Zevachim 43b (מג:) — the Talmud in English

These matters apply

b

to a limb that is joined together.

For when the fire takes hold of part of it, the entire limb is absorbed into sanctity.

But with a separated handful,

which is not a single piece,

say that it does not

have this status; rather, only the part touched by the fire becomes sanctified, while the remainder retains its previous status.

It teaches us

that the entire handful is like a single limb, and when the fire takes hold of part of it, the entire handful is absorbed into sanctity.

Rav Aḥai said: Therefore,

since you have regarded the entire handful as joined together,

in this case, the handful is piggul, half of which lies on the ground,

as half of it was never placed upon the altar,

while the other half was placed upon the arrangement,

and its other half was placed upon the altar,

and the fire took hold of it,

then even the half lying on the ground has been absorbed into sanctity. Therefore,

we may initially place the entire handful upon the altar.

The reason is that even in a case where he placed the entire handful upon the altar, the fire took hold of part of it, and it then fell, when we said that he may replace the entire handful, this is only because of that part in which the fire took hold, which benefits the entire handful even though it is no longer joined to it. Accordingly, the same law applies when initially only part of it was placed upon the altar.

Rabbi Yitzhak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to piggul, notar, and impure sacrificial matter that one placed upon the altar, the prohibition is removed from them.

That is, the prohibition of piggul is removed with regard to this matter, so that if it fell, one may replace it; and the prohibitions of impurity and notar are removed with regard to the fact that one is not liable for eating them on account of the prohibitions of notar and impurity.

Rav Hisda said: Master of this statement—

the author of this teaching, what do you think? Is

the altar a ritual bath

that purifies an impure object merely because it was placed upon it!?

Rabbi Zeira said: What we said, that their prohibitions are removed from them, applies

in a case where

the fire took hold of them!

In the portion of Tzav, three consecutive verses are stated that concern the law of an impure person who ate pure sacrificial meat, and the law of a pure person who ate impure sacrificial meat. In the passage below, the Gemara will explain which of the expressions in the verses refer to an impure person who eats pure sacrificial meat, and which refer to the eating of impure sacrificial meat by a pure person.

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

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

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

Rav Yitzhak bar Bisna raised an objection: Others say:

This verse—“And the person who eats the meat of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that belongs to the Lord, while his impurity is upon him, that person shall be cut off from his people” [Leviticus 7]—does not concern a pure person who eats impure sacrificial meat. Rather, it concerns an impure person who eats pure sacrificial meat, as the meaning of the verse is as follows:

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

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

This excludes meat, from which impurity

cannot

depart,

as it cannot be purified in a ritual bath.

And if it is so

that Rav Yitzhak is correct in holding that impure meat can become pure by being placed upon the altar and having the fire take hold of it, then the verse could be understood as referring to impure meat, since

its impurity departs from it through the fire;

so what basis did Others have for interpreting it specifically as referring to an impure person who ate pure meat!?

We answer:

Rava said:

When we said, “its impurity departs from it,”

we meant through a ritual bath.

This is possible only with bodily impurity, not with the impurity of meat.

We challenge this:

Is a ritual bath mentioned

in this verse, such that it may be said that the verse’s intent is only purification through a ritual bath and not purification through the altar?

Rather, Rav Pappa said:

This verse

concerns the meat of peace-offerings,

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

which is not fit

the meat of the peace-offerings

for sacrifice,

but only for eating, and it cannot become purified from its impurity, since it is not placed upon the altar. Therefore, the verse must be referring to bodily impurity.

Ravina said:

Indeed, the verse also concerns the sacrificial portions offered upon the altar, as indicated by the phrase “that belongs to the Lord,” which includes the sacrificial portions. Nevertheless, it must necessarily be referring specifically to bodily impurity and not to the impurity of meat, as the verse precisely indicates:

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

is fit to

depart from him while he is whole,

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

This excludes meat,

which is

something from which impurity does not depart while it is whole, but only when it is lacking,

when part of it is removed by the fire taking hold of it.

The essential matter:

The verse states, “And the person who eats the meat of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that belongs to the Lord,

while his impurity is upon him”—the verse speaks of bodily impurity

when the person eating is impure;

the verse speaks

of this, since this is the subject of the passage, as stated in the preceding verse: “Any pure person may eat meat,” meaning that the person eating must be pure.

You say that the verse speaks of bodily impurity,

or perhaps it refers only to the impurity of meat,

when the meat became impure;

since when the verse refers to the person it uses the feminine form, “And the person who eats,” we should say that when the verse states “while his impurity is upon him” in the masculine form, it refers to the meat!?

We answer: We learn through a gzera shava that the verse concerns bodily impurity.

It is stated here

with regard to peace-offerings,

“his impurity,” and it is stated there

with regard to entering the Temple in a state of impurity: “He shall remain impure;

his impurity is upon him.”

Just as there,

with regard to entering the Temple,

the verse speaks of bodily impurity, so too here,

with regard to peace-offerings,

the verse speaks of bodily impurity.

Rabbi Yosei says: Since

in the verse concerning peace-offerings,

consecrated offerings are mentioned in the plural,

as “peace-offerings” is a plural expression,

while impurity is mentioned in the singular,

“his impurity,” it necessarily follows that

the verse speaks of bodily impurity,

for had it referred to the impurity of the meat of the peace-offerings, it should have mentioned it in the plural and stated, “their impurity is upon them.”

Rabbi says:

The verse stated immediately afterward—“And a person who touches anything impure, whether human impurity or an impure animal or any impure detestable creature,

and eats

of the meat of the sacrifice of peace-offerings”—which concerns a person’s impurity, proves concerning our verse that it too

speaks of bodily impurity

[and later the Gemara will explain how this proves the matter].

Others say: “While his impurity is upon him”

indicates that he has not yet been purified from his impurity.

One whose impurity departs from him,

who can become pure,

this excludes meat, from which impurity does not depart

and remains upon it forever.

The Master said: Rabbi says, “And eats”—the verse speaks of bodily impurity.

We challenge this:

How is it indicated

by the verse cited by Rabbi? Perhaps this verse alone concerns bodily impurity, as it says, “And a person who touches, etc.,” whereas the first verse concerns the impurity of meat. This is indicated by the fact that if it concerned bodily impurity, it should have said, “while her impurity is upon her,” in the feminine form, since it refers back to the preceding phrase, “And the person who eats meat.” Since the Torah wrote, “while his impurity is upon him,” it apparently indicates that it concerns the impurity of meat!?

Rava said: Every verse

every verse

that Rav Yitzhak bar Avudimi does not explain, and every beraita that

is not explained by

Rav Ze’iri does not explain it!

This is what Rav Yitzhak bar Avudimi said: Since the second verse begins

the

feminine form,

“A person who touches anything impure,”

and concludes in the feminine form,

“that person shall be cut off,”

while using the masculine form in the middle,

“and eats of the meat of the sacrifice of peace-offerings,” rather than “and she eats of the meat of the sacrifice of peace-offerings,” it is evident that the verse did not take care to maintain consistent gender throughout. Therefore, there is no difficulty with this matter in the first verse either. Although it begins in the feminine form, “And the person who eats meat,” and concludes in the feminine form, “that person shall be cut off from her people,” while using the masculine form in the middle, “while his impurity is upon him,” nevertheless

the verse speaks of bodily impurity.

It is also logical to interpret the verse as referring to bodily impurity, since at first the passage dealt with the impurity of meat, as it says, “And the meat that touches anything impure,” and afterward the verse ceased dealing with the impurity of meat and turned to bodily impurity, as it says, “And any pure person may eat meat.” Accordingly, it is logical that the continuation too concerns bodily impurity.

The Gemara now explains which

beraita

Ze’iri explained.

In the passage concerning the eating of teruma and tithes in a state of impurity [Leviticus 22:4]:

“Any man of the seed of Aaron who is a leper or has a discharge shall not eat of the sacred offerings until he becomes pure; and whoever touches anyone rendered impure by a corpse, or a man from whom there has been a seminal emission, or a man who touches any swarming creature that renders him impure, or a person who renders him impure, whatever his impurity may be.

A person who touches him shall be impure until evening.

He shall not eat of the sacred offerings unless he has washed his flesh in water. When the sun sets, he shall become pure, and afterward he may eat of the sacred offerings, for it is his food.

They shall observe My charge, lest they bear sin because of it and die for profaning it; I am the Lord who sanctifies them.”

The beraita expounds that in this passage both “lesser” and “more severe” cases are stated, as will be explained below.

As it is taught in a beraita: If lesser cases are stated

in this passage,

why are more severe cases stated

in it as well?

And if

more severe cases are stated

in it, why are

lesser cases

stated as well?

Rather,

if

it had

stated the lesser cases but not the more severe cases, I would say that with regard to the lesser cases

one who eats while in a state of bodily impurity transgresses

a prohibition, and

if

with regard to the more severe cases

he would be punished

with death. Therefore,

the verse states

the more severe cases.

And if

it had

stated only the severe cases

and

had not stated the lenient cases, I would say that with regard to the severe cases, one who

eats them

is liable, whereas with regard to the lenient cases he would be exempt; therefore, it stated the lenient cases.

The Gemara analyzes the words of the beraita:

What are the lenient cases and what are the severe cases

that were mentioned in the beraita?

If you say that the lenient cases are second tithe,

to which the verse referred when it stated: “And he shall not eat of the sacred things unless he washes his flesh in water” (Leviticus 22:6)—and this is referring to ma'aser sheni, as one who was impure is permitted to eat it after immersion even before sunset, whereas if he ate from it before immersion, he transgresses a negative commandment.

And the severe cases

mentioned in the beraita are

teruma,

to which the continuation of the verse refers: “And the sun has set, and he shall be pure; and afterward he may eat of the sacred things” (Leviticus 22:7), as it is prohibited to eat it until after sunset, and if he ate from it, he is liable to death, as it is stated afterward: “And they shall die through him, when he profanes it” (Leviticus 22:9).

Accordingly, the words of the tanna would be interpreted as follows: If “lenient cases” alone had been written, namely, second tithe, I would say that specifically it is subject to a negative commandment; but with regard to the severe cases, namely, teruma, I would say that one who eats it in a state of ritual impurity is liable to death. If so, this is difficult: Is it only

I would say

that the severe cases [namely, teruma] are

subject to death,

as the beraita implies that once teruma was also stated, it is not subject to death? But this is not correct! For

now too, it is subject to death,

as stated in the verse!?

Furthermore,

another difficulty arises from what the beraita stated:

And if it had not stated

the severe cases, namely, teruma,

I would say

that one who eats it is

liable to death.

But why? If teruma had not been written in the verse, I would derive the prohibition against eating it in a state of ritual impurity by means of a kal va-chomer from the prohibition against eating second tithe. If so, how could liability to death be introduced for it? For with regard to a matter derived by means of a kal va-chomer, the principle is

“dayyo for what emerges from the derivation,”

meaning that the matter derived is

to be like the subject from which it was derived,

and not more than it; and since one is not liable to death for second tithe, from where would you derive the innovation that one is liable to death for teruma!?

Rather,

the lenient and severe cases mentioned in the beraita refer to the types of ritual impurity.

The lenient case is impurity imparted by a creeping creature.

As it is stated in the verse: “Or a man who touches any swarming creature through which he becomes impure” (Leviticus 22:5), whose impurity lasts until evening.

The severe case is corpse impurity.

As it is stated in the verse: “And whoever touches any person who is impure” (Leviticus 22:4); and his impurity lasts seven days. These two types of impurity were mentioned with regard to the prohibition against eating second tithe and teruma.

The Gemara nevertheless asks:

And with regard to what,

with regard to which eating did the beraita state that if the lenient cases, namely, impurity imparted by a creeping creature, were stated, but the severe cases, namely, human impurity, were not stated?

If it is with regard to teruma,

concerning which the tanna said that the verse would state the prohibition against eating it while impure through contact with a creeping creature, but would not state the prohibition against eating it while impure through human impurity, then

both this and that,

both one impure through a creeping creature, the lenient case, who ate teruma, and one impure through contact with a corpse who ate it, are

subject to death.

So what are the lenient cases with regard to which the tanna said that they are subject to a negative commandment!?

Furthermore,

it is difficult: Why did the tanna say

“therefore, the severe cases were stated,”

namely, one impure through contact with a corpse,

to indicate a negative commandment, when

eating teruma while impure through the human impurity of one who came into contact with a corpse

is subject to death!?

And if

it is said that the words of the tanna

were stated with regard to eating second tithe,

were stated,