Zevachim 35

Chapter 35

א תלמוד לומר (ויקרא י, ט) חוקה (שמות כט, ט) חוקה לגזירה שוה

1 Because 'statute' is written in connection with each, to serve as a gezerah shawah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. - In the present context: it shall be a statute for ever; the verse for one lacking atonement has been quoted in the text; the washing of the hands and feet: And it shall be a statute for ever to them (Ex. XXX, 21) . - The use of the same word in connection with all three teaches that the same law applies to all.');">1 - If [it were derived] from that verse, I would argue that it applies [only] to a service for which a zar is liable to death; but as fo service for which a zar is not liable to death, I would say that it is not so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture says, Drink no wine . when ye go into the tent of meetings, that ye die not. The Talmud interprets this as referring to a service which if performed by those unfit to do so involves death, viz., sprinkling the blood, burning the fats, and making the libations of water or wine. Now, the conditions of the various disqualifications, such as officiating without priestly vestments or without having washed the hands and feet, are deduced from those of a zar: where a zar incurs a penalty, officiating without vestments, etc. incurs a penalty. Hence as far as the present verse is concerned, since death is mentioned, I would think that the sacrifice is disqualified only where the death penalty is incurred.');">2

ב אי מהתם הוה אמינא הני מילי עבודה דזר חייב עליה מיתה אבל עבודה דאין זר חייב עליה מיתה אימא לא קמ"ל

2 hence we are informed [that it is not so]. We have thus found [it in the case of] one who lacks [priestly] vestments; how do we know it of one who has drunk wine?3

ג אשכחן מחוסר בגדים שתויי יין מנלן אתיא חוקה חוקה ממחוסר בגדים

3 -We deduce it from the word 'statute' [written here and] in the case of one who lacks vestments. But the Tanna deduces it from the text, That ye may put a difference etc. ? - That is before he has established the gezerah shawah.

ד והא תנא ולהבדיל בין וגו' קא נסיב לה מקמי דליקום גזירה שוה

4 But the Tanna learns [the law for] one who lacks vestments from that of one who drank wine? '4 - This is what he means: How do we know that no distinction is drawn between one who lacks vestments and one who drank wine or who did not wash his hands and feet?

ה והא תנא מחוסר בגדים הוא דקא יליף משתויי יין ה"ק מנין שלא נחלקו בין מחוסר בגדים לשתויי יין ושלא רחוץ ידים ורגלים תלמוד לומר חוקה חוקה לגזירה שוה

5 Because 'statute' is written in respect of each, to serve as a gezerah shawah.5 Then what is the need of 'that ye may put difference' etc.6

ו אלא להבדיל למה לי לכדרב דרב לא מוקים אמורא עליה מיומא טבא לחבריה משום שכרות

6 ? - To teach the practice of Rab. For Rab would not appoint an interpreter from one Festival day to the next, on account of drinking.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis gave their public addresses, in the course of which they taught the law, through the medium of an interpreter. Now, once Rab had ushered in the festival and had partaken of the meal, eating and drinking, he would not appoint an interpreter, i.e., he would not give such an address, until the following day, when the effect of the wine would have worn off. He learnt this from the present verse, 'that ye may put a difference between the holy and the profane', which he interpreted to mean that one must not drink before he comes to teach the law, whereby the difference between the holy and the profane is taught.');">7

ז אכתי מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא (ויקרא א, ז) ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן בכיהונו לימד על כהן גדול שלבש בגדי כהן הדיוט ועבד עבודתו פסולה

7 But still, is it deduced from this text? Surely it is deduced from elsewhere.

ח אי מהתם הוה אמינא ה"מ עבודה דמעכבא כפרה אבל עבודה דלא מעכבא כפרה לא

8 viz. , And the sons of Aaron th priest shall put [fire upon the altar].8 [which implies,] in his priestly state;9

ט ואכתי מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא (ויקרא א, ח) וערכו בני אהרן הכהנים את הנתחים וגו' הכהנים בכיהונן מכאן לכהן הדיוט שלבש בגדי כהן גדול ועבד עבודתו פסולה

9 this teaches that if a High Priest donned the vestments of an ordinary priest and officiated, his service is unfit? - If [we made the deduction] from the earlier text, I would argue that it applies only to a service which is essential for atonement, but not to a service which is not essential for atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as putting the fire upon the altar. Hence 'the priest' teaches that even for this service he must be in his priestly state. - Though the difficulty was apparently why the former verse was required, the answer shows that the real difficulty was why Scripture added 'the priest' in the verse now quoted.');">10 But still, is it deduced from this text?

י אי מהתם הוה אמינא הני מילי חיסור אבל ייתור לא קמ"ל:

10 Surely it is deduce from elsewhere, viz. , And Aaron's sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces etc.11 [which intimates,] 'the priests' in their priestly state, whence we learn that if an ordinary priest donned the vestments of a High Priest and officiated, his service is unfit? - If [we made the deduction] from the earlier text, I would argue that it applies only to an insufficiency [of vestments],12

יא תנו רבנן היו מרושלין מסולקין משוחקים ועבד עבודתו כשירה לבש שני מכנסים שני אבנטים חסר אחת יתר אחת או שהיתה לו רטיה על מכת בשרו תחת בגדו או שהיו

11 but not to an excess. Therefore it [the present text] informs us [that it is not so]. Our Rabbis taught: If [the priestly vestments] trailed [on the floor], or did not reach [the floor] or were threadbare, and [the priest] officiated [in them], his service is valid. But if he put on two pairs of breeches, two girdles, or if one [garment] was wanting, or if there was one too many, or if he had a plaster on a wound in his flesh, or if [his garments] were

Previous Chapter Next Chapter