אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁהוּתְּרָה לוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם! is it not right that impurity of the deep is permitted for him completely, even if there are other priests who are ritually pure?
אָמְרִי: וּמִי דָּיְינִינַן קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵהֲלָכָה? וְהָתַנְיָא, אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: עֲקִיבָא, עֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה הֲלָכָה, רְבִיעִית דָּם קַל וְחוֹמֶר, וְאֵין דָּנִין קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵהֲלָכָה! Say in refutation of this proof: And do we derive an a fortiori inference from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, such as the halakha of ritual impurity of the deep? Wasn’t the following taught in a baraita? Rabbi Akiva employed an a fortiori inference to derive that a nazirite must shave if he touches or carries blood, just as he must shave if he touches or carries a bone from a corpse, and Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva, a bone the size of a grain of barley is able to transmit ritual impurity due to a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and you want to derive that the same is true of a quarter-log of blood on the basis of an a fortiori inference, and one may not derive an a fortiori inference from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: יָלֵיף ״מוֹעֲדוֹ״ ״מוֹעֲדוֹ״ מִפֶּסַח. Rather, Rava said: It is derived on the basis of a verbal analogy of the expressions “its appointed time” (Numbers 9:13) stated with regard to the Paschal lamb, and “its appointed time” (Numbers 28:2) stated with regard to the daily offering. Since the Torah uses this expression in both cases, the halakha with regard to the daily offering can be derived from the halakha in the case of the Paschal lamb: Just as impurity of the deep is permitted with regard to the Paschal lamb, it is permitted with regard to the daily offering.
וְטוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם גּוּפָא הֵיכָא כְּתִיבָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִי יָמוּת מֵת עָלָיו״ — בִּמְחֻוֶּורֶת עָלָיו. The Gemara asks: And with regard to impurity of the deep itself, which is permitted in the cases of a nazirite and one who sacrifices the Paschal lamb, due to the fact that the frontplate appeases God for the impurity, where is it written? Rabbi Elazar said that the verse states with regard to a nazirite: “And if any man shall die very suddenly beside him” (Numbers 6:9). The emphasis provided by the expression “beside him” indicates that it is clear to him that he has become impure. However, one is not impure if the presence of the corpse is unknown.
אַשְׁכְּחַן נָזִיר. עוֹשֵׂה פֶסַח מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אָמַר קְרָא: ״בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה לָכֶם״ — בִּמְחֻוֶּורֶת לָכֶם. The Gemara asks: We found a source for impurity of the deep with regard to a nazirite; from where do we derive that impurity of the deep is also permitted with regard to one who performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb? Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the verse states: “Any man of you [lakhem] who shall be ritually impure due to a corpse or on a road far away” (Numbers 9:10). The term lakhem is interpreted as indicating that the impurity must be clear to you [lakhem]. However, any ritual impurity that is not clearly identified does not render one who wishes to sacrifice the Paschal lamb impure.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כְּדֶרֶךְ. מָה דֶּרֶךְ — בְּגָלוּי, אַף טוּמְאָה נָמֵי — בְּגָלוּי. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: This halakha may be derived in a different way, from the word “road,” which is juxtaposed in the verse to the phrase “ritually impure.” This indicates that the impurity is like a road. Just as a road is in the open, so too, the impurity is in the open.
מֵיתִיבִי: אֵי זֶהוּ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם? כׇּל שֶׁלֹּא הִכִּיר בָּהּ אֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם. הִכִּיר בָּהּ אֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם — אֵין זֶה טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם. לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר: בִּמְחֻוֶּורֶת עָלָיו — עַד דְּיָדַע הוּא. The Gemara raises an objection to these derivations from that which was taught in the following baraita: Which is the impurity of the deep that was permitted for both a nazirite and one who sacrifices the Paschal lamb? It is impurity imparted by any corpse of which no one is aware, even at the end of the earth; but if even one person is aware of it, even at the end of the earth, this is not impurity of the deep. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said that the expression “beside him” indicates that the impurity must be clear to him, it would be considered impurity of the deep until he knew about it; it would not be enough for some other person to be aware of the corpse.
לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר: ״לָכֶם״, בִּמְחֻוֶּורֶת לָכֶם — עַד דְּיָדְעִי בַּהּ תְּרֵין. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that the halakha is derived from the term lakhem, which teaches that it must be clear to you, it is considered impurity of the deep until two people know about it, as the word lakhem is plural.
לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר: כְּדֶרֶךְ — עַד דְּיָדְעִי כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said that the impurity must be like a road, it is impurity of the deep until the entire world knows about it.
אֶלָּא, טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ, וּקְרָא — אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא. Rather, one must conclude that the previous sources cited are insufficient and say that they learned the principle of impurity of the deep as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the verse that the amora’im quoted is a mere support for the halakha and not its actual source.
אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנּוֹדַע לוֹ לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה, דְּכִי אִזְדְּרִיק דָּם — שַׁפִּיר אִיזְדְּרִיק, אֲבָל נוֹדַע לוֹ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה — לֹא מְרַצֶּה. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: They taught that the frontplate appeases God for impurity of the deep with regard to a nazirite and one bringing the Paschal lamb only when the fact that he is impure became known to him after the sprinkling of the blood of the offering, as when the blood was sprinkled, it was sprinkled well, because the impurity of the one bringing the offering was unknown. However, if his impurity was known to him before the sprinkling of the blood, the frontplate does not appease God.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַמּוֹצֵא מֵת מוּשְׁכָּב לְרׇחְבּוֹ שֶׁל דֶּרֶךְ, לִתְרוּמָה — טָמֵא. לְנָזִיר וְעוֹשֵׂה פֶסַח — טָהוֹר. וְכׇל טָמֵא וְטָהוֹר — לְהַבָּא הוּא. The Gemara raises an objection based on the following baraita: In the case of one who finds a corpse lying across the width of a road, meaning that it had been buried there in such a way that it was impossible that the passerby could have avoided becoming impure by touching, moving, or passing over the corpse, then with regard to teruma, the passerby is impure. Therefore, if he is a priest, he may not eat teruma. However, with regard to both a nazirite and one performing the ritual of the Paschal lamb, the passerby is pure because the frontplate appeases God for impurity of the deep in these cases. And any time it says: Impure, and: Pure, it is for the future. These terms indicate a halakhic ruling that may be followed ab initio and not just as a leniency after the fact, if the blood of the offering was already sprinkled.
אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר, הָכִי אִיתְּמַר: אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: לָא תֵּימָא נוֹדַע לוֹ לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה הוּא דִּמְרַצֶּה, אֲבָל נוֹדַע לוֹ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה — לֹא מְרַצֶּה, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ נוֹדַע לוֹ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה — מְרַצֶּה. Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Do not say that it is only when it became known to him after the sprinkling of the blood that the frontplate appeases God, but if it became known to him before the sprinkling it does not appease God. Rather, even if it became known to him before the sprinkling, the frontplate appeases God because impurity of the deep is insignificant with regard to both the Paschal lamb and a nazirite.
גּוּפָא. הַמּוֹצֵא מֵת מוּשְׁכָּב לְרׇחְבּוֹ שֶׁל דֶּרֶךְ, לִתְרוּמָה — טָמֵא, לְנָזִיר וְעוֹשֵׂה פֶסַח — טָהוֹר. Since the Gemara quoted a baraita with regard to impurity of the deep, it returns to discuss the matter itself. In the case of one who finds a corpse lying across the width of the road, with regard to teruma he is impure, and with regard to a nazirite and one who performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb he is pure.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מָקוֹם לַעֲבוֹר. אֲבָל יֵשׁ מָקוֹם לַעֲבוֹר — אַף לִתְרוּמָה טָהוֹר. In what case is this statement, that the person is considered impure with regard to teruma, said? It is said in a case where he does not have space to pass by on the road without passing over the corpse. However, if there is space to pass by, even for the purposes of teruma he is pure. There is a principle that if a doubt arises concerning the ritual purity of a person or object in the public domain, they are considered pure. In this case, there is doubt because it is possible that the passerby did not become ritually impure. Therefore, he is considered pure.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁמְּצָאוֹ שָׁלֵם. אֲבָל מְשׁוּבָּר וּמְפוֹרָק טָהוֹר, שֶׁמָּא בֵּין הַפְּרָקִים עָבַר. וּבַקֶּבֶר, אֲפִילּוּ מְשׁוּבָּר וּמְפוֹרָק טָמֵא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַקֶּבֶר מְצָרְפוֹ. Similarly, in what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where one finds the body whole. However, if it is broken or dismembered, he is pure. One can say that perhaps he passed between the parts of the corpse and did not touch or pass over any of them. However, this applies only when he finds the corpse out in the open; but if he finds it in a grave, even if it is broken or dismembered, he is impure, because the grave joins it into one unit and renders one impure if one passed over any part of the grave, even if he did not pass over part of the corpse.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בִּמְהַלֵּךְ בְּרַגְלָיו, אֲבָל טָעוּן אוֹ רָכוּב — טָמֵא, לְפִי שֶׁמְּהַלֵּךְ בְּרַגְלָיו אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא יִגַּע וְלֹא יַאֲהִיל, אֲבָל טָעוּן אוֹ רָכוּב אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא יִגַּע וְלֹא יַאֲהִיל. In what case is this statement, that if the corpse was dismembered the passerby is pure, said? It is said with regard to a passerby who travels by foot, but if he was loaded with a heavy burden or riding an animal, he is impure. The reason for this is because one who travels by foot, it is possible that he will not touch the corpse and will not pass over it; but one who is loaded with a heavy burden and therefore does not walk in a straight line or someone riding an animal, it is impossible that he will not touch and will not pass over the corpse.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּטוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם, אֲבָל בְּטוּמְאָה יְדוּעָה — טָמֵא: In what case is this statement, that a nazirite and one bringing a Paschal lamb are considered pure, said? It is said with regard to impurity of the deep. However, if the source of impurity was known to some but not to the individual who became impure, he is nevertheless impure.
וְאֵי זֶה הִיא טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם — כׇּל שֶׁלֹּא הִכִּיר בָּהּ אֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם. אֲבָל הִכִּיר בָּהּ אֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם — אֵין זֶה טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם. The baraita continues: And which corpse is considered impurity of the deep? Any corpse of which no one is aware, even at the end of the earth; but if even one individual is aware of it, even if that individual is at the end of the earth, this is not considered impurity of the deep.
מְצָאוֹ טָמוּן בְּתֶבֶן, בְּעָפָר, וּבִצְרוֹרוֹת — הֲרֵי זֶה טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם. בְּמַיִם, בַּאֲפֵילָה, בִּנְקִיקֵי הַסְּלָעִים — אֵין זֶה טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם. וְלֹא אָמְרוּ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם אֶלָּא לְמֵת בִּלְבַד. In order to ascertain whether anyone ever knew about the corpse, its condition is taken into account. If one finds it hidden in hay or in dirt or in pebbles, and it is possible that the person died in an avalanche, in which case it is likely that the corpse had never been found, this is impurity of the deep. But if he finds it in water, or in a dark place, or in the clefts of the rocks, this is not impurity of the deep. Although these are places where people do not often go, with the passage of time the corpse is likely to be discovered, and it is quite possible that someone already passed by and saw it. And they said the leniency of impurity of the deep only with regard to a corpse, but not with regard to other sources of ritual impurity.
מַתְנִי׳ נִטְמָא שָׁלֵם אוֹ רוּבּוֹ — שׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי הַבִּירָה מֵעֲצֵי הַמַּעֲרָכָה. נִטְמָא מִיעוּטוֹ וְהַנּוֹתָר — שׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתוֹ בְּחַצְרוֹתֵיהֶן אוֹ עַל גַּגּוֹתֵיהֶן מֵעֲצֵי עַצְמָן. הַצִּיקָנִין שׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי הַבִּירָה בִּשְׁבִיל לֵיהָנוֹת מֵעֲצֵי הַמַּעֲרָכָה. MISHNA: If the whole Paschal lamb or most of it became ritually impure, one burns it before the Temple [habira] with wood from the arrangement of wood on the altar that was given to the owners of the Paschal lamb for this purpose. If a minority of it became impure, and similarly, with regard to the parts of the Paschal lamb that are leftover, which must be burned, the owners of the Paschal lamb burn it in their courtyards or on their roofs, with their own wood. Only the miserly, who want to save the expenditure of wood, burn it before the Temple in order to benefit from the wood of the arrangement.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: כְּדֵי לְבַיְּישָׁן. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Paschal lamb must be burned before the Temple and that those who prefer to burn it elsewhere are not permitted to do so? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: In order to embarrass them. Presumably, the reason that most of the offering became impure is because the owners were not sufficiently careful with it. Therefore, the Sages decreed that it be burned in a public place.
נִטְמָא מִיעוּטוֹ וְכוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ וְכֵן מִי שֶׁיָּצָא מִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר קֹדֶשׁ, אִם עָבַר צוֹפִים — שׂוֹרְפוֹ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ, וְאִם לָאו — It was stated in the mishna that if a minority of it became ritually impure, and similarly, if part of it was left over, it is burned in the owners’ courtyards with their own wood. The Gemara raises a contradiction based on what was taught in a different mishna: And similarly, with regard to one who left Jerusalem and remembers that there is consecrated meat in his hand, which is now disqualified because it has left Jerusalem and must therefore be burned, if he passed Mount Scopus, he burns the meat at the site where he is located, and he need not return to burn it in Jerusalem; and if he has not yet passed Mount Scopus,