Parallel
זבחים 17
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
But you can refute it thus, and you can refute it thus; [therefore] let each one remain in its place. TEBUL YOM. Whence do we know it? — For it was taught, R. Simai said: Where is the allusion that if a tebul yom officiates he profanes [the sacrifice]? In the text , They [the priests] shall be holy . . and not profane: since this cannot refer to an unclean [priest], for [his prohibition] is deduced from, That they separate themselves, apply it to a tebul yom. Say, apply it to the making of a baldness and the shaving off of the corners of the beard? — Since a tebul yom is liable to death for officiating (and how do we know that? because we deduce [similarity of law] from the use of ‘profanation’ here and in the case of terumah.) [it follows that] he who is unfit [to partake of] terumah profanes the service [of sacrifice], whereas he who is not unfit [to partake of] terumah does not profane the service. Rabbah said:Why must the Divine Law enumerate an unclean priest, a tebul yom, and one who lacks atonement? — They are all necessary. For had the Divine Law written [the law for] an unclean priest [only, I would say that he disqualifies the sacrifice] because he defiles. [If the law were written] with reference to a tebul yom, one who lacks atonement could not be derived from it, seeing that [the former] is disqualified [to partake] of terumah. [If it were written] with reference to one who lacks atonement, a tebul yom could not be learnt from it, seeing that [the former] lacks a [positive] act . Now[one]cannot be derived from one [other], [but] let one be derived from two? — In which should the Divine Law not write [this ruling]? Should it not write [it] with respect to one who lacks atonement, so that it might be inferred from the others, [it might be argued]: as for the others, [their peculiar feature is] that they are disqualified [to partake of] terumah. Rather, let not the Divine Law write it of a tebul yom, which could be inferred from the others. For how will you refute [the analogy]: as for these others, [the reason is that] they are wanting in a [positive] act? [This would be no refutation] for after all, its uncleanness is but slight!15
—
— He holds that a zab lacking atonement is as a zab. Now, whether a zab lacking atonement is as a zab, is dependent on Tannaim. For it was taught: If an onen or one lacking atonement burns it, it is fit. Joseph the Babylonian said: If an onen [burns it], it is fit, [but] if one who lacks atonement burns it, it is unfit. Now surely they disagree in this: one Master holds that a zab lacking atonement is as a zab, while the other Master holds that he is not as a zab! — No. All agree that he is as a zab, but here they disagree in the following: For it is written, And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean, whence it follows that he is unclean, thus teaching that a tebul yom is fit [to officiate] at the [red] heifer. Now, one Master holds: This applies to every form of uncleanness mentioned in the Torah; while the other Master holds that it applies to the uncleanness dealt with in this chapter only. Therefore an onen and a tebul yom rendered [originally] unclean through a [dead] reptile, who are less stringent, are derived a minori from a tebul yom rendered [originally] unclean through a dead body. But a zab who lacks atonement is not [thus derived], since he is more stringent, as his uncleanness proceeds from his own body. ONE LACKING THE [PRIESTLY] VESTMENTS. Whence do we know it? — Said R. Abbahu in R. Johanan's name, and some derive ultimately [the teaching] from R. Eleazar the son of R. Simeon: Because Scripture saith, And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and bind head-tires on them; and they shall have the priesthood by a perpetual statute: When wearing their [appointed] garments, they are invested with their priesthood; when not wearing their garments, they are not invested with their priesthood. Now, is this derived from the verse quoted? Surely it is derived from elsewhere? For it was taught: How do we know that if one who had drank wine officiates, he profanes [the sacrifices]? Because it is written, Drink no wine nor strong wine....that ye may put difference between the holy and the profane. How do we know [the same of] one who lacks [priestly] vestments and [of] one who had not washed his hands and feet?
—