Pesachim 80a

״לֹא תוּכַל לִזְבֹּחַ אֶת הַפָּסַח בְּאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ״.

“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.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד טָמֵא וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַשְּׁבָטִים טְהוֹרִים — הַלָּלוּ עוֹשִׂין לְעַצְמָן וְהַלָּלוּ עוֹשִׂין לְעַצְמָן. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, קָסָבַר: שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד אִיקְּרִי קָהָל.

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.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד טָמֵא וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַשְּׁבָטִים טְהוֹרִין — יַעֲשׂוּ בְּטוּמְאָה, שֶׁאֵין קׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר חָלוּק. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד אִיקְּרִי קָהָל. וְהָווּ לְהוּ פַּלְגָא וּפַלְגָא, וְאֵין קׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר חָלוּק — וְעָבְדִי כּוּלְּהוּ בְּטוּמְאָה.

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.

אִיתְּמַר: הָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מֶחֱצָה טְהוֹרִין וּמֶחֱצָה טְמֵאִין, אָמַר רַב: מְטַמְּאִין אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּשֶׁרֶץ.

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.

וְאַמַּאי? נִיעְבְּדוּ הָנֵי לְחוֹדַיְיהוּ וְהָנֵי לְחוֹדַיְיהוּ, דְּהָא אָמַר רַב: הַלָּלוּ עוֹשִׂין לְעַצְמָן, וְהַלָּלוּ עוֹשִׂין לְעַצְמָן! אָמְרִי: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ טְמֵאִין עוֹדְפִין עַל הַטְּהוֹרִין אֶחָד.

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.

אִי הָכִי, הָווּ לְהוּ רוּבָּא טְמֵאִים? נִיעְבְּדוּ כּוּלְּהוּ בְּטוּמְאָה! סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן מַתְיָא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין הַיָּחִיד מַכְרִיעַ אֶת הַצִּיבּוּר לְטוּמְאָה. אִי הָכִי, הֲדַר קוּשְׁיַין לְדוּכְתֵּיהּ: נִיעְבְּדוּ הָנֵי לְחוֹדַיְיהוּ וְהָנֵי לְחוֹדַיְיהוּ!

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.

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִי אִיכָּא תַּנָּא דְּסָבַר לַהּ כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא, דְּאָמַר: פַּלְגָא וּפַלְגָא לָא עָבְדִי כּוּלְּהוּ בְּטוּמְאָה, וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: אֵין קׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר חָלוּק — מְטַמְּאִין אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּשֶׁרֶץ.

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.

וְעוּלָּא אָמַר: מְשַׁלְּחִין אֶחָד מֵהֶן לְדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה. וִיטַמְּאֶנּוּ בְּשֶׁרֶץ!

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.

קָסָבַר: שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ.

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.

וִיטַמְּאֶנּוּ בְּמֵת! מַדְחֵהוּ אַתָּה מֵחֲגִיגָתוֹ.

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.

הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי מַדְחֵהוּ אַתָּה מִפִּסְחוֹ! אֶפְשָׁר דְּעָבֵיד בַּשֵּׁנִי.

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 .

בְּמֵת נָמֵי, אֶפְשָׁר דְּעָבֵיד בַּשְּׁבִיעִי דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ שְׁמִינִי שֶׁלּוֹ!

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.

קָסָבַר עוּלָּא: כּוּלְּהוּ — תַּשְׁלוּמִין דְּרִאשׁוֹן נִינְהוּ. דַּחֲזֵי בָּרִאשׁוֹן — חֲזֵי בְּכוּלְּהוּ, וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּלָא חֲזֵי בָּרִאשׁוֹן — לָא חֲזֵי בְּכוּלְּהוּ.

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.

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב נַחְמָן: זִילוּ וֶאֱמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְעוּלָּא, מַאן צָיֵית דְּעָקַר סִיכֵּיהּ וּמַשְׁכְּנֵיהּ וְרָהֵיט.

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?

אִיתְּמַר: הָיוּ רוּבָּן זָבִין, וּמִיעוּטָן טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים, אָמַר רַב: אוֹתָן טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים אֵינָן עוֹשִׂין לֹא בָּרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא בַּשֵּׁנִי.

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 .

רִאשׁוֹן לָא עָבְדִי, דְּהָווּ מִיעוּטָא, וּמִיעוּטָא לָא עָבְדִי בָּרִאשׁוֹן. בַּשֵּׁנִי נָמֵי לָא עָבְדִי, כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּעָבְדִי צִיבּוּר בָּרִאשׁוֹן — עָבֵיד יָחִיד בַּשֵּׁנִי. כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּלָא עָבְדִי צִיבּוּר בָּרִאשׁוֹן — לָא עָבֵיד יָחִיד בַּשֵּׁנִי.

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 .

אֲמַר לְהוּ שְׁמוּאֵל, זִילוּ אֱמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְאַבָּא: ״וְיַעֲשׂוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַפָּסַח בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״ מַאי עָבְדַתְּ לֵיהּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ, זִילוּ אֱמַרוּ לֵיהּ: כִּי הֲווֹ כּוּלְּהוּ זָבִין מַאי עָבְדַתְּ לֵיהּ? אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר — לָא אֶפְשָׁר. הָכָא נָמֵי, לָא אֶפְשָׁר.

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.

אִיתְּמַר: הָיוּ רוּבָּן טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים וּמִיעוּטָן זָבִין,

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 .

רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: אֵין תַּשְׁלוּמִין לְפֶסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה, וְרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר: יֵשׁ תַּשְׁלוּמִין לְפֶסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה.

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 .

נֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: אֵין תַּשְׁלוּמִין לְפֶסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה, קָסָבַר: טוּמְאָה דְּחוּיָה הִיא בְּצִיבּוּר.

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.

וּמַאן דְּאָמַר: יֵשׁ תַּשְׁלוּמִין לְפֶסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה, קָסָבַר: טוּמְאָה הוּתְּרָה בְּצִיבּוּר.

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 .

אָמְרִי: לָא. דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא טוּמְאָה דְּחוּיָה בְּצִיבּוּר, וּבְהָא פְּלִיגִי: מָר סָבַר —

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: