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.
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
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Julie Landau
Karmiel, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
Medinah Korn
בית שמש, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
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
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me. After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
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
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
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
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
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
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Marian Frankston
Pennsylvania, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
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
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
