Zevachim 66

רבינא אמר לענין מלקות איתמר

Rabina said: It was stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That partial entry is designated entry.');">¹</span> [only] in respect of flagellation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As 'Ulla explicitly states. But it was not stated in respect of kareth, and therefore you cannot raise an objection from the law of a leper, who had a nocturnal issue where the penalty involved is kareth.');">²</span>

כי אתא רבין אמר רבי אבהו לענין טמא שנגע בקודש איתמר

When Rabin came, he said in the name of R'Abbahu: It was stated in respect of an unclean person who touched sacred flesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not in respect of partial entry at all - contra 'Ulla.');">³</span> For it was stated: If an unclean person touches sacred flesh, Resh Lakish maintains: He is flagellated; R'Johanan said: He is not flagellated.

דאיתמר טמא שנגע בקודש ריש לקיש אמר לוקה רבי יוחנן אמר אינו לוקה ריש לקיש אמר לוקה (ויקרא יב, ד) בכל קודש לא תגע ורבי יוחנן אמר אינו לוקה ההוא בתרומה כתיב

Resh Lakish maintained [that] he is flagellated, [because it is written] She shall touch no hallowed thing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 4. 'She' is a woman in childbirth, who is unclean, and she is forbidden to touch it by a negative command, which is punishable by flagellation.');">⁴</span> But R'Johanan maintains that he is not flagellated, [for] that [text] is written in reference terumah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not to sacrifices. And although sacrifices are more sacred than terumah, for contact with which flagellation is incurred, we do not deduce a fortiori that the same punishment is incurred for touching sacred flesh, as flagellation is not imposed as a result of an a fortiori deduction.');">⁵</span>

וריש לקיש האי קרא להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה אזהרה לאוכל בשר קודש דאיתמר אזהרה לאוכל בשר קודש מנין ריש לקיש אמר בכל קודש לא תגע

Now [does] Resh Lakish [maintain that] this text comes for this purpose? [surely] it is required as a forewarning against eating sacred flesh?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a state of bodily uncleanness.');">⁶</span>

רבי יוחנן אמר תני ברדלא אתיא טומאתו טומאתו מביאת מקדש מה להלן ענש והזהיר אף כאן ענש והזהיר

For it was stated: Whence do we derive a forewarning against eating sacred flesh? Resh Lakish says: [From the text,] 'She shall touch no hallowed thing'.

טמא שנגע בקודש מדאפקה רחמנא בלשון נגיעה אזהרה לאוכל מדאיתקש קודש למקדש

R'Johanan said, Bardela taught: It is derived from the expression 'his uncleanness' occurring here and in reference to [an unclean person's] entry into the sanctuary:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Eating sacred flesh whilst unclean (Lev. VII, 20) : But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people (i.e., kareth) . Entering the sanctuary whilst unclean (Num. XIX, 13) : Whosoever toucheth the dead, even the body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself - he hath defiled the tabernacle of the Lord - that soul shall be cut off from Israel; because the water of sprinkling was not dashed against him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.');">⁷</span> as there [Scripture] prescribes the penalty and gives a forewarning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The forewarning is in Num. V, 3: That they (the unclean) defile not their camp.');">⁸</span>

תניא כוותיה דריש לקיש בכל קודש לא תגע אזהרה לאוכל אתה אומר אזהרה לאוכל או אינו אלא לנוגע

so here too [Scripture] prescribes the penalty and implies a forewarning!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus Resh Lakish utilises the text for a different purpose.');">⁹</span> - [That] an unclean person who touched sacred flesh [is flagellated follows] from the fact that the Divine Law expressed this in terms of touching;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Scripture actually writes, She shall touch no hallowed thing.');">¹⁰</span>

תלמוד לומר בכל קודש לא תגע ואל המקדש לא תבא מקיש קודש למקדש מה מקדש דבר שיש בו

while a forewarning to one who eats [sacred flesh while unclean follows] from the assimilation of sacred flesh to the sanctuary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture writes, She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary. Thus the two, being brought together in this way, are assimilated to each other. Hence this deduction is made: as the forewarning in respect of the sanctuary involves kareth, so the forewarning in respect of the 'hallowed thing' i.e., sacred flesh, is in respect of an action which involves kareth, viz., eating sacred flesh whilst unclean, for we do not find that an unclean person who touches sacred flesh incurs kareth. Nevertheless, since Scripture does use the expression 'touch', a forewarning in respect of touching too must be understood from this text.');">¹¹</span> It was taught in accordance with Resh Lakish: 'She shall touch no hallowed thing': [this is] a forewarning in respect of eating. You say [that it is] a forewarning in respect of eating; yet perhaps it is not so, but rat in respect of touching? Therefore the text states, 'She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary': the 'hallowed thing' [sacred flesh] is assimilated to the sanctuary. As [the offence in connection with] the sanctuary is one which involves