זבחים יז

זבחים יז

אֶלָּא אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ הָכִי וְאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ הָכִי, כֹּל חֲדָא וַחֲדָא תֵּיקוּ בְּדוּכְתֵּיהּ.

Rather, one can derive this way and one can derive that way. Since these derivations contradict one another, each and every halakha shall stand in its place and not modify the other by a fortiori inference.

טְבוּל יוֹם מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי סִימַאי אוֹמֵר: רֶמֶז לִטְבוּל יוֹם שֶׁאִם עָבַד חִילֵּל – מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קְדֹשִׁים יִהְיוּ וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ״;

§ The mishna teaches that sacrificial rites performed by one who immersed that day are disqualified. 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 – דְּנָפֵיק מִ״וְּיִנָּזְרוּ״, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לִטְבוּל יוֹם.

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 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 the sense that he is prohibited from partaking of teruma and sacrificial food, and from entering the Temple.

אֵימָא: תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְקוֹרֵחַ קׇרְחָה, וּלְמַשְׁחִית פְּאַת זָקָן!

The Gemara asks: Why must the verse be applied to the matter of one who immersed that day? Say that one should apply it to the matter of one who creates a bald spot upon his head or to the matter of one who destroys his beard, as these matters are discussed in the preceding verse.

טְבוּל יוֹם דְּאִם עָבַד – בְּמִיתָה, מְנָא לַן? דְּגָמַר ״חִילּוּל״–״חִילּוּל״ מִתְּרוּמָה; דְּפָסֵיל בִּתְרוּמָה – מַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה, דְּלָא פָּסֵיל בִּתְרוּמָה – לָא מַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה.

The Gemara responds: This verse is already used to indicate another halakha relating to one who immersed that day: From where do we derive that if one who immersed that day performed sacrificial rites, he is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven? As it is derived by verbal analogy between profanation mentioned in this context and profanation from teruma, as the verse states in this context: “And not profane the name of their God” (Leviticus 21:6), and the verse states with regard to teruma: “Lest they bear sin for it, and die therein, if they profane it” (Leviticus 22:9). It can be inferred from this verbal analogy that one who disqualifies teruma, i.e., one who immersed that day, profanes the Temple service, and one who does not disqualify teruma, i.e., one who creates a bald spot or one who destroys his beard, does not profane the service.

אָמַר רַבָּה: לְמָה לִי דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא טָמֵא, וּטְבוּל יוֹם, וּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים?

§ Rabba said: Why do I need that which the Merciful One wrote, i.e., that an impure priest, and one who immersed that day, and one who has not yet brought an atonement offering all disqualify the rites they perform? Wouldn’t it have been enough to teach the halakha in only one case?

צְרִיכִי; דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא טָמֵא – שֶׁכֵּן מְטַמֵּא בִּטְבוּל יוֹם; מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים לָא אָתֵי מִינֵּיהּ – שֶׁכֵּן פָּסוּל בִּתְרוּמָה. בִּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים; טְבוּל יוֹם לָא אָתֵי מִינֵּיהּ – שֶׁכֵּן מְחוּסָּר מַעֲשֶׂה.

Rabba explains: All three are necessary, as in each case there is a stringency not present in the others. Therefore, had the Merciful One written only that an impure priest desecrates the service, one might say that this is because he imparts impurity to others, and since the other two cases do not, one cannot derive them from the case of an impure priest. And had the Merciful One written the halakha only with regard to one who immersed that day, then the case of one who has not yet brought an atonement offering could not be derived from it, since the former is unfit to partake of teruma while the latter is not. And had the Merciful One written the halakha only with regard to one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, then the case of one who immersed that day could not be derived from it, since only the former has not yet performed a necessary action, while one who immersed that day must simply wait for nightfall in order to become fully pure.

מֵחֲדָא לָא אָתֵי; תֵּיתֵי חֲדָא מִתַּרְתֵּי!

The Gemara asks: Still, why are all three necessary? Granted, from one of these cases the other two cannot be derived, but let one be derived from the other two.

בְּהֵי לָא לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא? לָא לִכְתּוֹב בִּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ – מָה לְהָנָךְ, שֶׁכֵּן פְּסוּלִים בִּתְרוּמָה.

The Gemara asks: Which of the three should the Merciful One not write? If one suggests: Let the Merciful One not write the halakha with regard to one who has not yet brought an atonement offering and derive it from these other two, an impure priest and one who immersed that day, one can reply: What is notable about these? They are notable in that they are unfit to partake of teruma. Since one who has not yet brought an atonement offering may partake of teruma, perhaps he does not disqualify rites he performs.

אֶלָּא לָא לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ; דְּמַאי פָּרְכַתְּ – מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן מְחוּסָּרִים מַעֲשֶׂה? סוֹף סוֹף קְלִישָׁא לַהּ טוּמְאָתָן.

Rather, say: Let the Merciful One not write the halakha with regard to one who immersed that day and derive it from these other two, an impure priest and one who has not yet brought an atonement offering. As, what can you say to refute this? One cannot reply: What is notable about these; they are notable since they have not yet performed a necessary action, because ultimately their impurity, i.e., the impurity of one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, is weak when compared to one who immersed that day, and relatively speaking, one who has not yet brought an atonement offering is not considered to be lacking the performance of an action.

קָסָבַר מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים דְּזָב – כְּזָב דָּמֵי.

The Gemara responds: Rabba holds that a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] who has not yet brought an atonement offering is still considered to have the impure status of a zav. The impurity of one who has immersed but has not yet brought an atonement offering is therefore considered stronger than that of one who immersed that day but requires no atonement.

וּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים דְּזָב כְּזָב דָּמֵי – תַּנָּאֵי הִיא; דְּתַנְיָא: שְׂרָפָהּ אוֹנֵן וּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים – כְּשֵׁרָה. יוֹסֵף הַבַּבְלִי אוֹמֵר: אוֹנֵן – כְּשֵׁרָה, מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים – פְּסוּלָה. מַאי, לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – מָר סָבַר: מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים דְּזָב כְּזָב דָּמֵי, וּמָר סָבַר: לָאו כְּזָב דָּמֵי?

The Gemara notes: And the matter of whether a zav who has not yet brought an atonement offering is still considered a zav is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: If an acute mourner or one who has not yet brought an atonement offering burned the red heifer, it is fit. Yosef the Babylonian says: If an acute mourner burned it, it is fit, but if one who has not yet brought an atonement offering burned it, it is disqualified. What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Yosef the Babylonian, holds that a zav who has not yet brought an atonement offering is considered a full-fledged zav and therefore disqualifies the red heifer, and one Sage, the first tanna, holds that a zav who has not yet brought an atonement offering is not considered a zav, but is instead considered like one who immersed that day, who is fit to burn the red heifer?

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – כְּזָב דָּמֵי; וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִזָּה הַטָּהֹר״ – מִכְּלָל שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא; לִימֵּד עַל טְבוּל יוֹם שֶׁכָּשֵׁר בַּפָּרָה.

The Gemara responds: No, everyone agrees that he is considered a zav, and here the tanna’im disagree with regard to this matter, as it is written with regard to the rite of the red heifer: “And the pure person shall sprinkle” the water of purification (Numbers 19:19). The preceding verse already states that the one performing the service must be ritually pure. Therefore, by stating “pure” this verse emphasizes that he needs be pure enough only to perform the rite of the red heifer specifically. By inference, one derives that he may be impure in some way that disqualifies him for other rites. This teaches that one who immersed that day is fit to participate in the rite of the red heifer.

מָר סָבַר: טוּמְאָה דְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: טוּמְאָה דְּהָךְ פָּרָשָׁה.

The tanna’im disagree as to the extent of this halakha: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that it is referring to any state of impurity mentioned in the entire Torah, i.e., anyone who immersed that day due to any impurity may participate in the rite of the red heifer. And one Sage, Yosef the Babylonian, holds that it is referring specifically to one who was in the state of impurity mentioned in this passage, i.e., impurity contracted from a corpse, which the red heifer purifies.

הִלְכָּךְ, אוֹנֵן וּטְבוּל יוֹם דִּטְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ – דְּקִילִי, אָתוּ בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִטְּבוּל יוֹם דְּמֵת; אֲבָל מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים דְּזָב – דַּחֲמִיר, שֶׁכֵּן טוּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ; לָא.

Therefore, according to Yosef the Babylonian, with regard to an acute mourner and one who immersed that day after becoming impure due to contact with the carcass of a creeping animal, since they are treated more leniently, they are derived a fortiori from the case of one who immersed that day to remove impurity contracted from a corpse, and they are fit to participate in the rite of the red heifer. But with regard to a zav who has not yet brought an atonement offering, who is treated more stringently, since his impurity emerges onto him from his body rather than being imparted from without, one does not derive that he is fit to participate in the rite of the red heifer.

מְחוּסַּר בְּגָדִים מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וּמָטוּ בָּהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְחָגַרְתָּ אוֹתָם אַבְנֵט אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו, וְחָבַשְׁתָּ לָהֶם מִגְבָּעֹת, וְהָיְתָה לָהֶם כְּהֻנָּה לְחֻקַּת עוֹלָם״ – בִּזְמַן שֶׁבִּגְדֵיהֶם עֲלֵיהֶם, כְּהוּנָּתָם עֲלֵיהֶם; אֵין בִּגְדֵיהֶם עֲלֵיהֶם, אֵין כְּהוּנָּתָם עֲלֵיהֶם.

§ The mishna teaches that a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments disqualifies the rites he performs. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rabbi Avuh says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some determined it to be stated in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: As the verse states: “And you shall gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons, and bind mitres on them; and they shall have the priesthood by a perpetual statute” (Exodus 29:9). The verse indicates that when their vestments are on them, their priesthood is upon them, but if their vestments are not on them, their priesthood is not upon them and their rites are disqualified.

וְהָא – מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא?! מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא – דְּתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לִשְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן שֶׁאִם עָבַד חִילֵּל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר אַל תֵּשְׁתְּ וְגוֹ׳, וּלְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין הַחֹל״. מְחוּסַּר בְּגָדִים וְשֶׁלֹּא רָחוּץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם, מִנַּיִן?

The Gemara asks: But is this halakha derived from here? It is derived from there, as it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that if those who drank wine performed sacrificial rites they have desecrated the service? The verse states with regard to the priests: “Drink no wine or strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting, so that you not die; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations. That you may put difference between the holy and the common” (Leviticus 10:9–10). The baraita continues: With regard to one lacking the requisite vestments and one whose hands and feet are not washed, from where is it derived that their rites are disqualified as well?