## Sanhedrin Daf 83a

###### Sanhedrin 83a:1
[Sanhedrin 83a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/83a:1)

לֹא מִשּׁוּם זָרוּת, וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה, וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם מְחוּסַּר בְּגָדִים, וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם רִחוּץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**neither due to non-priesthood,** if a non-priest performs one of those rites in the Temple, he is not liable to receive the death penalty; **nor due to** the performance of any of these rites in a state of **ritual impurity; nor due to** the performance of any of these rites as a priest **lacking** the requisite priestly **vestments; nor due to** the performance of any of these services without the **washing of his hands and feet.** The reason for the lack of liability is that in all these cases, additional rites must be performed in order to complete the service. One is liable for performing the service outside the Temple, or performing the service as a non-priest, in a state of ritual impurity, etc., only when performing a ritual that completes the service.


###### Sanhedrin 83a:2
[Sanhedrin 83a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/83a:2)

הָא מְקַטֵּר – חַיָּיב. מַאי לָאו, מִיתָה? לָא, בְּאַזְהָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
From the *baraita*, one may infer: **But** one who **burns** the offering on the altar in one of these circumstances, including in a state of ritual impurity, is **liable. What, is it not** teaching that he is liable to receive **death** at the hand of Heaven, and there is proof from the *baraita* to resolve Rav Aḥa bar Huna’s dilemma? The Gemara rejects that proof: **No,** he is liable **for** violating **a prohibition,** without the punishment of death.


###### Sanhedrin 83a:3
[Sanhedrin 83a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/83a:3)

אֶלָּא זָר נָמֵי לְאַזְהָרָה? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְהַזָּר הַקָּרֵב יוּמָת״! הָא כִּדְאִיתַאּ וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַאּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** according to that understanding, as for the **non-priest** who is mentioned in the *baraita* together with the priest who performs the Temple service in a state of impurity, is he too **liable for** violating **a prohibition,** and not death, if he burns the offering on the altar? **But isn’t it written: “And the non-priest who approaches shall be put to death”** (Numbers 18:7)? The Gemara answers: Do not extrapolate the liability of a non-priest from the liability of a ritually impure priest, as **this** case of ritual impurity is **as it is, and that** case of a non-priest is **as it is;** each situation is discussed independently.


###### Sanhedrin 83a:4
[Sanhedrin 83a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/83a:4)

מִכְּלָל דְּיוֹצֵק וּבוֹלֵל לָאו נָמֵי לָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: אַזְהָרָה לְיוֹצֵק וּבוֹלֵל מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קְדֹשִׁים יִהְיוּ וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ״. מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּקְרָא אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Is that to say, **by inference,** that a priest **who pours** oil onto a meal-offering **and one who mixes** the oil into the meal-offering, in a state of ritual impurity, **does not** violate **even a prohibition? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is **a prohibition against pouring** oil **and** against **mixing** oil in a state of ritual impurity derived? It is derived from a verse, as **the verse states: “They shall be sacred to their God and they shall not profane** the name of their God; for the fire offerings of the Lord, the bread of their God, they offer” (Leviticus 21:6). The Gemara answers: No proof may be cited from that verse, as the prohibition against performing Temple rites that do not complete the service in a state of impurity is **by rabbinic law, and the verse is a mere support,** not a Torah prohibition.


###### Sanhedrin 83a:5
[Sanhedrin 83a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/83a:5)

מֵיתִיבִי: וְאֵלּוּ הֵן שֶׁבְּמִיתָה – טָמֵא שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ. תְּיוּבְתָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Zevaḥim* 12:17): **And these are they who** are liable **to** receive **death** at the hand of Heaven: Among those enumerated is **an impure** individual **who performed** the Temple **service.** The Gemara concludes: This is **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion of Rav Sheshet, and proof that an impure individual who performs the Temple service is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, and young priests and zealots may kill only one who is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven.


###### Sanhedrin 83a:6
[Sanhedrin 83a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/83a:6)

גּוּפָא: וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁבְּמִיתָה – הָאוֹכֵל אֶת הַטֶּבֶל, וְכֹהֵן טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה, וְזָר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה, וְזָר שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ, וְטָמֵא שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ, וּטְבוּל יוֹם שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ, וּמְחוּסַּר בְּגָדִים, וּמְחוּסַּר כַּפָּרָה, וְשֶׁלֹּא רָחַץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם, וּשְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן, וּפְרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ In order to discuss **the** matter **itself,** the Gemara cites the *Tosefta*: **And these** are they **who** are liable **to** receive **death** at the hand of Heaven: **One who partakes of untithed produce, and a ritually impure priest who partook of ritually pure *teruma*, and a non-priest who partook of *teruma*, and a non-priest who performed** the Temple **service, and a ritually impure** priest **who performed** the Temple **service, and** a priest who was ritually impure **who immersed that day** and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, **who performed** the Temple **service, and** a priest **lacking** the requisite priestly **vestments, and** a priest **who has not yet** brought **an atonement** offering to complete his purification process as a leper or *zav*, **and** a priest **who did not wash his hands and feet** before beginning the Temple service; **and** priests who performed the Temple service while **intoxicated with wine, and** priests who performed the Temple service with **overgrown** hair on their **heads.**


###### Sanhedrin 83a:7
[Sanhedrin 83a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/83a:7)

אֲבָל עָרֵל, וְאוֹנֵן, וְיוֹשֵׁב – אֵינָן בְּמִיתָה אֶלָּא בְּאַזְהָרָה. בַּעַל מוּם – רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּמִיתָה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בָּאַזְהָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **But** a priest who performs the Temple service while **uncircumcised or** as **an acute mourner** on the day that one of his close relatives dies, **or** a priest who performs the Temple service while **seated, are not** punished **with death** at the hand of Heaven; **rather,** they are liable **for** violating **a prohibition.** With regard to **a blemished** priest who performs the Temple service, **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** He is punished **with death** at the hand of Heaven, **and the Rabbis say:** He is liable only **for** violating **a prohibition.**


###### Sanhedrin 83a:8
[Sanhedrin 83a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/83a:8)

הֵזִיד בִּמְעִילָה, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּמִיתָה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בָּאַזְהָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
As the Torah states the *halakha* only in the case of one who misuses consecrated property unwittingly, there is a dispute with regard to one who **intentionally performed** an action of **misuse** of consecrated property. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** He is punished **with death** at the hand of Heaven, **and the Rabbis say:** He is liable only **for** violating **a prohibition.**


###### Sanhedrin 83a:9
[Sanhedrin 83a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/83a:9)

הָאוֹכֵל אֶת הַטֶּבֶל, מְנָלַן? דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מִנַּיִין לְאוֹכֵל אֶת הַטֶּבֶל שֶׁהוּא בְּמִיתָה? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קׇדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל [אֵת] אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַה׳״. בַּעֲתִידִים לִתְרוֹם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: It was taught in the *baraita* that **one who partakes of untithed produce** is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this *halakha*? The Gemara answers: **As Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: From where** is it derived **that one who partakes of untithed produce** is punished **with death** at the hand of Heaven? It is derived from a verse, **as it is written: “They shall not desecrate the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they will set apart unto the Lord”** (Leviticus 22:15). From the fact that it is formulated in the future tense: “Which they will set apart,” it is clear that **the verse is speaking** about items **that are destined to be separated** in the future, i.e. untithed produce from which *teruma* and tithes will be separated.


###### Sanhedrin 83a:10
[Sanhedrin 83a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/83a:10)

וְיָלֵיף ״חִילּוּל״ ״חִילּוּל״ מִתְּרוּמָה, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּמִיתָה – אַף כָּאן בְּמִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the *tanna* **derives** the punishment by means of a verbal analogy: The term of **desecration** written with regard to untithed produce is derived **from** the term of **desecration** written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of ***teruma*** (see Leviticus 22:9). **Just as there,** with regard to *teruma*, he is punished **with death** at the hand of Heaven, **so too here,** with regard to untithed produce, he is punished **with death** at the hand of Heaven.


###### Sanhedrin 83a:11
[Sanhedrin 83a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/83a:11)

וְנֵילַף ״חִילּוּל״ ״חִילּוּל״ מִנּוֹתָר: מָה לְהַלָּן בְּכָרֵת, אַף כָּאן בְּכָרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **And let us derive** the punishment by means of a different verbal analogy: Derive the term of **desecration** written with regard to untithed produce from the term of **desecration** written with regard to meat **leftover from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption [*notar*]** (see Leviticus 19:6, 8). **Just as there,** with regard to *notar*, he is punished **with *karet*, so too here,** with regard to untithed produce, he is punished **with *karet*.**


###### Sanhedrin 83a:12
[Sanhedrin 83a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/83a:12)

מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִתְּרוּמָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן תְּרוּמָה: חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, הוּתְּרָה, בְּרַבִּים, פֵּירוֹת, פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It is reasonable** to say that **he should have derived** the punishment for partaking of untithed produce **from *teruma*, as** there are many elements common to *teruma* and untithed produce. Unlike *notar*, they are germane to the *halakhot* of ***teruma*;** they are not in effect **outside of Eretz** Yisrael; both of them can become **permitted,** as an impure priest can immerse and partake of *teruma*, and untithed produce can become permitted by taking *teruma* and tithes; in both cases, the term of desecration is formulated **in the plural,** while with regard to *notar* it is formulated in the singular; both apply to **produce;** and neither the *halakha* of **an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [*piggul*], nor** the *halakha* of ***notar*,** apply in either case.


###### Sanhedrin 83a:13
[Sanhedrin 83a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/83a:13)

אַדְּרַבָּה, מִנּוֹתָר הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן פְּסוּל אוֹכֶל, אֵין לוֹ הֶיתֵּר בְּמִקְוֶה. הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן. רָבִינָא אָמַר: חִילּוּל דְּרַבִּים מֵחִילּוּל דְּרַבִּים עָדִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that conclusion: **On the contrary, he should have derived** the punishment for the partaking of untithed produce **from *notar*, as** there are elements common to *notar* and untithed produce. Both cases relate to the **unfitness of the food,** while in the case of an impure individual partaking of *teruma*, it is the person who is unfit; and in both cases **there is no permission** granted by means of immersion **in the ritual bath,** while in the case of an impure individual partaking of *teruma*, immersion is effective. The Gemara answers: **Those** elements common to *teruma* and untithed produce **are more numerous,** therefore that is the preferred derivation. **Ravina says:** There is no need for a tally of common elements, as deriving **desecration in the plural** by means of a verbal analogy **from desecration in the plural is preferable.**


###### Sanhedrin 83a:14
[Sanhedrin 83a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/83a:14)

וְכֹהֵן טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה מְנָלַן? דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מִנַּיִין לְכֹהֵן טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא בְּמִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשָׁמְרוּ אֶת מִשְׁמַרְתִּי וְלֹא יִשְׂאוּ עָלָיו חֵטְא וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to analyze the *baraita*. **From where do we** derive **that an impure priest who partook of pure *teruma*** is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven? It is derived **as Shmuel says: From where** is it derived with regard **to an impure priest who partakes of pure *teruma* that** he is punished **with death at the hand of Heaven?** It is derived from a verse, **as it is written** with regard to a priest who partakes of *teruma*: **“And they shall keep my charge lest they bear a sin for it** and die therein if they desecrate it: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 22:9).


###### Sanhedrin 83a:15
[Sanhedrin 83a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/83a:15)

טְהוֹרָה – אִין, טְמֵאָה – לָא. דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מִנַּיִין לְכֹהֵן טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּמִיתָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמֵתוּ בוֹ כִּי יְחַלְּלֻהוּ״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that for partaking of **ritually pure** *teruma*, **yes,** the impure priest is liable, but for partaking of **impure** *teruma*, **no,** the priest is not liable? It is derived **as Shmuel says** that **Rabbi Eliezer says: From where** is it derived **that an impure priest who partakes of impure *teruma* is not** punished **with death** at the hand of Heaven? It is derived from a verse, **as it is stated** in that verse: **“And die therein if they desecrate it,”**