ואין שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ 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.

לרב מאי שנא טבול יום דחזי לאורתא טמא שרץ נמי חזי לאורתא מחוסר טבילה

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.

טבול יום נמי מחוסר הערב שמש שמשא ממילא ערבא

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.

מחוסר כפורים נמי הא מחוסר כפרה שקינו בידו

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.

טמא שרץ נמי הרי מקוה לפניו דילמא פשע אי הכי מחוסר כפורים נמי דילמא פשע כגון דמסרינהו לבית דין

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.

וכדרב שמעיה דאמר חזקה אין בית דין של כהנים עומדין משם עד שיכלו מעות שבשופרות

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.

ולרב מדאורייתא מיחזא חזי ורבנן הוא דגזרו ביה אלמה אמר רב מטמאין אחד מהן בשרץ

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?

אלא לרב מדאורייתא נמי לא חזי דכתיב איש איש כי יהיה טמא לנפש מי לא עסקינן שחל שביעי שלו להיות בערב הפסח דהיינו טומאת שרץ ואמר רחמנא נידחי

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.

וכי תימא ממאי דהכי

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.

סבר לה כרבי יצחק דאמר טמאי מת מצוה היו שחל שביעי שלהן להיות בערב הפסח שנאמר ולא יכלו לעשת הפסח ביום ההוא ביום ההוא הוא דאינן יכולין לעשות אבל למחר יכולין לעשות ואמר רחמנא נדחו

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.

תנן זב שראה שתי ראיות שוחטין עליו בשביעי מאי לאו דלא טביל ושמע מינה שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ

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?

לא דטביל אי טביל מאי קא משמע לן הא קא משמע לן דאף על גב דמחוסר הערב השמש קא משמע לן דשמשא ממילא ערבא

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.

הכי נמי מסתברא מדקתני סיפא ראה שלש ראיות שוחטין עליו בשמיני אי אמרת בשלמא זב שראה שתי ראיות שוחטין עליו בשביעי דטביל איצטריך

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:

סלקא דעתך אמינא ראה שתי ראיות בשביעי הוא דלא מחוסר מעשה אבל ראה שלש בשמיני דמחוסר מעשה מחוסר כפרה לא קא משמע לן דאף על גב דמחוסר כפרה שוחטין וזורקין עילויה

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.

אלא אי אמרת ראה שתי ראיות בשביעי דלא טביל ראה שלש בשמיני למה לי

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:

השתא יש לומר ראה שתי ראיות בשביעי דלא טביל דטמא מעליא הוא שחטינן וזרקינן עילויה ראה שלש בשמיני דטביל ליה בשביעי דקלישא טומאה לא כל שכן דשחטינן וזרקינן עילויה

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.

אלא לאו שמע מינה ראה שתי ראיות בשביעי דשחטינן עילויה דטביל

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?

לא לעולם אימא לך דלא טביל ואיצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא בשביעי הוא דבידו לתקן

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.

אבל בשמיני דאין בידו להקריב קרבן אימא פשעי ביה כהנים קא משמע לן כדרב שמעיה:

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.

והזבה שוחטין וכו׳: תני תנא קמיה דרב אדא בר אהבה והזבה שוחטין עליה בשביעי שלה אמר ליה זבה בשביעי שלה מי חזיא אפילו למאן דאמר שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ הני מילי טמא שרץ דחזי לאורתא הא עד למחר דמתיא כפרה לא חזיא אימא 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.

פשיטא מהו דתימא כיון דמחסרא כפרה לא קא משמע לן כדרב שמעיה

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.

רבינא אמר נדה תנא קמיה והנדה שוחטין עליה בשביעי

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.

אמר ליה נדה בשביעי מי חזיא אפילו למאן דאמר שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ דחזי לאורתא נדה לאורתא דשביעי הוא דטבלה עד שמיני דעבדה הערב שמש לא חזיא אלא אימא 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.

פשיטא השתא ומה זבה דמיחסרא כפרה שוחטין וזורקין עליה בשמיני נדה דלא מיחסרא כפרה צריכה למימר דשחטינן וזרקינן עלה

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?

נדה איצטריכא ליה הא קא משמע לן בשמיני אין בשביעי לא כדתניא כל חייבי טבילות טבילתן ביום 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.

דתניא יכול תהא טובלת מבעוד יום תלמוד לומר שבעת ימים תהיה בנדתה תהא בנדתה כל שבעה ויולדת איתקש לנדה:

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).

מתני׳ האונן

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