Various opinions are brought regarding which type of impurity is intended in the mishna when it states that a kohen who is impure and works in the mikdash, his work will be disqualified. The law regarding one who sits during the work (which is also disqualified) is discussed. Why is it disqualified but one who does this is not obligated by death in the hands of God (like a stranger who does get punished by death in the hands of God)?
Zevachim 23
10.07.2025 | ט״ו בתשרי תשפ״ו
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Zevachim 23
לְפִי אׇכְלוֹ״! לְמִצְוָה.
according to his eating, you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4)? This teaches that one may bring the Paschal offering only if he is able to partake of it. The Gemara responds: This requirement is also meant as a mitzva ab initio; it does not disqualify the offering if not fulfilled.
וּלְעַכּוֹבֵי לָא?! וְהָתַנְיָא: ״בְּמִכְסַת נְפָשׁוֹת״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין הַפֶּסַח נִשְׁחָט אֶלָּא לִמְנוּיָיו. שְׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִמְנוּיָיו – יָכוֹל יְהֵא כְּעוֹבֵר עַל הַמִּצְוָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תָּכֹסּוּ״ – הַכָּתוּב שָׁנָה עָלָיו לְעַכֵּב. וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ אוֹכְלִין לִמְנוּיִין!
The Gemara asks: And is this requirement not indispensable even after the fact? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the phrase “according to the number of the souls” teaches that the Paschal offering may be slaughtered only for those who registered for it in advance. If the Paschal offering was slaughtered for individuals who did not register for it, one might have thought that it would only be like transgressing a mitzva, but the offering would not be disqualified. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall make your count”; the verse repeats the issue of counting to stress that the halakha is indispensable, and if one slaughters the offering for one who is not registered, it is disqualified. The Gemara concludes: And those who eat the offering are juxtaposed to those registered for it, as the verse states: “According to the number of the souls; a man, according to his eating.” Accordingly, if one slaughters the Paschal offering for one who cannot partake of it, the offering is disqualified.
זִקְנֵי דָרוֹם לָא מַקְּשִׁי. וְכִי לָא מַקְּשִׁי נָמֵי – מֵהָא נָמֵי אִית לְהוּ פִּירְכָא: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים בְּשֶׁרֶץ, שֶׁמְּשַׁלְּחִין קׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶם לְכַתְּחִילָּה – כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְּשֶׁרֶץ אֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה; מְקוֹם שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים בְּמֵת, שֶׁאֵין מְשַׁלְּחִין קׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן לְכַתְּחִילָּה – כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְּמֵת אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה?!
The Gemara responds: The Elders of the South do not juxtapose the phrases, i.e., they do not interpret the verse’s juxtaposition of the two phrases as significant. The Gemara asks: But even if they do not juxtapose the phrases, there is a refutation to their statement from this inference as well: And just as in a case where the owner became impure due to a creeping animal, where he may send his offerings for sacrifice ab initio, a priest who became impure due to a creeping animal nevertheless cannot effect acceptance, then in a case where the owner became impure due to a corpse, where he may not send his offerings ab initio, is it not right that a priest who became impure due to a corpse cannot effect acceptance?
מֵיתִיבִי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ: נָזִיר וְעוֹשֵׂה פֶסַח – הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל טוּמְאַת דָּם, וְאֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל טוּמְאַת הַגּוּף.
Furthermore, the Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Pesaḥim 80b): As the Sages said that with regard to a nazirite and one who performs the rite of the Paschal offering, the frontplate effects acceptance for offerings sacrificed in a state of impurity of the blood, but the frontplate does not effect acceptance for offerings sacrificed in a state of impurity of the body of the individual bringing it.
בְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא בְּטוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ, הָאָמְרַתְּ: שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ! אֶלָּא טוּמְאַת מֵת; וְקָתָנֵי: אֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה; אַלְמָא נִטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים בְּמֵת – אֵין מְשַׁלְּחִין קׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶם!
The Gemara continues: To what impurity is it referring? If we say that it is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, didn’t you say above that according to the Elders of the South, one may slaughter the Paschal offering and sprinkle its blood for an owner who is in a state of impurity due to a creeping animal? Rather, it must be referring to impurity due to a corpse, and the mishna teaches: The frontplate does not effect acceptance. Evidently, if the owner became impure due to a corpse, he may not send his offerings for sacrifice, contrary to the opinion ascribed to the Elders of the South.
לָא; אִי דְּאִיטַּמּוֹ בְּעָלִים בְּמֵת – הָכִי נָמֵי; הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּטְמָא כֹּהֵן בְּשֶׁרֶץ.
The Gemara responds: No, if the owner became impure due to a corpse, the frontplate indeed effects acceptance for the offering. The mishna is not referring to the owners of the offerings at all; rather, here we are dealing with a case where the officiating priest became impure due to a creeping animal.
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: נִיטְמָא טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם – הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה. הָא תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: לֹא אָמְרוּ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם – אֶלָּא לְמֵת בִּלְבַד; לְמֵת לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם דְּשֶׁרֶץ?!
The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: If it became known after the offering was brought that he had contracted ritual impurity imparted in the depths, i.e., a source of impurity that had been unknown at the time, the frontplate effects acceptance for the offering. This clause cannot be reconciled with the suggested interpretation of the mishna, since Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: They stated this halakha of impurity imparted in the depths only with regard to impurity due to a corpse. Now, when he says that it applies only to impurity due to a corpse, he means to exclude what? Does he not mean to exclude impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal in the depths? If so, the mishna cannot be referring to impurity due to a creeping animal.
לָא; לְמַעוֹטֵי טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם דְּזִיבָה.
The Gemara responds: No, Rabbi Ḥiyya means to exclude impurity imparted by a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva] in the depths. Impurity due to the corpse of a creeping animal, by contrast, is within the scope of the mishna.
וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּבָעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: כֹּהֵן הַמְרַצֶּה בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶם – הוּתְּרָה לוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם, אוֹ לֹא הוּתְּרָה לוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם? תִּפְשׁוֹט דְּטוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם הוּתְּרָה לוֹ; דְּהָא הָכָא בְּכֹהֵן קָיָימִינָא!
The Gemara asks: But how is one to understand this dilemma that Rami bar Ḥama raises: With regard to a priest who effects acceptance for the offerings of the nazirite and the Paschal offering, was impurity imparted in the depths permitted for him or was impurity imparted in the depths not permitted for him? According to the Elders of the South, why not resolve the dilemma and conclude that impurity imparted in the depths was permitted for him, since they hold that we interpret the mishna here as referring to an impure priest?
דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא וַדַּאי פְּלִיגִי.
The Gemara responds: The premise of this dilemma of Rami bar Ḥama certainly disagrees with the opinion of the Elders of the South, and Rami bar Ḥama does not interpret the mishna in this manner.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְנָשָׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת עֲוֹן הַקֳּדָשִׁים״ – וְכִי אֵיזֶהוּ עָוֹן נוֹשֵׂא?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a verse written about the frontplate: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items, which the children of Israel shall consecrate, even all their sacred gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before God” (Exodus 28:38). And the Sages expounded: Which sin does Aaron bear?
אִם עֲוֹן פִּיגּוּל – הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יֵחָשֵׁב״! אִם עֲוֹן נוֹתָר – הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יֵרָצֶה״!
If the verse means that he bears the sin of piggul, it is already stated: “And if any of the flesh of his peace offerings be at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to he who offers it” (Leviticus 7:18). If he bears the sin of notar, it is already stated in the same verse: “It shall not be accepted.”
הָא אֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא אֶלָּא עֲוֹן טוּמְאָה, שֶׁהוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ בְּצִבּוּר.
Rather, the frontplate bears only the sin of impurity, whose general prohibition was permitted in cases involving the public. The verse indicates that the frontplate effects acceptance for individual offerings sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity.
מַאי טוּמְאָה? אִילֵּימָא מִטּוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ, הֵיכָא אִישְׁתְּרַי? אֶלָּא טוּמְאַת מֵת. וְלָאו כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים בְּמֵת? אַלְמָא נִטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים בְּמֵת – מְשַׁלְּחִין קׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן.
The Gemara clarifies: What is the impurity borne by the frontplate? If we say that it effects acceptance for impurity due to a creeping animal, where does one find that the general prohibition was permitted in cases involving the public? Rather, it must be referring to impurity due to a corpse. And is it not referring to a case where the owner of the offerings became impure from a corpse? Evidently, if the owner became impure from a corpse, he may send his offerings for sacrifice, as the frontplate effects acceptance for them.
וּבְמַאי? אִי בְּנָזִיר – ״וְכִי יָמוּת מֵת עָלָיו״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא! אֶלָּא לְעוֹשֵׂה פֶסַח! (וְלָאו כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים בְּמֵת?)
And to what offering is this statement referring? If it is referring to the offering of a nazirite, doesn’t the Merciful One state: “And if any man die very suddenly beside him, and he defile his consecrated head” (Numbers 6:9)? The passage indicates that even if a nazirite contracts impurity against his will, he still cannot bring his offerings until he is pure. Rather, it must be referring to one who performs the rite of the Paschal offering. This proves the claim of the Elders of the South that one who is impure due to a corpse may send his Paschal offering for sacrifice.
לְעוֹלָם בְּשֶׁרֶץ; וְשֵׁם טוּמְאָה בָּעוֹלָם.
The Gemara responds: Actually, the statement is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, not due to a corpse. And although the general prohibition with regard to impurity due to a creeping animal was not permitted in cases involving the public, nevertheless, one finds that the category of impurity in general was permitted in such cases.
וְאִיכָּא דְּדָיֵיק וּמַיְיתֵי הָכִי: עֲוֹן הַקֳּדָשִׁים אִין, עֲוֹן מַקְדִּישִׁין לָא; מַאי טוּמְאָה? אִילֵימָא טוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ – מִי אִישְׁתְּרַיא בְּצִיבּוּר?! אֶלָּא לָאו טוּמְאַת מֵת? וַעֲוֹן קֳדָשִׁים אִין, עֲוֹן מַקְדִּישִׁים לָא!
The Gemara notes: And some infer the opposite and derive like this: The verse states of the frontplate: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items” (Exodus 28:38). That is, it does bear the iniquity of the sacred items, but it does not bear the iniquity of those who consecrate or sacrifice them, i.e., the owners of the offering or the priests involved in its sacrifice. And to what impurity is this verse referring? If we say that it is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, is such impurity permitted in cases involving the public? Rather, is it not referring to impurity due to a corpse, and the verse indicates that the frontplate does bear the iniquity of the sacred items but does not bear the iniquity of those who consecrate them? This refutes the opinion of the Elders of the South that owners who are impure due to a corpse may send their offerings.
לְעוֹלָם טוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ; וְשֵׁם טוּמְאָה בָּעוֹלָם.
The Gemara responds: Actually, the verse is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, and although the general prohibition with regard to impurity due to a creeping animal was not permitted in cases involving the public, the category of impurity in general was permitted in such cases.
יוֹשֵׁב מְנָלַן? אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לַעֲמֹד לְשָׁרֵת״ – לַעֲמִידָה בְּחַרְתִּיו, וְלֹא לִישִׁיבָה.
§ The mishna teaches that a priest who is sitting disqualifies the rites that he performs. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: The verse states with regard to the priests: “For the Lord your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to minister” (Deuteronomy 18:5). The verse indicates that I have chosen him for standing and not for sitting.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לַעֲמֹד לְשָׁרֵת״ – מִצְוָה; כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״הָעֹמְדִים״ – שָׁנָה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב לְעַכֵּב.
The Sages taught: “To stand to minister,” indicates that there is a mitzva to perform the service while standing. When it says: “Then he shall minister in the name of the Lord his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, who stand there before the Lord” (Deuteronomy 18:7), the verse repeats the matter to invalidate rites that are performed while not standing.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: מִכְּדִי יוֹשֵׁב כְּזָר דָּמֵי וּמַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה, אֵימָא: מָה זָר בְּמִיתָה – אַף יוֹשֵׁב בְּמִיתָה! אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא: אֲבָל עָרֵל, אוֹנֵן, יוֹשֵׁב – אֵינָן בְּמִיתָה אֶלָּא בְּאַזְהָרָה?
Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Now, one who is sitting is considered like a non-priest and desecrates the service. Therefore, I will say: Just as a non-priest who performs a rite is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, so too one who is sitting should be liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. If so, why is it taught in a baraita: But one who is uncircumcised, an acute mourner, and one who is sitting are not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven if they performed rites; rather, they simply transgress a prohibition?
מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי מְחוּסַּר בְּגָדִים וְשֶׁלֹּא רָחוּץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם – שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד,
The Gemara responds: That is taught because the case of a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments and that of one whose hands and feet are not washed are two verses that come as one, as the verse states explicitly for each case that if they perform rites they are liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven.
Follow 
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.
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.
Vitti Kones
מיתר, ישראל
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
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!
Sharona Guggenheim Plumb
Givat Shmuel, 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!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, 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.
Lisa Berkelhammer
San Francisco, CA , United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Harriet Hartman
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dianne Kuchar
Dover Heights, Australia
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Mona Fishbane
Teaneck NJ, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Far Rockaway, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Rochel Cheifetz
Riverdale, NY, United States
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
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.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
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
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
About a year into learning more about Judaism on a path to potential conversion, I saw an article about the upcoming Siyum HaShas in January of 2020. My curiosity was piqued and I immediately started investigating what learning the Daf actually meant. Daily learning? Just what I wanted. Seven and a half years? I love a challenge! So I dove in head first and I’ve enjoyed every moment!!
Nickie Matthews
Blacksburg, United States
Zevachim 23
לְפִי אׇכְלוֹ״! לְמִצְוָה.
according to his eating, you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4)? This teaches that one may bring the Paschal offering only if he is able to partake of it. The Gemara responds: This requirement is also meant as a mitzva ab initio; it does not disqualify the offering if not fulfilled.
וּלְעַכּוֹבֵי לָא?! וְהָתַנְיָא: ״בְּמִכְסַת נְפָשׁוֹת״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין הַפֶּסַח נִשְׁחָט אֶלָּא לִמְנוּיָיו. שְׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִמְנוּיָיו – יָכוֹל יְהֵא כְּעוֹבֵר עַל הַמִּצְוָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תָּכֹסּוּ״ – הַכָּתוּב שָׁנָה עָלָיו לְעַכֵּב. וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ אוֹכְלִין לִמְנוּיִין!
The Gemara asks: And is this requirement not indispensable even after the fact? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the phrase “according to the number of the souls” teaches that the Paschal offering may be slaughtered only for those who registered for it in advance. If the Paschal offering was slaughtered for individuals who did not register for it, one might have thought that it would only be like transgressing a mitzva, but the offering would not be disqualified. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall make your count”; the verse repeats the issue of counting to stress that the halakha is indispensable, and if one slaughters the offering for one who is not registered, it is disqualified. The Gemara concludes: And those who eat the offering are juxtaposed to those registered for it, as the verse states: “According to the number of the souls; a man, according to his eating.” Accordingly, if one slaughters the Paschal offering for one who cannot partake of it, the offering is disqualified.
זִקְנֵי דָרוֹם לָא מַקְּשִׁי. וְכִי לָא מַקְּשִׁי נָמֵי – מֵהָא נָמֵי אִית לְהוּ פִּירְכָא: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים בְּשֶׁרֶץ, שֶׁמְּשַׁלְּחִין קׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶם לְכַתְּחִילָּה – כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְּשֶׁרֶץ אֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה; מְקוֹם שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים בְּמֵת, שֶׁאֵין מְשַׁלְּחִין קׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן לְכַתְּחִילָּה – כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְּמֵת אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה?!
The Gemara responds: The Elders of the South do not juxtapose the phrases, i.e., they do not interpret the verse’s juxtaposition of the two phrases as significant. The Gemara asks: But even if they do not juxtapose the phrases, there is a refutation to their statement from this inference as well: And just as in a case where the owner became impure due to a creeping animal, where he may send his offerings for sacrifice ab initio, a priest who became impure due to a creeping animal nevertheless cannot effect acceptance, then in a case where the owner became impure due to a corpse, where he may not send his offerings ab initio, is it not right that a priest who became impure due to a corpse cannot effect acceptance?
מֵיתִיבִי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ: נָזִיר וְעוֹשֵׂה פֶסַח – הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל טוּמְאַת דָּם, וְאֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל טוּמְאַת הַגּוּף.
Furthermore, the Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Pesaḥim 80b): As the Sages said that with regard to a nazirite and one who performs the rite of the Paschal offering, the frontplate effects acceptance for offerings sacrificed in a state of impurity of the blood, but the frontplate does not effect acceptance for offerings sacrificed in a state of impurity of the body of the individual bringing it.
בְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא בְּטוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ, הָאָמְרַתְּ: שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ! אֶלָּא טוּמְאַת מֵת; וְקָתָנֵי: אֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה; אַלְמָא נִטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים בְּמֵת – אֵין מְשַׁלְּחִין קׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶם!
The Gemara continues: To what impurity is it referring? If we say that it is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, didn’t you say above that according to the Elders of the South, one may slaughter the Paschal offering and sprinkle its blood for an owner who is in a state of impurity due to a creeping animal? Rather, it must be referring to impurity due to a corpse, and the mishna teaches: The frontplate does not effect acceptance. Evidently, if the owner became impure due to a corpse, he may not send his offerings for sacrifice, contrary to the opinion ascribed to the Elders of the South.
לָא; אִי דְּאִיטַּמּוֹ בְּעָלִים בְּמֵת – הָכִי נָמֵי; הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּטְמָא כֹּהֵן בְּשֶׁרֶץ.
The Gemara responds: No, if the owner became impure due to a corpse, the frontplate indeed effects acceptance for the offering. The mishna is not referring to the owners of the offerings at all; rather, here we are dealing with a case where the officiating priest became impure due to a creeping animal.
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: נִיטְמָא טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם – הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה. הָא תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: לֹא אָמְרוּ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם – אֶלָּא לְמֵת בִּלְבַד; לְמֵת לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם דְּשֶׁרֶץ?!
The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: If it became known after the offering was brought that he had contracted ritual impurity imparted in the depths, i.e., a source of impurity that had been unknown at the time, the frontplate effects acceptance for the offering. This clause cannot be reconciled with the suggested interpretation of the mishna, since Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: They stated this halakha of impurity imparted in the depths only with regard to impurity due to a corpse. Now, when he says that it applies only to impurity due to a corpse, he means to exclude what? Does he not mean to exclude impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal in the depths? If so, the mishna cannot be referring to impurity due to a creeping animal.
לָא; לְמַעוֹטֵי טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם דְּזִיבָה.
The Gemara responds: No, Rabbi Ḥiyya means to exclude impurity imparted by a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva] in the depths. Impurity due to the corpse of a creeping animal, by contrast, is within the scope of the mishna.
וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּבָעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: כֹּהֵן הַמְרַצֶּה בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶם – הוּתְּרָה לוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם, אוֹ לֹא הוּתְּרָה לוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם? תִּפְשׁוֹט דְּטוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם הוּתְּרָה לוֹ; דְּהָא הָכָא בְּכֹהֵן קָיָימִינָא!
The Gemara asks: But how is one to understand this dilemma that Rami bar Ḥama raises: With regard to a priest who effects acceptance for the offerings of the nazirite and the Paschal offering, was impurity imparted in the depths permitted for him or was impurity imparted in the depths not permitted for him? According to the Elders of the South, why not resolve the dilemma and conclude that impurity imparted in the depths was permitted for him, since they hold that we interpret the mishna here as referring to an impure priest?
דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא וַדַּאי פְּלִיגִי.
The Gemara responds: The premise of this dilemma of Rami bar Ḥama certainly disagrees with the opinion of the Elders of the South, and Rami bar Ḥama does not interpret the mishna in this manner.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְנָשָׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת עֲוֹן הַקֳּדָשִׁים״ – וְכִי אֵיזֶהוּ עָוֹן נוֹשֵׂא?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a verse written about the frontplate: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items, which the children of Israel shall consecrate, even all their sacred gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before God” (Exodus 28:38). And the Sages expounded: Which sin does Aaron bear?
אִם עֲוֹן פִּיגּוּל – הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יֵחָשֵׁב״! אִם עֲוֹן נוֹתָר – הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יֵרָצֶה״!
If the verse means that he bears the sin of piggul, it is already stated: “And if any of the flesh of his peace offerings be at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to he who offers it” (Leviticus 7:18). If he bears the sin of notar, it is already stated in the same verse: “It shall not be accepted.”
הָא אֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא אֶלָּא עֲוֹן טוּמְאָה, שֶׁהוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ בְּצִבּוּר.
Rather, the frontplate bears only the sin of impurity, whose general prohibition was permitted in cases involving the public. The verse indicates that the frontplate effects acceptance for individual offerings sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity.
מַאי טוּמְאָה? אִילֵּימָא מִטּוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ, הֵיכָא אִישְׁתְּרַי? אֶלָּא טוּמְאַת מֵת. וְלָאו כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים בְּמֵת? אַלְמָא נִטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים בְּמֵת – מְשַׁלְּחִין קׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן.
The Gemara clarifies: What is the impurity borne by the frontplate? If we say that it effects acceptance for impurity due to a creeping animal, where does one find that the general prohibition was permitted in cases involving the public? Rather, it must be referring to impurity due to a corpse. And is it not referring to a case where the owner of the offerings became impure from a corpse? Evidently, if the owner became impure from a corpse, he may send his offerings for sacrifice, as the frontplate effects acceptance for them.
וּבְמַאי? אִי בְּנָזִיר – ״וְכִי יָמוּת מֵת עָלָיו״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא! אֶלָּא לְעוֹשֵׂה פֶסַח! (וְלָאו כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים בְּמֵת?)
And to what offering is this statement referring? If it is referring to the offering of a nazirite, doesn’t the Merciful One state: “And if any man die very suddenly beside him, and he defile his consecrated head” (Numbers 6:9)? The passage indicates that even if a nazirite contracts impurity against his will, he still cannot bring his offerings until he is pure. Rather, it must be referring to one who performs the rite of the Paschal offering. This proves the claim of the Elders of the South that one who is impure due to a corpse may send his Paschal offering for sacrifice.
לְעוֹלָם בְּשֶׁרֶץ; וְשֵׁם טוּמְאָה בָּעוֹלָם.
The Gemara responds: Actually, the statement is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, not due to a corpse. And although the general prohibition with regard to impurity due to a creeping animal was not permitted in cases involving the public, nevertheless, one finds that the category of impurity in general was permitted in such cases.
וְאִיכָּא דְּדָיֵיק וּמַיְיתֵי הָכִי: עֲוֹן הַקֳּדָשִׁים אִין, עֲוֹן מַקְדִּישִׁין לָא; מַאי טוּמְאָה? אִילֵימָא טוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ – מִי אִישְׁתְּרַיא בְּצִיבּוּר?! אֶלָּא לָאו טוּמְאַת מֵת? וַעֲוֹן קֳדָשִׁים אִין, עֲוֹן מַקְדִּישִׁים לָא!
The Gemara notes: And some infer the opposite and derive like this: The verse states of the frontplate: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items” (Exodus 28:38). That is, it does bear the iniquity of the sacred items, but it does not bear the iniquity of those who consecrate or sacrifice them, i.e., the owners of the offering or the priests involved in its sacrifice. And to what impurity is this verse referring? If we say that it is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, is such impurity permitted in cases involving the public? Rather, is it not referring to impurity due to a corpse, and the verse indicates that the frontplate does bear the iniquity of the sacred items but does not bear the iniquity of those who consecrate them? This refutes the opinion of the Elders of the South that owners who are impure due to a corpse may send their offerings.
לְעוֹלָם טוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ; וְשֵׁם טוּמְאָה בָּעוֹלָם.
The Gemara responds: Actually, the verse is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, and although the general prohibition with regard to impurity due to a creeping animal was not permitted in cases involving the public, the category of impurity in general was permitted in such cases.
יוֹשֵׁב מְנָלַן? אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לַעֲמֹד לְשָׁרֵת״ – לַעֲמִידָה בְּחַרְתִּיו, וְלֹא לִישִׁיבָה.
§ The mishna teaches that a priest who is sitting disqualifies the rites that he performs. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: The verse states with regard to the priests: “For the Lord your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to minister” (Deuteronomy 18:5). The verse indicates that I have chosen him for standing and not for sitting.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לַעֲמֹד לְשָׁרֵת״ – מִצְוָה; כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״הָעֹמְדִים״ – שָׁנָה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב לְעַכֵּב.
The Sages taught: “To stand to minister,” indicates that there is a mitzva to perform the service while standing. When it says: “Then he shall minister in the name of the Lord his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, who stand there before the Lord” (Deuteronomy 18:7), the verse repeats the matter to invalidate rites that are performed while not standing.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: מִכְּדִי יוֹשֵׁב כְּזָר דָּמֵי וּמַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה, אֵימָא: מָה זָר בְּמִיתָה – אַף יוֹשֵׁב בְּמִיתָה! אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא: אֲבָל עָרֵל, אוֹנֵן, יוֹשֵׁב – אֵינָן בְּמִיתָה אֶלָּא בְּאַזְהָרָה?
Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Now, one who is sitting is considered like a non-priest and desecrates the service. Therefore, I will say: Just as a non-priest who performs a rite is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, so too one who is sitting should be liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. If so, why is it taught in a baraita: But one who is uncircumcised, an acute mourner, and one who is sitting are not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven if they performed rites; rather, they simply transgress a prohibition?
מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי מְחוּסַּר בְּגָדִים וְשֶׁלֹּא רָחוּץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם – שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד,
The Gemara responds: That is taught because the case of a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments and that of one whose hands and feet are not washed are two verses that come as one, as the verse states explicitly for each case that if they perform rites they are liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven.
Follow
