Zevachim 43b — the Talmud in English

These words ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location") b

a limb that is joined.

For when the fire prevails over part of it, all of it is absorbed into sanctity.

But a handful that is scattered,

and is not one single piece,

let us say it does not

have this status; rather, only the part over which the fire prevailed becomes sanctified, while the remainder remains as it was.

It teaches us

that the entire handful is like one limb, and when the fire prevails over part of it, all of it is absorbed into sanctity.

Rav Aḥai said: Therefore,

since you have considered the entire handful joined,

this handful that is pigul, half of which lies on the ground

since half of it never rose upon the altar,

and half of it he raised onto the arrangement,

while its other half rose upon the altar,

and the fire prevailed over it,

it follows that even its half lying on the ground was absorbed; therefore

we may raise all of it initially.

And the reason is that even in a case where he raised all of it, the fire prevailed over part of it, and it descended, and we said in this case that he may raise all of it, this is only on account of that part over which the fire prevailed, which is effective for all of it even though it is not joined; if so, the same is true when initially only part of it rose.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Pigul, notar, and impure matter that one raised toward the altar—the prohibition departs from them.

That is, the prohibition of pigul departs with regard to this: that if it descended, he may raise it. And the prohibitions of impurity and notar depart with regard to the fact that one is not liable for eating them on account of the prohibition of notar and impurity.

Rav Ḥisda said, master of this teaching—

the author of this statement, what is your view? Is it that

the altar is a ritual bath of purity

that purifies the impure matter because it rose upon it!?

Rabbi Zeira said:

What we said—that their prohibitions departed from them—was in a case

where the fire prevailed over them!

In the section of Tzav, three consecutive verses were stated that deal with the law of an impure person who ate pure consecrated meat, and with the law of a pure person who ate impure consecrated meat. And in the sugya below it will be explained which of the expressions in the verses refer to an impure person, impure in body, who eats pure consecrated meat, and which of them refer to the eating of impure consecrated meat by a pure person.

First verse [Leviticus 7:19]: “And the meat that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire, and every pure person shall eat meat.”

Second verse [7:20]: “And the person who eats the meat of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that belongs to the Lord, and his impurity is upon him, that person shall be cut off from his people.”

Third verse [7:21]: “And a person, when he touches any impurity, whether the impurity of a person or an impure animal or any impure abomination, and he eats from the meat of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that belongs to the Lord, that person shall be cut off from his people.”

Rav Yitzḥak bar Bisna objected: Others say:

This verse—“And the person who eats the meat of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that belongs to the Lord, and his impurity is upon him, that person shall be cut off from his people” [Leviticus 7]—does not deal with a pure person who eats impure consecrated meat; rather, it concerns an impure person who eats pure consecrated meat, for this is the meaning of the verse:

“And his impurity is upon him”—one whose impurity departs from him

and now is upon him, that is, the impurity of the body in a person, which departs from him through immersion in a ritual bath.

Meat is excluded, for there is no impurity

that can be

departing from it,

for it has no purification in a ritual bath.

And if it is so

according to Rav Yitzḥak, who holds that impure meat can become pure by having risen upon the altar and having the fire prevail over it, then the verse can be established as referring to impure meat, for

its impurity departs from it through the fire,

so from where do Others have grounds to establish it specifically as referring to an impure person who ate pure meat!?

And we answer:

Rava said:

What we said—“impurity departs from it”

—we mean through a ritual bath.

And this is possible only with the impurity of the body, and not with the impurity of meat.

And we ask:

Is a ritual bath written

in this verse, that it should be said that the intention of the verse is only purification through a ritual bath and not purification through the altar?

Rather, Rav Pappa said:

This verse

deals with the meat of peace-offerings,

for it says in it, “the sacrifice of peace-offerings that belongs to the Lord,”

which is not fit

the meat of peace-offerings

for offering,

but only for eating, and it cannot become pure from its impurity since it does not rise upon the altar. If so, the verse necessarily deals with the impurity of the body.

Ravina said:

Indeed, the verse also deals with the sacrificial parts that are offered toward the altar, as it says “that belongs to the Lord,” to include the sacrificial parts. Nevertheless, it necessarily deals specifically with the impurity of the body and not with the impurity of meat, for this is precise in the verse:

“And his impurity is upon him”—one whose impurity

is fit to be

departing from him when he is whole,

that is, in the same state as he was when the impurity came upon him [as is implied by the word “upon him,” that he remains as he was]; and this is the impurity of a person, who does not change through his purification.

Meat is excluded,

for it is

a thing from which impurity does not depart when it is whole, but only when it is lacking,

when it is diminished through the fire prevailing over it.

The matter itself:

It says in the verse, “And the person who eats the meat of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that belongs to the Lord

and his impurity is upon him”—with the impurity of the body

when the person eating is impure,

the verse speaks,

for this is what the section deals with, as stated in the preceding verse, “every pure person shall eat meat,” meaning that the person eating shall be pure.

You say that with the impurity of the body

the verse speaks,

or is it only with the impurity of meat,

when the meat became impure? Since, when the verse refers to the person, it mentions him in the feminine language, “and the person who eats,” we should therefore say that when the verse mentions “and his impurity is upon him” in the masculine language, it refers to the meat!?

And we answer: We learned through a gzera shava that the verse deals with the impurity of the body:

it is said here

with regard to peace-offerings

“his impurity,” and it is said there

with regard to entering the Temple in impurity, “he shall remain impure;

his impurity is in him.”

Just as there

with regard to entering the Temple

the verse speaks of the impurity of the body, so here

with regard to peace-offerings

the verse speaks of the impurity of the body.

Rabbi Yose says: Since

in the verse concerning peace-offerings

consecrated matters are stated in the plural

for “peace-offerings” is a plural expression,

and impurity is stated in the singular,

“and his impurity,” it necessarily follows that

the verse speaks of the impurity of the body,

for if it spoke of the impurity of the meat of the peace-offerings, it should have mentioned it in the plural and written, “and their impurity is upon them.”

Rabbi says:

The verse stated nearby, “And a person, when he touches any impurity, whether the impurity of a person or an impure animal or any impure abomination,

and he eats

from the meat of the sacrifice of peace-offerings,” which deals with the impurity of a person, proves with regard to our verse that it too

speaks of the impurity of the body [

and below it will be explained in the Gemara how this proves with regard to that].

Others say: “And his impurity is upon him”

implies that he has still not become pure from his impurity.

One whose impurity departs from him

who can become pure;

meat is excluded, from which impurity does not depart

and it is always upon it.

The Master said: Rabbi says, “and he eats”—the verse speaks of the impurity of the body.

And we ask:

What is the implication

from this verse that Rabbi brought? Perhaps specifically this verse deals with the impurity of the body, as it says in it, “and a person who touches, etc.,” whereas the first verse deals with the impurity of meat. And there is proof for this: for if it dealt with the impurity of the body, it should have written, “and her impurity is upon her” in the feminine language, since it refers back to what was stated previously, “and the person who eats meat.” And since the Torah wrote, “and his impurity is upon him,” it apparently implies that it deals with the impurity of meat!?

Rava said: Every verse

every verse

that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi does not explain, and every beraita that he does not explain,

which is not explained by

Rav Zeiri, is not explained!

This is what Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said: Since the verse opened

the second one

in the feminine language,

“When a person touches any impurity,”

and concluded in the feminine language,

“and that person shall be cut off,”

while using the masculine language in the middle,

“and he eats from the meat of the sacrifice of peace-offerings,” and it did not say, “and she eats from the meat of the sacrifice of peace-offerings,” it is necessarily established that the verse was not concerned with changing its language between masculine and feminine. Therefore, there is likewise no difficulty with the first verse on this account; and although it opened in the feminine language, “and the person who eats meat,” and concluded in the feminine language, “and that person shall be cut off from his people,” while using the masculine language in the middle, “and his impurity is upon him,” nevertheless

the verse speaks of the impurity of the body.

And it is likewise logical to establish the verse as referring to the impurity of the body, for at first the section dealt with the impurity of meat, as it says, “And the meat that touches any impure thing,” and afterward the verse ceased dealing with the impurity of meat and moved to the impurity of the body, as it says, “and every pure person shall eat meat.” If so, it is logical that the continuation too deals with the impurity of the body.

And now the Gemara explains what that

beraita

was that Zeiri explained.

It is stated in the section concerning eating teruma and tithe in impurity [Leviticus 22:4]:

“Any man of the seed of Aaron who is a leper or has a discharge shall not eat of the consecrated matters until he becomes pure; and one who touches anyone impure, or one from whom there issues seminal fluid, or a man who touches any swarming creature through which he becomes impure, or a person through whom he becomes impure, with any of his impurities.

A person who touches him shall be impure until evening.

And he shall not eat from the consecrated matters unless he washes his flesh in water! And the sun sets and he becomes pure, and afterward he may eat from the consecrated matters, for it is his food.

And they shall observe My charge, and they shall not bear sin because of it and die through profaning it; I am the Lord who sanctifies them.”

And the beraita expounded that in this section “lesser” and “more severe” cases are stated, as will be explained below what they are:

For it was taught: If lesser cases were stated

in this section,

why were more severe cases stated

in it as well,

and if more severe cases were stated, why were

there also

lesser cases stated

as well

?

Rather,

if

it had

stated lesser cases but not more severe cases, I would say concerning the lesser cases

that one who eats in the impurity of the body violates

a negative commandment, and

if

concerning the more severe cases

he would be punished

with death. Therefore it stated

in the verse

more severe cases.

And if

it had been

said [of] the severe ones

only,

and the lenient ones had not been said, I would say concerning the severe ones: the one who eats them shall be

the one who eats them

liable, and concerning the lenient ones he shall be exempt; therefore the lenient ones were said.

And the Gemara discusses the words of the beraita:

What are the lenient ones and what are the severe ones

that were mentioned in the beraita?

If you say: the lenient ones are maaser,

concerning which Scripture spoke when it said, “And he shall not eat of the holy things unless he has washed his flesh in water”—and this is second tithe, for one who was impure is permitted to eat it after immersion even before the setting of the sun, whereas if he ate of it before immersion, he transgresses a negative commandment.

And the severe ones

that were mentioned in the beraita are

teruma,

concerning which it is said later in the verse, “And the sun shall set, and he shall be pure, and afterward he may eat of the holy things,” for it is forbidden to eat it until after the setting of his sun, and if he ate of it, he is liable to death, as it is subsequently said, “And they shall die through him, for he has profaned it.”

Accordingly, the words of the tanna are to be understood as follows: If “lenient ones” alone had been written, namely, maaser, I would say that specifically its law is [that one who eats it] transgresses a negative commandment, but concerning the severe ones, namely, teruma, I would say that the law of one who eats it in a state of impurity is that he is liable to death. And if so, this is difficult: Is it only

I would say

[namely, teruma]

by death,

as is implied by the beraita, that once teruma too was written, its law is not death? But this is not correct! For

now also, is it not by death,

as is stated in the verse!?

Furthermore,

another difficulty: what the beraita said:

And if it had not been said

the severe ones, namely, teruma,

I would say

that the law of one who eats it is

death.

And why? For if teruma had not been written in the verse, I would derive the prohibition against eating it in a state of impurity by means of a kal va-chomer from the prohibition against eating maaser. If so, how could it be possible to innovate liability to death for it? For concerning a matter learned by means of a kal va-chomer, the rule is that

it is sufficient for what comes from the law

namely, the matter that is learned,

to be like the matter from which it is learned,

and not more than it; and since for maaser one is not liable to death, from where would you have innovated this concerning teruma!?

Rather,

the lenient ones and the severe ones mentioned in the beraita refer to the impurity.

The lenient ones: the impurity of a creeping creature.

As it is said in the verse, “Or a man who touches any creeping creature through which he becomes impure,” whose impurity lasts until evening.

The severe ones: the impurity of a corpse.

As it is said in the verse, “And one who touches any person impure by a soul.” And his impurity lasts seven days. And these two impurities were mentioned with regard to the prohibition against eating maaser and teruma.

And we still raise a difficulty:

And with regard to what,

concerning which eating did the beraita say: If the lenient ones were said, namely, the impurity of a creeping creature, and the severe ones were not said, namely, the impurity of a person?

If it is concerning teruma,

concerning which the tanna said that Scripture would state the prohibition against eating it in the impurity of a creeping creature, but would not state its prohibition in the impurity of the body, then

both this and that,

both the one impure through a creeping creature, who is the lenient one, who ate teruma, and the one impure through a corpse, who ate it, their law

is death.

And what are the lenient ones concerning which the tanna said that their law is a negative commandment!?

Furthermore,

it is difficult: Why did the tanna say,

“Therefore the severe ones were said,”

namely, one impure through a corpse,

for with a negative commandment, is it not

the eating of teruma in the impurity of the body of one impure through a corpse

death!?

And if

it is said that the words of the tanna

were said concerning the eating of maaser,

were said,