Pesachim 90b

וְאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ. וְעוּלָּא אָמַר: אַף שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ.

And one does not slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood on behalf of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal, although he could immerse that day and thereby ensure he will be ritually pure for the evening. And Ulla said: One slaughters the Paschal lamb and sprinkles its blood even for one who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal.

לְרַב, מַאי שְׁנָא טְבוּל יוֹם — דַּחֲזֵי לְאוּרְתָּא? טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ נָמֵי חֲזֵי לְאוּרְתָּא! מְחוּסָּר טְבִילָה.

The Gemara discusses the rationale behind Rav’s ruling: According to Rav, what is different about one who is ritually impure with a type of ritual impurity such that once he has immersed himself during the day he will become fully ritually pure upon nightfall that, despite presently being impure, one may offer the Paschal lamb on his behalf? It is due to the fact that he is fit to eat it by night. But why, then, is the Paschal lamb not offered on behalf of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal? He can also be fit to eat it by night by immersing in a ritual bath. The Gemara answers: He lacks immersion in a ritual bath.

טְבוּל יוֹם נָמֵי — מְחוּסָּר הֶעֱרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ! שִׁמְשָׁא מִמֵּילָא עָרְבָא.

But one who immersed himself during the day and will become ritually pure upon nightfall also lacks the setting of the sun, i.e., nightfall. The Gemara explains the distinction: The sun sets by itself, and no action on the part of the one who is ritually impure is required to complete the purification process. A Paschal lamb may therefore be brought on his behalf.

מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים נָמֵי — הָא מְחוּסַּר כַּפָּרָה! שֶׁקִּינּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ.

But one who still lacks an atonement offering to complete his purification process also lacks an action, because he must still bring his atonement offering. Why may he nevertheless be registered for a Paschal lamb? The Gemara answers: His nest, i.e., the pair of doves he will offer as his atonement, is already in his possession, ready to be offered. It is therefore presumed he will immediately do so.

טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ נָמֵי — הֲרֵי מִקְוֶה לְפָנָיו! דִּילְמָא פָּשַׁע. אִי הָכִי, מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים נָמֵי דִּילְמָא פָּשַׁע! כְּגוֹן דְּמַסְרִינְהוּ לְבֵית דִּין,

But one ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal is also immediately able to become ritually pure, because the ritual bath is before him and he can immerse in it. Why does this not permit him to be registered for a Paschal lamb? The Gemara answers: The reason a Paschal lamb may not be brought on his behalf is due to concern that perhaps he will be neglectful and not immerse. Therefore, it cannot be assumed with certainty that by the evening he will be ritually pure. If so, in the case of one who still lacks an atonement offering, shouldn’t there also be concern that perhaps he will be neglectful and will not bring his offering? The baraita deals with a case such as one in which he has already handed over his pair of doves to the court of priests, in order that they offer them on his behalf. Therefore, it may be assumed with certainty that by the evening he will be ritually pure.

וְכִדְרַב שְׁמַעְיָה, דְּאָמַר: חֲזָקָה אֵין בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים עוֹמְדִין מִשָּׁם עַד שֶׁיִּכְלוּ מָעוֹת שֶׁבַּשּׁוֹפָרוֹת.

And this is in accordance with the teaching of Rav Shemaya, who said that there is a presumption that the court of priests will not stand up from there, i.e., their place of meeting in the Temple, until all the money in the collection boxes, which was placed there in order that the priests should use the money to bring offerings on the donors’ behalf, is used up. The priests ensure that any money they receive for offerings is used to purchase the offering and sacrifice it that same day. Certainly, if they were actually entrusted with an animal in order to sacrifice it, they would also do that on the very same day.

וּלְרַב, מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מִיחְזֵא חֲזֵי וְרַבָּנַן הוּא דִּגְזַרוּ בֵּיהּ, אַלְּמָה אָמַר רַב מְטַמְּאִין אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּשֶׁרֶץ.

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav, it would appear that by Torah law one who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal is fit to have the Paschal lamb slaughtered on his behalf, and it is the Sages who decreed that he is unfit, out of concern that he will be negligent. If so, why did Rav say with regard to a community that was half ritually pure and half impure: We contaminate one of them with a creeping animal so that the majority will be ritually impure, which will permit the entire community to offer the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity? If, by Torah law, one who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal is fit to have an offering brought on his behalf, how then can he tip the balance of the entire community such that the majority is considered ritually impure and unfit to bring the Paschal lamb in purity?

אֶלָּא, לְרַב מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא נָמֵי לָא חֲזֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה טָמֵא לָנֶפֶשׁ״. מִי לָא עָסְקִינַן שֶׁחָל שְׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ לִהְיוֹת בְּעֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח, דְּהַיְינוּ טוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ, וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: נִידְּחֵי!

Rather, according to Rav, by Torah law he is also unfit to have an offering brought on his behalf, as it is written: “If any man of you or of your posterity shall be ritually impure due to a dead body... he shall still offer the Paschal lamb to the Lord. The fourteenth day of the second month…they shall offer it” (Numbers 9:10–11). Are we not dealing with all who are “ritually impure due to a dead body”? This includes one whose seventh day occurred on Passover eve. If they sprinkle on him that day he will immediately become ritually pure, which is the same situation as ritual impurity caused by a creeping animal, and nonetheless the Torah states that he shall be deferred, as he is considered unfit.

וְכִי תֵּימָא מִמַּאי דְּהָכִי?

And if you say: From where do we know that this is so, that the verse is referring to those who are able to become ritually pure by that evening? Perhaps it is referring specifically to one who is ritually impure from a corpse before the completion of his seven-day purification process and will therefore not be ritually pure that evening.

סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק, דְּאָמַר: טְמֵאֵי מֵת מִצְוָה הָיוּ, שֶׁחָל שְׁבִיעִי שֶׁלָּהֶן לִהְיוֹת בְּעֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לַעֲשֹׂת הַפֶּסַח בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא״, בְּיוֹם הַהוּא הוּא דְּאֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לַעֲשׂוֹת, אֲבָל לְמָחָר יְכוֹלִין לַעֲשׂוֹת, וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: נִדְּחוֹ.

He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said: The ritually impure people in the desert asked Moses what they should do concerning their obligation to bring a Paschal lamb. It is about them that the verses pertaining to the second Pesaḥ were originally stated. They were ritually impure from a corpse that had no one to bury it [ met mitzva ], and their seventh day occurred on Passover eve, as it is stated: “They could not perform the Paschal lamb on that day” (Numbers 9:6). By inference, it was only on that day that they were unable to perform it, but the next day they would have been able to perform it by completing their purification process; and nonetheless the Torah said that they should be deferred.

תְּנַן: זָב שֶׁרָאָה שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת — שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלָיו בַּשְּׁבִיעִי. מַאי לָאו — דְּלָא טָבֵיל, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ!

The Gemara presents a challenge from the mishna to the opinion of Rav that a Paschal lamb may not be offered on behalf of someone who is ritually impure from a creeping animal: We learned in the mishna: In the case of a zav who saw two sightings of gonorrheal discharge, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on his behalf if Passover eve is on his seventh day. The Gemara suggests: What, is it not referring to a case in which he has not yet immersed in a ritual bath, and we may therefore learn from it that we also may slaughter and sprinkle on behalf of one who is ritually impure from a creeping animal, since his level of impurity is identical to a zav who saw two sightings?

לָא, דְּטָבֵיל. אִי טָבֵיל, מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דִּמְחוּסַּר הֶעֱרֵב הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּשִׁמְשָׁא מִמֵּילָא עָרְבָא.

No, the mishna is referring to a zav who already immersed. But if he already immersed, what is it teaching us? Since he will become ritually pure upon nightfall, surely it is obvious that a Paschal lamb may be offered on his behalf. It teaches us this: That even though he still lacks the setting of the sun, a Paschal lamb may nevertheless be brought on his behalf. It therefore teaches us that since the sun sets by itself, and no action of his own is required to complete his purification process, the fact that he currently has still not completed his purification process does not disqualify him.

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ רְאִיּוֹת — שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלָיו בַּשְּׁמִינִי. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא זָב שֶׁרָאָה שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלָיו בַּשְּׁבִיעִי, דְּטָבֵיל — אִיצְטְרִיךְ.

So too, it is reasonable to establish the mishna as referring to a zav who had already immersed, from the fact that the last clause of the mishna taught: With regard to a zav who saw three sightings, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on his behalf on the eighth day. Granted, if you say that the first clause, which states: With regard to a zav who saw two sightings, one slaughters on his behalf on the seventh day, is referring to a case in which he had already immersed, then it is necessary to teach the last clause for the following reason:

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, רָאָה שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת בִּשְׁבִיעִי הוּא דְּלָא מְחוּסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה, אֲבָל רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ בַּשְּׁמִינִי, דִּמְחוּסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה — מְחוּסַּר כַּפָּרָה, לָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאַף עַל גַּב דִּמְחוּסַּר כַּפָּרָה, שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עִילָּוֵיהּ.

It could enter your mind to say that it is true only with regard to a zav who saw two sightings and is now on his seventh day, for he, having already immersed, does not lack any action; but a zav who saw three sightings and is now on his eighth day, who lacks an action in that he still lacks his atonement offering, no, a Paschal lamb may not be offered on his behalf. The last clause therefore must teach us that although he still lacks his atonement offering, one slaughters and sprinkles on his behalf.

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ רָאָה שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת בִּשְׁבִיעִי, דְּלָא טָבֵיל — רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ בַּשְּׁמִינִי לְמָה לִי?

But if you say that the first clause, which states: With regard to a zav who saw two sightings, one slaughters on his behalf on the seventh day, is referring to a case in which he had not already immersed, then why do I need the last clause, which states: With regard to a zav who saw three sightings, one slaughters on his behalf on the eighth day? This clause could be logically deduced from the first one, as follows:

הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר רָאָה שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת בַּשְּׁבִיעִי, דְּלָא טָבֵיל, דְּטָמֵא מְעַלְּיָא הוּא — שָׁחֲטִינַן וְזָרְקִינַן עִילָּוֵיהּ. רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ בַּשְּׁמִינִי, דְּטָבֵיל לֵיהּ בַּשְּׁבִיעִי, דִּקְלִישָׁא טוּמְאָה — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּשָׁחֲטִינַן וְזָרְקִינַן עִילָּוֵיהּ!

Now, it can be said: In the case of a zav who saw two sightings and is on his seventh day and has not yet immersed, and he is therefore still completely impure, one nevertheless slaughters and sprinkles the Paschal lamb on his behalf, since he can become pure by the evening. So too, with regard to a zav who saw three sightings and is now on his eighth day, and who has already immersed on the seventh day, and his impurity is therefore weakened in that he does not impart impurity to that which he touches, despite the fact that he is still prohibited to enter the Temple or partake of offerings until he brings his atonement offering, is it not all the more so true that one should slaughter and sprinkle on his behalf? Therefore, the last clause would be superfluous.

אֶלָּא לָאו, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: רָאָה שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת בַּשְּׁבִיעִי דְּשָׁחֲטִינַן עִילָּוֵיהּ, דְּטָבֵיל.

Rather, must one not conclude from the preceding analysis that the first clause, which states: With regard to a zav who saw two sightings, one slaughters on his behalf on the seventh day, is referring to a case in which he has already immersed?

לָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ דְּלָא טָבֵיל, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא בַּשְּׁבִיעִי הוּא דִּבְיָדוֹ לְתַקֵּן,

No, one should not come to such a conclusion. Actually, I can say to you that the mishna is referring to a case in which one did not yet immerse, and it is necessary to teach the last clause concerning a zav who saw three sightings, because it could enter your mind to say that it is only for a zav who saw two sightings that the Paschal lamb may be offered on his behalf on the seventh, for it is within his ability to remedy the situation and purify himself by immersing in a ritual bath.

אֲבָל בַּשְּׁמִינִי דְּאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְהַקְרִיב קׇרְבָּן, אֵימָא פָּשְׁעִי בֵּיהּ כֹּהֲנִים, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְרַב שְׁמַעְיָה.

But then, on the eighth day of a zav who saw three sightings, when it is not within his ability to sacrifice the necessary offering, as he is dependent upon the priests to do it for him, say that perhaps the priests will be negligent with him. Perhaps his offering will not be brought, leaving him unfit for the Paschal lamb. Due to this concern, a Paschal lamb should not be offered on his behalf. The last clause therefore teaches us that there is no such concern, in accordance with the teaching of Rav Shemaya, who maintains that the court of the priests may be relied upon with certainty.

וְהַזָּבָה שׁוֹחֲטִין וְכוּ׳. תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: ״וְהַזָּבָה שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלֶיהָ בַּשְּׁבִיעִי שֶׁלָּהּ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זָבָה בַּשְּׁבִיעִי שֶׁלָּהּ מִי חַזְיָא? אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ, הָנֵי מִילֵּי טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ — דַּחֲזֵי לְאוּרְתָּא, הָא — עַד לִמְחַר דְּמַתְיָא כַּפָּרָה לָא חַזְיָא! אֵימָא: ״בַּשְּׁמִינִי״.

We learned in the mishna: And with regard to a zava ; one slaughters a Paschal lamb on her behalf on the eighth day after her sightings. The tanna taught a baraita before Rav Adda bar Ahava: And with regard to a zava , one slaughters a Paschal lamb on her behalf on her seventh day. He said to him: Is a zava fit to have a Paschal lamb offered on her behalf on her seventh day? Even according to the one who says one slaughters and sprinkles on behalf of one who is impure from a creeping animal, this applies only to one who is ritually impure from a creeping animal, who will be fit to eat the Paschal lamb by the evening, but this zava will not be fit until the following day, when she brings her atonement offering. Rather, emend the baraita you quoted and say: Her eighth day instead of: Her seventh day.

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כֵּיוָן דִּמְחַסְּרָא כַּפָּרָה — לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְרַב שְׁמַעְיָה.

The Gemara asks: It is obvious that a Paschal lamb may be offered on behalf of a zava on her eighth day. It is necessary to teach this halakha lest you say that since she lacks the offering of an atonement to complete her purification process, there is a concern that the priests will be negligent and she will not be ritually pure by the evening. This halakha therefore teaches us that there is no such concern, in accordance with the teaching of Rav Shemaya that the court of the priests may be relied upon with certainty.

רָבִינָא אָמַר — ״נִדָּה״ תְּנָא קַמֵּיהּ: ״וְהַנִּדָּה שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלֶיהָ בַּשְּׁבִיעִי״.

Ravina said: The tanna didn’t teach the case of a zava ; rather, he taught the case of a menstruating woman who is ritually impure due to her menstruation. She must count seven days from her first flow of blood, and then from the following night she can become ritually pure by immersing in a ritual bath. According to this, the baraita teaches: And with regard to a menstruating woman, one slaughters for her on the seventh day of her impurity.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נִדָּה בַּשְּׁבִיעִי מִי חַזְיָא? אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ, דַּחֲזֵי לְאוּרְתָּא, נִדָּה לְאוּרְתָּא דִשְׁבִיעִי הוּא דְּטָבְלָה, עַד שְׁמִינִי דְּעָבְדָה הֶעֱרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ לָא חַזְיָא! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: ״בַּשְּׁמִינִי״.

He said to him: Is a menstruating woman fit on the seventh? Even according to the one who says one slaughters and sprinkles on behalf of one who is impure from a creeping animal, this is because he will be fit to eat the Paschal lamb by the evening. But a menstruating woman only immerses on the night following the seventh day, and until the eighth day, when she experiences the setting of the sun, she is not fully ritually pure and is not fit to partake of offerings. Rather, emend the baraita you quoted and say: Her eighth day, instead of: Her seventh day.

פְּשִׁיטָא! הַשְׁתָּא וּמָה זָבָה דִּמְיחַסְּרָא כַּפָּרָה — שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עָלֶיהָ בַּשְּׁמִינִי, נִדָּה דְּלָא מְיחַסְּרָא כַּפָּרָה — צְרִיכָה לְמֵימַר דְּשָׁחֲטִינַן וְזָרְקִינַן עֲלַהּ?!

The Gemara asks: It is obvious that a Paschal lamb may be offered on behalf of a menstruating woman on her eighth day, as demonstrated by the following argument: Now, just as in the case of a zava who lacks the offering of an atonement to complete her purification process, one slaughters and sprinkles on her behalf on the eighth day, so too, with regard to a menstruating woman, who does not lack the offering of an atonement to complete her purification process, is it necessary to say that one slaughters and sprinkles on her behalf?

נִדָּה אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: בַּשְּׁמִינִי אִין, בַּשְּׁבִיעִי לָא, כִּדְתַנְיָא: כׇּל חַיָּיבֵי טְבִילוֹת טְבִילָתָן בַּיּוֹם, נִדָּה וְיוֹלֶדֶת טְבִילָתָן בַּלַּיְלָה.

The Gemara explains that it was necessary for the baraita to teach the case of a menstruating woman because it teaches us that on the eighth day, yes, a Paschal lamb is offered on her behalf, but on the seventh day, no, as it was taught in a baraita : With regard to all those who are ritually impure and are obligated to immerse, their immersion is in the day, except for a menstruating woman and a woman after childbirth, whose immersion is at night.

דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל תְּהֵא טוֹבֶלֶת מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תִּהְיֶה בְּנִדָּתָהּ״ — תְּהֵא בְּנִדָּתָהּ כׇּל שִׁבְעָה. וְיוֹלֶדֶת אִיתַּקַּשׁ לְנִדָּה.

As it was taught in a different baraita : I might have thought that a menstruating woman or a woman after childbirth should immerse while still day, like others who are obligated to immerse. Therefore, the verse states: “And if a woman should have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days” (Leviticus 15:19), which indicates that she shall be in her state of impurity for a full seven days and doesn’t immerse until the night following the seventh day. And this is also true of a woman after childbirth, who is compared in the Torah to a menstruating woman in the verse “If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, then she shall be unclean seven days, as in the days of her menstrual flow shall she be unclean” (Leviticus 12:2).

מַתְנִי׳ הָאוֹנֵן,

MISHNA: An acute mourner, i.e., a mourner on the day of the death of an immediate relative;