Quoting%20commentary for Zevachim 92:2

ולרבי שמעון דאמר דברים שאין נאכלין אין חייבין עליהם משום טומאה לאיתויי מאי לאיתויי חטאות הפנימיות

Said R. Simeon: That which is normally eaten etc. It was stated, R. Johanan and Resh Lakish, R. Eleazar and R. Jose son of R. Hanina [are the pairs concerned in the following discussion], one of the former pair and one of the latter pair: One maintained: The controversy [in the Mishnah] refers to uncleanness of the flesh; but in the case of personal uncleanness all agree that [the offender] is not flagellated. But the other maintained: As there is a controversy in the one case, so is there in the other. [Raba said, Logic supports the view that as there is a controversy in the one case, so is there in the other.] What is the reason? - Since the text, And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing is applicable to it, then the text having his uncleanness upon him is applicable to it too. That is how R. Tabyomi recited [this discussion]. R. Kahana recited [the views of] one of the former pair and one of the latter pair as referring to the final clause: One maintained: The controversy refers to personal uncleanness, but in the case of uncleanness of flesh all agree that he is flagellated. While the other maintained: As there is a controversy in the one case, so is there in the other. Raba said, Logic supports the view that as there is a controversy in the one case, so is there in the other. What is the reason? - Since the text, 'Having his uncleanness upon him', is not applicable to it, the text, 'And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing' is not applicable to it. But surely a master said: 'And the flesh' is to include the wood and the frankincense? - That is a mere disqualification. <br>

Explore quoting%20commentary for Zevachim 92:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.