Zevachim 34

קסבר מחוסר כפורים דזב כזב דמי

- He holds that a zab lacking atonement is as a zab.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Until he brings his sacrifice, not only must he not partake of the flesh of sacrifices, but he even incurs kareth for doing so just as a zab who has not had his ritual bath at all. Similarly, he defiles the flesh just as a zab does. (Rashi. Tosaf explains it differently.) Hence his uncleanness is not less at all. - Though a zab is mentioned, the same applies to a leper too.');">¹</span> Now, whether a zab lacking atonement is as a zab, is dependent on Tannaim. For it was taught: If an onen or one lacking atonement burns it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the red heifer, v. Num. XIX.');">²</span>

ומחוסר כפורים דזב כזב דמי תנאי היא דתניא שרפה אונן ומחוסר כפורים כשרה יוסף הבבלי אומר אונן כשרה מחוסר כפורים פסולה מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר מחוסר כפורים דזב כזב דמי ומר סבר לאו כזב דמי

it is fit Joseph the Babylonian said: If an onen [burns it], it is fit, [but] if one who lacks atonement burns it, it is unfit. Now surely they disagree in this: one Master holds that a zab lacking atonement is as a zab,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence his service is unfit, because Scripture specifies 'a man that is clean' (v. 9) .');">⁴</span> while the other Master holds that he is not as a zab!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he is clean.');">⁵</span>

לא דכולי עלמא כזב דמי והכא בהא קמיפלגי דכתיב (במדבר יט, יט) והזה הטהור מכלל שהוא טמא לימד על טבול יום שכשר בפרה

- No. All agree that he is as a zab, but here they disagree in the following: For it is written, And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 19.');">⁶</span> whence it follows that he is unclean, thus teaching that a tebul yom is fit [to officiate] at the [red] heifer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The clean person' is superfluous, as the preceding verse states 'and a clean person shall take hyssop' etc. The repetition is understood to indicate that even if his cleanness is not absolute, but relative only, he is fit, and we do find in Lev. XIV, 8 that a tebul yom is designated 'clean': And he shall bath himself in water and be clean.');">⁷</span>

מר סבר טומאה דכל התורה כולה ומר סבר טומאה דהך פרשה

Now, one Master holds: This applies to every form of uncleanness mentioned in the Torah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Including a tebul yom who had been a zab. He still lacks atonement, and thus Scripture teaches that although such is unfit elsewhere, an exception is made in the case of the red heifer.');">⁸</span> while the other Master holds that it applies to the uncleanness dealt with in this chapter only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that caused by contact with a dead body.');">⁹</span> Therefore an onen and a tebul yom rendered [originally] unclean through a [dead] reptile,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bah. emends omitting onen: therefore a tebul yom rendered (originally) unclean through a sherez or through carrion.');">¹⁰</span>

הלכך אונן וטבול יום דטמא שרץ דקילי אתו בקל וחומר מטבול יום דמת אבל מחוסר כפורים דזב דחמיר שכן טומאה יוצאה עליו מגופו לא:

who are less stringent, are derived a minori from a tebul yom rendered [originally] unclean through a dead body. But a zab who lacks atonement is not [thus derived], since he is more stringent, as his uncleanness proceeds from his own body. ONE LACKING THE [PRIESTLY] VESTMENTS.

מחוסר בגדים: מנלן אמר רבי אבוה אמר רבי יוחנן ומטו בה משמיה דרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון דאמר קרא (שמות כט, ט) וחגרת אותם אבנט אהרן ובניו וחבשת להם מגבעות והיתה להם כהונה לחקת עולם בזמן שבגדיהם עליהם כהונתם עליהם אין בגדיהם עליהם אין כהונתם עליהם

Whence do we know it? - Said R'Abbahu in R'Johanan's name, and some derive ultimately [the teaching] from R'Eleazar the son of R'Simeon: Because Scripture saith, And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and bind head-tires on them; and they shall have the priesthood by a perpetual statute:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIX, 9.');">¹¹</span> When wearing their [appointed] garments, they are invested with their priesthood; when not wearing their garments, they are not invested with their priesthood. Now, is this derived from the verse quoted?

והא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא דתניא מנין לשתויי יין שאם עבד חילל תלמוד לומר (ויקרא י, ט) יין ושכר אל תשת וגו' (ויקרא י, י) ולהבדיל בין הקודש ובין החול מחוסר בגדים ושלא רחוץ ידים ורגלים מנין

Surely it is derived from elsewhere? For it was taught: How do we know that if one who had drank wine officiates, he profanes [the sacrifices]? Because it is written, Drink no wine nor strong wine. that ye may put difference between the holy and the profane.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. X, 9f. This is interpreted as meaning that the officiating of such profanes, i.e., invalidates the sacrifice.');">¹²</span> How do we know [the same of] one who lacks [priestly] vestments and [of] one who had not washed his hands and feet?