Zevachim 17a — the Talmud in English

Rather:

necessarily, we cannot derive by means of a kal va-chomer in order to alter the meaning of the plain sense of an anonymous biblical verse, since

this objection can be raised, and that objection can be raised;

and therefore

each one remains teyku in its place,

we establish it in its place according to the plain sense of the verse.

And therefore, when mourning was permitted for the High Priest without qualification, its permission applies both in the case of an individual offering and in the case of a communal offering. And likewise, when mourning was prohibited for an ordinary priest, its prohibition is stated without qualification, both in the case of an individual offering and in the case of a communal offering.

And likewise, when impurity was permitted in the case of a communal offering without qualification, it was permitted even to an ordinary priest; and when it was prohibited in the case of an individual offering without qualification, it is prohibited both to the High Priest and to the ordinary priest.

We learned in the Mishna: All offerings whose blood was received by

one who had immersed that day—

he invalidated them!

From where

do we know that one who had immersed that day invalidates the Temple service?

As it was taught: Rabbi Simai says: A hint

concerning one who had immersed that day, that if he performed the service, he desecrated his service.

From where? The verse says:

“They shall be holy”—

“and they shall not desecrate”

the name of their God, for they offer the fire-offerings of the Lord, the food of their God.

If it does not apply to an impure person who desecrates sacred offerings through his service,

as it is derived from

“and they shall separate themselves”

from the sacred things of the Children of Israel [so that the priests shall not perform the service of the offerings while they are impure]

“and they shall not desecrate the name of My holiness,”

apply it to one who had immersed that day,

who also desecrates the service.

And we challenge this: And from where is it established that the extra wording in “and they shall not desecrate” comes to teach us concerning one who had immersed that day, that he desecrates the service?

Say: Apply it to one who makes a baldness and to one who destroys the corner of his beard,

which are written in the preceding verse; and the intent of the verse would be to say that priests who make a baldness or destroy the corner of their beard also transgress the positive and negative commandments of “They shall be holy—and they shall not desecrate”?

And we answer: It is impossible to establish the verse “They shall be holy, and they shall not desecrate” as referring to one who makes a baldness or destroys his beard . For

one who had immersed that day, if he performed

the service of sacred offerings, his liability

to death—from where do we know it? For it is derived

from the verse “They shall be holy, and they shall not desecrate,” by a gezera shava of

desecration—

desecration from the case of teruma,

for just as one who desecrates teruma is liable to death , so one who desecrates sacred offerings through his service is liable to death. And since it is not explicit in the verse “they shall not desecrate” which disqualified persons are under discussion, therefore we can learn only that a disqualified person

who invalidates teruma,

such as one who had immersed that day,

desecrates the service,

but one

who does not invalidate teruma,

such as one who makes a baldness or destroys his beard,

does not

be learned to

desecrate the service,

and it follows that this verse speaks only of one who had immersed that day, who desecrates the service, and not of one who makes a baldness or destroys his beard, who do not desecrate teruma; consequently, this verse cannot teach that they desecrate sacred offerings!

Rabba said:

Why do I need the Merciful One to have written

three separate verses concerning the invalidation of the service performed by

an impure person, one who had immersed that day, and one lacking atonement?

For had it been written only concerning an impure person that he desecrates the service, we could have derived from him by the principle of what we find in one case that the same applies to one who had immersed that day and to one lacking atonement: anyone disqualified from serving because of impurity desecrates the service.

And we answer:

They are necessary

to write one who had immersed that day and one lacking atonement as well.

Had the Merciful One written only “an impure person,”

we would not have derived one who had immersed that day and one lacking atonement from him, because he is more stringent than they are,

since

the impure person

renders

food impure through his contact, whereas one who had immersed that day and one lacking atonement do not render it impure [one who had immersed that day merely invalidates teruma, but does not render it impure]!

And had the desecration of the service been written only

concerning one who had immersed that day—

one lacking atonement could not be derived from him, since

one who had immersed that day is more stringent than he is in that

he invalidates teruma,

whereas one lacking atonement does not invalidate teruma.

And had the desecration of the service been written only

concerning one lacking atonement—

one who had immersed that day could not be derived from him, since

one lacking atonement is more stringent than he is in that he still

lacks an act

of bringing his offerings before he becomes pure, whereas one who had immersed that day becomes pure without an act, when the sun sets.

And we still challenge: Although

one cannot be derived from one

because of the objections above, why not

derive one from the other two, and it would have sufficed to write an impure person and one who had immersed that day, or an impure person and one lacking atonement, and derive the third by a common aspect from the other two?

And the Gemara clarifies the challenge:

Which one need the Merciful One not have written,

and we would derive it from the two laws concerning which desecration is stated?

If the intent is

not to write one lacking atonement, and to derive him from these,

from an impure person and one who had immersed that day, this can be rejected:

What is true of these

is that they are more stringent than he is,

since

they

invalidate teruma,

whereas one lacking atonement does not invalidate teruma.

Rather, let the Merciful One not write concerning one who had immersed that day, and derive him from these,

from an impure person and one lacking atonement.

What objection can you raise?—

What is true of these is that they lack an act

for their purification, and therefore they are more stringent than one who had immersed that day, who does not require an act for his purification.

In the end, their impurity is weakened,

for one lacking atonement who has immersed and whose sun has set, and who lacks only the bringing of his offerings, no longer renders anything impure and is not liable to karet for eating sacred offerings.

And although he still lacks the act of bringing his offerings, since his impurity has been weakened after he immersed and the sun set, it is possible to derive from him concerning one who had immersed that day: just as one lacking atonement desecrates the service, even though he does not render anything impure and is not liable to karet for eating sacred offerings, so too one who had immersed that day. Thus the objection, “What is true of the common aspect of an impure person and one lacking atonement is that they lack an act and are more stringent than one who had immersed that day,” falls away, for one who had immersed that day can be derived from one lacking atonement, since he has a leniency from another perspective: he does not lack an act for his purification, but only for his atonement; and a dead-person impurity does not lack an act for atonement. If so, one who had immersed that day can be derived from both of them .

Even though he still requires the action of bringing his offerings, since his impurity is weakened after he has immersed and the sun has set, one can derive the law of a person who immersed that day from him: Just as one lacking atonement invalidates the service even though he does not render others impure and is not liable to karet for eating sacred offerings, so too a person who immersed that day invalidates the service. Thus the objection—“What is true of the common feature of an impure person and one lacking atonement is that they require an action and are more stringent than a person who immersed that day”—falls away. For one can derive a person who immersed that day from one lacking atonement, since the latter has a leniency in another respect: He does not require an action for purification, but only for atonement; and a person impure through contact with the dead does not require an action for atonement. Therefore, the law of a person who immersed that day can be derived from both of them .