זבחים כ״ג ב:י״א-כ״ד א:ב׳

If the verse means that he bears the sin of piggul, it is already stated: “And if any of the flesh of his peace offerings be at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to he who offers it” (Leviticus 7:18). If he bears the sin of notar, it is already stated in the same verse: “It shall not be accepted.”,Rather, the frontplate bears only the sin of impurity, whose general prohibition was permitted in cases involving the public. The verse indicates that the frontplate effects acceptance for individual offerings sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity.,The Gemara clarifies: What is the impurity borne by the frontplate? If we say that it effects acceptance for impurity due to a creeping animal, where does one find that the general prohibition was permitted in cases involving the public? Rather, it must be referring to impurity due to a corpse. And is it not referring to a case where the owner of the offerings became impure from a corpse? Evidently, if the owner became impure from a corpse, he may send his offerings for sacrifice, as the frontplate effects acceptance for them.,And to what offering is this statement referring? If it is referring to the offering of a nazirite, doesn’t the Merciful One state: “And if any man die very suddenly beside him, and he defile his consecrated head” (Numbers 6:9)? The passage indicates that even if a nazirite contracts impurity against his will, he still cannot bring his offerings until he is pure. Rather, it must be referring to one who performs the rite of the Paschal offering. This proves the claim of the Elders of the South that one who is impure due to a corpse may send his Paschal offering for sacrifice.,The Gemara responds: Actually, the statement is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, not due to a corpse. And although the general prohibition with regard to impurity due to a creeping animal was not permitted in cases involving the public, nevertheless, one finds that the category of impurity in general was permitted in such cases.,The Gemara notes: And some infer the opposite and derive like this: The verse states of the frontplate: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items” (Exodus 28:38). That is, it does bear the iniquity of the sacred items, but it does not bear the iniquity of those who consecrate or sacrifice them, i.e., the owners of the offering or the priests involved in its sacrifice. And to what impurity is this verse referring? If we say that it is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, is such impurity permitted in cases involving the public? Rather, is it not referring to impurity due to a corpse, and the verse indicates that the frontplate does bear the iniquity of the sacred items but does not bear the iniquity of those who consecrate them? This refutes the opinion of the Elders of the South that owners who are impure due to a corpse may send their offerings.,The Gemara responds: Actually, the verse is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, and although the general prohibition with regard to impurity due to a creeping animal was not permitted in cases involving the public, the category of impurity in general was permitted in such cases.,§ The mishna teaches that a priest who is sitting disqualifies the rites that he performs. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: The verse states with regard to the priests: “For the Lord your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to minister” (Deuteronomy 18:5). The verse indicates that I have chosen him for standing and not for sitting.,The Sages taught: “To stand to minister,” indicates that there is a mitzva to perform the service while standing. When it says: “Then he shall minister in the name of the Lord his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, who stand there before the Lord” (Deuteronomy 18:7), the verse repeats the matter to invalidate rites that are performed while not standing.,Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Now, one who is sitting is considered like a non-priest and desecrates the service. Therefore, I will say: Just as a non-priest who performs a rite is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, so too one who is sitting should be liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. If so, why is it taught in a baraita: But one who is uncircumcised, an acute mourner, and one who is sitting are not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven if they performed rites; rather, they simply transgress a prohibition?,The Gemara responds: That is taught because the case of a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments and that of one whose hands and feet are not washed are two verses that come as one, as the verse states explicitly for each case that if they perform rites they are liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. And any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to similar cases. Therefore, one cannot assume that analogous prohibitions carry penalty of death at the hand of Heaven as well.,And even according to the one who says that they do teach their common aspect, the prohibition against service by those who drank wine also contains explicit mention of death at the hand of Heaven and constitutes a third verse. And all agree that three verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect.,§ The mishna teaches that one who is standing upon vessels, or upon an animal, or upon the feet of another, is unfit to perform rites. The Gemara elaborates: From where do we derive this? This is derived as the Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since the floor of the Temple courtyard sanctifies the priest to perform the service, and service vessels, i.e., priestly vestments, also sanctify him, one may draw a comparison between the two: Just as with regard to service vessels, nothing may interpose between the priest and the service vessel, so too with regard to the floor, nothing may interpose between the priest and the floor.,The Gemara adds: And each of the three cases mentioned in the mishna is necessary. As, had the mishna taught us only that a vessel interposes between the priest’s feet and the floor, one might have thought that this is only because it is not a type of flesh, but with regard to an animal, which is a type of flesh, I will say that it does not constitute an interposition. And had it taught us only that an animal interposes, one might have thought that this is only because it is not of the human species, but another person, who is human, I will say that he does not interpose. Therefore, each is necessary.,It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: If one of the priest’s feet was on a vessel and one of his feet was on the floor, or if one of his feet was on a stone and one of his feet was on the floor, one sees: Any case where, were the vessel to be removed or the stone removed, he would still be able to stand on one foot and perform rites, his service is valid. But if he would not be able to stand on one foot, his service is disqualified.,Rabbi Ami raises a dilemma: If one of the stone tiles of the Temple floor came loose and began to wobble, and the priest stood on it, what is the halakha? The Gemara elaborates: Do not raise the dilemma with regard to a case where he does not intend to attach the stone to the floor again, as it certainly interposes in such a case, since it is considered an item separate from the Temple. Rather, when you raise this dilemma, do so with regard to a case where he intends to attach it again. In such a case, what is the halakha? Does one say that since he intends to attach it, it is considered like that which is already attached? Or perhaps now, at least, it is disconnected, and it is considered a separate item.,Rabba Zuti raises this dilemma like this: Rabbi Ami raises a dilemma: If one of the stone tiles was uprooted and the priest stood in its empty place, what is the halakha?,The Gemara interjects: What is the dilemma he is raising? Perhaps this is the dilemma: When King David sanctified the site of the Temple, did he sanctify the upper level of the floor but nothing underneath it, or perhaps he sanctified it to the depths of the earth? But if this is the dilemma, let him raise the dilemma with regard to the entire Temple courtyard, i.e., what is the halakha if the entire floor is removed?,The Gemara responds: Actually, it is obvious to him that King David sanctified the site of the Temple to the depths of the earth, and this is the dilemma that he raised: When a priest stands on an unfinished part of the Temple floor, is this a normal manner of ministration, or is this not a normal manner of ministration? Concerning the dilemma itself, the Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.,§ The mishna teaches: If the priest collected the blood with his left hand, the service is disqualified, and Rabbi Shimon deems it fit. The Sages taught: The verse states: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:25). The conjunction of the term “with his finger” and the term “and the priest shall take” teaches that the collection of the blood may be performed only with the right hand, since the word “finger” in the context of priesthood is always referring to the right hand. Likewise, the phrase “with his finger and put it” teaches that the placing of the blood may be performed only with the right hand.,Rabbi Shimon said: But is the word: Hand, stated with regard to the collection of the blood? Rather, the verse states only: “With his finger and put it,” teaching that the placing of the blood may be performed only with the right hand. Since the word: Hand, is not stated with regard to the collection of the blood, even if one collected the blood with his left hand, the offering is fit.,The Gemara asks: But as for Rabbi Shimon, whichever way you look at it, his opinion is difficult. If he holds that one derives a verbal analogy from the passage discussing a leper (Leviticus, chapter 14), which indicates that all references to hands and fingers mean specifically the right hand, then even if the word: Hand, is not stated with regard to the collection of the blood, what of it? In any event, the word “finger” is stated. And if he does not hold that one derives this verbal analogy, then even if the word: Hand, were stated with regard to the collection of the blood, what of it? The word would have no significance.,Rav Yehuda says: Actually, he does not hold that one derives this verbal analogy. And this is what Rabbi Shimon is saying: But is the phrase: Right hand, stated with regard to the collection of the blood? Rather, since the phrase: Right hand, is not stated with regard to the collection of the blood, even if one collected the blood with his left hand, the offering is fit.,Rabba said to him: If so, then even the rite of placing the blood should be valid when performed with the left hand, since the phrase: Right hand, does not appear with regard to it as well. And furthermore, does Rabbi Shimon really not hold that one derives this verbal analogy? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: In every instance in the Torah that the word “hand” is stated, the verse is referring only to the right hand, and whenever the verse mentions “finger,” it is referring only to a finger of the right hand?,Rather, Rava says: Actually, Rabbi Shimon holds that one derives this verbal analogy, and this is what he is saying: But is the word: Hand, stated with regard to the collection of the blood? Since the word: Hand, is not stated with regard to the collection of the blood, but the word “finger” is stated, and collection cannot be performed with a finger alone, one must conclude that the word “finger” must actually be referring to the placing of the blood. Therefore, while the placing of the blood must be performed with the right hand, if one collected the blood with his left hand, the offering is fit.,Rav Samma, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina: But it is possible to fashion a small handle for the rim of the bowl, and one could then hold the bowl with his finger and collect the blood in it. If so, it is possible for one to collect the blood with only his finger.,Rather, Abaye says: