Zevachim 33
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.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
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 (Temple courtyard), 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. Despite his impurity, he is permitted to proceed with the purification process, which requires partial entry into the Azara. Ulla resolves this difficulty.
A braita is brought in support of Ulla’s statement, discussing the smicha (laying of hands) on the guilt offering of a leper, which is performed outside the Azara. The implication is that if partial entry were permitted, the leper could simply insert his hands into the Azara to perform the smicha. Rav Yosef rejects this support, and there are two distinct versions of how he rejects this.
A difficulty is raised against the content of the braita: if the guilt offering requires smicha by Torah law, and if smicha must be performed immediately prior to slaughtering, then it should be permitted to perform the smicha inside the Azara. Rav Ada bar Matna resolves this challenge, though there are differing accounts of how he does so.
Ravina and Ravin each offer alternative resolutions to the difficulty with Ulla’s statement. Ravina maintains that partial entry into the Azara is prohibited only by a penalty of lashes, without the more severe punishment of karet. Ravin, on the other hand, argues that Ulla’s citation of Reish Lakish was inaccurate. According to Ravin, Reish Lakish was referring to lashes incurred by one who touches sacrificial items (kodashim), not one who enters the Azara.
This leads to a broader debate between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan regarding the interpretation of the verse “do not touch kodesh.” Reish Lakish understands it as referring to sacrificial items, while Rabbi Yochanan interprets it as referring to teruma.
A question arises: how can Reish Lakish derive both the prohibition to touch and the prohibition to eat sacrificial items from the same verse, as he does in a separate debate with Rabbi Yochanan? The Gemara addresses this and explains how both prohibitions can be learned from the same textual source.
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.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Hannah and Michael Piotrkowski “in gratitude to President Trump, PM Netanyahu, the IDF and the people of Israel for persevering to bring home the hostages and be”H usher in the dawn of peace in our region.”
Zevachim 33
מִכְּלָל דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ: טוּמְאָה דְּחוּיָה הִיא בְּצִבּוּר.
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.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: כׇּל הַסְּמִיכוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם קוֹרֵא עֲלֵיהֶן אֲנִי תֵּכֶף לִסְמִיכָה שְׁחִיטָה;
The Gemara returns to discussing Ulla’s statement that partial entry of a ritually impure individual is considered entry: Let us say that a baraita (Tosefta, Nega’im 8:10) supports Ulla’s 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.
חוּץ מִזּוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּשַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר, שֶׁאֵין מְצוֹרָע יָכוֹל לִיכָּנֵס לְשָׁם עַד שֶׁמַּזִּין עָלָיו מִדַּם חַטָּאתוֹ וּמִדַּם אֲשָׁמוֹ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּיאָה בְּמִקְצָת לֹא שְׁמָהּ בִּיאָה – לִיעַיֵּיל יְדֵיהּ וְלִסְמוֹךְ!
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.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מְרַחַק צָפוֹן.
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.
וְלֶיעֱבֵד פִּישְׁפֵּשׁ! אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: ״הַכֹּל בִּכְתָב מִיַּד ה׳ עָלַי הִשְׂכִּיל אֶת כׇּל מְלֶאכֶת הַתַּבְנִית״.
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: “All in writing, as the Lord has made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern” (I Chronicles 28:19).
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כָּל הַסּוֹמֵךְ – רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ מַכְנִיס, מַאי טַעְמָא? כֹּל כֹּחוֹ בָּעֵינַן; הִלְכָּךְ לָא אֶפְשָׁר.
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.
מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר סְמִיכַת אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְתֵכֶף לִסְמִיכָה שְׁחִיטָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – לֵיעוּל וְלִסְמוֹךְ לְהֶדְיָא, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר!
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.
אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַרְבֶּה בִּפְסִיעוֹת. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה: סְמִיכַת אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְתֵכֶף לִסְמִיכָה שְׁחִיטָה לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
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.
מֵיתִיבִי: ״וְסָמַךְ… וְשָׁחַט״ – מָה סְמִיכָה בִּטְהוֹרִין, אַף שְׁחִיטָה בִּטְהוֹרִין. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – בִּטְמֵאִין נָמֵי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ!
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita cited previously (32a): The verse states: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering…And he shall slaughter the bull” (Leviticus 1:4–5). 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.
אֶלָּא אֵיפוֹךְ – סְמִיכַת אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְתֵכֶף לִסְמִיכָה שְׁחִיטָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
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.
רָבִינָא אָמַר: לְעִנְיַן מַלְקוֹת אִיתְּמַר.
The Gemara returns to Ulla’s 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.
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לְעִנְיַן טָמֵא שֶׁנָּגַע בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ אִיתְּמַר.
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.
דְּאִיתְּמַר: טָמֵא שֶׁנָּגַע בְּקוֹדֶשׁ – רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לוֹקֶה, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר לוֹקֶה – ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע״. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה – הָהוּא בִּתְרוּמָה כְּתִיב.
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 Yoḥanan says: He is not flogged. The Gemara elaborates. Reish Lakish says: He is flogged, as it is written: “Every consecrated item she shall not touch” (Leviticus 12:4). And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is not flogged, as that verse is written with regard to touching the portion of the produce designated for the priest [teruma].
וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ – הַאי קְרָא לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?! הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: אַזְהָרָה לְאוֹכֵל בְּשַׂר קוֹדֶשׁ! דְּאִיתְּמַר: אַזְהָרָה לָאוֹכֵל בְּשַׂר קוֹדֶשׁ מִנַּיִן? רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע״.
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: “Every consecrated item she shall not touch,” which the Gemara will explain is referring to eating.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: תָּנֵי בַּרְדְּלָא, אָתְיָא ״טוּמְאָתוֹ״–״טוּמְאָתוֹ״ מִבִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ; מָה לְהַלָּן עָנַשׁ וְהִזְהִיר, אַף כָּאן עָנַשׁ וְהִזְהִיר.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Sage Bardela teaches that this prohibition is derived from a verbal analogy of the term “his impurity [tumato]” written with regard to one who eats sacrificial meat while impure (Leviticus 7:20), and the term “his impurity [tumato]” 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.
טָמֵא שֶׁנָּגַע בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ – מִדְּאַפְּקַהּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּלְשׁוֹן נְגִיעָה; אַזְהָרָה לָאוֹכֵל – מִדְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ קוֹדֶשׁ לְמִקְדָּשׁ.
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: “Every consecrated item she shall not touch, and to the Temple she shall not come” (Leviticus 12:4).
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע״ – אַזְהָרָה לָאוֹכֵל. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר אַזְהָרָה לְאוֹכֵל; אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לַנּוֹגֵעַ?
The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. It is written: “Every consecrated item she shall not touch”; 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?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע וְאֶל הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא תָבֹא״ – מַקִּישׁ קוֹדֶשׁ לְמִקְדָּשׁ; מָה מִקְדָּשׁ – דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ
The verse states: “Every consecrated item she shall not touch, and to the Temple she shall not come” (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
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
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
Blacksburg, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , 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 started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
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
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Zevachim 33
מִכְּלָל דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ: טוּמְאָה דְּחוּיָה הִיא בְּצִבּוּר.
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.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: כׇּל הַסְּמִיכוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם קוֹרֵא עֲלֵיהֶן אֲנִי תֵּכֶף לִסְמִיכָה שְׁחִיטָה;
The Gemara returns to discussing Ulla’s statement that partial entry of a ritually impure individual is considered entry: Let us say that a baraita (Tosefta, Nega’im 8:10) supports Ulla’s 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.
חוּץ מִזּוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּשַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר, שֶׁאֵין מְצוֹרָע יָכוֹל לִיכָּנֵס לְשָׁם עַד שֶׁמַּזִּין עָלָיו מִדַּם חַטָּאתוֹ וּמִדַּם אֲשָׁמוֹ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּיאָה בְּמִקְצָת לֹא שְׁמָהּ בִּיאָה – לִיעַיֵּיל יְדֵיהּ וְלִסְמוֹךְ!
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.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מְרַחַק צָפוֹן.
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.
וְלֶיעֱבֵד פִּישְׁפֵּשׁ! אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: ״הַכֹּל בִּכְתָב מִיַּד ה׳ עָלַי הִשְׂכִּיל אֶת כׇּל מְלֶאכֶת הַתַּבְנִית״.
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: “All in writing, as the Lord has made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern” (I Chronicles 28:19).
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כָּל הַסּוֹמֵךְ – רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ מַכְנִיס, מַאי טַעְמָא? כֹּל כֹּחוֹ בָּעֵינַן; הִלְכָּךְ לָא אֶפְשָׁר.
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.
מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר סְמִיכַת אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְתֵכֶף לִסְמִיכָה שְׁחִיטָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – לֵיעוּל וְלִסְמוֹךְ לְהֶדְיָא, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר!
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.
אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַרְבֶּה בִּפְסִיעוֹת. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה: סְמִיכַת אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְתֵכֶף לִסְמִיכָה שְׁחִיטָה לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
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.
מֵיתִיבִי: ״וְסָמַךְ… וְשָׁחַט״ – מָה סְמִיכָה בִּטְהוֹרִין, אַף שְׁחִיטָה בִּטְהוֹרִין. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – בִּטְמֵאִין נָמֵי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ!
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita cited previously (32a): The verse states: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering…And he shall slaughter the bull” (Leviticus 1:4–5). 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.
אֶלָּא אֵיפוֹךְ – סְמִיכַת אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְתֵכֶף לִסְמִיכָה שְׁחִיטָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
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.
רָבִינָא אָמַר: לְעִנְיַן מַלְקוֹת אִיתְּמַר.
The Gemara returns to Ulla’s 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.
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לְעִנְיַן טָמֵא שֶׁנָּגַע בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ אִיתְּמַר.
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.
דְּאִיתְּמַר: טָמֵא שֶׁנָּגַע בְּקוֹדֶשׁ – רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לוֹקֶה, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר לוֹקֶה – ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע״. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה – הָהוּא בִּתְרוּמָה כְּתִיב.
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 Yoḥanan says: He is not flogged. The Gemara elaborates. Reish Lakish says: He is flogged, as it is written: “Every consecrated item she shall not touch” (Leviticus 12:4). And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is not flogged, as that verse is written with regard to touching the portion of the produce designated for the priest [teruma].
וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ – הַאי קְרָא לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?! הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: אַזְהָרָה לְאוֹכֵל בְּשַׂר קוֹדֶשׁ! דְּאִיתְּמַר: אַזְהָרָה לָאוֹכֵל בְּשַׂר קוֹדֶשׁ מִנַּיִן? רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע״.
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: “Every consecrated item she shall not touch,” which the Gemara will explain is referring to eating.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: תָּנֵי בַּרְדְּלָא, אָתְיָא ״טוּמְאָתוֹ״–״טוּמְאָתוֹ״ מִבִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ; מָה לְהַלָּן עָנַשׁ וְהִזְהִיר, אַף כָּאן עָנַשׁ וְהִזְהִיר.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Sage Bardela teaches that this prohibition is derived from a verbal analogy of the term “his impurity [tumato]” written with regard to one who eats sacrificial meat while impure (Leviticus 7:20), and the term “his impurity [tumato]” 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.
טָמֵא שֶׁנָּגַע בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ – מִדְּאַפְּקַהּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּלְשׁוֹן נְגִיעָה; אַזְהָרָה לָאוֹכֵל – מִדְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ קוֹדֶשׁ לְמִקְדָּשׁ.
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: “Every consecrated item she shall not touch, and to the Temple she shall not come” (Leviticus 12:4).
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע״ – אַזְהָרָה לָאוֹכֵל. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר אַזְהָרָה לְאוֹכֵל; אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לַנּוֹגֵעַ?
The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. It is written: “Every consecrated item she shall not touch”; 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?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע וְאֶל הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא תָבֹא״ – מַקִּישׁ קוֹדֶשׁ לְמִקְדָּשׁ; מָה מִקְדָּשׁ – דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ
The verse states: “Every consecrated item she shall not touch, and to the Temple she shall not come” (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
