Sanhedrin 83b (פג:) — the Talmud in English

And we learned: The Torah rendered liable only one who desecrates teruma by eating it in a state of impurity,

excluding this one—

impure teruma—

which is already desecrated

before he ate it in a state of bodily impurity.

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

and a non-koen who ate teruma:

Rav said:

A non-koen who ate teruma is flogged.

They said

they expressed their astonishment

to Rav, Rav Kahana and Rav Asi:

Let the Master say [Rav should have said: “A non-koen who ate teruma—

is subject to death,”

since

it is

written:

“as they will die through it, because they have profaned it [I am the Lord who sanctifies them, and every non-koen shall not eat what is sacred],”

and it means: A non-koen who ate what is sacred—that is, teruma, which is the subject of the entire passage there—is subject to death at the hands of Heaven]!?

and no non-kohen may eat sacred food.”

This indicates that a non-kohen who ate sacred food—that is, teruma, which is the subject of the entire passage there—is subject to death at the hand of Heaven!

Rav said to them: “

I am the Lord

who sanctifies them”—

this interrupts the passage

between “as they will die through it” and “every non-koen shall not eat what is sacred.” Therefore, the Torah said “as they will die through it, because they have profaned it” only with regard to an impure koen who ate teruma, which is the subject discussed there above the verse “as they will die through it, because they have profaned it.”

Meytivi

to Rav from the aforementioned beraita:

And these are subject to death...

a non-koen who eats teruma!?

And we are astonished:

Are you raising a difficulty from a beraita against Rav!?

Rav was a tanna and could disagree [Are you challenging Rav from a beraita? Rav was a tanna, and he had the authority to disagree with the tanna of the beraita].

with the ruling of the tan­‍nait of the beraita.

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

and a non-koen who performed the Temple service:

And we explain the reason: because

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

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

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

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

and an impure person who performed the Temple service:

And we explain the reason

as Rav Hiyya bar Avin asked Rav Yosef:

From where is it derived that an impure person who performed the Temple service is subject to death? As it is written [Leviticus 22:2]: “Speak to Aaron and his sons, and let them withdraw from the sacred offerings of the Children of Israel, and they shall not profane the name of My holiness

[Leviticus 22:2]:

... Tell them for your generations: Any man of all your offspring who approaches the sacred offerings 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 requiring them to withdraw from performing the service in a state of impurity, while the second verse concerns eating sacred offerings in a state of impurity, which is punishable by karet.

He said to them: “Throughout your generations, any man of all your descendants who approaches the sacred offerings 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 interpret the first verse as referring to refraining from performing service while impure, while the second verse refers to eating sacred offerings while impure, which is punishable by karet, spiritual excision.

And he derives the meaning of “profanation” [“they shall profane”]

“they shall profane”

from the meaning of “profanation” [“he profaned”]

“he profaned”

with regard to teruma

eaten in a state of bodily impurity:

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

And we raise a difficulty:

Let us derive the meaning of “profanation” [“they shall profane”]

“they shall profane”

from the meaning of “profanation” concerning notar [“he profaned”],

“he profaned”;

just as there it is punishable by karet, so too here it should be punishable by karet!

And we answer:

It is more reasonable

that an impure person who performed the Temple service

from

an impure person who ate

teruma

should have been the source from which to derive the law,

bodily condition,

as both involve a disqualification of the person’s body; whereas notar involves a disqualification of the food.

Impurity,

as both involve disqualification due to impurity, unlike notar.

Immersion pool,

as both have a remedy through immersion in a mikve.

Plural,

as the expression “profanation” is stated with regard to both of them in the plural, whereas with regard to notar it is stated in the singular.

On the contrary,

an impure person who performed the Temple service

should have been derived from notar!

As

they resemble one another in several respects, as follows:

Sacred,

as the impure person performed the service and dealt with sacred offerings, and notar is also sacred, unlike teruma.

Interior,

as both occurred inside, in the azarah, unlike teruma.

Piggul and notar,

that is, matters concerning sacred offerings should be derived from matters concerning sacred offerings, since they are alike with regard to piggul and notar, rather than being derived from teruma, which has neither piggul nor notar.

And we answer:

“Profanation” in the plural is preferable to “profanation” in the plural,

since the two cases are alike in that the expression “profanation” is stated in the plural; this similarity is preferable to all the other similarities mentioned.

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

and one who immersed that day and performed the service:

From where do we derive this?

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Simai says: A hint that one who immersed that day, if he performed the service

has profaned it—where is it derived?

The verse states [Leviticus 21:6]:

“They shall be holy to their God and shall not profane

the name of their God”—

And

if it does not refer

to an impure person who performed the service, since

it has already

been derived for us from

“and let them withdraw”

as explained above,

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

And if so, it is as though it were stated with regard to one who immersed that day and performed the service: “and shall not profane,”

and he derives the meaning of “profanation” from

an impure koen who ate

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

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

and one lacking the garments:

And we explain:

From where do we derive this?

Rabbi Abbahu said,

he explained:

Rabbi Yohanan said—and some attribute this teaching

to

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon:

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

and gird them with sashes

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

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 considered non-kohanim, and

therefore

the Master said in this beraita:

in this beraita:

A non-koen who performed the service

is

subject to death.

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

and one lacking atonement:

And we explain:

From where do we derive this?

Rav Huna said,

he explained:

Rav Huna:

Because

the verse says concerning a woman who gave birth [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... When the days of her purification are completed for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb in its first year as an elevation-offering... And if she cannot afford a sheep, she shall take two turtledoves or two young doves, one as an elevation-offering and one as a sin-offering,

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

Since the verse says “

and she shall become

pure,”

by implication she is impure

until she brings her atonement-offering;

and

therefore

the Master said

in this beraita:

An impure person who performed the service is subject to death.

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

and one who has not washed his hands and feet:

And we explain:

From where do we derive this?

As it is written [Exodus 30]: “You shall make a copper basin and its stand of copper, for washing... 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 for idolatry, which are performed 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 will die.

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

and those who have drunk wine:

And we explain the reason: because

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

Do not drink wine or other intoxicating drink,

you and your sons with you, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, lest you die.” Thus, if they drink and perform the service, they will die.

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

and those with unkempt hair:

And we explain the reason: because

it is written [Ezekiel 44]: “The priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok... They shall enter My Sanctuary, and they shall approach My table to serve Me...

They shall not shave their heads

and

they shall not let their hair grow wild,”

and it is written afterward

[following this verse]: “

They shall not drink wine

any koen when they enter the inner courtyard”—

Thus,

those with unkempt hair are juxtaposed with those who have drunk wine; just as those who have drunk wine,

when they performed the service, are

subject to death,

as we derived above,

so too those with unkempt hair,

when they performed the service, are

subject to death.

so too, one whose head is unkempt,

who performed service

is subject to death.

We learned in a beraita:

But one who is uncircumcised, an onen, or one who is seated is subject to a prohibition:

And we explain:

From where do we derive

that one who is uncircumcised is subject to a prohibition?

Rav Hisda said: This matter—

that one who is uncircumcised is prohibited from performing the service—

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

as it is stated in Ezekiel [there]: “

Any foreigner

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

uncircumcised of heart,