Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 30, 2018 | 讟状讜 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Zevachim 17

From where do we derive the halacha that a tvul yom聽who does one of the 3 sacrificial rites, his sacrifice will be disqualified? Sources are also brought for the disqualification聽if performed by a kohen who isn’t wearing all of the clothes a kohen is supposed to wear.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗诇讗 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 讛讻讬 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 讛讻讬 讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 转讬拽讜 讘讚讜讻转讬讛

Rather, one can derive this way and one can derive that way. Since these derivations contradict one another, each and every halakha shall stand in its place and not modify the other by a fortiori inference.

讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 专诪讝 诇讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 讬讛讬讜 讜诇讗 讬讞诇诇讜

搂 The mishna teaches that sacrificial rites performed by one who immersed that day are disqualified. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: It is derived as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: From where in the Torah is the allusion with regard to a priest who immersed that day, that if he performed the Temple service he desecrated that service? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淭hey shall be sacred to their God and they shall not desecrate the name of their God鈥 (Leviticus 21:6).

讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讟诪讗 讚谞驻讬拽 诪讜讬谞讝专讜 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐

If this verse is not written with regard to the matter of an impure priest who performed the Temple service, as that halakha is derived for us from the verse: 鈥淭hat they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 22:2), then apply it to the matter of a priest who immersed that day who performed the Temple service. Although he is no longer impure in every sense, the priest remains impure in the sense that he is prohibited from partaking of teruma and sacrificial food, and from entering the Temple.

讗讬诪讗 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇拽讜专讞 拽专讞讛 讜诇诪砖讞讬转 驻讗转 讝拽谉

The Gemara asks: Why must the verse be applied to the matter of one who immersed that day? Say that one should apply it to the matter of one who creates a bald spot upon his head or to the matter of one who destroys his beard, as these matters are discussed in the preceding verse.

讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讚讗诐 注讘讚 讘诪讬转讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚讙诪专 讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪转专讜诪讛 讚驻住讬诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讞讬诇 注讘讜讚讛 讚诇讗 驻住讬诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诇讗 诪讞讬诇 注讘讜讚讛

The Gemara responds: This verse is already used to indicate another halakha relating to one who immersed that day: From where do we derive that if one who immersed that day performed sacrificial rites, he is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven? As it is derived by verbal analogy between profanation mentioned in this context and profanation from teruma, as the verse states in this context: 鈥淎nd not profane the name of their God鈥 (Leviticus 21:6), and the verse states with regard to teruma: 鈥淟est they bear sin for it, and die therein, if they profane it鈥 (Leviticus 22:9). It can be inferred from this verbal analogy that one who disqualifies teruma, i.e., one who immersed that day, profanes the Temple service, and one who does not disqualify teruma, i.e., one who creates a bald spot or one who destroys his beard, does not profane the service.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讟诪讗 讜讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐

Rabba said: Why do I need that which the Merciful One wrote, i.e., that an impure priest, and one who immersed that day, and one who has not yet brought an atonement offering all disqualify the rites they perform? Wouldn鈥檛 it have been enough to teach the halakha in only one case?

爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讟诪讗 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 诇讗 讗转讬 诪讬谞讬讛 砖讻谉 驻住讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 诇讗 讗转讬 诪讬谞讬讛 砖讻谉 诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛

Rabba explains: All three are necessary, as in each case there is a stringency not present in the others. Therefore, had the Merciful One written only that an impure priest desecrates the service, one might say that this is because he imparts impurity to others, and since the other two cases do not, one cannot derive them from the case of an impure priest. And had the Merciful One written the halakha only with regard to one who immersed that day, then the case of one who has not yet brought an atonement offering could not be derived from it, since the former is unfit to partake of teruma while the latter is not. And had the Merciful One written the halakha only with regard to one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, then the case of one who immersed that day could not be derived from it, since only the former has not yet performed a necessary action, while one who immersed that day must simply wait for nightfall in order to become fully pure.

诪讞讚讗 诇讗 讗转讬 转讬转讬 讞讚讗 诪转专转讬

The Gemara asks: Still, why are all three necessary? Granted, from one of these cases the other two cannot be derived, but let one be derived from the other two.

讘讛讬 诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜转讬转讬 诪讛谞讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 驻住讜诇讬诐 讘转专讜诪讛

The Gemara asks: Which of the three should the Merciful One not write? If one suggests: Let the Merciful One not write the halakha with regard to one who has not yet brought an atonement offering and derive it from these other two, an impure priest and one who immersed that day, one can reply: What is notable about these? They are notable in that they are unfit to partake of teruma. Since one who has not yet brought an atonement offering may partake of teruma, perhaps he does not disqualify rites he performs.

讗诇讗 诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜转讬转讬 诪讛谞讱 讚诪讗讬 驻专讻转 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 诪讞讜住专讬诐 诪注砖讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 拽诇讬砖讗 诇讛 讟讜诪讗转谉

Rather, say: Let the Merciful One not write the halakha with regard to one who immersed that day and derive it from these other two, an impure priest and one who has not yet brought an atonement offering. As, what can you say to refute this? One cannot reply: What is notable about these; they are notable since they have not yet performed a necessary action, because ultimately their impurity, i.e., the impurity of one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, is weak when compared to one who immersed that day, and relatively speaking, one who has not yet brought an atonement offering is not considered to be lacking the performance of an action.

拽住讘专 诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讝讘 讻讝讘 讚诪讬

The Gemara responds: Rabba holds that a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] who has not yet brought an atonement offering is still considered to have the impure status of a zav. The impurity of one who has immersed but has not yet brought an atonement offering is therefore considered stronger than that of one who immersed that day but requires no atonement.

讜诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讝讘 讻讝讘 讚诪讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖专驻讛 讗讜谞谉 讜诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讻砖专讛 讬讜住祝 讛讘讘诇讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜谞谉 讻砖专讛 诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 驻住讜诇讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讝讘 讻讝讘 讚诪讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 讻讝讘 讚诪讬

The Gemara notes: And the matter of whether a zav who has not yet brought an atonement offering is still considered a zav is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: If an acute mourner or one who has not yet brought an atonement offering burned the red heifer, it is fit. Yosef the Babylonian says: If an acute mourner burned it, it is fit, but if one who has not yet brought an atonement offering burned it, it is disqualified. What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Yosef the Babylonian, holds that a zav who has not yet brought an atonement offering is considered a full-fledged zav and therefore disqualifies the red heifer, and one Sage, the first tanna, holds that a zav who has not yet brought an atonement offering is not considered a zav, but is instead considered like one who immersed that day, who is fit to burn the red heifer?

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻讝讘 讚诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讝讛 讛讟讛专 诪讻诇诇 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖讻砖专 讘驻专讛

The Gemara responds: No, everyone agrees that he is considered a zav, and here the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to this matter, as it is written with regard to the rite of the red heifer: 鈥淎nd the pure person shall sprinkle鈥 the water of purification (Numbers 19:19). The preceding verse already states that the one performing the service must be ritually pure. Therefore, by stating 鈥減ure鈥 this verse emphasizes that he needs be pure enough only to perform the rite of the red heifer specifically. By inference, one derives that he may be impure in some way that disqualifies him for other rites. This teaches that one who immersed that day is fit to participate in the rite of the red heifer.

诪专 住讘专 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讛讱 驻专砖讛

The tanna鈥檌m disagree as to the extent of this halakha: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that it is referring to any state of impurity mentioned in the entire Torah, i.e., anyone who immersed that day due to any impurity may participate in the rite of the red heifer. And one Sage, Yosef the Babylonian, holds that it is referring specifically to one who was in the state of impurity mentioned in this passage, i.e., impurity contracted from a corpse, which the red heifer purifies.

讛诇讻讱 讗讜谞谉 讜讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讚讟诪讗 砖专抓 讚拽讬诇讬 讗转讜 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讚诪转 讗讘诇 诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讝讘 讚讞诪讬专 砖讻谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讬讜爪讗讛 注诇讬讜 诪讙讜驻讜 诇讗

Therefore, according to Yosef the Babylonian, with regard to an acute mourner and one who immersed that day after becoming impure due to contact with the carcass of a creeping animal, since they are treated more leniently, they are derived a fortiori from the case of one who immersed that day to remove impurity contracted from a corpse, and they are fit to participate in the rite of the red heifer. But with regard to a zav who has not yet brought an atonement offering, who is treated more stringently, since his impurity emerges onto him from his body rather than being imparted from without, one does not derive that he is fit to participate in the rite of the red heifer.

诪讞讜住专 讘讙讚讬诐 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诪讟讜 讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讞讙专转 讗讜转诐 讗讘谞讟 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讞讘砖转 诇讛诐 诪讙讘注转 讜讛讬转讛 诇讛诐 讻讛谞讛 诇讞拽转 注讜诇诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讙讚讬讛诐 注诇讬讛诐 讻讛讜谞转诐 注诇讬讛诐 讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬讛诐 注诇讬讛诐 讗讬谉 讻讛讜谞转诐 注诇讬讛诐

搂 The mishna teaches that a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments disqualifies the rites he performs. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rabbi Avuh says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some determined it to be stated in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: As the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons, and bind mitres on them; and they shall have the priesthood by a perpetual statute鈥 (Exodus 29:9). The verse indicates that when their vestments are on them, their priesthood is upon them, but if their vestments are not on them, their priesthood is not upon them and their rites are disqualified.

讜讛讗 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 砖讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讗诇 转砖转 讜讙讜壮 讜诇讛讘讚讬诇 讘讬谉 讛拽讚砖 讜讘讬谉 讛讞诇 诪讞讜住专 讘讙讚讬诐 讜砖诇讗 专讞讜抓 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 诪谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: But is this halakha derived from here? It is derived from there, as it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that if those who drank wine performed sacrificial rites they have desecrated the service? The verse states with regard to the priests: 鈥淒rink no wine or strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting, so that you not die; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations. That you may put difference between the holy and the common鈥 (Leviticus 10:9鈥10). The baraita continues: With regard to one lacking the requisite vestments and one whose hands and feet are not washed, from where is it derived that their rites are disqualified as well?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 17

讗诇讗 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 讛讻讬 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 讛讻讬 讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 转讬拽讜 讘讚讜讻转讬讛

Rather, one can derive this way and one can derive that way. Since these derivations contradict one another, each and every halakha shall stand in its place and not modify the other by a fortiori inference.

讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 专诪讝 诇讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 讬讛讬讜 讜诇讗 讬讞诇诇讜

搂 The mishna teaches that sacrificial rites performed by one who immersed that day are disqualified. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: It is derived as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: From where in the Torah is the allusion with regard to a priest who immersed that day, that if he performed the Temple service he desecrated that service? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淭hey shall be sacred to their God and they shall not desecrate the name of their God鈥 (Leviticus 21:6).

讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讟诪讗 讚谞驻讬拽 诪讜讬谞讝专讜 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐

If this verse is not written with regard to the matter of an impure priest who performed the Temple service, as that halakha is derived for us from the verse: 鈥淭hat they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 22:2), then apply it to the matter of a priest who immersed that day who performed the Temple service. Although he is no longer impure in every sense, the priest remains impure in the sense that he is prohibited from partaking of teruma and sacrificial food, and from entering the Temple.

讗讬诪讗 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇拽讜专讞 拽专讞讛 讜诇诪砖讞讬转 驻讗转 讝拽谉

The Gemara asks: Why must the verse be applied to the matter of one who immersed that day? Say that one should apply it to the matter of one who creates a bald spot upon his head or to the matter of one who destroys his beard, as these matters are discussed in the preceding verse.

讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讚讗诐 注讘讚 讘诪讬转讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚讙诪专 讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪转专讜诪讛 讚驻住讬诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讞讬诇 注讘讜讚讛 讚诇讗 驻住讬诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诇讗 诪讞讬诇 注讘讜讚讛

The Gemara responds: This verse is already used to indicate another halakha relating to one who immersed that day: From where do we derive that if one who immersed that day performed sacrificial rites, he is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven? As it is derived by verbal analogy between profanation mentioned in this context and profanation from teruma, as the verse states in this context: 鈥淎nd not profane the name of their God鈥 (Leviticus 21:6), and the verse states with regard to teruma: 鈥淟est they bear sin for it, and die therein, if they profane it鈥 (Leviticus 22:9). It can be inferred from this verbal analogy that one who disqualifies teruma, i.e., one who immersed that day, profanes the Temple service, and one who does not disqualify teruma, i.e., one who creates a bald spot or one who destroys his beard, does not profane the service.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讟诪讗 讜讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐

Rabba said: Why do I need that which the Merciful One wrote, i.e., that an impure priest, and one who immersed that day, and one who has not yet brought an atonement offering all disqualify the rites they perform? Wouldn鈥檛 it have been enough to teach the halakha in only one case?

爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讟诪讗 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 诇讗 讗转讬 诪讬谞讬讛 砖讻谉 驻住讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 诇讗 讗转讬 诪讬谞讬讛 砖讻谉 诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛

Rabba explains: All three are necessary, as in each case there is a stringency not present in the others. Therefore, had the Merciful One written only that an impure priest desecrates the service, one might say that this is because he imparts impurity to others, and since the other two cases do not, one cannot derive them from the case of an impure priest. And had the Merciful One written the halakha only with regard to one who immersed that day, then the case of one who has not yet brought an atonement offering could not be derived from it, since the former is unfit to partake of teruma while the latter is not. And had the Merciful One written the halakha only with regard to one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, then the case of one who immersed that day could not be derived from it, since only the former has not yet performed a necessary action, while one who immersed that day must simply wait for nightfall in order to become fully pure.

诪讞讚讗 诇讗 讗转讬 转讬转讬 讞讚讗 诪转专转讬

The Gemara asks: Still, why are all three necessary? Granted, from one of these cases the other two cannot be derived, but let one be derived from the other two.

讘讛讬 诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜转讬转讬 诪讛谞讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 驻住讜诇讬诐 讘转专讜诪讛

The Gemara asks: Which of the three should the Merciful One not write? If one suggests: Let the Merciful One not write the halakha with regard to one who has not yet brought an atonement offering and derive it from these other two, an impure priest and one who immersed that day, one can reply: What is notable about these? They are notable in that they are unfit to partake of teruma. Since one who has not yet brought an atonement offering may partake of teruma, perhaps he does not disqualify rites he performs.

讗诇讗 诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜转讬转讬 诪讛谞讱 讚诪讗讬 驻专讻转 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 诪讞讜住专讬诐 诪注砖讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 拽诇讬砖讗 诇讛 讟讜诪讗转谉

Rather, say: Let the Merciful One not write the halakha with regard to one who immersed that day and derive it from these other two, an impure priest and one who has not yet brought an atonement offering. As, what can you say to refute this? One cannot reply: What is notable about these; they are notable since they have not yet performed a necessary action, because ultimately their impurity, i.e., the impurity of one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, is weak when compared to one who immersed that day, and relatively speaking, one who has not yet brought an atonement offering is not considered to be lacking the performance of an action.

拽住讘专 诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讝讘 讻讝讘 讚诪讬

The Gemara responds: Rabba holds that a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] who has not yet brought an atonement offering is still considered to have the impure status of a zav. The impurity of one who has immersed but has not yet brought an atonement offering is therefore considered stronger than that of one who immersed that day but requires no atonement.

讜诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讝讘 讻讝讘 讚诪讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖专驻讛 讗讜谞谉 讜诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讻砖专讛 讬讜住祝 讛讘讘诇讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜谞谉 讻砖专讛 诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 驻住讜诇讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讝讘 讻讝讘 讚诪讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 讻讝讘 讚诪讬

The Gemara notes: And the matter of whether a zav who has not yet brought an atonement offering is still considered a zav is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: If an acute mourner or one who has not yet brought an atonement offering burned the red heifer, it is fit. Yosef the Babylonian says: If an acute mourner burned it, it is fit, but if one who has not yet brought an atonement offering burned it, it is disqualified. What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Yosef the Babylonian, holds that a zav who has not yet brought an atonement offering is considered a full-fledged zav and therefore disqualifies the red heifer, and one Sage, the first tanna, holds that a zav who has not yet brought an atonement offering is not considered a zav, but is instead considered like one who immersed that day, who is fit to burn the red heifer?

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻讝讘 讚诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讝讛 讛讟讛专 诪讻诇诇 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖讻砖专 讘驻专讛

The Gemara responds: No, everyone agrees that he is considered a zav, and here the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to this matter, as it is written with regard to the rite of the red heifer: 鈥淎nd the pure person shall sprinkle鈥 the water of purification (Numbers 19:19). The preceding verse already states that the one performing the service must be ritually pure. Therefore, by stating 鈥減ure鈥 this verse emphasizes that he needs be pure enough only to perform the rite of the red heifer specifically. By inference, one derives that he may be impure in some way that disqualifies him for other rites. This teaches that one who immersed that day is fit to participate in the rite of the red heifer.

诪专 住讘专 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讛讱 驻专砖讛

The tanna鈥檌m disagree as to the extent of this halakha: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that it is referring to any state of impurity mentioned in the entire Torah, i.e., anyone who immersed that day due to any impurity may participate in the rite of the red heifer. And one Sage, Yosef the Babylonian, holds that it is referring specifically to one who was in the state of impurity mentioned in this passage, i.e., impurity contracted from a corpse, which the red heifer purifies.

讛诇讻讱 讗讜谞谉 讜讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讚讟诪讗 砖专抓 讚拽讬诇讬 讗转讜 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讚诪转 讗讘诇 诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讝讘 讚讞诪讬专 砖讻谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讬讜爪讗讛 注诇讬讜 诪讙讜驻讜 诇讗

Therefore, according to Yosef the Babylonian, with regard to an acute mourner and one who immersed that day after becoming impure due to contact with the carcass of a creeping animal, since they are treated more leniently, they are derived a fortiori from the case of one who immersed that day to remove impurity contracted from a corpse, and they are fit to participate in the rite of the red heifer. But with regard to a zav who has not yet brought an atonement offering, who is treated more stringently, since his impurity emerges onto him from his body rather than being imparted from without, one does not derive that he is fit to participate in the rite of the red heifer.

诪讞讜住专 讘讙讚讬诐 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诪讟讜 讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讞讙专转 讗讜转诐 讗讘谞讟 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讞讘砖转 诇讛诐 诪讙讘注转 讜讛讬转讛 诇讛诐 讻讛谞讛 诇讞拽转 注讜诇诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讙讚讬讛诐 注诇讬讛诐 讻讛讜谞转诐 注诇讬讛诐 讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬讛诐 注诇讬讛诐 讗讬谉 讻讛讜谞转诐 注诇讬讛诐

搂 The mishna teaches that a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments disqualifies the rites he performs. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rabbi Avuh says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some determined it to be stated in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: As the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons, and bind mitres on them; and they shall have the priesthood by a perpetual statute鈥 (Exodus 29:9). The verse indicates that when their vestments are on them, their priesthood is upon them, but if their vestments are not on them, their priesthood is not upon them and their rites are disqualified.

讜讛讗 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 砖讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讗诇 转砖转 讜讙讜壮 讜诇讛讘讚讬诇 讘讬谉 讛拽讚砖 讜讘讬谉 讛讞诇 诪讞讜住专 讘讙讚讬诐 讜砖诇讗 专讞讜抓 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 诪谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: But is this halakha derived from here? It is derived from there, as it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that if those who drank wine performed sacrificial rites they have desecrated the service? The verse states with regard to the priests: 鈥淒rink no wine or strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting, so that you not die; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations. That you may put difference between the holy and the common鈥 (Leviticus 10:9鈥10). The baraita continues: With regard to one lacking the requisite vestments and one whose hands and feet are not washed, from where is it derived that their rites are disqualified as well?

Scroll To Top