Zevachim 23aזבחים כ״ג א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Zevachim 23a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
23aכ״ג א

לפי אכלו למצוה

according to his eating, you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4)? This teaches that one may bring the Paschal offering only if he is able to partake of it. The Gemara responds: This requirement is also meant as a mitzva ab initio; it does not disqualify the offering if not fulfilled.

ולעכובי לא והתניא (שמות יב, ד) במכסת נפשות מלמד שאין הפסח נשחט אלא למנוייו שחטו שלא למנוייו יכול יהא כעובר על המצוה תלמוד לומר תכוסו הכתוב שנה עליו לעכב ואיתקש אוכלין למנויין

The Gemara asks: And is this requirement not indispensable even after the fact? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the phrase “according to the number of the souls” teaches that the Paschal offering may be slaughtered only for those who registered for it in advance. If the Paschal offering was slaughtered for individuals who did not register for it, one might have thought that it would only be like transgressing a mitzva, but the offering would not be disqualified. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall make your count”; the verse repeats the issue of counting to stress that the halakha is indispensable, and if one slaughters the offering for one who is not registered, it is disqualified. The Gemara concludes: And those who eat the offering are juxtaposed to those registered for it, as the verse states: “According to the number of the souls; a man, according to his eating.” Accordingly, if one slaughters the Paschal offering for one who cannot partake of it, the offering is disqualified.

זקני דרום לא מקשי וכי לא מקשי נמי מהא נמי אית להו פירכא ומה במקום שנטמאו בעלים בשרץ שמשלחין קרבנותיהם לכתחילה כהן שנטמא בשרץ אינו מרצה מקום שנטמאו בעלים במת שאין משלחין קרבנותיהן לכתחילה כהן שנטמא במת אינו דין שאינו מרצה

The Gemara responds: The Elders of the South do not juxtapose the phrases, i.e., they do not interpret the verse’s juxtaposition of the two phrases as significant. The Gemara asks: But even if they do not juxtapose the phrases, there is a refutation to their statement from this inference as well: And just as in a case where the owner became impure due to a creeping animal, where he may send his offerings for sacrifice ab initio, a priest who became impure due to a creeping animal nevertheless cannot effect acceptance, then in a case where the owner became impure due to a corpse, where he may not send his offerings ab initio, is it not right that a priest who became impure due to a corpse cannot effect acceptance?

מיתיבי מפני שאמרו נזיר ועושה פסח הציץ מרצה על טומאת דם ואין הציץ מרצה על טומאת הגוף

Furthermore, the Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Pesaḥim 80b): As the Sages said that with regard to a nazirite and one who performs the rite of the Paschal offering, the frontplate effects acceptance for offerings sacrificed in a state of impurity of the blood, but the frontplate does not effect acceptance for offerings sacrificed in a state of impurity of the body of the individual bringing it.

במאי אילימא בטומאת שרץ האמרת שוחטין וזורקין על טומאת שרץ אלא טומאת מת וקתני אין הציץ מרצה אלמא נטמאו בעלים במת אין משלחין קרבנותיהם

The Gemara continues: To what impurity is it referring? If we say that it is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, didn’t you say above that according to the Elders of the South, one may slaughter the Paschal offering and sprinkle its blood for an owner who is in a state of impurity due to a creeping animal? Rather, it must be referring to impurity due to a corpse, and the mishna teaches: The frontplate does not effect acceptance. Evidently, if the owner became impure due to a corpse, he may not send his offerings for sacrifice, contrary to the opinion ascribed to the Elders of the South.

לא אי דאיטמו בעלים במת ה"נ הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנטמא כהן בשרץ

The Gemara responds: No, if the owner became impure due to a corpse, the frontplate indeed effects acceptance for the offering. The mishna is not referring to the owners of the offerings at all; rather, here we are dealing with a case where the officiating priest became impure due to a creeping animal.

אי הכי אימא סיפא ניטמא טומאת התהום הציץ מרצה הא תני רבי חייא לא אמרו טומאת התהום אלא למת בלבד למת למעוטי מאי לאו למעוטי טומאת התהום דשרץ

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: If it became known after the offering was brought that he had contracted ritual impurity imparted in the depths, i.e., a source of impurity that had been unknown at the time, the frontplate effects acceptance for the offering. This clause cannot be reconciled with the suggested interpretation of the mishna, since Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: They stated this halakha of impurity imparted in the depths only with regard to impurity due to a corpse. Now, when he says that it applies only to impurity due to a corpse, he means to exclude what? Does he not mean to exclude impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal in the depths? If so, the mishna cannot be referring to impurity due to a creeping animal.

לא למעוטי טומאת התהום דזיבה

The Gemara responds: No, Rabbi Ḥiyya means to exclude impurity imparted by a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva] in the depths. Impurity due to the corpse of a creeping animal, by contrast, is within the scope of the mishna.

ואלא הא דבעי רמי בר חמא כהן המרצה בקרבנותיהם הותרה לו טומא' התהום או לא הותרה לו טומאת התהום תפשוט דטומאת התהום הותרה לו דהא הכא בכהן קיימינא

The Gemara asks: But how is one to understand this dilemma that Rami bar Ḥama raises: With regard to a priest who effects acceptance for the offerings of the nazirite and the Paschal offering, was impurity imparted in the depths permitted for him or was impurity imparted in the depths not permitted for him? According to the Elders of the South, why not resolve the dilemma and conclude that impurity imparted in the depths was permitted for him, since they hold that we interpret the mishna here as referring to an impure priest?

דרמי בר חמא ודאי פליגי

The Gemara responds: The premise of this dilemma of Rami bar Ḥama certainly disagrees with the opinion of the Elders of the South, and Rami bar Ḥama does not interpret the mishna in this manner.

תא שמע (שמות כח, לח) ונשא אהרן את עון הקדשי' וכי איזהו עון נושא

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a verse written about the frontplate: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items, which the children of Israel shall consecrate, even all their sacred gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before God” (Exodus 28:38). And the Sages expounded: Which sin does Aaron bear?