Sanhedrin 166

Chapter 166

א פרט לזו שמחוללת ועומדת:

1 excluding this [unclean terumah], which already stands profaned.

ב וזר שאכל את התרומה: אמר רב זר שאכל את התרומה לוקה אמרי ליה רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב לימא מר במיתה דכתיב (ויקרא כב, י) וכל זר לא יאכל קדש

2 A zar who ate terumah: Rab said: A zar who ate terumah is flagellated. R. Kahana and R. Assi said to him: Why does not the master say — is liable to death, since it is written, there shall no stranger eat of the holy thing?1

ג אני ה' מקדשם הפסיק הענין מיתיבי ואלו הן שבמיתה זר האוכל את התרומה מתניתא אדרב קא רמית רב תנא הוא ופליג:

3 — I the Lord do sanctify them breaks across the subject.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Vv. 9 and 10 read: … and die therefore, if they profane it: I the Lord do sanctify them. There shall be no stranger eat of the holy thing. 'I the Lord do sanctify them' clearly marks a break: consequently the penalty of death stated in v. 9. does not apply to the prohibition of v. 10. ');">2

ד וזר ששימש דכתיב (במדבר ג, י) והזר הקרב יומת:

4 An objection is raised: The following are liable to death: … a zar who ate terumah? — Do you oppose a Baraitha to Rab's ruling? Rab is a Tanna, and may dispute [the ruling of Baraitha.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whilst it is axiomatic that an Amora cannot disagree with a Tanna, unless he finds a support in another Tanna, Rab, as a younger contemporary of Rabbi, stood midway between the last generation of the Tannaim and the first of Amoraim; and although generally assigned to the latter, he is occasionally, as here, conceded to be a Tanna, owing to his personal greatness and vast erudition. ');">3

ה וטמא ששימש כדבעא מיניה רב חייא בר אבין מרב יוסף מניין לטמא ששימש שהוא במיתה דכתיב (ויקרא כב, ב) דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו וינזרו מקדשי בני ישראל ולא יחללו את שם קדשי

5 'A zar who performed the [Temple] service': for it is written, And the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.4

ו ויליף חילול חילול מתרומה מה להלן במיתה אף כאן במיתה

6 'Or an unclean [priest] who performed the [Temple] service:' even as R. Hiyya b. Abin inquired of R. Joseph: Whence do we know that an unclean priest who performed the [Temple] service is punished by death? Because it is written, Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my holy name.5

ז ונילף חילול חילול מנותר מה להלן כרת אף כאן כרת

7 And identity of law is derived from the use of 'profanation' here and in the case of terumah; just as there the penalty is death, so here too. But should not the deduction rather be made from nothar: just as there the penalty is extinction, so here too? — It is reasonable to make the deduction from terumah, because they have the following in common: — [i] bodily [unfitness], [ii] uncleanliness, [iii] mikweh, [iv] plural form.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both the eating of terumah and the sacrificial service are prohibited to the priest through his bodily unfitness. Also, this bodily unfitness in both cases is uncleanliness (this is counted as a second point, since bodily unfitness may be for some other cause, viz., a blemish). Further, in both cases, the unfitness can be remedied by a ritual bath. And finally, profanation in both cases is ascribed to many (v. p. 551, n. 8). Nothar differs on all these points. ');">6

ח מסתברא מתרומה הוה ליה למילף שכן גוף טמא מקוה ברבים

8 On the contrary, should not the deduction rather be made from nothar, since they share the following in common: [i] sanctity, [ii] within [the Temple court], [iii] piggul and [iv] nothar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both the eating of nothar and the sacrificial service by an unclean priest are offences in respect of the extreme sanctity of sacrifices. Terumah, however, is of a lower degree of sanctity. Also, they are done within the Temple precincts. Again, piggul is possible in both cases, for the unclean priest too whilst engaged in sacrificing might have intended eating the flesh beyond its appointed time, as nothar in fact has so been left. And finally, he might actually have eaten it thus. (The last two are counted as two distinct points, since the mere expressed intention of eating the flesh beyond its appointed time is an offence, even if not done subsequently. The actual eating again, is another and separate offence.) None of these, however, is applicable to the eating of terumah by an unclean priest. ');">7

ט אדרבה מנותר ה"ל למילף שכן קדש פנים פיגול ונותר חילול דרבים מחילול דרבים עדיף:

9 — Even so, the fact that in both cases [viz. terumah and the sacrificial service] profanation is spoken of as an act of many [unlike nothar], outweighs [the points which sacrificial service and nothar have in common].

י טבול יום ששימש: מנלן דתניא ר' סימאי אומר רמז לטבול יום שאם עבד חילל מניין ת"ל (ויקרא כא, ו) קדושים יהיו לאלהיהם ולא יחללו

10 'Or one who performed it on the day of his ritual bath'. Whence do we know this? — Even as has been taught: R. Simai said: Where is the allusion that one who officiated in the Temple on the day of his ritual bath has committed an act of profanation? From the verse, They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane [the name of their God].8

יא אם אינו ענין לטמא ששימש דנפקא לן מוינזרו תניהו ענין לטבול יום ששימש

11 Since this cannot refer to the ministration of an unclean priest, [the prohibition of which] is derived from that they separate themselves,9

יב ויליף חילול חילול מתרומה מה להלן במיתה אף כאן במיתה:

12 apply it to a priest's officiating on the day of his ritual bath. Then an analogy is drawn from the use of 'profanation' both here and in the case of terumah: just as there, the penalty is death, so here too.

יג ומחוסר בגדים מנלן אמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן ומטו בה משמיה דרבי אלעזר בר' שמעון (שמות כט, ט) וחגרת אותם אבנט

13 'Or lacking the proper priestly garments'. Whence do we know it? — R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name, and [the teaching] is ultimately derived from R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon: [The Writ saith, And thou shalt … put coats upon them…] and thou shalt gird them with girdles. [Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them': and the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual state]:10

יד בזמן שבגדיהם עליהם כהונתם עליהם אין בגדיהם עליהם אין כהונתם עליהם והוו להו זרים ואמר מר זר ששימש במיתה:

14 when wearing the appointed garments, they are invested in their priesthood; when not, they lack their priesthood and are considered zarim,11

טו ומחוסר כפרה מנלן אמר רב הונא דאמר קרא (ויקרא יב, ח) וכפר עליה הכהן וטהרה טהרה מכלל שהיא טמאה ואמר מר טמא ששימש במיתה:

15 and a Master hath said, A zar who performs the [Temple] service is liable to death.

טז ושלא רחוץ ידים ורגלים מנלן דכתיב (שמות ל, כ) בבאם אל אהל מועד ירחצו מים ולא ימותו:

16 'Or one lacking the sacrificial atonement — Whence do we know this? — R. Huna said: The Writ saith, And the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.12

יז ושתויי יין דכתיב (ויקרא י, ט) יין ושכר אל תשת וגו':

17 'And she shall be clean' implies that hitherto she was unclean: and a Master hath said, An unclean priest who officiated is liable to death.

יח ופרועי ראש דכתיב (יחזקאל מד, כ) ראשם לא יגלחו ופרע לא ישלחו וכתיב בתריה ויין לא ישתו איתקש פרוע ראש לשתויי יין מה שתויי יין במיתה אף פרועי ראש במיתה:

18 'One who did not wash his hands or feet.' Whence do we know this? — From the verse, When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not.13

יט אבל ערל אונן יושב באזהרה ערל מנלן אמר רב חסדא דבר זה מתורת משה רבינו לא למדנו עד שבא יחזקאל בן בוזי ולמדנו (יחזקאל מד, ט) כל בן נכר ערל לב

19 'Or drank wine'. Because it is written, Do not drink wine or strong drink, [thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die].14 'Or a priest with overgrown locks'. As it is written, Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to remain unshorn;15 and this is followed by, Neither shall they drink wine:16 hence the former is likened to the latter: just as the latter is liable to death, so the former too. 'But the performance of the service by an uncircumcised [priest], an onen, or [by one who officiated whilst sitting is not liable to death, but merely prohibited.' Whence do we know it of the uncircumcised? — R. Hisda said: We did not learn this from the Torah of Moses our Teacher, until Ezekiel the son of Buzi came and taught it to us: No stranger, uncircumcised in heart,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter