1 Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover-offering at one of thy gates. R. Simeon said: Even if one tribe is unclean and all the other tribes are clean, the former sacrifice by themselves while the latter sacrifice by themselves. (What is R. Simeon's reason? — He holds: One tribe is designated a community.) R. Judah said: Even if one tribe is unclean and all the other tribes are clean, let them [all] sacrifice in uncleanness, because a public sacrifice cannot be divided. (R. Judah holds: One tribe is designated a community, so that it is half against half, and [since] a public sacrifice is not divided, they all sacrifice in uncleanness.) It was stated: If the Israelites were half [of them] clean and half [of them] unclean, — said Rab: we defile one of them with a reptile. But why so: let the former sacrifice by themselves and the latter by themselves, for surely Rab said: These sacrifice by themselves and those sacrifice by themselves? — I will tell you: what do we discuss here? E.g., where the unclean exceeded the clean by one. If so, the majority are unclean, [then] let them all sacrifice in uncleanness? — He holds as R. Eleazar b. Mathia, who maintained: A single individual cannot overbalance the community to uncleanness. If so, our difficulty returns in full force: let the former sacrifice by themselves and the latter by themselves? Rather this is what he means:If there is a Tanna who agrees with the first Tanna who rules: [When there is] half against half they must not all sacrifice in uncleanness, and [also] he agrees with R. Judah who said: A public sacrifice cannot be divided, then we defile one of them with a reptile. But ‘Ulla maintained: We send away one of them on a journey afar off.’ But let us defile him with a reptile? — He holds: We slaughter [the Passover-offering] and sprinkle [its blood] for a man who is unclean through a reptile. Then let us defile him through a dead body? — Then you debar him from his hagigah. But now too you debar him from his Passover-offering? — It is possible to sacrifice at the second [Passover]. Then in the case of [defilement by] a dead body too it is possible to sacrifice [the hagigah] on the seventh [day of Passover] which would be his eighth [day after defilement]? — ‘Ulla holds: They are all a compensation for the first [day]: [hence] he who is eligible on the first is eligible [to sacrifice] on all of them, but wherever one is not eligible on the first, he is not eligible on any of them. R. Nahman said to them [his disciples], Go and tell ‘Ulla: Who will obey you to pull up his tent-pegs and tent and speed away! It was stated: If the majority were zabin and the minority unclean though the dead, — Rab said: Those unclean through the dead cannot sacrifice either on the first or on the second. They do not observe the first [Passover], because they are a minority, and a minority do not observe [it] on the first. They cannot observe it on the second either: whenever the community observes [it] on the first, individual[s] observe [it] on the second; [but] whenever the community does not observe it on the first, individual[s] do not observe [it] on the second. Said Samuel to them [his disciples], Go out and say to Abba: How do you dispose of, Let the children of Israel keep the Passover in its appointed season! — He [Rab] answered them: Go and say to him: [yet] how do you dispose of it [the verse] when they are all zabin? But [you must say] since it is impossible [to carry it out], it is impossible; so here too it is impossible. It was stated: If the majority were unclean through the dead and a minority were zabin, — R. Huna said: There is no compensation for a Passover-offering which comes in uncleanness; while R. Adda b. Ahabah said: There is compensation for a Passover-offering which comes In uncleanness. Shall we say that they differ in this, viz., he who maintains [that] there is no compensation for a Passover-offering which comes in uncleanness holds: Uncleanness is overridden in the case of the community; while he who maintains [that] there is compensation for a Passover-offering which comes in uncleanness holds: Uncleanness is permitted in the case of a community! — I will tell you. It is not so, for all hold [that] uncleanness is overridden in the case of a community, and they differ in this: one Master holds:ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠ
2 Cleanness defers, [whereas] uncleanness does not defer; while the other Master holds: Even uncleanness defers. 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 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. MISHNAH. IF THE BLOOD OF A PASSOVER-OFFERING IS SPRINKLED AND THEN IT BECOMES KNOWN THAT IT WAS UNCLEAN, THE HEADPLATE PROPITIATES; IF THE PERSON [THE OWNER] BECAME UNCLEAN, THE HEADPLATE DOES NOT PROPITIATE, BECAUSE THEY [THE SAGES] RULED: [IN THE CASE OF] A NAZIRITE, AND HE WHO SACRIFICES THE PASSOVER-OFFERING, THE HEADPLATE PROPITIATES FOR THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE BLOOD, BUT THE HEADPLATE DOES NOT PROPITIATE FOR THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE PERSON. IF HE WAS DEFILED WITH THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE DEEP,’ THE HEADPLATE PROPITIATES. GEMARA. 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? 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? — Said Rabina: [With regard to] its defilement, whether [it occurred] in ignorance or deliberately, [the offering] is made acceptable; [but as to its] sprinkling, [if done] in ignorance [that the blood was unclean], it is acceptable; if deliberately, it is not acceptable. R. Shila said: [With regard 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 not acceptable. 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. 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? Do we say, when have we a tradition about the ‘uncleanness of the deep’? [It is] in the case of the owners, but we have no tradition in respect of the priest; or perhaps we have a tradition in respect of the sacrifice, 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. What does this exclude? Surely it is to exclude ‘uncleanness of the deep’ caused by a reptile; and to what [then] do we refer? Shall we say, to the owners [who are thus defiled]? Then in the case of whom? If we say, in the case of a nazirite? Does it [a reptile uncleanness] affect him, [seeing that] the Divine Law said, and if any man die beside him [etc.]. Hence it must refer to him who sacrifices the Passover-offering. 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. But on the view [that] we slaughter and sprinkle on behalf of those who are unclean through a reptile, what can be said? 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. Yet does it [the headplate] not propitiate for the ‘uncleanness of the deep’ of gonorrhoea? Surely it was taught, R. Jose said: A woman who watches from day to day on whose behalf they slaughtered [the Passover-offering] and sprinkled [its blood]ʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰ