Sanhedrin 84a (פד.) — the Talmud in English

And

yes,

one whose flesh is uncircumcised,

shall not enter My Sanctuary.”

The acute mourner, from where do we know

that he is subject to a prohibition?

As it is written [Leviticus 21]: “And the High Priest among his brothers, upon whose head the anointing oil is poured … and he shall not come upon any dead person; he shall not become impure for his father or his mother. [Even though his father and mother died,]

he shall not leave the Sanctuary

[there is no need for him to leave, and nevertheless]

and he shall not profane the Sanctuary of his God”—

And we learn:

but another priest who did not leave,

and performed the service while he was an acute mourner,

profaned

the service, and it became invalid.

He said:

Rav Adda

raised an objection to Rava:

Since we learned the disqualification of an acute mourner from this verse, in which the language of profanation is written, then

let us derive the term

“profanation” from “profanation”

from teruma: Just as there, the penalty is death, so here too, the penalty is death;

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

And we answer:

Is it written concerning him

in the case of an ordinary priest

in his own context

the expression “profanation”? Rather,

it comes

from the context of the High Priest

by inference,

meaning: Since it says concerning the High Priest that he does not profane, we learn that an ordinary priest profanes.

It is therefore a

“matter derived by inference,”

and a matter derived by inference is not subjected to a gezerah shavah.

The one who sits, from where do we know

that he is subject to a prohibition?

Rava said that Rav Naḥman said:

For

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

For him the Lord

your God chose from all your tribes to stand and serve

in the name of the Lord.” And we learn from what the verse says, “to stand and serve”:

I chose him for standing

to be a priest,

but not for sitting,

and since he was not chosen for this, he is considered 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?

It is because

it is written [Leviticus 21]: “Any man who has a physical defect, of the descendants of Aaron the priest, shall not approach to offer the offerings of the Lord … he may eat the most holy food and the holy food.

Only he shall not come to the Curtain,

and he shall not approach the altar, for he has a defect, and he shall not profane My holy places”—

And he derives profanation

“he shall profane”

from profanation of

a priest who ate

teruma

while his body was impure [“they shall profane it”]:

Just as there, the penalty is death, so here too, the penalty is death.

And we challenge:

Let us derive profanation

“he shall profane”

from profanation

“he profaned”

from notar,

and say:

Just as there, the penalty is karet, so here too, the penalty is karet!?

And we answer:

It is more reasonable that a person with a physical defect who performed the service

should be derived

from

an impure person who ate

teruma, since

the one with a physical defect is

a bodily disqualification, while

the impure person is

a bodily disqualification.

And we challenge:

On the contrary, it should be derived from notar, since

the one with a physical defect resembles notar in several respects, as follows:

Holy

The person with a physical defect performed the service and dealt with consecrated things, and notar is also consecrated, unlike teruma.

Inside,

Both were done inside, in the Temple courtyard, unlike teruma.

Pigul and notar,

meaning: Matters concerning offerings should be derived from matters concerning offerings, since they are alike with regard to pigul and notar, and should not be derived from teruma, which has neither pigul nor notar.

Rather,

we derive the case of a person with a physical defect by a gezerah shavah, “profanation, profanation,”

from an impure person who performed the service

[“and they shall not profane”],

because

of

the derivation:

a bodily disqualification from a bodily disqualification, holiness, inside, pigul, and notar—

from holiness, inside, pigul, and notar

That is, we derive the case of a person with a physical defect who performed the service from an impure person who performed the service, since this one resembles that one in all these matters. We do not derive it from notar, for although it resembles it with regard to holiness, inside, pigul, and notar, notar is not a bodily disqualification like a physical defect, but a disqualification of the food.

And the Sages,

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

the verse says

concerning an impure priest who ate teruma: “and they shall die

through it,”

and we learn:

but not through a person with a physical defect

who performed the service.

We learned in a beraita:

One who intentionally misappropriated consecrated property: 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,

explaining it,

Rabbi Abbahu:

Because it is written concerning misappropriation: “If a person commits a sacrilege and sins unintentionally against the sacred property of the Lord,” and it is written concerning an impure priest with teruma: “They shall safeguard My charge and shall not bear sin because of it, and they shall die through it, for they would profane it”—

And

Rabbi derives by a gezerah shavah,

“

sin”

“and sins,”

sin,”

from teruma: Just as there,

in the case of an impure priest who ate teruma,

the penalty is death

at the hand of Heaven,

so here too,

in the case of misappropriation, if he acted intentionally, he is

liable to death

at the hand of Heaven.

And

the reason of

the Sages, they say

the members of the academy, is because

the verse says

concerning an impure priest who ate teruma:

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

through it

shall he die,

but not through misappropriation. The verse excludes death for misappropriation; nevertheless, with regard to the prohibition we derive it by a gezerah shavah, and therefore the Sages said that one who intentionally misappropriated consecrated property is subject to a prohibition.

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 its conclusion, 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 in a beraita: Rabbi Yishmael says:

It is stated here

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

and the non-priest who approaches shall die.”

And it is stated there

[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 those who were burned].”

Just as there:

at the hand of Heaven,

for they died by a fire from the Lord.

So here too: 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]: “If a prophet or a dreamer of a dream arises in your midst and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass of which he spoke to you, saying: Let us follow other gods, whom you have not known, and let us worship them. You shall not heed the words of that prophet or that dreamer of a dream” …

“and that prophet or that dreamer of a dream shall die.”

And we derive by a gezerah shavah, “shall die” and “shall die”:

Just as there

in the case of a prophet who incited others to worship idolatry,

by stoning,

as will be explained later in the discussion,

so here too

in the case of a non-priest who performed the service,

by stoning.

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says:

Indeed, we derive it by a gezerah shavah from the prophet who incited others, but this is how we derive it:

Just as there

in the case of a prophet who incited others,

by strangulation,

as will be explained later in the discussion,

so here too

in the case of a non-priest who performed the service,

by strangulation.

And we explain:

With regard to what do Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva differ,

as Rabbi Yishmael derived the punishment of a non-priest who performed the service from those who were burned, whereas Rabbi Akiva—and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who agrees with Rabbi Akiva in this detail—derived the punishment of a non-priest who performed the service by a gezerah shavah, “shall die” and “shall die,” from a prophet who incited others?

Rabbi Akiva

[and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri]

holds:

One derives

“shall die” from “shall die,”

but one does not derive

“shall die” from “those who died.”

And Rabbi Yishmael holds:

One derives an ordinary person from an ordinary person.

But one does not derive an ordinary person from a prophet.

And Rabbi Akiva

could say to you:

Since he incited

that prophet to worship idolatry,

there is no ordinary person greater than this one.

The Gemara further explains:

With regard to what do Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri differ,

as they dispute whether a prophet who incited others is subject to stoning or strangulation, and consequently they also disagree concerning the non-priest who performed the service?

They differ in

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

A prophet who incited others

is

subject to stoning,

and this is the view of Rabbi Akiva;

Rabbi Shimon says: A

prophet who incited others is

subject to strangulation,

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

And we challenge what was explained in the beraita, according to Rabbi Akiva, that a non-priest who performed the service is subject 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 tannaitic opinions,

two tannaim,

and they

disagree

according to Rabbi Akiva:

The Mishna,

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

is Rabbi Shimon,

a disciple of Rabbi Akiva. He says that a prophet who incited others is subject to strangulation, and they stated this according to Rabbi Akiva; consequently, the non-priest who performed the service, whose punishment is derived from the prophet who incited others, is also subject to strangulation.

And the

beraita,

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

is the Sages,

who said that a prophet who incited others is subject to stoning.

And they stated this according to Rabbi Akiva,

for the disputants of Rabbi Shimon in the beraita were also disciples of Rabbi Akiva; consequently, the non-priest who performed the service, whose punishment is derived from him, is likewise subject to stoning.

We have returned to you, chapter “And These Are the Ones Subject to Burning.”