Halakhah for Zevachim 67:4
אם כן לימא קרא בקודש מאי בכל קודש ש"מ תרתי
Resh Lakish maintained [that] he is flagellated, [for it is written,] 'She shall touch no hallowed thing', no distinction be drawn whether it is before sprinkling or after sprinkling. While R'Johanan ruled [that] he is not flagellated, as Bardela taught: 'It is derived from the recurring expression, 'his uncleanness', and that is written after th sprinkling'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the forewarning is learned from the penalty, and the penalty of kareth is only incurred after the sprinkling, v. Men. 25b. - Returning to our subject, we see that Resh Lakish utilises the text for a different purpose.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
Sefer HaChinukh
From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Zevachim 33b) that the impurity for which we are liable is when one is made impure by a Torah-level impurity, for which we are liable excision - the understanding is for approaching the Temple and its consecrated things, as we wrote above (Sefer HaChinukh 123). And that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Zevachim 34a) that we are not liable for eating of the holy that has things that permit it, until those things that permit it have been brought - meaning to say its entrails. And likewise did they, may their memory be blessed, instruct us (Meilah 10a) that we are not liable on account of pigul or notar or on account of [being] impure, until those things that permit it have been properly brought. And [regarding] anything that does not have things that permit it, once it has been consecrated in a vessel, we are [potentially] liable for it. And the rest of its details are in the thirteenth chapter of Zevachim (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sacrifices Rendered Unfit 18).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy