Zevachim 17aזבחים י״ז א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
17aי״ז א

אלא איכא למיפרך הכי ואיכא למיפרך הכי כל חדא וחדא תיקו בדוכתיה:

Rather, one can derive this way and one can derive that way. Since these derivations contradict one another, each and every halakha shall stand in its place and not modify the other by a fortiori inference.

טבול יום: מנלן דתניא רבי סימאי אומר רמז לטבול יום שאם עבד חילל מנין ת"ל (ויקרא כא, ו) קדושים יהיו ולא יחללו

§ The mishna teaches that sacrificial rites performed by one who immersed that day are disqualified. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: It is derived as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: From where in the Torah is the allusion with regard to a priest who immersed that day, that if he performed the Temple service he desecrated that service? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “They shall be sacred to their God and they shall not desecrate the name of their God” (Leviticus 21:6).

אם אינו ענין לטמא דנפיק (ויקרא כב, ב) מוינזרו תנהו ענין לטבול יום

If this verse is not written with regard to the matter of an impure priest who performed the Temple service, as that halakha is derived for us from the verse: “That they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel” (Leviticus 22:2), then apply it to the matter of a priest who immersed that day who performed the Temple service. Although he is no longer impure in every sense, the priest remains impure in the sense that he is prohibited from partaking of teruma and sacrificial food, and from entering the Temple.

אימא תנהו ענין לקורח קרחה ולמשחית פאת זקן

The Gemara asks: Why must the verse be applied to the matter of one who immersed that day? Say that one should apply it to the matter of one who creates a bald spot upon his head or to the matter of one who destroys his beard, as these matters are discussed in the preceding verse.

טבול יום דאם עבד במיתה מנא לן דגמר חילול חילול מתרומה דפסיל בתרומה מחיל עבודה דלא פסיל בתרומה לא מחיל עבודה

The Gemara responds: This verse is already used to indicate another halakha relating to one who immersed that day: From where do we derive that if one who immersed that day performed sacrificial rites, he is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven? As it is derived by verbal analogy between profanation mentioned in this context and profanation from teruma, as the verse states in this context: “And not profane the name of their God” (Leviticus 21:6), and the verse states with regard to teruma: “Lest they bear sin for it, and die therein, if they profane it” (Leviticus 22:9). It can be inferred from this verbal analogy that one who disqualifies teruma, i.e., one who immersed that day, profanes the Temple service, and one who does not disqualify teruma, i.e., one who creates a bald spot or one who destroys his beard, does not profane the service.

אמר רבה למה לי דכתב רחמנא טמא וטבול יום ומחוסר כפורים

§ Rabba said: Why do I need that which the Merciful One wrote, i.e., that an impure priest, and one who immersed that day, and one who has not yet brought an atonement offering all disqualify the rites they perform? Wouldn’t it have been enough to teach the halakha in only one case?

צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא טמא שכן מטמא בטבול יום מחוסר כפורים לא אתי מיניה שכן פסול בתרומה במחוסר כפורים טבול יום לא אתי מיניה שכן מחוסר מעשה

Rabba explains: All three are necessary, as in each case there is a stringency not present in the others. Therefore, had the Merciful One written only that an impure priest desecrates the service, one might say that this is because he imparts impurity to others, and since the other two cases do not, one cannot derive them from the case of an impure priest. And had the Merciful One written the halakha only with regard to one who immersed that day, then the case of one who has not yet brought an atonement offering could not be derived from it, since the former is unfit to partake of teruma while the latter is not. And had the Merciful One written the halakha only with regard to one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, then the case of one who immersed that day could not be derived from it, since only the former has not yet performed a necessary action, while one who immersed that day must simply wait for nightfall in order to become fully pure.

מחדא לא אתי תיתי חדא מתרתי

The Gemara asks: Still, why are all three necessary? Granted, from one of these cases the other two cannot be derived, but let one be derived from the other two.

בהי לא לכתוב רחמנא לא לכתוב במחוסר כפורים ותיתי מהנך מה להנך שכן פסולים בתרומה

The Gemara asks: Which of the three should the Merciful One not write? If one suggests: Let the Merciful One not write the halakha with regard to one who has not yet brought an atonement offering and derive it from these other two, an impure priest and one who immersed that day, one can reply: What is notable about these? They are notable in that they are unfit to partake of teruma. Since one who has not yet brought an atonement offering may partake of teruma, perhaps he does not disqualify rites he performs.

אלא לא לכתוב רחמנא בטבול יום ותיתי מהנך דמאי פרכת מה להנך שכן מחוסרים מעשה סוף סוף קלישא לה טומאתן

Rather, say: Let the Merciful One not write the halakha with regard to one who immersed that day and derive it from these other two, an impure priest and one who has not yet brought an atonement offering. As, what can you say to refute this? One cannot reply: What is notable about these; they are notable since they have not yet performed a necessary action, because ultimately their impurity, i.e., the impurity of one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, is weak when compared to one who immersed that day, and relatively speaking, one who has not yet brought an atonement offering is not considered to be lacking the performance of an action.