Zevachim 32b (לב:) — the Talmud in English

The laying of hands is also written

with regard to it,

“before the Lord,”

so why was it necessary to prohibit it by means of the juxtaposition with slaughter?

And we answer: Had we not prohibited the laying of hands by impure persons by means of the juxtaposition, it would have been

possible

for an impure person to lay his hands by

bringing in only his hand

inside the courtyard

and laying his hands.

This juxtaposition comes to exclude an impure person from laying his hands even in this manner.

And we challenge this:

Slaughter too:

From where do we know that it may not be performed by impure persons? After all,

it is possible

for it to be performed by

making a long knife and slaughtering

with it, while the impure person stands outside and the offering is inside!?

And we answer:

This is the opinion of Shimon the Timnite,

who maintains that an impure person may not stand outside and slaughter with a long knife,

as it was taught

that it is stated:

“And he shall slaughter the young bull before the Lord.”

Specifically, the young bull must be before the Lord at the time of slaughter,

but not

is it necessary for

the slaughterer

to be

before the Lord.

Rather, the slaughterer may stand outside the courtyard and slaughter the offering with a long knife; this is the statement of the Sages

. Shimon the Timnite says: From where

is it derived

that the hands of the slaughterer

must be

inside

the offering

being slaughtered,

and not that the offering should be inside while the slaughterer’s hands are outside?

The verse states: “And he shall slaughter the young bull before the Lord,”

and it is expounded as follows:

The one who slaughters the young bull

must

be

standing

before the Lord.

Ulla said in the name of Reish Lakish: An impure person who brings his hand inside

the courtyard

is flogged

for entering the Sanctuary while impure,

as it is stated

with regard to the impurity of a woman after childbirth [Leviticus 12]:

“She shall not touch any sacred thing,

and she shall not enter the Sanctuary.”

The verse juxtaposes

the

entry

into the Sanctuary while impure

with touching

sacred flesh while impure. It teaches you that

just as touching

by an impure person

even a part

of sacred flesh

is considered touching,

for ordinary touching involves touching part of the sacred flesh rather than all of it,

so too entry

into the Sanctuary

even with part

of his body

is considered entry!

Rav Hoshaya raised an objection to Ulla

from what we learned in a beraita:

A leper whose

day

of his eighth day

the day on which he brings the offerings of his purification

falls on Passover eve,

and in order to sacrifice the Paschal offering he must become pure from his leprosy, may enter the Temple Mount and stand in the area of the Nicanor Gate, and from there bring his hands into the courtyard so that the koэн may place some of the blood of the guilt-offering and some of the oil on the thumbs of his hands and feet.

And he experienced a seminal emission that day, and immersed himself,

for he must wait until evening to become pure from the impurity of the seminal emission. As long as he is one who immersed that day, since he is a person who experienced a seminal emission, he is prohibited from entering the Temple Mount, which is the Levite Camp, as the Torah states: “They shall send out from the camp every leper and every zav,” which includes one who experienced a seminal emission.

The Sages said: Even though no other person who immersed that day may enter

the Temple Mount, nevertheless

this one,

who must enter in order to become purified from his leprosy,

enters

the Temple Mount to fulfill the procedure of placing the blood of the guilt-offering on his thumbs, so that he will become pure from his leprosy and be able to eat the Paschal offering that evening.

And the reason for this matter is:

It is preferable that a positive commandment should come,

the commandment of the Paschal offering, which is severe,

as it carries karet, and override a positive commandment

concerning sending impure persons out of the Temple Mount,

which does not carry karet.

For only an impure person who enters from the wall of the courtyard inward, which is the Divine Presence Camp, is liable to karet; this person enters only the Temple Mount, which is the Levite Camp, and only his fingers enter the courtyard, which is the Divine Presence Camp.

And Rabbi Yohanan said

there is another reason why he is permitted to enter the Temple Mount:

By Torah law, even

a

positive-commandment prohibition does not apply

to one who immersed that day and enters the Temple Mount, because the status of one who immersed that day after zav impurity [or after a seminal emission] is not like that of the zav himself; rather, he is less severe than the zav,

as it is stated: “And Jehoshaphat stood in the assembly of Judah and Jerusalem in the House of the Lord, before the new courtyard,”

meaning, on the Temple Mount.

What

is the significance of its being called

“the new courtyard”? Rabbi Yohanan said: They instituted in it

with regard to its laws

many matters, and they said: One who immersed that day may not enter the Levite Camp.

The Temple Mount has the status of the Levite Camp. It is therefore proven from here that the prohibition against one who immersed that day entering the Temple Mount is only a rabbinic enactment and not a Torah prohibition, and the Sages did not uphold their words in a situation in which he must purify himself in order to fulfill the mitzva of the Paschal offering.

And we challenge Ulla’s words from this beraita:

And if you say that entry

into the Sanctuary

even partially is considered entry,

if so,

how does he bring in

the leper

his hands

into the courtyard in order

to

fulfill the placing of the blood on the

thumbs!?

After all,

both this and that,

both the mitzva of the Paschal offering and the prohibition against entering the Sanctuary while impure,

are positive commandments carrying karet,

for an impure person who enters the courtyard is liable to karet, and the same applies to bringing in his hands, which is partial entry, according to Ulla.

But if partial entry is not considered entry, the entire prohibition applies only to entering the Temple Mount. There is no liability to karet for that; it is merely a violation of the positive commandment to send impure persons out of the camp. Therefore, it may be overridden by the positive commandment of the Paschal offering, since that commandment carries karet.

He said to him

Ulla to Rav Hoshaya:

From your own argument,

from what you have brought to burden me, I will answer you that this beraita cannot prove the law of partial entry. For even if we say that partial entry is considered entry, they nevertheless permitted a leper who experienced a seminal emission to bring his hands into the courtyard on Passover eve so that he could become pure, because

a leper

who experienced a seminal emission on his eighth day is different:

since it was permitted

for him by Torah law to enter partially

for the sake of his leprosy,

in order to purify him from it, despite the fact that a leper not undergoing his purification is prohibited from entering the Sanctuary,

this entry was permitted

to him also

for the sake of his seminal emission,

that is, for the status of one who immersed that day after his seminal emission.

Rav Yosef said:

Ulla’s words, that since entry was permitted for the impurity of a leper, it was permitted for the impurity of a seminal emission, prove that

Ulla maintains

that if

the majority

of the public

are zavs

on Passover [as the impurity of a zav is not overridden for the public],

and the zavs become

men with discharges

impure through contact with the dead,

in which case their status is that they may sacrifice the Paschal offering in this impurity, which is overridden for the public, they can now sacrifice the Paschal offering even though they are impure as zavs, because

since they were permitted with regard to their impurity,

having become impure through contact with the dead, an impurity that is overridden for the public,

they are permitted

as well

with regard to their zav impurity.

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef:

Are they comparable?

How can Ulla’s statement concerning a leper who experienced a seminal emission be compared to the case of a public consisting of zavs who became impure through contact with the dead? In the case of zavs who became impure through contact with the dead, only the

impurity

of the dead, which came later,

was permitted

because it is permitted for the public; but

their zav impurity,

which preceded the impurity of the dead, was already prohibited on account of itself,

was not permitted.

This is unlike the leper, whose leprosy impurity preceded the impurity of the seminal emission; in that case one may say that since the first impurity was permitted, allowing him to enter while impure, the second impurity cannot be more severe than the first and is not prohibited.

Perhaps this is what the Master said:

Perhaps the case of zavs who became impure through contact with the dead should be compared to Ulla’s statement in the reverse manner: They were initially

a majority who were impure through contact with the dead, and became

afterward

zavs,

in which case one can say

“since they were permitted with regard to their impurity”

the first one, which was impurity through contact with the dead and is overridden for the public,

they are permitted

as well

with regard to their zav impurity,

which came afterward, and they are not prohibited on its account, since they had already been permitted with regard to the first impurity!?

He said to him,

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

Yes,

indeed, it is only in this situation, in which the impurity preceded the zav impurity, that Ulla’s words prove that they are permitted to sacrifice because of the principle “Once it has been permitted, it has been permitted.”

And we challenge this:

But they are still not comparable,

Ulla’s statement concerning a leper who became one who experienced a seminal emission is still not comparable to the case of impure persons who became zavs. For

in the case of a leper, it is a full permission

to bring in his hands so that the blood of the guilt-offering and the oil may be placed on his thumbs, since the Torah commanded him to bring in his hands. Therefore, it may be said:

Since it was permitted

for the sake of his leprosy,

it was permitted

also for the sake of his seminal emission. However,

the impurity

resulting from contact with the dead, which was permitted for the public, is not a complete permission; rather,

it is overridden,

with difficulty

, through the fact that the frontplate effects acceptance for it. Therefore, one must distinguish and say that only

with regard to this,

the impurity of the dead,

was it overridden.

But

with regard to this,

the zav impurity,

was it not overridden!?

Rava said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is more logical

as a distinction between a leper who experienced a seminal emission and persons impure through contact with the dead who became zavs.

In the case of a leper,

since

it is a full permission

for him to bring his hands into the Sanctuary, it may be said that

only with regard to this was it permitted,

only with regard to his leprosy was the permission stated,

but with regard to this,

the impurity of the seminal emission,

it was not permitted. Therefore, a leper who experienced a seminal emission may not bring his hands in for the procedure on his thumbs. But in the case of persons impure through contact with the dead who became zavs, whose law is that they sacrifice the Paschal offering because

impurity is overridden

in the public, if so,

for the public. If so,

what difference is there between one overriding,

impurity,

and what difference is there between two overridings,

the impurity of the dead and the zav impurity? It is possible to say that since the Paschal offering overrides the impurity of the dead of the public, it also overrides their zav impurity.