משנה: הַפֶּסַח שֶׁנִּזְרַק דָּמוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה. נִטְמָא טוּמְאַת הַגּוּף אֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ נָזִיר וְעוֹשֶׂה פֶסַח הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל טּוּמְאַת הַדָּם וְאֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל טּוּמְאַת הַגּוּף. נִטְמָא טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה׃ MISHNAH: If blood was poured of a Pesaḥ when later it became known that it was impure, the diadem makes acceptable80The golden diadem worn by the High Priest, whose object is to carry away the iniquities of the sacrifices offered by the Children of Israel; Ex. 28:37.. An impurity of the body81The body of the offerer. the diadem does not make acceptable since they said that for the nazir and the offerer of the Pesaḥ the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body. If the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss82Impurity buried in the ground which previously was totally unknown and is only recently uncovered. Since it is impossible to guard against this kind of impurity there can be no penalty for “tent impurity” of this kind., the diadem makes acceptable.
הלכה: מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁנִּיטְמָא מִשֶּׁיָּרַד לַאֲוֵירוֹ שֶׁלְכֶּלִי. אֲבָל אִם נִטְמָא עַד שֶׁהוּא מִלְּמַעֲלָן נַעֲשֶׂה כִמְקַבֵּל מַיִם. HALAKHAH: 162Discussion of the last part of Mishnah 5 (in the independent Mishnah mss. Mishnah 7), that the diadem covers up impurity of the blood for Pesaḥ and the nazir. The Mishnah if it became impure after it fell into the vessel. But if it became impure when still higher it is as if he received water163If the Cohen received pure blood in a sacred vessel, the owner’s act in the sacrifice is completed. If then something happens in the custody of the Cohen, the High Priest’s diadem covers the fault; the blood may be poured on the walls of the altar and the meat consumed. But if the blood becomes impure before being received in the vessel, there is no qualified sacrifice; the carcass has to be burned outside the Temple district..
מְנַיִין לֵסְפֵק קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִן. אוֹ֩ בְדֶ֨רֶךְ רְחוֹקָה לָכֶ֗ם. מַה לָכֶם בְּגָלוּי אַף כָּל־דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בְגָלוּי. יָצָא קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְגָלוּי. עַד כְדוֹן עוֹשֵׂי פֶסַח. נָזִיר מְנַיִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי וְכִֽי־יָמ֨וּת מֵ֤ת עָלָיו֙. מַה עָלָיו שֶׁהוּא בְגָלוּי אַף כָּל־דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בְגָלוּי. יָצָא קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְגָלוּי. 164From here on, the text is also found in Nazir 9:2, Notes 58–94. From where about a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss165Both for the person going to celebrate the Pesaḥ and the nazir who finished his term, the impurity caused by a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss is disregarded. In view of the central role of purity in everything connected with the Sanctuary, it is obvious that some biblical justification has to be found for the rule. In the case of Passover, the argument notes that Num. 9:9 could have stated that a person on a far trip was required to celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. The addition for you seems to be superfluous. It is interpreted to mean just as the road is open to the wanderer, so the impurity has to be in the open for the impure person. The same argument is in the Babli 81b.? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis: Or on a far trip for you. What is in the open for you, including everything in the open. This excludes the case of a grave in the abyss which is not open. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi [Yannai]87Reading of K.: If a person dies suddenly on him166Num. 6:9.. Since on him it is in the open, so everything in the open. This eliminates the grave in the abyss which is not in the open167The same argument as before; Babli 81b, Sifry Num. 28..
צִיבּוּר שֶׁנִּיטְמָא בִּסְפֵק הַתְּהוֹם מָהוּ שֶׁיְּרַצֶּה עָלָיו הָצִּיץ. קַל וָחוֹמֶר. מָה אִם הַיָּחִיד שֶׁהוֹרַעְתָּ כוֹחוֹ בְטוּמְאָה יְדוּעָה יִיפִּיתָה כוֹחוֹ בִּסְפֵק קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. צִיבּוּר שֶׁיִּיפִּיתַה כוֹחוֹ בְטוּמְאְה יְדוּעָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיִּיפִּיתַה כוֹחוֹ בִּסְפֵק קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. קַל שֶׁאַתְּ מֵיקִל בְּיחִיד אַתְּ מַחְמִיר בְּצִיבּוּר. קַל שֶׁאַתְּ מֵיקִיל בְּיָחִיד. שֶׁאִם נִתְווַדַּע לוֹ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה יֵיעָשֶׂה כְמִי שׁנִּיטְמָא לָאַחַר זְרִיקָה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא יִדָּחֶה לַפֶּסַח שֵׁינֵי. אַת מַחְמִיר עָלָיו בַצִּיבּוּר. שֶׁאִם נִתְווַדַּע לוֹ לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה יֵיעָשֶׂה כְמִי שׁנִּיטְמָא לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא יֵאָכֵל הַבָּשָׂר. קַל שֶׁאַתְּ מֵיקַל בְּנָזִיר טָהוֹר. שֶׁאִם נִתְווַדַּע לוֹ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה יֵיעָשֶׂה כְמִי שׁנִּיטְמָא לָאַחַר זְרִיקָה שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא קָרְבָּן טוּמְאָה. אַתְּ מַחְמִיר בְּנָזִיר טָמֵא. שֶׁאִם נִתְווַדַּע לוֹ לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה יֵעָשֶׂה כְמִי שׁנִּיטְמָא וְחָזַר וְנִיטְמָא. מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן טוּמְאָה לְכָל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. [כְּהָדָא דְתַנָּא. נִטְמָא וְחָזַר וְנִטְמָא. מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן טוּמְאָה עַל כָּל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד.] עוֹבֵד שֶׁלְפֶּסַח מָהוּ שֶׁיְּרַצֶּה עָלָיו אֶת הַצִּיץ. קַל וָחוֹמֶר. וּמָה אִם הַבְּעָלִים. שֶׁהוֹרַעְתָּה כוֹחָן בְּזָקֵן וּבְחוֹלֶה. יִיפִּיתָה כוֹחָן בִּסְפֵק קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. עוֹבֵד שֶׁיִּפִּיתָה כוֹחוֹ בְּזָקֵן וּבְחוֹלֶה. אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתְּייַפֶּה כוֹחוֹ בִּסְפֵק קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַבְּעָלִים. שֶׁיִּיפִּיתָה כוֹחָן בִּשְׁאָרַ כָּל־הַטֻּמְאוֹת שֶׁבַּשָּׁנָה. תֹּאמַר בָּעוֹבֵד. שֶׁהוֹרַעְתָּה כוֹחוֹ בִשְׁאָר כָּל־הַטֻּמְאוֹת שֶׁבַּשָּׁנָה. הוֹאִיל וְהוֹרַעְתָּה כוֹחוֹ בִשְׁאָר כָּל־הַטֻּמְאוֹת שֶׁלְּכָל־הַשָּׁנָה תּוֹרַע כּוֹחוֹ בְטָמֵא מֵת בַפֶּסַח. מַיי כְדוֹן. רִבִּי נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי מָנָא. לָכֶם. בֵּין לוֹ בֵין לְעוֹבֵד שֶׁלּוֹ. עַד כְּדוֹן עוֹשֵׂי פֶסַח. נָזִיר מְנַיִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בְשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא. הֲוִינָן סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. עָלָיו. לֹא עַל הָעוֹבֵד שֶׁלּוֹ. מִן מַה דְתַנֵּי. הִיא נָזִיר הִיא עוֹשֶׂה פֶסַח. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. מַה דִנְפַל לְדֵין נְפַל לְדֵין. If the public became impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity168Since a single person impure on the 14th of Nisan is required to celebrate the Second Pesaḥ, his standing is inferior to that of the public who celebrate the First Pesaḥ in impurity., you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss169The case of a grave in the abyss can arise only in a private domain since in a public domain all doubts are automatically resolved in favor of purity (Sotah 1:2, Note 88). For a private person, a case of doubt in matters of a grave in the abyss in a private domain is treated as if it were occurring in the public domain., for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity170In that they may bring the Pesaḥ in impurity., it only is logical that you should clarify it to its advantage in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public171This is how one intends to disprove the argument de minore ad majus.. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him172The impurity of a grave in the abyss never forces a person to the Second Pesaḥ; so if he was told before pouring it is as if he became otherwise impure after pouring, where the sacrificial act was completed and while he cannot eat his part of the Pesaḥ he has discharged all his obligations. before pouring he should be treated as if he became impure after pouring, that he should not be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, you restrict him in public, so that if it became known to him after pouring he should be treated as if he became impure before pouring, that he should not be able to eat the meat173If the public are impure, the Pesaḥ is slaughtered and eaten in impurity. But if it was slaughtered as pure and then it became impure or became known to be impure, it cannot be eaten.. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him before pouring he is treated as impure after pouring, that he should not have to bring a sacrifice of impurity174Mishnah Nazir 9:2. Corrector’s addition supported by K., you treat as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after pouring he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure; he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case175But if the nazir became aware of the second impurity before he offered his sacrifice of impurity, he has to bring only one sacrifice.. [As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case176Nazir Halakhah 6:8, Note 198..] If somebody is officiating for the Pesaḥ, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since for the owner [of the Pesaḥ] whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged177While a person unable to eat the volume of an olive of the Pesaḥ may not subscribe to it, an old or sick priest is able to serve in the Temple as long as his infirmity is not of the kind listed in Lev, 21:18–20., you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. Since for the owner you clarify to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; what can you say for the officiating where you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year178An impure person, including a nazir not impure by the impurity of the dead, can send his sacrifice other than the Pesaḥ to the Temple by a pure agent, but an impure priest cannot officiate, irrespective of the nature of his impurity.. Since you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? For you165Both for the person going to celebrate the Pesaḥ and the nazir who finished his term, the impurity caused by a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss is disregarded. In view of the central role of purity in everything connected with the Sanctuary, it is obvious that some biblical justification has to be found for the rule. In the case of Passover, the argument notes that Num. 9:9 could have stated that a person on a far trip was required to celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. The addition for you seems to be superfluous. It is interpreted to mean just as the road is open to the wanderer, so the impurity has to be in the open for the impure person. The same argument is in the Babli 81b., whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought to say, on him166Num. 6:9., not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other179Babli 80b..
אֵי זֶהוּ קֶבֶר תְּהוֹם. הַמֵּת שֶׁנִּקְבַּר בְּקַשׁ וּבְתֶבֶן וּבְעָפָר וּבִצְרוֹרוֹת. אֲבָל אִם נִקְבַּר בַּמַּיִם וּבָאֲפֵילָה וּבִנְקִיקֵי הַסְּלָעִים אֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר. כָּל־שֶׁאַתְּ יָכוֹל לְפַנּוֹתוֹ עוֹשֶׂה קֶבֶר תְּהוֹם. וְכָל־שֶׁאֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל לְפַנּוֹתוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה קֶבֶר תְּהוֹם. וְקַשׁ וְתֶבֶן אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל לְפַנּוֹתוֹ. מַתְנִיתָא דְלֹא כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. תֵּבֶן וּבִיטְּלוֹ. בָּטֵּל. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. בְּשֶׁבָּֽלַל בֶעָפָר. יֵשׁ תֵּבֶן שֶׁהוּא כְעָפָר. וְיֵשׁ עָפָר שֶׁהוּא כְתֵּבֶן. תֵּבֶן שֶׁאֵין אַתְּ עָתִיד לְפַנּוֹתוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְעָפָר. עָפָר שֶׁאַתְּ עָתִיד לְפַנּוֹתוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְתֵּבֶן. דְּבֵית רִבִּי יַנַּאי אָֽמְרֵי. חִיפָּהוּ מַחֲצָלוֹת בִּטֵּל. אִיתָא חֲמִי. מִילֵּאהוּ מַחֲצָלוֹת לֹא בִטֵּל. חִיפָּהוּ מַחֲצָלוֹת בִּטֵּל. מִילֵּהוּ חָרִיּוֹת צְרִיכָה. רִבִּי זְרִיקָן רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. אֲפִילוּ רַק. “What is a grave of the abyss? A corpse buried in stubble, straw, dust, or pebbles180Tosephta Zavim 2:9; quoted in the Babli, 81b, and Nazir 63b, without further discussion. As explained in the next paragraph, “grave of the abyss” is that of a person killed by an accident not witnessed by anybody. If one finds a corpse buried under a heap of straw, one has to assume that he suffocated when the straw fell on him. A corpse buried in dust or pebbles probably was the victim of an accident.. But if it was buried in water, a dark spot, or rock crevices, it does not create a grave of the abyss181In this case, the person also probably was the victim of an accident. But since it could have been seen by a passer-by, the competent authorities should have been alerted; this is not an unknown body..” The principle: Any place from where it can be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it cannot be removed does not create a grave of the abyss182Obviously, the clauses in this sentence are switched (here and in Nazir). As explained in the preceding notes, one must read: “Any place from where it cannot be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it can be removed does not create a grave of the abyss.” A corpse whose existence is unknown cannot be removed.. Can stubbles and straw not be removed? Does the Mishnah not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, straw said to be disregarded is disregarded183The remainder of this paragraph also is in Eruvin 7, Notes 58–62.
This refers to the rules of the tent-impurity caused by a corpse. A “tent” is any covered space in which there is at least one hand-breadth of space between the corpse and the roof. If the space is enclosed, the impurity is restricted to the “tent”; anything above the ceiling and below the floor of the “tent” is pure. But if the entire space between floor and ceiling is filled with matter, there is no tent and the impurity extends indefinitely above and below the tent space. This is known as “squeezed impurity” (Mishnah Ahilut 15:1,5,6). It is implied in Tosephta Ahilut15:5 that R. Yose restricts “squeezed impurity” to material permanently deposited; but a storage of straw which is to be removed in the future is not counted as filler.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is everybody’s opinion. What Rebbi Yose said, if he mixed it with dust184Not really “mixed with”, but “treated like,” as formulated in the Tosephta.. “There is straw which is treated like dust and dust which is treated like straw. Straw not to be removed is like dust; dust to be removed is like straw.185Statement of R. Yose in Tosephta Ahilut 15:5; quoted in Eruvin 79a. “Straw” stands here for “material to be removed,” “dust” for “permanent filling.”” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: If he covered it with mats it is disregarded. Come and see: If he filled it with mats it is not disregarded186Since the filling can easily be removed, the ditch still separates., if he covered it with mats it is disregarded187If a ditch is filled with any material, even straw, but this is covered with mats to create a floor from one side to the other, the courtyards become one and require one eruv. Šabbat 100a.. If he filled it with branches of date palms it is problematic188No ruling is available in this case.. Rebbi Zeriqan, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even thin sheets189This translation is tentative; it follows the Pesaḥim text, reading רַק. Neither the text in Eruvin רוֹק “spittle” nor the one in K and Nazir רֵיק “emptiness” are appropriate..
אֵי זֶהוּ קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. כָּל־שֶׁאֵין אָדָם זוֹכְרוֹ. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא אֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם יוֹדֵעַ. בְּחֶזְקַת הַחַי כַּחַי. תְּיפְתָּר שֶׁמְצָאוֹ קַמְצִיץ. “What is a grave of the abyss? Any which nobody remembers.” Should we not be cautious and say, maybe one at the end of the world knows190Tosephta Zavim 2:9, Babli 81b.? And is the permanence of the living not like living191He might know of the grave even if we do not.? Explain that he was found compressed192Cf. Giṭtin 3:3, Notes 81,87. If any person left from here, when that person left he was alive and we have to apply the legal principle of permanence of the status quo and consider him permanently alive, disregarding the notion of “unknown grave”..
תַּנֵּי. אֵין לָךְ עוֹשֶׂה קֶבֶר תְּהוֹם אֶלָּא הַמֵּת בִּלְבַד. הָא נְבֵלָה לֹא. קַל וָחוֹמֶר. מָה אִם הַמֵּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב עוֹשֶׂה קֶבֶר תְּהוֹם. נְבֵילָה שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתַּעֲשֶׂה קֶבֶר תְּהוֹם. לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר נֶאֱמַר. אֵין לָךְ דָבָר עוֹשֶׂה קֶבֶר תְּהוֹם אֶלָּא הַמֵּת בִּלְבַד. לְהוֹצִיא מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב. It was stated: “Only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss.”193Which clearly shows that he was not buried by humans but was the victim of an accident. Since the accident was not noticed when it occurred, there is nobody “at the end of the world” who would know of it.
Tosephta Zavim 2:9, Babli 80b. Therefore, not a carcass194Obviously, only a human corpse has a grave that presents problems of impurity. A buried animal carcass does not produce impurity. Carcasses cause impurity only when touched or carried. The meaning of this sentence can be clarified: Only for the impurity of the dead do we find a rule that sometimes allows one to disregard biblical impurity.<sub>.</sub> An argument de minore ad maius. Since a corpse, which does not cause impurity of couch and seat, creates a grave of the abyss, should a carcasss which causes impurity of couch and seat not create a grave of the abyss? Why was it said that only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss? To exclude couch and seat195This argument does not make any sense. There are several distinct ways to emend the passage to create sense; therefore, no textual emendation is proposed but the meaning can easily be clarified.
A person who is the source of his own impurity (a male or female sufferer from genital discharges) causes original impurity to any couch or personal seat he is using (Lev. 15:4–6,21–22,26). But any impurity induced on an inanimate object by a corpse is only derivative. The argument shows that the rules of the impurity of the dead and impurity produced by a living human body are not comparable: Each kind of impurity has its own severities and leniencies not found in the other.
Here ends the parallel to Nazir..
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. כָּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁקִּיבֵּל דָּמָן זָר. אוֹנֵן. וּטְבוּל יוֹם. מְחוּסַּר בְּגָדִים. מְחוּסַּר כִּיפּוּרִים. וְשֶׁלֹּא רְחוּץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִים. עָרֵל. טָמֵא. יוֹשֵׁב. עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבֵּי כֵלִים. עַל גַּבֵּי [בְהֵמָה. עַל גַּבֵּי] חֲבֵירוֹ. פָּסַל. דְּרוֹמַאיֵי אָֽמְרֵי. בְּטָמֵא טוּמְאַת זִיבָה וְטוּמְאַת צָרַעַת אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אֲבָל בְּטָמֵא מֵת אֵינוֹ מְחַלֵּל. מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּתָּר מִכְּלַל טוּמְאָה לְרַבִּים בַּפֶּסַח. מְתִיב רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לִדְרוֹמָאיֵי. מָה אִם הַבְּעָלִים שֶׁיִּיפִּיתָה כוֹחָן בִּשְׁאָר כָּל־הַטֻּמְאוֹת שֶׁבַּשָּׁנָה. הוֹרְעֵתָה כוֹחָן בְּטָמֵא מֵת בַּפֶּסַח. עוֹבֵד. שֶׁהוֹרְעֵתָה כוֹחוֹ בִּשְׁאָר טֻמְאוֹת שֶׁלְכָּל־הַשָּׁנָה. אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתּוֹרֶע כּוֹחוֹ בְּטָמֵא מֵת בַּפֶּסַח. וְעוֹד שֶׁשָּׁנָה רִבִּי. הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל טּוּמְאַת הַדָּם. אֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל טּוּמְאַת הַגּוּף. אִין תֵּימַר בְּטָמֵא טוּמְאַת זִיבָה וְטוּמְאַת צָרַעַת אֲנָן קַייָמִין. לֵית יְכִיל. דְּתַנִּינָן. מִטַּמֵּא טוּמְאַת תְּהוֹם הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה׃ מָה עָֽבְדִין לָהּ דְּרוֹמַאיֵי. פָּֽתְרִין לָהּ בַּבְּעָלִים. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. נָזִיר. פָּֽתְרִין לָהּ בָּעוֹבְדִין. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. לֹא שַׁנְייָא. הִיא בְעָלִים הִיא עוֹבְדִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. הֲרֵי זֶה קַל וָחוֹמֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו תְּשׁוּבָה. דְּאִינּוּן יָֽכְלִין מֵימַר לֵיהּ. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּבְעָלִים. שֶׁהוֹרְעֵתָה כוֹחָן בְּזָקֵן וּבְחוֹלֶה. תֹּאמַר בְּעוֹבֵד. שֶׁיִּיפִּיתָה כוֹחוֹ בְּזָקֵן וּבְחוֹלֶה. וְכָל־קַל וָחוֹמֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו תְּשׁוּבָה בָּטֵל קַל וָחוֹמֶר. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה. הֲרֵי זֶה קַל וָחוֹמֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו תְּשׁוּבָה. דְּאִינּוּן יָֽכְלִין מֵימַר לֵיהּ. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּבְעָלִים. שֶׁמִּילַת זְכָרָיו וָעֲבָדָיו מְעַכְּבִין אוֹתוֹ. תֹּאמַר בְּעוֹבֵד. שֶׁאֵין מִילַת זְכָרָיו וָעֲבָדָיו מְעַכְּבִין אוֹתוֹ. וְכָל־קַל וָחוֹמֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו תְּשׁוּבָה בָּטֵל קַל וָחוֹמֶר. There, we have stated196Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:1.: “All sacrifices whose blood was collected by a non-Cohen, a deep mourner197A person obligated to bury a close relative, such as defined in Lev. 21:2–3, who from the moment of the death to the burial is barred from all sacral acts; inferred from Deut. 26:14., one immersed on this day198Who is no longer impure but barred from sacral acts until sundown; Lev. 22:7., missing garments199A Cohen serving while not wearing all priestly garments commits a deadly sin; Ex.28:43., missing atonement200A person healed from skin disease or gonorrhea who needs not only immersion in water and waiting for sundown but is excluded from sacral rites until be bring a purifying sacrifice, Lev. 14:1–32 for skin disease, 15:14–15 for the sufferer from gonorrhea., with unwashed hands or feet201Ex. 30:19–20., uncircumcised202As the Babli points out, Zevaḥim 22b, there is no pentateuchal verse forbidding service to an uncircumcised priest, but there is one in Ezechiel, 44:9, which forbids entry to the Temple domain to any uncircumcised person, including a hemophiliac who may not be circumcised., impure203Lev. 22:2–3., sitting204Since the verses never permit any action in sitting, and the priests are required to be barefoot, no service is possible unless the priest is standing with his feet in direct contact with the floor of the Temple court, the Temple interior, or the altar., standing on utensils, on [an animal, on] another person205Meaning that another priest puts his hands under the feet of the officiating priest. Then he is not in contact with the floor., disqualified it.” The Southerners say, we hold this for those impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease206They read the expression “impurity of the body” used in the Mishnah to describe what the diadem does not make acceptable as impurity caused by the person’s body (i. e., in addition to skin disease and gonorrhea also sexual activity, Lev. 15:15,18.), but impurity of the dead does not desecrate since it was permitted in case of the impurity of the many for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to the Southerners: Since for the owner, where you clarified to his advantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year207They may send their sacrifices through an agent if they are disabled by impurity., you clarified to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ208He must celebrate the Second Pesaḥ., for the officiant, where you clarified to his disadvantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year209He may never serve being impure., it is only logical that you should clarify to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ. In addition to what Rebbi stated, “the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body.” If you want to say that this refers to the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, you cannot, since we have stated, “if the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss82Impurity buried in the ground which previously was totally unknown and is only recently uncovered. Since it is impossible to guard against this kind of impurity there can be no penalty for “tent impurity” of this kind., the diadem makes acceptable.210Since impurity of the abyss only is caused by a corpse, it is not caused by the person’s body. If it is stated that the diadem makes acceptable in this case, it follows that the diadem is inactive in all cases of known impurity caused by external influences.” What are the Southerners doing with this? They explain if for the owner211The diadem only covers abyss impurity of the owner, but not proven impurity of the dead; one may still read “impurity of the body” as referring to impurity produced by the body.. But did we not state “a nazir”212The only impurity forbidden for the nazir is the impurity of the dead, so in Mishnah 5 the reference must be to this kind of impurity.? They explain it for the officiant. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, there is no difference; it is equal for owner or officiant. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is an argument de minore ad maius that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged177While a person unable to eat the volume of an olive of the Pesaḥ may not subscribe to it, an old or sick priest is able to serve in the Temple as long as his infirmity is not of the kind listed in Lev, 21:18–20., what can you say about the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, this is an argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are indispensable for him213Since Ex. 12:48 notes that no one uncircumcised may eat it [the Pesaḥ], in v. 44, a man’s slave, bought with money, if you circumcise him he may eat it, “he” is read to refer to the owner; the owner may not eat Pesaḥ if there are uncircumcised males in his familia. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 15, dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 35, what can you say about the officiating, for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are not indispensable214Cf. Note 202. An uncircumcised Cohen may not serve; nothing is said about his dependents.. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid.
רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר גּוּפְתָּא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. אִילּוּ יָחִיד בַּפֶּסַח לָמֵד מִן הַצִּיבּוּר בַּפֶּסַח. עוֹבֵד בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה לָמֵד מִן הַצִּיבּוּר בַּפֶּסַח. רִבִּי אִמִּי בָעֵי. הָהֵן טָמֵא מָה אַתְּ עֲבַד לֵיהּ. כְּטָמֵא טוּמְאַת זִיבָה וְטוּמְאַת צָרַעַת. וְהָתַנִּינָן. מְחוּסְּרֵי כַפָּרָה. אָם מִשֶׁטָּבַל הוּא מְחַלֵּל. לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן עַד שֶׁלֹּא טָבַל. הָהֵן טְבוּל יוֹם מַה אַתְּ עָבִיד לֵיהּ. כִּטְבוּל יוֹם מִן הַמֵּת. אִיתָא חֲמִי. טָמֵא מֵת אֵינוֹ מְחַלֵּל. לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן טְבוּל יוֹם מִן הַמֵּת. אֶלָּא טְבוּל יוֹם מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ. אִיתָא חֲמִי. טְבוּל יוֹם מִן הַמֵּת אֵינוֹ מְחַלֵּל. לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן טְבוּל יוֹם מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יוּדָן. מַגַּעֵי זָבִין. רַבָּנִן דְּקַיְסָרִין פָּֽתְרִין כּוּלָּהּ בְּזָב. טְבוּל יוֹם שֶׁרָאָה אַחַת. טָמֵא (מת) שֶׁרָאָה שְׁתַּיִם. מְחוּסָּר כִּיפּוּרִים שֶׁרָאָה שָׁלשׁ. עַל דָּעְתִּין דִּדְּרוֹמָאיֵי. מַגַּע זָב כְּזָב. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. וְנָשָׂ֨א אַֽהֲרֹ֜ן אֶת־עֲוֹ֣ן הַקֳּדָשִׁ֗ים. עֲוֹן הַקְּרֵיבִין. לֹא עֲוֹן הַמַּקְרִיבִין. מָהוּ עֲוֹן הַקְּרֵיבִין. דַּם זָב. לֹא מַגַּע זָב. וְדִכְווָתָהּ. עֲוֹן הַמַּקְרִיבִין. מַגַּע זָב. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. הָיָה הַצִּיבּוּר מַגַּעֵי זָבִין וּמַגַּעֵי זָבוֹת. אֵינָן עוֹשִׂין בְּטוּמְאָה. Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ215But since the individual must make a Second Pesaḥ which the public never makes, the original argument of R. Simeon ben Laqish is incorrect.. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed216The statement of Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:1 seems redundant.! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal147He is impure, but can become free of impurity by immersion in a miqweh, which will make him pure for sancta at sundown. This kind of impurity does not prevent a person to be counted in a group eating the Pesaḥ in purity; accepting the person in the count of the impure is questionable; Babli 80a, 80b.. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal217And from impurity of a corpse one has to wait for seven days while of a dead crawling animal one may immerse himself immediately.? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea218Who are impure until sundown after immediate immersion in water, Lev. 15:4,7.. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea152A person who suffers a single episode of gonorrhea is impure for the day and can be purified by immersion in a miqweh. If he has two episodes in at most two consecutive days, he is impure for seven days; after seven days in remission he can be purified by immersion in a miqweh. After three episodes he still needs seven days in remission but then is still prohibited sancta unless on the eighth day he brings a couple of birds as sacrifice to the Temple. A sufferer from gonorrhea who is impure for seven days, on the seventh day is a questionable candidate for Pesaḥ since if he suffers another episode he has to start all over again.. “One immersed on this day198Who is no longer impure but barred from sacral acts until sundown; Lev. 22:7.,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead)218*The text in parentheses has to be deleted even though it is confirmed by K. if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement200A person healed from skin disease or gonorrhea who needs not only immersion in water and waiting for sundown but is excluded from sacral rites until be bring a purifying sacrifice, Lev. 14:1–32 for skin disease, 15:14–15 for the sufferer from gonorrhea.,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices97Ex. 28:38. Explained in more detail in the Babli 16b, Yoma 7a, Zevaḥim 23a., the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers98The diadem will not cover deficiencies in either the owners or the officiants of a sacrifice. Babli Zevaḥim 23b.. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea219Since gonorrhea causes impurity only in humans, the impurity cannot be the victim’s.. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it220The only cause for Pesaḥ in impurity is the impurity of the dead. in impurity.