Zevachim 17b (יז:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Rabba holds:

Rabba,

one who lacks atonement due to a zav is considered like a zav [the term “zav” is used merely as an example, since everyone who lacks atonement remains subject to his original status until he brings his offerings], so even if he immersed and the sun had set, his impurity is not weakened

, rather, he still imparts impurity and is liable to karet for eating sacrificial food so long as he has not brought his offerings, as before.

Therefore, one cannot derive the law of one who has immersed during the day from one who lacks atonement or from one who is impure through contact with a corpse, because they are more stringent than he: they lack an act of atonement for their purification. Therefore, Scripture had to specify the law of each of them separately.

And with regard to one who lacks atonement due to a zav,

whether his impurity is weakened once he has immersed, or whether he is

considered like a zav,

is the subject of a dispute between

tannaim.

As it was taught in a beraita: The red heifer

that

was burned

by one who is

an onen

or who lacks atonement is valid. Yosef the Babylonian says: If it was burned by an

onen, it is

valid,

valid

[because an onen is not forbidden to perform the service of the red heifer]. But if it was burned by one who is

lacking atonement, it is

invalid,

invalid.

Do they not disagree about this—the first tanna and Yosef the Babylonian:

the first tanna and Yosef the Babylonian:

one master holds that one who lacks atonement due to a zav is considered like a zav,

and is therefore impure, whereas the one who burns the red heifer must be pure.

And one master holds that he is not considered like a zav,

and is therefore not impure but pure and fit to burn the red heifer; he is merely still forbidden to enter the Temple because he has not yet brought his offerings.

And we reject this:

No.

Everyone

holds that one who lacks atonement due to a zav is

considered like a zav.

And here,

with regard to the red heifer,

they disagree about this, as it is written:

“And the pure person shall sprinkle

upon the impure.” The word “pure” appears superfluous, since it was already stated above: “And he shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, and a pure man.” From this they derived

“this implies that he is impure.”

The purity of this “pure” person is only partial, and he is still impure; he is called “pure” only because he has begun to become pure. The verse

taught

that

one who has immersed during the day is valid for the red heifer.

For one who has immersed during the day has already immersed and has become partially purified from his impurity, but he still possesses the special status of “one who has immersed during the day.” The superfluous verse teaches us that with regard to performing the red heifer service, he is considered pure, as we find [Yevamot 72b] that one who has immersed during the day is considered pure with regard to eating second tithe, as it is written: “And he shall wash in water and become pure.”

One master,

the first tanna, who validates one who lacks atonement for burning the red heifer,

holds

that the Torah validated the performance of the red heifer by those who have immersed during the day due to

impurity of any kind throughout the Torah,

including those who have immersed during the day but still lack atonement.

And one master,

Yosef the Babylonian, who disqualifies one who lacks atonement from burning the red heifer,

holds

that the Torah validated only

the impurity of this passage,

namely, one who has immersed during the day due to corpse impurity.

Accordingly, one who has immersed during the day due to carrion impurity or creeping-animal impurity, which is less severe

than one who has immersed during the day due to corpse impurity [creeping-animal impurity lasts only one day, whereas corpse impurity lasts seven days],

is derived by a kal va-chomer from one who has immersed during the day due to corpse impurity,

and therefore one who has immersed after contact with a creeping animal or after carrion impurity is valid to burn the red heifer.

But

one who has immersed during the day and is

one who lacks atonement due to a zav, which is more severe

than corpse impurity,

since impurity issues from his body, is not

validated by the Torah to burn the red heifer. We learned in the Mishna:

One lacking the garments

disqualifies the service.

From where is it derived that

a koen who performed the service while lacking the garments renders his service invalid?

Rabbi Avuha said that Rabbi Yohanan said—and some attributed this statement to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: The verse states:

“And you shall gird them with a sash, Aaron and his sons, and you shall bind caps on them, and their kehunah shall be for them as an eternal statute.”

And we expound this verse:

When their garments are upon them, their kehunah is upon them.

When their garments are not upon them, their kehunah is not upon them.

And since, when they lack the garments, they are not considered kohanim, their service is like the service of non-kohanim, which invalidates the service. And we raise an objection:

And

as for

this,

the law that one lacking the garments invalidates the service,

is it derived from here?

But

it is derived from there—

As it was taught: From where is it derived regarding those who have drunk wine that, if they performed the service,

the kohein having performed it while intoxicated,

he invalidated

the service?

The verse states:

“Do not drink wine or intoxicating drink,”

and so on.

And it is stated afterward:

“To distinguish between the sacred and the profane,”

to teach you that if he performed the service while intoxicated, his service is the service of a non-sacred person.

And in a case where he performed the service while

lacking the garments

or while

he had not washed his hands and feet.

From where

is it derived that he invalidates the service?