Sanhedrin 83a (פג.) — the Talmud in English

not due to his being a non-kohen

if a non-kohen performed them,

and not due to ritual impurity

if one who was impure performed them,

and not due to lacking the garments

when a kohen performed them without the priestly garments,

and not due to his not having

washed his hands and feet -

And it follows—from the fact that, concerning these services, we say that they are followed by another service, “one is not liable for them ... due to impurity”—that

the one who burns

which is a service not followed by another service—if he performed it in a state of impurity, he is

liable;

and

does this not mean death

is what he is liable for? We have thus learned: A kohen who served in a state of impurity is liable to death at the hands of Heaven, which presents a difficulty for Rav Sheshet, who exempts him!?

And we reject this: Even one who burns the offering in a state of impurity

is not

liable to death at the hands of Heaven; rather,

for violating a prohibition

he is liable, and he must receive lashes. And we challenge this:

Then a non-kohen, too, is liable only for violating a prohibition!?

That is, must one likewise infer from that same Mishna, which states concerning all these services that one is not liable for being a non-kohen, that “the one who burns is liable for being a non-kohen”? Would you say that, with regard to being a non-kohen as well, he is liable not with death but only for violating a prohibition,

but is it not written “

and the non-kohen who approaches shall be put to death [at the hands of Heaven]”!?

[by Heaven]”!?

And we answer:

This one is according to its meaning, and that one is according to its meaning

that is, they should not be compared. It may be said that although being a non-kohen entails liability for death at the hands of Heaven, with regard to impurity it entails liability only for violating a prohibition.

We nevertheless challenge this: If even for a complete service performed in a state of impurity one is liable only for lashes,

does it follow that pouring and mixing

when performed in a state of impurity, concerning which we learned there that one is not liable for them,

do not even involve

a prohibition!?

And it was taught in a beraita: From where is there a prohibition against pouring and mixing

in a state of impurity

derived?

The verse states [Leviticus 21]: “Speak to the kohanim, the sons of Aaron

...

They shall be holy

to their God,

and they shall not profane

the name of their God”?!

And we answer: One who pours or mixes in a state of impurity is prohibited only

by rabbinic decree, and the verse—“They shall be holy

... ”—

is merely a supporting allusion

for the decree.

Meytivi

to Rav Sheshet from the following beraita:

And these are those liable to death

at the hands of Heaven ...

and an impure person who served,

so it is explicitly stated that he is liable to death at the hands of Heaven, contrary to Rav Sheshet!?

And we conclude:

Tiyuvta

of Rav Sheshet.

The body of the matter:

And these are those liable to death

at the hands of Heaven:

One who eats untithed produce

from which terumot and tithes have not been separated,

and an impure kohen who ate pure teruma, and a non-kohen who ate teruma, and a non-kohen who served

in the Temple,

and an impure person who served

in the Temple,

and one who immersed that day and served, and one lacking the garments

who served,

and one lacking atonement

[an impure person who has not yet brought his atonement-offering after completing the days of his impurity] who served,

and

a kohen

who had not washed his hands and feet,

and those who drank wine and those with overgrown hair

[those who had gone more than thirty days without cutting their hair] who served in the Temple—

But one uncircumcised,

and a mourner, and one who sits

who served in the Temple—

are not liable to death, but only for violating a prohibition.

According to Rashi, one whose foreskin is intact does not receive lashes, and this is also the opinion of the Yad Rama ; but according to Maimonides, one whose foreskin is intact receives lashes, whereas a mourner and one who sits do not receive lashes ; see the notes on page 84a.

And

a blemished kohen

who served in the Temple:

Rabbi says: He is liable to death.

And the Sages say: He is liable only for violating a prohibition.

One who deliberately misused sacred property

[one who deliberately derived benefit from consecrated property subject to the prohibition of misuse]:

Rabbi says: He is liable to death.

And the Sages say: He is liable only for violating a prohibition.

We learned in a

We learned in a beraita: And these are those liable to death:

one who eats untithed produce:

From where

[is this derived]?

For Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Elazar:

From where is it derived that one who eats untithed produce is liable to death? As it is written

[Leviticus 22]: “And a man, if he eats a sacred thing [teruma] inadvertently, he shall add its fifth to it and give the sacred thing to the kohen.

And they shall not profane the sacred offerings of the Children of Israel, that which they set apart for the Lord,” and from the fact that Scripture says “that which they will set apart for the Lord,” in the future tense, we learn to interpret:

The verse also speaks of that which is destined to be separated as teruma

the verse also speaks of produce destined to be tithed,

and Scripture says that they must not profane it by eating it in its untithed state—

And he derives the term

“profanation”

[rather than the term “they shall profane”]

“profanation”

from teruma

that was eaten in a state of bodily impurity, as it is stated [Leviticus 22]: “Any man of the seed of Aaron who is afflicted with leprosy or has a discharge ... or a man who touches any creeping creature through which he becomes impure, or a person through whom he becomes impure, whatever his impurity. A person who touches any such thing shall be impure until evening, and he shall not eat of the sacred offerings until he washes his flesh in water. And when the sun sets, he shall be pure, and afterward he may eat of the sacred offerings [teruma] for it is his food.

“And they shall keep My charge, lest they bear a sin because of it and die through it, when they profane it”—

Just as there

with regard to teruma eaten in impurity

there is liability to death,

as the Torah states: “and die through it, when they profane it,”

so too here—

with regard to one who eats untithed produce—

there is liability to death.

And we challenge this:

Let us derive the term

“profanation, profanation”

from leftover sacrificial meat

as it is stated [Leviticus 19]: “When you slaughter a peace-offering to the Lord ... on the day of your slaughter it shall be eaten, and on the next day ... But if it is eaten on the third day ... he who eats it shall bear his iniquity, for he has profaned a sacred thing of the Lord, and that soul shall be cut off from its people”—and it is stated:

Just as there

with regard to one who eats leftover sacrificial meat

there is liability to karet, so too here

with regard to one who eats untithed produce

there should be liability to karet!?

And we answer:

It is more reasonable that one who eats untithed produce

should have derived it from teruma,

should derive the law from teruma,

which a kohen ate in a state of impurity,

as they share

several similarities, as follows:

Teruma,

meaning that in both cases teruma is involved, since untithed produce also contains teruma mixed within it.

Outside Eretz Yisrael,

meaning that neither applies outside Eretz Yisrael; but leftover sacrificial meat applied in the wilderness and during the period when private altars were permitted.

Permitted,

meaning that there is a way for their prohibitions to be lifted: untithed produce becomes permitted through separating teruma from it, and an impure person becomes permitted to eat teruma after immersing in a ritual bath.

In the plural,

meaning that the expression of profanation used in both is stated in the plural—“they shall profane,” “when they profane it”—unlike leftover sacrificial meat, where the expression of profanation is stated in the singular—“he has profaned.”

Produce,

meaning that both untithed produce and teruma are produce; can you say the same of leftover sacrificial meat, which does not apply to produce?

Piggul and leftover sacrificial meat,

meaning that neither piggul nor leftover sacrificial meat applies to untithed produce or teruma; do not derive the law from consecrated offerings, to which piggul and leftover sacrificial meat do apply.

And we challenge this:

On the contrary, he should have derived it from leftover sacrificial meat, as they share

several similarities with untithed produce, as follows:

An unfit food,

meaning that both untithed produce and leftover sacrificial meat are disqualified as food; can you say the same of an impure kohen who ate teruma, whose disqualification is in his person and not in the food?

It has no remedy through immersion in a ritual bath;

whereas an impure person who ate teruma does have a remedy through immersion in a ritual bath.

And we answer:

Those similarities are more numerous

[than these], meaning that the similarities between untithed produce and teruma are more numerous than those between untithed produce and leftover sacrificial meat. Therefore, it is more reasonable to derive the law of untithed produce from teruma than from leftover sacrificial meat.

Ravina said:

Even without this reason, the law can be derived from teruma, because

a plural expression of profanation from a plural expression of profanation is preferable,

meaning that since in the wording of the verse—from which the gzera shava is derived—untithed produce resembles teruma, as both are written in the plural, we should derive one from the other, rather than from leftover sacrificial meat, whose wording in Scripture differs, as it is stated in the singular; and this similarity is preferable to all the other similarities between untithed produce and leftover sacrificial meat.

We learned in a beraita: And these are those liable to death ...

and an impure kohen who ate pure teruma:

And we explain:

From where is this derived?

For Shmuel said: From where is it derived that an impure kohen who ate pure teruma is liable to death at the hands of Heaven?

From this,

as it is written: “Any man of the seed of Aaron who is afflicted with leprosy or has a discharge ... or a man who touches any creeping creature through which he becomes impure, or a person through whom he becomes impure, whatever his impurity. A person who touches any such thing shall be impure until evening ...

and they shall keep My charge

And they shall keep My charge

[from eating teruma in a state of bodily impurity]

and shall not bear a sin because of it,

and die through it, when they profane it.”

And we infer from Shmuel’s wording, when he said, “From where is it derived that an impure kohen who ate pure teruma is liable to death at the hands of Heaven”:

Teruma

that is pure—yes;

indeed, one who eats it in a state of bodily impurity is liable to death, but teruma

that is impure, when

eaten in a state of bodily impurity,

no,

he is not liable to death for eating it—

And because

Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: From where is it derived that an impure kohen who ate impure teruma is not liable to death? As it is stated

with regard to a kohen who ate teruma in a state of bodily impurity: “

And they shall die through it, when they profane it,”