레위기 21:18 탈무드 참조: Jerusalem Talmud Nazir & Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim

⁶⁰While the text in Pesaḥim 7:7 is not without its problems, it is clear that the text there has to be taken as the source; the copyist here neither understood nor proofread what he wrote. If the public became publicly⁶¹The word is [correctly] missing in Pesaḥim; a case of doubtful impurity in the public domain is always resolved by a presumption of purity (Soṭah 1:2, Note 88). impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable⁶²About the diadem worn by the High Priest, Ex. 28:38 states: “It shall be on Aaron’s forehead; Aaron shall carry the iniquity of the sacrificial gifts which the Children of Israel will dedicate, all their holy gifts; it shall always be on his forehead, to be accepted for them before the Eternal.” The action of the diadem, to make somewhat questionable sacrifices, e. g., those offered while using one of the legal fictions that may be used to overlook possible impurities, is therefore called “to make it acceptable.”? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity⁶³A single person impure on the 14^th of Nisan is required to celebrate the Second Passover on the 14^th of Iyar while if the majority of the people are impure on the 14^th of Nisan the congregation celebrate Passover in impurity. In this respect the standing of a single person clearly is inferior to that of the majority of the people., you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss⁶⁴If a doubt (mentioned explicitly in Pesaḥim, understood here) arises about a “grave of the abyss” in a private domain, it is treated as if it were in the public domain (Note 61)., it should be only logical that for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, you should clarify it to its advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public⁶⁵This disproves the previous argument. The rules of impurity for private persons and for the majority of the people are not comparable.. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure before sprinkling, that he should eat the meat⁶⁶This text does not make any sense. The correct text is in Pesaḥim: “A leniency which you apply to a single person, viz., that if it became known to him before sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure after sprinkling, so that he should not be pushed to the Second Passover. You treat that as restriction for the public, that if it became known to them after sprinkling it should be treated as if they became impure before sprinkling, that the meat should not be eaten.”
The first statement is derived from Mishnah Pesaḥim 7:7: “For a nazir and one who celebrates Passover who became impure in the impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes it acceptable.” The private person being involved in a possible impurity caused by a grave of the abyss never has to celebrate the Second Passover.
The second statement refers to Mishnaiot Pesaḥim 7:4–5. If the public are impure, the Passover sacrifice is slaughtered and eaten in impurity. But if it was slaughtered as pure and then it became impure or became known to be impure, it cannot be eaten.. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir is a restriction for the impure nazir⁶⁷This is a kind of headline for the following argument, rather than a case of dittography.. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, that he should bring a sacrifice of impurity⁶⁸The intelligible text is in Pesaḥim: “The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, viz., that if it became known to him before sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, so that he should not bring a sacrifice of impurity.” This is the statement of the Mishnah here, following the rabbis.. You treat it as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure so that he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case⁶⁹But if the impure nazir became aware of the second impurity before he offered his sacrifice of impurity, he has to bring only one sacrifice.. As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case⁷⁰Halakhah 6:8, Note 198.. If somebody is officiating⁷¹The Nazir text has עוֹבֵר “the passer-by” instead of עוֹבֵד “the officiating [priest]” passim. for the Passover sacrifice, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since for the owners [of the Passover sacrifice] whose position you clarified to their disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged⁷²The Passover sacrifice has to be slaughtered in the name of those who will be eating it, its “subscribers” (Mishnah Pesaḥim 5:3, Ex. 12:4). An old person and an infirm one who cannot eat meat in the volume of an olive may not subscribe to the Passover sacrifice, but as long as they do not exhibit a disability which disqualifies them (Lev. 21:18–20), old or infirm priests may serve in the Temple., you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. For the owners [of sacrifices] you clarify to their disadvantage⁷³The correct reading “advantage” is in Pesaḥim. An impure person (including a nazir not impure by the impurity of the dead) can send his sacrifices (other than the Passover sacrifice) to the Temple by a pure agent, but an impure priest cannot officiate, irrespective of the nature of his impurity. in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; you also say for the officiating that you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? “For you⁵⁸Num. 9:10, detailing the rules of “Second Passover” for people impure or absent on the 14^th of Nisan.”, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought, “on him⁷⁴Num. 6:9: “If a person suddenly dies on him.” In Sifry Num. 28, the expression “if a person dies” is interpreted as stating a fact, not a suspicion. This is used to clear the nazir from any suspected, unproven impurity from the dead.”, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other⁷⁵Babli Pesaḥim 80b..

If the public became impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity¹⁶⁸Since a single person impure on the 14th of Nisan is required to celebrate the Second Pesaḥ, his standing is inferior to that of the public who celebrate the First Pesaḥ in impurity., you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss¹⁶⁹The case of a grave in the abyss can arise only in a private domain since in a public domain all doubts are automatically resolved in favor of purity (Sotah 1:2, Note 88). For a private person, a case of doubt in matters of a grave in the abyss in a private domain is treated as if it were occurring in the public domain., for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity¹⁷⁰In that they may bring the Pesaḥ in impurity., it only is logical that you should clarify it to its advantage in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public¹⁷¹This is how one intends to disprove the argument de minore ad majus.. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him¹⁷²The impurity of a grave in the abyss never forces a person to the Second Pesaḥ; so if he was told before pouring it is as if he became otherwise impure after pouring, where the sacrificial act was completed and while he cannot eat his part of the Pesaḥ he has discharged all his obligations. before pouring he should be treated as if he became impure after pouring, that he should not be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, you restrict him in public, so that if it became known to him after pouring he should be treated as if he became impure before pouring, that he should not be able to eat the meat¹⁷³If the public are impure, the Pesaḥ is slaughtered and eaten in impurity. But if it was slaughtered as pure and then it became impure or became known to be impure, it cannot be eaten.. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him before pouring he is treated as impure after pouring, that he should not have to bring a sacrifice of impurity¹⁷⁴Mishnah Nazir 9:2. Corrector’s addition supported by K., you treat as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after pouring he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure; he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case¹⁷⁵But if the nazir became aware of the second impurity before he offered his sacrifice of impurity, he has to bring only one sacrifice.. [As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case¹⁷⁶Nazir Halakhah 6:8, Note 198..] If somebody is officiating for the Pesaḥ, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since for the owner [of the Pesaḥ] whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged¹⁷⁷While a person unable to eat the volume of an olive of the Pesaḥ may not subscribe to it, an old or sick priest is able to serve in the Temple as long as his infirmity is not of the kind listed in Lev, 21:18–20., you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. Since for the owner you clarify to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; what can you say for the officiating where you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year¹⁷⁸An impure person, including a nazir not impure by the impurity of the dead, can send his sacrifice other than the Pesaḥ to the Temple by a pure agent, but an impure priest cannot officiate, irrespective of the nature of his impurity.. Since you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? For you¹⁶⁵Both for the person going to celebrate the Pesaḥ and the nazir who finished his term, the impurity caused by a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss is disregarded. In view of the central role of purity in everything connected with the Sanctuary, it is obvious that some biblical justification has to be found for the rule. In the case of Passover, the argument notes that Num. 9:9 could have stated that a person on a far trip was required to celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. The addition for you seems to be superfluous. It is interpreted to mean just as the road is open to the wanderer, so the impurity has to be in the open for the impure person. The same argument is in the Babli 81b., whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought to say, on him¹⁶⁶Num. 6:9., not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other¹⁷⁹Babli 80b..

There, we have stated¹⁹⁶Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:1.: “All sacrifices whose blood was collected by a non-Cohen, a deep mourner¹⁹⁷A person obligated to bury a close relative, such as defined in Lev. 21:2–3, who from the moment of the death to the burial is barred from all sacral acts; inferred from Deut. 26:14., one immersed on this day¹⁹⁸Who is no longer impure but barred from sacral acts until sundown; Lev. 22:7., missing garments¹⁹⁹A Cohen serving while not wearing all priestly garments commits a deadly sin; Ex.28:43., missing atonement²⁰⁰A person healed from skin disease or gonorrhea who needs not only immersion in water and waiting for sundown but is excluded from sacral rites until be bring a purifying sacrifice, Lev. 14:1–32 for skin disease, 15:14–15 for the sufferer from gonorrhea., with unwashed hands or feet²⁰¹Ex. 30:19–20., uncircumcised²⁰²As the Babli points out, Zevaḥim 22b, there is no pentateuchal verse forbidding service to an uncircumcised priest, but there is one in Ezechiel, 44:9, which forbids entry to the Temple domain to any uncircumcised person, including a hemophiliac who may not be circumcised., impure²⁰³Lev. 22:2–3., sitting²⁰⁴Since the verses never permit any action in sitting, and the priests are required to be barefoot, no service is possible unless the priest is standing with his feet in direct contact with the floor of the Temple court, the Temple interior, or the altar., standing on utensils, on [an animal, on] another person²⁰⁵Meaning that another priest puts his hands under the feet of the officiating priest. Then he is not in contact with the floor., disqualified it.” The Southerners say, we hold this for those impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease²⁰⁶They read the expression “impurity of the body” used in the Mishnah to describe what the diadem does not make acceptable as impurity caused by the person’s body (i. e., in addition to skin disease and gonorrhea also sexual activity, Lev. 15:15,18.), but impurity of the dead does not desecrate since it was permitted in case of the impurity of the many for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to the Southerners: Since for the owner, where you clarified to his advantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year²⁰⁷They may send their sacrifices through an agent if they are disabled by impurity., you clarified to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ²⁰⁸He must celebrate the Second Pesaḥ., for the officiant, where you clarified to his disadvantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year²⁰⁹He may never serve being impure., it is only logical that you should clarify to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ. In addition to what Rebbi stated, “the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body.” If you want to say that this refers to the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, you cannot, since we have stated, “if the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss⁸²Impurity buried in the ground which previously was totally unknown and is only recently uncovered. Since it is impossible to guard against this kind of impurity there can be no penalty for “tent impurity” of this kind., the diadem makes acceptable.²¹⁰Since impurity of the abyss only is caused by a corpse, it is not caused by the person’s body. If it is stated that the diadem makes acceptable in this case, it follows that the diadem is inactive in all cases of known impurity caused by external influences.” What are the Southerners doing with this? They explain if for the owner²¹¹The diadem only covers abyss impurity of the owner, but not proven impurity of the dead; one may still read “impurity of the body” as referring to impurity produced by the body.. But did we not state “a nazir”²¹²The only impurity forbidden for the nazir is the impurity of the dead, so in Mishnah 5 the reference must be to this kind of impurity.? They explain it for the officiant. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, there is no difference; it is equal for owner or officiant. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is an argument de minore ad maius that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged¹⁷⁷While a person unable to eat the volume of an olive of the Pesaḥ may not subscribe to it, an old or sick priest is able to serve in the Temple as long as his infirmity is not of the kind listed in Lev, 21:18–20., what can you say about the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, this is an argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are indispensable for him²¹³Since Ex. 12:48 notes that no one uncircumcised may eat it [the Pesaḥ], in v. 44, a man’s slave, bought with money, if you circumcise him he may eat it, “he” is read to refer to the owner; the owner may not eat Pesaḥ if there are uncircumcised males in his familia. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 15, dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 35, what can you say about the officiating, for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are not indispensable²¹⁴Cf. Note 202. An uncircumcised Cohen may not serve; nothing is said about his dependents.. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid.