Sanhedrin 83b — the Talmud in English

And we learned: the Torah made liable only one who profanes the teruma by eating it in impurity,

except for this one—

impure teruma—

which is already profaned before this person ate it in bodily impurity.

before he ate it in a state of bodily impurity.

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

and a non-koen who ate the teruma:

Rav said:

A non-koen who ate the teruma is flogged.

They said

they wondered

to Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, to Rav:

Let the Master say [it would have been proper for Rav to say]: “A non-koen who ate the teruma—

Rav should have said: “A non-kohen who ate teruma—

is subject to death,”

for

the verse

is written [Leviticus 22]: “And they shall die through it, for they have profaned it [I am the Lord who sanctifies them],

“[Leviticus 22:] And they shall die through it, because they profane it [I am the Lord who sanctifies them],”

and no non-koen shall eat a sacred thing.”

And it is implied: A non-koen who ate the sacred thing—that is, teruma, about which the entire passage there speaks—is subject to death at the hands of Heaven!?

Rav said to them: “

I am the Lord

who sanctifies them”—

the passage interrupts between “And they shall die through it” and “And no non-koen shall eat a sacred thing.” And if so, the Torah said “And they shall die through it, for they have profaned it” only concerning an impure koen who ate the teruma, which is the matter explained there above the verse “And they shall die through it, for they have profaned it.”

between “And they shall die through it” and “And no non-kohen may eat sacred food.” Therefore, the Torah said, “And they shall die through it, because they profane it,” only with regard to an impure kohen who ate teruma, which is the subject discussed earlier in that passage, before the verse “And they shall die through it, because they profane it.”

They raised an objection

to Rav from the beraita above:

And these are those who are subject to death...

a non-koen who eats the teruma!?

And we wonder:

Are you casting the teaching against Rav!?

Rav is a tanna and he disputes [Are you asking a difficulty against Rav from a beraita? Rav is a tanna, and he has the authority to dispute the tanna of the beraita].

with the ruling of the tan­‍nait of the beraita.

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

and a non-koen who performed the service:

And we explain the reason: because

it is written [Numbers 3:10]: “And you shall appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall guard their priesthood,

“[Numbers 3:10:] And you shall appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall safeguard their priesthood,”

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

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

and an impure one who performed the service:

And we explain the reason:

as Rav Hiyya bar Avin asked Rav Yosef:

From where [do we know] that an impure one who performed the service is subject to death, as it is written [Leviticus 22:2]: “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, and they shall separate themselves from the sacred things of the children of Israel, and they shall not profane the name of My holiness

[Leviticus 22:2]:

...”

He said to them: “Throughout your generations, every man who approaches from all your offspring to the sacred things that the children of Israel consecrate to the Lord, while his impurity is upon him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me; I am the Lord.” And we expound the first verse as referring to their refraining from performing the service in impurity, while the second verse refers to eating sacred things in impurity, which is punishable by karet.

And he derives profanation [“they shall profane”]

“they shall profane”

from profanation [“for they have profaned it”]

“because they profane it”

from teruma

that he ate in bodily impurity:

Just as there, [he is] subject to death, so here, [he is] subject to death.

And we raise a difficulty:

Let him derive profanation [“they shall profane”]

“they shall profane”

from profanation of notar [“he profaned”];

“he profaned”:

just as there [he is liable for] karet, so here [he should be liable for] karet!

And we answer:

It is reasonable that an impure one who performed the service in the Temple

should derive the law

from

an impure one who ate

teruma should have been the one from whom to derive it; for

they resemble one another in several matters, and these are:

Body,

both are disqualifications of the person’s body; can you say the same concerning notar, which is a disqualification of the food?

Impure,

both are disqualifications of impurity, which is not so with notar.

Immersion pool,

both have a remedy through an immersion pool.

In the plural,

the expression “profanation” concerning both is stated in the plural; can you say the same concerning notar, which is in the singular?

On the contrary, an impure one who performed the service in the Temple

should

should have derived it from notar!

For

they resemble one another in several matters, and these are:

Sacred,

an impure one performed the service and dealt with sacred things, and notar too is sacred, which is not so with teruma.

Inside,

both are done inside, in the Courtyard, which is not so with teruma.

Pigul and notar,

that is to say: matters of sacred things should be learned from matters of sacred things, for they are alike with regard to pigul and notar, and one should not learn from teruma, in which there is neither pigul nor notar.

And we answer:

Profanation in the plural from profanation in the plural is preferable,

since both are equal in the expression “profanation,” which is in the plural; this similarity is preferable to all the other similarities mentioned.

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

and one who has immersed that day who performed the service:

From where do we know it?

For it was taught: Rabbi Simai says: A hint concerning one who has immersed that day, that if he performs the service—

from where [do we know that] he has profaned?

The verse says [Leviticus 21:6]: “They shall be holy to their God and shall not profane

[Leviticus 21:6]:

the name of their God”—

the name of their God.”

and

if it does not concern an impure one who performed the service, for

it has already

been derived for us from “

and they shall separate themselves”

as explained above,

apply it to one who has immersed that day who performed the service—

And if so, it is as though it had been said concerning one who has immersed that day who performed the service: “And they shall not profane,”

and he derives profanation from

an impure koen who ate

teruma: Just as there, [he is] subject to death, so here, [he is] subject to death.

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

and one lacking garments:

And we explain:

From where do we know it?

He said

he explained,

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, and some attribute it

to those who say this teaching

in the name of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon:

For it is written [Exodus 29]: “And you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting... and you shall take the garments and dress Aaron... and you shall bring his sons...

and gird them with a sash

Aaron and his sons, and you shall bind turbans for them, and they shall have priesthood as an eternal statute.” And we learned:

When their garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them,

as the verse says: “And they shall have priesthood as an eternal statute.” But if

their garments are not upon them, their priesthood is not upon them, and they are non-koenim, and

thus

the Master said [in this beraita]:

in this beraita:

a non-koen who performed the service

he

is subject to death.

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

and one lacking atonement:

And we explain:

From where do we know it?

He said

he explained,

Rav Huna:

Because

the verse says concerning a woman after childbirth [Leviticus 12]: “When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure for seven days... and for thirty-three days she shall remain in the blood of purity... and when the days of her purity are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a yearling lamb for an elevation-offering... and if her means do not suffice for a sheep, she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for an elevation-offering and one for a sin-offering,

and the koen shall atone for her and she shall become pure”—

and the koen shall atone for her, and she shall become pure”—

And since the verse says “and she shall become

pure,”

it follows that she is impure

until she brings her atonement-offering

; and

thus

the Master said

in this beraita:

an impure one who performed the service is subject to death.

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

and one who has not washed his hands and feet:

And we explain:

From where do we know it?

For it is written [Exodus 30]: “And you shall make a copper basin and its stand of copper, for washing... and Aaron and his sons shall wash from it their hands and their feet.

[Exodus 30]: “You shall make a copper basin and its copper stand, for washing… and Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet from it.

When they enter the Tent of Meeting

to burn incense or to sprinkle the blood of the anointed koen’s bull and of the goats of idolatry, which are done inside,

they shall wash with water and shall not die,

or when they approach the altar to serve, to burn a fire-offering to the Lord”—thus, if they do not wash, they shall die.

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

and those who have drunk wine:

And we explain the reason: because

it is written [Leviticus 10]: “And the Lord spoke to Aaron, saying:

[Leviticus 10]: “And the Lord spoke to Aaron, saying:

Wine and strong drink, do not drink

you and your sons with you, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, and you shall not die”—thus, if they drink and perform the service, they shall die.

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

and those with overgrown hair:

And we explain the reason: because

it is written [Ezekiel 44]: “And the Levitical koenim, the sons of Zadok... they shall enter My Sanctuary and they shall approach My table to serve Me...

[Ezekiel 44]: “And the Levitical kohanim, the sons of Zadok… they shall enter My Sanctuary, and they shall approach My table to serve Me…

their heads they shall not shave

and

the overgrowth they shall not let grow.”

And it is written afterward

[after this verse]: “

And they shall not drink wine

any koen when they enter the inner court”—

Thus

those with overgrown hair are compared to those who have drunk wine; just as those who have drunk wine

who performed the service

are subject to death

as we derived above,

so too those with overgrown hair

who performed the service

are subject to death.

We learned in a beraita:

But one uncircumcised, an acute mourner, and one sitting are subject to a prohibition:

And we explain:

From where do we know concerning one uncircumcised

that he is subject to a prohibition?

Rav Hisda said: This matter—

that an uncircumcised person is forbidden to perform the service—

we did not learn from the Torah of Moses our Master, until Ezekiel son of Buzi came and taught it to us,

as it is stated in Ezekiel [there]: “

Every foreign son

[a koen who is apostate to idolatry, who is]

uncircumcised of heart,