Commentary for Zevachim 215:17

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חומר בשחיטה מבעלייה ובעלייה מבשחיטה

They disagree where the flesh [first] became unclean and then the [priest's] body became unclean : the Rabbis hold, We say miggo ['since']; whereas R'Jose the Galilean holds: We do not say miggo.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A clean person who eats unclean flesh is not liable to a sin-offering; an unclean person who eats clean flesh is liable. Now, in the latter case posited by Raba the flesh was already forbidden on account of its own uncleanness. Nevertheless the Rabbis hold that the interdict of personal uncleanness can fall upon the first and be added to it, because it is more comprehensive, as now not only is that piece forbidden to him, but all other pieces, and so we argue: since (miggo) he is interdicted in respect of other pieces, he is also interdicted through his personal uncleanness in respect of this piece too, though that is forbidden in any case. Consequently he is liable to a sin-offering. R. Jose does not accept this argument of miggo, and holds that since the flesh is already forbidden, his own uncleanness does not count at all, and he is not liable. If, however, he became unclean first, he was already forbidden to eat any flesh on pain of a sin-offering, simply because the flesh became unclean.');">⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Zevachim 215:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.