Zevachim

But you can refute it thus, and you can refute it thus;1 [therefore] let each one remain in its place.2 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:3 since this cannot refer to an unclean [priest], for [his prohibition] is deduced from, That they separate themselves,4 apply it to a tebul yom.5 Say, apply it to the making of a baldness and the shaving off of the corners of the beard?6 — 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.)7 [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?8 — 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.9 [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.10 [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 .11 Now[one]cannot be derived from one [other], [but] let one be derived from two?12 — 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?13 [This would be no refutation] for after all, its14 uncleanness is but slight!15 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. these interdicts ‘profanes’ (disqualifies) a sacrifice if he officiates. 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. sunset, but not the former. Hence the question remains, why must Scripture indicate the law for all three?