## Pesachim Daf 81a

###### Pesachim 81a:1
[Pesachim 81a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/81a:1)

בַּשֵּׁנִי שֶׁלָּהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאֲתָה — אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת, וּפְטוּרָה מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**on her second** day, after she immersed in a ritual bath. At that point, it is unclear whether she will remain clean of discharges for the remainder of the day, in which case she was pure from the time she immersed and may eat the Paschal lamb at night, or whether she will experience a discharge of blood during the day, in which case her immersion is retroactively invalid and she was impure the entire time. **And after that, she saw** blood, thus retroactively clarifying that at the time the Paschal lamb was slaughtered she was unfit to participate in it. The *halakha* is that **she may not eat** from the Paschal lamb due to her ritual impurity, **but she is exempt from performing** the ritual of **the second *Pesaḥ*.**


###### Pesachim 81a:2
[Pesachim 81a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/81a:2)

מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דִּמְרַצֶּה צִיץ? אָמְרִי: לָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא הִיא מְטַמְּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is the reason** that she is exempt from the second *Pesaḥ*? **Is it not because the frontplate appeases** God, and therefore her first Paschal lamb was valid? Consequently, it is clear that the frontplate does appease God for uncertain ritual impurity related to the discharge of a *zava*. **Say** in refutation of this proof: **No,** this is not the reason. Rather, it is **because Rabbi Yosei holds** that **she renders** objects **impure from now and onward.** When a woman who keeps watch a day for a day experiences another discharge on the second day after she immersed in a ritual bath, she is not retroactively considered to have been impure the entire time; rather, she begins a new period of impurity from the time of her second discharge. Therefore, when the Paschal lamb was slaughtered on her behalf, she was ritually pure.


###### Pesachim 81a:3
[Pesachim 81a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/81a:3)

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: זָב בַּעַל שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וְזָרְקוּ עָלָיו בַּשְּׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאָה, וְכֵן שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וְזָרְקוּ עָלֶיהָ בַּשֵּׁנִי שֶׁלָּהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאֲתָה — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְטַמְּאִין מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב לְמַפְרֵעַ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this refutation: **Wasn’t** the following **taught** in a *baraita*? **Rabbi Yosei says:** With regard to **a *zav* who has had two sightings** of discharge **for whom they slaughtered** a Paschal lamb **and sprinkled** its blood **on his seventh** day, after he immersed in a ritual bath, **and subsequently** on that same day **he saw** an additional discharge, which makes him ritually impure for another seven days; **and similarly,** with regard to **a woman who keeps watch a day for a day for whom they slaughtered** a Paschal lamb **and sprinkled** its blood **on her second** day after she immersed in a ritual bath, **and subsequently she saw** an additional discharge on that same day; **these** *zavim* **render** objects designed for **lying and sitting impure retroactively.** Once they experience an additional discharge, any object designed for lying or sitting upon which the *zav* or *zava* leaned between his or her immersion and the new discharge is considered to be retroactively impure from the time he or she leaned on it.


###### Pesachim 81a:4
[Pesachim 81a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/81a:4)

וּפְטוּרִים מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, **they are exempt from performing** the ritual of **the second *Pesaḥ*.** This is proof that Rabbi Yosei holds that their ritual impurity is retroactive. Therefore, at the time the Paschal lamb is slaughtered, it is uncertain whether they are ritually pure or impure, because if they have another discharge before the end of the day, they are retroactively considered to have been impure the entire time. From the fact that they are exempt from the second *Pesaḥ* even if it turns out that they were ritually impure, it appears that the frontplate does appease God for uncertain ritual impurity due to the discharge of a *zava*.


###### Pesachim 81a:5
[Pesachim 81a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/81a:5)

אָמְרִי: מַאי, לְמַפְרֵעַ — מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds to this attempted proof. **Say: What** is the meaning of Rabbi Yosei’s statement that the ritual impurity applies **retroactively?** It means that the ritual impurity applies by **rabbinic** decree. However, according to Torah law, the *zav* or *zava* is impure only from the time of the new sighting and onward.


###### Pesachim 81a:6
[Pesachim 81a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/81a:6)

וְאַף רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא סָבַר מְטַמֵּא לְמַפְרֵעַ מִדְּרַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אוֹמֵר: אֲבָל זָב שֶׁרָאָה בַּשְּׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ — סוֹתֵר אֶת שֶׁלְּפָנָיו. וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא יִסְתּוֹר אֶלָּא יוֹמוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara points out that **even Rabbi Oshaya holds** that, according to Rabbi Yosei, a *zav* or *zava* **renders** objects designed for sitting or lying **impure retroactively** only by **rabbinic** decree in these circumstances. **As it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Oshaya says: But** with regard to **a *zav* who saw** a discharge **on his seventh** day, **it cancels** the clean days **that preceded it. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: It should cancel only its day,** i.e., the day on which he experienced the discharge, and he should require only one additional clean day.


###### Pesachim 81a:7
[Pesachim 81a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/81a:7)

מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ: אִי קָסָבַר לְמַפְרֵעַ הוּא מְטַמֵּא — אֲפִילּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ נִסְתּוֹר. אִי קָסָבַר מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא הוּא מְטַמֵּא — יוֹמוֹ נָמֵי לָא נִסְתּוֹר! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: לֹא יִסְתּוֹר וְלֹא יוֹמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara expresses surprise: **Whichever way you** look at Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, it is difficult: **If he holds** that that the *zav* **renders** objects **impure retroactively,** the new discharge **should cancel all** the days. Conversely, **if he holds** that the *zav* **renders** objects **impure from now and onward, it should not cancel even its own day.** Since part of the seventh day was clean, the *zav* is considered to have successfully completed his seven clean days, and the new discharge renders him impure for only one day. **Rather, say instead** that Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: **It should not cancel even its own day.**


###### Pesachim 81a:8
[Pesachim 81a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/81a:8)

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי קָאֵי כְּווֹתָךְ. וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מְטַמְּאִין מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב לְמַפְרֵעַ! אֶלָּא לָאו, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מְטַמֵּא לְמַפְרֵעַ מִדְּרַבָּנַן. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rabbi Oshaya **said to him:** I do not agree with you, but know that **Rabbi Yosei,** who exempts one in this circumstance from the second *Pesaḥ*, **holds in accordance with your** opinion. The Gemara analyses Rabbi Oshaya’s statement: **But didn’t Rabbi Yosei say** that **they render** objects designed for **lying and sitting impure retroactively,** whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that they render these items impure only from the time of the new discharge and onward? **Rather,** must one **not conclude from this that** when Rabbi Yosei said **he renders** these items **impure retroactively,** he meant that this ruling is **due to rabbinic** decree and is not Torah law? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **conclude from this.**


###### Pesachim 81a:9
[Pesachim 81a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/81a:9)

וּלְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא הוּא מְטַמֵּא [לְמֵת] בִּלְבַד, לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to its discussion of whether the leniency of impurity of the deep applies to priests and Rava’s attempt to prove that it does, based upon Rabbi Ḥiyya’s statement that impurity of the deep is permitted only with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. The Gemara asks: **According to Rabbi Yosei, now that he said** that a *zav* who immersed and then saw an additional discharge **renders** items **impure** only **from now and onward** according to Torah law, and not retroactively, Rabbi Ḥiyya’s statement that the leniency of impurity of the deep applies **only to** ritual impurity imparted by **a corpse** was stated **to exclude what** other case? Rabbi Ḥiyya could not have been excluding impurity due to the discharge of a *zav* or *zava*, as suggested above, because their offerings are valid even without the frontplate placating God.


###### Pesachim 81a:10
[Pesachim 81a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/81a:10)

נִפְשׁוֹט מִינַּהּ, דִּבְכֹהֵן וְהוּתְרָה לוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Let us resolve** the dilemma **from this** statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya, as it must come to exclude impurity from a creeping animal. If so, it must be referring to **a priest, and impurity of the deep is permitted for him.**


###### Pesachim 81a:11
[Pesachim 81a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/81a:11)

אָמְרִי: לְעוֹלָם בִּבְעָלִים וּבְפֶסַח, וְקָסָבַר: אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵאֵי שֶׁרֶץ, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמַעוֹטֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Say** in response to this attempted proof: **Actually,** you can explain that it refers to the impurity of **the owners and to** a case where they are offering **the Paschal lamb, and** Rabbi Ḥiyya **holds** that **one may not slaughter** an offering **and sprinkle** its blood **for** those who are **impure from a creeping animal.** Therefore, it is necessary to clarify whether this *halakha* applies to those unknowingly rendered impure by a creeping animal, **and it was necessary to exclude** this case and teach that the leniency of impurity of the deep applies only to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse and not to impurity from a creeping animal.


###### Pesachim 81a:12
[Pesachim 81a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/81a:12)

אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, זָבָה גְּמוּרָה הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks another question: **But, according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei,** in the case of a woman who keeps watch a day for a day, under **what circumstances** can a **full-fledged *zava* be found?** If a new sighting does not retroactively render her impure, and it is considered as though it were the first sighting in a new series of discharges, how is it possible to link three sightings together to produce a full-fledged *zava*? The three sightings will always be considered separate.


###### Pesachim 81a:13
[Pesachim 81a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/81a:13)

בְּשׁוֹפַעַת. אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁרָאֲתָה כׇּל שְׁנֵי בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: A case of a full-fledged *zava* is found **in** a woman **who continuously flows,** i.e., she experiences a continuous discharge of blood that spans three days. **If you wish, say** instead that the case is **where she saw** a discharge **for two entire twilights,** meaning that she experienced a discharge for the entire twilight period on two consecutive days. In this case, there is no clean period separating the discharges at the beginning of a calendar day, and all of them are linked.


###### Pesachim 81a:14
[Pesachim 81a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/81a:14)

בָּעֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: כֹּהֵן הַמְרַצֶּה בְּתָמִיד, הוּתְּרָה לוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם אוֹ לָא? אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר כֹּהֵן הַמְרַצֶּה בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן (שֶׁל נָזִיר וְעוֹשֵׂה פֶסַח) הוּתְּרָה לוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם, כֹּהֵן הַמְרַצֶּה בְּתָמִיד מַאי? מִי אָמְרִינַן כִּי גְּמִירִי טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם — בְּפֶסַח, בְּתָמִיד לָא גְּמִירִי. אוֹ דִילְמָא יָלֵיף תָּמִיד מִפֶּסַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef raised a dilemma:** With regard to **the priest who facilitates acceptance of the daily offering, is ritual impurity of the deep permitted for him or not?** The two sides of the dilemma are as follows: **If you say** that **the priest who facilitates acceptance of the offerings of the nazirite and** of **one who performs** the ritual of **the Paschal lamb, ritual impurity of the deep is permitted for him,** then in the case of **the priest who facilitates acceptance of the daily offering, what** is the *halakha*? **Do we say** that **when we learned** the *halakha* of **impurity of the deep** through oral tradition, it was **with regard to the Paschal lamb,** but **with regard to the daily offering we did not learn** it? **Or perhaps** we can **derive** that the *halakha* applies to **the daily offering from** the fact that it applies to the **Paschal lamb?**


###### Pesachim 81a:15
[Pesachim 81a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/81a:15)

אָמַר רַבָּה, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא הוּתְּרָה לוֹ טוּמְאָה יְדוּעָה — הוּתְּרָה לוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם, מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּתְּרָה לוֹ טוּמְאָה יְדוּעָה —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said:** This dilemma can be resolved through an ***a fortiori* inference: Just as in a place where known ritual impurity is not permitted for him,** e.g., with regard to the Paschal lamb, for which known impurity disqualifies the offering and one would have to observe the second *Pesaḥ*, nonetheless **impurity of the deep is permitted for him,** all the more so **in a place** where **known ritual impurity is permitted for him,** with regard to communal offerings, as such offerings may be sacrificed even in a known state of impurity if there is no way to sacrifice the offering in a state of purity,