Sanhedrin 167
אונן מנלן דכתיב (ויקרא כא, יב) ומן המקדש לא יצא ולא יחלל את מקדש אלהיו הא אחר שלא יצא חילל
Whence do we know it of an onen? — Because it is written, Neither shall he [sc. the onen High Priest] go out of the sanctuary, yet shall he not profane the sanctuary of his God:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 12. By 'not going out' continuance of the service is meant. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
א"ל רב אדא לרבא ונילף חילול חילול מתרומה מה להלן במיתה אף כאן במיתה
hence, if any other [priest] does not go out, he profanes [the sanctuary]. R. Adda said to Raba: Then let us derive [identity of law] from the use of 'profanation' here and in the case of <i>terumah</i>: just as there the punishment is death, so here too? — Is then the [prohibition] of an onen explicitly stated in that verse? It is only inferred [from the High Priest]. Hence it is a law derived from a general proposition, and such cannot be further subjected to deduction by a <i>gezerah shawah</i>.
מי כתיב ביה בגופיה מכללא קאתי הוי דבר הבא מן הכלל וכל דבר הבא מן הכלל אין דנין אותו בגזרה שוה
Whence do we know it of one who officiates whilst sitting? — Raba said in R. Nahman's name: The Writ saith, For the Lord thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVIII, 5. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
בעל מום ר' אומר במיתה וחכמים אומרים באזהרה מ"ט דרבי דכתיב (ויקרא כא, כג) אך אל הפרוכת לא יבא וגו' ויליף חילול חילול מתרומה מה להלן במיתה אף כאן במיתה
If a priest with a blemish [officiated], Rabbi said: He is liable to death [at the hands of Heaven]; the Sages maintain: He is merely prohibited. What is Rabbi's reason? — Because it is written, Only he shall not go in unto the vail, [nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish]; that he profane not my sanctuaries.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 23. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ונילף חילול חילול מנותר מה להלן בכרת אף כאן בכרת
Then the law is derived from the use of 'profanation' here and in the case of <i>terumah</i>; just as there the penalty is death, so here too. But let it rather be derived from nothar; just as there the penalty is extinction, so here too? — It is more reasonable to make the deduction from <i>terumah</i>, for thus bodily unfitness is derived from bodily unfitness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 552, n. 1. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
מסתברא מתרומה הוה ליה למילף שכן פסול הגוף מפסול הגוף אדרבה מנותר הוה ליה למילף שכן קודש פנים פיגול ונותר
On the contrary, is it not preferable to base the analogy on nothar, since they share the following in common: [i] sanctity, [ii] within the Temple precincts, [iii] piggul and [iv] nothar?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 553, n. 4. The same applies to a blemished priest. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
אלא מטמא ששימש גמר פסול הגוף מפסול הגוף קודש פנים פיגול ונותר מקודש פנים פיגול ונותר
— But the analogy is drawn from an unclean priest who officiated; thus bodily unfitness is derived from bodily unfitness, and a case distinguished by sanctity, the inner precincts of the Temple, piggul and nothar derived from another so distinguished. But the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In view of this deduction, why do they maintain that he is merely prohibited? ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
הזיד במעילה רבי אומר במיתה וחכמים אומרים באזהרה מאי טעמא דרבי אמר ר' אבהו גמר חטא חטא מתרומה מה להלן במיתה אף כאן במיתה
implying but not for the sin of being blemished.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., there is no death penalty for transgressing the prohibition particularly applying to a blemished priest, viz., performing the Temple service. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ורבנן אמרי אמר קרא בו בו ולא במעילה:
'If he deliberately transgressed in respect of a trespass offering, Rabbi said: He is liable to death; and the Sages maintain: He is merely prohibited.' What is Rabbi's reason? — R. Abbahu said: He derives identity of law from the fact that 'sin' is used here and in the case of <i>terumah</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Trespass: If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the Lord. (Lev. V, 15); Terumah: Lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore (Ibid. XXII, 9). ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
זר ששימש במקדש: תניא רבי ישמעאל אומר נאמר כאן (במדבר יח, ז) והזר הקרב יומת ונאמר להלן (במדבר יז, כח) כל הקרב הקרב אל משכן ה' ימות מה להלן בידי שמים אף כאן בידי שמים
just as there, the penalty is death, so here too. But the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Do they not admit this deduction? ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ר"ע אומר נאמר כאן והזר הקרב יומת ונאמר להלן (דברים יג, ו) והנביא ההוא או חולם החלום ההוא יומת מה להלן בסקילה אף כאן בסקילה רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר מה להלן בחנק אף כאן בחנק
They maintain, the Writ saith, and die therefore:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
במאי קמיפלגי רבי עקיבא ורבי יוחנן בן נורי בפלוגתא דרבי שמעון ורבנן דתניא נביא שהדיח בסקילה ר"ש אומר בחנק הא אנן תנן רבי עקיבא אומר בחנק
A ZAR WHO OFFICIATED IN THE TEMPLE. It has been taught: R. Ishmael said: It is here written, And the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 7. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
תרי תנאי ואליבא דרבי עקיבא מתניתין ר' שמעון ואליבא דר' עקיבא ברייתא רבנן ואליבא דרבי עקיבא:
whilst it is elsewhere said, Whosoever cometh anything near unto the tabernacle of the Lord shall die:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVII, 28. This refers to the plague which followed Korah's rebellion. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך אלו הן הנשרפין</strong></big><br><br>
just as there death was at the hands of Heaven, so here too. R. Akiba said: It is here written, And the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death; whilst it is elsewhere said, And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIII, 6. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> just as there, it is by stoning, so here too. R. Johanan b. Nuri said: Just as there, it is by strangling, so here too. Wherein do R. Ishmael and R. Akiba differ? — R. Akiba maintains, 'shall be put to death' must be compared with 'shall be put to death' but not with 'shall die'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. verses quoted. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> Whilst R. Ishmael maintains, a layman must be compared to a layman, but not to a prophet. But R. Akiba avers, Since he seduced, no man is more of a layman than he.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he has lost all claims to the prophetic title. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> Wherein, do R. Akiba and R. Johanan b. Nuri differ? — In the dispute of R. Simeon and the Rabbis. For it has been taught: If a prophet seduced, he is stoned; R. Simeon said: he is strangled. But we learnt, R. AKIBA SAID, HE [THE ZAR] IS STRANGLED?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which contradicts the passage quoted where R. Akiba says that he is stoned. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> — Two Tannaim differ as to R. Akiba's ruling: our Mishnah is taught on R. Simeon's view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the false prophet is strangled, and from this he derives the law of a zar. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> as to R. Akiba's ruling; whilst the Baraitha [stating that the zar is stoned, and that this is derived from the false prophet] gives the Rabbis' view as to R. Akiba's ruling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both the Rabbis here mentioned and R. Simeon being R. Akiba's disciples. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>