Commentary for Zevachim 64:13

אמר ליה רבא אדרבה איפכא מסתברא מצורע היתירא הוא להא אישתראי ולהא לא אישתראי טומאה דחויה הוא מה לי חד דחויא מה לי שתי דחיות

he was permitted in respect of his nocturnal discharge. R'Joseph observed: 'Ulla holds [that] if the majority were zabin and they became unclean through the dead, since they are permitted in respect of their defilement, they are permitted in respect of their zibah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For zab (pl. zabim, zabin) , zibah v. Glos. If the majority of the community are unclean on the eve of Passover through the dead, they are permitted to offer the Passover-offering, as this uncleanness is inoperative (or superseded) in such circumstances. But if they are unclean as zabin, they may not offer. Now, if they were thus unclean, and then became unclean through the dead too, since they are permitted in respect of the latter, they are also permitted in respect of the former. This follows from 'Ulla's answer.');">¹⁷</span> Said Abaye to him, How can you compare? Uncleanness was permitted, but zibah was not permitted!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the uncleanness through the dead is permitted, yet since it came after zibah it cannot render that permitted too, for if it did it would create the absurd position that whereas zibah alone is not permitted, yet when defilement through the dead is added to it, it is permitted.');">¹⁸</span> Perhaps this is what you meant: If the majority are unclean through the dead and they become zabin, since they are permitted in respect of their uncleanness they are permitted in respect of their zibah? - Yes, he replied. Said he to him: Yet they are still not alike. [In the case of] a leper it is permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To project his hands into the Temple court.');">¹⁹</span> [and] since it is permitted [in respect of leprosy], it is permitted [in respect of his nocturnal discharge]. But defilement is [merely] superseded: in respect of one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. defilement through the dead.');">²⁰</span> it was superseded, [while] in respect of the other [zibah] it was not superseded? - Said Raba to him: On the contrary, the logic is the reverse: [In the case of] a leper it is permitted: then it is permitted in respect of one and not permitted in respect of the other. But uncleanness is superseded: What does it matter then whether it is superseded in one instance or whether it is superseded in two instances?

Explore commentary for Zevachim 64:13. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.