Талмуд к Зебахим 2:1

There, we have stated¹⁹⁶Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:1.: “All sacrifices whose blood was collected by a non-Cohen, a deep mourner¹⁹⁷A person obligated to bury a close relative, such as defined in Lev. 21:2–3, who from the moment of the death to the burial is barred from all sacral acts; inferred from Deut. 26:14., one immersed on this day¹⁹⁸Who is no longer impure but barred from sacral acts until sundown; Lev. 22:7., missing garments¹⁹⁹A Cohen serving while not wearing all priestly garments commits a deadly sin; Ex.28:43., missing atonement²⁰⁰A person healed from skin disease or gonorrhea who needs not only immersion in water and waiting for sundown but is excluded from sacral rites until be bring a purifying sacrifice, Lev. 14:1–32 for skin disease, 15:14–15 for the sufferer from gonorrhea., with unwashed hands or feet²⁰¹Ex. 30:19–20., uncircumcised²⁰²As the Babli points out, Zevaḥim 22b, there is no pentateuchal verse forbidding service to an uncircumcised priest, but there is one in Ezechiel, 44:9, which forbids entry to the Temple domain to any uncircumcised person, including a hemophiliac who may not be circumcised., impure²⁰³Lev. 22:2–3., sitting²⁰⁴Since the verses never permit any action in sitting, and the priests are required to be barefoot, no service is possible unless the priest is standing with his feet in direct contact with the floor of the Temple court, the Temple interior, or the altar., standing on utensils, on [an animal, on] another person²⁰⁵Meaning that another priest puts his hands under the feet of the officiating priest. Then he is not in contact with the floor., disqualified it.” The Southerners say, we hold this for those impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease²⁰⁶They read the expression “impurity of the body” used in the Mishnah to describe what the diadem does not make acceptable as impurity caused by the person’s body (i. e., in addition to skin disease and gonorrhea also sexual activity, Lev. 15:15,18.), but impurity of the dead does not desecrate since it was permitted in case of the impurity of the many for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to the Southerners: Since for the owner, where you clarified to his advantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year²⁰⁷They may send their sacrifices through an agent if they are disabled by impurity., you clarified to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ²⁰⁸He must celebrate the Second Pesaḥ., for the officiant, where you clarified to his disadvantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year²⁰⁹He may never serve being impure., it is only logical that you should clarify to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ. In addition to what Rebbi stated, “the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body.” If you want to say that this refers to the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, you cannot, since we have stated, “if the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss⁸²Impurity buried in the ground which previously was totally unknown and is only recently uncovered. Since it is impossible to guard against this kind of impurity there can be no penalty for “tent impurity” of this kind., the diadem makes acceptable.²¹⁰Since impurity of the abyss only is caused by a corpse, it is not caused by the person’s body. If it is stated that the diadem makes acceptable in this case, it follows that the diadem is inactive in all cases of known impurity caused by external influences.” What are the Southerners doing with this? They explain if for the owner²¹¹The diadem only covers abyss impurity of the owner, but not proven impurity of the dead; one may still read “impurity of the body” as referring to impurity produced by the body.. But did we not state “a nazir”²¹²The only impurity forbidden for the nazir is the impurity of the dead, so in Mishnah 5 the reference must be to this kind of impurity.? They explain it for the officiant. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, there is no difference; it is equal for owner or officiant. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is an argument de minore ad maius that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged¹⁷⁷While a person unable to eat the volume of an olive of the Pesaḥ may not subscribe to it, an old or sick priest is able to serve in the Temple as long as his infirmity is not of the kind listed in Lev, 21:18–20., what can you say about the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, this is an argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are indispensable for him²¹³Since Ex. 12:48 notes that no one uncircumcised may eat it [the Pesaḥ], in v. 44, a man’s slave, bought with money, if you circumcise him he may eat it, “he” is read to refer to the owner; the owner may not eat Pesaḥ if there are uncircumcised males in his familia. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 15, dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 35, what can you say about the officiating, for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are not indispensable²¹⁴Cf. Note 202. An uncircumcised Cohen may not serve; nothing is said about his dependents.. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid.

There, we have stated²²⁴Mishnah Keritut 5:1.: “Rebbi Jehudah declares liable for squeezed blood²²⁵If an animal is slaughtered by having its throat cut, the blood pumped out from the carotid arteries by the heart is called “life blood”; all other blood is “squeezed out” blood unfit for sacrificial use. For the majority, all blood is prohibited (Lev. 7:23) but only life blood is forbidden on penalty of extirpation (Lev. 17:10). R. Jehudah disagrees since life blood is mentioned only in v. 17:11..” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah added it only for extirpation²²⁶He agrees that only life blood is qualified for the altar.. There came Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah added it only for extirpation. There²²⁷Tosephta 4:12; Babli 65a, Zevaḥim34b, 60a., they are saying in the name of Rav Ḥisda: a baraita²²⁷Tosephta 4:12; Babli 65a, Zevaḥim34b, 60a. says so: “They said to him, is that not squeezed blood? And squeezed blood is disqualified on the altar²²⁸As explained at the end of the paragraph.. And also from the following, most of it was not received in a vessel, and blood not received in a vessel is disqualified on the altar²²⁹Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:1..” Does Rebbi Jehudah hold that blood invalidates blood²³⁰In Mishnah Zevaḥim 8:6, R. Jehudah is quoted as saying that no blood invalidates blood. Therefore if only a small portion of the blood collected in the cup was qualified, the remainder is disregarded and the entire contents can be poured on the altar.? Since he did not reply, it follows that he accepted their position²³¹A possible interpretation of the Mishnah here.. Since in the other case he does not hold so but did not respond, so here he does not hold so but did not respond²³²Since we know that R. Jehudah holds that no blood invalidates blood and he is not reported to have answered the argument in the Tosephta, nothing can be inferred from his silence in the Mishnah.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: a baraita²²³The priests stood on elevated benches above the accumulated blood. Since the priestly garments are enumerated in Ex. 28 and shoes are not mentioned there, the priests had to officiate barefoot, their feet touching the floor of the courtyard. Therefore one has to assume that the benches were rows of stones connected to the floor and counted as floor. Babli 65b. says so: “Not only life blood for sancta, matter appropriate for atonement, from where life blood for profane animals and squeezed blood for both sancta and profane animals? The verse says blood and all blood. When it is about life it mentions atonement, for squeezed blood it does not mention atonement²³⁴This is R. Jehudah’s argument. In Lev.17:10 all blood is prohibited under penalty of extirpation. In Lev. 17:11 blood is the carrier of life, showing that life blood used for atonement is less than all blood. Babli 65a..