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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 16, 2018 | 讘壮 讘住讬讜谉 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 33

Study Guide Zevachim 33. Three different versions are brought regarding what Reish Lakish said. Questions (and possible support) are brought regarding two of the versions.

诪讻诇诇 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讘讜专

The Gemara comments: It can be derived by inference that both Abaye and Rava hold that impurity is overridden in cases involving the public and is not entirely permitted.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讻诇 讛住诪讬讻讜转 砖讛讬讜 砖诐 拽讜专讗 注诇讬讛谉 讗谞讬 转讻祝 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讞讬讟讛

The Gemara returns to discussing Ulla鈥檚 statement that partial entry of a ritually impure individual is considered entry: Let us say that a baraita (Tosefta, Nega鈥檌m 8:10) supports Ulla鈥檚 opinion: Concerning all the cases of placing hands that were there in the Temple, I say about them that the principle: Immediately following the placing of hands on the head of an offering is its slaughter, is applied, meaning that these acts must take place uninterruptedly and in the same location.

讞讜抓 诪讝讜 砖讛讬转讛 讘砖注专 谞拽谞讜专 砖讗讬谉 诪爪讜专注 讬讻讜诇 诇讬讻谞住 诇砖诐 注讚 砖诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讚诐 讞讟讗转讜 讜诪讚诐 讗砖诪讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讬讗讛 讘诪拽爪转 诇讗 砖诪讛 讘讬讗讛 诇讬注讬讬诇 讬讚讬讛 讜诇住诪讜讱

This is so except for this case of a leper who places hands on his guilt offering, which was done in the threshold of the Nicanor Gate and not in the Temple courtyard where the guilt offering was slaughtered. The reason for this is that a leper cannot enter the courtyard until they sprinkle from the blood of his sin offering and from the blood of his guilt offering on the altar on his behalf. The Gemara explains the proof: And if you say that partial entry is not considered entry, let him insert his hands and place them on the head of the offering, and the offering should then be slaughtered in that location next to the gate.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪专讞拽 爪驻讜谉

Rav Yosef said: There is no proof from here, as in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the northern side of the courtyard in which it is permitted to slaughter offerings of the most sacred order, which includes a guilt offering, includes only the area to the north of the altar and not the entire northern section of the courtyard. This area is far north of the entrance to the courtyard, i.e., more than twenty-two cubits away. Consequently, even if the leper were to insert his hands into the courtyard and place them on the head of his guilt offering, it would not be permitted to slaughter it there.

讜诇讬注讘讚 驻讬砖驻砖 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讻诇 讘讻转讘 诪讬讚 讛壮 注诇讬 讛砖讻讬诇 讗转 讻诇 诪诇讗讻转 讛转讘谞讬转

The Gemara suggests: But let an opening [pishpash] be made in the northern courtyard wall facing the altar, where the leper can insert his hands. The Gemara explains: Abaye and Rava both say that such structural changes cannot be made to the Temple, since the verse states with regard to the Temple construction: 鈥淎ll in writing, as the Lord has made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern鈥 (I聽Chronicles 28:19).

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻诇 讛住讜诪讱 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 诪讻谞讬住 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诇 讻讞讜 讘注讬谞谉 讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讗驻砖专

There are those who say that Rabbi Yosef said another explanation as to why the leper cannot insert his hands into the courtyard and place them on the head of the offering: Anyone who places hands on the head of an offering must insert his head and most of his body into the courtyard. What is the reason? We require placing hands with all of his force. Therefore, it is not possible for the leper to perform the placing of his hands properly without entering the courtyard, and the placing of hands on the offering is done instead in the threshold of the Nicanor Gate.

诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 住诪讬讻转 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜转讻祝 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讬注讜诇 讜诇住诪讜讱 诇讛讚讬讗 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专

The Gemara clarifies: What does the tanna of the baraita hold? If he holds that placing hands on the head of a guilt offering of a leper is by Torah law, and the principle that immediately following the placing of hands on the head of an offering must be its slaughter is also by Torah law, let the leper openly insert his hands into the courtyard and place them on the head of the offering, as the Merciful One states in the Torah that he must do so.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬专讘讛 讘驻住讬注讜转 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 住诪讬讻转 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜转讻祝 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Rav Adda bar Mattana says: In principle that should be done. But the prohibition against the leper entering the courtyard is a rabbinic decree, due to the concern that perhaps he will increase his steps, enter the courtyard more than is necessary, and be liable for entering there in a state of impurity. There are those who say that Rav Adda bar Mattana says that placing hands on the head of a guilt offering of a leper is indeed by Torah law, but the requirement that immediately following the placing of hands is the slaughter is not by Torah law. Therefore, he places hands on the offering outside of the courtyard.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜住诪讱 讜砖讞讟 诪讛 住诪讬讻讛 讘讟讛讜专讬谉 讗祝 砖讞讬讟讛 讘讟讛讜专讬谉 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘讟诪讗讬谉 谞诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita cited previously (32a): The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering鈥And he shall slaughter the bull鈥 (Leviticus 1:4鈥5). Just as placing hands may be performed only by ritually pure individuals, so too, the slaughter may be performed only by ritually pure individuals. And if you say that the requirement that placing hands must immediately precede the slaughter is not by Torah law, then with regard to ritually impure individuals you also find that placing hands may be performed, since they can do so outside the courtyard.

讗诇讗 讗讬驻讜讱 住诪讬讻转 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜转讻祝 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Rather, reverse it and say that placing hands on the head of the guilt offering of a leper is not by Torah law, and therefore the leper must do so outside the courtyard, but with regard to offerings that require placing of hands by Torah law, the requirement that immediately following the placing of hands must be the slaughter is by Torah law.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇注谞讬谉 诪诇拽讜转 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara returns to Ulla鈥檚 statement in the name of Reish Lakish (32b) that an impure individual who inserted his hand into the Temple courtyard is flogged, as partial entry is considered entry. An objection was then raised from the case of the leper, where he is not liable to be punished with karet for partial entry, and Ulla offered one answer. Ravina says that there is another answer: It was stated only with regard to lashes, teaching that one is flogged for partially entering the courtyard while ritually impure. Reish Lakish agrees that there is no punishment of karet for partial entry as there is for a full entry.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇注谞讬谉 讟诪讗 砖谞讙注 讘拽讜讚砖 讗讬转诪专

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Abbahu says that the statement of Reish Lakish with regard to this verse was stated with regard to a ritually impure individual who touched sacrificial food, and not with regard to partial entry into the courtyard, as Ulla had said.

讚讗讬转诪专 讟诪讗 砖谞讙注 讘拽讜讚砖 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讛讛讜讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讻转讬讘

This is as it was stated: There is an amoraic dispute with regard to an impure person who touched sacrificial food. Reish Lakish says: He is flogged. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is not flogged. The Gemara elaborates. Reish Lakish says: He is flogged, as it is written: 鈥淓very consecrated item she shall not touch鈥 (Leviticus 12:4). And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is not flogged, as that verse is written with regard to touching the portion of the produce designated for the priest [teruma].

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讗讬 拽专讗 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讝讛专讛 诇讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 拽讜讚砖 讚讗讬转诪专 讗讝讛专讛 诇讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 拽讜讚砖 诪谞讬谉 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注

The Gemara asks: But does Reish Lakish actually hold that this verse comes to teach this halakha? He requires this verse to teach a prohibition for a ritually impure person who eats sacrificial meat. As it was stated: From where is the prohibition for a ritually impure person who eats sacrificial meat derived? Reish Lakish says it is derived from the verse: 鈥淓very consecrated item she shall not touch,鈥 which the Gemara will explain is referring to eating.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 转谞讬 讘专讚诇讗 讗转讬讗 讟讜诪讗转讜 讟讜诪讗转讜 诪讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注谞砖 讜讛讝讛讬专 讗祝 讻讗谉 注谞砖 讜讛讝讛讬专

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The Sage Bardela teaches that this prohibition is derived from a verbal analogy of the term 鈥渉is impu-rity [tumato]鈥 written with regard to one who eats sacrificial meat while impure (Leviticus 7:20), and the term 鈥渉is impurity [tumato]鈥 written with regard to one who enters the Temple while impure (Numbers 19:13). Just as there, with regard to entering the Temple while impure, the Torah prescribed the punishment of karet and also explicitly prohibited doing so, so too here, with regard to eating sacrificial meat while impure, the Torah prescribed the punishment of karet and also explicitly prohibited doing so. Clearly, Reish Lakish understood this verse as referring to eating sacrificial meat, not merely touching it.

讟诪讗 砖谞讙注 讘拽讜讚砖 诪讚讗驻拽讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 谞讙讬注讛 讗讝讛专讛 诇讗讜讻诇 诪讚讗讬转拽砖 拽讜讚砖 诇诪拽讚砖

The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish holds that both can be derived from Leviticus 12:4. The prohibition with regard to a ritually impure individual who touched sacrificial food is derived from the fact that the Merciful One expressed this prohibition with a term of touching, while the prohibition with regard to one who eats sacrificial food while impure is derived from the fact that the Torah juxtaposed the prohibition of eating sacrificial food while impure to the prohibition of entering the Temple while impure in the verse: 鈥淓very consecrated item she shall not touch, and to the Temple she shall not come鈥 (Leviticus 12:4).

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 讗讝讛专讛 诇讗讜讻诇 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗讝讛专讛 诇讗讜讻诇 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇谞讜讙注

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. It is written: 鈥淓very consecrated item she shall not touch鈥; this is a prohibition for an impure person who eats sacrificial food. Do you say that it is a prohibition for an impure person who eats sacrificial food, or perhaps it is only a prohibition for an impure person who touches sacrificial food?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 讜讗诇 讛诪拽讚砖 诇讗 转讘讗 诪拽讬砖 拽讜讚砖 诇诪拽讚砖 诪讛 诪拽讚砖 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜

The verse states: 鈥淓very consecrated item she shall not touch, and to the Temple she shall not come鈥 (Leviticus 12:4). The verse juxtaposes the matter pertaining to sacrificial food to the matter of entering the Temple while ritually impure. Just as entering the Temple is a matter that entails a punishment that involves

  • 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 33

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 33

诪讻诇诇 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讘讜专

The Gemara comments: It can be derived by inference that both Abaye and Rava hold that impurity is overridden in cases involving the public and is not entirely permitted.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讻诇 讛住诪讬讻讜转 砖讛讬讜 砖诐 拽讜专讗 注诇讬讛谉 讗谞讬 转讻祝 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讞讬讟讛

The Gemara returns to discussing Ulla鈥檚 statement that partial entry of a ritually impure individual is considered entry: Let us say that a baraita (Tosefta, Nega鈥檌m 8:10) supports Ulla鈥檚 opinion: Concerning all the cases of placing hands that were there in the Temple, I say about them that the principle: Immediately following the placing of hands on the head of an offering is its slaughter, is applied, meaning that these acts must take place uninterruptedly and in the same location.

讞讜抓 诪讝讜 砖讛讬转讛 讘砖注专 谞拽谞讜专 砖讗讬谉 诪爪讜专注 讬讻讜诇 诇讬讻谞住 诇砖诐 注讚 砖诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讚诐 讞讟讗转讜 讜诪讚诐 讗砖诪讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讬讗讛 讘诪拽爪转 诇讗 砖诪讛 讘讬讗讛 诇讬注讬讬诇 讬讚讬讛 讜诇住诪讜讱

This is so except for this case of a leper who places hands on his guilt offering, which was done in the threshold of the Nicanor Gate and not in the Temple courtyard where the guilt offering was slaughtered. The reason for this is that a leper cannot enter the courtyard until they sprinkle from the blood of his sin offering and from the blood of his guilt offering on the altar on his behalf. The Gemara explains the proof: And if you say that partial entry is not considered entry, let him insert his hands and place them on the head of the offering, and the offering should then be slaughtered in that location next to the gate.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪专讞拽 爪驻讜谉

Rav Yosef said: There is no proof from here, as in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the northern side of the courtyard in which it is permitted to slaughter offerings of the most sacred order, which includes a guilt offering, includes only the area to the north of the altar and not the entire northern section of the courtyard. This area is far north of the entrance to the courtyard, i.e., more than twenty-two cubits away. Consequently, even if the leper were to insert his hands into the courtyard and place them on the head of his guilt offering, it would not be permitted to slaughter it there.

讜诇讬注讘讚 驻讬砖驻砖 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讻诇 讘讻转讘 诪讬讚 讛壮 注诇讬 讛砖讻讬诇 讗转 讻诇 诪诇讗讻转 讛转讘谞讬转

The Gemara suggests: But let an opening [pishpash] be made in the northern courtyard wall facing the altar, where the leper can insert his hands. The Gemara explains: Abaye and Rava both say that such structural changes cannot be made to the Temple, since the verse states with regard to the Temple construction: 鈥淎ll in writing, as the Lord has made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern鈥 (I聽Chronicles 28:19).

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻诇 讛住讜诪讱 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 诪讻谞讬住 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诇 讻讞讜 讘注讬谞谉 讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讗驻砖专

There are those who say that Rabbi Yosef said another explanation as to why the leper cannot insert his hands into the courtyard and place them on the head of the offering: Anyone who places hands on the head of an offering must insert his head and most of his body into the courtyard. What is the reason? We require placing hands with all of his force. Therefore, it is not possible for the leper to perform the placing of his hands properly without entering the courtyard, and the placing of hands on the offering is done instead in the threshold of the Nicanor Gate.

诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 住诪讬讻转 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜转讻祝 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讬注讜诇 讜诇住诪讜讱 诇讛讚讬讗 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专

The Gemara clarifies: What does the tanna of the baraita hold? If he holds that placing hands on the head of a guilt offering of a leper is by Torah law, and the principle that immediately following the placing of hands on the head of an offering must be its slaughter is also by Torah law, let the leper openly insert his hands into the courtyard and place them on the head of the offering, as the Merciful One states in the Torah that he must do so.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬专讘讛 讘驻住讬注讜转 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 住诪讬讻转 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜转讻祝 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Rav Adda bar Mattana says: In principle that should be done. But the prohibition against the leper entering the courtyard is a rabbinic decree, due to the concern that perhaps he will increase his steps, enter the courtyard more than is necessary, and be liable for entering there in a state of impurity. There are those who say that Rav Adda bar Mattana says that placing hands on the head of a guilt offering of a leper is indeed by Torah law, but the requirement that immediately following the placing of hands is the slaughter is not by Torah law. Therefore, he places hands on the offering outside of the courtyard.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜住诪讱 讜砖讞讟 诪讛 住诪讬讻讛 讘讟讛讜专讬谉 讗祝 砖讞讬讟讛 讘讟讛讜专讬谉 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘讟诪讗讬谉 谞诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita cited previously (32a): The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering鈥And he shall slaughter the bull鈥 (Leviticus 1:4鈥5). Just as placing hands may be performed only by ritually pure individuals, so too, the slaughter may be performed only by ritually pure individuals. And if you say that the requirement that placing hands must immediately precede the slaughter is not by Torah law, then with regard to ritually impure individuals you also find that placing hands may be performed, since they can do so outside the courtyard.

讗诇讗 讗讬驻讜讱 住诪讬讻转 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜转讻祝 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Rather, reverse it and say that placing hands on the head of the guilt offering of a leper is not by Torah law, and therefore the leper must do so outside the courtyard, but with regard to offerings that require placing of hands by Torah law, the requirement that immediately following the placing of hands must be the slaughter is by Torah law.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇注谞讬谉 诪诇拽讜转 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara returns to Ulla鈥檚 statement in the name of Reish Lakish (32b) that an impure individual who inserted his hand into the Temple courtyard is flogged, as partial entry is considered entry. An objection was then raised from the case of the leper, where he is not liable to be punished with karet for partial entry, and Ulla offered one answer. Ravina says that there is another answer: It was stated only with regard to lashes, teaching that one is flogged for partially entering the courtyard while ritually impure. Reish Lakish agrees that there is no punishment of karet for partial entry as there is for a full entry.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇注谞讬谉 讟诪讗 砖谞讙注 讘拽讜讚砖 讗讬转诪专

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Abbahu says that the statement of Reish Lakish with regard to this verse was stated with regard to a ritually impure individual who touched sacrificial food, and not with regard to partial entry into the courtyard, as Ulla had said.

讚讗讬转诪专 讟诪讗 砖谞讙注 讘拽讜讚砖 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讛讛讜讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讻转讬讘

This is as it was stated: There is an amoraic dispute with regard to an impure person who touched sacrificial food. Reish Lakish says: He is flogged. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is not flogged. The Gemara elaborates. Reish Lakish says: He is flogged, as it is written: 鈥淓very consecrated item she shall not touch鈥 (Leviticus 12:4). And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is not flogged, as that verse is written with regard to touching the portion of the produce designated for the priest [teruma].

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讗讬 拽专讗 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讝讛专讛 诇讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 拽讜讚砖 讚讗讬转诪专 讗讝讛专讛 诇讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 拽讜讚砖 诪谞讬谉 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注

The Gemara asks: But does Reish Lakish actually hold that this verse comes to teach this halakha? He requires this verse to teach a prohibition for a ritually impure person who eats sacrificial meat. As it was stated: From where is the prohibition for a ritually impure person who eats sacrificial meat derived? Reish Lakish says it is derived from the verse: 鈥淓very consecrated item she shall not touch,鈥 which the Gemara will explain is referring to eating.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 转谞讬 讘专讚诇讗 讗转讬讗 讟讜诪讗转讜 讟讜诪讗转讜 诪讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注谞砖 讜讛讝讛讬专 讗祝 讻讗谉 注谞砖 讜讛讝讛讬专

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The Sage Bardela teaches that this prohibition is derived from a verbal analogy of the term 鈥渉is impu-rity [tumato]鈥 written with regard to one who eats sacrificial meat while impure (Leviticus 7:20), and the term 鈥渉is impurity [tumato]鈥 written with regard to one who enters the Temple while impure (Numbers 19:13). Just as there, with regard to entering the Temple while impure, the Torah prescribed the punishment of karet and also explicitly prohibited doing so, so too here, with regard to eating sacrificial meat while impure, the Torah prescribed the punishment of karet and also explicitly prohibited doing so. Clearly, Reish Lakish understood this verse as referring to eating sacrificial meat, not merely touching it.

讟诪讗 砖谞讙注 讘拽讜讚砖 诪讚讗驻拽讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 谞讙讬注讛 讗讝讛专讛 诇讗讜讻诇 诪讚讗讬转拽砖 拽讜讚砖 诇诪拽讚砖

The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish holds that both can be derived from Leviticus 12:4. The prohibition with regard to a ritually impure individual who touched sacrificial food is derived from the fact that the Merciful One expressed this prohibition with a term of touching, while the prohibition with regard to one who eats sacrificial food while impure is derived from the fact that the Torah juxtaposed the prohibition of eating sacrificial food while impure to the prohibition of entering the Temple while impure in the verse: 鈥淓very consecrated item she shall not touch, and to the Temple she shall not come鈥 (Leviticus 12:4).

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 讗讝讛专讛 诇讗讜讻诇 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗讝讛专讛 诇讗讜讻诇 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇谞讜讙注

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. It is written: 鈥淓very consecrated item she shall not touch鈥; this is a prohibition for an impure person who eats sacrificial food. Do you say that it is a prohibition for an impure person who eats sacrificial food, or perhaps it is only a prohibition for an impure person who touches sacrificial food?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 讜讗诇 讛诪拽讚砖 诇讗 转讘讗 诪拽讬砖 拽讜讚砖 诇诪拽讚砖 诪讛 诪拽讚砖 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜

The verse states: 鈥淓very consecrated item she shall not touch, and to the Temple she shall not come鈥 (Leviticus 12:4). The verse juxtaposes the matter pertaining to sacrificial food to the matter of entering the Temple while ritually impure. Just as entering the Temple is a matter that entails a punishment that involves

Scroll To Top