Commentary for Sanhedrin 165:15

טהורה אין טמאה לא דאמר שמואל א"ר אליעזר מניין לכהן טמא שאכל תרומה טמאה שאינו במיתה שנאמר ומתו בו כי יחללוהו

But the performance of the service by an uncircumcised [priest], an onen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A mourner before the burial of a near relative, e.g.. father. ');">¹⁴</span> or by one who officiated whilst sitting is not liable to death, but merely prohibited. If a priest with a blemish [officiated], Rabbi said: He is liable to death; the Sages maintain: He is merely prohibited. If he deliberately transgressed in respect of a trespass offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., be benefited from a holy thing. for the secular (unwitting) use of which one is bound to bring a trespass offering; cf. Lev. V, 14ff. ');">¹⁵</span> Rabbi said: He is liable to death. and the Sages say: He transgressed a mere prohibition. Now, whence do we know it of one who eats <i>tebel</i>? — As Samuel said on the authority of R. Eliezer: Whence do we know that one who eats <i>tebel</i> is liable to death? From the verse, And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they shall offer to the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 15. ');">¹⁶</span> Now, the verse refers to that which is yet to be offered;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verb [H] is imperfect ('which they shall offer') and hence refers to 'holy things' — i.e., terumah — which is yet to be separated from the produce, so that it is all tebel. ');">¹⁷</span> and then identity of law is learnt from the use of 'profanation' here and in the case of <i>terumah</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 9: They shall therefore keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it. This refers to the eating of terumah by an unclean priest. ');">¹⁸</span> just as there the penalty is death, so here too. But let us rather learn [the penalty] from the use of profanation here and in the case of nothar:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That which is left over of the sacrifice after the time appointed for eating. Ibid. XIX, 6, 8: And if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in fire&nbsp;… Therefore every one that catch it shall bear his iniquity, because he hath profaned the hallowed thing of the Lord: and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. ');">¹⁹</span> just as there, the penalty is extinction. so here too? — It is logical to make the deduction from <i>terumah</i>, because they are equal in the following points: — [i] <i>terumah</i>, [ii] extra-territoriality, [iii] annulment, [iv] plural form, [v] land produce. [vi] piggul, and [vii] nothar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both deal with terumah, as tebel too is forbidden on account of the unseparated terumah which it contains. Neither terumah nor tebel operated outside Palestine, but nothar was forbidden in the wilderness too. Further, both of these prohibitions can be annulled: that of the unclean priest by a ritual bath; tebel, by separating its terumah: but under no circumstances can the prohibition of nothar be annulled. Profanation in both cases is stated in plural form: tebel: And they shall not profane etc. terumah: … if they profane it; but nothar has its use in the singular … because he hath profaned. Tebel and terumah apply to land produce (cereals and fruits); nothar to animals. Finally, the law of piggul (v. Glos) and nothar is inapplicable to tebel and terumah. ');">²⁰</span> On the contrary, should not the deduction rather be made from nothar, since they are alike in the following points: [i] unfitness of food and [ii] no annulment of prohibition by a mikweh?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of tebel and nothar the substance itself is forbidden; but the terumah is not forbidden, only that the priest is unclean. Also the prohibition of tebel and nothar cannot be annulled through a mikweh (ritual bath); but that of terumah ceases when the priest takes a ritual bath. ');">²¹</span> — Even so, those [<i>tebel</i> and <i>terumah</i>] have more points in common. Rabina answered: The use of the plural form is certainly a stronger link.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the fourth point which tebel and terumah have in common is itself sufficient to justify the preference for terumah, as the basis for deduction, rather than nothar. ');">²²</span> And whence do we know that an unclean priest who ate undefiled <i>terumah</i> [is liable to death]? — As Samuel said: Whence do we know that an unclean priest who ate undefiled <i>terumah</i> is punished by death at the hands of Heaven? From the verse, Therefore they shall keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 9. ');">²³</span> This [however] applies only to undefiled, but not to polluted <i>terumah</i>: for Samuel said in R. Eliezer's name: Whence do we know that an unclean priest who ate unclean is not liable to death? — From the verse, and die therefore, if they profane it:

Explore commentary for Sanhedrin 165:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.