זבחים 23 — Soncino English Talmud

¹eating? — That [too] is [only] a recommendation. Yet is it not indispensable? Surely it was taught: [Then shall he and his neighbor next unto him take one] according to the number of [be-miksath] the souls: this teaches that the Paschal lamb is not slaughtered save for those who are registered [numbered] for it. You might think that if he slaughtered it for those who were not registered for it, he should be as one who violates the precept, yet it is fit. Therefore it is stated, Ye shall make your count [takosu]: it is reiterated ‘to teach that it is indispensable; and eaters are assimilated to registered [persons]! — The Elders of the south do not assimilate [them]. Yet even if they do not assimilate [them], there is still the same refutation: If a priest who was defiled by a reptile cannot propitiate, though if the owners were defiled by a reptile they can send their sacrifices at the very outset; is it not logical that a priest who was defiled through a corpse should not be able to propitiate, seeing that if the owners were defiled through a corpse they cannot send their sacrifices at the very outset? An objection is raised: [If the blood of a Passover-offering is sprinkled, and then it became known that it was unclean, the headplate propitiates; if the person became unclean, the headplate does not propitiate;] because they [the Sages] ruled: [In the case of] a nazirite one who sacrifices the Passover-offering, the headplate propitiates for the uncleanness of the blood, but the headplate does not propitiate for the uncleanness of the person. With what [was the person defiled]? Shall we say, With the uncleanness of a reptile? surely you maintain [that] you may slaughter [the Passover-offering] and sprinkle [its blood] on behalf of one who is unclean through a reptile! Hence it must refer to defilement by a corpse, yet it teaches, ‘The headplate does not propitiate’, which proves that if the owners were defiled, they cannot send their sacrifices! — No: if the owners were defiled through a corpse, that would indeed be so. But the meaning here is that the priest was defiled by a reptile. If so, consider the last clause: If he was defiled with the ‘uncleanness of the deep’, the headplate propitiates. But surely R. Hiyya taught: They [the Sages] spoke of the ‘uncleanness of the deep’ in respect of a corpse alone. What does this exclude? Surely it excludes the ‘uncleanness of the deep’ caused by a reptile? — No: it excludes the ‘uncleanness of the deep’ of gonorrhoea. Again, as to what Rami b. Hama asked: As to the priest who propitiates with their sacrifices, is the ‘uncleanness of the deep permitted to him, or is the ‘uncleanness of the deep’ not permitted to him? You may solve that the ‘uncleanness of the deep’ is permitted to him, for here we are treating of the priest? — Rami b. Hama certainly disagrees [with the Elders of the south]. Come and hear: And Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the holy things: now, what iniquity does he bear?^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ

^ᵃnote:Ex. XII, 4. This implies that he must be fit to partake thereof.
^ᵇnote:In the sense that the sacrifice offered in contravention of this law does not count at all, and the man must bring the second Passover.
^ᶜnote:Ibid. 4.
^ᵈnote:Just as the sacrifice is unfit if slaughtered for those who are not registered for it, so is it unfit if slaughtered on behalf of men who cannot partake of it, for the eaters are coupled with the registered persons in the same verse.
^ᵉnote:Since only ‘number’ is repeated, but not ‘eating’.
^ᶠnote:For the Elders of the south merely maintain that if they sent their sacrifices and had them slaughtered, they do not bring a second Passover. But they must of course admit that they must not send them in the first place. — The objection remains unanswered.
^ᵍnote:In the sense that even if they do, they must still bring the second Passover.
^ʰnote:The headplate would propitiate.
^ⁱnote:This is a technical term denoting the hidden uncleanness of a corpse which is now discovered for the first time. E.g., if he was in a house and it is subsequently learned that a corpse had been there; v. Pesahim 80b.
^ʲnote:And he is not liable to a second offering. This is a traditional law.
^ᵏnote:A zab (gonorrhoeist) is unclean seven days, and the Passover-offering may not be offered on his behalf. Now, if the eve of Passover marks the seventh day of his uncleanness, he is in a state of doubt: if he does not discharge on that day, he will be clean in the evening; if he does discharge, he becomes unclean for a further seven days. Thus he too is unclean with the ‘uncleanness of the deep’, and R. Hiyya teaches that the headplate does not propitiate in his case.
^ˡnote:If the priest who offers the Passover sacrifice or the sacrifices of a nazirite on behalf of their owners was defiled with the ‘uncleanness of the deep’, does the headplate propitiate, so that the sacrifices are valid, or not?
^ᵐnote:On the interpretation of the Elders of the south.
^ⁿnote:He must interpret the Mishnah as referring to the uncleanness of the owners.
^ᵒnote:This is a refutation of Rami b. Hama.
^ᵖnote:Ex. XXVIII, 38. ‘Shall bear’ means shall make atonement for, i.e., shall make a sacrifice valid in spite of certain irregularities.

²If the iniquity of piggul, surely it is already said, it shall not be accepted? If the iniquity of nothar, surely it is already said, neither shall it be imputed [unto him that offereth it]? Hence he bears nought but the iniquity of defilement, which is inoperative, in opposition to its general rule, in the case of a community. Now which uncleanness [is meant]? if we say, the uncleanness of a reptile, where has that been waived? 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! 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]. Others make this deduction: [The headplate makes atonement] only for the iniquity of the holy things, but not for the iniquity of those who hallow them. 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]: I have chosen him to stand, but not to sit. Our Rabbis taught: ‘To stand to minister’ is a recommendation; when it says [further], who stand [there before the Lord]. the Writ has repeated it, to make [standing] indispensable. Raba said to R. Nahman: Consider: one sitting is as a zar, and profanes the service; then let us say: just as a zar is liable to death, 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,^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ

^ᵠnote:V. Glos.
^ʳnote:Lev. XIX, 7.
^ˢnote:V. Glos.
^ᵗnote:Ib. VII, 18. Text as emended by Rashi on the basis of Torath Kohanim. The edd. reverse the proof-texts, and Tosaf. defends their reading.
^ᵘnote:Lit., ‘permitted’.
^ᵛnote:If the whole community or the majority thereof is unclean, they sacrifice the Passover-offering in the first month, as usual, and are not relegated to the second month as an individual would be.
^ʷnote:In favour of a community — Scripture speaks only of uncleanness through a corpse.
^ˣnote:Num. VI, 9. Scripture proceeds to say that he must then bring certain sacrifices and re-commence his period of 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.
^ʸnote:Though the Scriptural permission to a community applies only to uncleanness through a corpse, yet since we find that 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.
^ᶻnote:Which supports Rami b. Hama and refutes the Elders of the south.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., only when the sacrifice itself is defiled, but not when its owners or the priests — ‘those who hallow them’ — are unclean. This is deduced direct from Scripture, which speaks only of the ‘holy things’.
^ᵃᵇnote:Deut. XVIII, 5.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., this text alone would merely indicate that it is preferable that the priest shall stand.
^ᵃᵈnote:Ibid. XVIII, 7.
^ᵃᵉnote:For since he has not been chosen ‘to sit’, he is then like a zar (a lay-Israelite) who has not been chosen.
^ᵃᶠnote:For officiating.
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., to teach the same thing. They too profane the service, and it is stated in Sanh. 83a that they are liable to death, and the same analogy might be drawn from each, viz., that those who profane the service are liable to death.