## Pesachim Daf 67a

###### Pesachim 67a:1
[Pesachim 67a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/67a:1)

אֶלָּא יֵשׁ לְךָ שָׁעָה שֶׁזָּבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין וְאֵין טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין, וְאֵיזֶה זֶה — פֶּסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it teaches you that **you have a time when *zavin* and lepers are sent out** from the camp, **but those who are ritually impure due to** contact with **a corpse are not sent out. And what is this** time? When **a Paschal lamb is brought in impurity,** when those impure due to contact with a corpse are permitted to participate, but a *zav* and a leper may not. From here we learn that when most of the nation is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, the Paschal lamb is brought anyway in a state of ritual impurity.


###### Pesachim 67a:2
[Pesachim 67a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/67a:2)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, לֵימָא נָמֵי: יֵאָמֵר זָב וּטְמֵאֵי מֵתִים, וְאַל יֵאָמֵר מְצוֹרָע, וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: זָב מִשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, מְצוֹרָע — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן. אֶלָּא: יֵשׁ לְךָ שָׁעָה שֶׁמְּצוֹרָעִין מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין, וְאֵין זָבִין וּטְמֵאֵי מֵתִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין, וְאֵיזֶה זֶה — פֶּסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: If so,** that this is how the verse is to be interpreted, **let us also say** that the verse **should** only **say *zav* and those ritually impure due to a corpse and not say leper, and I** would **say** this law on my own through an *a fortiori* inference: If a ***zav* is sent out,** then with regard to **a leper,** whose ritual impurity is more severe than that of a *zav*, **all the more so** is it **not** clear that he should be sent out? **Rather,** the seemingly unnecessary mention of a leper teaches that **you have a time when** only **lepers are sent out, but *zavin* and those ritually impure due to** contact with **a corpse are not sent out. And what is this** time? When **a Paschal offering is brought in impurity,** when *zavin* and those impure due to contact with a corpse are permitted to participate, but a leper may not.


###### Pesachim 67a:3
[Pesachim 67a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/67a:3)

וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתְנַן: פֶּסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה לֹא יֹאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זָבִים וְזָבוֹת נִדּוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת, וְאִם אָכְלוּ — פְּטוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say that it is** indeed **so** that even a *zav* may participate when the Paschal lamb is brought in a state of impurity, there is a difficulty, for **didn’t we learn** in a mishna: When **a Paschal lamb is brought in** a state of **ritual impurity, *zavim* and *zavot*, menstruating women and women after childbirth,** whose impurity is comparable to that of a *zav*, **may not eat from it; but if they ate, they are exempt** from *karet*. This demonstrates that the verse cannot be explained in accordance with Reish Lakish’s inference.


###### Pesachim 67a:4
[Pesachim 67a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/67a:4)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם מִקְּרָא קַמָּא. אִם כֵּן, נִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה טָמֵא״, ״לָנֶפֶשׁ״ לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye said: Actually,** the law can be derived **from the first verse** quoted by Rabbi Yoḥanan: “Any man who shall be impure by reason of a corpse.” And the derivation should be understood as follows: **If so,** that the verse comes to teach that only an individual can rectify his situation on the second *Pesaḥ*, but not the community, **the Merciful One should have written: “Any man who shall be impure.” Why do I** need the words **“by reason of a corpse”?**


###### Pesachim 67a:5
[Pesachim 67a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/67a:5)

וְכִי תֵּימָא הַאי ״לָנֶפֶשׁ״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא: הַטְּמֵא מֵת הוּא דְּנִדְחֶה לְפֶסַח שֵׁנִי, אֲבָל שְׁאָר טְמֵאִין לָא. וְהָתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל לֹא יְהוּ עוֹשִׂין פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי אֶלָּא טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים וְשֶׁהָיָה בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה, זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין וּבוֹעֲלֵי נִדּוֹת מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״, ״לָנֶפֶשׁ״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that **these** words **“by reason of a corpse” come for this** reason, to teach us that **it is** only **one who is ritually impure due to** contact with **a corpse that is deferred to the second *Pesaḥ* but the rest of those who are impure are not** deferred to the second *Pesaḥ*, there is a difficulty. **For wasn’t it taught** otherwise in the following *baraita*: One **might** have thought that **only those ritually impure due to** contact with **a corpse and those on a distant journey observe the second *Pesaḥ*. From where** do we derive that even ***zavin*, lepers and those who had relations with menstruating women** may participate in the second *Pesaḥ*? **Therefore, the verse states: “Any man,”** to include even people with these types of impurity. If so, **why do I** need the words **“by reason of a corpse” that the Merciful One writes,** as it would seem that they teach us nothing?


###### Pesachim 67a:6
[Pesachim 67a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/67a:6)

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִישׁ נִדְחֶה לְפֶסַח שֵׁנִי, וְאֵין צִיבּוּר נִדְחֶה לְפֶסַח שֵׁנִי, אֶלָּא עָבְדִי בְּטוּמְאָה. וְכִי עָבְדִי צִיבּוּר בְּטוּמְאָה — בִּטְמֵא מֵת, אֲבָל שְׁאָר טוּמְאוֹת — לָא עָבְדִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, this is** what the verse **is saying:** A single **individual** or a group of individuals **are deferred to the second *Pesaḥ*, but the** entire **community** or the majority thereof **is not deferred to the second *Pesaḥ*; rather, they observe** the first *Pesaḥ* **in** a state of **ritual impurity. And when** we say that **the community observes** it **in** a state of **impurity,** that is only when they are **ritually impure due to** contact with **a corpse,** as indicated by the expression “by reason of a corpse,” **but** when they are impure with **other** types of **impurity, they do not observe** it in a state of impurity, even if the majority of the community is impure.


###### Pesachim 67a:7
[Pesachim 67a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/67a:7)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מְצוֹרָע שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְפָנִים מִמְּחִיצָתוֹ פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בָּדָד יֵשֵׁב מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה מוֹשָׁבוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Having cited verses dealing with the requirement to send out the ritually impure from the camp, the Gemara addresses several *halakhot* relevant to that topic. **Rav Ḥisda said: A leper,** who must be sent out from all of the camps including the Israelite camp, **who went in beyond his boundary,** that is, he entered an area that is prohibited to him, **is** nonetheless **exempt** from the punishment of lashes. With regard to the ritually impure, the Torah states: “Both male and female shall you send out, outside the camp shall you send them, and they shall defile not their camps in the midst of which I dwell” (Numbers 5:3), from which we learn that an impure person who enters the camp is liable to receive lashes for having violated the prohibition of “they shall not defile.” A leper, however, is exempt, **as it is stated:** “All the days that the plague shall be in him he shall be impure; he is impure, **he shall dwell in isolation, his dwelling shall be outside the camp”** (Leviticus 13:46).


###### Pesachim 67a:8
[Pesachim 67a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/67a:8)

״בָּדָד יֵשֵׁב״ — לְבַדּוֹ יֵשֵׁב. ״מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה מוֹשָׁבוֹ״, הַכָּתוּב נִתְּקוֹ לַעֲשֵׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that the verse is explicated in the following manner: **“He shall dwell in isolation”** means **he shall dwell alone,** without even the company of others who are impure. **“His dwelling shall be outside the camp”** teaches that **the verse has transmuted** the negative precept **into a positive mitzva.** In other words, the verse establishes that if a leper entered an area that is prohibited to him, he is commanded to leave, and fulfilling this command removes the full force of the prohibition he has already violated. The rule is that lashes are not administered for the violation of a prohibition, if that violation can be rectified by the fulfillment of a positive commandment.


###### Pesachim 67a:9
[Pesachim 67a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/67a:9)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: מְצוֹרָע שֶׁנִּכְנַס לִפְנִים מִמְּחִיצָתוֹ — בְּאַרְבָּעִים. זָבִין וְזָבוֹת שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לִפְנִים מִמְּחִיצָתָן — בְּאַרְבָּעִים. וּטְמֵא מֵת מוּתָּר לִיכָּנֵס לְמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**An objection was raised against** Rav Ḥisda from a *baraita*: **A leper,** who may not even enter the Israelite camp, **who went in beyond his boundary,** is punished **with forty** lashes like one who violates a regular Torah prohibition. Similarly, ***zavin* and *zavot*,** who are prohibited from entering the Levite camp, **who went in beyond their boundaries,** are punished **with forty** lashes. **And one who is ritually impure due to** contact with **a corpse is permitted to enter** even **the Levite camp.**


###### Pesachim 67a:10
[Pesachim 67a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/67a:10)

וְלֹא טְמֵא מֵת בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ מֵת עַצְמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת עַצְמוֹת יוֹסֵף עִמּוֹ״ — ״עִמּוֹ״ בִּמְחִיצָתוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And not only did they say that one who is ritually impure due to a corpse** may enter this area, **but even a corpse itself** may be brought into the Levite camp, **as it is stated: “And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him”** (Exodus 13:19), the words **“with him”** implying that the bones were taken **within his boundary,** i.e., that Joseph’s coffin was found in the same area in which Moses dwelled. Since Moses was a Levite and lived in the Levite camp, it follows that even a corpse may be brought into the Levite camp. In any event, we see from the first clause of the *baraita* that a leper does in fact receive lashes for entering an area prohibited to him, against Rav Ḥisda.


###### Pesachim 67a:11
[Pesachim 67a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/67a:11)

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״בָּדָד יֵשֵׁב״ — לְבַדּוֹ יֵשֵׁב, שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ טְמֵאִין אֲחֵרִים יוֹשְׁבִין עִמּוֹ. יָכוֹל יְהוּ זָבִין וּטְמֵאֵי מֵתִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין לְמַחֲנֶה אַחַת — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא יְטַמְּאוּ אֶת מַחֲנֵיהֶם״, לִיתֵּן מַחֲנֶה לָזֶה וּמַחֲנֶה לָזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This is** a matter that is subject to dispute between ***tanna’im*, for it was taught** in a different *baraita*: **“He shall dwell in isolation”** indicates that **he shall dwell alone,** meaning **that other ritually impure people,** such as *zavin* and those who are ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, **should not dwell with him.** One **might** have thought that ***zavin* and those who are ritually impure due to** contact with **a corpse are sent to one camp,** meaning that the laws governing which camps they may or may not enter are the same for both. **Therefore, the verse states:** “Both male and female shall you send out, outside the camp shall you send them out, **and they shall defile not their camps** in the midst of which I dwell” (Numbers 5:3). The plural term “camps” teaches that there are multiple camps for those who are ritually impure, so that we **give a camp for this one and a camp for that one;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.** Thus, in his opinion, there are three camps: One which a leper may not enter, one which a *zav* may not enter, and one which even someone ritually impure due to contact with a corpse may not enter.


###### Pesachim 67a:12
[Pesachim 67a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/67a:12)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וִישַׁלְּחוּ מִן הַמַּחֲנֶה כׇּל צָרוּעַ וְכׇל זָב וְכֹל טָמֵא לָנֶפֶשׁ״, יֵאָמֵר טְמֵאֵי מֵת וְאַל יֵאָמֵר טְמֵאֵי זָב, וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין, זָבִין — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן. לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר זָב — לִיתֵּן לוֹ מַחֲנֶה שְׁנִיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon says: It is not necessary** to derive this law from the plural term “camps,” for **surely** the verse **says:** “Command the children of Israel **that they send out from the camp any leper and any *zav* and anyone impure by reason of a corpse”** (Numbers 5:2). The verse includes an unnecessary phrase: **Let** the verse **say** only that they are to send out **those who are ritually impure due to a corpse, and not say** anything about **those impure as a *zav*, and I** would **say** on my own that a *zav* is obviously included in this law: **If those ritually impure due to a corpse are sent out** from the camp, **all the more so** is it **not** clear that ***zavin*** should be sent out? If so, **why is a *zav* stated? To give him a second camp,** that is, to teach us that the law governing a *zav* is more severe than the law relating to one who is impure due to a corpse and there is an additional camp that he may not enter.


###### Pesachim 67a:13
[Pesachim 67a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/67a:13)

וְיֵאָמֵר זָב וְאַל יֵאָמֵר מְצוֹרָע, וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: זָבִין מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין, מְצוֹרָעִין לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר מְצוֹרָע — לִיתֵּן לוֹ מַחֲנֶה שְׁלִישִׁית, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״בָּדָד יֵשֵׁב״ — הַכָּתוּב נִתְּקוֹ לַעֲשֵׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And furthermore: **Let** the verse **say** only that they are to send out a ***zav*, and not say** anything about **a leper, and I** would **say** on my own that a leper is obviously included in this law as well: If ***zavin* are sent out, all the more so** is it **not** clear that **lepers** should be sent out? **Why** then **is a leper stated? To give him a third camp** that he may not enter. **When** the verse **says** with regard to a leper: **“He shall dwell alone,” the verse has transmuted** the negative precept **into a positive command.** This teaches us that a leper who enters a camp that is prohibited to him does not receive lashes for his violation of a negative commandment, which is consistent with the ruling of Rav Ḥisda.


###### Pesachim 67a:14
[Pesachim 67a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/67a:14)

מַאי חוּמְרֵיהּ דְּזָב מִטְּמֵא מֵת? שֶׁכֵּן טוּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ. אַדְּרַבָּה: טְמֵא מֵת חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן טָעוּן הַזָּאָה שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: We see from the discussion cited above that it was clear to Rabbi Shimon that the impurity of a *zav* is more severe than that of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, and that the impurity of a leper is even more severe than that of a *zav*. **What is the stringency of a *zav* over one who is ritually impure due to a corpse? That** the **impurity** of the *zav* **issues out upon him from his** own **body,** rather than coming from an external source, as is the case when impurity is contracted from a corpse. But **on the contrary,** it may be argued that the legal status of **one who is ritually impure due to a corpse is more severe, as he requires sprinkling** of the purifying waters on the **third and seventh** days of his purification process, whereas a *zav*, who is also impure for seven days, does not require such sprinkling.


###### Pesachim 67a:15
[Pesachim 67a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/67a:15)

אָמַר קְרָא ״טָמֵא״ ״וְכֹל טָמֵא״, לְרַבּוֹת טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ. וְזָב חָמוּר מִטְּמֵא שֶׁרֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Therefore, **the verse states** not just **“impure”** but **“and anyone impure.”** The additional words come **to include one who is ritually impure due to** contact with **a creeping animal.** He, too, is sent out from the camp like one who is impure due to contact with a corpse, **and** it is clear that the legal status of **a *zav* is more severe than one who is ritually impure due to** contact with **a creeping animal.**


###### Pesachim 67a:16
[Pesachim 67a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/67a:16)

וּמַאי חוּמְרֵיהּ? כְּדַאֲמַרַן. אַדְּרַבָּה: שֶׁרֶץ חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן מְטַמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס! אָמְרִי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is his stringency?** In what way is a *zav* more stringent than one who has contracted ritual impurity from a creeping animal? The Gemara answers: **As we have said,** that his impurity issues out upon him from his own body, unlike one who has contracted impurity from a creeping animal. But **on the contrary,** it is possible to say that the legal status **a creeping animal is** more **severe, for it imparts ritual impurity** even **through an accident.** A *zav* only becomes impure when it is clear that his discharge did not result from sickness or some other accident, but a person who comes into contact with a creeping animal contracts ritual impurity regardless of the circumstances of that contact. **They say** in answer to this question: