Siman - Pesachim Daf 67
- The source that the pesach is docheh tumah
On the bottom of Daf 66b the Gemara asked what the source is that bringing the pesach is docheh tumah of the tzibbur. Rebbe Yochanan brought the passuk regarding those who are tamei that must postpone bringing their offerings until Pesach Sheini, איש איש כי יהיה טמא לנפש – Any man who will be tamei from a corpse. איש נדחה לפסח שני ואין ציבור נידחין לפסח שני אלא עבדי בטומאה – The passuk’s mention of the singular, any man, implies that only an individual is deferred until Pesach Sheini but a tamei tzibbur is not, rather they bring the pesach in a state of tumah. Reish Lakish rejected this pshat, suggesting that it could be interpreted that the tzibbur cannot bring in a state of tumah neither on pesach rishon or sheini. Rather, he brought the passuk, וישלחו מן המחנה כל צרוע וכל זב וכל טמא לנפש – And they must send from the camp, any metzora, any zav and anyone contaminated by a corpse. Reish Lakish explained that the passuk could have just mentioned a טמא מת and it would be a kal v’chomer for zavim and metzorahs that they are also sent out, since their tumah is more stringent. Therefore, the reason they were included is to teach that there is a time when zavim and metzorahs are sent out of the azarah and tamei meisim are not sent out and remain to bring an offering, which is the pesach. Abaye challenges Reish Lakish’s interpretation.
- Does a metzorah have a לאו הניתק לעשה?
Rav Chisda said, מצורע שנכנס לפנים ממחיצתו פטור – A metzora who illegally entered within his boundary, meaning any walled city in Eretz Yisroel, is patur from malkus, for it is stated, בדד ישב מחוץ למחנה מושבו – he shall dwell in isolation; outside the camp shall be his dwelling place. הכתוב נתקו לעשה – the Torah removed the prohibition against a metzorah entering the camp to the remedy of a positive mitzvah; and therefore he does not receive the typical punishment of malkus for violating a לא תעשה. The Gemara challenges Rav Chisda by bringing a Baraisa that states that a metzorah does receive malkus for entering the machaneh Yisroel, and resolves the contradiction by explaining it is based on a machlokes Tannaim on how to interpret the passuk. Rashi explains that one Tanna (Rebbe Shimon) uses the passuk to teach that there is a לאו הניתק לעשה whereas the other Tanna (Rebbe Yehuda) uses it to teach that a metzorah is banished from all three machanehs, and therefore, it cannot be used to teach that a metzorah has a לאו הניתק לעשה.
- How is a metzorah more chamur than a zav?
It was stated in a Baraisa on Amud Aleph that if zavim are banished from the machaneh leviah, then all the more so metzorahs should be sent out as well. The Gemara asks what the chumrah of a metzorah over a zav is, and answers, שכן טעון פריעה ופרימה ואסור בתשמיש המטה – a metzorah is required to leave his hair unshorn, and to rend his garments and is prohibited to engage in marital relations unlike a zav. The Gemara suggests that in fact a zav is more stringent in that it is metamei with משכב מושב ומטמא כלי חרס בהיסט – it is metamei with tumas midras and is metamei a kli cheres with tumas heset, and answers that the passuk stated, וכל זב – and any zav, לרבות בעל קרי – to include a baal keri in the laws of banishment, and a metzorah is certainly more stringent than a בעל קרי.
