Rather, it teaches you that you have a time when zavin and lepers are sent out from the camp, but those who are ritually impure due to contact with a corpse are not sent out. And what is this time? When a Paschal lamb is brought in impurity, when those impure due to contact with a corpse are permitted to participate, but a zav and a leper may not. From here we learn that when most of the nation is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, the Paschal lamb is brought anyway in a state of ritual impurity.

Abaye said: If so, that this is how the verse is to be interpreted, let us also say that the verse should only say zav and those ritually impure due to a corpse and not say leper, and I would say this law on my own through an a fortiori inference: If a zav is sent out, then with regard to a leper, whose ritual impurity is more severe than that of a zav, all the more so is it not clear that he should be sent out? Rather, the seemingly unnecessary mention of a leper teaches that you have a time when only lepers are sent out, but zavin and those ritually impure due to contact with a corpse are not sent out. And what is this time? When a Paschal offering is brought in impurity, when zavin and those impure due to contact with a corpse are permitted to participate, but a leper may not.

And if you say that it is indeed so that even a zav may participate when the Paschal lamb is brought in a state of impurity, there is a difficulty, for didn’t we learn in a mishna: When a Paschal lamb is brought in a state of ritual impurity, zavim and zavot, menstruating women and women after childbirth, whose impurity is comparable to that of a zav, may not eat from it; but if they ate, they are exempt from karet. This demonstrates that the verse cannot be explained in accordance with Reish Lakish’s inference.

Rather, Abaye said: Actually, the law can be derived from the first verse quoted by Rabbi Yoḥanan: “Any man who shall be impure by reason of a corpse.” And the derivation should be understood as follows: If so, that the verse comes to teach that only an individual can rectify his situation on the second Pesaḥ, but not the community, the Merciful One should have written: “Any man who shall be impure.” Why do I need the words “by reason of a corpse”?

And if you say that these words “by reason of a corpse” come for this reason, to teach us that it is only one who is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse that is deferred to the second Pesaḥ but the rest of those who are impure are not deferred to the second Pesaḥ, there is a difficulty. For wasn’t it taught otherwise in the following baraita: One might have thought that only those ritually impure due to contact with a corpse and those on a distant journey observe the second Pesaḥ. From where do we derive that even zavin, lepers and those who had relations with menstruating women may participate in the second Pesaḥ? Therefore, the verse states: “Any man,” to include even people with these types of impurity. If so, why do I need the words “by reason of a corpse” that the Merciful One writes, as it would seem that they teach us nothing?

Rather, this is what the verse is saying: A single individual or a group of individuals are deferred to the second Pesaḥ, but the entire community or the majority thereof is not deferred to the second Pesaḥ; rather, they observe the first Pesaḥ in a state of ritual impurity. And when we say that the community observes it in a state of impurity, that is only when they are ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, as indicated by the expression “by reason of a corpse,” but when they are impure with other types of impurity, they do not observe it in a state of impurity, even if the majority of the community is impure.

Having cited verses dealing with the requirement to send out the ritually impure from the camp, the Gemara addresses several halakhot relevant to that topic. Rav Ḥisda said: A leper, who must be sent out from all of the camps including the Israelite camp, who went in beyond his boundary, that is, he entered an area that is prohibited to him, is nonetheless exempt from the punishment of lashes. With regard to the ritually impure, the Torah states: “Both male and female shall you send out, outside the camp shall you send them, and they shall defile not their camps in the midst of which I dwell” (Numbers 5:3), from which we learn that an impure person who enters the camp is liable to receive lashes for having violated the prohibition of “they shall not defile.” A leper, however, is exempt, as it is stated: “All the days that the plague shall be in him he shall be impure; he is impure, he shall dwell in isolation, his dwelling shall be outside the camp” (Leviticus 13:46).

The Gemara explains that the verse is explicated in the following manner: “He shall dwell in isolation” means he shall dwell alone, without even the company of others who are impure. “His dwelling shall be outside the camp” teaches that the verse has transmuted the negative precept into a positive mitzva. In other words, the verse establishes that if a leper entered an area that is prohibited to him, he is commanded to leave, and fulfilling this command removes the full force of the prohibition he has already violated. The rule is that lashes are not administered for the violation of a prohibition, if that violation can be rectified by the fulfillment of a positive commandment.

An objection was raised against Rav Ḥisda from a baraita: A leper, who may not even enter the Israelite camp, who went in beyond his boundary, is punished with forty lashes like one who violates a regular Torah prohibition. Similarly, zavin and zavot, who are prohibited from entering the Levite camp, who went in beyond their boundaries, are punished with forty lashes. And one who is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse is permitted to enter even the Levite camp.

And not only did they say that one who is ritually impure due to a corpse may enter this area, but even a corpse itself may be brought into the Levite camp, as it is stated: “And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him” (Exodus 13:19), the words “with him” implying that the bones were taken within his boundary, i.e., that Joseph’s coffin was found in the same area in which Moses dwelled. Since Moses was a Levite and lived in the Levite camp, it follows that even a corpse may be brought into the Levite camp. In any event, we see from the first clause of the baraita that a leper does in fact receive lashes for entering an area prohibited to him, against Rav Ḥisda.

The Gemara answers: This is a matter that is subject to dispute between tanna’im, for it was taught in a different baraita: “He shall dwell in isolation” indicates that he shall dwell alone, meaning that other ritually impure people, such as zavin and those who are ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, should not dwell with him. One might have thought that zavin and those who are ritually impure due to contact with a corpse are sent to one camp, meaning that the laws governing which camps they may or may not enter are the same for both. Therefore, the verse states: “Both male and female shall you send out, outside the camp shall you send them out, and they shall defile not their camps in the midst of which I dwell” (Numbers 5:3). The plural term “camps” teaches that there are multiple camps for those who are ritually impure, so that we give a camp for this one and a camp for that one; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Thus, in his opinion, there are three camps: One which a leper may not enter, one which a zav may not enter, and one which even someone ritually impure due to contact with a corpse may not enter.

Rabbi Shimon says: It is not necessary to derive this law from the plural term “camps,” for surely the verse says: “Command the children of Israel that they send out from the camp any leper and any zav and anyone impure by reason of a corpse” (Numbers 5:2). The verse includes an unnecessary phrase: Let the verse say only that they are to send out those who are ritually impure due to a corpse, and not say anything about those impure as a zav, and I would say on my own that a zav is obviously included in this law: If those ritually impure due to a corpse are sent out from the camp, all the more so is it not clear that zavin should be sent out? If so, why is a zav stated? To give him a second camp, that is, to teach us that the law governing a zav is more severe than the law relating to one who is impure due to a corpse and there is an additional camp that he may not enter.

And furthermore: Let the verse say only that they are to send out a zav, and not say anything about a leper, and I would say on my own that a leper is obviously included in this law as well: If zavin are sent out, all the more so is it not clear that lepers should be sent out? Why then is a leper stated? To give him a third camp that he may not enter. When the verse says with regard to a leper: “He shall dwell alone,” the verse has transmuted the negative precept into a positive command. This teaches us that a leper who enters a camp that is prohibited to him does not receive lashes for his violation of a negative commandment, which is consistent with the ruling of Rav Ḥisda.

The Gemara questions the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: We see from the discussion cited above that it was clear to Rabbi Shimon that the impurity of a zav is more severe than that of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, and that the impurity of a leper is even more severe than that of a zav. What is the stringency of a zav over one who is ritually impure due to a corpse? That the impurity of the zav issues out upon him from his own body, rather than coming from an external source, as is the case when impurity is contracted from a corpse. But on the contrary, it may be argued that the legal status of one who is ritually impure due to a corpse is more severe, as he requires sprinkling of the purifying waters on the third and seventh days of his purification process, whereas a zav, who is also impure for seven days, does not require such sprinkling.

The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states not just “impure” but “and anyone impure.” The additional words come to include one who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal. He, too, is sent out from the camp like one who is impure due to contact with a corpse, and it is clear that the legal status of a zav is more severe than one who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal.

The Gemara asks: And what is his stringency? In what way is a zav more stringent than one who has contracted ritual impurity from a creeping animal? The Gemara answers: As we have said, that his impurity issues out upon him from his own body, unlike one who has contracted impurity from a creeping animal. But on the contrary, it is possible to say that the legal status a creeping animal is more severe, for it imparts ritual impurity even through an accident. A zav only becomes impure when it is clear that his discharge did not result from sickness or some other accident, but a person who comes into contact with a creeping animal contracts ritual impurity regardless of the circumstances of that contact. They say in answer to this question: