פסחים 67 — parallel

67:1

But [it intimates,] there is a time when zabin and lepers are sent out, whereas those who are unclean by the dead are not sent out; and when is that? It is [when] the Passover comes [is sacrificed] in uncleanness. Said Abaye, If so, let us also argue: ‘Let [Scripture] state a zab and those who are unclean by the dead, and let it not state a leper, and I would argue, If a zab is sent out, how much the more a leper; but [the fact that a leper is stated intimates] there is a time when lepers are sent out, whereas zabin and those who are unclean by the dead are not sent out, and when is that? It is [when] the Passover comes in uncleanness’? And should you say. That indeed is so-surely we learned: The Passover which comes in uncleanness, zabin and zaboth, menstruant women and women in childbirth must not eat thereof, yet if they ate, they are not liable [to kareth]? Rather, said Abaye. After all, [it is derived] from the first verse; [and as to the question raised, the reply is]. If so, let the Divine Law write, ‘If any man of you shall be unclean’; what is the purpose of ‘by reason of a dead body’? And should you say, this [phrase] ‘by reason of a dead body’ comes for this [purpose, viz..] only he who is unclean by reason of a dead body is relegated to the second Passover, but not other unclean [persons], surely’ it was taught: You might think that only those who are unclean by the dead and he who was on a distant journey keep the second Passover; whence do we know [to include] zabin and lepers and those who had intercourse with menstruant women? Therefore it is stated, ‘any man’. Then what is the purpose of [the phrase] ‘by reason of a dead body’ which the Divine Law wrote? But this is what [Scripture] states: A man [i.e.. an individual] is relegated to the second Passover, whereas a community is not relegated to the second Passover, but they keep [the first Passover] in uncleanness. And when do the community keep [the first Passover] in uncleanness? When [they are] unclean by reason of the dead; but in the case of other forms of uncleanness, they do not keep [it thus]. R. Hisda said: If a leper entered within his barrier, he is exempt [from flagellation], because it is said, he shall dwell solitary; without the camp shall his dwelling be: the Writ transformed it [his prohibition] into a positive command. An objection is raised: A leper who entered within his barrier [is punished] with forty lashes; zabin and zaboth who entered within their barrier [are punished] with forty lashes; while he who is unclean by the dead is permitted to enter the Levitical camp; and they said this not only [of] him who is unclean by the dead but even [of] the dead himself, for it is said, And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him, ‘with him’ [implying] within his barrier [precincts]! — It is [a controversy of] Tannaim. For it was taught: ‘He shall dwell solitary’: [that means,] he shall dwell alone so that other unclean persons should not dwell with him. You might think that zabin and unclean persons are sent away to one [the same] camp; therefore it is stated, that they defile ‘not their camps: [this is] to assign a camp for this One and a camp for that one: this is R. Judah's opinion. R. Simeon said, It is unnecessary. For lo, it is said, ‘[Command the children of Israel] that they send out of the camp every leper, and everyone that hath all issue, and whosoever is unclean by the dead’. Now, let [Scripture] state those who are unclean by the dead and not state zab, and I would say, if those who are unclean by the dead are sent out, how much the more zabin! Why then is zab stated? To assign a second camp to him. And let [Scripture] state zab and not state leper, and I would say, if zabin are sent out, how much the more lepers! Why then is a leper stated? To assign a third camp to him. When it states, ‘he shall dwell solitary’, the Writ transforms it [the prohibition] into a positive command. What is the greater stringency of a zab over him who is unclean by reason of the dead? — Because uncleanness issues upon him from his own body. On the contrary, he who is unclean by the dead is more stringent, since he requires sprinkling on the third and the seventh [days]? — Scripture saith, [instead of] ‘the unclean,’ ‘and whosoever [kol] is unclean,’ to include him who is unclean through a reptile, and a zab is more stringent than he who is unclean through a reptile; and what is his greater stringency? As we have stated. On the contrary, a reptile is more stringent, since it defiles [even] accidentally? I will tell you:

—

67:2

To that extent a zab too is certainly defiled through an accident, in accordance with R. Huna. For R. Huna said: The first discharge of a zab defiles [when it is caused] by an accident. What is the greater stringency of a leper over a zab? Because he requires peri'ah and rending [of garments], and he is forbidden sexual intercourse. On the contrary, a zab is more stringent, because he defiles couch and seat, and he defiles earthen vessels by hesset? — Scripture saith, [instead of] ‘a leper’, ‘and every [kol] leper’ to include a ba'al keri; and a leper is more stringent than a ba'al keri, and what is his greater stringency? As we have stated. On the contrary, a ba'al keri is more stringent, because he defiles by the smallest quantity [of semen]? — He agrees with R. Nathan. For it was taught, R. Nathan said on the authority of R. Ishmael: A zab requires [a discharge of matter] sufficient for the closing of the orifice of the membrum, but the Sages did not concede this to him. And he holds that a ba'al keri is assimilated to a zab. What is the purpose of ‘and every [kol] leper’? — Since ‘every one [kol] that hath an issue’ is written, ‘every [kol] leper’ too is written. Now [as for] R. Judah. [surely] R. Simeon says well? — He requires that for what was taught; R. Eliezer said: You might days, but only until evening, while a reptile too defiles until evening only. think, if zabin and lepers forced their way through and entered the Temple Court at a Passover sacrifice which came in uncleanness, — you might think that they are culpable; therefore it is stated, [‘Command the children of Israel,] that they send out of the camp every leper’, and every one that hath an issue [zab], and whosoever is unclean by the dead’: when those who are unclean by the dead are sent out, zabin and lepers are sent out; when those who are unclean by the dead are not sent out, zabin and lepers are not sent out. The Master said: ‘"And every [kol] one that hath an issue" is to include a ba'al keri’. This supports R. Johanan. For R. Johanan said: The cellars [under the Temple] were not consecrated; and a ba'al keri is sent without the two camps. An objection is raised: A ba'al keri is like [a person defiled through] contact with a reptile. Surely that means in respect of their camp? No: [it means] in respect of their uncleanness. [You say] ‘In respect of their uncleanness!’ [Surely] uncleanness until evening is written in connection with the one, and uncleanness until evening is written in connection with the other? Hence it must surely mean in respect of their camp! — No: after all [it means] in respect of their uncleanness, and he informs us this: that a ba'al keri is like [a person defiled through] the contact of the reptile: just as the contact of a reptile defiles [even] accidentally, so is a ba'al keri defiled [when the semen is discharged] accidentally. An objection is raised:

—