Zevachim

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.1 ‘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:2 entry is assimilated to contact. As partial contact ranks as contact,3 so partial entry is designated entry. R. Hoshaia raised an objection to ‘Ulla: If a leper whose eighth day fell on the eve of Passover4 and who had a nocturnal discharge on that day,5 and performed immersion,6 — the Sages said: Though any other tebul yom7 may not enter [the Levitical camp], this one does enter:8 it is preferable that an affirmative precept which involves kareth9 should come and override an affirmative precept which does not involve kareth.10 Now R. Johanan said: By the law of the Torah11 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.12 What does ‘the new court’ mean? That they introduced a new law there and ruled: A tebul yom must not enter the Levitical camp.13 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?14 — from your very refutation15 [I can answer you], he replied: A leper is different. Since he was permitted in respect of his leprosy,16 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.17 Said Abaye to him, How can you compare? Uncleanness was permitted, but zibah was not permitted!18 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,19 [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 one20 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? must be inside too. his sacrifices on the eighth (v. Lev. XIV, 9f). When he brought these he was still not permitted to enter the Temple court (‘the camp of the Shechinah’ — divine Presence) but stood at the east gate (‘the gate of Nicanor’), whose sanctity was lower (it was regarded as ‘the Levitical camp’), while the priest, standing inside the Temple court, applied the blood and the oil to the thumb and the great toe of the leper (ibid. 14f). performs it on account of his discharge. evening, the eating of which is enjoined by an affirmative precept. uncleanness is yet upon him (Num. XIX, 13); since this is an affirmative statement, the injunction likewise counts as an affirmative precept. Its violation does not involve kareth. Passover-offering. thumbs) into the Temple court. through the dead, they are permitted to offer the Passover-offering, as this uncleanness is inoperative (or superseded) in such circumstances. But if they are unclean as zabin, they may not offer. Now, if they were thus unclean, and then became unclean through the dead too, since they are permitted in respect of the latter, they are also permitted in respect of the former. This follows from ‘Ulla's answer. too, for if it did it would create the absurd position that whereas zibah alone is not permitted, yet when defilement through the dead is added to it, it is permitted.