Zevachim 46

אם עון פיגול הרי כבר נאמר (ויקרא ז, יח) לא יחשב אם עון נותר הרי כבר נאמר (ויקרא ז, יח) לא ירצה

If the iniquity of piggul,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹</span> surely it is already said, it shall not be accepted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 7.');">²</span>

הא אינו נושא אלא עון טומאה שהותרה מכללה בצבור

If the iniquity of nothar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">³</span> surely it is already said, neither shall it be imputed [unto him that offereth it]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ib. VII, 18. Text as emended by Rashi on the basis of Torath Kohanim. The edd. reverse the proof-texts, and Tosaf. defends their reading.');">⁴</span>

מאי טומאה אילימא מטומאת שרץ היכא אישתרי אלא טומאת מת ולאו כגון שנטמאו בעלים במת אלמא נטמאו בעלים במת משלחין קרבנותיהן

Hence he bears nought but the iniquity of defilement, which is inoperative,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'permitted'.');">⁵</span> in opposition to its general rule, in the case of a community.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the whole community or the majority thereof is unclean, they sacrifice the Passover-offering in the first month, as usual, and are not relegated to the second month as an individual would be.');">⁶</span>

ובמאי אי בנזיר (במדבר ו, ט) וכי ימות מת עליו אמר רחמנא אלא לעושה פסח (ולאו כגון שנטמאו בעלים במת)

Now which uncleanness [is meant]? if we say, the uncleanness of a reptile, where has that been waived?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In favour of a community - Scripture speaks only of uncleanness through a corpse.');">⁷</span>

לעולם בשרץ ושם טומאה בעולם

Hence it must mean uncleanness through a corpse, which proves that if the owners become unclean through a corpse they send their sacrifices. And of whom [is this said]?

ואיכא דדייק ומייתי הכי עון הקדשים אין עון מקדישין לא מאי טומאה אילימא טומאת שרץ מי אישתריא בציבור אלא לאו טומאת מת ועון קדשים אין עון מקדישים לא

If of a nazirite, the Divine Law saith, And if any man die very suddenly beside him, etc!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VI, 9. Scripture proceeds to say that he must then bring certain sacrifices and re-commence his period of naziriteship, at the conclusion of which he brings the prescribed sacrifices on the shaving of his head. Thus whilst unclean he cannot bring the latter.');">⁸</span> Hence it can only refer to one who is offering the Paschal lamb! - In truth it refers to [the uncleanness of] a reptile, yet uncleanness elsewhere [was waived].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the Scriptural permission to a community applies only to uncleanness through a corpse, yet since we find that same form of uncleanness is inoperative, it is logical to say that the propitiating powers of the headplate hold good in the case of uncleanness through a reptile.');">⁹</span>

לעולם טומאת שרץ ושם טומאה בעולם:

Others make this deduction:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which supports Rami b. Hama and refutes the Elders of the south.');">¹⁰</span> [The headplate makes atonement] only for the iniquity of the holy things, but not for the iniquity of those who hallow them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., only when the sacrifice itself is defiled, but not when its owners or the priests - 'those who hallow them' - are unclean. This is deduced direct from Scripture, which speaks only of the 'holy things'.');">¹¹</span>

יושב: מנלן אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן אמר קרא (דברים יח, ה) לעמוד לשרת לעמידה בחרתיו ולא לישיבה

Which uncleanness [is meant]? If we say, the uncleanness of a reptile?

ת"ר לעמוד לשרת מצוה כשהוא אומר (דברים יח, ז) העומדים שנה עליו הכתוב לעכב

is then that inoperative in the case of a community? Hence it must surely be the uncleanness of a corpse, and yet only the iniquity of the holy things [is atoned for], but not the iniquity of those who hallow them? - No: in truth it means uncleanness through a reptile, yet uncleanness elsewhere [is waived].

א"ל רבא לרב נחמן מכדי יושב כזר דמי ומחיל עבודה אימא מה זר במיתה אף יושב במיתה אלמה תניא אבל ערל אונן יושב אינן במיתה אלא באזהרה

[A PRIEST] SITTING. Whence do we know it? - Said Raba in R'Nahman's name: Scripture saith, [For the Lord thy God hath chosen him - the priest - out of all thy tribes,] to stand to minister [in the name of the Lord]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVIII, 5.');">¹²</span>

משום דהוי מחוסר בגדים ושלא רחוץ ידים ורגלים שני כתובין הבאין כאחד

I have chosen him to stand, but not to sit. Our Rabbis taught: 'To stand to minister' is a recommendation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., this text alone would merely indicate that it is preferable that the priest shall stand.');">¹³</span> when it says [further], who stand [there before the Lord].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVIII, 7.');">¹⁴</span> the Writ has repeated it, to make [standing] indispensable. Raba said to R'Nahman: Consider: one sitting is as a zar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since he has not been chosen 'to sit', he is then like a zar (a lay-Israelite) who has not been chosen.');">¹⁵</span> and profanes the service; then let us say: just as a zar is liable to death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For officiating.');">¹⁶</span> so is one who sits liable to death. Why then was it taught: But an uncircumcised [priest], an onen, and one sitting are not liable to death but are merely under an injunction [not to officiate]? - Because [a priest] lacking the [priestly] vestments and one whose hands and feet are not washed are two laws which come as one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to teach the same thing. They too profane the service, and it is stated in Sanh. ');">¹⁷</span>