Zevachim 33

אלא איכא למיפרך הכי ואיכא למיפרך הכי כל חדא וחדא תיקו בדוכתיה:

But you can refute it thus, and you can refute it thus;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' You can argue either way.');">¹</span> [therefore] let each one remain in its place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Assume each law to be without exceptions. Thus, when Scripture permits bereavement to a High Priest, it applies to both private and public sacrifices, while it is forbidden to an ordinary priest likewise in the case of both. Again, when uncleanness is forbidden in the case of a private sacrifice, the interdict applies to the High Priest also; on the other hand, when it is permitted in the case of public sacrifices, that applies to an ordinary priest too.');">²</span>

טבול יום: מנלן דתניא רבי סימאי אומר רמז לטבול יום שאם עבד חילל מנין ת"ל (ויקרא כא, ו) קדושים יהיו ולא יחללו

TEBUL YOM. Whence do we know it? - For it was taught, R'Simai said: Where is the allusion that if a tebul yom officiates he profanes [the sacrifice]?

אם אינו ענין לטמא דנפיק (ויקרא כב, ב) מוינזרו תנהו ענין לטבול יום

In the text , They [the priests] shall be holy. and not profane:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 6. The passage treats of defilement, among other things.');">³</span>

אימא תנהו ענין לקורח קרחה ולמשחית פאת זקן

since this cannot refer to an unclean [priest], for [his prohibition] is deduced from, That they separate themselves,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXII, 2; that verse forbids an unclean priest to officiate.');">⁴</span> apply it to a tebul yom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As intimating that he too must not officiate, and if he does, he 'profanes', i.e. , disqualifies the sacrifice.');">⁵</span>

טבול יום דאם עבד במיתה מנא לן דגמר חילול חילול מתרומה דפסיל בתרומה מחיל עבודה דלא פסיל בתרומה לא מחיל עבודה

Say, apply it to the making of a baldness and the shaving off of the corners of the beard?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is mentioned in the preceding verse, ibid. XXI, 5. Perhaps Scripture teaches that a priest who transgresses these interdicts 'profanes'');">⁶</span> - Since a tebul yom is liable to death for officiating (and how do we know that?

אמר רבה למה לי דכתב רחמנא טמא וטבול יום ומחוסר כפורים

because we deduce [similarity of law] from the use of 'profanation' here and in the case of terumah).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. The allusion is to Lev. XXII,9: They shall therefore keep My charge. (this refers to terumah, as the whole passage shews) lest they bear sin for it, and die therein, if they profane it. Since 'profanation' (i.e.. defilement) is punishable by death there, the same holds good here. It also follows conversely that the present passage can apply only to such as 'profane' terumah. - By 'death' is meant death at the hands of heaven, not actually capital punishment by man.');">⁷</span> [it follows that] he who is unfit [to partake of] terumah profanes the service [of sacrifice], whereas he who is not unfit [to partake of] terumah does not profane the service.

צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא טמא שכן מטמא בטבול יום מחוסר כפורים לא אתי מיניה שכן פסול בתרומה במחוסר כפורים טבול יום לא אתי מיניה שכן מחוסר מעשה

Rabbah said:Why must the Divine Law enumerate an unclean priest, a tebul yom, and one who lacks atonement?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are similar to one another, and therefore only one need be mentioned, and the others would follow by analogy.');">⁸</span> - They are all necessary.

מחדא לא אתי תיתי חדא מתרתי

For had the Divine Law written [the law for] an unclean priest [only, I would say that he disqualifies the sacrifice] because he defiles.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either the flesh of the sacrifice, or another person by contact.');">⁹</span> [If the law were written] with reference to a tebul yom, one who lacks atonement could not be derived from it, seeing that [the former] is disqualified [to partake] of terumah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which the latter is not.');">¹⁰</span>

בהי לא לכתוב רחמנא לא לכתוב במחוסר כפורים ותיתי מהנך מה להנך שכן פסולים בתרומה

[If it were written] with reference to one who lacks atonement, a tebul yom could not be learnt from it, seeing that [the former] lacks a [positive] act.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the offering of a sacrifice. But a tebul yom merely has to wait for sunset.');">¹¹</span> Now[one]cannot be derived from one [other], [but] let one be derived from two?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Let Scripture write the law with reference to two of these, and the third could be derived by analogy.');">¹²</span>

אלא לא לכתוב רחמנא בטבול יום ותיתי מהנך דמאי פרכת מה להנך שכן מחוסרים מעשה סוף סוף קלישא לה טומאתן

- In which should the Divine Law not write [this ruling]? Should it not write [it] with respect to one who lacks atonement, so that it might be inferred from the others, [it might be argued]: as for the others, [their peculiar feature is] that the are disqualified [to partake of] terumah. Rather, let not the Divine Law write it of a tebul yom, which could be inferred from the others. For how will you refute [the analogy]: as for these others, [the reason is that] they are wanting in a [positive] act?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The unclean priest must take a ritual bath.');">¹³</span> [This would be no refutation] for after all, its<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Reading as Rashi, which is preferable to cur. edd. 'their'.');">¹⁴</span> uncleanness is but slight!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The uncleanness of one who lacks atonement is slighter than that of a tebul yom, since the latter must still wait for sunset, but not the former. Hence the question remains, why must Scripture indicate the law for all three?');">¹⁵</span>