Zevachim 22b — the Talmud in English

And according to this as well,

the waters of the basin came out

which were sanctified with the sanctity of the waters of the basin,

that they have an accompanying designation?! [

This version is according to the words of Tosafot, “But the tanna of the school of Shmuel”].

Rather, is it not necessarily that the kal va-chomer concerning the waters of the basin is not because they are sanctified waters of the basin, but rather because they are spring water

fit for the waters of the basin

which are fit for the waters of the basin.

It follows that

the waters of the basin

are living water?!

And we answer:

It is a dispute between tannaim

who disagreed concerning the law of the waters of the basin—

For Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The waters of the basin—

Rabbi Yishmael says: They are spring water.

And the Sages say: They are other water.

We learned in the Mishna:

An uncircumcised man

who received the blood invalidated the offering.

And the Gemara discusses it:

From where do we know

that an uncircumcised man is disqualified for the Temple service?

Rav Ḥisda said: This matter we did not learn from the Torah of Moses our Teacher,

for the disqualification of an uncircumcised man was not written in the Torah, but rather

we learned it from the words of Ezekiel son of Buzi,

as it is written in the Book of Ezekiel:

“No foreign son, uncircumcised of heart and uncircumcised of flesh, shall come into My Sanctuary.”

And from where do we know that he invalidates the service? As it is written:

“When you bring foreign sons, uncircumcised

of heart and uncircumcised

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

The Sages taught:

“A foreign son,”

which is stated in the verse above in Ezekiel,

one might have thought

the verse is speaking of

an actual foreign son

—the verse states:

“This teaches”

?

“uncircumcised of heart,”

whose entire deficiency is on account of the uncircumcision of his heart.

And since the verse spoke of a koen,

if so, what does the verse teach by saying

“a foreign son”?—

That his deeds have become foreign to his Father in Heaven.

I have only [learned the disqualification of] an uncircumcised heart; [as for] an

uncircumcised flesh, even if he is righteous—for example, he does not circumcise himself because his brothers died on account of circumcision—

from where [do we know it]?

The verse states: “And uncircumcised of flesh.”

And both are necessary

to write both “uncircumcised of heart” and “uncircumcised of flesh.”

For if the Merciful One had written

only

“uncircumcised of flesh,”

I would have said that only he is disqualified

because he is repulsive.

But an uncircumcised heart, whose body is not repulsive,

,

I would say, no, he is not disqualified; therefore it teaches us that he too is disqualified.

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

And if it had informed us

of the disqualification of

an uncircumcised heart,

I would have said that only he is disqualified

because his heart is not directed toward Heaven.

But an uncircumcised flesh, whose heart is directed toward Heaven, I would say, no,

he is not disqualified; therefore it teaches us that he too is disqualified. And therefore

both are necessary,

these two verses.

We learned in the Mishna: A

ritually impure

koen who performed the service with an offering—

it is invalid,

the offering. And this is speaking of an individual offering, since a communal offering is brought even in ritual impurity.

The elders of the South said: They taught

that an impure man who performs the service with an individual offering invalidates the offering

only

when the koen was

impure

with a creeping creature,

because nowhere do we find that acceptance is possible for a service performed in the impurity of a creeping creature.

But

if the koen performing the service was

impure through contact with a corpse,

then,

since he effects acceptance

when an impure-through-contact-with-a-corpse koen performs his service

with

an offering

of the community,

initially,

he likewise effects acceptance

when a koen who is impure through contact with a corpse performs his service even

with

an offering

of an individual,

after the fact.

And this is stated concerning the Paschal offering [which is considered a communal offering, since “the entire congregation of the assembly of Israel” performs it], that it shall be brought “at its appointed time.”

And we expound from here that every communal offering, since its time is fixed, is brought even in ritual impurity—whether the majority of the community were impure, or whether the koanim bringing it were impure.

And since the permission to bring an offering when the community is impure was stated only with regard to corpse impurity and not another impurity, because it is stated in the passage concerning the Paschal offering, “When a man will be impure through a soul,” that is, corpse impurity, therefore the permission to bring an individual offering through an impure koen is likewise specifically with regard to corpse impurity, and not another impurity. But this acceptance is only after the fact!

And we object: If a koen impure through contact with a corpse can perform the service and effect acceptance, then apparently a koen performing the service while

also impure through a creeping creature

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

For

let it come,

let the law of a koen impure through a creeping creature, that he too effects acceptance, be derived

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

And what

of a koen

impure through contact with a corpse,

whose impurity is severe,

who requires sprinkling

of the waters of the cow

on the third and seventh [days], and nevertheless he

and nevertheless he

effects acceptance

through his service—

one impure through a creeping creature,

whose impurity is light,

who does not require sprinkling on the third and seventh, is it not logical that he effects 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 the community, also teaches us that the koanim who

atone

have a law

like those for whom atonement is effected. For both the law of the koanim who atone while they are impure, and the law of the community for whom atonement is effected when most of them are impure, are learned from the same verse, from “at its appointed time.” And since the verse said that those for whom atonement is effected attain atonement with corpse impurity alone, we learn from this:

Just as those for whom atonement is achieved:

Just as those for whom atonement is effected

with corpse impurity

yes, with creeping-creature impurity, no,

just as concerning the impure community we find that the Torah said that atonement is effected for them only when their impurity is corpse impurity, and not when they are impure through a creeping creature,

so too

the koanim who

atone—

with corpse impurity, yes; with creeping-creature impurity, no!

And we inquire about it:

What do the elders of the South

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

concerning the law of the Paschal offering that

one does not slaughter

the Paschal offering and

one does not sprinkle

its blood

upon

an individual who is

impure through a creeping creature,

for although he can immerse, and by evening he can eat his Paschal offering, nevertheless he is deferred to the Second Passover—if so, the following difficulty arises:

Why do they not make the community

that became impure through a creeping creature perform their Paschal offering

in impurity?

For

this

was stated concerning the Paschal offering: “When a man will be impure through a soul,” and we expound in tractate Pesahim [66b]: “‘A man’ and not a community.” The verse teaches that

every

impurity

of an individual

that is

deferred

on account of it to the Second Passover—

a community

that became impure with such an impurity

performs

the First Passover

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

Rather, necessarily,

Rather,

necessarily,

they hold,

the elders of the South, that

one slaughters and sprinkles

the blood of the Paschal offering

upon

an individual who is

impure through a creeping creature,

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

And therefore, even when the majority of the community is impure through creeping creatures, there is no need to permit them to enter the Temple courtyard in impurity; rather, they send their offerings to the courtyard, pure koanim bring them, and the impure immerse and eat their offering in the evening.

And now, since creeping-creature impurity was not permitted when the community is impure with it, and since the law of the koanim who atone is learned from the law of the community for whom atonement is effected, it follows that there is no permission to bring a communal offering through a koen impure with creeping-creature impurity.

And therefore, even in the case of an individual offering, there is no permission to bring it through a koen impure with creeping-creature impurity; and even if he transgressed and brought it, there is no acceptance after the fact, because the law of an individual offering is learned from a communal offering.

Ulla said: He shouted at them,

he cried out at them,

Reish Lakish to the Southerners,

to the elders of the South: How is it possible to say that a koen impure through contact with a corpse can effect acceptance through his service in an individual offering, after the fact?

And is any power greater

than its fellow in overriding impurity—the power of the koanim who

atone,

or the power of the community

for whom atonement is effected?

That is to say -

the power of those for whom atonement is effected!

And the proof that the power of those for whom atonement is effected is preferable to the power of those who effect atonement:

And where the owners became impure through a creeping animal,

they nevertheless

send their sacrifices

to the Temple courtyard,

whereas a kohen who became impure through a creeping animal does not effect acceptance [

for this is what the Elders of the South said: that a kohen who is impure with the impurity of a creeping animal 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 effected, is preferable to the power of the kohanim, who effect atonement!

And if so, one must wonder about the Elders of the South: how does a kohen performing the service of an individual offering effect acceptance when he is impure through contact with a corpse? For

where the owners became impure through a corpse,

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

that

those impure through contact with a corpse

do not send their sacrifices

to the Temple courtyard. And if so, if for those for whom atonement is effected, whose power is preferable, it is impossible to bring their sacrifices,

is it not a logical inference that a kohen,

who effects atonement,

who became impure through a corpse,

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

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 sacrifices!

For one impure through contact with a corpse can send his Paschal offering to the Temple courtyard, and the kohanim slaughter his Paschal offering and sprinkle its blood, and thereby he fulfills the obligation of offering the Paschal sacrifice, even though he does not eat it. And since he sent his Paschal offering, and it was offered on his behalf, even though he did not eat it, he is exempt from offering the second Paschal sacrifice. For according to the Elders of the South, eating the Paschal sacrifice does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of the offering. And through this Ulla’s question is resolved: that a kal va-chomer should be learned from the one for whom atonement is effected to the one who effects atonement, to invalidate him when he is impure through contact with a corpse—for the Elders of the South hold that even one for whom atonement is effected who is impure through contact with a corpse can send his sacrifices!

And we object: how is it possible to say that those impure through contact with a corpse send their sacrifices and fulfill the mitzva of offering the Paschal sacrifice?

But it is written, “

Any person, any person, if he will be impure”—

“and he shall perform the Paschal offering in the second month,”

whereas according to the Elders of the South he can send his sacrifices during the first Paschal offering and thereby be exempt from the obligation of the second Paschal offering?

And we answer: this verse was stated only

for the mitzva,

to teach that ideally it is preferable that he bring the second Paschal offering in purity rather than send his sacrifices while he is impure and not eat it. But if he sent [his sacrifice] and thereby fulfilled his obligation with the first Paschal offering, he no longer needs to bring a sacrifice with the second Paschal offering.