## Zevachim Daf 32b

###### Zevachim 32b:1
[Zevachim 32b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/32b:1)

סְמִיכָה נָמֵי כְּתִיב: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״! אֶפְשָׁר דִּמְעַיֵּיל יְדֵיהּ וְסָמֵיךְ. שְׁחִיטָה נָמֵי אֶפְשָׁר דְּעָבֵיד סַכִּין אֲרוּכָּה וְשָׁחֵיט!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **placing hands** on the head of an offering **as well, it is written: “Before the Lord.”** The Gemara answers that **it is possible,** in a case **where he inserts his hands** into the Temple courtyard **and places** them on the head of the offering while he remains outside. The Gemara asks: But with regard to **slaughter also,** it is **possible,** in a case **where he fashions a long knife and slaughters** the animal while standing outside the Temple courtyard.


###### Zevachim 32b:2
[Zevachim 32b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/32b:2)

הָא מַנִּי – שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – וְלֹא הַשּׁוֹחֵט לִפְנֵי ה׳. שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁיִּהְיוּ יָדָיו שֶׁל שׁוֹחֵט לִפְנִים מִן הַנִּשְׁחָט? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – שׁוֹחֵט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר יְהֵא לִפְנֵי ה׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this? It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Shimon HaTimni,** who holds that the one who slaughters an offering must stand inside the Temple courtyard. This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*, that when the verse states: **“And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord”** (Leviticus 1:5), it teaches that the bull must be inside the Temple courtyard, **but the slaughterer** need **not** be **“before the Lord.”** Therefore, he may stand outside the Temple courtyard and slaughter the offering that is inside. **Shimon HaTimni says: From where** is it derived **that the hands of** the **slaughterer must be** farther **inside** the Temple courtyard **than the** animal that is **slaughtered? The verse states: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord,”** which teaches that the **slaughterer of the bull must be before the Lord.**


###### Zevachim 32b:3
[Zevachim 32b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/32b:3)

אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: טָמֵא שֶׁהִכְנִיס יָדוֹ לִפְנִים – לוֹקֶה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע וְגוֹ׳״ – מַקִּישׁ בִּיאָה לִנְגִיעָה; מָה נְגִיעָה בְּמִקְצָת שְׁמָהּ נְגִיעָה, אַף בִּיאָה בְּמִקְצָת שְׁמָהּ בִּיאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos the question of whether partial entry into the Temple courtyard is considered entry, **Ulla says** that **Reish Lakish says: A ritually impure** individual **who inserted his hand inside** the Temple courtyard **is flogged** for transgressing the prohibition of entering the Temple while impure, **as it is stated** with regard to the impurity of a woman who gave birth: **“Every consecrated item she shall not touch,** and to the Temple she shall not come, until the days of her purification are complete” (Leviticus 12:4). The verse **juxtaposes entry** into the courtyard **to touching** a sacred item. **Just as touching with** even **a part** of the body **is considered touching, so too, entry with part** of the body **is considered entry.**


###### Zevachim 32b:4
[Zevachim 32b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/32b:4)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא לְעוּלָּא: מְצוֹרָע שֶׁחָל שְׁמִינִי שֶׁלּוֹ לִהְיוֹת בְּעֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח, וְרָאָה קֶרִי בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם, וְטָבַל –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Hoshaya raised an objection to Ulla** from that which was taught in a *baraita*: There is the case of **a leper whose eighth** day, on which he becomes ritually pure from his leprosy and performs the final stages of his purification process, **occurs on Passover eve,** such that it would be possible to bring his offerings and be fit to partake of the Paschal offering that evening. **And he experienced a seminal emission on that day** before he performed the final stages of his purification process, rendering him ritually impure and prohibited from entering the Temple. **And he** then **immersed** himself in a ritual bath. The question is whether he may come to the gate of the Temple courtyard, which is necessary to complete his purification process and terminate his status as a leper.


###### Zevachim 32b:5
[Zevachim 32b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/32b:5)

אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין טְבוּל יוֹם אַחֵר נִכְנָס, זֶה נִכְנָס; מוּטָב יָבוֹא עֲשֵׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת, וְיִדְחֶה עֲשֵׂה שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages said: Although** any **other** individual who was ritually impure **who immersed that day** and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed **may not enter** the Temple mount until nightfall, **this** one **may enter.** The reason is that **it is better** for **a positive mitzva that has** a punishment of ***karet*,** i.e., the bringing of the Paschal offering, to **come and override a positive mitzva for which there is no** liability to be punished with ***karet*,** i.e., the mitzva to remove individuals who are ritually impure from the Temple courtyard, than have the positive mitzva that has a punishment of *karet* not be performed.


###### Zevachim 32b:6
[Zevachim 32b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/32b:6)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה – אֲפִילּוּ עֲשֵׂה אֵין בּוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיַּעֲמֹד יְהוֹשָׁפָט בִּקְהַל יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלִַם בְּבֵית ה׳ לִפְנֵי הֶחָצֵר הַחֲדָשָׁה״ – מַאי ״חָצֵר הַחֲדָשָׁה״? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁחִידְּשׁוּ בָּהּ דְּבָרִים (הַרְבֵּה), וְאָמְרוּ: טְבוּל יוֹם אַל יִכָּנֵס לְמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: By Torah law, there is not even a positive mitzva** that restricts from entering the Temple courtyard one who has immersed that day and will become pure only upon nightfall, **as it is stated: “And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judea and Jerusalem, in the House of the Lord, before the new courtyard”** (II Chronicles 20:5). **What** is the meaning of **“the new courtyard”? Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** This is referring to the place **in which they innovated many matters and said** that **one who immersed that day may not enter the camp of the Levites,** which in Jerusalem includes the entire Temple Mount. This indicates that the prohibition is of rabbinic origin, and by Torah law it is permitted for him to enter.


###### Zevachim 32b:7
[Zevachim 32b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/32b:7)

וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּיאָה בְּמִקְצָת שְׁמָהּ בִּיאָה, הֵיכִי מְעַיֵּיל יְדֵיהּ בִּבְהוֹנוֹת? אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי עֲשֵׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Hoshaya concludes his objection: **And if you say** that **partial entry** into the courtyard **is considered entry, how** does the leper who immersed himself that day **insert his hands** into the courtyard **so that** his right **thumb and big toe** will become purified? In this situation, both **this** mitzva to eat of the Paschal offering **and that** mitzva for an impure person to not enter the courtyard **are** each **a positive mitzva for which there is** liability to be punished with ***karet*,** as someone who immersed himself that day who enters the Temple courtyard is liable to be punished with *karet*.


###### Zevachim 32b:8
[Zevachim 32b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/32b:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִטּוּנָךְ – שָׁאנֵי מְצוֹרָע, הוֹאִיל וְהוּתַּר לְצָרַעְתּוֹ הוּתַּר לְקִירְיוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ulla **said to** Rabbi Hoshaya: A proof to my opinion can be brought **from your** own **burden,** i.e., from the question you asked. **A leper is different,** as the Torah permitted him to insert his right thumb and big toe into the courtyard in order to become purified despite the fact that he has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, and **since he was permitted** to partially enter the courtyard **for** purification from **his leprosy, he was** also **permitted** with regard to his impurity due **to his seminal emission.** Nevertheless, a partial entry into the courtyard is in fact considered an entry.


###### Zevachim 32b:9
[Zevachim 32b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/32b:9)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, קָסָבַר עוּלָּא: רוּבָּן זָבִים וְנַעֲשׂוּ טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים; הוֹאִיל וְהוּתְּרוּ לְטוּמְאָתָן – הוּתְּרוּ לְזִיבָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Based on Ulla’s previous comment, **Rav Yosef said: Ulla holds** that if **most of** the Jewish people were ***zavim*** on Passover eve, and were therefore prohibited from sacrificing the Paschal offering while impure, **and** then **they became ritually impure due to a corpse,** which allows them to sacrifice the Paschal offering despite their impurity as they are a majority of the Jewish people, **since they are permitted** to sacrifice the offering **with regard to their impurity** due to a corpse, **they are** also **permitted with regard to their *ziva*.**


###### Zevachim 32b:10
[Zevachim 32b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/32b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי דָּמֵי?! טוּמְאָה אִישְׁתְּרַאי, זִיבָה לָא אִישְׁתְּרַאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: Are** the cases **comparable?** With regard to a leper who experienced a seminal emission, he was already permitted to partially enter the courtyard despite his initial impurity. Therefore, the subsequent impurity does not prohibit him from entering. By contrast, the *zavim* were originally prevented from sacrificing the Paschal offering. Therefore, even if he would be **permitted** to enter the courtyard despite becoming **impure** due to a corpse, he would **not** be **permitted** to enter due to the ***ziva*** that was previously present.


###### Zevachim 32b:11
[Zevachim 32b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/32b:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, דִּלְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר מָר: רוּבָּן טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים וְנַעֲשׂוּ זָבִים; הוֹאִיל וְהוּתְּרוּ לְטוּמְאָתָן – הוּתְּרוּ לְזִיבָתָן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, Abaye **said to him: Perhaps this** is what **the Master is saying:** If **most of** the Jewish people were initially **ritually impure due to a corpse, and they** subsequently **became *zavim*, since they are permitted with regard to their impurity** due to a corpse, **they are permitted with regard to their *ziva*** as well. Rav Yosef **said to him: Yes,** that was what I meant.


###### Zevachim 32b:12
[Zevachim 32b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/32b:12)

וְאַכַּתִּי לָא דָּמֵי; מְצוֹרָע – הֶיתֵּירָא הוּא, הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתְּרִי אִישְׁתְּרִי. טוּמְאָה – דְּחוּיָה הִיא, לְהָא אִידְּחַאי לְהָא לָא אִידְּחַאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But still,** this is **not comparable** to the case of Ulla, since with regard to **a leper, it is** with total **permission** that he is allowed partial entry into the courtyard. And **since it was permitted** with regard to one impurity, **it was permitted** with regard to a second impurity. But the **ritual impurity** with regard to the sacrificing of the Paschal offering **is** only **overridden,** and there is not a total permission. Perhaps **with regard to this,** i.e., ritual impurity due to a corpse, **it is overridden,** but **with regard to that,** i.e., the impurity of *ziva*, **it is not overridden.**


###### Zevachim 32b:13
[Zevachim 32b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/32b:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אַדְּרַבָּה, אִיפְּכָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא! מְצוֹרָע – הֶיתֵּירָא הוּא, לְהָא אִישְׁתְּרַאי וּלְהָא לָא אִישְׁתְּרַאי; טוּמְאָה – דְּחוּיָה הוּא, מָה לִי חַד דִּחוּיָא מָה לִי שְׁתֵּי דְּחִיּוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is** more **reasonable.** With regard to **a leper, it is** with specific **permission** that he was allowed by the Torah to insert his right thumb and big toe into the courtyard in order to become purified despite his ritual impurity, which was not granted for other impurities. Therefore, perhaps only **with regard to this** impurity **it is permitted, but with regard to that** impurity, i.e., due to a seminal emission, **it is not permitted.** But with regard to **ritual impurity,** since **it is overridden** in the case of ritual impurity due to a corpse, **what** difference does it make **to me** if there is **one** impurity that is **overridden,** and **what** difference does it make **to me** if there are **two** impurities that are **overridden?**