(1) 
אוְאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ וְעוּלָּא אָמַר אַף שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ.
אוְאֵין 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.
ואין שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ אף שבידו לטבול בו ביום ויהא דינו כטבול יום! ועולא אמר: אף שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ.
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.
הכל
(2) 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.
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.
מחוסר טבילה – ואף על גב דמחוסר כפרה נמי צריך טבילה כדתנן בפ׳ חומר בקודש (חגיגה דף כא.) האונן ומחוסר כפורים צריכין טבילה לקודש אינו אלא מדרבנן כדמוכח התם ועוד דבההיא טבילה לא בעי הערב שמש ולא שייך התם דילמא פשע.
ושואלים: לשיטת רב, מאי שנא [במה שונה] טבול יום דחזי לאורתא [שהוא ראוי להיות טהור לערב] טמא שרץ נמי חזי לאורתא [גם כן ראוי לערב] שבוא הערב מטהרו! ומשיבים: מחוסר טבילה הוא וכיון שמחוסר הוא מעשה של טבילה אינו ראוי עדיין.
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.
הכל
(3) 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.
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.
ומקשים אם כן טבול יום נמי [גם כן] מחוסר הערב שמש! ומשיבים: שמשא ממילא ערבא [השמש ממילא שוקעת] ואין הוא צריך לעשות מעשה בכך, ולכן אין הדבר נחשב כמחוסר מעשה.
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.
הכל
(4) 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.
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.
ומקשים: אם כן מחוסר כפורים נמי [גם כן] הא [הרי] הוא מחוסר כפרה מעשה של הבאת קרבן כפרתו! ומשיבים: שקינו בידו שזוג התורים או בני היונה (״קן״) שצריך לכפרה נמצא כעת בידו ועומדים להקריבו.
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.
הכל
(5) טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ נָמֵי הֲרֵי מִקְוֶה לְפָנָיו דִּילְמָא פָּשַׁע אִי הָכִי מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים נָמֵי דִּילְמָא פָּשַׁע בכְּגוֹן דְּמַסְרִינְהוּ לב״ד 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.
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.
ומקשים: אם כן טמא שרץ נמי [גם כן] נאמר בו: הרי מקוה לפניו ויטבול! ומשיבים: בטמא שרץ יש לחשוש דילמא פשע [שמא יתרשל] ולא יטבול. ומקשים: אי הכי [אם כך] מחוסר כפורים נמי [גם כן] יש לחשוש דילמא פשע [שמא יתרשל] ולא יקריב! ומשיבים: כגון דמסרינהו [שמסר אותם את קרבנותיו] לבית דין של כהנים ואז אין לחשוש עוד,
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.
הכל
(6) וְכִדְרַב שְׁמַעְיָה דְּאָמַר חֲזָקָה אֵין ב״ד 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.
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.
משם – מן העזרה.
שבשופרות – שופר היה שם שכתוב עליו קינין ואשה שיש עליה לידה וכן כל מחוסרי כפרה מביאין מעות ונותנין לתוכו ודמי הקינין קצובין היו ואוכלים בקדש לערב וסומכין על חזקת בית דין של כהנים שאין עומדין משם עד שיכלו כל מעות אותו שופר כדי שלא יאכלו מחוסרי כפרה בקדשים.
עד שיכלו כל המעות שבשופר – הקשה ריב״א הא אי אפשר שלא יהא מעורב בכל קן וקן ממעות שתי נשים ואפי׳ למאן דאמר יש ברירה כי האי גוונא לא שייך למימר דאנן סהדי שנתערבו ואי הוה אמרינן שמכל מעות שבשופר קונה קינין יחד מאדם א׳ הוה אתי שפיר אבל לישנא דעד שיכלו לא משמע הכי ונראה לר״י דכל אחת היתה צוררת מעותיה ונותנת בשופר.
כבר ביארנו שהרבה תיבות קטנות עשויות כמין שופר היו בעזרה כל אחת מיוחדת לענינה ואחת מהן כתוב בה קנים שבה היו יולדות ושאר מחוסרי כפרה נותנין דמי קניהם והיו אוכלין בקדשים לערב על סמך חזקת בית דין של כהנים שחזקתם שלא לצאת מן העזרה עד שיכלו כל מעות של אותו שופר הנתנין שם באותו היום כדי שלא יאכל מחוסרי כפרה בקדשים וכבר ביארנו בפרק שלישי שכל שהיו הצבור מחצה טהורים ומחצה טמאים אין מטמאין אחד מהם להכריע רוב צבור לטומאה שאם יטמאוהו במת נמצא מבטלים את חגיגתו ואם בשרץ הרי ראוי הוא הכל כמו שביארנו שם:
תוס׳ בד״ה עד שיכלו כו׳ ואי הוה אמרי׳ שמכל מעות שבשופר קונה קינין יחד כו׳ עכ״ל ומטעם דיש ברירה הוה א״ש וק״ל:
בד״ה בשמיני פשיטא אמתני׳ דקתני זב שוחטין עליו בח׳ ליכא למפרך כו׳ עכ״ל ר״ל אמתני׳ דזב וה״ה אמתניתין דזבה גופה דקתני בסיפא והזבה שוחטין עליה בח׳ ואהא תירצו דבמתניתין משום אגב רישא קתני לה בזב משום ב׳ ראיות דברישא וכן בזבה משום אגב שומרת יום כנגד יום ולא פריך פשיטא אלא אברייתא דלא תני בה אלא הך מלתא לחודה והזבה שוחטין עליה בח׳ וק״ל:
וכדברי רב שמעיה, שאמר: חזקה אין בית דין של כהנים עומדין משם ממקום מושבם במקדש עד שיכלו מעות שבשופרות כלומר: כל הכסף שנצטבר בקופה המיועדת לקינים דואגים להוציאו ולהקריב את כל הקרבנות של אותו יום.
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.
הכל
(7) 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?
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?
ופרכינן ורב דאמר – שמא פשע אלמא מדאורייתא מיחזא חזי טמא שרץ לשחוט עליו ומשום דילמא פשע גזרו ביה רבנן.
והאמר רב – בכיצד צולין היו ישראל מחצה טהורין ומחצה טמאין מטמאים אחד מהן בשרץ להכריע רוב ציבור לטומאה ואי מדאורייתא חזי היאך הוא מכריעם לטומאה דהיינו טמא שרץ דחזי למטבל.
ושואלים: האם לשיטת רב, מדאורייתא מיחזא חזי ורבנן הוא דגזרו ביה [מן התורה ראוי הוא טמאי שרץ שישחטו עבורו אלא חכמים הם שגזרו בו] אולם אם כן, אלמה [מדוע] אמר רב לענין ציבור שהיה חציו טהור וחציו טמא מטמאין אחד מהם בשרץ כדי שיהא רוב צבור טמא, ויעשו הכל בטומאה, ואם טמא שרץ ראוי מן התורה הריהו איפוא כטהור גמור ואיך יוכרע דינו של כל הציבור בשלו לעשות את הפסח בטומאה
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?
הכל
(8) אֶלָּא לְרַב מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא נָמֵי לָא חֲזֵי דִּכְתִיב {במדבר ט׳:י׳} אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה טָמֵא לָנֶפֶשׁ גמִי 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.
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.
מי לא עסקינן שחל שביעי שלו להיות בערב הפסח – ואם תאמר ואפילו טבל נמי לא ישחטו עליו מהאי טעמא וי״ל כי יהיה טמא כתיב והאי קלישא טומאתיה.
שחל שביעי שלו – אבל ששי שלו ליכא למימר מדכתיב ולא יכלו לעשות הפסח ביום ההוא הא למחר היו יכולים לעשות ולשחוט הן עצמן בלא שליחות מדלא כתיב ולא יכלו לאכול אי נמי דייק מביום ההוא דמיותר ואי ששי הוא לישתוק מיניה ואם תאמר למה אמר להם לדחות לפסח שני יטבלו בו ביום וישחטו עליהם ויש לומר דשמא כן עשו ובשעה ששאלו לא טבלו עדיין ואמר להו משה אם לא תטבלו היום תדחו לפסח שני.
אלא יש לומר כי לשיטת רב מדאורייתא נמי לא חזי [מן התורה גם כן אינו ראוי] דכתיב [שנאמר] ״איש איש כי יהיה טמא לנפש... ועשה פסח לה׳ בחודש השני בארבעה עשר יום״ (במדבר ט, ט-י). מי לא עסקינן [האם אין אנו עוסקים] בכל אלה הקרויים טמאי מתים (״טמא לנפש״) ואפילו שחל שביעי שלו להיות בערב הפסח שאם יזו עליו בו ביום יטהר לגמרי דהיינו [שזהו] טומאת שרץ ובכל זאת אמר רחמנא: נידחי [אמרה התורה: שידחה]!
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.
הכל
(9) 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.
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.
וכי תימא ממאי דהכי [ואם תאמר: מנין שכך]? שמדובר בטמא שרץ, אולי המדובר בטמא מת וכפי שאכן נאמר בפסוק (״טמא לנפש״), וטמא מת אינו ראוי לערב?
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.
הכל
(10) סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק דְּאָמַר טְמֵאֵי מֵת מִצְוָה הָיוּ שֶׁחָל שְׁבִיעִי שֶׁלָּהֶן לִהְיוֹת בְּעֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר {במדבר ט׳:ו׳} וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת 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.
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.
סבר לה כרבי יצחק דאמר – בספרי אותן אנשים שבפסח מדבר שהיו טמאין לנפש אדם טמאי מת מצוה היו שחל שביעי כו׳.
ומשיבים: סבר לה כר׳ יצחק שאמר: אותם אנשים טמאים שבאו לשאול את משה במדבר טמאי מת מצוה היו שחל שביעי שלהן להיות בערב הפסח, שנאמר: ״ולא יכלו לעשת הפסח ביום ההוא״ (במדבר ט, ו) ונדייק: ביום ההוא הוא שאינן יכולין לעשות, אבל למחר יכולין לעשות אם היו נטהרים בו ביום ובכל זאת אמר רחמנא [אמרה התורה] נדחו [שידחו].
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.
הכל
(11) 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?
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?
מתני׳ זב שראה שתי ראיות שוחטין עליו כו׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר רב שוחטין וזורקין על טבול יום דאף על גב דמחוס׳ ערב שמש שמשא ממילא ערבא ועל מחוסר כפרה בשמסר קינו לבית דין של כהנים ואין שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ חיישינן אף על פי שמקוה לפניו דילמא פשע ולא טבל דייקי׳ מינה מדקאמר דילמא פשע מכלל דמדאורייתא חזו ומשום דילמא פשע אמר רב אין שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ אלמ׳ אמר רב מטמאין אחד מהן בשרץ ועושין הפסח בטומאה והא טמא שרץ מדאוריי׳ טהור מעליא הוא אלא לרב טמא שרץ מדאוריי׳ נמי לא חזי מאי טעמא גמר לה מטמא שחל שביעי שלו להיות בערב הפסח דאף על גב דבערב ראוי הוא כיון דהשתא לא חזי נדחה מהאי קרא דכתיב ולא יכלו לעשו׳ הפסח ביום ההוא ביום ההוא אינן יכולין לעשו׳ הפסח אבל למחר יכולין לעשות ונדחו לפסח שני כן נמי טמא שרץ ואקשי׳ עליה מדתנן זב שראה שתי ראיות שוחטין עליו בשביעי הנה זב בשביעי שלו כטמא שרץ הוא וקתני שוחטין עליו מאי לאו דלא טבל וקשיא לרב ומשני לא דטבל והא קא משמע לן דאף על גב דמחוסר ערב שמש שמשא ממילא ערבא. דיקא נמי דקתני סיפא ראה שלש וכו׳.
הזב שראה זיבה תוך שבעה נקיים סותר כל מה שמנה הא משעברו שבעה וראה בשמיני אע״פ שלא הביא כפרתו תחלת זיבה היא וכבר ביארנו במקומו על איזה טעון קרבן שני על ראיות של שמיני ועל איזה צד אינו טעון בהן קרבן שני:
תנן [שנינו במשנה]: זב שראה שתי ראיות שוחטין עליו בשביעי שלו כשחל בארבעה עשר בניסן. מאי לאו דלא טביל [האם לא מדובר כאן בזב שעדיין לא טבל] שלא היה סיפק בידו לטבול בו ביום ושמע מינה [ולמד מכאן]: שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ שדרגת טומאתו זהה לזב בעל שתי ראיות! וקשה על רב.
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?
הכל
(12) לָא דְּטָבֵיל אִי טָבֵיל מַאי קמ״ל קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן הָא קמ״ל קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דאע״ג דְּאַף עַל גַּב דִּמְחוּסַּר הֶעֱרֵב הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ קמ״ל 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.
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.
ודוחים: לא, יש לומר דטביל [שטבל כבר]. ומקשים: אי טביל מאי קא משמע לן [אם טבל מה משמיע לנו בכך] הלוא בשעת אכילה יהא טהור ודאי! ומשיבים הא קא משמע לן [דבר זה השמיע לנו], דאף על גב [שאף על פי] שמחוסר עדיין הערב שמש, קמשמע לן [השמיע לנו] דשמשא משילא ערבא [שהשמש ממילא שוקעת] ואין זה קרוי מחוסר מעשה.
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.
הכל
(13) 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:
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:
הכי נמי מסתברא – דאטבול קאי מדאצטריך למיתנא סיפא דשוחטין על מחוסר כפורים אי אמרת בשלמא רישא לא אשמעי׳ [אלא] טבול יום איצטריך למיתנא סיפא לאשמעי׳ דשוחטין על מחוסר כפורים ס״ד אמינא האי מחוסר מעשה חשיב ליה קא משמע לן דשרי ובמסרו לב״ד של כהנים כדאמרן.
אלא אי אמרת כו׳ יש בידו לתקן – לטבול אבל מחוסר כפרה אין בידו לתקן אלא ביד כהן.
ומוסיפים: הכי נמי מסתברא [כך גם כן מסתבר], מדקתני סיפא [ממה ששנינו בסופה של משנתינו]: ראה שלש ראיות שוחטין עליו בשמיני. אי אמרת בשלמא [נניח אם אומר אתה] זב שראה שתי ראיות שוחטין עליו בשביעי ומדובר כאן דטביל [שטבל כבר] הזב הרי איצטריך [הוצרך] לומר הלכה נוספת זו שיש בה חידוש
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:
הכל
(14) סד״א סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא רָאָה שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת בִּשְׁבִיעִי הוּא דְּלָא מְחוּסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה אֲבָל רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ בַּשְּׁמִינִי דִּמְחוּסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה מְחוּסַּר כַּפָּרָה לָא קמ״ל קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דאע״ג 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.
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.
סלקא דעתך אמינא [יעלה על דעתך לומר] ראה שתי ראיות והריהו עומד בשביעי הוא שלא מחוסר מעשה שהרי כבר טבל אבל ראה שלש והריהו עומד בשמיני שמחוסר מעשה שהרי הוא מחוסר כפרה לא יהא דינו כן, לכן קא משמע לן [השמיע לנו] דאף על גב [שאף על פי] שהוא מחוסר כפרה בכל זאת שוחטין וזורקין עילויה [עליו].
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.
הכל
(15) 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:
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:
אלא אי אמרת [אם אומר אתה] שהאמור במשנה ראה שתי ראיות ועומד בשביעי מדובר כאן דלא טביל [שעדיין לא טבל] ראה שלש ועומד בשמיני למה לי לומר?
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:
הכל
(16) הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר רָאָה שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת בַּשְּׁבִיעִי דְּלָא טָבֵיל דְּטָמֵא מְעַלְּיָא הוּא שָׁחֲטִינַן וְזָרְקִינַן עִילָּוֵיהּ רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ בַּשְּׁמִינִי דְּטָבֵיל לֵיהּ בַּשְּׁבִיעִי דִּקְלִישָׁא טוּמְאָה לֹא כ״ש 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.
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.
הלוא אפשר ללמוד זאת בקל וחומר השתא [עכשיו] יש לומר שזב שראה שתי ראיות ועומד בשביעי דלא טביל [שלא טבל] דטמא מעליא הוא [שטמא גמור הוא] ובכל זאת שחטינן וזרקינן עילויה [שוחטין וזורקין אנו עליו], ראה שלש ראיות ועומד בשמיני דטביל, ליה בשביעי [שכבר טבל בשביעי] דקלישא [שקלושה] טומאה שבו שהרי אין הוא טמא אפילו בטומאת טבול יום אלא שאסור לו עוד לבוא למקדש משום שהוא מחוסר כיפורים לא כל שכן דשחטינן וזרקינן עילויה [שאנו שוחטים וזורקים עליו].
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.
הכל
(17) אֶלָּא לָאו ש״מ 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?
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?
אלא לאו שמע מינה [האם לא תלמד מכאן] ראה שתי ראיות ועומד בשביעי דשחטינן עילויה [שאנו שוחטים עבורו] מדובר בזב דטביל [שטבל].
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?
הכל
(18) לָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ דְּלָא טָבֵיל וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ ס״ד 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.
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.
ודוחים: לא, לעולם אימא לך דלא טביל [יכול אני לומר לך שמדובר בשלא טבל] ובכל זאת איצטריך [הוצרך] ללמדנו גם לענין זב שראה שלוש ראיות. כי סלקא דעתך אמינא [עולה על דעתך לומר] בשביעי הוא שמותר משום שבידו לתקן בעצמו, שיכול ללכת למקוה ולטבול,
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.
הכל
(19) אֲבָל בַּשְּׁמִינִי דְּאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְהַקְרִיב קׇרְבָּן אֵימָא פָּשְׁעִי בֵּיהּ כֹּהֲנִים קמ״ל 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 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.
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 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.
אבל בשמיני שאין בידו להקריב קרבן והוא תלוי באחרים, אימא פשעי ביה כהנים [שמא יתרשלו בו הכהנים] וכל עוד לא הקריבו יהא פסול, על כן קא משמע לן [השמיע לנו] שגם כאן אין לחשוש כדרב שמעיה שאפשר לסמוך על בית דין של כהנים.
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 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.
הכל
(20) 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 הנ״מ 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.
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.
הזבה שוחטין עליה בשמיני והוא שמסרה קרבנה לבית דין מהו דתימא דילמ׳ פשעו כהנים ולא קרבו להו קא משמע לן כדרב שמעי׳ דאמר חזקה אין בית דין של כהנים עומדין משם עד שיכלו כל מעות שבשופר.
זבה טבילתה ביום שביעי – דכתיב (ויקרא טו) וספרה לה שבעת ימים ואחר תטהר אחר מעשה תטהר כיון דסיימה לה ספירה תטהר ובתחלת היום עבדה לה ספירה אבל נדה דאורייתא שאינה סופרת נקיים אלא שבעה עם ימי ראייתה אינה טובלת עד לאחר שקיעת החמה של שביעי והערב שמש בדידה לא הוי עד למחר.
בשמיני פשיטא – אמתניתין דקתני זב שוחטים עליו בשמיני ליכא למיפרך פשיטא דמצי למימר דקתני לה אגב רישא דזב שראה שתי ראיות ושומרת יום כנגד יום שוחטין עליה ולא חיישינן שמא תראה ותסתור.
א שנינו במשנה: והזבה שוחטין עליה בשמיני לזיבתה. תני תנא קמיה [שנה חוזר המשניות לפני] רב אדא בר אהבה: ״והזבה שוחטין עליה בשביעי שלה״. אמר ליה [לו]: זבה בשביעי שלה מי חזיא [האם היא ראויה]? אפילו לשיטת מאן [מי] שאמר שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ — הני מילי [דברים אלה] אמורים בטמא שרץ בלבד, דחזי לאורתא [שראוי לאכול בערב] ואילו הא [זו, הזבה] עד למחר דמתיא [כשהיא מביאה] כפרה לא חזיא [ראויה]! אלא אימא [אמור] בגירסת ברייתא שבידך ״בשמיני״.
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.
הכל
(21) פְּשִׁיטָא מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כֵּיוָן דִּמְחַסְּרָא כַּפָּרָה לָא קמ״ל 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.
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.
ומקשים: אם כן, פשיטא [פשוט מובן מאליו]! ומסבירים: מהו דתימא [שתאמר] כיון דמחסרא כפרה [שמחוסרת כפרה] עדיין, הריהי כמחוסרת מעשה ולא תהא ראויה, קא משמע לן [השמיע לנו] כדרב שמעיה, שיש לסמוך בזה על בית דין של כהנים.
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.
הכל
(22) 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.
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.
רבינא אמר התנא נדה תנא קמיה שוחטין עליה בשביעי אמר ליה רב אדא בר אהבה אפילו למאן דאמר שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ משום דחזי לאורתא אבל נדה דטבלה ליל שמיני עד דעריב עלה שמשא דיום שמיני לא חזיא אימא נדה שוחטין עליה בשמיני שלה והא קא משמע לן דבשמיני אין בשביעי לא כדתניא כל חייבי טבילות טבילתן ביום נדה ויולדת טבילתן בלילה. ותניא מנין לנדה שאינה טובלת ביום שביעי שלה שנאמר שבעת ימים תהיה בנדתה [תהא בנדתה] כל שבעה.
1. כסדר המאמר שבה״ג.
2. נדה: כ״י נ , דפוסים. חסר בכ״י הספרייה הבריטית .
3. בר יעקב: כ״י נ , דפוסים. חסר בכ״י הספרייה הבריטית .
4. ורב יהודה...צנה רבא: חסר ב-גא .
5. משום: חסר בכ״י נ , דפוסים.
6. דכולהו: כ״י נ , דפוסים : ״כולהו״. דפוס קושטא : כולהי .
7. דר׳: גא , כ״י נ , דפוסים. כ״י הספרייה הבריטית : ״ר׳ ״.
8. אחר: בכ״י הספרייה הבריטית , כ״י נ : ניתן לקרוא: ״אחד״.
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.
הכל
(23) א״ל אֲמַר לֵיהּ נִדָּה בַּשְּׁבִיעִי מִי חַזְיָא אפי׳ אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ דַּחֲזֵי לְאוּרְתָּא נִדָּה לְאוּרְתָּא דִשְׁבִיעִי הוּא דְּטָבְלָה עַד שְׁמִינִי דְּעָבְדָה הֶעֱרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ לָא חַזְיָא דאֶלָּא 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.
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.
אמר ליה [לו]: נדה בשביעי מי חזיא [האם היא ראויה]? שהרי אפילו למאן דאמר [לשיטת מי שאמר] שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ הרי זה משום דחזי לאורתא [שהוא ראוי לערב], ואילו נדה לאורתא דשביעי הוא דטבלה [לערב שביעי הוא שטובלת] שאין טבילת נדה אלא בלילה ולא ביום ואם כן, עד שמיני דעבדה [שהיא עושה] הערב שמש לא חזיא [אינה ראויה] שהריהי עדיין טבולת יום ואסורה בקדשים עד למחרת! אלא אימא [אמור, תקן] נדה ״בשמיני״.
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.
הכל
(24) 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?
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?
ומקשים: פשיטא [פשוט, מובן מאליו]! השתא ומה זבה דמיחסרא כפרה [עכשיו ומה זבה שמחוסרת קרבן כפרה] שוחטין וזורקין עליה בשמיני, נדה דלא מיחסרא כפרה [שאינה מחוסרת כפרה] צריכה למימר [לומר] דשחטינן וזרקינן עלה [שאנו שוחטים וזורקים עליה]?!
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?
הכל
(25) נִדָּה אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן בַּשְּׁמִינִי אִין בַּשְּׁבִיעִי לָא כִּדְתַנְיָא הכׇּל 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.
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.
ה. רמב״ם הלכות איסורי ביאה ד׳:ו׳
רמב״ם הלכות מקואות א׳:ו׳
רמב״ם הלכות שביתת עשור ג׳:ג׳
סמ״ג מצוות עשה רמ״ג
טור אורח חיים תקנ״ד:ח׳
טור אורח חיים תרי״ג:י״א
טור יורה דעה קצ״ז:ג׳
טור יורה דעה שפ״א:ה׳
שולחן ערוך אורח חיים תקנ״ד:ח׳
שולחן ערוך אורח חיים תרי״ג:י״א
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה קצ״ז:ג׳
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה שפ״א:ה׳
רמב״ם הלכות מקואות א׳:ו׳
רמב״ם הלכות שביתת עשור ג׳:ג׳
סמ״ג מצוות עשה רמ״ג
טור אורח חיים תקנ״ד:ח׳
טור אורח חיים תרי״ג:י״א
טור יורה דעה קצ״ז:ג׳
טור יורה דעה שפ״א:ה׳
שולחן ערוך אורח חיים תקנ״ד:ח׳
שולחן ערוך אורח חיים תרי״ג:י״א
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה קצ״ז:ג׳
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה שפ״א:ה׳
ה רמב״ם הלכות איסורי ביאה ד׳:ו׳
רמב״ם הלכות מקואות א׳:ו׳
רמב״ם הלכות שביתת עשור ג׳:ג׳
סמ״ג מצוות עשה רמ״ג
טור אורח חיים תקנ״ד:ח׳
טור אורח חיים תרי״ג:י״א
טור יורה דעה קצ״ז:ג׳
טור יורה דעה שפ״א:ה׳
שולחן ערוך אורח חיים תקנ״ד:ח׳
שולחן ערוך אורח חיים תרי״ג:י״א
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה קצ״ז:ג׳
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה שפ״א:ה׳
רמב״ם הלכות מקואות א׳:ו׳
רמב״ם הלכות שביתת עשור ג׳:ג׳
סמ״ג מצוות עשה רמ״ג
טור אורח חיים תקנ״ד:ח׳
טור אורח חיים תרי״ג:י״א
טור יורה דעה קצ״ז:ג׳
טור יורה דעה שפ״א:ה׳
שולחן ערוך אורח חיים תקנ״ד:ח׳
שולחן ערוך אורח חיים תרי״ג:י״א
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה קצ״ז:ג׳
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה שפ״א:ה׳
כל חייבי טבילות טבילתן ביום אחרון של טומאתן חוץ מנדה ויולדת שצריכות לעמוד כל השביעי בטומאתן שנאמר בנדה שבעת ימים תהיה בנדתה שתהא בטומאתה כל שבעה ויולדת הוקשה לנדה וטובלת בלילה שמחרתו שמיני וטהורות מיד לביתן שהטהרה אצל ביתן כטהרתן אצל תרומה ומעשר אבל לקדשים צריכות הערב שמש של מחר ומתוך כך אין הנדה טובלת בשביעי אע״פ שאינה ממחוסרי כפרה אלא בשמיני כמו שביארנו במשנה וכן שאר דברים שבאו בסוגיא זו כבר ביארנום במשנה:
ומשיבים: נדה איצטריכא ליה [הוצרכה לו], הא קא משמע לן [דבר זה השמיע לנו] חידוש: בשמיני — אין [כן] בשביעי — לא, כדתניא [כפי ששנויה ברייתא]: כל חייבי טבילות שבתורה טבילתן בשעות היום, אבל נדה ויולדת טבילתן בלילה.
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.
הכל
(26) דְּתַנְיָא יָכוֹל תְּהֵא טוֹבֶלֶת מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר {ויקרא ט״ו:י״ט} 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).
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).
ומקור לדבר בברייתא אחרת: יכול תהא הנדה או היולדת טובלת מבעוד יום כשאר חייבי טבילה? תלמוד לומר: ״ואשה כי תהיה זבה דם יהיה זובה בבשרה שבעת ימים תהיה בנדתה״ (ויקרא טו, יט). נאמר פעמיים המילה ״תהיה״ ללמד: תהא בנדתה כל שבעה ימים שלמים עד שיגמר כל היום השביעי, ולכן יכולה לטבול רק אור לשמיני. ואילו יולדת איתקש [הושוותה בכתוב] לנדה: ״אשה כי תזריע וילדה...כימי נידת דוותה תטמא״.
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).
הכל
(27) מתני׳ מַתְנִיתִין : והָאוֹנֵן
MISHNA: An acute mourner, i.e., a mourner on the day of the death of an immediate relative;
MISHNA: An acute mourner, i.e., a mourner on the day of the death of an immediate relative;
מתני׳ האונן – שמתו מוטל לפניו כדאמרי׳ בשחיטת קדשים בפרק טבול יום (זבחים דף ק:) איזהו אונן כל זמן שלא נקבר.
האונן – כגון שמת לו מת אחר חצות שכבר חל עליו חיוב פסח אבל קודם חצות חל עליו אנינות כדאמר במי שהיה טמא (לקמן דף צח.).
MISHNA: An acute mourner, i.e., a mourner on the day of the death of an immediate relative;
הכל
© כל הזכויות שמורות. העתקת קטעים מן הטקסטים מותרת לשימוש אישי בלבד, ובתנאי שסך ההעתקות אינו עולה על 5% של החיבור השלם.List of Editions
© All rights reserved. Copying of paragraphs is permitted for personal use only, and on condition that total copying does not exceed 5% of the full work.
פסחים צ: – מהדורת על־התורה (כל הזכויות שמורות)
כולל ניקוד ופיסוק בפרקים מובחרים באדיבות הרב דן בארי, וניקוד בשאר מסכתות באדיבות דיקטה - המרכז הישראלי לניתוח טקסטים (CC BY-NC), קישורים פסחים צ:, עין משפט נר מצוה פסחים צ:, ר׳ חננאל פסחים צ:, רי"ף פסחים צ: – מהדורת הרי"ף על פי סדר הבבלי מבוססת על מהדורת מכון המאור בעריכת הצוות שבראשות ד"ר עזרא שבט (בהכנה), באדיבות מכון המאור והרב דניאל ביטון (כל הזכויות שמורות למו"ל). לפרטים על המהדורה לחצו כאן., רש"י פסחים צ: – פרק עשירי – מהדורת הרב עמיחי כנרתי, סיוע וביקורת: הרב יואל קטן והרב אריאל אביני, באדיבות מכון שלמה אומן שעל יד ישיבת שעלבים (כל הזכויות שמורות). לפרטים על המהדורה לחצו כאן., תוספות פסחים צ:, תוספות רי"ד מהדורה תליתאה פסחים צ:, בית הבחירה למאירי פסחים צ: – ברשותו האדיבה של הרב דב גולדשטיין ות"ת כנגד כולם (tora.co.il, נייד: +972-52-2424305) (כל הזכויות שמורות לרב גולדשטיין, ואין להעתיק מן הטקסט לצרכים מסחריים), מהרש"א חידושי הלכות פסחים צ:, גליון הש"ס לרע"א פסחים צ:, פירוש הרב שטיינזלץ פסחים צ:, אסופת מאמרים פסחים צ:
Pesachim 90b – William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0), Kishurim Pesachim 90b, Ein Mishpat Ner Mitzvah Pesachim 90b, R. Chananel Pesachim 90b, Rif by Bavli Pesachim 90b, Rashi Pesachim 90b, Tosafot Pesachim 90b, Tosefot Rid Third Recension Pesachim 90b, Meiri Pesachim 90b, Maharsha Chidushei Halakhot Pesachim 90b, Gilyon HaShas Pesachim 90b, Steinsaltz Commentary Pesachim 90b, Collected Articles Pesachim 90b