זבחים 17:1 — Soncino English Talmud

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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ

^ᵃnote:You can argue either way.
^ᵇnote:Assume each law to be without exceptions. Thus, when Scripture permits bereavement to a High Priest, it applies to both private and public sacrifices, while it is forbidden to an ordinary priest likewise in the case of both. Again, when uncleanness is forbidden in the case of a private sacrifice, the interdict applies to the High Priest also; on the other hand, when it is permitted in the case of public sacrifices, that applies to an ordinary priest too.
^ᶜnote:Lev. XXI, 6. The passage treats of defilement, among other things.
^ᵈnote:Ibid. XXII, 2; that verse forbids an unclean priest to officiate.
^ᵉnote:As intimating that he too must not officiate, and if he does, he ‘profanes’, i.e. , disqualifies the sacrifice.
^ᶠnote:Which is mentioned in the preceding verse, ibid. XXI, 5. Perhaps Scripture teaches that a priest who transgresses these interdicts ‘profanes’ (disqualifies) a sacrifice if he officiates.
^ᵍnote:V. Glos. The allusion is to Lev. XXII,9: They shall therefore keep My charge. (this refers to terumah, as the whole passage shews) lest they bear sin for it, and die therein, if they profane it. Since ‘profanation’ (i.e.. defilement) is punishable by death there, the same holds good here. It also follows conversely that the present passage can apply only to such as ‘profane’ terumah. — By ‘death’ is meant death at the hands of heaven, not actually capital punishment by man.
^ʰnote:These are similar to one another, and therefore only one need be mentioned, and the others would follow by analogy.
^ⁱnote:Either the flesh of the sacrifice, or another person by contact.
^ʲnote:Which the latter is not.
^ᵏnote:Viz., the offering of a sacrifice. But a tebul yom merely has to wait for sunset.
^ˡnote:Let Scripture write the law with reference to two of these, and the third could be derived by analogy.
^ᵐnote:The unclean priest must take a ritual bath.
^ⁿnote:Reading as Rashi, which is preferable to cur. edd. ‘their’.
^ᵒnote:The uncleanness of one who lacks atonement is slighter than that of a tebul yom, since the latter must still wait for sunset, but not the former. Hence the question remains, why must Scripture indicate the law for all three?