Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
A verse from Vayikra 21:6 is cited to demonstrate that if a tvul yom – someone who has immersed in a mikveh but must wait until sunset to complete their purification – performs one of the essential sacrificial rites, the sacrifice is invalidated. The discussion explores how this verse specifically refers to a tvul yom and not another form of impurity.
The Mishna lists three distinct categories: an impure person, a tvul yom, and a mechusar kaparah – someone who has completed immersion and sunset but still needs to bring a sacrificial offering (e.g., a zav on the eighth day of his purification). The necessity of listing all three is examined, highlighting the unique halachic implications of each status.
Sources are brought to prove that if a kohen performs sacrificial rites without wearing all the required priestly garments, the sacrifice is disqualified.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Zevachim 17
אֶלָּא אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ הָכִי וְאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ הָכִי, כֹּל חֲדָא וַחֲדָא תֵּיקוּ בְּדוּכְתֵּיהּ.
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.
טְבוּל יוֹם מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי סִימַאי אוֹמֵר: רֶמֶז לִטְבוּל יוֹם שֶׁאִם עָבַד חִילֵּל – מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קְדֹשִׁים יִהְיוּ וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ״;
§ 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: “They shall be sacred to their God and they shall not desecrate the name of their God” (Leviticus 21:6).
אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְטָמֵא – דְּנָפֵיק מִ״וְּיִנָּזְרוּ״, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לִטְבוּל יוֹם.
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: “That they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel” (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.
אֵימָא: תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְקוֹרֵחַ קׇרְחָה, וּלְמַשְׁחִית פְּאַת זָקָן!
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.
טְבוּל יוֹם דְּאִם עָבַד – בְּמִיתָה, מְנָא לַן? דְּגָמַר ״חִילּוּל״–״חִילּוּל״ מִתְּרוּמָה; דְּפָסֵיל בִּתְרוּמָה – מַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה, דְּלָא פָּסֵיל בִּתְרוּמָה – לָא מַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה.
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: “And not profane the name of their God” (Leviticus 21:6), and the verse states with regard to teruma: “Lest they bear sin for it, and die therein, if they profane it” (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.
אָמַר רַבָּה: לְמָה לִי דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא טָמֵא, וּטְבוּל יוֹם, וּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים?
§ 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’t it have been enough to teach the halakha in only one case?
צְרִיכִי; דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא טָמֵא – שֶׁכֵּן מְטַמֵּא בִּטְבוּל יוֹם; מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים לָא אָתֵי מִינֵּיהּ – שֶׁכֵּן פָּסוּל בִּתְרוּמָה. בִּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים; טְבוּל יוֹם לָא אָתֵי מִינֵּיהּ – שֶׁכֵּן מְחוּסָּר מַעֲשֶׂה.
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.
מֵחֲדָא לָא אָתֵי; תֵּיתֵי חֲדָא מִתַּרְתֵּי!
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.
בְּהֵי לָא לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא? לָא לִכְתּוֹב בִּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ – מָה לְהָנָךְ, שֶׁכֵּן פְּסוּלִים בִּתְרוּמָה.
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.
אֶלָּא לָא לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ; דְּמַאי פָּרְכַתְּ – מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן מְחוּסָּרִים מַעֲשֶׂה? סוֹף סוֹף קְלִישָׁא לַהּ טוּמְאָתָן.
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.
קָסָבַר מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים דְּזָב – כְּזָב דָּמֵי.
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.
וּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים דְּזָב כְּזָב דָּמֵי – תַּנָּאֵי הִיא; דְּתַנְיָא: שְׂרָפָהּ אוֹנֵן וּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים – כְּשֵׁרָה. יוֹסֵף הַבַּבְלִי אוֹמֵר: אוֹנֵן – כְּשֵׁרָה, מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים – פְּסוּלָה. מַאי, לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – מָר סָבַר: מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים דְּזָב כְּזָב דָּמֵי, וּמָר סָבַר: לָאו כְּזָב דָּמֵי?
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’im, 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?
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – כְּזָב דָּמֵי; וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִזָּה הַטָּהֹר״ – מִכְּלָל שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא; לִימֵּד עַל טְבוּל יוֹם שֶׁכָּשֵׁר בַּפָּרָה.
The Gemara responds: No, everyone agrees that he is considered a zav, and here the tanna’im disagree with regard to this matter, as it is written with regard to the rite of the red heifer: “And the pure person shall sprinkle” 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 “pure” 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.
מָר סָבַר: טוּמְאָה דְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: טוּמְאָה דְּהָךְ פָּרָשָׁה.
The tanna’im 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.
הִלְכָּךְ, אוֹנֵן וּטְבוּל יוֹם דִּטְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ – דְּקִילִי, אָתוּ בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִטְּבוּל יוֹם דְּמֵת; אֲבָל מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים דְּזָב – דַּחֲמִיר, שֶׁכֵּן טוּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ; לָא.
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.
מְחוּסַּר בְּגָדִים מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וּמָטוּ בָּהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְחָגַרְתָּ אוֹתָם אַבְנֵט אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו, וְחָבַשְׁתָּ לָהֶם מִגְבָּעֹת, וְהָיְתָה לָהֶם כְּהֻנָּה לְחֻקַּת עוֹלָם״ – בִּזְמַן שֶׁבִּגְדֵיהֶם עֲלֵיהֶם, כְּהוּנָּתָם עֲלֵיהֶם; אֵין בִּגְדֵיהֶם עֲלֵיהֶם, אֵין כְּהוּנָּתָם עֲלֵיהֶם.
§ 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 Yoḥanan says, and some determined it to be stated in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: As the verse states: “And 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” (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.
וְהָא – מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא?! מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא – דְּתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לִשְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן שֶׁאִם עָבַד חִילֵּל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר אַל תֵּשְׁתְּ וְגוֹ׳, וּלְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין הַחֹל״. מְחוּסַּר בְּגָדִים וְשֶׁלֹּא רָחוּץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם, מִנַּיִן?
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: “Drink 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” (Leviticus 10:9–10). 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?
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Din & Daf: The Kohen Gadol’s New Clothes: Yom Kippur as Renewal
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
Zevachim 17
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ§ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ β ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΉΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ΄;
Β§ 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: βThey shall be sacred to their God and they shall not desecrate the name of their Godβ (Leviticus 21:6).
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ€Φ΅ΧΧ§ ΧΦ΄Χ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΦΈΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ΄, ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ.
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: βThat they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israelβ (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.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅ΧΦ· Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ!
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.
ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ·Χ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΧ΄βΧ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΧ΄ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ; ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ‘Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ.
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: βAnd not profane the name of their Godβ (Leviticus 21:6), and the verse states with regard to teruma: βLest they bear sin for it, and die therein, if they profane itβ (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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ?
Β§ 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? Wouldnβt it have been enough to teach the halakha in only one case?
Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ; ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ; ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ; ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ.
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.
ΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅Χ; ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ!
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.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΦ° β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΦ°, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΦ°; ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΦ° Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ? Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ£ Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ£ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ.
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.
Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ.
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.
ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ β ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ; ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ. ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ΅Χ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ β Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ, ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ?
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 tannaβim, 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?
ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ; ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Χ΄ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ; ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
The Gemara responds: No, everyone agrees that he is considered a zav, and here the tannaβim disagree with regard to this matter, as it is written with regard to the rite of the red heifer: βAnd the pure person shall sprinkleβ 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 βpureβ 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.
ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ° Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ.
The tannaβim 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.
ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ°, ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χͺ; ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ€ΧΦΉ; ΧΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨ΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’ΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ»Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ»Χ§Φ·ΦΌΧͺ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ; ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ.
Β§ 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 YoαΈ₯anan says, and some determined it to be stated in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: As the verse states: βAnd you shall gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons, and bind mitres on them; and they shall have the priesthood by a perpetual statuteβ (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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ?! ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·Χ ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ°ΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ³, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΉΦΌΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΧΧ΄. ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ?
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: βDrink 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 commonβ (Leviticus 10:9β10). 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?
