Pesachim 160

טהרה מדחיא טומאה לא מדחיא ומר סבר אפילו טומאה נמי מדחיא

Cleanness defers, [whereas] uncleanness does not defer;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the sacrifice comes in a state of cleanness, it relegates the unclean to the second Passover; but when it comes itself in a state of uncleanness, it cannot relegate those who are otherwise unclean to the second Passover.');">¹</span> while the other Master holds: Even uncleanness defers.

איתמר היו שלישיתן זבין ושלישיתן טהורין ושלישיתן טמאי מתים אמר רבי מני בר פטיש אותן טמאי מתים אינן עושין לא את הראשון ולא השני

It was stated: If a third were zabin, a third clean, and a third unclean through the dead, - R'Mani B'Pattish said: Those unclean through the dead observe neither the first [Passover] nor the second. They do not sacrifice on the first, [because] the zabin swell the number of the clean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they make large.'');">²</span>

בראשון לא עבדי הגדילו זבין על הטהורים דלא עבדי בטומאה הוה ליה טמאי מתים מיעוטא ומיעוטא לא עבדי בראשון בשני לא עבדי נצרפו זבין עם טמאי מתים דלא עבדי בראשון הוו להו רובא ורובא לא מדחו לפסח שני:

who do not sacrifice in uncleanness; [hence] the unclean through the dead are a minority, and a minority do not sacrifice on the first. They do not sacrifice on the second, [because] the zabin combine with those who are unclean through the dead who did not sacrifice on the first; [hence] they are a majority, and a majority is not relegated to the second Passover.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הפסח שנזרק דמו ואח"כ נודע שהוא טמא הציץ מרצה נטמא הגוף אין הציץ מרצה מפני שאמרו הנזיר ועושה פסח הציץ מרצה על טומאת הדם ואין הציץ מרצה על טומאת הגוף

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF THE BLOOD OF A PASSOVER-OFFERING IS SPRINKLED AND THEN IT BECOMES KNOWN THAT IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: The offering - i.e., the flesh-or the blood. In the former case the head plate makes it acceptable only in the sense that the owner is not liable to another offering and the emurim are burnt on the altar; yet the flesh itself may not be eaten (Tosaf. on the basis of Rashi's interpretation) . Tosaf. itself maintains that the Mishnah refers to the defilement of the blood only.');">³</span> WAS UNCLEAN, THE HEADPLATE PROPITIATES; IF THE PERSON [THE OWNER] BECAME UNCLEAN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through the dead.');">⁴</span>

נטמא טומאת התהום הציץ מרצה:

THE HEADPLATE DOES NOT PROPITIATE, BECAUSE THEY [THE SAGES] RULED: [IN THE CASE OF] A NAZIRITE, AND HE WHO SACRIFICES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'does,' 'prepares.'');">⁵</span> THE PASSOVER-OFFERING, THE HEADPLATE PROPITIATES FOR THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE BLOOD, BUT THE HEADPLATE DOES NOT PROPITIATE FOR THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE PERSON.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> טעמא דנזרק ואח"כ נודע אבל נודע ואח"כ נזרק לא מרצה

IF HE WAS DEFILED WITH THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE DEEP,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a technical term denoting the hidden uncleanness of a corpse which is now discovered for the first time. E.g., if he was in a house and it is subsequently learned that a corpse had been buried therein.');">⁶</span> THE HEADPLATE PROPITIATES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he is not liable to a second offering. This is a traditional law.');">⁷</span>

ורמינהו על מה הציץ מרצה על הדם ועל הבשר ועל החלב שנטמא בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס בין ברצון בין ביחיד בין בציבור

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Thus it is only because it was [first] sprinkled and it became known afterwards [that it was unclean]; but if it [first] became known and [the blood] was sprinkled afterwards, it does not propitiate. But the following contradicts it: For what does the headplate propitiate?

אמר רבינא טומאתו בין בשוגג בין במזיד הורצה זריקתו בשוגג הורצה במזיד לא הורצה

For the blood, flesh, and fat which were defiled, whether in ignorance or deliberately, accidentally or intentionally, whether in the case of an individual or of a community?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 16b. 'In ignorance' and 'deliberately' are assumed to mean respectively: ignorance of the uncleanness of the blood, and deliberately sprinkling it with that knowledge.');">⁸</span> - Said Rabina: [With regard to] its defilement, whether [it occurred] in ignorance or deliberately, [the offering] is made acceptable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The headplate propitiates.');">⁹</span>

רבי שילא אמר זריקתו בין בשוגג בין במזיד הורצה טומאתו בשוגג הורצה במזיד לא הורצה

[but as to its] sprinkling, [if done] in ignoranc [that the blood was unclean], it is acceptable; if deliberately, it is not acceptable. R'Shila said: [With rega to] its sprinkling, whether [done] in ignorance [that the blood was unclean] or deliberately, it is accepted; [but as to] its uncleanness, [if it occurred] in ignorance, it is acceptable; if [caused] deliberately, it is no acceptable.

אלא הא דקתני בין בשוגג בין במזיד ה"ק נטמא בשוגג וזרקו בין בשוגג בין במזיד הורצה

But surely he states, 'whether in ignorance or deliberately? ' This is what it means: If it was defiled in ignorance, and he [the priest] sprinkled it, whether unwittingly or deliberately, it is accepted. Yet surely it is taught, IF THE BLOOD WAS SPRINKLED AND THEN IT BECAME KNOWN: thus it is only because it was sprinkled [first] and it became known afterwards; but if it became known [first] and it was sprinkled afterwards, it is not so? - The same law holds good even if it became known [first] and it was sprinkled afterwards, and the reason that he states, IF IT WAS SPRINKLED AND THEN IT BECAME KNOWN is because he wishes to teach in the second clause, IF THE PERSON BECAME UNCLEAN, THE HEADPLATE DOES NOT PROPITIATE, where even if it was sprinkled [first] and it became known afterwards [it does] not [propitiate]; therefore he teaches the first clause too, IF IT WAS SPRINKLED AND THEN IT BECAME KNOWN.

והא דקתני דם שנזרק ואח"כ נודע טעמא דנזרק ואח"כ נודע אבל נודע ואח"כ נזרק לא הוא הדין דאפילו נודע ואח"כ נזרק

IF HE WAS DEFILED WITH 'THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE DEEP' etc. Rami B'Hama asked: The priest who propitiates with their sacrifices, is the 'uncleanness of the deep' permitted to him or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the priest who offers the Passover sacrifice or the sacrifices of a nazirite on behalf of their owners was defiled with the 'uncleanness of the deep,' does the breastplate propitiate, so that the sacrifice is valid, or not?');">¹⁰</span> Do we say, when have we a tradition about the 'uncleanness of the deep'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the headplate propitiates for it.');">¹¹</span>

והאי דקתני נזרק ואח"כ נודע משום דבעי למתני סיפא נטמא הגוף אין הציץ מרצה דאפילו נזרק ואח"כ נודע לא קתני רישא נמי נזרק ואח"כ נודע:

[It is] in the case of the owners, but we hav no tradition in respect of the priest; or perhaps we have a tradition in respect of the sacrifice,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that in the case of the Passover-offering and the sacrifice of a nazirite the head plate propitiates for personal defilement caused by the 'uncleanness of the deep.'');">¹²</span> no matter whether the owners or the priest [are thus defiled]? - Said Raba, Come and hear: For R'Hiyya taught: They [the Sages] spoke of the 'uncleanness of the deep' in respect of a corpse alone.

נטמא טומאת התהום וכו' בעי רמי בר חמא כהן המרצה בקרבנותיהן הותרה לו טומאת התהום או לא מי אמרינן כי גמירי טומאת התהום בבעלים בכהן לא גמירי או דילמא בזבחא גמירי לא שנא בכהן ול"ש בבעלים

What does this exclude? Surely it is to exclude 'uncleanness of the deep' caused by a reptile; and to what [then] do we refer?

אמר רבא ת"ש דתני רבי חייא לא אמרו טומאת התהום אלא למת בלבד מת למעוטי מאי לאו למעוטי טומאת התהום דשרץ

Shall we say, to the owners [who are thus defiled]? Then in the case of whom?

ובמאי עסקינן אי נימא בבעלים ובמאן אי בנזיר מי מהני ביה (במדבר ו, ט) כי ימות מת עליו אמר רחמנא

If we say, in the case of a nazirite? Does it [a reptile uncleanness] affect him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if he is certainly defiled by a reptile.');">¹³</span>

אלא בעושה פסח הניחא למאן דאמר אין שוחטין וזורקין על טמאי שרץ אלא למאן דאמר שוחטין וזורקין על טמאי שרץ השתא טומאה ידועה הותרה לו טומאת התהום לא כל שכן

[seeing that] the Divine Law said, and if any man die beside him [etc.].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VI,9 thus his naziriteship is affected only by uncleanness through the dead.');">¹⁴</span> Hence it must refer to him who sacrifices the Passover-offering.

אלא לאו בכהן ושמע מינה הותרה לו טומאת התהום

Now that is well on the view [that] we may not slaughter [the Passover-offering] and sprinkle [its blood] for those who are unclean through a reptile.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra ');">¹⁵</span> But on the view [that] we slaughter and sprinkle on behalf of those who are unclean through a reptile, what can be said?

אמר רב יוסף לא לעולם בבעלים ובפסח ולמעוטי טומאת התהום דזיבה

Seeing that known uncleanness was permitted to him [who sacrifices at Passover], how much the more 'uncleanness of the deep'! Hence it must surely refer to the priest, whence it is proved that 'uncleanness of the deep' was permitted to him! - Said R'Joseph, No: After all it refers to the owners and the Passover-offering, and it excludes 'uncleanness of the deep' of gonorrhoea.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A zab (gonorrhoeist) is unclean seven days and the Passover-offering may not be offered on his behalf. Now, if the eve of Passover marks the seventh day of his uncleanness, he is in a state of a doubt; for if he does not discharge on that day he will be clean in the evening; while if he does discharge he becomes unclean for a further seven days. Thus he too is unclean with the 'uncleanness of the deep,' and R. Hiyya teaches that the headplate does not propitiate in his case and the offering must not be killed or its blood sprinkled on his behalf.');">¹⁶</span> Yet does it [the headplate] not propitiate for the 'uncleanness of the deep' of gonorrhoea?

וטומאת תהום דזיבה לא מרצה והתניא רבי יוסי אומר שומרת יום כנגד יום ששחטו וזרקו עליה

Surely it was taught, R'Jose said: A woman who watches from day to day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'day against day.'');">¹⁷</span> on whose behalf they slaughtered [the Passover-offering] and sprinkled [its blood]