Zevachim 32b — the Talmud in English

The laying on of hands is also written

in it:

“before the Lord,”

so why did we need to prohibit it by means of the analogy to slaughtering?

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

possible

for an impure person to lay on his hands by

bringing in his hand

alone inside the Temple courtyard

and lay on his hands.

And this analogy comes to exclude an impure person from the laying on of hands even in this manner.

And we raise an objection:

Slaughtering also,

from where is it known that it may not be performed by impure persons? For 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 holds that an impure person cannot stand outside and slaughter by means of a long knife,

as it was taught:

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 slaughtering,

but

it is not necessary for

the slaughterer

to be

before the Lord.

Rather, the slaughterer is permitted to stand outside the Temple courtyard and slaughter the offering by means of a long knife—this is the statement of the Sages

. Shimon the Timnite says: From where

is it necessary

that the hands of the slaughterer

be

inside

the

slaughtered offering,

and not that the offering be inside while the hands of the slaughterer are outside?

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

and they expound it as follows:

The one who slaughters the young bull

must

be

standing

before the Lord.

Ulla said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: An impure person who brought his hand inside

the Temple courtyard

is flogged

because of entry into the Sanctuary in a state of impurity,

as it is stated

concerning the impurity of a woman after childbirth [Leviticus 12]:

“She shall not touch any sacred thing,

and she shall not come into the Sanctuary.”

The verse compares

entry

into

the Sanctuary in a state of impurity

to touching

sacred flesh in a state of impurity. It tells you:

Just as touching

by an impure person

partially

sacred flesh

is considered touching,

for ordinary touching is of part of the sacred flesh and not all of it,

so too entry

into the Sanctuary

partially

with one’s body

is considered entry!

Rav Hoshaya raised an objection to Ulla

from what we learned in a beraita:

A leper whose

eighth

day

—which is the day on which he brings the offerings of his purification—

happened to fall on Passover eve,

and in order to offer the Passover offering he must become pure from his leprosy, and he must enter the Temple Mount and stand in the hollow of the Nicanor Gate, and from there bring his hands into the Temple courtyard so that the priest can place some of the blood of the guilt-offering and some of the log of oil on the thumbs of his hands and the big toes of his feet,

and he experienced a seminal emission that same day, and immersed,

for his law is that he must wait until evening in order to become pure from the impurity of the emission, and as long as he is one who immersed that day, because he is a person who experienced a seminal emission he is forbidden to enter the Temple Mount, which is the Levite camp, as the Torah said: “They shall send out from the camp every leper and everyone with a discharge,” which includes one who experienced a seminal emission,

the Sages said: Even though no other person who immersed that day enters

the Temple Mount, nevertheless,

this one,

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

enters

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

And the reason for the matter is:

It is preferable that a positive commandment come,

that of the Passover offering, which is stringent,

which carries excision, and override a positive commandment

of sending impure persons out of the Temple Mount,

which does not carry excision.

For only an impure person who enters from the wall of the Temple courtyard and inward, which is the Israelite camp, is liable for excision; but this one enters only the Temple Mount, which is the Levite camp, and only his fingers enter inside the Temple courtyard, which is the Israelite camp.

And Rabbi Yohanan said

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 who enters the Temple Mount, because the law of one who immersed that day after the impurity of a man with a discharge [or one who experienced a seminal emission] is not like that of the man with a discharge himself; rather, it is more lenient than his,

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

that is, on the Temple Mount.

What

is the significance of its being called

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

many things

in its laws, and they said: One who immersed that day may not enter the Levite camp.

And the law of the Temple Mount is that of the Levite camp. It is proven from here that the prohibition against one who immersed that day entering the Temple Mount is only by rabbinic ordinance and not by Torah law, and the Sages did not enforce their words where he must become pure for the fulfillment of the mitzvot of the Passover offering.

And we raise an objection from this beraita against Ulla’s words:

And if you say that entry

into the Sanctuary

partially is considered entry,

if so,

how does he bring in

the leper

his hands

inside the Temple courtyard in order

to

fulfill the placing of the blood on the

thumbs and big toes!?

For

either way,

whether with regard to the mitzva of the Passover offering or with regard to the prohibition of entry into the Sanctuary in a state of impurity,

it is a positive commandment carrying excision,

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

But if partial entry is not considered entry, then the entire prohibition is only entering the Temple Mount, and for this there is no liability for excision, but only transgression of the positive-commandment prohibition of sending out from the camp; therefore, it is to be overridden because of the positive commandment of the Passover offering, since it carries excision.

He said to him

Ulla to Rav Hoshaya:

From your own argument,

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

the leper

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

since it was permitted

to him by Torah law to enter partially

for his leprosy,

in order to purify him from it, even though a leper not at the time of his purification is forbidden to enter the Sanctuary,

this was permitted

to him, this entry, also

for his seminal emission,

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

Rav Yosef said:

From Ulla’s words, who said that since it was permitted for the impurity of the leper, it was permitted for the impurity of the seminal emission, it is proven that

Ulla holds

that if

the majority

of the public

were men with discharges

on Passover [for the impurity of a man with a discharge is not overridden for the public],

and they became

men with discharges

impure through contact with the dead,

whose law is to offer the Passover offering in this impurity, which is overridden for the public, from now on they could offer the Passover offering despite being impure because of the discharge, since

since they were permitted for their impurity,

for they became impure through contact with the dead, which is overridden for the public,

they were permitted

also

for their discharge.

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef:

Are they comparable?

Is what Ulla said concerning a leper who experienced a seminal emission comparable to this case of a public of men with discharges who became impure through contact with the dead? For men with discharges who became impure through contact with the dead, only the

impurity

of the dead, which came later,

was permitted

because it was permitted for the public, but

the discharge,

which preceded the impurity through contact with the dead, since they were already forbidden because of it,

was not permitted. This is unlike the leper, whose impurity of leprosy preceded the impurity of the seminal emission; in that case it can be said that since the first impurity was permitted, since he is permitted to enter while impure, the second will not be more stringent than it and will not be prohibited.

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:

to compare the law of men with discharges who became impure through contact with the dead to Ulla’s words in the opposite manner: They were initially

a majority impure through contact with the dead, and became

afterward

men with discharges,

in which case it is appropriate to say

“since they were permitted for their impurity”

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

they were permitted

also

for their discharge,

which came afterward, and they are not prohibited because of it, since they had already been permitted with the first impurity!?

He said to him

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

Yes,

indeed, only in this manner, where the impurity preceded the discharge, is it proven from Ulla’s words that they are permitted to offer the Passover offering because “since it was permitted, it was permitted.”

And we raise an objection:

And still they are not comparable,

Ulla’s words concerning a leper who became one who experienced a seminal emission are still not comparable to impure persons who became men with discharges: For

with regard to the leper, it is a permission

to bring in his hands so that the blood of the guilt-offering and the oil may be placed on the thumbs and big toes, since the Torah decreed that he bring in his hands; therefore one can say,

since it was permitted

for his leprosy,

it was permitted

also for his seminal emission. However, the

impurity

of the dead, which was permitted for the public, is not a complete permission, but only

it is overridden,

with difficulty,

by means of the frontlet effecting acceptance for it. Therefore, one must distinguish and say that only

for this,

for the impurity of the dead,

it was overridden.

But

for this,

for the impurity of a discharge,

it was not overridden!?

Rava said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is reasonable

to distinguish between a leper who experienced a seminal emission and impure persons through contact with the dead who became men with discharges, because

with regard to the leper,

since

it is a permission

to bring in his hands into the Sanctuary, one can say that only

for this was it permitted,

only with regard to his leprosy was the permission stated,

but for this,

for the impurity of the seminal emission,

it was not permitted. Therefore, a leper who experienced a seminal emission cannot bring in his hands for the thumbs and big toes. But impure persons through contact with the dead who became men with discharges, whose law is to offer the Passover offering because

it is an impurity overridden

for the public, if so,

for the public. If so,

what difference is there whether it is one overriding,

impurity,

or whether it is two overridings,

the impurity through contact with the dead and the impurity of the discharge? We can say that since the Passover offering overrides the impurity through contact with the dead of the public, it also overrides the impurity of their discharge.