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.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Tina Lamm in loving memory of her father, Mr. Mike Senders, A”H, Yitzchak Meir ben HaRav Tzvi Aryeh v’Esther Bayla, on his shloshim. “Reaching the age of 101 was not only a personal milestone for my father, but also a testament to the fullness of his life. He used those years well – building Torah institutions, nurturing family and living in intimacy with Hakadosh Baruch Hu. יְהִי זִכְרוֹ בָּרוּךְ”
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:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Tina Lamm in loving memory of her father, Mr. Mike Senders, A”H, Yitzchak Meir ben HaRav Tzvi Aryeh v’Esther Bayla, on his shloshim. “Reaching the age of 101 was not only a personal milestone for my father, but also a testament to the fullness of his life. He used those years well – building Torah institutions, nurturing family and living in intimacy with Hakadosh Baruch Hu. יְהִי זִכְרוֹ בָּרוּךְ”
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.”
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 impu-rity [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
Follow
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Din & Daf: How Should We Understand the Central Role of Blood in the World of Korbanot?
Dr. Elana Stein Hain
09.21.2025 | כ״ח באלול תשפ״ה
A Daf Of Their Own –Intent and Action
חמוטל שובל, Rabbanit Shira Marili Mirvis and Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval
09.21.2025 | כ״ח באלול תשפ״ה
כוונה ומעשה בקורבנות- דף משלהן
Rabbanit Shira Marili Mirvis and Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval
09.20.2025 | כ״ז באלול תשפ״ה
האם חייבים לתת צדקה? ולחזור בתשובה?
חמוטל שובל, Rabbanit Shira Marili Mirvis and Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval
09.17.2025 | כ״ד באלול תשפ״ה
תשובה אמיתית: מתי היא מתקבלת? ואיך יודעים שהיא נענתה?
הרבנית חנה גודינגר (דרייפוס)
09.17.2025 | כ״ד באלול תשפ״ה
Din & Daf: What is the Concept of שלא לשמה All About?
Dr. Elana Stein Hain
09.17.2025 | כ״ד באלול תשפ״ה
Horayot Daf 2-8 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Dr. Tamara Spitz
09.15.2025 | כ״ב באלול תשפ״ה
A Daf Of Their Own – Intro To Kodashim
Rabbanit Shira Marili Mirvis and Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval
09.14.2025 | כ״א באלול תשפ״ה
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.
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Yafit Fishbach
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
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.
Rachel Rotenberg
Tekoa, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, 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!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
Miriam Tannenbaum
אפרת, 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.
Leah Herzog
Givat Zev, Israel
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Sheila Hauser
Jerusalem, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
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.
Ruth Leah Kahan
Ra’anana, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Miriam Eckstein-Koas
Huntington, 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 impu-rity [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
Follow
