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讚诐 讜注诇 讛讘砖专 讜注诇 讛讞诇讘 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 讘讗讜谞住 讘讬谉 讘专爪讜谉 讘讬谉 讘讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讘爪讬讘讜专


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.


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讟讜诪讗转讜 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讛讜专爪讛 讝专讬拽转讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛


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.


专讘讬 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 讝专讬拽转讜 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讛讜专爪讛 讟讜诪讗转讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛


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.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞讟诪讗 讘砖讜讙讙 讜讝专拽讜 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讛讜专爪讛


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.


讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讚诐 砖谞讝专拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讚注 讟注诪讗 讚谞讝专拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讚注 讗讘诇 谞讜讚注 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讝专拽 诇讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 谞讜讚注 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讝专拽


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.


讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 谞讝专拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讚注 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 诇诪转谞讬 住讬驻讗 谞讟诪讗 讛讙讜祝 讗讬谉 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 讚讗驻讬诇讜 谞讝专拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讚注 诇讗 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 谞讝专拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讚注:


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.


谞讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讜讻讜壮 讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讻讛谉 讛诪专爪讛 讘拽专讘谞讜转讬讛谉 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讗讜 诇讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬 讙诪讬专讬 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讘讘注诇讬诐 讘讻讛谉 诇讗 讙诪讬专讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讝讘讞讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讻讛谉 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讘注诇讬诐


It was taught in the mishna that if one became ritually impure through impurity of the deep, the frontplate appeases God. Rami bar 岣ma 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讗诇讗 诇诪转 讘诇讘讚 诪转 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讚砖专抓


Rava said: Come and hear a resolution to this question, as Rabbi 岣yya 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?


讜讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讘讘注诇讬诐 讜讘诪讗谉 讗讬 讘谞讝讬专 诪讬 诪讛谞讬 讘讬讛 讻讬 讬诪讜转 诪转 注诇讬讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗


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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Numbers 6:9). This indicates that one鈥檚 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.


讗诇讗 讘注讜砖讛 驻住讞 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讝讜专拽讬谉 注诇 讟诪讗讬 砖专抓 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讝讜专拽讬谉 注诇 讟诪讗讬 砖专抓 讛砖转讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讬讚讜注讛 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


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?


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讻讛谉 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐


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


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讘注诇讬诐 讜讘驻住讞 讜诇诪注讜讟讬 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讚讝讬讘讛


Rav Yosef said: No, this cannot be proven from Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 statement. Actually, it is possible to say that Rabbi 岣yya 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.


讜讟讜诪讗转 转讛讜诐 讚讝讬讘讛 诇讗 诪专爪讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 砖砖讞讟讜 讜讝专拽讜 注诇讬讛


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鈥檛 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

Scroll To Top