Sanhedrin 84a — the Talmud in English

And

so

one uncircumcised in flesh,

shall not come into My Sanctuary".

A mourner on the first day, from where do we know

that he is subject to a prohibition?

For it is written [Leviticus 21]: “And the High Priest from among his brothers, upon whose head the anointing oil is poured... and for every dead person he shall not come, for his father and for his mother he shall not become impure. [And even though his father and mother have died]

and from the Sanctuary he shall not go out

he need not go out, and even so

he shall not profane the Sanctuary of his God”—

And we learned:

but another, who did not go out,

and served while he was a mourner on the first day—

he profaned

the service, and it became invalid.

Said

Rab Adda

to Rava as a difficulty:

Since we learned the invalidity of a mourner on the first day from this verse, in which the language of profanation is written, if so:

let us derive “

profanation, profanation”

from teruma: just as there, [the punishment is] death, so here, [the punishment should be] death;

and why did we learn that he is subject merely to a prohibition!?

And we answer:

Is it written concerning him

the ordinary priest

in his own [verse]

the language of profanation? But it has

come by implication

from the High Priest:

it comes,

that is, from the fact that it said concerning the High Priest that he does not profane, we learned that an ordinary priest did profane;

it is “

a matter that comes by implication,”

and any matter that comes by implication is not interpreted by a gzera shava.

One who sits, from where do we know

that he is subject to a prohibition?

Rava said in the name of Rav Naḥman:

For

the verse says [Deuteronomy 18]: “And this shall be the due of the priests from the people... the first of your grain, your wine and your oil you shall give him.

For him the Lord

your God chose from all your tribes to stand to serve

in the name of the Lord”; and we learned from what the verse said, “to stand to serve”:

For standing I chose him

to be a priest,

but not for sitting,

and since he was not chosen for this, he is like a non-priest.

We learned in a beraita:

One with a physical defect

who performed the service,

Rabbi says: [he is liable] to death, and the Sages say: [he is subject] to a prohibition:

What is Rabbi’s reason?

Because

it is written [Leviticus 21]: “Any man in whom there is a defect, of the seed of Aaron the priest, shall not approach to offer the offerings of the Lord... the food of his God from the most holy things and from the holy things he may eat.

Only to the curtain he shall not come,

and to the altar he shall not approach, for there is a defect in him, and he shall not profane My holy things”—

And he derives profanation [“he shall profane”]

“he shall profane”

profanation from

a priest who ate

teruma

in bodily impurity [“they shall profane it”],

just as there, [the punishment is] death, so here, [the punishment is] death.

And we object:

let him derive profanation [“he shall profane”]

“he shall profane”

profanation [“he profaned”]

“he profaned”

from notar,

and let us say:

just as there, [the punishment is] karet, so here, [the punishment should be] karet!

And we answer:

it is logical

that a person with a physical defect who performed the service should be derived

from

one impure who ate

teruma, for it would have been proper to derive him because

one must learn the case of a person with a physical defect, who is

a bodily invalidity, from

one impure, who is

a bodily invalidity.

And we object:

On the contrary, it would have been proper to derive him from notar, for

a person with a physical defect resembles notar in several matters, and these are they:

Holy

A person with a physical defect performed the service and dealt with holy things, and notar is also holy, which is not so with teruma.

Inside,

both of them took place inside, in the Temple courtyard, which is not so with teruma.

Pigul and notar,

that is, one should learn matters of holy things from matters of holy 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.

Rather, we derive a person with a physical defect by the gzera shava “profanation, profanation”

from

one impure who performed the service [“and they shall profane”],

[“and they shall not profane”],

when

of

he completed the derivation:

a bodily invalidity from a bodily invalidity, holy, inside, pigul and notar—

from holy, inside, pigul and notar;

that is, we derive a person with a physical defect who performed the service from one impure who performed the service, since this one is equal to that one in all these matters, and we do not derive from notar, for although it is equal to him in holy, inside, pigul and notar, it is not a bodily invalidity like a person with a physical defect, but an invalidity of food.

And the Rabbis,

who do not derive one from the other, do so because

the verse says

concerning one impure who ate teruma, “and they shall die

in it,”

and we learned:

but not a person with a physical defect

who performed the service.

We learned in a beraita:

If he intentionally committed misuse, Rabbi says: [he is liable] to death; and the Sages say: [he is subject] to a prohibition:

And we explain:

What is Rabbi’s reason?

He said,

Rabbi Abbahu

explained:

Because it is written concerning misuse [Leviticus 5:15]: “If a person commits misuse, and sins inadvertently, from the holy things of the Lord,” and it is written concerning an impure priest in teruma [Leviticus 22:9]: “And they shall keep My charge and shall not bear sin for it, and they shall die in it, for they profane it”—

And

he completed the derivation, Rabbi, by the gzera shava “

“

sin [“and sins”]

“and sins,”

sin”

from teruma: just as there,

concerning an impure priest who ate teruma,

[the punishment is] death

at the hand of Heaven,

so here,

concerning misuse, if he committed it intentionally, he is

[liable to] death

at the hand of Heaven.

And

the reason of

the Rabbis, they say,

the scholars of the academy, is because

the verse says

concerning an impure priest who ate teruma:

“And they shall die in it,” and we expound:

in it

shall he die,

but not for misuse,

and Scripture excluded that there should be death for misuse; nevertheless, with regard to a prohibition we derive it by a gzera shava, and therefore the Sages said that one who intentionally committed misuse is subject to a prohibition.

Here the Gemara returns to our Mishna and explains the latter clause, in which we learned:

A non-priest who performed the service in the Temple,

Rabbi Akiva says: by strangulation; and the Sages say: at the hand of Heaven:

It was taught: Rabbi Ishmael says:

It is stated here

concerning a non-priest who performed the service: “And you shall appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall keep their priesthood,

and the non-priest who approaches shall die.”

And it is stated there [Numbers 17:27]—after fire went out from the Lord and burned the two hundred and fifty men who offered the incense in the episode of Korah—“And the children of Israel said to Moses, saying: Behold, we expire, we perish, we all perish.

[Numbers 17:27], after a fire went forth from the Lord and burned the two hundred and fifty men who offered the incense in the episode of Korah: “And the Children of Israel said to Moses, saying: Behold, we expire, we are lost; we are all lost.

Anyone who approaches, who approaches, the Tabernacle of the Lord

shall die [like the burned ones].”

[like those who were burned].”

Just as there:

at the hand of Heaven,

for they died in a burning sent by the Lord.

So here: at the hand of Heaven.

Rabbi Akiva says:

It is stated here—

concerning a non-priest who performed the service—“

and the non-priest who approaches shall die.”

And it is stated there [Deuteronomy 13]: “When a prophet or a dreamer of a dream arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you comes to pass, saying: Let us go after other gods, which you have not known, and let us serve them. You shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of the dream”...

and that prophet or that dreamer of the dream shall die.”

And we derive by the gzera shava “he shall die, he shall die”:

just as there—

in the case of a prophet who incited [others] to worship idolatry—

by stoning,

as will be explained in the continuation of the matter.

So here—

concerning a non-priest who performed the service—

by stoning.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says:

Indeed, we derive it by a gzera shava from the prophet who incited [others], but this is how we derive it:

just as there—

concerning a prophet who incited [others]—

by strangulation,

as will be explained in the continuation of the matter.

So here—

concerning a non-priest who performed the service—

by strangulation.

And we explain:

With regard to what do Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree,

where Rabbi Ishmael learned the law of a non-priest who performed the service from those who were burned, whereas Rabbi Akiva—and Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, who agrees with Rabbi Akiva on this detail—learned the law of a non-priest who performed the service by the gzera shava “he shall die, he shall die” from a prophet who incited [others]?

Rabbi Akiva

and Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri

held:

We interpret “

he shall die from ‘he shall die’,”

but we do not interpret “

he shall die from ‘deaths’.”

And Rabbi Ishmael held:

We interpret an ordinary person from an ordinary person.

But we do not interpret an ordinary person from a prophet.

And Rabbi Akiva

would say to you:

Since he incited

that prophet to worship idolatry,

you have no ordinary person greater than this.

We further explain:

With regard to what do Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri disagree,

as they disagreed concerning a prophet who incited [others], whether he is liable to stoning or strangulation, and consequently they also disagreed concerning a non-priest who performed the service?

It is in the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, as it was taught:

the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Sages, as it was taught in a beraita:

A prophet who incited [others]

is

liable to stoning,

and this is the view of Rabbi Akiva

; Rabbi Shimon says: A

prophet who incited [others] is

liable to strangulation,

and this is also the view of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.

And we object to what was explained in the beraita, according to Rabbi Akiva, that he holds: a non-priest who performed the service is liable to stoning:

But we learned

in our Mishna: A non-priest who performed the service in the Temple:

Rabbi Akiva says: by strangulation!?

There are two tannaim,

they are two tannaim,

and

they disagreed

according to Rabbi Akiva:

The Mishna,

which we learned according to Rabbi Akiva, that a non-priest who performed the service is liable to strangulation,

is Rabbi Shimon,

a disciple of Rabbi Akiva, for he says: A prophet who incited [others] is liable to strangulation, and they said this according to Rabbi Akiva; therefore, it follows that a non-priest who performed the service, which is learned from the prophet who incited [others], is likewise liable to strangulation.

And

the beraita—

which we learned according to Rabbi Akiva, that a non-priest who performed the service is liable to stoning—

is the Rabbis,

who said: A prophet who incited [others] is liable to stoning,

and according to Rabbi Akiva

they said this, for Rabbi Shimon’s disputants in the beraita are also disciples of Rabbi Akiva; consequently, a non-priest who performed the service, who is learned from him, is likewise liable to stoning.

We have returned to you, chapter “And these are liable to burning”