Pesachim 81
בַּשֵּׁנִי שֶׁלָּהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאֲתָה — אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת, וּפְטוּרָה מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי.
on her second day, after she immersed in a ritual bath. At that point, it is unclear whether she will remain clean of discharges for the remainder of the day, in which case she was pure from the time she immersed and may eat the Paschal lamb at night, or whether she will experience a discharge of blood during the day, in which case her immersion is retroactively invalid and she was impure the entire time. And after that, she saw blood, thus retroactively clarifying that at the time the Paschal lamb was slaughtered she was unfit to participate in it. The halakha is that she may not eat from the Paschal lamb due to her ritual impurity, but she is exempt from performing the ritual of the second Pesaḥ.
מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דִּמְרַצֶּה צִיץ? אָמְרִי: לָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא הִיא מְטַמְּאָה.
The Gemara explains: What is the reason that she is exempt from the second Pesaḥ? Is it not because the frontplate appeases God, and therefore her first Paschal lamb was valid? Consequently, it is clear that the frontplate does appease God for uncertain ritual impurity related to the discharge of a zava. Say in refutation of this proof: No, this is not the reason. Rather, it is because Rabbi Yosei holds that she renders objects impure from now and onward. When a woman who keeps watch a day for a day experiences another discharge on the second day after she immersed in a ritual bath, she is not retroactively considered to have been impure the entire time; rather, she begins a new period of impurity from the time of her second discharge. Therefore, when the Paschal lamb was slaughtered on her behalf, she was ritually pure.
וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: זָב בַּעַל שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וְזָרְקוּ עָלָיו בַּשְּׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאָה, וְכֵן שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וְזָרְקוּ עָלֶיהָ בַּשֵּׁנִי שֶׁלָּהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאֲתָה — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְטַמְּאִין מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב לְמַפְרֵעַ,
The Gemara questions this refutation: Wasn’t the following taught in a baraita? Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a zav who has had two sightings of discharge for whom they slaughtered a Paschal lamb and sprinkled its blood on his seventh day, after he immersed in a ritual bath, and subsequently on that same day he saw an additional discharge, which makes him ritually impure for another seven days; and similarly, with regard to a woman who keeps watch a day for a day for whom they slaughtered a Paschal lamb and sprinkled its blood on her second day after she immersed in a ritual bath, and subsequently she saw an additional discharge on that same day; these zavim render objects designed for lying and sitting impure retroactively. Once they experience an additional discharge, any object designed for lying or sitting upon which the zav or zava leaned between his or her immersion and the new discharge is considered to be retroactively impure from the time he or she leaned on it.
וּפְטוּרִים מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי.
However, they are exempt from performing the ritual of the second Pesaḥ. This is proof that Rabbi Yosei holds that their ritual impurity is retroactive. Therefore, at the time the Paschal lamb is slaughtered, it is uncertain whether they are ritually pure or impure, because if they have another discharge before the end of the day, they are retroactively considered to have been impure the entire time. From the fact that they are exempt from the second Pesaḥ even if it turns out that they were ritually impure, it appears that the frontplate does appease God for uncertain ritual impurity due to the discharge of a zava.
אָמְרִי: מַאי, לְמַפְרֵעַ — מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara responds to this attempted proof. Say: What is the meaning of Rabbi Yosei’s statement that the ritual impurity applies retroactively? It means that the ritual impurity applies by rabbinic decree. However, according to Torah law, the zav or zava is impure only from the time of the new sighting and onward.
וְאַף רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא סָבַר מְטַמֵּא לְמַפְרֵעַ מִדְּרַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אוֹמֵר: אֲבָל זָב שֶׁרָאָה בַּשְּׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ — סוֹתֵר אֶת שֶׁלְּפָנָיו. וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא יִסְתּוֹר אֶלָּא יוֹמוֹ!
The Gemara points out that even Rabbi Oshaya holds that, according to Rabbi Yosei, a zav or zava renders objects designed for sitting or lying impure retroactively only by rabbinic decree in these circumstances. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Oshaya says: But with regard to a zav who saw a discharge on his seventh day, it cancels the clean days that preceded it. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: It should cancel only its day, i.e., the day on which he experienced the discharge, and he should require only one additional clean day.
מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ: אִי קָסָבַר לְמַפְרֵעַ הוּא מְטַמֵּא — אֲפִילּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ נִסְתּוֹר. אִי קָסָבַר מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא הוּא מְטַמֵּא — יוֹמוֹ נָמֵי לָא נִסְתּוֹר! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: לֹא יִסְתּוֹר וְלֹא יוֹמוֹ.
The Gemara expresses surprise: Whichever way you look at Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, it is difficult: If he holds that that the zav renders objects impure retroactively, the new discharge should cancel all the days. Conversely, if he holds that the zav renders objects impure from now and onward, it should not cancel even its own day. Since part of the seventh day was clean, the zav is considered to have successfully completed his seven clean days, and the new discharge renders him impure for only one day. Rather, say instead that Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: It should not cancel even its own day.
וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי קָאֵי כְּווֹתָךְ. וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מְטַמְּאִין מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב לְמַפְרֵעַ! אֶלָּא לָאו, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מְטַמֵּא לְמַפְרֵעַ מִדְּרַבָּנַן. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
And Rabbi Oshaya said to him: I do not agree with you, but know that Rabbi Yosei, who exempts one in this circumstance from the second Pesaḥ, holds in accordance with your opinion. The Gemara analyses Rabbi Oshaya’s statement: But didn’t Rabbi Yosei say that they render objects designed for lying and sitting impure retroactively, whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that they render these items impure only from the time of the new discharge and onward? Rather, must one not conclude from this that when Rabbi Yosei said he renders these items impure retroactively, he meant that this ruling is due to rabbinic decree and is not Torah law? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this.
וּלְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא הוּא מְטַמֵּא [לְמֵת] בִּלְבַד, לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי?
The Gemara returns to its discussion of whether the leniency of impurity of the deep applies to priests and Rava’s attempt to prove that it does, based upon Rabbi Ḥiyya’s statement that impurity of the deep is permitted only with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Yosei, now that he said that a zav who immersed and then saw an additional discharge renders items impure only from now and onward according to Torah law, and not retroactively, Rabbi Ḥiyya’s statement that the leniency of impurity of the deep applies only to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse was stated to exclude what other case? Rabbi Ḥiyya could not have been excluding impurity due to the discharge of a zav or zava, as suggested above, because their offerings are valid even without the frontplate placating God.
נִפְשׁוֹט מִינַּהּ, דִּבְכֹהֵן וְהוּתְרָה לוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם.
Let us resolve the dilemma from this statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya, as it must come to exclude impurity from a creeping animal. If so, it must be referring to a priest, and impurity of the deep is permitted for him.
אָמְרִי: לְעוֹלָם בִּבְעָלִים וּבְפֶסַח, וְקָסָבַר: אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵאֵי שֶׁרֶץ, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמַעוֹטֵי.
Say in response to this attempted proof: Actually, you can explain that it refers to the impurity of the owners and to a case where they are offering the Paschal lamb, and Rabbi Ḥiyya holds that one may not slaughter an offering and sprinkle its blood for those who are impure from a creeping animal. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify whether this halakha applies to those unknowingly rendered impure by a creeping animal, and it was necessary to exclude this case and teach that the leniency of impurity of the deep applies only to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse and not to impurity from a creeping animal.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, זָבָה גְּמוּרָה הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?
The Gemara asks another question: But, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, in the case of a woman who keeps watch a day for a day, under what circumstances can a full-fledged zava be found? If a new sighting does not retroactively render her impure, and it is considered as though it were the first sighting in a new series of discharges, how is it possible to link three sightings together to produce a full-fledged zava? The three sightings will always be considered separate.
בְּשׁוֹפַעַת. אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁרָאֲתָה כׇּל שְׁנֵי בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת.
The Gemara answers: A case of a full-fledged zava is found in a woman who continuously flows, i.e., she experiences a continuous discharge of blood that spans three days. If you wish, say instead that the case is where she saw a discharge for two entire twilights, meaning that she experienced a discharge for the entire twilight period on two consecutive days. In this case, there is no clean period separating the discharges at the beginning of a calendar day, and all of them are linked.
בָּעֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: כֹּהֵן הַמְרַצֶּה בְּתָמִיד, הוּתְּרָה לוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם אוֹ לָא? אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר כֹּהֵן הַמְרַצֶּה בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן (שֶׁל נָזִיר וְעוֹשֵׂה פֶסַח) הוּתְּרָה לוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם, כֹּהֵן הַמְרַצֶּה בְּתָמִיד מַאי? מִי אָמְרִינַן כִּי גְּמִירִי טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם — בְּפֶסַח, בְּתָמִיד לָא גְּמִירִי. אוֹ דִילְמָא יָלֵיף תָּמִיד מִפֶּסַח.
Rav Yosef raised a dilemma: With regard to the priest who facilitates acceptance of the daily offering, is ritual impurity of the deep permitted for him or not? The two sides of the dilemma are as follows: If you say that the priest who facilitates acceptance of the offerings of the nazirite and of one who performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb, ritual impurity of the deep is permitted for him, then in the case of the priest who facilitates acceptance of the daily offering, what is the halakha? Do we say that when we learned the halakha of impurity of the deep through oral tradition, it was with regard to the Paschal lamb, but with regard to the daily offering we did not learn it? Or perhaps we can derive that the halakha applies to the daily offering from the fact that it applies to the Paschal lamb?
אָמַר רַבָּה, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא הוּתְּרָה לוֹ טוּמְאָה יְדוּעָה — הוּתְּרָה לוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם, מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּתְּרָה לוֹ טוּמְאָה יְדוּעָה —
Rabba said: This dilemma can be resolved through an a fortiori inference: Just as in a place where known ritual impurity is not permitted for him, e.g., with regard to the Paschal lamb, for which known impurity disqualifies the offering and one would have to observe the second Pesaḥ, nonetheless impurity of the deep is permitted for him, all the more so in a place where known ritual impurity is permitted for him, with regard to communal offerings, as such offerings may be sacrificed even in a known state of impurity if there is no way to sacrifice the offering in a state of purity,
אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁהוּתְּרָה לוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם!
is it not right that impurity of the deep is permitted for him completely, even if there are other priests who are ritually pure?
אָמְרִי: וּמִי דָּיְינִינַן קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵהֲלָכָה? וְהָתַנְיָא, אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: עֲקִיבָא, עֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה הֲלָכָה, רְבִיעִית דָּם קַל וְחוֹמֶר, וְאֵין דָּנִין קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵהֲלָכָה!
Say in refutation of this proof: And do we derive an a fortiori inference from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, such as the halakha of ritual impurity of the deep? Wasn’t the following taught in a baraita? Rabbi Akiva employed an a fortiori inference to derive that a nazirite must shave if he touches or carries blood, just as he must shave if he touches or carries a bone from a corpse, and Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva, a bone the size of a grain of barley is able to transmit ritual impurity due to a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and you want to derive that the same is true of a quarter–log of blood on the basis of an a fortiori inference, and one may not derive an a fortiori inference from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: יָלֵיף ״מוֹעֲדוֹ״ ״מוֹעֲדוֹ״ מִפֶּסַח.
Rather, Rava said: It is derived on the basis of a verbal analogy of the expressions “its appointed time” (Numbers 9:13) stated with regard to the Paschal lamb, and “its appointed time” (Numbers 28:2) stated with regard to the daily offering. Since the Torah uses this expression in both cases, the halakha with regard to the daily offering can be derived from the halakha in the case of the Paschal lamb: Just as impurity of the deep is permitted with regard to the Paschal lamb, it is permitted with regard to the daily offering.
וְטוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם גּוּפָא הֵיכָא כְּתִיבָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִי יָמוּת מֵת עָלָיו״ — בִּמְחֻוֶּורֶת עָלָיו.
The Gemara asks: And with regard to impurity of the deep itself, which is permitted in the cases of a nazirite and one who sacrifices the Paschal lamb, due to the fact that the frontplate appeases God for the impurity, where is it written? Rabbi Elazar said that the verse states with regard to a nazirite: “And if any man shall die very suddenly beside him” (Numbers 6:9). The emphasis provided by the expression “beside him” indicates that it is clear to him that he has become impure. However, one is not impure if the presence of the corpse is unknown.
אַשְׁכְּחַן נָזִיר. עוֹשֵׂה פֶסַח מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אָמַר קְרָא: ״בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה לָכֶם״ — בִּמְחֻוֶּורֶת לָכֶם.
The Gemara asks: We found a source for impurity of the deep with regard to a nazirite; from where do we derive that impurity of the deep is also permitted with regard to one who performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb? Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the verse states: “Any man of you [lakhem] who shall be ritually impure due to a corpse or on a road far away” (Numbers 9:10). The term lakhem is interpreted as indicating that the impurity must be clear to you [lakhem]. However, any ritual impurity that is not clearly identified does not render one who wishes to sacrifice the Paschal lamb impure.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כְּדֶרֶךְ. מָה דֶּרֶךְ — בְּגָלוּי, אַף טוּמְאָה נָמֵי — בְּגָלוּי.
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: This halakha may be derived in a different way, from the word “road,” which is juxtaposed in the verse to the phrase “ritually impure.” This indicates that the impurity is like a road. Just as a road is in the open, so too, the impurity is in the open.
מֵיתִיבִי: אֵי זֶהוּ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם? כׇּל שֶׁלֹּא הִכִּיר בָּהּ אֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם. הִכִּיר בָּהּ אֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם — אֵין זֶה טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם. לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר: בִּמְחֻוֶּורֶת עָלָיו — עַד דְּיָדַע הוּא.
The Gemara raises an objection to these derivations from that which was taught in the following baraita: Which is the impurity of the deep that was permitted for both a nazirite and one who sacrifices the Paschal lamb? It is impurity imparted by any corpse of which no one is aware, even at the end of the earth; but if even one person is aware of it, even at the end of the earth, this is not impurity of the deep. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said that the expression “beside him” indicates that the impurity must be clear to him, it would be considered impurity of the deep until he knew about it; it would not be enough for some other person to be aware of the corpse.
לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר: ״לָכֶם״, בִּמְחֻוֶּורֶת לָכֶם — עַד דְּיָדְעִי בַּהּ תְּרֵין.
According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that the halakha is derived from the term lakhem, which teaches that it must be clear to you, it is considered impurity of the deep until two people know about it, as the word lakhem is plural.
לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר: כְּדֶרֶךְ — עַד דְּיָדְעִי כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא.
According to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said that the impurity must be like a road, it is impurity of the deep until the entire world knows about it.
אֶלָּא, טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ, וּקְרָא — אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.
Rather, one must conclude that the previous sources cited are insufficient and say that they learned the principle of impurity of the deep as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the verse that the amora’im quoted is a mere support for the halakha and not its actual source.
אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנּוֹדַע לוֹ לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה, דְּכִי אִזְדְּרִיק דָּם — שַׁפִּיר אִיזְדְּרִיק, אֲבָל נוֹדַע לוֹ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה — לֹא מְרַצֶּה.
Mar bar Rav Ashi said: They taught that the frontplate appeases God for impurity of the deep with regard to a nazirite and one bringing the Paschal lamb only when the fact that he is impure became known to him after the sprinkling of the blood of the offering, as when the blood was sprinkled, it was sprinkled well, because the impurity of the one bringing the offering was unknown. However, if his impurity was known to him before the sprinkling of the blood, the frontplate does not appease God.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַמּוֹצֵא מֵת מוּשְׁכָּב לְרׇחְבּוֹ שֶׁל דֶּרֶךְ, לִתְרוּמָה — טָמֵא. לְנָזִיר וְעוֹשֵׂה פֶסַח — טָהוֹר. וְכׇל טָמֵא וְטָהוֹר — לְהַבָּא הוּא.
The Gemara raises an objection based on the following baraita: In the case of one who finds a corpse lying across the width of a road, meaning that it had been buried there in such a way that it was impossible that the passerby could have avoided becoming impure by touching, moving, or passing over the corpse, then with regard to teruma, the passerby is impure. Therefore, if he is a priest, he may not eat teruma. However, with regard to both a nazirite and one performing the ritual of the Paschal lamb, the passerby is pure because the frontplate appeases God for impurity of the deep in these cases. And any time it says: Impure, and: Pure, it is for the future. These terms indicate a halakhic ruling that may be followed ab initio and not just as a leniency after the fact, if the blood of the offering was already sprinkled.
אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר, הָכִי אִיתְּמַר: אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: לָא תֵּימָא נוֹדַע לוֹ לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה הוּא דִּמְרַצֶּה, אֲבָל נוֹדַע לוֹ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה — לֹא מְרַצֶּה, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ נוֹדַע לוֹ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה — מְרַצֶּה.
Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Do not say that it is only when it became known to him after the sprinkling of the blood that the frontplate appeases God, but if it became known to him before the sprinkling it does not appease God. Rather, even if it became known to him before the sprinkling, the frontplate appeases God because impurity of the deep is insignificant with regard to both the Paschal lamb and a nazirite.
גּוּפָא. הַמּוֹצֵא מֵת מוּשְׁכָּב לְרׇחְבּוֹ שֶׁל דֶּרֶךְ, לִתְרוּמָה — טָמֵא, לְנָזִיר וְעוֹשֵׂה פֶסַח — טָהוֹר.
Since the Gemara quoted a baraita with regard to impurity of the deep, it returns to discuss the matter itself. In the case of one who finds a corpse lying across the width of the road, with regard to teruma he is impure, and with regard to a nazirite and one who performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb he is pure.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מָקוֹם לַעֲבוֹר. אֲבָל יֵשׁ מָקוֹם לַעֲבוֹר — אַף לִתְרוּמָה טָהוֹר.
In what case is this statement, that the person is considered impure with regard to teruma, said? It is said in a case where he does not have space to pass by on the road without passing over the corpse. However, if there is space to pass by, even for the purposes of teruma he is pure. There is a principle that if a doubt arises concerning the ritual purity of a person or object in the public domain, they are considered pure. In this case, there is doubt because it is possible that the passerby did not become ritually impure. Therefore, he is considered pure.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁמְּצָאוֹ שָׁלֵם. אֲבָל מְשׁוּבָּר וּמְפוֹרָק טָהוֹר, שֶׁמָּא בֵּין הַפְּרָקִים עָבַר. וּבַקֶּבֶר, אֲפִילּוּ מְשׁוּבָּר וּמְפוֹרָק טָמֵא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַקֶּבֶר מְצָרְפוֹ.
Similarly, in what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where one finds the body whole. However, if it is broken or dismembered, he is pure. One can say that perhaps he passed between the parts of the corpse and did not touch or pass over any of them. However, this applies only when he finds the corpse out in the open; but if he finds it in a grave, even if it is broken or dismembered, he is impure, because the grave joins it into one unit and renders one impure if one passed over any part of the grave, even if he did not pass over part of the corpse.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בִּמְהַלֵּךְ בְּרַגְלָיו, אֲבָל טָעוּן אוֹ רָכוּב — טָמֵא, לְפִי שֶׁמְּהַלֵּךְ בְּרַגְלָיו אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא יִגַּע וְלֹא יַאֲהִיל, אֲבָל טָעוּן אוֹ רָכוּב אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא יִגַּע וְלֹא יַאֲהִיל.
In what case is this statement, that if the corpse was dismembered the passerby is pure, said? It is said with regard to a passerby who travels by foot, but if he was loaded with a heavy burden or riding an animal, he is impure. The reason for this is because one who travels by foot, it is possible that he will not touch the corpse and will not pass over it; but one who is loaded with a heavy burden and therefore does not walk in a straight line or someone riding an animal, it is impossible that he will not touch and will not pass over the corpse.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּטוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם, אֲבָל בְּטוּמְאָה יְדוּעָה — טָמֵא:
In what case is this statement, that a nazirite and one bringing a Paschal lamb are considered pure, said? It is said with regard to impurity of the deep. However, if the source of impurity was known to some but not to the individual who became impure, he is nevertheless impure.
וְאֵי זֶה הִיא טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם — כׇּל שֶׁלֹּא הִכִּיר בָּהּ אֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם. אֲבָל הִכִּיר בָּהּ אֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם — אֵין זֶה טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם.
The baraita continues: And which corpse is considered impurity of the deep? Any corpse of which no one is aware, even at the end of the earth; but if even one individual is aware of it, even if that individual is at the end of the earth, this is not considered impurity of the deep.
מְצָאוֹ טָמוּן בְּתֶבֶן, בְּעָפָר, וּבִצְרוֹרוֹת — הֲרֵי זֶה טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם. בְּמַיִם, בַּאֲפֵילָה, בִּנְקִיקֵי הַסְּלָעִים — אֵין זֶה טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם. וְלֹא אָמְרוּ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם אֶלָּא לְמֵת בִּלְבַד.
In order to ascertain whether anyone ever knew about the corpse, its condition is taken into account. If one finds it hidden in hay or in dirt or in pebbles, and it is possible that the person died in an avalanche, in which case it is likely that the corpse had never been found, this is impurity of the deep. But if he finds it in water, or in a dark place, or in the clefts of the rocks, this is not impurity of the deep. Although these are places where people do not often go, with the passage of time the corpse is likely to be discovered, and it is quite possible that someone already passed by and saw it. And they said the leniency of impurity of the deep only with regard to a corpse, but not with regard to other sources of ritual impurity.
מַתְנִי׳ נִטְמָא שָׁלֵם אוֹ רוּבּוֹ — שׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי הַבִּירָה מֵעֲצֵי הַמַּעֲרָכָה. נִטְמָא מִיעוּטוֹ וְהַנּוֹתָר — שׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתוֹ בְּחַצְרוֹתֵיהֶן אוֹ עַל גַּגּוֹתֵיהֶן מֵעֲצֵי עַצְמָן. הַצִּיקָנִין שׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי הַבִּירָה בִּשְׁבִיל לֵיהָנוֹת מֵעֲצֵי הַמַּעֲרָכָה.
MISHNA: If the whole Paschal lamb or most of it became ritually impure, one burns it before the Temple [habira] with wood from the arrangement of wood on the altar that was given to the owners of the Paschal lamb for this purpose. If a minority of it became impure, and similarly, with regard to the parts of the Paschal lamb that are leftover, which must be burned, the owners of the Paschal lamb burn it in their courtyards or on their roofs, with their own wood. Only the miserly, who want to save the expenditure of wood, burn it before the Temple in order to benefit from the wood of the arrangement.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: כְּדֵי לְבַיְּישָׁן.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Paschal lamb must be burned before the Temple and that those who prefer to burn it elsewhere are not permitted to do so? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: In order to embarrass them. Presumably, the reason that most of the offering became impure is because the owners were not sufficiently careful with it. Therefore, the Sages decreed that it be burned in a public place.
נִטְמָא מִיעוּטוֹ וְכוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ: וְכֵן מִי שֶׁיָּצָא מִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר קֹדֶשׁ, אִם עָבַר צוֹפִים — שׂוֹרְפוֹ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ, וְאִם לָאו —
It was stated in the mishna that if a minority of it became ritually impure, and similarly, if part of it was left over, it is burned in the owners’ courtyards with their own wood. The Gemara raises a contradiction based on what was taught in a different mishna: And similarly, with regard to one who left Jerusalem and remembers that there is consecrated meat in his hand, which is now disqualified because it has left Jerusalem and must therefore be burned, if he passed Mount Scopus, he burns the meat at the site where he is located, and he need not return to burn it in Jerusalem; and if he has not yet passed Mount Scopus,
