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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 6, 2018 | 讻状讗 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Zevachim 23

Various opinions are brought regarding which type of impurity聽is intended in the mishna when it states that a kohen who is impure and works in the mikdash, his work will be disqualified. The law regarding one who sits during the work (which is also disqualified) is discussed. Why is it disqualified but one who does this is not obligated by death in the hands of God (like a stranger who does get punished by death in the hands of God)?

诇驻讬 讗讻诇讜 诇诪爪讜讛

according to his eating, you shall make your count for the lamb鈥 (Exodus 12:4)? This teaches that one may bring the Paschal offering only if he is able to partake of it. The Gemara responds: This requirement is also meant as a mitzva ab initio; it does not disqualify the offering if not fulfilled.

讜诇注讻讜讘讬 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘诪讻住转 谞驻砖讜转 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讬谉 讛驻住讞 谞砖讞讟 讗诇讗 诇诪谞讜讬讬讜 砖讞讟讜 砖诇讗 诇诪谞讜讬讬讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讻注讜讘专 注诇 讛诪爪讜讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讻住讜 讛讻转讜讘 砖谞讛 注诇讬讜 诇注讻讘 讜讗讬转拽砖 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诇诪谞讜讬讬谉

The Gemara asks: And is this requirement not indispensable even after the fact? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the phrase 鈥渁ccording to the number of the souls鈥 teaches that the Paschal offering may be slaughtered only for those who registered for it in advance. If the Paschal offering was slaughtered for individuals who did not register for it, one might have thought that it would only be like transgressing a mitzva, but the offering would not be disqualified. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall make your count鈥; the verse repeats the issue of counting to stress that the halakha is indispensable, and if one slaughters the offering for one who is not registered, it is disqualified. The Gemara concludes: And those who eat the offering are juxtaposed to those registered for it, as the verse states: 鈥淎ccording to the number of the souls; a man, according to his eating.鈥 Accordingly, if one slaughters the Paschal offering for one who cannot partake of it, the offering is disqualified.

讝拽谞讬 讚专讜诐 诇讗 诪拽砖讬 讜讻讬 诇讗 诪拽砖讬 谞诪讬 诪讛讗 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛讜 驻讬专讻讗 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘注诇讬诐 讘砖专抓 砖诪砖诇讞讬谉 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛诐 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讻讛谉 砖谞讟诪讗 讘砖专抓 讗讬谞讜 诪专爪讛 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘注诇讬诐 讘诪转 砖讗讬谉 诪砖诇讞讬谉 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讻讛谉 砖谞讟诪讗 讘诪转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪专爪讛

The Gemara responds: The Elders of the South do not juxtapose the phrases, i.e., they do not interpret the verse鈥檚 juxtaposition of the two phrases as significant. The Gemara asks: But even if they do not juxtapose the phrases, there is a refutation to their statement from this inference as well: And just as in a case where the owner became impure due to a creeping animal, where he may send his offerings for sacrifice ab initio, a priest who became impure due to a creeping animal nevertheless cannot effect acceptance, then in a case where the owner became impure due to a corpse, where he may not send his offerings ab initio, is it not right that a priest who became impure due to a corpse cannot effect acceptance?

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗诪专讜 谞讝讬专 讜注讜砖讛 驻住讞 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 讚诐 讜讗讬谉 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 讛讙讜祝

Furthermore, the Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Pesa岣m 80b): As the Sages said that with regard to a nazirite and one who performs the rite of the Paschal offering, the frontplate effects acceptance for offerings sacrificed in a state of impurity of the blood, but the frontplate does not effect acceptance for offerings sacrificed in a state of impurity of the body of the individual bringing it.

讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 讛讗诪专转 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讝讜专拽讬谉 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 讗诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讜拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 讗诇诪讗 谞讟诪讗讜 讘注诇讬诐 讘诪转 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讞讬谉 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛诐

The Gemara continues: To what impurity is it referring? If we say that it is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, didn鈥檛 you say above that according to the Elders of the South, one may slaughter the Paschal offering and sprinkle its blood for an owner who is in a state of impurity due to a creeping animal? Rather, it must be referring to impurity due to a corpse, and the mishna teaches: The frontplate does not effect acceptance. Evidently, if the owner became impure due to a corpse, he may not send his offerings for sacrifice, contrary to the opinion ascribed to the Elders of the South.

诇讗 讗讬 讚讗讬讟诪讜 讘注诇讬诐 讘诪转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诪讗 讻讛谉 讘砖专抓

The Gemara responds: No, if the owner became impure due to a corpse, the frontplate indeed effects acceptance for the offering. The mishna is not referring to the owners of the offerings at all; rather, here we are dealing with a case where the officiating priest became impure due to a creeping animal.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞讬讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讗诇讗 诇诪转 讘诇讘讚 诇诪转 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讚砖专抓

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: If it became known after the offering was brought that he had contracted ritual impurity imparted in the depths, i.e., a source of impurity that had been unknown at the time, the frontplate effects acceptance for the offering. This clause cannot be reconciled with the suggested interpretation of the mishna, since Rabbi 岣yya teaches: They stated this halakha of impurity imparted in the depths only with regard to impurity due to a corpse. Now, when he says that it applies only to impurity due to a corpse, he means to exclude what? Does he not mean to exclude impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal in the depths? If so, the mishna cannot be referring to impurity due to a creeping animal.

诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讚讝讬讘讛

The Gemara responds: No, Rabbi 岣yya means to exclude impurity imparted by a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva] in the depths. Impurity due to the corpse of a creeping animal, by contrast, is within the scope of the mishna.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讻讛谉 讛诪专爪讛 讘拽专讘谞讜转讬讛诐 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讗讜 诇讗 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 转驻砖讜讟 讚讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 讚讛讗 讛讻讗 讘讻讛谉 拽讬讬诪讬谞讗

The Gemara asks: But how is one to understand this dilemma that Rami bar 岣ma raises: With regard to a priest who effects acceptance for the offerings of the nazirite and the Paschal offering, was impurity imparted in the depths permitted for him or was impurity imparted in the depths not permitted for him? According to the Elders of the South, why not resolve the dilemma and conclude that impurity imparted in the depths was permitted for him, since they hold that we interpret the mishna here as referring to an impure priest?

讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讜讚讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara responds: The premise of this dilemma of Rami bar 岣ma certainly disagrees with the opinion of the Elders of the South, and Rami bar 岣ma does not interpret the mishna in this manner.

转讗 砖诪注 讜谞砖讗 讗讛专谉 讗转 注讜谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜讻讬 讗讬讝讛讜 注讜谉 谞讜砖讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a verse written about the frontplate: 鈥淎nd it shall be upon Aaron鈥檚 forehead, and Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items, which the children of Israel shall consecrate, even all their sacred gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before God鈥 (Exodus 28:38). And the Sages expounded: Which sin does Aaron bear?

讗诐 注讜谉 驻讬讙讜诇 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞砖讘 讗诐 注讜谉 谞讜转专 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬专爪讛

If the verse means that he bears the sin of piggul, it is already stated: 鈥淎nd if any of the flesh of his peace offerings be at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to he who offers it鈥 (Leviticus 7:18). If he bears the sin of notar, it is already stated in the same verse: 鈥淚t shall not be accepted.鈥

讛讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讜砖讗 讗诇讗 注讜谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讘爪讘讜专

Rather, the frontplate bears only the sin of impurity, whose general prohibition was permitted in cases involving the pub-lic. The verse indicates that the frontplate effects acceptance for individual offerings sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity.

诪讗讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 讛讬讻讗 讗讬砖转专讬 讗诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讜诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘注诇讬诐 讘诪转 讗诇诪讗 谞讟诪讗讜 讘注诇讬诐 讘诪转 诪砖诇讞讬谉 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛谉

The Gemara clarifies: What is the impurity borne by the frontplate? If we say that it effects acceptance for impurity due to a creeping animal, where does one find that the general prohibition was permitted in cases involving the public? Rather, it must be referring to impurity due to a corpse. And is it not referring to a case where the owner of the offerings became impure from a corpse? Evidently, if the owner became impure from a corpse, he may send his offerings for sacrifice, as the frontplate effects acceptance for them.

讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬 讘谞讝讬专 讜讻讬 讬诪讜转 诪转 注诇讬讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇讗 诇注讜砖讛 驻住讞 (讜诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘注诇讬诐 讘诪转)

And to what offering is this statement referring? If it is referring to the offering of a nazirite, doesn鈥檛 the Merciful One state: 鈥淎nd if any man die very suddenly beside him, and he defile his consecrated head鈥 (Numbers 6:9)? The passage indicates that even if a nazirite contracts impurity against his will, he still cannot bring his offerings until he is pure. Rather, it must be referring to one who performs the rite of the Paschal offering. This proves the claim of the Elders of the South that one who is impure due to a corpse may send his Paschal offering for sacrifice.

诇注讜诇诐 讘砖专抓 讜砖诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讘注讜诇诐

The Gemara responds: Actually, the statement is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, not due to a corpse. And although the general prohibition with regard to impurity due to a creeping animal was not permitted in cases involving the public, nevertheless, one finds that the category of impurity in general was permitted in such cases.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讚讬讬拽 讜诪讬讬转讬 讛讻讬 注讜谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讗讬谉 注讜谉 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 诪讬 讗讬砖转专讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讜注讜谉 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讬谉 注讜谉 诪拽讚讬砖讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara notes: And some infer the opposite and derive like this: The verse states of the frontplate: 鈥淎nd it shall be upon Aaron鈥檚 forehead, and Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items鈥 (Exodus 28:38). That is, it does bear the iniquity of the sacred items, but it does not bear the iniquity of those who consecrate or sacrifice them, i.e., the owners of the offering or the priests involved in its sacrifice. And to what impurity is this verse referring? If we say that it is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, is such impurity permitted in cases involving the public? Rather, is it not referring to impurity due to a corpse, and the verse indicates that the frontplate does bear the iniquity of the sacred items but does not bear the iniquity of those who consecrate them? This refutes the opinion of the Elders of the South that owners who are impure due to a corpse may send their offerings.

诇注讜诇诐 讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 讜砖诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讘注讜诇诐

The Gemara responds: Actually, the verse is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, and although the general prohibition with regard to impurity due to a creeping animal was not permitted in cases involving the public, the category of impurity in general was permitted in such cases.

讬讜砖讘 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇注诪讚 诇砖专转 诇注诪讬讚讛 讘讞专转讬讜 讜诇讗 诇讬砖讬讘讛

搂 The mishna teaches that a priest who is sitting disqualifies the rites that he performs. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: The verse states with regard to the priests: 鈥淔or the Lord your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to minister鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:5). The verse indicates that I have chosen him for standing and not for sitting.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇注诪讚 诇砖专转 诪爪讜讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛注诪讚讬诐 砖谞讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 诇注讻讘

The Sages taught: 鈥淭o stand to minister,鈥 indicates that there is a mitzva to perform the service while standing. When it says: 鈥淭hen he shall minister in the name of the Lord his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, who stand there before the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:7), the verse repeats the matter to invalidate rites that are performed while not standing.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讻讚讬 讬讜砖讘 讻讝专 讚诪讬 讜诪讞讬诇 注讘讜讚讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讛 讝专 讘诪讬转讛 讗祝 讬讜砖讘 讘诪讬转讛 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讗讘诇 注专诇 讗讜谞谉 讬讜砖讘 讗讬谞谉 讘诪讬转讛 讗诇讗 讘讗讝讛专讛

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Now, one who is sitting is considered like a non-priest and desecrates the service. Therefore, I will say: Just as a non-priest who performs a rite is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, so too one who is sitting should be liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. If so, why is it taught in a baraita: But one who is uncircumcised, an acute mourner, and one who is sitting are not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven if they performed rites; rather, they simply transgress a prohibition?

诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 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 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚

The Gemara responds: That is taught because the case of a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments and that of one whose hands and feet are not washed are two verses that come as one, as the verse states explicitly for each case that if they perform rites they are liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 23

诇驻讬 讗讻诇讜 诇诪爪讜讛

according to his eating, you shall make your count for the lamb鈥 (Exodus 12:4)? This teaches that one may bring the Paschal offering only if he is able to partake of it. The Gemara responds: This requirement is also meant as a mitzva ab initio; it does not disqualify the offering if not fulfilled.

讜诇注讻讜讘讬 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘诪讻住转 谞驻砖讜转 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讬谉 讛驻住讞 谞砖讞讟 讗诇讗 诇诪谞讜讬讬讜 砖讞讟讜 砖诇讗 诇诪谞讜讬讬讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讻注讜讘专 注诇 讛诪爪讜讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讻住讜 讛讻转讜讘 砖谞讛 注诇讬讜 诇注讻讘 讜讗讬转拽砖 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诇诪谞讜讬讬谉

The Gemara asks: And is this requirement not indispensable even after the fact? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the phrase 鈥渁ccording to the number of the souls鈥 teaches that the Paschal offering may be slaughtered only for those who registered for it in advance. If the Paschal offering was slaughtered for individuals who did not register for it, one might have thought that it would only be like transgressing a mitzva, but the offering would not be disqualified. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall make your count鈥; the verse repeats the issue of counting to stress that the halakha is indispensable, and if one slaughters the offering for one who is not registered, it is disqualified. The Gemara concludes: And those who eat the offering are juxtaposed to those registered for it, as the verse states: 鈥淎ccording to the number of the souls; a man, according to his eating.鈥 Accordingly, if one slaughters the Paschal offering for one who cannot partake of it, the offering is disqualified.

讝拽谞讬 讚专讜诐 诇讗 诪拽砖讬 讜讻讬 诇讗 诪拽砖讬 谞诪讬 诪讛讗 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛讜 驻讬专讻讗 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘注诇讬诐 讘砖专抓 砖诪砖诇讞讬谉 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛诐 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讻讛谉 砖谞讟诪讗 讘砖专抓 讗讬谞讜 诪专爪讛 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘注诇讬诐 讘诪转 砖讗讬谉 诪砖诇讞讬谉 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讻讛谉 砖谞讟诪讗 讘诪转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪专爪讛

The Gemara responds: The Elders of the South do not juxtapose the phrases, i.e., they do not interpret the verse鈥檚 juxtaposition of the two phrases as significant. The Gemara asks: But even if they do not juxtapose the phrases, there is a refutation to their statement from this inference as well: And just as in a case where the owner became impure due to a creeping animal, where he may send his offerings for sacrifice ab initio, a priest who became impure due to a creeping animal nevertheless cannot effect acceptance, then in a case where the owner became impure due to a corpse, where he may not send his offerings ab initio, is it not right that a priest who became impure due to a corpse cannot effect acceptance?

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗诪专讜 谞讝讬专 讜注讜砖讛 驻住讞 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 讚诐 讜讗讬谉 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 讛讙讜祝

Furthermore, the Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Pesa岣m 80b): As the Sages said that with regard to a nazirite and one who performs the rite of the Paschal offering, the frontplate effects acceptance for offerings sacrificed in a state of impurity of the blood, but the frontplate does not effect acceptance for offerings sacrificed in a state of impurity of the body of the individual bringing it.

讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 讛讗诪专转 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讝讜专拽讬谉 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 讗诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讜拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 讗诇诪讗 谞讟诪讗讜 讘注诇讬诐 讘诪转 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讞讬谉 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛诐

The Gemara continues: To what impurity is it referring? If we say that it is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, didn鈥檛 you say above that according to the Elders of the South, one may slaughter the Paschal offering and sprinkle its blood for an owner who is in a state of impurity due to a creeping animal? Rather, it must be referring to impurity due to a corpse, and the mishna teaches: The frontplate does not effect acceptance. Evidently, if the owner became impure due to a corpse, he may not send his offerings for sacrifice, contrary to the opinion ascribed to the Elders of the South.

诇讗 讗讬 讚讗讬讟诪讜 讘注诇讬诐 讘诪转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诪讗 讻讛谉 讘砖专抓

The Gemara responds: No, if the owner became impure due to a corpse, the frontplate indeed effects acceptance for the offering. The mishna is not referring to the owners of the offerings at all; rather, here we are dealing with a case where the officiating priest became impure due to a creeping animal.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞讬讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讗诇讗 诇诪转 讘诇讘讚 诇诪转 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讚砖专抓

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: If it became known after the offering was brought that he had contracted ritual impurity imparted in the depths, i.e., a source of impurity that had been unknown at the time, the frontplate effects acceptance for the offering. This clause cannot be reconciled with the suggested interpretation of the mishna, since Rabbi 岣yya teaches: They stated this halakha of impurity imparted in the depths only with regard to impurity due to a corpse. Now, when he says that it applies only to impurity due to a corpse, he means to exclude what? Does he not mean to exclude impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal in the depths? If so, the mishna cannot be referring to impurity due to a creeping animal.

诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讚讝讬讘讛

The Gemara responds: No, Rabbi 岣yya means to exclude impurity imparted by a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva] in the depths. Impurity due to the corpse of a creeping animal, by contrast, is within the scope of the mishna.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讻讛谉 讛诪专爪讛 讘拽专讘谞讜转讬讛诐 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讗讜 诇讗 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 转驻砖讜讟 讚讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 讚讛讗 讛讻讗 讘讻讛谉 拽讬讬诪讬谞讗

The Gemara asks: But how is one to understand this dilemma that Rami bar 岣ma raises: With regard to a priest who effects acceptance for the offerings of the nazirite and the Paschal offering, was impurity imparted in the depths permitted for him or was impurity imparted in the depths not permitted for him? According to the Elders of the South, why not resolve the dilemma and conclude that impurity imparted in the depths was permitted for him, since they hold that we interpret the mishna here as referring to an impure priest?

讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讜讚讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara responds: The premise of this dilemma of Rami bar 岣ma certainly disagrees with the opinion of the Elders of the South, and Rami bar 岣ma does not interpret the mishna in this manner.

转讗 砖诪注 讜谞砖讗 讗讛专谉 讗转 注讜谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜讻讬 讗讬讝讛讜 注讜谉 谞讜砖讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a verse written about the frontplate: 鈥淎nd it shall be upon Aaron鈥檚 forehead, and Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items, which the children of Israel shall consecrate, even all their sacred gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before God鈥 (Exodus 28:38). And the Sages expounded: Which sin does Aaron bear?

讗诐 注讜谉 驻讬讙讜诇 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞砖讘 讗诐 注讜谉 谞讜转专 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬专爪讛

If the verse means that he bears the sin of piggul, it is already stated: 鈥淎nd if any of the flesh of his peace offerings be at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to he who offers it鈥 (Leviticus 7:18). If he bears the sin of notar, it is already stated in the same verse: 鈥淚t shall not be accepted.鈥

讛讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讜砖讗 讗诇讗 注讜谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讘爪讘讜专

Rather, the frontplate bears only the sin of impurity, whose general prohibition was permitted in cases involving the pub-lic. The verse indicates that the frontplate effects acceptance for individual offerings sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity.

诪讗讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 讛讬讻讗 讗讬砖转专讬 讗诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讜诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘注诇讬诐 讘诪转 讗诇诪讗 谞讟诪讗讜 讘注诇讬诐 讘诪转 诪砖诇讞讬谉 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛谉

The Gemara clarifies: What is the impurity borne by the frontplate? If we say that it effects acceptance for impurity due to a creeping animal, where does one find that the general prohibition was permitted in cases involving the public? Rather, it must be referring to impurity due to a corpse. And is it not referring to a case where the owner of the offerings became impure from a corpse? Evidently, if the owner became impure from a corpse, he may send his offerings for sacrifice, as the frontplate effects acceptance for them.

讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬 讘谞讝讬专 讜讻讬 讬诪讜转 诪转 注诇讬讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇讗 诇注讜砖讛 驻住讞 (讜诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘注诇讬诐 讘诪转)

And to what offering is this statement referring? If it is referring to the offering of a nazirite, doesn鈥檛 the Merciful One state: 鈥淎nd if any man die very suddenly beside him, and he defile his consecrated head鈥 (Numbers 6:9)? The passage indicates that even if a nazirite contracts impurity against his will, he still cannot bring his offerings until he is pure. Rather, it must be referring to one who performs the rite of the Paschal offering. This proves the claim of the Elders of the South that one who is impure due to a corpse may send his Paschal offering for sacrifice.

诇注讜诇诐 讘砖专抓 讜砖诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讘注讜诇诐

The Gemara responds: Actually, the statement is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, not due to a corpse. And although the general prohibition with regard to impurity due to a creeping animal was not permitted in cases involving the public, nevertheless, one finds that the category of impurity in general was permitted in such cases.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讚讬讬拽 讜诪讬讬转讬 讛讻讬 注讜谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讗讬谉 注讜谉 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 诪讬 讗讬砖转专讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讜注讜谉 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讬谉 注讜谉 诪拽讚讬砖讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara notes: And some infer the opposite and derive like this: The verse states of the frontplate: 鈥淎nd it shall be upon Aaron鈥檚 forehead, and Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items鈥 (Exodus 28:38). That is, it does bear the iniquity of the sacred items, but it does not bear the iniquity of those who consecrate or sacrifice them, i.e., the owners of the offering or the priests involved in its sacrifice. And to what impurity is this verse referring? If we say that it is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, is such impurity permitted in cases involving the public? Rather, is it not referring to impurity due to a corpse, and the verse indicates that the frontplate does bear the iniquity of the sacred items but does not bear the iniquity of those who consecrate them? This refutes the opinion of the Elders of the South that owners who are impure due to a corpse may send their offerings.

诇注讜诇诐 讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 讜砖诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讘注讜诇诐

The Gemara responds: Actually, the verse is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, and although the general prohibition with regard to impurity due to a creeping animal was not permitted in cases involving the public, the category of impurity in general was permitted in such cases.

讬讜砖讘 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇注诪讚 诇砖专转 诇注诪讬讚讛 讘讞专转讬讜 讜诇讗 诇讬砖讬讘讛

搂 The mishna teaches that a priest who is sitting disqualifies the rites that he performs. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: The verse states with regard to the priests: 鈥淔or the Lord your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to minister鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:5). The verse indicates that I have chosen him for standing and not for sitting.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇注诪讚 诇砖专转 诪爪讜讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛注诪讚讬诐 砖谞讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 诇注讻讘

The Sages taught: 鈥淭o stand to minister,鈥 indicates that there is a mitzva to perform the service while standing. When it says: 鈥淭hen he shall minister in the name of the Lord his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, who stand there before the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:7), the verse repeats the matter to invalidate rites that are performed while not standing.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讻讚讬 讬讜砖讘 讻讝专 讚诪讬 讜诪讞讬诇 注讘讜讚讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讛 讝专 讘诪讬转讛 讗祝 讬讜砖讘 讘诪讬转讛 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讗讘诇 注专诇 讗讜谞谉 讬讜砖讘 讗讬谞谉 讘诪讬转讛 讗诇讗 讘讗讝讛专讛

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Now, one who is sitting is considered like a non-priest and desecrates the service. Therefore, I will say: Just as a non-priest who performs a rite is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, so too one who is sitting should be liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. If so, why is it taught in a baraita: But one who is uncircumcised, an acute mourner, and one who is sitting are not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven if they performed rites; rather, they simply transgress a prohibition?

诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 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 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚

The Gemara responds: That is taught because the case of a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments and that of one whose hands and feet are not washed are two verses that come as one, as the verse states explicitly for each case that if they perform rites they are liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven.

Scroll To Top