The Eddie B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud, Zevahim, has been dedicated by our good friend and student of the daily Talmud class, Binyamin Cohen, whom they call Benny C. May he have success and prosperity, and, being a priest, may he merit, with God’s help, to serve in the Temple together with the other priests when the Messiah comes. This dedication is especially fitting because this tractate discusses the service of the priests in the Temple and the offerings.
We are holding near the discussion beginning with Ulla’s statement, eleven lines from the bottom, at the last three words of the line. Let us review what Ulla is responding to. Yesterday we learned the position of the Elders of the South, the sages from Lod. Our Mishnah taught that when a priest performs the service while he is ritually impure, his service is invalid. The question was: What type of impurity are we discussing?
It was concluded that the Mishnah is referring specifically to impurity caused by contact with a creeping creature. If the priest touched such a creature, the offering is invalid. However, if the priest became impure through contact with a corpse, then after the fact his service is valid.
At first, one might have thought the opposite. Impurity from a corpse is more severe, whereas impurity from a creeping creature is less severe. Why, then, would the service be valid after the fact in the case of corpse impurity, but invalid in the case of impurity from a creeping creature?
The Elders of the South held the principle that those who bring atonement have the same legal status as those for whom atonement is brought. The priests, who bring atonement, have the same status as the owners of the offerings, who require atonement. What does this mean? Regarding those who require atonement, we have a rule that when most of the community becomes ritually impure, they may bring the offering in a state of impurity.
That rule demonstrates a leniency regarding impurity. If most of the community became impure through contact with a creeping creature, they cannot enter the Temple in that state. They may send their offering, and the priests may offer it, but the impure members of the community themselves may not enter the Temple. In contrast, when the impurity is caused by a corpse, there is a greater leniency: they may enter the Temple and bring the offering. Thus, corpse impurity is in one respect more lenient than impurity caused by a creeping creature.
Accordingly, just as we find that impurity is permitted for the community in certain circumstances, we should also be lenient with regard to the priest. After the fact, if the priest was impure through contact with a corpse, his service is valid. But in the case of impurity caused by a creeping creature, there is no comparable leniency. Since an individual may not bring his offering in that state of impurity, the priest who performs the service in that state has invalidated the service after the fact. This is the position of the sages of the South.
Now Ulla challenged Resh Lakish. He asked the Elders of the South: According to your reasoning, which has greater power to set aside impurity—the power of those who bring atonement, namely the priests, or the power of those for whom atonement is brought, namely the owners of the offerings?
You must say that the owners have the greater power. Consider the classic case of the Passover offering. If a person is impure through contact with a creeping creature, he may send his offering to the Temple. The priests offer it for him, and he immerses himself that day. That night, after the sun sets, he may enter and eat the Passover offering.
Thus, the owner of the offering who is impure through contact with a creeping creature may send his offering so that it can be brought on his behalf. Yet, according to you, a priest who performs the service in the same state of impurity invalidates the service after the fact. This indicates that the owners have greater power than the priests. Where the owners may send their offering, the priests may not perform the service.
Ulla then formulated a logical inference. In a case where the owners become impure through contact with a creeping creature, they may send their offerings. But if the owners become impure through contact with a corpse, they may not send their offerings. Therefore, a priest who becomes impure through contact with a corpse should certainly not be able to perform the service, even after the fact. Where the law is lenient for the owners, it is strict for the priests; and where the law is strict for the owners, it should certainly be strict for the priests.
Impurity caused by a creeping creature is permitted for the owners, but, according to the Elders of the South, it is not valid for the priests even after the fact. Impurity caused by a corpse is not permitted for the owners, so certainly it should not be valid for the priests. Yet the Elders of the South hold that the priest’s service is valid in that case. That is Ulla’s challenge.
The response is that the assumption is incorrect. An individual who became impure through contact with a corpse may, after all, send his offering. The case of the Passover offering demonstrates this. Ordinarily, a person who is impure through contact with a corpse should wait until the second Passover. If he did not wait and sent his offering at the first Passover, the offering may nevertheless fulfill his obligation.
One might object that he cannot eat the offering. However, the act of eating the Passover offering does not invalidate the offering after the fact. The blood was sprinkled for him, and the offering was brought on his behalf. Although he cannot eat it, the offering itself can still fulfill his obligation.
The Gemara challenges this as well. The Torah says that a person who becomes impure should make the Passover offering in the second month, clearly indicating that the proper procedure is to wait for the second Passover. The answer is that this applies initially. Ideally, he should wait and bring the offering at the second Passover. After the fact, however, if he went against that instruction and sent the offering at the first Passover, it is valid.
Another verse says that the offering is to be slaughtered according to each person’s ability to eat from it. This seems to indicate that the offering must be slaughtered for people who can eat its meat. Since a person who is impure through contact with a corpse cannot eat it, perhaps the offering should be invalid even after the fact.
The Gemara answers that the verse can be understood as applying initially. Ideally, one should bring the offering for people who can eat it. After the fact, however, the offering remains valid even if the person for whom it was brought cannot eat it. The various verses are describing the proper procedure initially, whereas after the fact the offering may still be valid.
The Gemara then questions whether eating is truly essential to the Passover offering. We learned that eating the Passover offering does not prevent fulfillment of the obligation. Therefore, if the offering was slaughtered and the blood was sprinkled for the person, how can the inability to eat invalidate it? Eating is not itself indispensable to the offering.
The Gemara responds that the matter is not so simple. The Torah compares the laws of those registered for the Passover offering with the laws of those who eat it. The Torah repeats the language of registration, teaching that the offering must be slaughtered for those who were registered before the slaughter. If it was slaughtered for people who were not registered, it is invalid after the fact.
The verse concerning eating is compared to the verse concerning registration. Just as slaughtering for people who were not registered invalidates the offering after the fact, so too slaughtering for people who cannot eat invalidates it after the fact. If a person who is impure through contact with a corpse cannot eat the offering, he is comparable to someone who was not registered, and the offering should be invalid.
The answer is that the Elders of the South do not accept this comparison. They compare the laws of registration with one another, but they do not compare the laws of eating with the laws of registration. Therefore, if the offering was slaughtered for someone who was not registered, it is invalid; but if it was slaughtered for someone who cannot eat it, there is no such difficulty.
The Gemara then says that even if we do not make that comparison, the challenge remains. Consider the following inference: When the owners become impure through contact with a creeping creature, they may send their offerings. When a priest becomes impure through contact with a creeping creature, his service is invalid. When the owners become impure through contact with a corpse, they may not send their offerings. Therefore, when a priest becomes impure through contact with a corpse, his service should certainly be invalid.
In a case where it is permitted initially for the owners, it is prohibited even after the fact for the priest. In a case where it is prohibited even after the fact for the owners, it should certainly be prohibited even after the fact for the priest. This returns us to the original difficulty.
The Gemara leaves this challenge unresolved. The question that Ulla raised against the position of the Elders of the South remains without an answer.
The Gemara then returns to a different point that we discussed earlier. Suppose one says that a Passover offering brought in a state of impurity is valid after the fact. Initially, the person should have waited for the second Passover, but if the offering was nevertheless brought, the blood was sprinkled, and the service was performed, perhaps it is valid even though the person cannot eat it.
The Gemara raises a contradiction from a Mishnah in Pesachim. The golden plate worn on the forehead of the High Priest provides atonement for offerings that were brought in a state of impurity. For example, if the blood of a Passover offering became impure and was nevertheless sprinkled on the altar, the plate provides atonement for that impurity.
However, the Mishnah says that the plate does not provide atonement for impurity of the body. The Gemara asks what impurity of the body means. It cannot mean impurity caused by a creeping creature, because we have already learned from the Elders of the South that an offering may be slaughtered and its blood sprinkled when the owners are impure through contact with a creeping creature. If so, no atonement from the plate is needed in that case.
It must therefore refer to impurity from a corpse. The owners became impure through contact with a corpse, and the Mishnah says that the plate does not provide atonement for that impurity. This appears to indicate that the offering is invalid, even after the fact.
That would contradict the position of the Elders of the South, who say that if the owners bring a Passover offering while impure through contact with a corpse, the offering is valid after the fact. According to them, the offering should not require the plate’s atonement, because it is valid without it. Yet the Mishnah says that the plate does not provide atonement for impurity of the body, implying that nothing was accomplished.
The Gemara answers that if the owners became impure through contact with a corpse, the offering would indeed be valid after the fact, in accordance with the position of the Elders of the South. The Mishnah is not discussing the owners. It is discussing a priest who became impure through contact with a creeping creature. According to the Elders of the South, the priest’s service in that case is invalid, and the plate provides no atonement for it.
Now, however, a further difficulty arises. If the Mishnah is discussing a priest who became impure through contact with a creeping creature, how should we explain the other part of the Mishnah, which refers to unknown impurity?
Unknown impurity literally means impurity of the depths. For example, a person may walk across a certain place without knowing that a corpse is buried beneath rubble. Later, the rubble is removed and a corpse is discovered beneath it. Since no one could have known that the impurity was present, this is called unknown impurity. There are certain leniencies in such a case.
The Mishnah says that when a person bringing a Passover offering discovers that he had unknowingly passed over such a place, the golden plate provides atonement for him. The Gemara cites a teaching of Rabbi Hiyya that the special law of unknown impurity was stated only with regard to a corpse.
If the end of the Mishnah is discussing unknown impurity from a corpse, then perhaps the beginning is also discussing impurity from a corpse. But that would again contradict the position of the Elders of the South, who say that when the owners become impure through contact with a corpse, the offering is valid after the fact.
The Gemara answers that the unknown impurity in the Mishnah may refer both to a corpse and to a creeping creature. The golden plate provides atonement for unknown impurity from either source. The exclusion in Rabbi Hiyya’s teaching is not unknown impurity from a creeping creature, but unknown impurity from an emission.
This requires explanation. An emission refers to a bodily discharge. A person who experiences one such emission is considered a man with a seminal emission. He immerses in a ritual bath and becomes pure that evening. If he experiences two emissions in one day, or emissions on two consecutive days, he is considered a man with a flow. He must count seven clean days and then immerse in living water.
There is another complicated case. Suppose a person experiences an emission at the end of one day, during the period between sunset and nightfall. We do not know whether that period belongs to the previous day or the following night. If the emission continued through that period, he may have experienced an emission on two days, and he may therefore have the status of a man with a flow rather than merely the status of someone with a single emission.
For example, suppose he experienced an emission at the end of the twelfth day and then immersed on the thirteenth. If he is merely considered a man with a seminal emission, he is pure that evening and may be ready to bring the Passover offering. But if he is considered a man with a flow, the immersion accomplishes nothing by itself, because he must first count seven clean days.
This is the unknown impurity of an emission. The uncertainty concerns the period between sunset and nightfall: was it still day, was it already night, or did it belong to both for purposes of counting? No one can definitively determine the status. That is why it is called unknown impurity—not because the emission is buried beneath rubble, but because the halachic status cannot be determined.
The Gemara therefore explains that the golden plate provides atonement for unknown impurity from a corpse and for unknown impurity from a creeping creature, but not for unknown impurity from an emission. A bodily impurity is treated more stringently, even when its exact status is uncertain.
Consequently, the Mishnah can still be understood as discussing a priest who became impure through a creeping creature. If it was an unknown impurity from a corpse or a creeping creature, the plate provides atonement. But if it was an unknown impurity from an emission, the plate does not provide atonement.
The Gemara then asks what follows from this according to the Elders of the South. If the owners bring their offering in a state of impurity through contact with a corpse, the offering is valid after the fact. If the priest is impure through unknown impurity from a corpse or a creeping creature, the plate provides atonement. Thus, according to the Elders of the South, the priest can also benefit from this leniency.
This raises the question again: Is unknown impurity a leniency for the priest himself, or only for the owners of the offering? The Gemara observes that according to the way the Elders of the South understand the Mishnah, the Mishnah is discussing a priest. But according to Rami bar Hama, the Mishnah is discussing the owners.
Rami bar Hama understands the Mishnah differently. The impurity of the body mentioned there is the impurity of the owners, not the impurity of the priest. According to him, when the owners become impure through contact with a corpse, the golden plate does not provide atonement, and the offering is invalid even after the fact.
Thus, Rami bar Hama disagrees with the Elders of the South. The Elders of the South say that an offering brought by impure owners is valid after the fact, whereas Rami bar Hama says that it is invalid. The Mishnah itself cannot prove the law concerning a priest who became impure through unknown impurity, because Rami bar Hama explains that the Mishnah is referring to the owners.
The Gemara then cites another teaching: “Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the sacred offerings.” This teaches that the golden plate provides atonement when sacred offerings were brought with a disqualifying defect. The Gemara asks which iniquity the plate bears.
Perhaps it bears the iniquity of an offering that was made with the intention of pigul—for example, when the priest intended to eat the offering after its permitted time, or to eat it outside its permitted place. But the Torah says that such an offering is not accepted. Pigul is inherently invalid, and the golden plate cannot provide atonement for it.
It must therefore refer to the iniquity of impurity. When an offering was brought in a state of impurity, the golden plate provides atonement. This is more reasonable because we find special leniencies with regard to impurity. When most of the community becomes impure, impurity is permitted for the public offering.
The Gemara asks: What type of impurity is this? It cannot be impurity caused by a creeping creature. We never find that such impurity is permitted for the public. People who are impure through contact with a creeping creature may not enter the Temple. If the golden plate is providing atonement because of a special leniency concerning impurity, it must refer to a type of impurity for which we find that impurity is permitted for the public.
The Gemara therefore considers the case in which the owners became impure through contact with a corpse. According to the Elders of the South, the offering is valid after the fact. According to Rami bar Hama, however, the offering is invalid. The entire discussion is designed to establish which position is supported by the teaching concerning the golden plate.
The Gemara then suggests that perhaps the teaching is not discussing impurity from a corpse at all, but impurity caused by a creeping creature. The offering itself could have become impure through contact with a creeping creature. In that case, the golden plate provides atonement, not because impurity from a creeping creature is permitted for the public, but because impurity in general is associated with the leniency of impurity being permitted for the public.
Even though impurity caused by a creeping creature is not itself permitted for the public, it falls within the general category of impurity, as opposed to pigul and similar disqualifications. Therefore, the golden plate may still provide atonement in that case.
The question against the Elders of the South remains: They said that after the fact, if a person brings a Passover offering while impure, the offering is valid. Yet the teaching concerning the golden plate appears to say that the plate provides atonement only for impurity of the offering itself, not for the impurity of the person bringing it. If the person himself is impure, the offering may not be valid.
The Elders of the South answer that the teaching is referring to impurity caused by a creeping creature in the offering itself, not in the person. The offering is an animal, and if the animal became impure through contact with a creeping creature, the golden plate provides atonement. The reason is that impurity is generally associated with the leniency that impurity may be permitted for the public.
But if the owner became impure through contact with a creeping creature, that is a different matter. The owner may send the offering, and the offering is valid after the fact according to the Elders of the South, but the teaching about the golden plate is not discussing that case. It is discussing impurity that affected the sacred offering itself.
Let us now summarize the central dispute. Everyone agrees that a priest may not initially perform the service while impure. The entire disagreement concerns what happens after the fact. The Elders of the South say that if the priest became impure through contact with a corpse, his service is valid after the fact. Ulla and Resh Lakish challenge this through a logical inference from the law of the owners of the offering.
Regarding the Passover offering, an individual who is impure through contact with a corpse should wait for the second Passover. The question is what happens if he brought the offering at the first Passover anyway. One position says that it is valid after the fact, because eating is not indispensable. Another position says that the offering is invalid, because the verses concerning eating and registration teach that the offering must be brought for people who can eat it.
The dispute also concerns the golden plate of the High Priest. The plate provides atonement for certain impurities affecting offerings, but not for every impurity. It does not atone for pigul, and it does not atone for every form of bodily impurity. The Gemara examines whether the relevant impurity is that of the offering, the priest, or the owners.
According to the Elders of the South, the Mishnah can be read as referring to the priest, and the service of a priest who became impure through contact with a creeping creature is invalid after the fact. Unknown impurity from a corpse or a creeping creature may be covered by the golden plate. According to Rami bar Hama, the Mishnah is referring to the owners, and an offering brought by owners who became impure through contact with a corpse is invalid even after the fact.
Now we turn to a different issue concerning the service of a priest while sitting. We know that a priest must stand while performing the service. If a priest comes to a rabbi and says, “I am impure; may I perform the service?” the answer is no. Everyone agrees that he may not serve initially. The dispute concerns only what happens after the fact.
The same applies to a priest who performs the service while sitting. The Torah uses repeated language to teach that the service is invalid. Sitting is compared to the service of a non-priest, and the service of a non-priest is invalid.
One might therefore think that a priest who performs the service while sitting should be liable to death at the hands of Heaven, just as a non-priest who performs the service is liable. But we learned that a priest who performs the service while sitting is prohibited, yet he is not liable to death.
The Gemara explains that the liability for death applies in the cases of a priest who is missing the required garments or who has not washed his hands and feet. Two verses teach this same principle. When two verses teach the same law, we do not apply that law to other cases. Therefore, the liability of death is limited to those cases and does not extend to a priest who performs the service while sitting.
There is, however, a further question. Perhaps the rule concerning two verses should not prevent us from learning the law of sitting from the case of a non-priest. The argument would not be based on either of the two verses concerning missing garments or washing the hands and feet. Rather, it would be based on the law of a non-priest: just as a non-priest who performs the service is liable to death, so too a priest who performs the service while sitting should be liable to death, since his service is treated as the service of a non-priest.
The response is that the comparison is not necessarily valid. There are many verses concerning invalid service, and one cannot automatically transfer the penalty from one case to another. The fact that sitting invalidates the service does not necessarily mean that the priest receives the same penalty as a non-priest.
The question can be formulated more precisely. How do we know that sitting invalidates the service? The Torah says so through repeated language. But perhaps that repetition teaches only that the service is invalid, not that the priest is liable to death. The laws of a priest missing garments and a priest who has not washed his hands and feet may be limited to those specific cases.
The Gemara discusses whether two verses that teach the same law prevent all further learning, or only prevent learning directly from those two verses. If one wanted to learn the law of sitting from the verses concerning missing garments and unwashed hands and feet, then the rule of two verses would prevent that derivation. But perhaps the source is instead the law of the non-priest, and the two verses are irrelevant to that derivation.
There is also a case involving a priest who drank wine. The Torah contains several verses teaching that a priest who drinks wine may not perform the service and is liable to death at the hands of Heaven. Since there are three verses, the Gemara considers whether the rule of “two verses” or the existence of three verses affects the possibility of deriving the law of sitting from another case.
The conclusion of this discussion is that the priest who serves while sitting has performed an invalid service, but he is not liable to death at the hands of Heaven. The liability of death is restricted to the cases explicitly included by the verses, such as a priest who is missing the required garments or who failed to wash his hands and feet. Sitting remains prohibited and invalidates the service, but the penalty of death is not extended to it.