Zevachim 22b (כב:) — the Talmud in English

And according to this, likewise,

the waters of the kiyor were excluded

—which were sanctified with the sanctity of the waters of the kiyor—

as having an accompanying designation?!

[This version follows the wording of Tosafot, “But the tanna of the school of Samuel...”].

Rather

, necessarily, the kal va-chomer concerning the waters of the kiyor is not because they are sanctified waters of the kiyor, but because they are spring water

fit for the waters of the kiyor.

Apparently

, the waters of the kiyor are

living water?!

And we answer:

It is the subject of a dispute between tannaim

, who disagree concerning the status of the waters of the kiyor:

As Rabbi Yohanan said: Concerning the waters of the kiyor

—Rabbi Ishmael says: They are spring water.

And the Sages say: They are other types of water.

We learned in the Mishna:

An uncircumcised priest

who received the blood disqualified the offering.

And the Gemara discusses this:

From where do we derive

that an uncircumcised priest is disqualified from performing the Temple service?

Rav Hisda said: We did not learn this matter from the Torah of Moses our teacher

, as the disqualification of an uncircumcised priest is not written in the Torah; rather,

we learned it from the words of Ezekiel son of Buzi

, as it is written in the Book of Ezekiel: “

Any foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall not enter My Sanctuary.”

And from where do we derive that he invalidates the service? It is written: “

When you bring in foreigners, uncircumcised

in heart and uncircumcised

in flesh, to be in My Sanctuary, to profane My House.”

The Sages taught: “

A foreigner

,” stated in the aforementioned verse in Ezekiel,

might have meant

a

literal foreigner

?

The verse states: “

?

The verse states: “ Uncircumcised in heart

,” referring to one whose entire deficiency is due to the uncircumcision of his heart.

And since the verse is speaking about a priest,

if so, what is the meaning of the verse

“a foreigner”? It means:

one whose deeds have become foreign to his Father in Heaven.

I have derived only the case of one uncircumcised in heart. What is the source for one uncircumcised in flesh

, even if he is righteous—for example, one who does not circumcise himself because his brothers died as a result of circumcision?

The verse states: “

And uncircumcised in flesh.”

And both verses are necessary

—to write both “uncircumcised in heart” and “uncircumcised in flesh.”

For if the Merciful One had written

only

“uncircumcised in flesh”

, I would have said that only he is disqualified

because he is repulsive.

But as for one uncircumcised in heart, whose body is not repulsive

,

I would say that he is not

disqualified. Therefore, the verse teaches us that he too is disqualified.

And had the verse taught us

the disqualification of one

uncircumcised in heart

, I would have said that only he is disqualified

because his heart is not directed toward Heaven.

But as for one uncircumcised in flesh, whose heart is directed toward Heaven, I would say that he is not

disqualified. Therefore, the verse teaches us that he too is disqualified. Accordingly,

both verses are necessary

.

We learned in the Mishna: A priest who is

ritually impure

and performed the service for an offering—

the offering is disqualified

. This refers to an individual offering, since a communal offering is sacrificed even in a state of ritual impurity.

The elders of the South said: This was taught only

with regard to an impure priest who performs the service for an individual offering and thereby disqualifies it,

but

only when the priest was

impure

through contact with a creeping creature

, since nowhere do we find that an offering receives acceptance when the service was performed in impurity caused by a creeping creature.

But

if the priest performing the service was

impure through contact with a corpse,

then

since the offering receives acceptance

when an impure priest—impure through contact with a corpse—performs its service

for a

offering

in a communal

offering, ab initio,

it likewise receives acceptance

when a priest who is impure through contact with a corpse performs its service even

for an

individual

offering, after the fact.

This is based on what is stated concerning the Paschal offering [which is considered a communal offering, since it is performed by “the entire congregation of the assembly of Israel”]: It shall be sacrificed “at its appointed time.”

And we derive from this that every communal offering, since its time is fixed, is sacrificed even in a state of ritual impurity—whether the majority of the community was impure or the priests performing the service were impure.

And since the permission to bring an offering when the community is impure was stated only with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse, and not to any other impurity, as the Torah says in the passage concerning the Paschal offering, “When a person becomes impure through a corpse,” meaning impurity imparted by a corpse, therefore the permission for an individual offering to be sacrificed by an impure priest applies specifically to impurity imparted by a corpse, and not to any other impurity. However, this acceptance is only after the fact!

And since the permission to bring an offering when the community is impure was stated only with regard to impurity resulting from contact with a corpse, and not with regard to any other impurity—for in the passage concerning the Paschal offering it says, “When a person is impure through contact with a corpse,” meaning impurity from a corpse—therefore, the permission for an individual offering to be brought by an impure priest likewise applies specifically to impurity from a corpse, and not to any other impurity. However, this acceptance applies only after the fact!

And we object: If a priest impure through contact with a corpse can perform the service and effect acceptance, apparently a priest who performs the service while

impure through contact with a creeping creature also

should effect acceptance, both for a communal offering and for an individual offering.

For

let it come

—let the law of a priest impure through contact with a creeping creature, that he too effects acceptance, be derived

by a kal va-chomer from one impure through contact with a corpse:

And

a priest

impure through contact with a corpse, whose impurity is severe,

whose impurity is severe,

requiring sprinkling

of the waters of the red heifer

on the third and seventh days, nevertheless

he

effects acceptance

through his service.

One impure through contact with a creeping creature, whose impurity is light,

and

does not require sprinkling on the third and seventh days—should he not certainly effect acceptance?!

And we answer:

The elders of the South hold

that the derivation from “at its appointed time,” which teaches us that impurity is permitted in a communal offering, also teaches that the priests who

effect atonement

are subject

to the same law as those for whom atonement is effected. For the law both of the priests who effect atonement while impure and of the community for whom atonement is effected when the majority is impure is derived from the same verse, “at its appointed time.” And since the verse states that those for whom atonement is effected are permitted to be impure only through contact with a corpse, we derive:

Just as those for whom atonement is effected are “

impure through contact with a corpse,”

yes; one impure through contact with a creeping creature, no

. Just as we find that the Torah said that an impure community receives atonement only when its impurity is impurity imparted by a corpse, and not when it is impurity imparted by a creeping creature,

so too

the priests who

effect atonement

—

one impure through contact with a corpse, yes; one impure through contact with a creeping creature, no!

And we inquire:

What do the elders of the South hold, that they said that impurity imparted by a creeping creature is not permitted in a communal offering and did not derive that it is permitted by a kal va-chomer from impurity imparted by a corpse?

hold, who said that creeping-creature impurity was not permitted in the community and did not learn that it should be permitted by a kal va-chomer from corpse impurity?

If they hold

with regard to the Paschal offering that

one does not slaughter

the Paschal offering and

one does not sprinkle

its blood

on behalf of

an individual who is

impure through contact with a creeping creature, although he can immerse and eat his Paschal offering in the evening, and nevertheless is deferred to the Second Pesaḥ, then the following difficulty arises:

Why do they not have the community

that became impure through contact with a creeping creature perform its Paschal offering

in impurity

? After all,

But

this

verse is stated concerning the Paschal offering: “When a person becomes impure through a corpse,” and we derive in tractate Pesaḥim [66b]: “a person,” but not a community. The verse teaches that

any

impurity

in an individual

causes him to be

deferred

to the Second Pesaḥ, but a

community

that becomes impure with such an impurity

performs

the First Pesaḥ

in impurity! If you say that an individual impure through contact with a creeping creature is deferred to the Second Pesaḥ, then according to this principle a community that became impure through contact with a creeping creature should bring its offering in that impurity!

Rather, necessarily,

they hold

—the elders of the South—

that one slaughters and sprinkles

the blood of the Paschal offering

on behalf of

an individual who is

impure through contact with a creeping creature, and he immerses and eats his Paschal offering in the evening.

Therefore, even when the majority of the community is impure through contact with a creeping creature, there is no need to permit them to enter the Temple courtyard in impurity. Rather, they send their offerings to the courtyard, pure priests sacrifice them, and the impure individuals immerse and eat their offering in the evening.

impure through contact with a creeping creature,

and he immerses and eats his Paschal offering in the evening.

Therefore, even when most of the community is impure through contact with a creeping creature, there is no need to permit them to enter the Temple courtyard in impurity. Rather, they send their offerings to the courtyard, pure priests perform the service, and the impure people immerse and eat their offering in the evening.

Now, since impurity imparted by a creeping creature is not permitted when the community is impure with that impurity, and since the law of the priests who effect atonement is derived from the law of those for whom atonement is effected, it follows that there is no permission to sacrifice a communal offering through a priest impure through contact with a creeping creature.

Therefore, even in the case of an individual offering, there is no permission to sacrifice it through a priest impure through contact with a creeping creature. Even if he transgressed and sacrificed it, there is no acceptance after the fact, since the law of an individual offering is derived from that of a communal offering.

Ulla said: Reish Lakish sounded a blast at them

—he shouted at them—

the elders of the South

: How can it be possible to say that a priest impure through contact with a corpse can effect acceptance through his service for an individual offering after the fact?

Which power is greater

in overriding impurity— the power of the priests who

effect atonement, or the power of the community

for whom atonement is effected?

for whom atonement is effected?

This means -

the power of those for whom atonement is achieved!

The proof that the power of those for whom atonement is achieved is greater than the power of those who effect atonement is as follows:

If, in a case where the owners became impure through contact with a sheretz,

they

send their offerings

to the Temple courtyard,

whereas a priest who became impure through contact with a sheretz does not effect acceptance [since this is what the Elders of the South said: A priest who is impure with the impurity of a sheretz and performs the service of an individual offering does not effect acceptance], and it follows that the power of the owners, for whom atonement is achieved, is greater than the power of the priests, who effect atonement!

for this is what the Elders of the South said: A priest who is impure through contact with a creeping creature and performs the service for an individual offering does not effect acceptance]. It follows that the power of the owners, for whom atonement is achieved, is greater than the power of the priests, who effect atonement!

And if so, one must wonder about the Elders of the South: How can a priest performing the service of an individual offering effect acceptance when he is impure with corpse impurity?

In a case where the owners became impure through contact with a corpse,

there is no remedy for the individual for whom atonement is achieved, since the halakha is

that those impure through contact with a corpse

those impure through contact with a corpse

send their offerings

to the Temple courtyard. And if so, if those for whom atonement is achieved, whose power is greater, have no possibility of bringing their offerings,

is it not all the more so that a priest

who effects atonement,

who became impure through contact with a corpse,

whose power is less than that of the one for whom atonement is achieved,

does not effect acceptance

through his service with an individual offering?!

And we answer:

The Elders of the South hold that one impure through contact with a corpse also sends his offerings!

For one impure through contact with a corpse can send his Paschal offering to the Temple courtyard, and the priests can slaughter his Paschal offering and sprinkle its blood; he thereby fulfills his obligation to offer the Paschal sacrifice, despite the fact that he does not eat it. And once he has sent his Paschal offering and it has been sacrificed on his behalf, although he did not eat it, he is exempt from offering the second Pesach. For, according to the Elders of the South, eating the Paschal offering does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of offering it. And with this, Ulla's question is resolved: One might derive by a kal va-chomer from the one for whom atonement is achieved to the one who effects atonement that the latter should be disqualified when he is impure through contact with a corpse—for the Elders of the South hold that even one for whom atonement is achieved who is impure through contact with a corpse can send his offerings!

And we object: How can it be said that those impure through contact with a corpse send their offerings and thereby fulfill the mitzva of offering the Paschal sacrifice?

But it is written:

“Any person who will be impure -

and shall perform the Pesach in the second month”,

whereas according to the Elders of the South, he can send his offerings on the first Pesach and thereby be exempt from the obligation of the second Pesach?

And we answer: This verse was stated only

with regard to the mitzva,

to teach that ideally it is preferable for him to bring the second Pesach in purity rather than to send his offerings while he is impure and not eat it. But if he sent his offering and thereby fulfilled his obligation on the first Pesach, he no longer needs to bring an offering on the second Pesach.