## Zevachim Daf 17a

###### Zevachim 17a:1
[Zevachim 17a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/17a:1)

אֶלָּא אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ הָכִי וְאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ הָכִי, כֹּל חֲדָא וַחֲדָא תֵּיקוּ בְּדוּכְתֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** one **can derive this** way **and** one **can derive that** way. Since these derivations contradict one another, **each and every** *halakha* **shall stand in its place** and not modify the other by *a fortiori* inference.


###### Zevachim 17a:2
[Zevachim 17a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/17a:2)

טְבוּל יוֹם מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי סִימַאי אוֹמֵר: רֶמֶז לִטְבוּל יוֹם שֶׁאִם עָבַד חִילֵּל – מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קְדֹשִׁים יִהְיוּ וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ״;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that sacrificial rites performed by **one who immersed that day** are disqualified. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this *halakha*? The Gemara answers: It is derived **as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Simai says: From where** in the Torah is the **allusion** with regard **to** a priest **who immersed that day, that if he performed** the Temple **service he desecrated** that service? It is derived from a verse, as **the verse states: “They shall be sacred to their God and they shall not desecrate** the name of their God” (Leviticus 21:6).


###### Zevachim 17a:3
[Zevachim 17a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/17a:3)

אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְטָמֵא – דְּנָפֵיק מִ״וְּיִנָּזְרוּ״, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לִטְבוּל יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** this verse **is not** written with regard to the **matter of an impure** priest who performed the Temple service, **as** that *halakha* is **derived for us from** the verse: **“That they separate themselves** from the sacred items of the children of Israel” (Leviticus 22:2), then **apply it** to the **matter of** a priest **who immersed that day** who performed the Temple service. Although he is no longer impure in every sense, the priest remains impure in the sense that he is prohibited from partaking of *teruma* and sacrificial food, and from entering the Temple.


###### Zevachim 17a:4
[Zevachim 17a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/17a:4)

אֵימָא: תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְקוֹרֵחַ קׇרְחָה, וּלְמַשְׁחִית פְּאַת זָקָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why must the verse be applied to the matter of one who immersed that day? **Say** that one should **apply it** to the **matter of one who creates a bald spot** upon his head **or to** the matter of **one who destroys** his **beard,** as these matters are discussed in the preceding verse.


###### Zevachim 17a:5
[Zevachim 17a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/17a:5)

טְבוּל יוֹם דְּאִם עָבַד – בְּמִיתָה, מְנָא לַן? דְּגָמַר ״חִילּוּל״–״חִילּוּל״ מִתְּרוּמָה; דְּפָסֵיל בִּתְרוּמָה – מַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה, דְּלָא פָּסֵיל בִּתְרוּמָה – לָא מַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: This verse is already used to indicate another *halakha* relating to one who immersed that day: **From where do we** derive **that if one who immersed that day performed** sacrificial **rites,** he is liable to receive the punishment of **death** at the hand of Heaven? **As** it is **derived** by verbal analogy between **profanation** mentioned in this context and **profanation from *teruma*,** as the verse states in this context: “And not profane the name of their God” (Leviticus 21:6), and the verse states with regard to *teruma*: “Lest they bear sin for it, and die therein, if they profane it” (Leviticus 22:9). It can be inferred from this verbal analogy that one **who disqualifies *teruma*,** i.e., one who immersed that day, **profanes** the Temple **service,** and one **who does not disqualify *teruma*,** i.e., one who creates a bald spot or one who destroys his beard, **does not profane** the **service.**


###### Zevachim 17a:6
[Zevachim 17a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/17a:6)

אָמַר רַבָּה: לְמָה לִי דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא טָמֵא, וּטְבוּל יוֹם, וּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabba said: Why do I** need **that** which **the Merciful One wrote,** i.e., that **an impure** priest, **and one who immersed that day, and one who has not yet** brought **an atonement** offering all disqualify the rites they perform? Wouldn’t it have been enough to teach the *halakha* in only one case?


###### Zevachim 17a:7
[Zevachim 17a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/17a:7)

צְרִיכִי; דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא טָמֵא – שֶׁכֵּן מְטַמֵּא בִּטְבוּל יוֹם; מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים לָא אָתֵי מִינֵּיהּ – שֶׁכֵּן פָּסוּל בִּתְרוּמָה. בִּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים; טְבוּל יוֹם לָא אָתֵי מִינֵּיהּ – שֶׁכֵּן מְחוּסָּר מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba explains: All three **are necessary, as** in each case there is a stringency not present in the others. Therefore, **had the Merciful One written** only that **an impure** priest desecrates the service, one might say that this is **because he imparts impurity** to others, and since the other two cases do not, one cannot derive them from the case of an impure priest. And had the Merciful One written the *halakha* only **with regard to one who immersed that day,** then the case of **one who has not yet** brought **an atonement** offering **could not be derived from it, since** the former **is unfit to** partake of ***teruma*** while the latter is not. And had the Merciful One written the *halakha* only **with regard to one who has not yet** brought **an atonement** offering, then the case of **one who immersed that day could not be derived from it, since** only the former **has not yet** performed a necessary **action,** while one who immersed that day must simply wait for nightfall in order to become fully pure.


###### Zevachim 17a:8
[Zevachim 17a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/17a:8)

מֵחֲדָא לָא אָתֵי; תֵּיתֵי חֲדָא מִתַּרְתֵּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Still, why are all three necessary? Granted, **from one** of these cases the other two **cannot be derived,** but **let one be derived from** the other **two.**


###### Zevachim 17a:9
[Zevachim 17a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/17a:9)

בְּהֵי לָא לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא? לָא לִכְתּוֹב בִּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ – מָה לְהָנָךְ, שֶׁכֵּן פְּסוּלִים בִּתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Which** of the three **should the Merciful One not write?** If one suggests: **Let** the Merciful One **not write** the *halakha* **with regard to one who has not yet** brought an **atonement** offering **and derive** it **from these** other two, an impure priest and one who immersed that day, one can reply: **What** is notable **about these?** They are notable **in that they are unfit to** partake of ***teruma*.** Since one who has not yet brought an atonement offering may partake of *teruma*, perhaps he does not disqualify rites he performs.


###### Zevachim 17a:10
[Zevachim 17a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/17a:10)

אֶלָּא לָא לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ; דְּמַאי פָּרְכַתְּ – מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן מְחוּסָּרִים מַעֲשֶׂה? סוֹף סוֹף קְלִישָׁא לַהּ טוּמְאָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** say: **Let the Merciful One not write** the *halakha* **with regard to one who immersed that day and derive** it **from these** other two, an impure priest and one who has not yet brought an atonement offering. **As, what can you** say to **refute** this? One cannot reply: **What** is notable **about these;** they are notable **since they have not yet** performed a necessary **action,** because **ultimately their impurity,** i.e., the impurity of one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, **is weak** when compared to one who immersed that day, and relatively speaking, one who has not yet brought an atonement offering is not considered to be lacking the performance of an action.