## Zevachim Daf 23a

###### Zevachim 23a:1
[Zevachim 23a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/23a:1)

לְפִי אׇכְלוֹ״! לְמִצְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**according to his eating,** you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4)? This teaches that one may bring the Paschal offering only if he is able to partake of it. The Gemara responds: This requirement is also meant **as a mitzva** *ab initio*; it does not disqualify the offering if not fulfilled.


###### Zevachim 23a:2
[Zevachim 23a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/23a:2)

וּלְעַכּוֹבֵי לָא?! וְהָתַנְיָא: ״בְּמִכְסַת נְפָשׁוֹת״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין הַפֶּסַח נִשְׁחָט אֶלָּא לִמְנוּיָיו. שְׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִמְנוּיָיו – יָכוֹל יְהֵא כְּעוֹבֵר עַל הַמִּצְוָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תָּכֹסּוּ״ – הַכָּתוּב שָׁנָה עָלָיו לְעַכֵּב. וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ אוֹכְלִין לִמְנוּיִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is this requirement **not indispensable** even after the fact? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that the phrase **“according to the number of the souls” teaches that the Paschal offering may be slaughtered only for those who registered for it** in advance. If the Paschal offering was **slaughtered for** individuals **who did not register for it,** one **might** have thought that **it would** only **be like transgressing a mitzva,** but the offering would not be disqualified. Therefore, **the verse states: “You shall make your count”; the verse repeats** the issue of counting **to** stress that the *halakha* is **indispensable,** and if one slaughters the offering for one who is not registered, it is disqualified. The Gemara concludes: **And those who eat** the offering **are juxtaposed to those registered** for it, as the verse states: “According to the number of the souls; a man, according to his eating.” Accordingly, if one slaughters the Paschal offering for one who cannot partake of it, the offering is disqualified.


###### Zevachim 23a:3
[Zevachim 23a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/23a:3)

זִקְנֵי דָרוֹם לָא מַקְּשִׁי. וְכִי לָא מַקְּשִׁי נָמֵי – מֵהָא נָמֵי אִית לְהוּ פִּירְכָא: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים בְּשֶׁרֶץ, שֶׁמְּשַׁלְּחִין קׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶם לְכַתְּחִילָּה – כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְּשֶׁרֶץ אֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה; מְקוֹם שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים בְּמֵת, שֶׁאֵין מְשַׁלְּחִין קׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן לְכַתְּחִילָּה – כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְּמֵת אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **The Elders of the South do not juxtapose** the phrases, i.e., they do not interpret the verse’s juxtaposition of the two phrases as significant. The Gemara asks: **But even if they do not juxtapose** the phrases, **there is a refutation to** their statement **from this** inference **as well: And just as in a case where the owner became impure due to a creeping animal, where he may send his offerings** for sacrifice ***ab initio*, a priest who became impure due to a creeping animal** nevertheless **cannot effect acceptance,** then in **a case where the owner became impure due to a corpse, where he may not send his offerings *ab initio*, is it not right that a priest who became impure due to a corpse cannot effect acceptance?**


###### Zevachim 23a:4
[Zevachim 23a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/23a:4)

מֵיתִיבִי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ: נָזִיר וְעוֹשֵׂה פֶסַח – הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל טוּמְאַת דָּם, וְאֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל טוּמְאַת הַגּוּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, the Gemara **raises an objection** from a mishna (*Pesaḥim* 80b): **As** the Sages **said** that with regard to **a nazirite and one who performs** the rite of the **Paschal offering, the frontplate effects acceptance for** offerings sacrificed in a state of **impurity of** the **blood, but the frontplate does not effect acceptance for** offerings sacrificed in a state of **impurity of the body** of the individual bringing it.


###### Zevachim 23a:5
[Zevachim 23a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/23a:5)

בְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא בְּטוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ, הָאָמְרַתְּ: שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ! אֶלָּא טוּמְאַת מֵת; וְקָתָנֵי: אֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה; אַלְמָא נִטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים בְּמֵת – אֵין מְשַׁלְּחִין קׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **To what** impurity is it referring? **If we say** that it is referring **to impurity due to a creeping animal, didn’t you say** above that according to the Elders of the South, **one may slaughter** the Paschal offering **and sprinkle** its blood **for** an owner who is in a state of **impurity due to a creeping animal? Rather,** it must be referring to **impurity due to a corpse, and** the mishna **teaches: The frontplate does not effect acceptance. Evidently,** if the **owner became impure due to a corpse, he may not send his offerings** for sacrifice, contrary to the opinion ascribed to the Elders of the South.


###### Zevachim 23a:6
[Zevachim 23a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/23a:6)

לָא; אִי דְּאִיטַּמּוֹ בְּעָלִים בְּמֵת – הָכִי נָמֵי; הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּטְמָא כֹּהֵן בְּשֶׁרֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No, if the owner became impure due to a corpse,** the frontplate **indeed** effects acceptance for the offering. The mishna is not referring to the owners of the offerings at all; rather, **here we are dealing with** a case **where** the officiating **priest became impure due to a creeping animal.**


###### Zevachim 23a:7
[Zevachim 23a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/23a:7)

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: נִיטְמָא טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם – הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה. הָא תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: לֹא אָמְרוּ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם – אֶלָּא לְמֵת בִּלְבַד; לְמֵת לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם דְּשֶׁרֶץ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, say the latter clause** of the mishna: If it became known after the offering was brought that he had **contracted ritual impurity** imparted **in the depths,** i.e., a source of impurity that had been unknown at the time, **the frontplate effects acceptance** for the offering. This clause cannot be reconciled with the suggested interpretation of the mishna, since **Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: They stated** this *halakha* of **impurity** imparted **in the depths only with regard to** impurity due to **a corpse.** Now, when he says that it applies only **to** impurity due to **a corpse,** he means **to exclude what?** Does he **not** mean **to exclude impurity** imparted by the carcass of **a creeping animal in the depths?** If so, the mishna cannot be referring to impurity due to a creeping animal.


###### Zevachim 23a:8
[Zevachim 23a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/23a:8)

לָא; לְמַעוֹטֵי טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם דְּזִיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** Rabbi Ḥiyya means **to exclude impurity** imparted **by** a gonorrhea-like **discharge [*ziva*] in the depths.** Impurity due to the corpse of a creeping animal, by contrast, is within the scope of the mishna.


###### Zevachim 23a:9
[Zevachim 23a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/23a:9)

וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּבָעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: כֹּהֵן הַמְרַצֶּה בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶם – הוּתְּרָה לוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם, אוֹ לֹא הוּתְּרָה לוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם? תִּפְשׁוֹט דְּטוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם הוּתְּרָה לוֹ; דְּהָא הָכָא בְּכֹהֵן קָיָימִינָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** how is one to understand **this dilemma that Rami bar Ḥama raises:** With regard to **a priest who effects acceptance for the offerings of** the nazirite and the Paschal offering, **was impurity** imparted **in the depths permitted for him or was impurity** imparted **in the depths not permitted for him?** According to the Elders of the South, why not **resolve** the dilemma and conclude **that impurity** imparted **in the depths was permitted for him, since** they hold that **we interpret** the mishna **here** as referring **to** an impure **priest?**


###### Zevachim 23a:10
[Zevachim 23a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/23a:10)

דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא וַדַּאי פְּלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The premise of this dilemma **of Rami bar Ḥama certainly disagrees** with the opinion of the Elders of the South, and Rami bar Ḥama does not interpret the mishna in this manner.


###### Zevachim 23a:11
[Zevachim 23a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/23a:11)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְנָשָׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת עֲוֹן הַקֳּדָשִׁים״ – וְכִי אֵיזֶהוּ עָוֹן נוֹשֵׂא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a verse written about the frontplate: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, **and Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred** items, which the children of Israel shall consecrate, even all their sacred gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before God” (Exodus 28:38). **And** the Sages expounded: **Which sin does** Aaron **bear?**