Sanhedrin 165

לא משום זרות ולא משום טומאה ולא משום מחוסר בגדים ולא משום רחוץ ידים ורגלים

on account of zaruth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the prohibition of a zar (a non-priest) to officiate in the Temple: a zar who performs any of these services is not punished, as none of these functions form the concluding part of a service. ');">¹</span>

הא מקטר חייב מאי לאו מיתה לא באזהרה

uncleanliness, lack of [priestly] garments<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priest had to officiate in the special garments prescribed in Ex. XXVIII; if he did not wear them all whilst engaged in any of these, he incurs no liability. ');">²</span>

אלא זר נמי לאזהרה והכתיב (במדבר יח, ז) והזר הקרב יומת הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא

or the [non-] washing of hands and feet.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (Zeb. 112b), V. Ex. XXI, 17f. ');">³</span>

מכלל דיוצק ובולל לאו נמי לא והתניא אזהרה ליוצק ובולל מניין ת"ל (ויקרא כא, ו) קדושים יהיו ולא יחללו מדרבנן וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא

[This implies,] but if he burned incense,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A function completing a service. ');">⁴</span>

מיתיבי ואלו הן שבמיתה טמא ששימש תיובתא:

he is liable, and presumably [his liability is] to death<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But since uncleanliness is mentioned, it follows that a ritually unclean priest who offered incense is liable to death. This contradicts R. Shesheth's ruling. ');">⁵</span>

גופא ואלו שבמיתה האוכל את הטבל וכהן טמא שאכל תרומה טהורה וזר שאכל את התרומה וזר ששימש וטמא ששימש וטבול יום ששימש ומחוסר בגדים ומחוסר כפרה ושלא רחץ ידים ורגלים ושתויי יין ופרועי ראש

— [No;] merely in respect of a prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is merely regarded as having transgressed an ordinary prohibition. ');">⁶</span>

אבל ערל ואונן ויושב אינן במיתה אלא באזהרה בעל מום רבי אומר במיתה וחכ"א באזהרה

But if so, the Zaruth mentioned is likewise merely in respect of a prohibition: surely, it is written, And the stranger [zar] that cometh nigh shall be put to death<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 7. ');">⁷</span>

הזיד במעילה רבי אומר במיתה וחכ"א באזהרה

— Each has its own ruling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for uncleanliness there is a mere prohibition: for zaruth, death. ');">⁸</span>

האוכל את הטבל מנלן דאמר שמואל משום ר"א מניין לאוכל את הטבל שהוא במיתה דכתיב (ויקרא כב, טו) ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל [את] אשר ירימו לה' בעתידים לתרום הכתוב מדבר

Now it follows that not even a negative precept is transgressed for pouring and mingling [under the conditions enumerated]; but it has been taught: Whence do we derive a negative precept for the pouring and mingling [of the oil by an unclean priest]? — From the verse, They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane [the name of their God]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 6. This is referred to the performance of one of these services whilst unclean. ');">⁹</span>

ויליף חילול חילול מתרומה מה להלן במיתה אף כאן במיתה

— The prohibition is Rabbinical only, the verse being a mere support. An objection was raised: The following are liable to death [at the hands of Heaven … an unclean [priest] who performed the [Temple] service, (etc.).] This definitely refutes his [R. Shesheth's] ruling.

ונילוף חילול חילול מנותר מה להלן בכרת אף כאן בכרת

To turn to the main [Baraitha]: The following are liable to death [at the hands of Heaven]: One who ate <i>tebel</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁰</span>

מסתברא מתרומה הוה ליה למילף שכן תרומה חוצה לארץ הותרה ברבים פירות פיגול ונותר

an unclean priest who ate undefiled <i>terumah</i>, a zar or an unclean [priest] who performed [the Temple service], or one who performed it on the day of his ritual bath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tebbul Yom. Lit., 'one who immersed during the day'. An unclean priest purified himself by taking a ritual bath: yet even then he could not officiate until after sunset. ');">¹¹</span>

אדרבה מנותר הוה ליה למילף שכן פסול אוכל אין לו היתר במקוה הנך נפישן רבינא אמר חילול דרבים מחילול דרבים עדיף

or lacking the proper [priestly] garments, or lacking the [sacrificial] atonement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A priest who became unclean through the dead was sprinkled with the ashes of the red heifer mixed with water; then he took a ritual bath; and on the eighth day of his uncleanliness, he offered a sacrifice, which made atonement for him. Before this, he is regarded as one 'lacking atonement', and may not officiate. ');">¹²</span>

וכהן טמא שאכל תרומה טהורה מנלן דאמר שמואל מניין לכהן טמא שאכל תרומה טהורה שהוא במיתה בידי שמים דכתיב (ויקרא כב, ט) ושמרו את משמרתי ולא ישאו עליו חטא וגו'

one who did not wash his hands and feet, or drank wine, or a priest with over-grown locks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., who has not trimmed his hair for thirty days or more. ');">¹³</span>

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: