Zevachim 17b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Rabba holds

that

one lacking atonement of a zav is considered like a zav

[and it mentioned “zav” only as an example, for every one lacking atonement remains in his status so long as he has not brought his offerings], so that even if he immersed and the sun had set, his impurity is not weakened , but he still imparts impurity and is liable for karet for eating sacrificial food so long as he has not brought his offerings, as before.

Therefore, it is impossible to derive one who immersed that day from one lacking atonement and one impure through contact with a corpse, because they are more stringent than he, since they lack an act of atonement for their purification. Therefore, Scripture had to specify the law of each of them separately.

And one lacking atonement of a zav

, whether his impurity is weakened after he immersed, or he is

considered like a zav

, is a dispute

among tannaim.

For it was taught: The red heifer

that

a person who is

by one who is

an onen

and lacking atonement burned is fit. Yosef the Babylonian says: If

an onen

burned it, it is

fit

[because an onen is not forbidden to perform the service of the heifer]. But if

one lacking atonement

burned it, it is

unfit.

What, is it not with this that they disagree

the first tanna and Yosef the Babylonian:

one master holds that one lacking atonement of a zav is considered like a zav

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

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

, and he is not impure but pure, and fit to burn the heifer; he is merely still forbidden to enter the Temple, since he has not brought his offerings.

And we reject this:

No.

Everyone

holds that one lacking atonement of a zav

is considered like a zav.

And here,

with regard to the red heifer,

this is what they disagree about, for it is written: “

and the pure person

shall sprinkle upon the impure.” The word “pure” is apparently superfluous, since it was already stated above, “And he shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, and a pure person”; from this they expounded

by implication, he is impure

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

The verse taught

that

one who immersed that day is fit for the heifer

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

One master

, the first tanna, who permits one lacking atonement to burn the heifer,

holds

that Scripture made the making of the heifer fit for those who immersed that day because of

impurity of all the Torah

, including those who immersed that day but still lack atonement.

And one master

, Yosef the Babylonian, who disqualifies one lacking atonement from burning the heifer,

holds

that Scripture made fit only

the impurity of this passage

with which it is dealing: one who immersed that day because of corpse impurity.

Accordingly, one who immersed that day because of a carcass and one impure through a creeping creature, who are less stringent

than one who immersed that day because of corpse impurity [the impurity of a creeping creature lasts only one day, whereas corpse impurity lasts seven days],

comes by a kal va-chomer from one who immersed that day because of a corpse

, and therefore one who immersed after contact with a creeping creature or after carcass impurity is fit to burn the heifer.

But

one who immersed that day who is

one lacking atonement of a zav, who is more stringent

than corpse impurity,

since impurity issues from his body, no

did Scripture make fit to burn the heifer. We learned in the Mishna:

one lacking garments

disqualifies the service.

From where do we know that a koen who performed service while lacking garments—his service is invalid?

Rabbi Avahu said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan—and some transmit this in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon:

Rabbi Avuh said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, and they said this in the name of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon: For the verse says:

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

And we derive:

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

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

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

And

for

this,

this law—that one lacking garments invalidates the service—

is derived from here?

But

it is derived from there—

For it was taught: From where do we know concerning those who drank wine, that if he served

the koen while he was intoxicated,

he invalidated

the service?

The verse says:

“Do not drink wine or strong drink”

and so forth.

And afterward it says:

“To distinguish between the sacred and the profane,”

to teach you that if he served while intoxicated, his service is the service of non-sacred things.

And in a case where he served while

lacking garments

or while

one who had not washed his hands and feet.

From where do we know

that he invalidates the service?