Sanhedrin 83a — the Talmud in English

not on account of being a non-koen

if a non-koen performed them,

and not on account of impurity

if an impure person performed them,

and not on account of lacking the garments

when a koen performed them without the priestly garments,

and not on account of not having

washed the hands and feet -

And it follows—from our saying concerning these services that have another service after them, “one is not liable for them ... on account of impurity”

—

that he who burns the offering,

which

is a service after which there is no other service—if he performed it in impurity, he is

liable for death

, that is, he is liable; we have learned: a koen who served in impurity is liable for death at the hands of Heaven, and this is a difficulty against Rav Sheshet, who exempts him!?

And we reject this: even he who burns the offering in impurity

is not

liable for death at the hands of Heaven; rather, he is

subject to a prohibition

, and he is liable for lashes. And we object to this:

but a non-koen, too, is only subject to a prohibition!?

That is, is this not also what should be inferred from that same Mishna, which said concerning all these services that he is not liable on account of being a non-koen: “but he who burns the offering is liable on account of being a non-koen”? Would you say that also with regard to being a non-koen he is not subject to death but only to a prohibition,

but it is written “

and the non-koen who approaches shall be put to death

[at the hands of Heaven]”!?

And we answer:

this one is as it is, and that one is as it is

, that is: one should not compare them; and it may be said that although being a non-koen entails death at the hands of Heaven, nevertheless, with regard to impurity it entails only a prohibition.

And we still object: but if even for a complete service in impurity he is liable only for lashes,

it follows that “pouring and mixing”

in impurity, concerning which we learned there that he is not liable for them,

does he not even

transgress a prohibition!?

But it was taught in a beraita: The prohibition for “pouring and mixing”

in impurity—

from where

?

The verse says [Leviticus 21]: “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron

: They shall be holy

to their God,

and they shall not profane

the name of their God”

; if it is not needed for an impure person who performed a complete service, since that is learned from what is written [Leviticus 22], “and they shall separate themselves from the sacred things of the Children of Israel and shall not profane them,” apply it to “pouring and mixing” ; Rashi . And we answer: one who pours and mixes in impurity is prohibited only

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

...”— -

is merely an asmachta

and not the source of the law.

He challenges

Rav Sheshet from what was taught in a beraita:

And these are those who are subject to death

at the hands of Heaven ...

an impure person who served

—behold, it explicitly says that he is liable for death at the hands of Heaven, and not like Rav Sheshet!?

And we conclude:

a refutation

of Rav Sheshet.

The body of the matter:

And these are those subject to death

at the hands of Heaven:

One who eats untithed produce

from which tithes and terumot were not separated,

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

in the Temple,

and an impure person who served

in the Temple,

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

who served,

and one lacking atonement

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

and

a

koen who did not wash his hands and feet

, and those who drank wine and those with untrimmed heads

[whose heads had not been shaved for more than thirty days] who served in the Temple—

but one uncircumcised,

and one in acute mourning, and one sitting

who served in the Temple:

are not subject to death, but only to 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

And one with a bodily blemish

who served in the Temple:

Rabbi says: subject to death.

And the Sages say: subject to a prohibition.

One who intentionally misuses consecrated property

[who intentionally derives benefit from consecrated property involving misuse]:

Rabbi says: subject to death.

And the Sages say: subject to a prohibition.

We learned in a

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

one who eats untithed produce:

From where

[is it learned]?

For Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Elazar:

From where is it established concerning one who eats untithed produce that he is subject to death, as it is written

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

And they shall not profane the sacred things of the Children of Israel, that which they shall set apart for the Lord

,” and from the fact that Scripture said “that which they shall set apart for the Lord,” in the future tense, we learn to expound: the verse is also speaking

of those destined to be set apart

, and Scripture said that they shall not profane them by eating them in their untithed state—

And he derives

“profanation”

[and not “they shall profane”]

“profanation”

from teruma

which was eaten in bodily impurity, concerning which it is stated [Leviticus 22]: “Any man, any man of the offspring of Aaron, if he is afflicted with tzaraat or has a discharge ... or a man who touches any swarming thing through which he becomes impure, or a person through whom he becomes impure, with any of his impurity. A soul that touches it shall be impure until evening, and he shall not eat of the sacred things, but shall bathe his flesh in water. And when the sun has set, he shall become pure, and afterward he may eat of the sacred things [teruma] for it is his bread.

“And they shall keep My charge [from eating teruma in bodily impurity] and shall not bear sin because of it, and they shall die through it when they profane it”—

Just as there

with regard to teruma eaten in impurity,

there is death

, for the Torah said, “and they shall die through it when they profane it,”

so too here

—with regard to one who eats untithed produce—

there is death.

And we object:

let us derive

“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 ... and if it is surely eaten on the third day ... and he who eats it shall bear his iniquity, for he has profaned the sacred thing of the Lord, and that soul shall be cut off from its people”—and it is said:

Just as there

with regard to one who eats leftover sacrificial meat,

there is karet, so here

with regard to one who eats untithed produce,

there is karet!?

And we answer:

it is reasonable

that one who eats untithed produce

should have derived it from teruma

that a koen ate in impurity,

since

it resembles it in several matters, and these are they:

Teruma,

that is: in both of them there is teruma, for teruma is also mixed into untithed produce.

Outside the Land of Israel,

that is: neither of them applies outside the Land of Israel; but leftover sacrificial meat applied in the wilderness and during the period when private altars were permitted.

It has a permitted state,

that is: there is a way to permit their prohibition, for untithed produce has a permitted state through separating teruma from it; and an impure person, after immersing, is permitted to eat teruma.

In the plural,

that is: the expression of profanation stated with regard to both is expressed in the plural [“they shall profane,” “when they profane it”], unlike leftover sacrificial meat, concerning which the expression of profanation is stated in the singular [“he has profaned”].

Produce,

that is: 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,

that is: neither piggul nor leftover sacrificial meat applies to untithed produce or teruma, and do not learn from sacred things, to which piggul and leftover sacrificial meat apply.

And we object:

on the contrary, he should have derived it from leftover sacrificial meat, since

untithed produce also resembles it in several matters, and these are they:

The disqualification is in the food,

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

It has no permitted state through immersion in a ritual bath,

whereas an impure person who ate teruma has a permitted state through immersion in a ritual bath.

And we answer:

these are more numerous

[these are more than those], that is: the matters in which untithed produce resembles teruma are more numerous than the matters in which untithed produce resembles leftover sacrificial meat; therefore it is more reasonable to derive untithed produce from teruma than from leftover sacrificial meat.

Ravina said:

Even without this reason, it should be learned from teruma, for

a plural profanation from a plural profanation is preferable

, that is: since in the wording of the verse—from which we learn the gzera shava—untithed produce is equal to teruma, for both are written in the plural, we should derive one from the other, and not from leftover sacrificial meat, whose wording in the verse differs, for it is stated in the singular; and this resemblance is preferable to all the other matters in which untithed produce resembles leftover sacrificial meat.

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

and an impure koen who ate pure teruma:

And we explain:

from where?

For Shmuel said: From where is it established concerning an impure koen who ate pure teruma that he is subject to death at the hands of Heaven?

From this,

as it is written: “Any man, any man of the offspring of Aaron, if he is afflicted with tzaraat or has a discharge ... or a man who touches any swarming thing through which he becomes impure, or a person through whom he becomes impure, with any of his impurity. A soul that touches it shall be impure until evening ...

and they shall keep My charge

[from eating teruma in bodily impurity]

and shall not bear sin because of it

, and they shall die through it when they profane it.”

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

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—

pure, but not

; indeed, he is liable for death for eating it in bodily impurity, but impure

teruma, which he

ate in bodily impurity,

is not

liable for death—

And because

Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: From where is it established concerning an impure koen who ate impure teruma that he is not subject to death, as it is stated

with regard to a koen who ate teruma in bodily impurity: “

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