Zevachim 33b (לג:) — the Talmud in English

Ravina said:

Ulla’s statement in the name of Resh Lakish—that partial entry is considered entry—

was stated only with regard to lashes

alone.

It was stated,

and this is in accordance with Ulla’s wording: “A impure person who inserted his hand inside is flogged.” But he is not liable to karet for this, as he would be for entering with his entire body. And the comparison between entry and contact was made with regard to the warning not to enter the Temple, whose punishment is lashes. But entry was not compared to contact with regard to the punishment of karet for entering the Temple. Therefore, there is no basis for challenging Ulla’s statement from the beraita that says that a metzora who experienced a seminal emission on Passover eve inserts his fingers in order to purify himself. Since for partial entry he is liable only to lashes, this prohibition is overridden by the obligation to offer the Paschal sacrifice, failure to offer which is punishable by karet.

When Rabin came,

when Rabin came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Abbahu:

What Resh Lakish derived from the verse “You shall not touch any sacred item”

was stated with regard to an impure person who touched

sacred flesh

and not

with regard to liability for lashes for partial entry, as Ulla said in his name.

As it was stated: With regard to an impure person who touched a sacred item, Resh Lakish said: He is flogged;

Rabbi Yohanan said: He is not flogged.

And the Gemara explains:

Resh Lakish said: He is flogged,

because he derived this matter from that which is stated in the verse [Leviticus 12]:

“You shall not touch any sacred item.” And Rabbi Yohanan said: He is not flogged,

because that which is stated in

that

verse is a warning against touching a sacred item,

as it is written with regard to teruma.

It makes an impure person who touches teruma liable to lashes. The verse cannot be interpreted as referring to an impure person who touched sacred flesh, because this verse concerns the impurity of a woman after childbirth. After she immersed on the seventh day, her status is that of one who immersed that day for an extended period, until the completion of forty days. And it is explained later in the verse that this prohibition against contact applies to her “until the completion of the days of her purification,” after which she is permitted to touch teruma even though she has not yet brought her purification offering, which is brought on the forty-first day. With regard to sacred items, however, she is prohibited from touching them until after she brings her offering. Necessarily, then, this verse concerns teruma and not sacred items.

And since this verse is stated with regard to contact with teruma, one cannot derive from it through a kal va-chomer that an impure person who touched a sacred item is liable to lashes, because punishments cannot be derived through a kal va-chomer.

And we challenge this:

But Resh Lakish

how does he derive from this verse that an impure person who touched a sacred item is liable to lashes? Is

this verse intended for that purpose?

For

this is needed

to derive from it

a warning against

an impure person who

eats sacred flesh?

As it was stated: A warning against

an impure person who

eats sacred flesh—from where is it derived?

Resh Lakish said:

This matter is derived from that which is stated

“You shall not touch any sacred item.” Rabbi Yohanan said: Tani Bardela: It is derived through the verbal analogy of “his impurity” and “his impurity” from entry into the Temple

in a state of impurity. For with regard to an impure person who ate a sacred item, it is stated: “And his impurity is upon him,” and with regard to an impure person who entered the Temple, it is likewise stated: “His impurity is still upon him.”

Just as there,

with regard to entry into the Temple,

the verse punished

him with the punishment of karet

and warned

him, as it is stated with regard to him: “And they shall not render their camps impure.”

So too here,

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

the verse punished

him

and warned him.

And we answer: Resh Lakish expounded the primary meaning of the verse as a warning against an impure person who ate sacred flesh. Nevertheless, he also derived from it liability to lashes for an impure person who touched a sacred item.

An impure person who touched a sacred item

and is liable to lashes is derived

from the fact that the Merciful One expressed

this warning

in the language of contact.

Whereas

the warning against one who eats

sacred flesh while impure is derived

from the fact that the verse compared sacred items to the Temple,

as it states: “You shall not touch any sacred item, and you shall not enter the Temple.” Just as entering the Temple is a matter whose violation entails karet, as one who enters the Temple in a state of impurity is liable to karet, so too this warning, “You shall not touch any sacred item,” concerns a matter for which one is liable to karet—namely, an impure person who ate sacred flesh, for which he is liable to karet.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with the opinion of Resh Lakish,

that the warning against one who eats a sacred item is derived through the comparison of sacred items to the Temple:

It is stated

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

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