פסחים 81:1 — Soncino English Talmud

on her second day, and then she saw [a discharge], may not eat [of the sacrifice] and is exempt from observing the second Passover. What is the reason? Is it not because the headplate propitiates? — I will tell you: It is not so, [the reason being] because R. Jose holds: She is defiled from now and henceforth. But it was taught, R. Jose said: A zab of two discharges on whose behalf they slaughtered [the Passover-offering] and sprinkled [its blood] on the seventh day, and then he discharged again; for the third to see whether another discharge will follow, rendering her a zabah, or not. Thus on the first or second day of her discharge within these eleven days she is called ‘a woman who watches from day to day.’ Should another discharge follow on the third day, she cannot regain cleanness until seven days have passed without any issue at all. (The foregoing is on the basis of the ancient law, but already in the period of the Talmud itself the law was adopted that a single blood issue at any time imposes all the restrictions which necessitate for cleanness a period of seven consecutive clean days.) Now in the present instance the eve of Passover occurred on the second day of her discharge; the sacrifice was offered and its blood was sprinkled on her behalf before she had a discharge on that day, so that if she had not discharged later she would have been fit to eat in the evening. Since, however, she subsequently discharged, she cannot eat of the sacrifice, as she cannot perform tebillah until the following evening. similarly, a woman who watches from day to day on whose second day they slaughtered and sprinkled on her behalf, and then she discharged again, — these defile their couch or their seat retrospectively, and they are exempt from observing the second Passover. — I will tell you: what does ‘retrospectively’ mean? By Rabbinical law. Now R. Oshaia too holds [that] he defiles retrospectively by Rabbinical law [only]. For it was taught, R. Oshaia said: But a zab who saw [a discharge] on his seventh day upsets the preceding [period]; whereupon R. Johanan said to him: He does not upset [aught] save that day. (What will you? If he holds [that] he defiles retrospectively, let us upset even all of them; while if he holds that he defiles [only] from now and onwards, let him not upset even that day? — Rather say: He does not even upset that day.) Whereupon he [R. Oshaia] said to him [R. Johanan], R. Jose agrees with you. Yet surely R. Jose said: They defile their couch and their seat retrospectively? Hence it certainly proves that they defile retrospectively by Rabbinical law [only]. This proves it. Now according to R. Jose, seeing that he rules [that] he defiles from now and onwards [only], what does ‘[They spoke of the "uncleanness of the deep"] in respect of a corpse alone’ exclude? [Hence] let us solve from this that it refers to the priest, and [thus] the ‘uncleanness of the deep’ is permitted to him? — I will tell you: After all it refers to the owners and [treats] of the Passover-offering, but he [R. Jose] holds: One may not slaughter [the Passover-offering] and sprinkle [its blood] on behalf of those who are unclean through a reptile, and thus it is necessary to exclude it. But according to R. Jose, how is a complete zabah possible? — When she has a continuous discharge. Alternatively, e.g., if she sees [a discharge] the whole of two [successive] twilights. R. Joseph asked: The priest who officiates at the continual-offering, is the ‘uncleanness of the deep’ permitted to him or not? If you should say that the ‘uncleanness of the deep’ is permitted to the priest who officiates at their sacrifices, what about the gonorrhoea which has no connection with the preceding, and when a man has a single discharge he is unclean only until the evening, when he performs tebillah and becomes clean. Why then does he need another day? priest who officiates at the continual-offering? Do we say, when have we a tradition about ‘the uncleanness of the deep’, in respect of the Passover-offering, [but] we have no tradition about the ‘uncleanness of the deep’ in respect to the continual-offering; or perhaps the continual-offering is learned from the Passover-offering? — Said Rabbah: It stands to reason: if where known uncleanness was not permitted to him, yet the ‘uncleanness of the deep’ was permitted to him, then where known uncleanness was permitted to him,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ

^ᵃnote:During the eleven days following the seven days of niddah (menstruation) which are called the eleven days between the menses, a woman cannot become a niddah again, it being axiomatic that a discharge of blood in that period is not a sign of niddah, but may be symptomatic of gonorrhoea (zibah). A discharge on one or two days within the eleven renders her unclean for that day or those days only, but she cannot perform tebillah (v. Glos.) to become clean until the evening of the following day (for full details v. Nid. 71b ff), and she must wait
^ᵇnote:For when the blood was sprinkled she was doubtfully unclean, since she might discharge again on that day. Thus she is assumed to be unclean with the ‘uncleanness of the deep,’ and is exempt from observing the second Passover because the headplate propitiates and makes her sacrifice valid, though she cannot partake of it.
^ᶜnote:If she discharges on one day, waits part of the following and performs tebillah, she is clean, and if she subsequently discharges on the same day she becomes unclean anew, but does not continue her previous uncleanness. Hence when the sacrifice was slaughtered she was actually clean, having already performed tebillah, so that no propitiation is required.
^ᵈnote:When a man suffers three gonorrhoeic discharges within three days or less (in this respect a man differs from a woman, who becomes a zabah only if the three discharges are on three consecutive days), he becomes a full zab, i.e., he does not regain his cleanness until seven consecutive days pass without a discharge, while during these seven days he is unclean as a zab; should he discharge on any of these days, he requires a further seven days, and so on. On the eighth day he brings a sacrifice, and on the evening that follows he may eat of sacred flesh (having performed tebillah the previous day). If, however, he suffers two discharges only, he is likewise unclean for seven days, but does not bring a sacrifice on the eighth; hence he can partake of sacrifices on the evening following the seventh day.
^ᵉnote:So that if the day passes without a further discharge, he is fit to partake of the Passover-offering in the evening.
^ᶠnote:Lit., ‘Saw.’ ‘Saw’ and ‘sight’ are technical terms denoting the gonorrhoeic discharges of a zab.
^ᵍnote:Anything upon which they sit or lie, even without actually touching it, becomes unclean, its degree of defilement being that of a ‘principal uncleanness’ which in turn defiles people or utensils (v. Mishnah supra 14a and note a.l.). ‘retrospectively’ means, since the tebillah (q.v. Glos.) on the seventh day. Before the tebillah of course he would in any case be unclean.
^ʰnote:Thus they are not unclean only for the future, and yet they are exempt from a second Passover; the reason must be because it is an ‘uncleanness of the deep’ of gonorrhoea, and he holds that the headplate propitiates.
^ⁱnote:But according to Biblical law she was clean during the interval between the tebillah until the third discharge.
^ʲnote:I.e., he interprets R. Jose's ruling thus.
^ᵏnote:So cur. edd. But marginal note emends this to, ‘For R. Oshaia said’, omitting ‘it was taught’, as we never find his view expressed in a Baraitha, though he was the compiler of a series of Baraithas.
^ˡnote:I.e., the seven days are nullified and he must count another seven days; v. p. 423, n. 3. Rashi observes that he does not know to what R. Oshaia refers when he says ‘But’, which obviously indicates a contrast with some other law. Possibly, however, kct means here ‘indeed’, ‘in truth’, in which case it is an independent statement.
^ᵐnote:Which is disregarded, and he requires only one more day free from discharge in order to regain his cleanness.
^ⁿnote:I.e., from the beginning of the seventh day, the portion of the seventh day during which he had no discharge not being regarded as a complete day, that we should look upon him as having had seven consecutive days without an unclean discharge.
^ᵒnote:Not from the beginning of the day, for the part of the day during which he was free from discharge counts as a whole day.
^ᵖnote:For on that view he has enjoyed seven consecutive days of cleanness, which purifies him. The present discharge therefore is as an entirely new attack of
^ᵠnote:Since he exempts her from observing the second Passover, he too holds that she is not retrospectively unclean.
^ʳnote:For, as seen above, on the present ruling there is no ‘uncleanness of the deep’ in connection with gonorrhoea. Hence it must refer to defilement by a reptile and to the priest; v. supra 80b.
^ˢnote:The steps of the argument are stated supra 80b.
^ᵗnote:Since he holds that part of the day is counted as a whole day, and she is unclean only from when she discharges, each day is distinct and she can never be unclean for the three consecutive days which are necessary before she becomes a complete zabah.
^ᵘnote:For the whole three days.
^ᵛnote:Twilight counts as the end of one day and the beginning of the following. Hence if she discharges right through the twilights of Sunday and Monday, she is regarded as having ‘seen’ on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, and as this includes the beginnings of Monday and Tuesday, she is unclean the whole of these days.
^ʷnote:Lit., ‘propitiates with’.
^ˣnote:During the whole year.
^ʸnote:V. supra 80b.
^ᶻnote:E.g., a nazirite and one who sacrifices his Passover-offering. The headplate does not propitiate to make the sprinkling permissible.
^ᵃᵃnote:In the case of the continual-offering, where none are clean.