Parallel
זבחים 33:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Rabina said: It was stated [only] in respect of flagellation. When Rabin came, he said in the name of R. Abbahu: It was stated in respect of an unclean person who touched sacred flesh. For it was stated: If an unclean person touches sacred flesh, Resh Lakish maintains: He is flagellated; R. Johanan said: He is not flagellated. Resh Lakish maintained [that] he is flagellated, [because it is written] She shall touch no hallowed thing. But R. Johanan maintains that he is not flagellated, [for] that [text] is written in reference to terumah. Now [does] Resh Lakish [maintain that] this text comes for this purpose? [surely] it is required as a forewarning against eating sacred flesh? For it was stated: Whence do we derive a forewarning against eating sacred flesh? Resh Lakish says: [From the text,] ‘She shall touch no hallowed thing’. R. Johanan said, Bardela taught: It is derived from the expression ‘his uncleanness’ occurring here and in reference to [an unclean person's] entry into the sanctuary: as there [Scripture] prescribes the penalty and gives a forewarning, so here too [Scripture] prescribes the penalty and implies a forewarning! — [That] an unclean person who touched sacred flesh [is flagellated follows] from the fact that the Divine Law expressed this in terms of touching; while a forewarning to one who eats [sacred flesh while unclean follows] from the assimilation of sacred flesh to the sanctuary. It was taught in accordance with Resh Lakish: ‘She shall touch no hallowed thing’: [this is] a forewarning in respect of eating. You say [that it is] a forewarning in respect of eating; yet perhaps it is not so, but rather in respect of touching? Therefore the text states, ‘She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary’: the ‘hallowed thing’ [sacred flesh] is assimilated to the sanctuary. As [the offence in connection with] the sanctuary is one which involves
—