Zevachim 33b — the Talmud in English

Ravina said:

the words of Ulla in the name of Reish Lakish, that partial entry is called entry

with regard to lashes

only

it was stated,

and in accordance with Ulla’s wording: “A ritually impure person who inserted his hand inside receives lashes.” But he is not liable for karet for it, as for the entry of his entire body. And the comparison of entry to touching was with regard to the warning not to enter the Temple, whose punishment is lashes. But it was not compared with regard to the punishment of karet for entering the Temple. Therefore, one cannot raise an objection to Ulla’s words from the beraita that said that a leper who experienced a seminal emission on the eve of Passover inserts his fingers for his purification, because since for partial entry he is liable only for lashes, this prohibition is set aside because of the obligation to offer the Passover sacrifice, for whose neglect one is punished by karet.

When Rabin came,

when Rabin came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Abahu:

What Reish Lakish derived from the verse “You shall not touch any sacred thing,”

with regard to an impure person who touched

sacred

flesh was stated,

and not with regard to liability for lashes for partial entry, as Ulla said in his name.

For it was stated: An impure person who touched a sacred thing: Reish Lakish said, he receives lashes,

Rabbi Yohanan said, he does not receive lashes.

And the Gemara explains:

Reish Lakish said, he receives lashes,

he learned this matter from what is said in the verse [Leviticus 12]:

“You shall not touch any sacred thing.” And Rabbi Yohanan said, he does not receive lashes,

because what is said in

that

verse is a warning against touching a sacred thing

written with regard to teruma.

It makes the impure person who touches teruma liable for lashes, and it is not possible to interpret the verse as referring to an impure person who touched sacred flesh, because this verse is dealing with the impurity of a woman after childbirth, who, after immersing on the seventh day, has the status of one who immersed that day for an extended period until after forty days. And it is explained at the continuation of the verse that this prohibition of touching applies to her “until the completion of the days of her purification,” and afterward she is permitted to touch teruma even though she has not yet brought the purification offering that comes on the forty-first day. Whereas with regard to a sacred thing, she is prohibited from touching it until after bringing her offering. Necessarily, this verse concerns teruma and not a sacred thing.

And since this verse is stated with regard to touching teruma, one cannot learn from it by a kal va-chomer to impose liability for lashes on an impure person who touched a sacred thing, because warnings are not derived through logical inference.

And we challenge:

And Reish Lakish

how does he learn from this verse to make an impure person who touched a sacred thing liable for lashes? Is

this verse intended for this purpose,

when

this is needed

to learn from it

a warning against

an impure person

who eats sacred flesh?

For it was stated: A warning against

an impure person

who eats sacred flesh—from where?

Reish Lakish said,

this matter is learned from what is said:

“You shall not touch any sacred thing.” Rabbi Yohanan said, Tanna Bardela: It is derived by means of “its impurity, its impurity” from entering the Temple

in a state of impurity. For it is said concerning an impure person who ate a sacred thing, “while his impurity is upon him,” and it is also said concerning an impure person who entered the Temple, “his impurity is still upon him.”

Just as there,

in entering the Temple,

the verse punished

with the punishment of karet

and warned,

as it is said concerning him, “and they shall not make their camps impure.”

So too here,

with regard to an impure person who ate a sacred thing,

the verse punished

him

and warned.

And we answer: Reish Lakish expounded the principal subject of the verse as a warning concerning an impure person who ate sacred flesh. Nevertheless, he also learned from it liability for lashes for an impure person who touched a sacred thing.

An impure person who touched a sacred thing

who is liable for lashes is learned

from the fact that the Merciful One expressed

this warning

in the language of touching.

Whereas

the warning against one who eats

sacred flesh while he is impure is learned

from the fact that the Torah compared a sacred thing to the Temple

in this verse: “You shall not touch any sacred thing, and you shall not enter the Temple.” Just as entering the Temple is a matter involving karet, for one who enters the Temple in impurity is punished by karet, so too this warning of “You shall not touch any sacred thing” concerns a matter for which one is punished by karet—namely, an impure person who ate sacred flesh, for which he is punished by karet.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Reish Lakish,

that the warning against one who eats a sacred thing is learned from the comparison of a sacred thing to the Temple:

It was said:

“You shall not touch any sacred thing”—a warning against one who eats.

You say it is a warning against one who eats, or is it only a warning against one who touches?