Zevachim — Daf 23b

אם עון פיגול הרי כבר נאמר (ויקרא ז, יח) לא יחשב אם עון נותר הרי כבר נאמר (ויקרא ז, יח) לא ירצה

הא אינו נושא אלא עון טומאה שהותרה מכללה בצבור

מאי טומאה אילימא מטומאת שרץ היכא אישתרי אלא טומאת מת ולאו כגון שנטמאו בעלים במת אלמא נטמאו בעלים במת משלחין קרבנותיהן

ובמאי אי בנזיר (במדבר ו, ט) וכי ימות מת עליו אמר רחמנא אלא לעושה פסח (ולאו כגון שנטמאו בעלים במת)

לעולם בשרץ ושם טומאה בעולם

ואיכא דדייק ומייתי הכי עון הקדשים אין עון מקדישין לא מאי טומאה אילימא טומאת שרץ מי אישתריא בציבור אלא לאו טומאת מת ועון קדשים אין עון מקדישים לא

לעולם טומאת שרץ ושם טומאה בעולם:

יושב: מנלן אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן אמר קרא (דברים יח, ה) לעמוד לשרת לעמידה בחרתיו ולא לישיבה

ת"ר לעמוד לשרת מצוה כשהוא אומר (דברים יח, ז) העומדים שנה עליו הכתוב לעכב

א"ל רבא לרב נחמן מכדי יושב כזר דמי ומחיל עבודה אימא מה זר במיתה אף יושב במיתה אלמה תניא אבל ערל אונן יושב אינן במיתה אלא באזהרה

משום דהוי מחוסר בגדים ושלא רחוץ ידים ורגלים שני כתובין הבאין כאחד

If the iniquity of piggul,1 surely it is already said, it shall not be accepted?2 If the iniquity of nothar,3 surely it is already said, neither shall it be imputed [unto him that offereth it]?4 Hence he bears nought but the iniquity of defilement, which is inoperative,5 in opposition to its general rule, in the case of a community.6 Now which uncleanness [is meant]? if we say, the uncleanness of a reptile, where has that been waived?7 Hence it must mean uncleanness through a corpse, which proves that if the owners become unclean through a corpse they send their sacrifices. And of whom [is this said]? If of a nazirite, the Divine Law saith, And if any man die very suddenly beside him, etc!8 Hence it can only refer to one who is offering the Paschal lamb! — In truth it refers to [the uncleanness of] a reptile, yet uncleanness elsewhere [was waived].9 Others make this deduction:10 [The headplate makes atonement] only for the iniquity of the holy things, but not for the iniquity of those who hallow them.11 Which uncleanness [is meant]? If we say, the uncleanness of a reptile? is then that inoperative in the case of a community? Hence it must surely be the uncleanness of a corpse, and yet only the iniquity of the holy things [is atoned for], but not the iniquity of those who hallow them? — No: in truth it means uncleanness through a reptile, yet uncleanness elsewhere [is waived]. [A PRIEST] SITTING. Whence do we know it? — Said Raba in R. Nahman's name: Scripture saith, [For the Lord thy God hath chosen him — the priest — out of all thy tribes,] to stand to minister [in the name of the Lord]:12 I have chosen him to stand, but not to sit. Our Rabbis taught: ‘To stand to minister’ is a recommendation;13 when it says [further], who stand [there before the Lord].14 the Writ has repeated it, to make [standing] indispensable. Raba said to R. Nahman: Consider: one sitting is as a zar,15 and profanes the service; then let us say: just as a zar is liable to death,16 so is one who sits liable to death. Why then was it taught: But an uncircumcised [priest], an onen, and one sitting are not liable to death but are merely under an injunction [not to officiate]? — Because [a priest] lacking the [priestly] vestments and one whose hands and feet are not washed are two laws which come as one,17 defends their reading. usual, and are not relegated to the second month as an individual would be. naziriteship, at the conclusion of which he brings the prescribed sacrifices on the shaving of his head. Thus whilst unclean he cannot bring the latter. same form of uncleanness is inoperative, it is logical to say that the propitiating powers of the headplate hold good in the case of uncleanness through a reptile. are unclean. This is deduced direct from Scripture, which speaks only of the ‘holy things’. and the same analogy might be drawn from each, viz., that those who profane the service are liable to death.