Zevachim 32
Share this shiur:
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 month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Who is permitted to slaughter an animal for a sacrifice? The Mishna presents the matter in a way that suggests slaughter by a non-priest is only valid post facto. However, this seems to contradict another source that explicitly permits such slaughter ab initio. Upon further analysis, this apparent contradiction is resolved: non-priests are indeed permitted to slaughter sacrificial animals from the outset.
If an impure person performs the slaughter, the sacrifice remains valid. Yet another source seems to prohibit this. The resolution lies in distinguishing between biblical and rabbinic law: while biblically valid, rabbinic authorities forbade impure individuals from slaughtering as a precaution, lest they come into contact with the sacrificial animal and thereby render it impure.
There are two different versions of a braita relating to the prohibition for an impure person to slaughter or do smicha on the animal. Each version has a different understanding of the prohibition to enter the Azara (Temple courtyard). Is it prohibited even for a small part of one’s body to enter or only for the majority?
Ulla said in the name of Reish Lakish that even if an impure person inserts only a small part of their body into the Azara, it is forbidden. Rav Hoshaya challenges this ruling based on a case involving a leper who experienced a seminal emission on the eve of Passover, who is allowed to go ahead with the purification process, which requires a small part of his body to enter the Azara. Ulla resolves the difficulty.
Rav Yosef infers from Ulla’s resolution that in a parallel case—where zavim became impure through contact with the dead before Passover—the same ruling would apply. Abaye, however, raises two objections to Rav Yosef’s inference.
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 month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Benjamin Miller “in honor of Tamar Miriam miraculously birthing S.Y. All OB/GYNs should prescribe daf yomi.”
Zevachim 32
וְכוּלָּן שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ אֶת הַדָּם חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – אִם יֵשׁ דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ, יַחְזוֹר הַכָּשֵׁר וִיקַבֵּל.
And with regard to all of them, in a case where they collected the blood with the intent to offer it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, if there is blood of the soul that remains in the animal, the priest fit for Temple service should again collect the blood and sprinkle it on the altar.
קִיבֵּל הַכָּשֵׁר וְנָתַן לַפָּסוּל – יַחְזִיר לַכָּשֵׁר. קִיבֵּל בִּימִינוֹ וְנָתַן לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ – יַחְזִיר לִימִינוֹ. קִיבֵּל בִּכְלִי קֹדֶשׁ וְנָתַן לִכְלִי חוֹל – יַחְזִיר לִכְלֵי קֹדֶשׁ. נִשְׁפַּךְ מִן הַכְּלִי עַל הָרִצְפָּה וַאֲסָפוֹ – כָּשֵׁר.
If the priest fit for Temple service collected the blood in a vessel and gave the vessel to an unfit person, that person should return it to the fit priest. If the priest collected the blood in a vessel in his right hand and moved it to his left hand, he should return it to his right hand. If the priest collected the blood in a sacred vessel and placed it in a non-sacred vessel, he should return the blood to a sacred vessel. If the blood spilled from the vessel onto the floor and he gathered it from the floor, it is valid.
נְתָנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ; שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַיְסוֹד; נָתַן אֶת הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַטָּה – לְמַעְלָן; וְאֶת הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָן – לְמַטָּה; וְאֶת הַנִּיתָּנִין בִּפְנִים – בַּחוּץ; וְאֶת הַנִּיתָּנִין בַּחוּץ – בִּפְנִים; אִם יֵשׁ דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ – יַחְזוֹר הַכָּשֵׁר וִיקַבֵּל.
If an unfit person placed the blood upon the ramp or on the wall of the altar that is not opposite the base of the altar, or if he placed the blood that is to be placed below the red line above the red line, or if he placed the blood that is to be placed above the red line below the red line, or if he placed the blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary outside the Sanctuary or the blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary inside the Sanctuary, then if there is blood of the soul that remains in the animal, the priest fit for Temple service should again collect the blood and sprinkle it on the altar.
גְּמָ׳ ״שָׁחֲטוּ״ – דִּיעֲבַד אִין, לְכַתְּחִלָּה לָא.
GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the use of the past tense in the mishna: With regard to all those who are unfit for Temple service who slaughtered, that after the fact, yes, the slaughter is valid. But ab initio, no, those who are unfit may not slaughter an offering.
וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״וְשָׁחַט״ – שְׁחִיטָה בְּזָר כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁהַשְּׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה בְּזָרִים וּבְנָשִׁים וּבַעֲבָדִים וּבִטְמֵאִים. וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בַּכֹּהֲנִים?
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from what was taught in the halakhic midrash Torat Kohanim: The verse states with regard to a burnt offering: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5). The fact that the verse does not stipulate that a priest must slaughter the offering teaches that slaughter is valid if performed by a non-priest, as stated in the mishna: As the sacrificial rite of slaughter is valid when performed by non-priests, by women, by Canaanite slaves, and by ritually impure individuals, and even with regard to offerings of the most sacred order. Or perhaps the term “and he shall slaughter” in the verse is referring only to slaughter by priests?
אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי מֵאַיִן בָּאתָה – מִכְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ אִתְּךָ תִּשְׁמְרוּ אֶת כְּהֻנַּתְכֶם לְכׇל דְּבַר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״;
You can say in response: From where did you come to the idea that the verse is referring only to a priest? It is from the fact that it is stated to Aaron: “And you and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood in everything that pertains to the altar” (Numbers 18:7).
יָכוֹל אַף בִּשְׁחִיטָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר לִפְנֵי ה׳ וְהִקְרִיבוּ וְגוֹ׳״ – מִקַּבָּלָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה; לִימֵּד עַל הַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁרָה בְּכׇל אָדָם.
One might have thought that this is the halakha even with regard to slaughter, that only priests are fit to slaughter an offering. Therefore, the verse states: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall present [vehikrivu] the blood” (Leviticus 1:5), from which it is inferred that specifically from the collection of the blood and onward it is a mitzva exclusively of the priesthood. This teaches about the rite of slaughter that it is valid ab initio if performed by any person. This contradicts the inference from the mishna that slaughter of an offering by a non-priest is valid only after the fact.
הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִילָּה נָמֵי; וּמִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנָא טְמֵאִים – דִּלְכַתְּחִילָּה לָא, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִגְּעוּ בַּבָּשָׂר; תְּנָא: ״שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ״.
The Gemara answers: The same is true that even ab initio as well it is permitted for those unfit for Temple service to slaughter an offering, but because the mishna wants to teach with regard to the ritually impure that they may not slaughter an offering ab initio due to a rabbinic decree lest they touch the flesh and render it ritually impure, therefore the mishna taught this halakha with the expression in the past tense: Who slaughtered, i.e., after the fact.
וְטָמֵא דִּיעֲבַד שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי?! וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״וְסָמַךְ… וְשָׁחַט״ – מָה סְמִיכָה בִּטְהוֹרִים, אַף שְׁחִיטָה בִּטְהוֹרִים! מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara asks: And in the case of a ritually impure individual who performed the slaughter, is it permitted even after the fact? And one can raise a contradiction from what is taught in the halakhic midrash: The Torah states two consecutive directives: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering…And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:4–5). This juxtaposition indicates that both directives are referring to the same individual, which teaches that just as placing hands on the head of an offering may be performed only by ritually pure individuals, so too, the slaughter may be performed only by ritually pure individuals. The Gemara answers: By rabbinic law, an impure person is prohibited from slaughtering an offering lest he touch the flesh of the offering, but by Torah law the slaughter is valid.
מַאי שְׁנָא סְמִיכָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״; שְׁחִיטָה נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״! אֶפְשָׁר דְּעָבֵיד סַכִּין אֲרוּכָּה וְשָׁחֵיט.
The Gemara asks: What is different about placing hands that it can be performed only by those who are ritually pure even by Torah law? It is that it is written: “Before the Lord,” which is referring to the Temple courtyard, and an impure person may not enter the Temple courtyard. With regard to slaughter as well, isn’t it written: “Before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5)? How can a ritually impure person enter the Temple courtyard to slaughter an offering? The Gemara answers: It is possible, in a case where he fashions a long knife, stands outside the Temple courtyard, and slaughters the offering that is inside the courtyard.
סְמִיכָה נָמֵי – אֶפְשָׁר דִּמְעַיֵּיל יְדֵיהּ וְסָמֵיךְ. קָסָבַר בִּיאָה בְּמִקְצָת שְׁמָהּ בִּיאָה.
The Gemara asks: With regard to placing hands also, it is possible, in a case where he inserts his hands into the Temple courtyard and places them on the head of the offering. The Gemara answers: The tanna holds that a partial entry, in which only a part of the body enters the Temple courtyard, is called entry. Therefore, an impure individual may not insert even part of his body, such as his hands, into the Temple courtyard.
רַב חִסְדָּא מַתְנִי אִיפְּכָא: ״וְסָמַךְ… וְשָׁחַט״ – מָה שְׁחִיטָה בִּטְהוֹרִין, אַף סְמִיכָה בִּטְהוֹרִין. מַאי שְׁנָא שְׁחִיטָה? דִּכְתִיב: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״,
Rav Ḥisda taught the baraita in the opposite manner: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering…and he shall slaughter the bull” (Leviticus 1:4–5), teaches that just as slaughter may be performed only by ritually pure individuals, so too, placing hands may be performed only by ritually pure individuals. The Gemara asks: What is different about slaughter that it may be performed only by those who are ritually pure? It is that it is written with regard to it: “Before the Lord,” which refers to the Temple courtyard, and a ritually impure person may not enter the Temple courtyard.
סְמִיכָה נָמֵי כְּתִיב: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״! אֶפְשָׁר דִּמְעַיֵּיל יְדֵיהּ וְסָמֵיךְ. שְׁחִיטָה נָמֵי אֶפְשָׁר דְּעָבֵיד סַכִּין אֲרוּכָּה וְשָׁחֵיט!
With regard to placing hands on the head of an offering as well, it is written: “Before the Lord.” The Gemara answers that it is possible, in a case where he inserts his hands into the Temple courtyard and places them on the head of the offering while he remains outside. The Gemara asks: But with regard to slaughter also, it is possible, in a case where he fashions a long knife and slaughters the animal while standing outside the Temple courtyard.
הָא מַנִּי – שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – וְלֹא הַשּׁוֹחֵט לִפְנֵי ה׳. שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁיִּהְיוּ יָדָיו שֶׁל שׁוֹחֵט לִפְנִים מִן הַנִּשְׁחָט? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – שׁוֹחֵט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר יְהֵא לִפְנֵי ה׳.
The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Shimon HaTimni, who holds that the one who slaughters an offering must stand inside the Temple courtyard. This is as it is taught in a baraita, that when the verse states: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5), it teaches that the bull must be inside the Temple courtyard, but the slaughterer need not be “before the Lord.” Therefore, he may stand outside the Temple courtyard and slaughter the offering that is inside. Shimon HaTimni says: From where is it derived that the hands of the slaughterer must be farther inside the Temple courtyard than the animal that is slaughtered? The verse states: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord,” which teaches that the slaughterer of the bull must be before the Lord.
אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: טָמֵא שֶׁהִכְנִיס יָדוֹ לִפְנִים – לוֹקֶה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע וְגוֹ׳״ – מַקִּישׁ בִּיאָה לִנְגִיעָה; מָה נְגִיעָה בְּמִקְצָת שְׁמָהּ נְגִיעָה, אַף בִּיאָה בְּמִקְצָת שְׁמָהּ בִּיאָה.
§ Apropos the question of whether partial entry into the Temple courtyard is considered entry, Ulla says that Reish Lakish says: A ritually impure individual who inserted his hand inside the Temple courtyard is flogged for transgressing the prohibition of entering the Temple while impure, as it is stated with regard to the impurity of a woman who gave birth: “Every consecrated item she shall not touch, and to the Temple she shall not come, until the days of her purification are complete” (Leviticus 12:4). The verse juxtaposes entry into the courtyard to touching a sacred item. Just as touching with even a part of the body is considered touching, so too, entry with part of the body is considered entry.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא לְעוּלָּא: מְצוֹרָע שֶׁחָל שְׁמִינִי שֶׁלּוֹ לִהְיוֹת בְּעֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח, וְרָאָה קֶרִי בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם, וְטָבַל –
Rav Hoshaya raised an objection to Ulla from that which was taught in a baraita: There is the case of a leper whose eighth day, on which he becomes ritually pure from his leprosy and performs the final stages of his purification process, occurs on Passover eve, such that it would be possible to bring his offerings and be fit to partake of the Paschal offering that evening. And he experienced a seminal emission on that day before he performed the final stages of his purification process, rendering him ritually impure and prohibited from entering the Temple. And he then immersed himself in a ritual bath. The question is whether he may come to the gate of the Temple courtyard, which is necessary to complete his purification process and terminate his status as a leper.
אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין טְבוּל יוֹם אַחֵר נִכְנָס, זֶה נִכְנָס; מוּטָב יָבוֹא עֲשֵׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת, וְיִדְחֶה עֲשֵׂה שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.
The Sages said: Although any other individual who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed may not enter the Temple mount until nightfall, this one may enter. The reason is that it is better for a positive mitzva that has a punishment of karet, i.e., the bringing of the Paschal offering, to come and override a positive mitzva for which there is no liability to be punished with karet, i.e., the mitzva to remove individuals who are ritually impure from the Temple courtyard, than have the positive mitzva that has a punishment of karet not be performed.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה – אֲפִילּוּ עֲשֵׂה אֵין בּוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיַּעֲמֹד יְהוֹשָׁפָט בִּקְהַל יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלִַם בְּבֵית ה׳ לִפְנֵי הֶחָצֵר הַחֲדָשָׁה״ – מַאי ״חָצֵר הַחֲדָשָׁה״? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁחִידְּשׁוּ בָּהּ דְּבָרִים (הַרְבֵּה), וְאָמְרוּ: טְבוּל יוֹם אַל יִכָּנֵס לְמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: By Torah law, there is not even a positive mitzva that restricts from entering the Temple courtyard one who has immersed that day and will become pure only upon nightfall, as it is stated: “And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judea and Jerusalem, in the House of the Lord, before the new courtyard” (II Chronicles 20:5). What is the meaning of “the new courtyard”? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is referring to the place in which they innovated many matters and said that one who immersed that day may not enter the camp of the Levites, which in Jerusalem includes the entire Temple Mount. This indicates that the prohibition is of rabbinic origin, and by Torah law it is permitted for him to enter.
וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּיאָה בְּמִקְצָת שְׁמָהּ בִּיאָה, הֵיכִי מְעַיֵּיל יְדֵיהּ בִּבְהוֹנוֹת? אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי עֲשֵׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת הוּא!
Rav Hoshaya concludes his objection: And if you say that partial entry into the courtyard is considered entry, how does the leper who immersed himself that day insert his hands into the courtyard so that his right thumb and big toe will become purified? In this situation, both this mitzva to eat of the Paschal offering and that mitzva for an impure person to not enter the courtyard are each a positive mitzva for which there is liability to be punished with karet, as someone who immersed himself that day who enters the Temple courtyard is liable to be punished with karet.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִטּוּנָךְ – שָׁאנֵי מְצוֹרָע, הוֹאִיל וְהוּתַּר לְצָרַעְתּוֹ הוּתַּר לְקִירְיוֹ.
Ulla said to Rabbi Hoshaya: A proof to my opinion can be brought from your own burden, i.e., from the question you asked. A leper is different, as the Torah permitted him to insert his right thumb and big toe into the courtyard in order to become purified despite the fact that he has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, and since he was permitted to partially enter the courtyard for purification from his leprosy, he was also permitted with regard to his impurity due to his seminal emission. Nevertheless, a partial entry into the courtyard is in fact considered an entry.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, קָסָבַר עוּלָּא: רוּבָּן זָבִים וְנַעֲשׂוּ טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים; הוֹאִיל וְהוּתְּרוּ לְטוּמְאָתָן – הוּתְּרוּ לְזִיבָתָן.
Based on Ulla’s previous comment, Rav Yosef said: Ulla holds that if most of the Jewish people were zavim on Passover eve, and were therefore prohibited from sacrificing the Paschal offering while impure, and then they became ritually impure due to a corpse, which allows them to sacrifice the Paschal offering despite their impurity as they are a majority of the Jewish people, since they are permitted to sacrifice the offering with regard to their impurity due to a corpse, they are also permitted with regard to their ziva.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי דָּמֵי?! טוּמְאָה אִישְׁתְּרַאי, זִיבָה לָא אִישְׁתְּרַאי!
Abaye said to him: Are the cases comparable? With regard to a leper who experienced a seminal emission, he was already permitted to partially enter the courtyard despite his initial impurity. Therefore, the subsequent impurity does not prohibit him from entering. By contrast, the zavim were originally prevented from sacrificing the Paschal offering. Therefore, even if he would be permitted to enter the courtyard despite becoming impure due to a corpse, he would not be permitted to enter due to the ziva that was previously present.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, דִּלְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר מָר: רוּבָּן טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים וְנַעֲשׂוּ זָבִים; הוֹאִיל וְהוּתְּרוּ לְטוּמְאָתָן – הוּתְּרוּ לְזִיבָתָן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין.
Furthermore, Abaye said to him: Perhaps this is what the Master is saying: If most of the Jewish people were initially ritually impure due to a corpse, and they subsequently became zavim, since they are permitted with regard to their impurity due to a corpse, they are permitted with regard to their ziva as well. Rav Yosef said to him: Yes, that was what I meant.
וְאַכַּתִּי לָא דָּמֵי; מְצוֹרָע – הֶיתֵּירָא הוּא, הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתְּרִי אִישְׁתְּרִי. טוּמְאָה – דְּחוּיָה הִיא, לְהָא אִידְּחַאי לְהָא לָא אִידְּחַאי!
The Gemara asks: But still, this is not comparable to the case of Ulla, since with regard to a leper, it is with total permission that he is allowed partial entry into the courtyard. And since it was permitted with regard to one impurity, it was permitted with regard to a second impurity. But the ritual impurity with regard to the sacrificing of the Paschal offering is only overridden, and there is not a total permission. Perhaps with regard to this, i.e., ritual impurity due to a corpse, it is overridden, but with regard to that, i.e., the impurity of ziva, it is not overridden.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אַדְּרַבָּה, אִיפְּכָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא! מְצוֹרָע – הֶיתֵּירָא הוּא, לְהָא אִישְׁתְּרַאי וּלְהָא לָא אִישְׁתְּרַאי; טוּמְאָה – דְּחוּיָה הוּא, מָה לִי חַד דִּחוּיָא מָה לִי שְׁתֵּי דְּחִיּוֹת?
Rava said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable. With regard to a leper, it is with specific permission that he was allowed by the Torah to insert his right thumb and big toe into the courtyard in order to become purified despite his ritual impurity, which was not granted for other impurities. Therefore, perhaps only with regard to this impurity it is permitted, but with regard to that impurity, i.e., due to a seminal emission, it is not permitted. But with regard to ritual impurity, since it is overridden in the case of ritual impurity due to a corpse, what difference does it make to me if there is one impurity that is overridden, and what difference does it make to me if there are two impurities that are overridden?
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.
Zevachim Daf 30-38 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Zevahim 32: The Surprising Leniencies and Leeway of Sacrifices
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.
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
New York, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
Minneapolis, MN, United States
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
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
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
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
Ontario, Canada
Zevachim 32
וְכוּלָּן שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ אֶת הַדָּם חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – אִם יֵשׁ דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ, יַחְזוֹר הַכָּשֵׁר וִיקַבֵּל.
And with regard to all of them, in a case where they collected the blood with the intent to offer it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, if there is blood of the soul that remains in the animal, the priest fit for Temple service should again collect the blood and sprinkle it on the altar.
קִיבֵּל הַכָּשֵׁר וְנָתַן לַפָּסוּל – יַחְזִיר לַכָּשֵׁר. קִיבֵּל בִּימִינוֹ וְנָתַן לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ – יַחְזִיר לִימִינוֹ. קִיבֵּל בִּכְלִי קֹדֶשׁ וְנָתַן לִכְלִי חוֹל – יַחְזִיר לִכְלֵי קֹדֶשׁ. נִשְׁפַּךְ מִן הַכְּלִי עַל הָרִצְפָּה וַאֲסָפוֹ – כָּשֵׁר.
If the priest fit for Temple service collected the blood in a vessel and gave the vessel to an unfit person, that person should return it to the fit priest. If the priest collected the blood in a vessel in his right hand and moved it to his left hand, he should return it to his right hand. If the priest collected the blood in a sacred vessel and placed it in a non-sacred vessel, he should return the blood to a sacred vessel. If the blood spilled from the vessel onto the floor and he gathered it from the floor, it is valid.
נְתָנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ; שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַיְסוֹד; נָתַן אֶת הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַטָּה – לְמַעְלָן; וְאֶת הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָן – לְמַטָּה; וְאֶת הַנִּיתָּנִין בִּפְנִים – בַּחוּץ; וְאֶת הַנִּיתָּנִין בַּחוּץ – בִּפְנִים; אִם יֵשׁ דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ – יַחְזוֹר הַכָּשֵׁר וִיקַבֵּל.
If an unfit person placed the blood upon the ramp or on the wall of the altar that is not opposite the base of the altar, or if he placed the blood that is to be placed below the red line above the red line, or if he placed the blood that is to be placed above the red line below the red line, or if he placed the blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary outside the Sanctuary or the blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary inside the Sanctuary, then if there is blood of the soul that remains in the animal, the priest fit for Temple service should again collect the blood and sprinkle it on the altar.
גְּמָ׳ ״שָׁחֲטוּ״ – דִּיעֲבַד אִין, לְכַתְּחִלָּה לָא.
GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the use of the past tense in the mishna: With regard to all those who are unfit for Temple service who slaughtered, that after the fact, yes, the slaughter is valid. But ab initio, no, those who are unfit may not slaughter an offering.
וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״וְשָׁחַט״ – שְׁחִיטָה בְּזָר כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁהַשְּׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה בְּזָרִים וּבְנָשִׁים וּבַעֲבָדִים וּבִטְמֵאִים. וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בַּכֹּהֲנִים?
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from what was taught in the halakhic midrash Torat Kohanim: The verse states with regard to a burnt offering: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5). The fact that the verse does not stipulate that a priest must slaughter the offering teaches that slaughter is valid if performed by a non-priest, as stated in the mishna: As the sacrificial rite of slaughter is valid when performed by non-priests, by women, by Canaanite slaves, and by ritually impure individuals, and even with regard to offerings of the most sacred order. Or perhaps the term “and he shall slaughter” in the verse is referring only to slaughter by priests?
אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי מֵאַיִן בָּאתָה – מִכְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ אִתְּךָ תִּשְׁמְרוּ אֶת כְּהֻנַּתְכֶם לְכׇל דְּבַר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״;
You can say in response: From where did you come to the idea that the verse is referring only to a priest? It is from the fact that it is stated to Aaron: “And you and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood in everything that pertains to the altar” (Numbers 18:7).
יָכוֹל אַף בִּשְׁחִיטָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר לִפְנֵי ה׳ וְהִקְרִיבוּ וְגוֹ׳״ – מִקַּבָּלָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה; לִימֵּד עַל הַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁרָה בְּכׇל אָדָם.
One might have thought that this is the halakha even with regard to slaughter, that only priests are fit to slaughter an offering. Therefore, the verse states: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall present [vehikrivu] the blood” (Leviticus 1:5), from which it is inferred that specifically from the collection of the blood and onward it is a mitzva exclusively of the priesthood. This teaches about the rite of slaughter that it is valid ab initio if performed by any person. This contradicts the inference from the mishna that slaughter of an offering by a non-priest is valid only after the fact.
הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִילָּה נָמֵי; וּמִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנָא טְמֵאִים – דִּלְכַתְּחִילָּה לָא, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִגְּעוּ בַּבָּשָׂר; תְּנָא: ״שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ״.
The Gemara answers: The same is true that even ab initio as well it is permitted for those unfit for Temple service to slaughter an offering, but because the mishna wants to teach with regard to the ritually impure that they may not slaughter an offering ab initio due to a rabbinic decree lest they touch the flesh and render it ritually impure, therefore the mishna taught this halakha with the expression in the past tense: Who slaughtered, i.e., after the fact.
וְטָמֵא דִּיעֲבַד שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי?! וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״וְסָמַךְ… וְשָׁחַט״ – מָה סְמִיכָה בִּטְהוֹרִים, אַף שְׁחִיטָה בִּטְהוֹרִים! מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara asks: And in the case of a ritually impure individual who performed the slaughter, is it permitted even after the fact? And one can raise a contradiction from what is taught in the halakhic midrash: The Torah states two consecutive directives: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering…And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:4–5). This juxtaposition indicates that both directives are referring to the same individual, which teaches that just as placing hands on the head of an offering may be performed only by ritually pure individuals, so too, the slaughter may be performed only by ritually pure individuals. The Gemara answers: By rabbinic law, an impure person is prohibited from slaughtering an offering lest he touch the flesh of the offering, but by Torah law the slaughter is valid.
מַאי שְׁנָא סְמִיכָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״; שְׁחִיטָה נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״! אֶפְשָׁר דְּעָבֵיד סַכִּין אֲרוּכָּה וְשָׁחֵיט.
The Gemara asks: What is different about placing hands that it can be performed only by those who are ritually pure even by Torah law? It is that it is written: “Before the Lord,” which is referring to the Temple courtyard, and an impure person may not enter the Temple courtyard. With regard to slaughter as well, isn’t it written: “Before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5)? How can a ritually impure person enter the Temple courtyard to slaughter an offering? The Gemara answers: It is possible, in a case where he fashions a long knife, stands outside the Temple courtyard, and slaughters the offering that is inside the courtyard.
סְמִיכָה נָמֵי – אֶפְשָׁר דִּמְעַיֵּיל יְדֵיהּ וְסָמֵיךְ. קָסָבַר בִּיאָה בְּמִקְצָת שְׁמָהּ בִּיאָה.
The Gemara asks: With regard to placing hands also, it is possible, in a case where he inserts his hands into the Temple courtyard and places them on the head of the offering. The Gemara answers: The tanna holds that a partial entry, in which only a part of the body enters the Temple courtyard, is called entry. Therefore, an impure individual may not insert even part of his body, such as his hands, into the Temple courtyard.
רַב חִסְדָּא מַתְנִי אִיפְּכָא: ״וְסָמַךְ… וְשָׁחַט״ – מָה שְׁחִיטָה בִּטְהוֹרִין, אַף סְמִיכָה בִּטְהוֹרִין. מַאי שְׁנָא שְׁחִיטָה? דִּכְתִיב: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״,
Rav Ḥisda taught the baraita in the opposite manner: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering…and he shall slaughter the bull” (Leviticus 1:4–5), teaches that just as slaughter may be performed only by ritually pure individuals, so too, placing hands may be performed only by ritually pure individuals. The Gemara asks: What is different about slaughter that it may be performed only by those who are ritually pure? It is that it is written with regard to it: “Before the Lord,” which refers to the Temple courtyard, and a ritually impure person may not enter the Temple courtyard.
סְמִיכָה נָמֵי כְּתִיב: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״! אֶפְשָׁר דִּמְעַיֵּיל יְדֵיהּ וְסָמֵיךְ. שְׁחִיטָה נָמֵי אֶפְשָׁר דְּעָבֵיד סַכִּין אֲרוּכָּה וְשָׁחֵיט!
With regard to placing hands on the head of an offering as well, it is written: “Before the Lord.” The Gemara answers that it is possible, in a case where he inserts his hands into the Temple courtyard and places them on the head of the offering while he remains outside. The Gemara asks: But with regard to slaughter also, it is possible, in a case where he fashions a long knife and slaughters the animal while standing outside the Temple courtyard.
הָא מַנִּי – שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – וְלֹא הַשּׁוֹחֵט לִפְנֵי ה׳. שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁיִּהְיוּ יָדָיו שֶׁל שׁוֹחֵט לִפְנִים מִן הַנִּשְׁחָט? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – שׁוֹחֵט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר יְהֵא לִפְנֵי ה׳.
The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Shimon HaTimni, who holds that the one who slaughters an offering must stand inside the Temple courtyard. This is as it is taught in a baraita, that when the verse states: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5), it teaches that the bull must be inside the Temple courtyard, but the slaughterer need not be “before the Lord.” Therefore, he may stand outside the Temple courtyard and slaughter the offering that is inside. Shimon HaTimni says: From where is it derived that the hands of the slaughterer must be farther inside the Temple courtyard than the animal that is slaughtered? The verse states: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord,” which teaches that the slaughterer of the bull must be before the Lord.
אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: טָמֵא שֶׁהִכְנִיס יָדוֹ לִפְנִים – לוֹקֶה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע וְגוֹ׳״ – מַקִּישׁ בִּיאָה לִנְגִיעָה; מָה נְגִיעָה בְּמִקְצָת שְׁמָהּ נְגִיעָה, אַף בִּיאָה בְּמִקְצָת שְׁמָהּ בִּיאָה.
§ Apropos the question of whether partial entry into the Temple courtyard is considered entry, Ulla says that Reish Lakish says: A ritually impure individual who inserted his hand inside the Temple courtyard is flogged for transgressing the prohibition of entering the Temple while impure, as it is stated with regard to the impurity of a woman who gave birth: “Every consecrated item she shall not touch, and to the Temple she shall not come, until the days of her purification are complete” (Leviticus 12:4). The verse juxtaposes entry into the courtyard to touching a sacred item. Just as touching with even a part of the body is considered touching, so too, entry with part of the body is considered entry.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא לְעוּלָּא: מְצוֹרָע שֶׁחָל שְׁמִינִי שֶׁלּוֹ לִהְיוֹת בְּעֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח, וְרָאָה קֶרִי בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם, וְטָבַל –
Rav Hoshaya raised an objection to Ulla from that which was taught in a baraita: There is the case of a leper whose eighth day, on which he becomes ritually pure from his leprosy and performs the final stages of his purification process, occurs on Passover eve, such that it would be possible to bring his offerings and be fit to partake of the Paschal offering that evening. And he experienced a seminal emission on that day before he performed the final stages of his purification process, rendering him ritually impure and prohibited from entering the Temple. And he then immersed himself in a ritual bath. The question is whether he may come to the gate of the Temple courtyard, which is necessary to complete his purification process and terminate his status as a leper.
אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין טְבוּל יוֹם אַחֵר נִכְנָס, זֶה נִכְנָס; מוּטָב יָבוֹא עֲשֵׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת, וְיִדְחֶה עֲשֵׂה שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.
The Sages said: Although any other individual who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed may not enter the Temple mount until nightfall, this one may enter. The reason is that it is better for a positive mitzva that has a punishment of karet, i.e., the bringing of the Paschal offering, to come and override a positive mitzva for which there is no liability to be punished with karet, i.e., the mitzva to remove individuals who are ritually impure from the Temple courtyard, than have the positive mitzva that has a punishment of karet not be performed.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה – אֲפִילּוּ עֲשֵׂה אֵין בּוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיַּעֲמֹד יְהוֹשָׁפָט בִּקְהַל יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלִַם בְּבֵית ה׳ לִפְנֵי הֶחָצֵר הַחֲדָשָׁה״ – מַאי ״חָצֵר הַחֲדָשָׁה״? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁחִידְּשׁוּ בָּהּ דְּבָרִים (הַרְבֵּה), וְאָמְרוּ: טְבוּל יוֹם אַל יִכָּנֵס לְמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: By Torah law, there is not even a positive mitzva that restricts from entering the Temple courtyard one who has immersed that day and will become pure only upon nightfall, as it is stated: “And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judea and Jerusalem, in the House of the Lord, before the new courtyard” (II Chronicles 20:5). What is the meaning of “the new courtyard”? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is referring to the place in which they innovated many matters and said that one who immersed that day may not enter the camp of the Levites, which in Jerusalem includes the entire Temple Mount. This indicates that the prohibition is of rabbinic origin, and by Torah law it is permitted for him to enter.
וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּיאָה בְּמִקְצָת שְׁמָהּ בִּיאָה, הֵיכִי מְעַיֵּיל יְדֵיהּ בִּבְהוֹנוֹת? אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי עֲשֵׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת הוּא!
Rav Hoshaya concludes his objection: And if you say that partial entry into the courtyard is considered entry, how does the leper who immersed himself that day insert his hands into the courtyard so that his right thumb and big toe will become purified? In this situation, both this mitzva to eat of the Paschal offering and that mitzva for an impure person to not enter the courtyard are each a positive mitzva for which there is liability to be punished with karet, as someone who immersed himself that day who enters the Temple courtyard is liable to be punished with karet.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִטּוּנָךְ – שָׁאנֵי מְצוֹרָע, הוֹאִיל וְהוּתַּר לְצָרַעְתּוֹ הוּתַּר לְקִירְיוֹ.
Ulla said to Rabbi Hoshaya: A proof to my opinion can be brought from your own burden, i.e., from the question you asked. A leper is different, as the Torah permitted him to insert his right thumb and big toe into the courtyard in order to become purified despite the fact that he has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, and since he was permitted to partially enter the courtyard for purification from his leprosy, he was also permitted with regard to his impurity due to his seminal emission. Nevertheless, a partial entry into the courtyard is in fact considered an entry.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, קָסָבַר עוּלָּא: רוּבָּן זָבִים וְנַעֲשׂוּ טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים; הוֹאִיל וְהוּתְּרוּ לְטוּמְאָתָן – הוּתְּרוּ לְזִיבָתָן.
Based on Ulla’s previous comment, Rav Yosef said: Ulla holds that if most of the Jewish people were zavim on Passover eve, and were therefore prohibited from sacrificing the Paschal offering while impure, and then they became ritually impure due to a corpse, which allows them to sacrifice the Paschal offering despite their impurity as they are a majority of the Jewish people, since they are permitted to sacrifice the offering with regard to their impurity due to a corpse, they are also permitted with regard to their ziva.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי דָּמֵי?! טוּמְאָה אִישְׁתְּרַאי, זִיבָה לָא אִישְׁתְּרַאי!
Abaye said to him: Are the cases comparable? With regard to a leper who experienced a seminal emission, he was already permitted to partially enter the courtyard despite his initial impurity. Therefore, the subsequent impurity does not prohibit him from entering. By contrast, the zavim were originally prevented from sacrificing the Paschal offering. Therefore, even if he would be permitted to enter the courtyard despite becoming impure due to a corpse, he would not be permitted to enter due to the ziva that was previously present.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, דִּלְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר מָר: רוּבָּן טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים וְנַעֲשׂוּ זָבִים; הוֹאִיל וְהוּתְּרוּ לְטוּמְאָתָן – הוּתְּרוּ לְזִיבָתָן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין.
Furthermore, Abaye said to him: Perhaps this is what the Master is saying: If most of the Jewish people were initially ritually impure due to a corpse, and they subsequently became zavim, since they are permitted with regard to their impurity due to a corpse, they are permitted with regard to their ziva as well. Rav Yosef said to him: Yes, that was what I meant.
וְאַכַּתִּי לָא דָּמֵי; מְצוֹרָע – הֶיתֵּירָא הוּא, הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתְּרִי אִישְׁתְּרִי. טוּמְאָה – דְּחוּיָה הִיא, לְהָא אִידְּחַאי לְהָא לָא אִידְּחַאי!
The Gemara asks: But still, this is not comparable to the case of Ulla, since with regard to a leper, it is with total permission that he is allowed partial entry into the courtyard. And since it was permitted with regard to one impurity, it was permitted with regard to a second impurity. But the ritual impurity with regard to the sacrificing of the Paschal offering is only overridden, and there is not a total permission. Perhaps with regard to this, i.e., ritual impurity due to a corpse, it is overridden, but with regard to that, i.e., the impurity of ziva, it is not overridden.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אַדְּרַבָּה, אִיפְּכָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא! מְצוֹרָע – הֶיתֵּירָא הוּא, לְהָא אִישְׁתְּרַאי וּלְהָא לָא אִישְׁתְּרַאי; טוּמְאָה – דְּחוּיָה הוּא, מָה לִי חַד דִּחוּיָא מָה לִי שְׁתֵּי דְּחִיּוֹת?
Rava said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable. With regard to a leper, it is with specific permission that he was allowed by the Torah to insert his right thumb and big toe into the courtyard in order to become purified despite his ritual impurity, which was not granted for other impurities. Therefore, perhaps only with regard to this impurity it is permitted, but with regard to that impurity, i.e., due to a seminal emission, it is not permitted. But with regard to ritual impurity, since it is overridden in the case of ritual impurity due to a corpse, what difference does it make to me if there is one impurity that is overridden, and what difference does it make to me if there are two impurities that are overridden?
