Zevachim 23b — the Talmud in English

If it is the sin of piggul,

although the offering became piggul because of a thought of piggul—to eat it or to sprinkle its blood outside its designated place—it nevertheless achieves acceptance,

it has already

explicitly been stated [Leviticus 7:18]: “It is piggul”—

“it shall not be accepted!”

So how can the tzitz render it acceptable?

If it is the sin of notar,

meaning that the offering became piggul because, during its service, he intended to eat it at a time when it would be notar, that is, after the time allotted for its consumption,

it has already been stated [there]:

there,

“It shall not be reckoned,”

and below [28a] it is explained that this verse was stated with regard to one who has an intention concerning eating it beyond its allotted time. If so, it is impossible for the acceptance of the tzitz to render it fit?!

Thus, the tzitz carries

the sin

only of impurity that was permitted by an exception in the case of a communal offering

from the outset. Since we find that this impurity has another dispensation, it can be rendered fit after the fact through the acceptance of the tzitz, even in the case of an individual offering.

And we raised a difficulty with it:

What

is the

impurity

that was permitted in the case of the community, for which the tzitz achieves acceptance in the case of an individual, after the fact?

If you say

that the one who became impure was the owner

through impurity from a creeping creature,

you will find it difficult:

where was

this impurity permitted by an exception in the case of the community? For since an individual who is impure with this impurity is not thereby deferred to the second Pesaḥ, but can send his offering, eat it in the evening, and fulfill his obligation through the first Pesaḥ, the community is not permitted to enter the Temple courtyard in a state of impurity in order to perform it.

Rather,

is it not

impurity imparted by a corpse,

which was permitted in the case of the community, and concerning which it was stated that the tzitz achieves acceptance in the case of an individual? And what does “is it not” mean?

For example, the owners became impure through contact with a corpse—

Apparently, owners who became impure through contact with a corpse may send their offerings,

and the offering achieves acceptance for them through the acceptance of the tzitz.

And with regard to what offering?

For which offering may impure owners send their offerings, so that the offering achieves acceptance through the acceptance of the tzitz?

If it is the offering of a nazirite,

it is impossible for the nazirite to send his offerings while he is impure, for

“and if a dead person dies upon him,”

the Merciful One said,

meaning that a nazirite who becomes impure invalidates his naziriteship and must count it anew; he cannot bring the offerings of his purification while he is impure.

Rather, the acceptance of the tzitz applies

only to one who performs the Pesaḥ offering,

whose impurity was permitted in the case of the community. If most of the community were impure through impurity imparted by a corpse, they would be permitted from the outset to perform the Pesaḥ and eat it in a state of impurity. Therefore, even an individual who became impure through impurity imparted by a corpse may send his Pesaḥ offering, and the tzitz achieves acceptance for him.

This presents a difficulty for Rami bar Ḥama, who disagrees with the Elders of the South and explained the Mishna in Pesaḥim as referring to bodily impurity of the owners, maintaining that the owners may not send their offerings because eating the Pesaḥ is indispensable. Here, however, it is evident that impure owners may send their Pesaḥ offerings, and achieve acceptance through the acceptance of the tzitz?!

And we answer:

Actually,

the acceptance of the tzitz benefits only the owner of the offering who became impure

through contact with a creeping creature.

The statement that one slaughters and sprinkles for a person impure through contact with a creeping creature is only because the tzitz achieves acceptance for his offering [and this law applies only to the Pesaḥ, which is offered in order to be eaten in the evening in a state of purity, and not to other offerings, in which impurity of the owner does not disqualify them—Rashi above, 23a].

As for the question raised above—where was this impurity permitted by an exception, given that impurity from a creeping creature was not permitted in the case of the community?—it must be said that

the category of impurity

was permitted in the case of the community

somewhere in the world!

Since impurity imparted by a corpse was permitted in the case of the community, the acceptance of the tzitz is possible even for the individual’s impurity from a creeping creature.

And some infer

the verse “And Aaron shall bear the sin of the sacred offerings” in the opposite manner, to raise an objection against the Elders of the South, and

cite it in this way

to support Rami bar Ḥama:

“And Aaron shall bear the sin of the sacred offerings”—

the sin of the sacred offerings, yes;

the sin of those who consecrate offerings, no!

That is, the tzitz does not atone for bodily impurity, whether that of the officiating priest or that of the owner of the offering.

And we raised a difficulty with it:

What impurity? [

With regard to which bodily impurity of those who consecrate offerings is the tzitz unable to atone?]

If you say impurity from a creeping creature,

with regard to which the Elders of the South disqualified the service of a priest who is impure through contact with a creeping creature, and this verse states that the tzitz cannot achieve acceptance for this disqualification, then the continuation of the beraita presents a difficulty: “Thus, it carries only the sin of impurity that was permitted in the case of the community.” If the matter concerns impurity from a creeping creature,

where was

impurity from a creeping creature

permitted in the case of the community?!

For since an owner impure through contact with a creeping creature can send his Pesaḥ, immerse, and eat the Pesaḥ in the evening, the community that became impure is not permitted to perform the Pesaḥ in a state of impurity. Impurity is permitted for the community in the case of the Pesaḥ only when it is an impurity that causes an individual to be deferred to the second Pesaḥ.

Rather, is it not

that the beraita concerns a case in which the owner or the officiating priest became impure through

impurity imparted by a corpse,

in which case the owners cannot send their offering because they cannot eat the Pesaḥ in the evening, and a priest impure through contact with a corpse cannot effect atonement through an individual offering, whereas impurity imparted by a corpse was permitted in the case of the community? Concerning this impurity, the verse states that the tzitz achieves acceptance for

“the sin of the sacred offerings, yes; the sin of those who consecrate offerings, no!”

It is thereby proven that an individual who became impure through impurity imparted by a corpse may not send his offering, and that a priest who became impure through contact with a corpse may not officiate. This presents a difficulty both for the statement of the Elders of the South that a priest impure through contact with a corpse does not disqualify the offering through his service, but only a priest impure through contact with a creeping creature, and for their position that one impure through contact with a corpse may send his offering.

And we answer:

No,

the beraita does not concern a priest and owners who are bodily impure; it concerns only a priest impure

through contact with a creeping creature.

As for our question above—where do we find impurity from a creeping creature permitted in the case of the community?—it must be said that

the category of impurity exists somewhere in the world. Since impurity imparted by a corpse was permitted in the case of the community, the acceptance of the tzitz is possible even for impurity from a creeping creature, which was not permitted in the case of the community .

We learned in the Mishna: One who performs the service while sitting his service is invalid.

And we raised a difficulty with it:

From where do we know

that sitting disqualifies?

Rava said that Rav Naḥman said: The verse states:

“For he is the one whom the Lord your God chose from all your tribes

to stand and serve!”

I chose him for standing

to serve,

and not for sitting!

The Sages taught: “To stand and serve,” the verse teaches that there is a mitzva

для стояния Я избрал его,

чтобы служить,

to serve while standing.

And when it says:

“And he shall serve like all his brother Levites,

who stand,”

Scripture repeated the matter to make it disqualifying,

so that if he performed the service while sitting, his service is invalid.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Since one who sits has the status of a non-priest,

for we expound, “I chose him for standing,” and when he sits he is not “chosen,”

and he desecrates the service

like a non-priest ,

if so, we should derive the matter by analogy from a non-priest, and

say:

Just as a non-priest

who performed the service is punished

with death, so too one who performed the service while

sitting

is punished

with death.

If so,

why was it taught: But one who is uncircumcised, an acute mourner, or one who sits is not liable to death, but only to a prohibition?!

And we answer: It is impossible to derive the law of one who sits from a non-priest by analogy, because

there is one who performs the service while

lacking the priestly garments, and one who performs the service

without having washed his hands and feet,

and both are liable to death,

почему же в барайте сказано: «Но необрезанный, скорбящий и сидящий не подлежат смертной каре, а только наказанию за нарушение запрета»?!

И отвечают: невозможно вывести по аналогии с «посторонним» закон о «сидящем», поскольку

таков же случай у того, кто совершает служение,

сидя и

не имея облачений, и у того, кто служит,

тот, кто служит

не омыв руки и ноги,

а за оба этих нарушения полагается смертная кара,