Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin

Folio 83a

To turn to the main [Baraitha]: The following are liable to death [at the hands of Heaven]: One who ate tebel,¹⁰  an unclean priest who ate undefiled terumah, a zar or an unclean [priest] who performed [the Temple service], or one who performed it on the day of his ritual bath,¹¹  or lacking the proper [priestly] garments, or lacking the [sacrificial] atonement,¹²  one who did not wash his hands and feet, or drank wine, or a priest with over-grown locks.¹³  But the performance of the service by an uncircumcised [priest], an onen.¹⁴  or by one who officiated whilst sitting is not liable to death, but merely prohibited. If a priest with a blemish [officiated], Rabbi said: He is liable to death; the Sages maintain: He is merely prohibited. If he deliberately transgressed in respect of a trespass offering,¹⁵  Rabbi said: He is liable to death. and the Sages say: He transgressed a mere prohibition.

Now, whence do we know it of one who eats tebel? — As Samuel said on the authority of R. Eliezer: Whence do we know that one who eats tebel is liable to death? From the verse, And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they shall offer to the Lord.¹⁶  Now, the verse refers to that which is yet to be offered;¹⁷  and then identity of law is learnt from the use of 'profanation' here and in the case of terumah:¹⁸  just as there the penalty is death, so here too. But let us rather learn [the penalty] from the use of profanation here and in the case of nothar:¹⁹  just as there, the penalty is extinction. so here too? — It is logical to make the deduction from terumah, because they are equal in the following points: — [i] terumah, [ii] extra-territoriality, [iii] annulment, [iv] plural form, [v] land produce. [vi] piggul, and [vii] nothar.²⁰  On the contrary, should not the deduction rather be made from nothar, since they are alike in the following points: [i] unfitness of food and [ii] no annulment of prohibition by a mikweh?²¹  — Even so, those [tebel and terumah] have more points in common. Rabina answered: The use of the plural form is certainly a stronger link.²²  And whence do we know that an unclean priest who ate undefiled terumah [is liable to death]? — As Samuel said: Whence do we know that an unclean priest who ate undefiled terumah is punished by death at the hands of Heaven? From the verse, Therefore they shall keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it.²³  This [however] applies only to undefiled, but not to polluted terumah: for Samuel said in R. Eliezer's name: Whence do we know that an unclean priest who ate unclean is not liable to death? — From the verse, and die therefore, if they profane it:

1. I.e., the prohibition of a zar (a non-priest) to officiate in the Temple: a zar who performs any of these services is not punished, as none of these functions form the concluding part of a service.
2. The priest had to officiate in the special garments prescribed in Ex. XXVIII; if he did not wear them all whilst engaged in any of these, he incurs no liability.
3. (Zeb. 112b), V. Ex. XXI, 17f.
4. A function completing a service.
5. But since uncleanliness is mentioned, it follows that a ritually unclean priest who offered incense is liable to death. This contradicts R. Shesheth's ruling.
6. He is merely regarded as having transgressed an ordinary prohibition.
7. Num. XVIII, 7.
8. I.e., for uncleanliness there is a mere prohibition: for zaruth, death.
9. Lev. XXI, 6. This is referred to the performance of one of these services whilst unclean.
10. V. Glos.
11. Tebbul Yom. Lit., 'one who immersed during the day'. An unclean priest purified himself by taking a ritual bath: yet even then he could not officiate until after sunset.
12. A priest who became unclean through the dead was sprinkled with the ashes of the red heifer mixed with water; then he took a ritual bath; and on the eighth day of his uncleanliness, he offered a sacrifice, which made atonement for him. Before this, he is regarded as one 'lacking atonement', and may not officiate.
13. I.e., who has not trimmed his hair for thirty days or more.
14. A mourner before the burial of a near relative, e.g.. father.
15. I.e., be benefited from a holy thing. for the secular (unwitting) use of which one is bound to bring a trespass offering; cf. Lev. V, 14ff.
16. Lev. XXII, 15.
17. The verb [H] is imperfect ('which they shall offer') and hence refers to 'holy things' — i.e., terumah — which is yet to be separated from the produce, so that it is all tebel.
18. Ibid. 9: They shall therefore keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it. This refers to the eating of terumah by an unclean priest.
19. That which is left over of the sacrifice after the time appointed for eating. Ibid. XIX, 6, 8: And if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in fire … Therefore every one that catch it shall bear his iniquity, because he hath profaned the hallowed thing of the Lord: and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
20. Both deal with terumah, as tebel too is forbidden on account of the unseparated terumah which it contains. Neither terumah nor tebel operated outside Palestine, but nothar was forbidden in the wilderness too. Further, both of these prohibitions can be annulled: that of the unclean priest by a ritual bath; tebel, by separating its terumah: but under no circumstances can the prohibition of nothar be annulled. Profanation in both cases is stated in plural form: tebel: And they shall not profane etc. terumah: … if they profane it; but nothar has its use in the singular … because he hath profaned. Tebel and terumah apply to land produce (cereals and fruits); nothar to animals. Finally, the law of piggul (v. Glos) and nothar is inapplicable to tebel and terumah.
21. In the case of tebel and nothar the substance itself is forbidden; but the terumah is not forbidden, only that the priest is unclean. Also the prohibition of tebel and nothar cannot be annulled through a mikweh (ritual bath); but that of terumah ceases when the priest takes a ritual bath.
22. I.e., the fourth point which tebel and terumah have in common is itself sufficient to justify the preference for terumah, as the basis for deduction, rather than nothar.
23. Lev. XXII, 9.

A zar who ate terumah: Rab said: A zar who ate terumah is flagellated. R. Kahana and R. Assi said to him: Why does not the master say — is liable to death, since it is written, there shall no stranger eat of the holy thing?¹  — I the Lord do sanctify them breaks across the subject.²  An objection is raised: The following are liable to death: … a zar who ate terumah? — Do you oppose a Baraitha to Rab's ruling? Rab is a Tanna, and may dispute [the ruling of Baraitha.³

'A zar who performed the [Temple] service': for it is written, And the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.⁴

'Or an unclean [priest] who performed the [Temple] service:' even as R. Hiyya b. Abin inquired of R. Joseph: Whence do we know that an unclean priest who performed the [Temple] service is punished by death? Because it is written, Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my holy name.⁵  And identity of law is derived from the use of 'profanation' here and in the case of terumah; just as there the penalty is death, so here too. But should not the deduction rather be made from nothar: just as there the penalty is extinction, so here too? — It is reasonable to make the deduction from terumah, because they have the following in common: — [i] bodily [unfitness], [ii] uncleanliness, [iii] mikweh, [iv] plural form.⁶  On the contrary, should not the deduction rather be made from nothar, since they share the following in common: [i] sanctity, [ii] within [the Temple court], [iii] piggul and [iv] nothar?⁷  — Even so, the fact that in both cases [viz. terumah and the sacrificial service] profanation is spoken of as an act of many [unlike nothar], outweighs [the points which sacrificial service and nothar have in common].

'Or one who performed it on the day of his ritual bath'. Whence do we know this? — Even as has been taught: R. Simai said: Where is the allusion that one who officiated in the Temple on the day of his ritual bath has committed an act of profanation? From the verse, They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane [the name of their God].⁸  Since this cannot refer to the ministration of an unclean priest, [the prohibition of which] is derived from that they separate themselves,⁹  apply it to a priest's officiating on the day of his ritual bath. Then an analogy is drawn from the use of 'profanation' both here and in the case of terumah: just as there, the penalty is death, so here too.

'Or lacking the proper priestly garments'. Whence do we know it? — R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name, and [the teaching] is ultimately derived from R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon: [The Writ saith, And thou shalt … put coats upon them…] and thou shalt gird them with girdles. [Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them': and the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual state]:¹⁰  when wearing the appointed garments, they are invested in their priesthood; when not, they lack their priesthood and are considered zarim,¹¹  and a Master hath said, A zar who performs the [Temple] service is liable to death.

'Or one lacking the sacrificial atonement — Whence do we know this? — R. Huna said: The Writ saith, And the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.¹²  'And she shall be clean' implies that hitherto she was unclean: and a Master hath said, An unclean priest who officiated is liable to death.

'One who did not wash his hands or feet.' Whence do we know this? — From the verse, When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not.¹³

'Or drank wine'. Because it is written, Do not drink wine or strong drink, [thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die].¹⁴

'Or a priest with overgrown locks'. As it is written, Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to remain unshorn;¹⁵  and this is followed by, Neither shall they drink wine:¹⁶  hence the former is likened to the latter: just as the latter is liable to death, so the former too.

'But the performance of the service by an uncircumcised [priest], an onen, or [by one who officiated whilst sitting is not liable to death, but merely prohibited.' Whence do we know it of the uncircumcised? — R. Hisda said: We did not learn this from the Torah of Moses our Teacher, until Ezekiel the son of Buzi came and taught it to us: No stranger, uncircumcised in heart,

1. Ibid. 10. This immediately follows the verse stating … and die therefore, if they profane it.
2. Vv. 9 and 10 read: … and die therefore, if they profane it: I the Lord do sanctify them. There shall be no stranger eat of the holy thing. 'I the Lord do sanctify them' clearly marks a break: consequently the penalty of death stated in v. 9. does not apply to the prohibition of v. 10.
3. Whilst it is axiomatic that an Amora cannot disagree with a Tanna, unless he finds a support in another Tanna, Rab, as a younger contemporary of Rabbi, stood midway between the last generation of the Tannaim and the first of Amoraim; and although generally assigned to the latter, he is occasionally, as here, conceded to be a Tanna, owing to his personal greatness and vast erudition.
4. Num. XVIII, 7.
5. Lev. XXII, 2: the reference is to abstention from sacrificial service during their uncleanliness, as is stated in v. 3.
6. Both the eating of terumah and the sacrificial service are prohibited to the priest through his bodily unfitness. Also, this bodily unfitness in both cases is uncleanliness (this is counted as a second point, since bodily unfitness may be for some other cause, viz., a blemish). Further, in both cases, the unfitness can be remedied by a ritual bath. And finally, profanation in both cases is ascribed to many (v. p. 551, n. 8). Nothar differs on all these points.
7. Both the eating of nothar and the sacrificial service by an unclean priest are offences in respect of the extreme sanctity of sacrifices. Terumah, however, is of a lower degree of sanctity. Also, they are done within the Temple precincts. Again, piggul is possible in both cases, for the unclean priest too whilst engaged in sacrificing might have intended eating the flesh beyond its appointed time, as nothar in fact has so been left. And finally, he might actually have eaten it thus. (The last two are counted as two distinct points, since the mere expressed intention of eating the flesh beyond its appointed time is an offence, even if not done subsequently. The actual eating again, is another and separate offence.) None of these, however, is applicable to the eating of terumah by an unclean priest.
8. Lev. XXI, 6.
9. Lev. XXII. 2ff.
10. Ex. XXIX. 9.
11. Zarim, pl. of Zar.
12. Lev. XII, 8. This refers to a woman after confinement, but its implications extend to all forms of uncleanliness which must be followed by a sacrifice.
13. Ex. XXX, 20. The preceding verse states that they are to wash their hands and feet.
14. Lev. X, 9.
15. Ezek. XLIV, 20.
16. Ibid. 21.