Zevachim 44

יצאו מי כיור שיש להם שם לווי אלא לאו דראויין למי כיור אלמא מים חיים נינהו

which excludes the water of the laver, which has a special name.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not called simply water, but the water of the laver.');">¹</span> Hence it surely means such as is fit for the water of the laver,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not the actual water of the laver.');">²</span>

תנאי היא דאמר ר' יוחנן מי כיור ר' ישמעאל אומר מי מעין הן וחכמים אומרים שאר מימות הן:

which proves that it must be 'living' water? - It is a controversy of Tannaim. For R'Johanan said: As for the laver, - R'Ishmael said: It is the water of a spring;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., running water.');">³</span>

ערל: מנלן אמר רב חסדא דבר זה מתורת משה רבינו לא למדנו מדברי יחזקאל בן בוזי למדנו (יחזקאל מד, ט) כל בן נכר ערל לב וערל בשר לא יבא אל מקדשי (לשרתני)

While the Sages maintain: It may be ordinary water. AN UNCIRCUMCISED [PRIEST].

ומנלן דמחלי עבודה דכתיב (יחזקאל מד, ז) בהביאכם (את) בני נכר ערלי לב וערלי בשר להיות במקדשי לחלל את ביתי:

Whence do we know it? - Said R'Hisda: We did not learn this from the Torah of Moses our Teacher, but from the words of Ezekiel the son of Buzi: No alien, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My sanctuary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XLIV, 9.');">⁴</span> And how do we know that they profane the service?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., make the sacrifice unfit.');">⁵</span>

תנו רבנן בן נכר יכול בן נכר ממש תלמוד לומר ערל לב אם כן מה תלמוד לומר בן נכר שנתנכרו מעשיו לאביו שבשמים ואין לי אלא ערל לב ערל בשר מנין תלמוד לומר וערל בשר

- Because it is written , In that ye have brought in aliens, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary, to profane it, even My house, [when ye offer My bread, the fat and the blood].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 6.');">⁶</span> Our Rabbis taught: [It says.] Alien: you might think that this means literally an alien; therefore Scripture teaches, uncircumcised in heart.

וצריכי דאי כתב רחמנא ערל בשר משום דמאיס אבל ערל לב דלא מאיס אימא לא ואי אשמעינן ערל לב משום דאין לבו לשמים אבל ערל בשר דלבו לשמים אימא לא צריכי:

If so, why does Scripture call him 'alien'? Because his actions are alien to hi Father in Heaven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They estrange him from God.');">⁷</span>

טמא פסול: אמרו זקני דרום לא שנו אלא טמא שרץ אבל טמא מת מתוך שמרצה בציבור מרצה נמי ביחיד

Now, I know only [that] the 'uncircumcised in heart'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An apostate.');">⁸</span> [invalidates the sacrifice]; how do I know that the uncircumcised in flesh [does likewise]?

אי הכי טמא שרץ נמי ליתי בקל וחומר מטמא מת מה טמא מת שטעון הזאה שלישי ושביעי מרצה טמא שרץ שאינו טעון הזאה ג' ושביעי אינו דין שמרצה

Because the text states, 'and uncircumcised in flesh.' And they are both necessary.

קסברי זקני דרום מכפרין כמתכפרין מה מתכפרין טמא מת אין טמא שרץ לא אף מכפרין טמא מת אין טמא שרץ לא

For if the Divine Law wrote [that] one uncircumcised in flesh [is disqualified]. I would say that the reason is because he is repulsive; but an uncircumcised in heart' is not repulsive, and so he is not disqualified.

מאי קסברי אי קסברי אין שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ אמאי לא עבדי ציבור בטומאה הא כל שביחיד נדחה ציבור עבדי בטומאה

And if we were informed about an 'uncircumcised in heart', I would say that the reason is that his heart is not toward Heaven, but [as for] an 'uncircumcised in flesh', whose heart is toward Heaven,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this is understood to refer to one whose brothers died through circumcision, so that he fears the operation, but would otherwise have it performed.');">⁹</span> he is not [disqualified].

אלא קסברי שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ

Thus both are necessary. AN UNCLEAN [PRIEST].

אמר עולא תקע להו ר"ל לדרומאי וכי איזה כח מרובה כח מכפרין או כח מתכפרין הוי אומר כח מתכפרין

IS DISQUALIFIED. The Elders of the South said: They learnt this only of [a priest] unclean through a reptile, but [as for] one unclean through a corpse, since [the headplate] propitiates in the case of a public sacrifice, it propitiates in the case of a private sacrifice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXVIII, 36-38: And thou shalt make a pale of pure gold . . and it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, and Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the holy things . . and it shall always be upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord. According to the Rabbis, this means that in virtue of the headplate a public sacrifice is 'accepted', i.e., valid, even if the whole congregation or all the officiating priests are unclean, and indeed must be offered at the very outset in such conditions, as the public sacrifice may not be postponed. This is technically called propitiating (making acceptable) . The matter is further explained in the text.');">¹⁰</span>

ומה במקום שנטמאו בעלים בשרץ משלחין קרבנותיהן כהן שנטמא בשרץ אינו מרצה מקום שנטמאו בעלים במת שאין משלחין קרבנותיהן כהן שנטמא במת אינו דין שאינו מרצה

If so, let it be deduced from one unclean through a corpse, a fortiori. [that] one unclean through a reptile too [does not invalidate the sacrifice]: if [the headplate] propitiates [in the case of] one unclean through a corpse, who must be besprinkled on the third and on the seventh [days of his defilement],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. XIX, 19.');">¹¹</span>

קסברי זקני דרום טמא מת [נמי] משלח קרבנותיו

surely [it] propitiates [in the case o one unclean through a reptile, who need not be besprinkled on the third and on the seventh [days]? - The Elders of the South hold that those who make atonement [the priests] are like those for whom atonement is made [the people]: as in the case of those for whom atonement is made, if they are unclean through a corpse [the headplate] does [propitiate], but if they are unclean through a reptile [it does] not,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., only when the whole or the majority of the nation is unclean through a corpse must the public sacrifice be brought.');">¹²</span> so are those who make atonement: one unclean through a corpse is [included in the propitiatory effect of the headplate].

והכתיב (במדבר ט, י) איש איש כי יהיה טמא ועשה פסח בחדש השני וגו' למצוה

whereas one unclean through a reptile is not [included]. What do they [these Elders] hold?

והא כתיב (שמות יב, ד) איש

If they hold, you may not slaughter [the Passover] and sprinkle [its blood] on behalf of one who is unclean through a reptile,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If an individual is unclean through a reptile and has not performed tebillah (q.v. Glos.) , though he can do so and be clean in the evening, nevertheless the Passover may not be slaughtered on his behalf, and he must postpone his sacrifice for the second Passover. There is an opposing view in Pes. 90b. k" r');"="">¹³</span> why may the community not sacrifice in uncleanness: surely [it is a principle that] wherever an individual is relegated [to the second Passover], the community celebrates it in uncleanness? Rather, they hold that you do slaughter and sprinkle on behalf of him who is unclean through a reptile.' Ulla said: Resh Lakish<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The original is and it is not clear what it stands for. Bah. suggests. Resh Galutha, the Head of the Exile.');">¹⁴</span> criticised the southern scholars: Now, whose power is greater, the power of those who make atonement, or the power of those for whom atonement is made? Surely the power of those for whom atonement is made.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the text proceeds to shew: the owner of a sacrifice can send it to the Temple even when he is unclean through a reptile, whereas a priest cannot officiate in like circumstances.');">¹⁵</span> Then if a priest who was unclean through a reptile cannot propitiate [officiate], though where the owners were defiled by a reptile they can send their sacrifices [to the Temple]; is it not logical that a priest who was defiled by a corpse should not be able to propitiate, seeing that if the owners were defiled by a corpse they cannot send their sacrifices?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they will be unfit to partake of it in the evening. - Though sacrifices in general are mentioned, much of the present discussion refers more particularly to the Passover.');">¹⁶</span> - The Elders of the south hold: One who is unclean through a corpse can also send his sacrifices.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g.. he was registered for a particular Passover-offering (this could be sacrificed only on behalf of people specially registered for it) and became unclean through a corpse: if he sent the sacrifice and had it slaughtered, he does not celebrate the second Passover a month later, though he cannot partake of the first.');">¹⁷</span> But it is written, If any man of you. shal unclean [by reason of a dead body]. yet he shall keep the Passover [unto the Lord] in the second month [on the fourteenth day at dusk they shall keep it]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. IX, 10f. Thus he is relegated to the second month.');">¹⁸</span> - That is a recommendation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture orders him to be relegated. Yet if he does have it slaughtered at the first, he has fulfilled his obligation.');">¹⁹</span> But it is written, According to every man's