Parallel
זבחים 32:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
but ‘before the Lord’ is written in connection with ‘laying’ too? — He can project his hands within and lay [them on the bullock]. Then in the case of shechitah too, he can make a long knife and slaughter? — This agrees with Simeon the Temanite. For it was taught: And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord: the bullock [must be] before the Lord, but the slaughterer need not be before the Lord. Simeon the Temanite said: Whence do we know that the slaughterer's hands must be on the inner side of the slaughtered? From the text, And he shall slaughter the bullock before the Lord: he that slaughters the bullock [must be] before the Lord. ‘Ulla said in the name of Resh Lakish: If an unclean person projects his hands within, he is flagellated, because it says, She shall touch no hallowed things, nor come into the sanctuary: entry is assimilated to contact. As partial contact ranks as contact, so partial entry is designated entry. R. Hoshaia raised an objection to ‘Ulla: If a leper whose eighth day fell on the eve of Passover and who had a nocturnal discharge on that day, and performed immersion, — the Sages said: Though any other tebul yom may not enter [the Levitical camp], this one does enter: it is preferable that an affirmative precept which involves kareth should come and override an affirmative precept which does not involve kareth. Now R. Johanan said: By the law of the Torah there is not even an affirmative precept in connection therewith, for it is said, And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah and Jerusalem, in the house of the Lord, before the new court. What does ‘the new court’ mean? That they introduced a new law there and ruled: A tebul yom must not enter the Levitical camp. Now if you say that partial entry is called entry, how can he insert his hands for [the sprinkling of his] thumbs; in both cases there is an affirmative precept involving kareth? — from your very refutation [I can answer you], he replied: A leper is different. Since he was permitted in respect of his leprosy, he was permitted in respect of his nocturnal discharge. R. Joseph observed: ‘Ulla holds [that] if the majority were zabin and they became unclean through the dead, since they are permitted in respect of their defilement, they are permitted in respect of their zibah. Said Abaye to him, How can you compare? Uncleanness was permitted, but zibah was not permitted! Perhaps this is what you meant: If the majority are unclean through the dead and they become zabin, since they are permitted in respect of their uncleanness they are permitted in respect of their zibah? — Yes, he replied. Said he to him: Yet they are still not alike. [In the case of] a leper it is permitted, [and] since it is permitted [in respect of leprosy], it is permitted [in respect of his nocturnal discharge]. But defilement is [merely] superseded: in respect of one it was superseded, [while] in respect of the other [zibah] it was not superseded? — Said Raba to him: On the contrary, the logic is the reverse: [In the case of] a leper it is permitted: then it is permitted in respect of the one and not permitted in respect of the other. But uncleanness is superseded: What does it matter then whether it is superseded in one instance or whether it is superseded in two instances?
—