Pesachim 80aפסחים פ׳ א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Pesachim 80a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
80aפ׳ א

לא תוכל לזבח את הפסח באחד שעריך

“You may not sacrifice the Paschal lamb in any one of your cities” (Deuteronomy 16:5). Rabbi Elazar ben Matya derived from the expression “in any one” that one person cannot be the determining factor in whether the community sacrifices the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual purity or impurity.

רבי שמעון אומר אפילו שבט אחד טמא ושאר כל השבטים טהורים הללו עושין לעצמן והללו עושין לעצמן מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון קסבר שבט אחד איקרי קהל

Rabbi Shimon says: Even if one tribe is ritually impure and all the rest of the tribes are pure, those tribes who are ritually pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of purity, and those members of the tribe that is impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara answers: He holds that one tribe is called a community, and a community may sacrifice the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity.

רבי יהודה אומר אפילו שבט אחד טמא ושאר כל השבטים טהורין יעשו בטומאה שאין קרבן ציבור חלוק רבי יהודה סבר שבט אחד איקרי קהל והוו להו פלגא ופלגא ואין קרבן ציבור חלוק ועבדי כולהו בטומאה

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if one tribe is impure and all the rest of the tribes are pure, all the tribes may perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity, as a communal offering is not divided. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one tribe is called a community, and since an entire community is impure, it is considered as though half the Jewish people were pure and half were impure. And a communal offering is not divided. Therefore, all of them may perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity.

איתמר היו ישראל מחצה טהורין ומחצה טמאין אמר רב מטמאין אחד מהן בשרץ

It was stated that the amora’im disputed the following issue: If the Jewish people were divided, and exactly half were pure and half were impure, Rav said: They render impure one of those who was pure with a creeping animal. The majority of the people will then be ritually impure and they may all sacrifice the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity.

ואמאי ניעבדו הני לחודייהו והני לחודייהו דהא אמר רב הללו עושין לעצמן והללו עושין לעצמן אמרי הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהיו טמאין עודפין על הטהורין אחד

The Gemara asks: Why do so? Let those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on their own in a state of purity and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on their own in a state of impurity. Didn’t Rav himself say: If half the community is ritually pure and half is ritually impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves? Say in answer to this question: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a unique circumstance where the ritually impure outnumbered the ritually pure by one person.

אי הכי הוו להו רובא טמאים ניעבדו כולהו בטומאה סבר לה כרבי אלעזר בן מתיא דאמר אין היחיד מכריע את הציבור לטומאה אי הכי הדר קושיין לדוכתיה ניעבדו הני לחודייהו והני לחודייהו

The Gemara challenges this answer: If so, the majority of the community is impure. Therefore, let them all perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity. The Gemara answers: Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Matya, who said: An individual cannot tip the balance of the community toward ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: If so, our question has returned to its place. If this situation is considered half and half, let those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on their own in a state of purity and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on their own in a state of impurity.

אלא הכי קאמר אי איכא תנא דסבר לה כתנא קמא דאמר פלגא ופלגא לא עבדי כולהו בטומאה וסבר לה כרבי יהודה דאמר אין קרבן ציבור חלוק מטמאין אחד מהן בשרץ

Rather, this is what Rav said: If there is a tanna who holds in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who said that in a case where half the community is pure and half is impure, they do not all perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity, and also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a communal offering is not divided, there is no way to solve the problem other than to render impure one of those who were pure with a creeping animal.

ועולא אמר משלחין אחד מהן לדרך רחוקה ויטמאנו בשרץ

And Ulla said: They do not render one of them impure with a creeping animal. Rather, they send one of them who is pure to a distant place, so that the majority of the community that is present at the Temple will be ritually impure, and they will all sacrifice the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity. The Gemara suggests: Let them render him impure with a creeping animal as Rav said, which is easier to implement.

קסבר שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ

The Gemara responds: Ulla holds that one may slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood even for someone who is ritually impure from a creeping animal because he can become ritually pure by the evening and eat from the Paschal lamb. Therefore, rendering someone impure with a creeping animal does not disqualify him from participating in the Paschal lamb in a state of purity.

ויטמאנו במת מדחהו אתה מחגיגתו

The Gemara suggests: Let them render him impure with a corpse, which causes ritual impurity for seven days. The Gemara responds that this solution is not implemented because you would defer him from his Festival peace-offering. Since he would be impure for the entire Festival, he would be unable to sacrifice a Festival peace-offering, which is the peace-offering brought by each person who visits the Temple on the Festival. He would needlessly be prevented from performing a mitzva.

השתא נמי מדחהו אתה מפסחו אפשר דעביד בשני

The Gemara challenges this response: Now, too, by sending one pure person to a distant place, you disqualify him from sacrificing his Paschal lamb and prevent him from performing a mitzva. The Gemara answers: His sacrifice of the Paschal lamb will not necessarily be totally disqualified. It is possible that he will perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ.

במת נמי אפשר דעביד בשביעי דהוה ליה שמיני שלו

The Gemara challenges this response: With regard to ritual impurity from a corpse also, it is possible that he will perform the ritual of the Festival peace-offering on the seventh day of Passover, which is his eighth day of ritual impurity, since he became impure on the eve of Passover. He can become ritually pure by the seventh day and still sacrifice a Festival peace-offering.

קסבר עולא כולהו תשלומין דראשון נינהו דחזי בראשון חזי בכולהו וכל היכא דלא חזי בראשון לא חזי בכולהו

The Gemara answers: Ulla holds that all the days of the Festival on which one may sacrifice a Festival peace-offering are redress for what one was obligated but unable to bring on the first day. Therefore, one who is fit to bring the offering on the first day is fit on all of them, and whenever one is not fit on the first day, he is not fit on all of them. Consequently, one who is impure on the first day of the Festival is unable to sacrifice a Festival peace-offering the rest of the Festival.

אמר להו רב נחמן זילו ואמרו ליה לעולא מאן ציית דעקר סיכיה ומשכניה ורהיט

Rav Naḥman said to the students: Go and say to Ulla that his solution is not practical. Who will listen to uproot his pegs and tent and run to a distant place?

איתמר היו רובן זבין ומיעוטן טמאי מתים אמר רב אותן טמאי מתים אינן עושין לא בראשון ולא בשני

It was stated that the amora’im discussed the following matter: If the majority of the public were zavim and a minority of them were ritually impure from impurity imparted by a corpse, what should they do? The halakha is that even if the majority of the public has the status of zavim, they may not sacrifice the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity. Rav said: Those who are impure from impurity imparted by a corpse do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ or on the second Pesaḥ.

ראשון לא עבדי דהוו מיעוטא ומיעוטא לא עבדי בראשון בשני נמי לא עבדי כל היכא דעבדי ציבור בראשון עביד יחיד בשני כל היכא דלא עבדי ציבור בראשון לא עביד יחיד בשני

Rav explains: On the first Pesaḥ they do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because they are the minority, and the minority may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ in a state of impurity. On the second Pesaḥ, they also do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb because whenever the community performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ, the individual performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second. Conversely, whenever the community does not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ, the individual does not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ.

אמר להו שמואל זילו אמרו ליה לאבא ויעשו בני ישראל את הפסח במועדו מאי עבדת ליה אמר להו זילו אמרו ליה כי הוו כולהו זבין מאי עבדת ליה אלא כיון דלא אפשר לא אפשר הכא נמי לא אפשר

Shmuel said to those who informed him of Rav’s ruling: Go and say to Rav, whose first name was Abba: What do you do with the following verse: “Let the children of Israel offer the Paschal lamb in its appointed time” (Numbers 9:2)? Rav said to those who transmitted Shmuel’s objection: Go and say to him: When they are all zavim, what do you do? Rather, you are forced to say that since it is impossible to fulfill the mitzva, it is impossible. Here, too, it is impossible.

איתמר היו רובן טמאי מתים ומיעוטן זבין

It was stated that the amora’im discussed the following matter: The majority of the public were ritually impure from impurity imparted by a corpse on the first Pesaḥ, so that the Paschal lamb is sacrificed in a state of impurity, and a minority of them were zavim, whose impurity does not permit them to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ.

רב הונא אמר אין תשלומין לפסח הבא בטומאה ורב אדא בר אהבה אמר יש תשלומין לפסח הבא בטומאה

In a case where the zavim became pure in time for the second Pesaḥ, Rav Huna said: There is no redress for a Paschal lamb that is brought in ritual impurity. Since the Paschal lamb was sacrificed in a state of impurity on the first Pesaḥ, it cannot be sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ that year. And Rav Adda bar Ahava said: There is redress for a Paschal lamb that is brought in a state of impurity. Therefore, one who was unable to participate when the public sacrificed the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity may still bring the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ.

נימא בהא קמיפלגי דמאן דאמר אין תשלומין לפסח הבא בטומאה קסבר טומאה דחויה היא בציבור

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about the following: Rav Huna, the one who said there is no redress for a Paschal lamb that is brought in a state of impurity, holds that ritual impurity is merely overridden in cases involving the public. It is not fully permitted. Therefore, although those who are impure are deferred to the second Pesaḥ when the Paschal lamb is brought in a state of purity, there is no indication that the same is true when it is brought on the first Pesaḥ in a state of impurity.

ומאן דאמר יש תשלומין לפסח הבא בטומאה קסבר טומאה הותרה בציבור

Conversely, Rav Adda bar Ahava, the one who said there is redress for a Paschal lamb that is brought in ritual impurity, holds that ritual impurity is wholly permitted in cases involving the public. Therefore, it is considered as though the Paschal lamb were sacrificed on the first Pesaḥ in a state of purity, and those who were unable to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ sacrifice it on the second Pesaḥ.

אמרי לא דכולי עלמא טומאה דחויה בציבור ובהא פליגי מר סבר

Say: No, it is unnecessary to accept this assumption. It is possible that everyone agrees that ritual impurity is overridden in cases involving the public, and they disagree about this other issue: This Master, Rav Huna, who said there is no redress, holds: