## Zevachim Daf 22b

###### Zevachim 22b:1
[Zevachim 22b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/22b:1)

יָצְאוּ מֵי כִיּוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם שֵׁם לְוַוי. אֶלָּא לָאו דִּרְאוּיִין לְמֵי כִיּוֹר? אַלְמָא מַיִם חַיִּים נִינְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**excluded is water of** the **Basin, which has a modifier** in its name? **Rather,** since the *baraita* cannot be referring to the water of the Basin itself, as it is unfit for washing the innards, **is it not** referring to water **that is fit to** be **water of** the **Basin? Apparently,** the only reason such water could be preferable is because it **is flowing water.**


###### Zevachim 22b:2
[Zevachim 22b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/22b:2)

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מֵי כִיּוֹר – רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: מֵי מַעְיָן הֵן, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: שְׁאָר מֵימוֹת הֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The issue **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to **the water of** the **Basin, Rabbi Yishmael says: It** must be **spring water,** i.e., flowing water, **and the Rabbis say: It** may be **another** type of **water.**


###### Zevachim 22b:3
[Zevachim 22b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/22b:3)

עָרֵל מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּבָר זֶה מִתּוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ לֹא לָמַדְנוּ, מִדִּבְרֵי יְחֶזְקֵאל בֶּן בּוּזִי לָמַדְנוּ: ״כׇּל בֶּן נֵכָר עֶרֶל לֵב וְעֶרֶל בָּשָׂר לֹא יָבֹא אֶל מִקְדָּשִׁי לְשָׁרְתֵנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that a priest who is **uncircumcised** disqualifies sacrificial rites he performs. The Gemara elaborates: **From where do we** derive this? **Rav Ḥisda says: We did not learn this matter from the Torah of Moses, our teacher;** rather, **we learned** it **from the words of** the prophet **Ezekiel, son of Buzi: “No stranger, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My Sanctuary to serve Me”** (Ezekiel 44:9).


###### Zevachim 22b:4
[Zevachim 22b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/22b:4)

וּמְנָלַן דְּמַחֲלִי עֲבוֹדָה? דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּהֲבִיאֲכֶם אֶת בְּנֵי נֵכָר עַרְלֵי לֵב וְעַרְלֵי בָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בְּמִקְדָּשִׁי לְחַלֵּל אֶת בֵּיתִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from where do we** derive **that he desecrates** the **service** after the fact? **As it is written: “In that you have brought in strangers, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My Sanctuary, to profane My house”** (Ezekiel 44:7).


###### Zevachim 22b:5
[Zevachim 22b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/22b:5)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בֶּן נֵכָר״ – יָכוֹל בֶּן נֵכָר מַמָּשׁ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עֶרֶל לֵב״. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בֶּן נֵכָר״? שֶׁנִּתְנַכְּרוּ מַעֲשָׂיו לְאָבִיו שֶׁבְּשָׁמַיִם. וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא עֶרֶל לֵב; עֶרֶל בָּשָׂר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעֶרֶל בָּשָׂר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** The verse states **“stranger”;** one **might** have thought that this is referring to **an actual stranger,** i.e., a gentile. Therefore, **the verse states: “Uncircumcised in heart,”** to indicate that it is referring to a priest rather than a gentile. **If so, what** is the meaning when **the verse states: “Stranger”?** It is referring to one **whose actions are** considered **estranged from his Father in Heaven,** i.e., an apostate, who sins regularly. **And I have** derived **only** that **one uncircumcised in heart** is unfit to serve; **from where** is it derived that **one uncircumcised in flesh** is unfit as well? **The verse states: “Or uncircumcised in flesh.”**


###### Zevachim 22b:6
[Zevachim 22b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/22b:6)

וּצְרִיכִי; דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״עֶרֶל בָּשָׂר״ – מִשּׁוּם דִּמְאִיס; אֲבָל עֶרֶל לֵב, דְּלָא מְאִיס – אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן עֶרֶל לֵב – מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין לִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם; אֲבָל עֶרֶל בָּשָׂר, דְּלִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם – אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** both phrases in the verse **are necessary. As, had the Merciful One written** only: **“Uncircumcised in flesh,”** one might think that only he is unfit **because he is disgusting** in that he possesses a foreskin, **but** concerning **one uncircumcised in heart, who is not disgusting, I will say** that he is **not** unfit. **And had** the verse **taught us** only that one **uncircumcised in heart** is unfit, one might think that only he is unfit, **because his heart is not** directed **toward Heaven, but one uncircumcised in flesh, whose heart is** directed **toward Heaven, I will say** that he is **not** unfit. Therefore, both phrases **are necessary.**


###### Zevachim 22b:7
[Zevachim 22b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/22b:7)

טָמֵא פָּסוּל. אָמְרוּ זִקְנֵי דָרוֹם: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ; אֲבָל טְמֵא מֵת – מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁמְּרַצֶּה בְּצִיבּוּר, מְרַצֶּה נָמֵי בְּיָחִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that a ritually **impure** priest is **unfit** for Temple service and disqualifies rites he performs. **The Elders of the South said: They taught** this **only** with regard to one who became **impure due to** contact with the carcass of **a creeping animal. But** with regard to a priest who became **impure due to** contact with **a corpse, since he can effect acceptance** of his rites **for communal** offerings *ab initio* if the majority of the community has contracted impurity from a corpse, **he can effect acceptance** of his rites **for individual** offerings **as well** after the fact.


###### Zevachim 22b:8
[Zevachim 22b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/22b:8)

אִי הָכִי, טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ נָמֵי – לֵיתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִטְּמֵא מֵת: מָה טְמֵא מֵת, שֶׁטָּעוּן הַזָּאָה שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי – מְרַצֶּה; טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ טָעוּן הַזָּאָה שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמְּרַצֶּה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, let** it **be derived** that **one impure due to** the carcass of **a creeping animal** can also effect acceptance for communal offerings in cases of communal impurity *ab initio*, and for individual offerings after the fact, **by *a fortiori*** inference **from one impure due to a corpse: Just as** a priest who is **impure due to a corpse, who requires sprinkling** of the water containing the ashes of the red heifer on the **third and seventh** day to be purified, still **effects acceptance,** then with regard to **one** who is **impure due to** the carcass of **a creeping animal, who does not require sprinkling** on the **third and seventh** day, **is it not right that he** should also **effect acceptance?**


###### Zevachim 22b:9
[Zevachim 22b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/22b:9)

קָסָבְרִי זִקְנֵי דָרוֹם: מְכַפְּרִין – כְּמִתְכַּפְּרִין; מָה מִתְכַּפְּרִין – טְמֵא מֵת אִין, טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ לָא; אַף מְכַפְּרִין – טְמֵא מֵת אִין, טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **The Elders of the South hold** that the *halakha* with regard to **those who effect atonement** is **like those who achieve atonement: Just as** with regard to **those who achieve atonement** through communal offerings, i.e., the community, only if a majority is **impure due to a corpse may** the offering be sacrificed in a state of impurity, but if they are **impure due to** the carcass of **a creeping animal** it may **not, so too** with regard to **those who effect atonement,** i.e., the priests, if they serve when they are **impure due to a corpse, yes,** their service achieves atonement, but if they serve when they are **impure due to the carcass of a creeping animal,** it does **not.**


###### Zevachim 22b:10
[Zevachim 22b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/22b:10)

מַאי קָסָבְרִי? אִי קָסָבְרִי: אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ; אַמַּאי לָא עָבְדִי צִיבּוּר בְּטוּמְאָה? הָא כֹּל שֶׁבְּיָחִיד נִדְחֶה – צִיבּוּר עָבְדִי בְּטוּמְאָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The response of the Gemara assumes that communal offerings may not be brought when the majority of the community is impure due to a creeping animal. The Gemara therefore asks: **What do** the Elders of the South **hold** with regard to the Paschal offering? **If they hold** that **one may not slaughter** it **nor sprinkle** its blood on the altar **for** an owner who is **impure due to a creeping animal,** even though he can immerse and become pure in time to eat the offering that night, then one may ask: **Why can’t** the **community perform** communal offerings **in** such a state of **impurity? Isn’t** it a principle that for **any** impurity **for which an individual** may not sacrifice the Paschal offering and **is deferred** to the second *Pesaḥ*, the **community may perform** its offerings **in** such a state of **impurity?**


###### Zevachim 22b:11
[Zevachim 22b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/22b:11)

אֶלָּא קָסָבְרִי: שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, they** must **hold** that **one may slaughter** the Paschal offering **and sprinkle** its blood **for** an owner who is **impure due to a creeping animal.** Accordingly, the community may not offer the Paschal offering in such a state of impurity.


###### Zevachim 22b:12
[Zevachim 22b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/22b:12)

אָמַר עוּלָּא, תְּקַע לְהוּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לִדְרוֹמָאֵי: וְכִי אֵיזֶה כֹּחַ מְרוּבֶּה – כֹּחַ מְכַפְּרִין אוֹ כֹחַ מִתְכַּפְּרִין? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּחַ מִתְכַּפְּרִין;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla says: Reish Lakish shouted [*teka*] to** the Elders **of the South: But which power is greater** to overcome impurity with respect to offerings, **the power of those who effect atonement,** i.e., the priests, **or the power of those who achieve atonement,** the offerings’ owners? Since the Elders of the South hold that the Paschal offering may be sacrificed for an owner who is impure due to a creeping animal, while a priest who is similarly impure may not sacrifice any offering, **you must say** that **the power of those who achieve atonement** is greater.


###### Zevachim 22b:13
[Zevachim 22b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/22b:13)

וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים בְּשֶׁרֶץ מְשַׁלְּחִין קׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן – כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְּשֶׁרֶץ אֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה; מְקוֹם שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים בְּמֵת, שֶׁאֵין מְשַׁלְּחִין קׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן – כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְּמֵת אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, your initial statement that a priest who contracted impurity from a corpse can effect acceptance for individual offerings can be refuted *a fortiori*: **And just as in a case where** the **owner became impure due to a creeping animal,** he **may send his offerings** for sacrifice, and yet **a priest who became impure due to a creeping animal cannot effect acceptance,** then in **a case where the owner became impure due to a corpse, where he may not send his offerings** for sacrifice, **is it not right that a priest who became impure due to a corpse cannot effect acceptance?**


###### Zevachim 22b:14
[Zevachim 22b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/22b:14)

קָסָבְרִי זִקְנֵי דָרוֹם: טְמֵא מֵת [נָמֵי] מְשַׁלֵּחַ קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **The Elders of the South hold** that an owner who is **impure due to a corpse may also send his offerings,** even though he will not be able to partake of his Paschal offering. Therefore, the *a fortiori* inference does not stand.


###### Zevachim 22b:15
[Zevachim 22b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/22b:15)

וְהָכְתִיב: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה טָמֵא וַעֲשֵׂה פֶּסַח בְּחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי וְגוֹ׳״! לְמִצְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara protests: **But isn’t it written: “If any man of you or of your generations shall be impure** by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, **he shall perform the Paschal offering** to the Lord. **In the second month** on the fourteenth day at dusk they shall perform it” (Numbers 9:10–11)? Apparently, one impure due to a corpse in the first month must defer his Paschal offering to the second month. The Gemara responds: The verse intends this **as a mitzva** *ab initio*. But if he sends his offering in the first month, it is accepted, and he is not required to sacrifice a Paschal offering in the second month.


###### Zevachim 22b:16
[Zevachim 22b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/22b:16)

וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״אִישׁ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it written:** “And if the household be too little for a lamb, then shall he and his neighbor next to his house take one according to the number of the souls; **a man,**