סנהדרין פג

סנהדרין פג

לֹא מִשּׁוּם זָרוּת, וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה, וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם מְחוּסַּר בְּגָדִים, וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם רִחוּץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם.

neither due to non-priesthood, if a non-priest performs one of those rites in the Temple, he is not liable to receive the death penalty; nor due to the performance of any of these rites in a state of ritual impurity; nor due to the performance of any of these rites as a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments; nor due to the performance of any of these services without the washing of his hands and feet. The reason for the lack of liability is that in all these cases, additional rites must be performed in order to complete the service. One is liable for performing the service outside the Temple, or performing the service as a non-priest, in a state of ritual impurity, etc., only when performing a ritual that completes the service.

הָא מְקַטֵּר – חַיָּיב. מַאי לָאו, מִיתָה? לָא, בְּאַזְהָרָה.

From the baraita, one may infer: But one who burns the offering on the altar in one of these circumstances, including in a state of ritual impurity, is liable. What, is it not teaching that he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, and there is proof from the baraita to resolve Rav Aḥa bar Huna’s dilemma? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, he is liable for violating a prohibition, without the punishment of death.

אֶלָּא זָר נָמֵי לְאַזְהָרָה? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְהַזָּר הַקָּרֵב יוּמָת״! הָא כִּדְאִיתַאּ וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַאּ.

The Gemara asks: But according to that understanding, as for the non-priest who is mentioned in the baraita together with the priest who performs the Temple service in a state of impurity, is he too liable for violating a prohibition, and not death, if he burns the offering on the altar? But isn’t it written: “And the non-priest who approaches shall be put to death” (Numbers 18:7)? The Gemara answers: Do not extrapolate the liability of a non-priest from the liability of a ritually impure priest, as this case of ritual impurity is as it is, and that case of a non-priest is as it is; each situation is discussed independently.

מִכְּלָל דְּיוֹצֵק וּבוֹלֵל לָאו נָמֵי לָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: אַזְהָרָה לְיוֹצֵק וּבוֹלֵל מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קְדֹשִׁים יִהְיוּ וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ״. מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּקְרָא אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.

The Gemara asks: Is that to say, by inference, that a priest who pours oil onto a meal-offering and one who mixes the oil into the meal-offering, in a state of ritual impurity, does not violate even a prohibition? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: From where is a prohibition against pouring oil and against mixing oil in a state of ritual impurity derived? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “They shall be sacred to their God and they shall not profane the name of their God; for the fire offerings of the Lord, the bread of their God, they offer” (Leviticus 21:6). The Gemara answers: No proof may be cited from that verse, as the prohibition against performing Temple rites that do not complete the service in a state of impurity is by rabbinic law, and the verse is a mere support, not a Torah prohibition.

מֵיתִיבִי: וְאֵלּוּ הֵן שֶׁבְּמִיתָה – טָמֵא שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ. תְּיוּבְתָּא!

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta, Zevaḥim 12:17): And these are they who are liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven: Among those enumerated is an impure individual who performed the Temple service. The Gemara concludes: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Sheshet, and proof that an impure individual who performs the Temple service is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, and young priests and zealots may kill only one who is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven.

גּוּפָא: וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁבְּמִיתָה – הָאוֹכֵל אֶת הַטֶּבֶל, וְכֹהֵן טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה, וְזָר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה, וְזָר שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ, וְטָמֵא שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ, וּטְבוּל יוֹם שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ, וּמְחוּסַּר בְּגָדִים, וּמְחוּסַּר כַּפָּרָה, וְשֶׁלֹּא רָחַץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם, וּשְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן, וּפְרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ.

§ In order to discuss the matter itself, the Gemara cites the Tosefta: And these are they who are liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven: One who partakes of untithed produce, and a ritually impure priest who partook of ritually pure teruma, and a non-priest who partook of teruma, and a non-priest who performed the Temple service, and a ritually impure priest who performed the Temple service, and a priest who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, who performed the Temple service, and a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments, and a priest who has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete his purification process as a leper or zav, and a priest who did not wash his hands and feet before beginning the Temple service; and priests who performed the Temple service while intoxicated with wine, and priests who performed the Temple service with overgrown hair on their heads.

אֲבָל עָרֵל, וְאוֹנֵן, וְיוֹשֵׁב – אֵינָן בְּמִיתָה אֶלָּא בְּאַזְהָרָה. בַּעַל מוּם – רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּמִיתָה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בָּאַזְהָרָה.

The baraita continues: But a priest who performs the Temple service while uncircumcised or as an acute mourner on the day that one of his close relatives dies, or a priest who performs the Temple service while seated, are not punished with death at the hand of Heaven; rather, they are liable for violating a prohibition. With regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, and the Rabbis say: He is liable only for violating a prohibition.

הֵזִיד בִּמְעִילָה, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּמִיתָה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בָּאַזְהָרָה.

As the Torah states the halakha only in the case of one who misuses consecrated property unwittingly, there is a dispute with regard to one who intentionally performed an action of misuse of consecrated property. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, and the Rabbis say: He is liable only for violating a prohibition.

הָאוֹכֵל אֶת הַטֶּבֶל, מְנָלַן? דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מִנַּיִין לְאוֹכֵל אֶת הַטֶּבֶל שֶׁהוּא בְּמִיתָה? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קׇדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל [אֵת] אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַה׳״. בַּעֲתִידִים לִתְרוֹם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

The Gemara elaborates: It was taught in the baraita that one who partakes of untithed produce is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: As Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: From where is it derived that one who partakes of untithed produce is punished with death at the hand of Heaven? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “They shall not desecrate the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they will set apart unto the Lord” (Leviticus 22:15). From the fact that it is formulated in the future tense: “Which they will set apart,” it is clear that the verse is speaking about items that are destined to be separated in the future, i.e. untithed produce from which teruma and tithes will be separated.

וְיָלֵיף ״חִילּוּל״ ״חִילּוּל״ מִתְּרוּמָה, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּמִיתָה – אַף כָּאן בְּמִיתָה.

And the tanna derives the punishment by means of a verbal analogy: The term of desecration written with regard to untithed produce is derived from the term of desecration written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of teruma (see Leviticus 22:9). Just as there, with regard to teruma, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too here, with regard to untithed produce, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

וְנֵילַף ״חִילּוּל״ ״חִילּוּל״ מִנּוֹתָר: מָה לְהַלָּן בְּכָרֵת, אַף כָּאן בְּכָרֵת.

The Gemara challenges: And let us derive the punishment by means of a different verbal analogy: Derive the term of desecration written with regard to untithed produce from the term of desecration written with regard to meat leftover from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption [notar] (see Leviticus 19:6, 8). Just as there, with regard to notar, he is punished with karet, so too here, with regard to untithed produce, he is punished with karet.

מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִתְּרוּמָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן תְּרוּמָה: חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, הוּתְּרָה, בְּרַבִּים, פֵּירוֹת, פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר.

The Gemara answers: It is reasonable to say that he should have derived the punishment for partaking of untithed produce from teruma, as there are many elements common to teruma and untithed produce. Unlike notar, they are germane to the halakhot of teruma; they are not in effect outside of Eretz Yisrael; both of them can become permitted, as an impure priest can immerse and partake of teruma, and untithed produce can become permitted by taking teruma and tithes; in both cases, the term of desecration is formulated in the plural, while with regard to notar it is formulated in the singular; both apply to produce; and neither the halakha of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul], nor the halakha of notar, apply in either case.

אַדְּרַבָּה, מִנּוֹתָר הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן פְּסוּל אוֹכֶל, אֵין לוֹ הֶיתֵּר בְּמִקְוֶה. הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן. רָבִינָא אָמַר: חִילּוּל דְּרַבִּים מֵחִילּוּל דְּרַבִּים עָדִיף.

The Gemara rejects that conclusion: On the contrary, he should have derived the punishment for the partaking of untithed produce from notar, as there are elements common to notar and untithed produce. Both cases relate to the unfitness of the food, while in the case of an impure individual partaking of teruma, it is the person who is unfit; and in both cases there is no permission granted by means of immersion in the ritual bath, while in the case of an impure individual partaking of teruma, immersion is effective. The Gemara answers: Those elements common to teruma and untithed produce are more numerous, therefore that is the preferred derivation. Ravina says: There is no need for a tally of common elements, as deriving desecration in the plural by means of a verbal analogy from desecration in the plural is preferable.

וְכֹהֵן טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה מְנָלַן? דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מִנַּיִין לְכֹהֵן טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא בְּמִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשָׁמְרוּ אֶת מִשְׁמַרְתִּי וְלֹא יִשְׂאוּ עָלָיו חֵטְא וְגוֹ׳״.

The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita. From where do we derive that an impure priest who partook of pure teruma is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven? It is derived as Shmuel says: From where is it derived with regard to an impure priest who partakes of pure teruma that he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven? It is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to a priest who partakes of teruma: “And they shall keep my charge lest they bear a sin for it and die therein if they desecrate it: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 22:9).

טְהוֹרָה – אִין, טְמֵאָה – לָא. דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מִנַּיִין לְכֹהֵן טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּמִיתָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמֵתוּ בוֹ כִּי יְחַלְּלֻהוּ״,

The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that for partaking of ritually pure teruma, yes, the impure priest is liable, but for partaking of impure teruma, no, the priest is not liable? It is derived as Shmuel says that Rabbi Eliezer says: From where is it derived that an impure priest who partakes of impure teruma is not punished with death at the hand of Heaven? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated in that verse: “And die therein if they desecrate it,”

פְּרָט לָזוֹ שֶׁמְּחוּלֶּלֶת וְעוֹמֶדֶת.

to the exclusion of teruma that is impure and already desecrated.

וְזָר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה, אָמַר רַב: זָר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה לוֹקֶה. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: לֵימָא מָר בְּמִיתָה, דִּכְתִיב ״וְכׇל זָר לֹא יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ״?

§ The Gemara continues in its analysis of the baraita: A non-priest who partook of teruma is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. Rav says: A non-priest who partook of teruma is flogged. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: Let the Master say that he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, as it is written: “And they shall keep my charge lest they bear a sin for it and die therein if they desecrate it: I am the Lord Who sanctifies them. No non-priest shall eat of the sacred, a tenant of a priest, or a hired servant, shall not eat of the sacred” (Leviticus 22:9–10). Based on the juxtaposition between them, one should say that just as an impure priest who partakes of teruma is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too a non-priest who partakes of teruma is punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

״אֲנִי ה׳ מְקַדְּשָׁם״ – הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן. מֵיתִיבִי: וְאֵלּוּ הֵן שֶׁבְּמִיתָה – זָר הָאוֹכֵל אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. מַתְנִיתָא אַדְּרַב קָא רָמֵית? רַב תַּנָּא הוּא וּפָלֵיג!

Rav responded: The phrase “I am the Lord Who sanctifies them” ends the matter of death, so the matter of a non-priest who partakes of teruma is not juxtaposed to it. The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav from the baraita: And these are they who are liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven: A non-priest who partakes of teruma. The Gemara explains: Are you raising a contradiction from a baraita to the opinion of Rav? Rav is a tanna, and as such has the authority to dispute the determination of the baraita.

וְזָר שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַזָּר הַקָּרֵב יוּמָת״.

The baraita continues: The punishment for a non-priest who performed the Temple service is death at the hand of Heaven, as it is written: “You and your sons with you shall safeguard your priesthood with regard to every matter of the altar…and any non-priest who approaches shall die” (Numbers 18:7).

וְטָמֵא שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ, כְּדִבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין מֵרַב יוֹסֵף: מִנַּיִין לְטָמֵא שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ שֶׁהוּא בְּמִיתָה? דִּכְתִיב: ״דַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל בָּנָיו וְיִנָּזְרוּ מִקׇּדְשֵׁי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קׇדְשִׁי״.

The baraita continues: The punishment for an impure priest who performed the Temple service is death at the hand of Heaven. The source for this is explained: As Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin asked of Rav Yosef: From where is it derived that an impure priest who performed the Temple service is punished with death at the hand of Heaven? Rav Yosef answered: It is derived from a verse, as it is written in the context of admonishing priests to avoid impurity: “Speak to Aaron and his sons that they shall separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel that they sanctify to Me, and they shall not desecrate My sacred name: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 22:2).

וְיָלֵיף ״חִילּוּל״ ״חִילּוּל״ מִתְּרוּמָה, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּמִיתָה – אַף כָּאן בְּמִיתָה.

Rav Yosef continues: And the tanna derives the punishment by means of a verbal analogy. He derives the meaning of the term of desecration written with regard to an impure priest who performs the Temple service from the term of desecration written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of teruma (see Leviticus 22:9). Just as there, with regard to teruma, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too here, with regard to an impure priest who performs the Temple service, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

וְנֵילַף ״חִילּוּל״ ״חִילּוּל״ מִנּוֹתָר: מָה לְהַלָּן כָּרֵת, אַף כָּאן כָּרֵת?

The Gemara asks: And let us derive the punishment by means of a different verbal analogy: Derive the term of desecration written with regard to an impure priest who performs the Temple service from the term of desecration written with regard to notar. This would teach that just as there, with regard to notar, he is punished with karet, so too here, with regard to an impure priest who performs the Temple service, he is punished with karet.

מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִתְּרוּמָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן: גּוּף, טָמֵא, מִקְוֶה, בְּרַבִּים.

The Gemara answers: It is reasonable to say that it is from teruma that he should have derived the punishment for an impure priest who performs the Temple service, as there are many elements common to an impure priest who partakes of teruma and an impure priest who performs the Temple service. In both of these cases, unlike notar, the problem relates to the body of the priest; both relate to impurity; in both, the issue can be resolved through immersion in a ritual bath; and in both, the term of desecration is formulated in the plural, while with regard to notar it is formulated in the singular.

אַדְּרַבָּה, מִנּוֹתָר הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן קֹדֶשׁ, פְּנִים, פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר! חִילּוּל דְּרַבִּים מֵחִילּוּל דְּרַבִּים עֲדִיף.

The Gemara rejects that conclusion: On the contrary, it is from notar that he should have derived the punishment for an impure priest who performs the Temple service, as there are elements common to notar and an impure priest who performs the Temple service. Unlike teruma, both are cases involving sacrificial matters; both involve acts performed inside the Temple; and in both cases, the disqualification of piggul and the disqualification of notar are applicable. The Gemara explains: Although the number of elements common to an impure priest who partakes of teruma equals the number of elements common to notar, deriving desecration in the plural by means of a verbal analogy from desecration in the plural is preferable.

טְבוּל יוֹם שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ, מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי סִימַאי אוֹמֵר, רֶמֶז לִטְבוּל יוֹם שֶׁאִם עָבַד חִילֵּל מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קְדֹשִׁים יִהְיוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ״.

The baraita continues: The punishment for a priest who was ritually impure, who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, and who performed the Temple service, is death at the hand of Heaven. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: It is derived as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: From where in the Torah is the allusion with regard to a priest who immersed that day, that if he performed the Temple service he desecrated that service? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “They shall be sacred to their God and they shall not desecrate the name of their God” (Leviticus 21:6).

אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְטָמֵא שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ, דְּנָפְקָא לַן מִ״וְיִנָּזְרוּ״, תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָן לִטְבוּל יוֹם שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ.

If this verse is not written with regard to the matter of an impure priest who performed the Temple service, as that halakha is derived for us from the verse: “That they shall separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel” (Leviticus 22:2), then apply it to the matter of a priest who immersed that day who performed the Temple service. Although he is no longer impure in every sense, the priest remains impure in terms of the prohibitions of partaking of teruma and sacrificial food, and of entering the Temple.

וְיָלֵיף חִילּוּל חִילּוּל מִתְּרוּמָה, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּמִיתָה – אַף כָּאן בְּמִיתָה.

And the tanna derives the punishment by means of a verbal analogy. He derives the meaning of the term of desecration written with regard to a priest who immersed that day who performed the Temple service from the term of desecration written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of teruma (see Leviticus 22:9). Just as there, with regard to teruma, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too here, with regard to an impure priest who performs the Temple service, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

וּמְחוּסַּר בְּגָדִים מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וּמָטוּ בָּהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: ״וְחָגַרְתָּ אֹתָם אַבְנֵט״.

The baraita continues: And the punishment for a priest who is lacking the requisite priestly vestments and who performed the Temple service is death at the hand of Heaven. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that this is his punishment? Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and there are those who determined that this halakha is a tradition that was cited in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: It is stated: “You shall gird them with a belt, Aaron and his sons, and you shall wrap the headdresses upon them; and they shall have the priesthood as an eternal statute, and you shall inaugurate Aaron and his sons” (Exodus 29:9).

בִּזְמַן שֶׁבִּגְדֵיהֶם עֲלֵיהֶם – כְּהוּנָּתָם עֲלֵיהֶם; אֵין בִּגְדֵיהֶם עֲלֵיהֶם – אֵין כְּהוּנָּתָם עֲלֵיהֶם. וְהָווּ לְהוּ זָרִים, וְאָמַר מָר: זָר שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ – בְּמִיתָה.

From that verse it is derived: At a time when their vestments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them; but when their vestments are not upon them, their priesthood is not upon them. Therefore, priests who are lacking the requisite priestly vestments assume the status of non-priests in this respect, and the Master says earlier in the baraita: A non-priest who performs the Temple service is punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

וּמְחוּסַּר כַּפָּרָה מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן וְטָהֵרָה״. טָהֵרָה, מִכְּלָל שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה. וְאָמַר מָר: טָמֵא שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ – בְּמִיתָה.

The baraita continues: And the punishment for a priest who has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process and who performs the Temple service is death at the hand of Heaven. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that this is his punishment? Rav Huna says: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states with regard to a woman after childbirth who is obligated to bring an atonement offering: “And the priest shall atone for her and she shall become purified” (Leviticus 12:8). He infers: As the verse states “shall become purified,” by inference, one concludes that until the priest sacrifices her atonement offering she is impure to a certain extent. And the Master says earlier in the baraita: An impure priest who performs the Temple service is punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

וְשֶׁלֹּא רְחוּץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם, מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּבֹאָם אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד יִרְחֲצוּ מַיִם וְלֹא יָמוּתוּ״.

The baraita continues: And the punishment for a priest whose hands and feet are not washed and who performed the Temple service is death at the hand of Heaven. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “Whenever they come to the Tent of Meeting, they shall wash with water that they shall not die” (Exodus 30:20).

וּשְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן, דִּכְתִיב: ״יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר אַל תֵּשְׁתְּ וְגוֹ׳״.

The baraita continues: And the punishment for priests who performed the Temple service while intoxicated with wine is death at the hand of Heaven, as it is written: “Drink no wine nor strong drink, you and your sons with you, when you come into the Tent of Meeting, that you shall not die” (Leviticus 10:9).

וּפְרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ, דִּכְתִיב: ״רֹאשָׁם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ וּפֶרַע לֹא יְשַׁלֵּחוּ״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״וְיַיִן לֹא יִשְׁתּוּ״. אִיתַּקַּשׁ פְּרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ לִשְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן: מָה שְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן בְּמִיתָה, אַף פְּרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ בְּמִיתָה.

The baraita continues: And the punishment for priests who performed the Temple service with overgrown hair on their heads is death at the hand of Heaven, as it is written: “Neither shall they shave their heads nor allow their hair to grow long” (Ezekiel 44:20), and it is written thereafter: “Neither shall any priest drink wine when they enter the inner courtyard” (Ezekiel 44:21). One with overgrown hair on his head is juxtaposed to priests who are intoxicated with wine. Just as priests who are intoxicated with wine are punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too priests with overgrown hair on their heads are punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

אֲבָל עָרֵל, אוֹנֵן, יוֹשֵׁב – בְּאַזְהָרָה. עָרֵל מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּבָר זֶה מִתּוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ לֹא לָמַדְנוּ, עַד שֶׁבָּא יְחֶזְקֵאל בֶּן בּוּזִי וְלִמְּדָנוּ: ״כׇּל בֶּן נֵכָר עֶרֶל לֵב

The baraita continues: But a priest who performs the Temple service while uncircumcised, or as an acute mourner on the day that one of his close relatives dies, or a priest who performs the Temple service while seated, is not punished with death at the hand of Heaven; rather, he is liable for violating a prohibition and his punishment is lashes. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that it is prohibited for an uncircumcised priest to perform the Temple service? Rav Ḥisda says: This matter we did not learn from the Torah of Moses our teacher. It was not learned until Ezekiel, son of Buzi, the prophet, came and taught it to us, as it is stated: “No foreigner uncircumcised in heart