קָסָבַר: מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים דְּזָב כְּזָב דָּמֵי.

The Gemara responds: Rabba holds that a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [ zav ] who has not yet brought an atonement offering considered to have the impure status of a zav . The impurity of one who has immersed but has not yet brought an atonement offering is therefore considered stronger than that of one who immersed that day but requires no atonement.

וּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים דְּזָב כְּזָב דָּמֵי תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: שְׂרָפָהּ אוֹנֵן וּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים – כְּשֵׁרָה. יוֹסֵף הַבַּבְלִי אוֹמֵר: אוֹנֵן – כְּשֵׁרָה, מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים – פְּסוּלָה; מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים דְּזָב כְּזָב דָּמֵי, וּמָר סָבַר: לָאו כְּזָב דָּמֵי?

The Gemara notes: And the matter of whether a zav who has not yet brought an atonement offering is still considered a zav is a dispute between tanna’im , as it is taught in a baraita : If an acute mourner or one who has not yet brought an atonement offering burned the red heifer, fit. Yosef the Babylonian says: If an acute mourner burned it, it is fit, but if one who has not yet brought an atonement offering burned it, it is disqualified. What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Yosef the Babylonian, holds that a zav who has not yet brought an atonement offering is considered a full-fledged zav and therefore disqualifies the red heifer, and one Sage, the first tanna , holds that a zav who has not yet brought an atonement offering is not considered a zav , but is instead considered like one who immersed that day, who is fit to burn the red heifer?

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כְּזָב דָּמֵי, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִזָּה הַטָּהֹר״ – מִכְּלָל שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא, לִימֵּד עַל טְבוּל יוֹם שֶׁכָּשֵׁר בְּפָרָה;

The Gemara responds: No, everyone agrees that he is considered a zav , and here the tanna’im disagree with regard to this matter, as it is written with regard to the rite of the red heifer: “And the pure person shall sprinkle” the water of purification (Numbers 19:19). The preceding verse already states that the one performing the service must be ritually pure. Therefore, by stating “pure” this verse emphasizes that he needs be pure enough only to perform the rite of the red heifer specifically. By inference, one derives that he may be impure in some way that disqualifies him for other rites. This teaches that one who immersed that day is fit to participate in the rite of the red heifer.

מָר סָבַר: טוּמְאָה דְּכָל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: טוּמְאָה דְּהָךְ פָּרָשָׁה.

The tanna’im disagree as to the extent of this halakha : One Sage, the first tanna , holds that it is referring to any state of impurity mentioned in the entire Torah, i.e., anyone who immersed that day due to any impurity may participate in the rite of the red heifer. And one Sage, Yosef the Babylonian, holds that it is referring specifically to one who was in the state of impurity mentioned in this passage, i.e., impurity contracted from a corpse, which the red heifer purifies.

הִלְכָּךְ, אוֹנֵן וּטְבוּל יוֹם דִּטְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ דְּקִילִי – אָתוּ בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִטְּבוּל יוֹם דְּמֵת, אֲבָל מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים דְּזָב דַּחֲמִיר, שֶׁכֵּן טוּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ – לָא.

Therefore, according to Yosef the Babylonian, with regard to an acute mourner and one who immersed that day after becoming impure due to contact with the carcass of a creeping animal, since they are treated more leniently, they are derived a fortiori from the case of one who immersed that day to remove impurity contracted from a corpse, and they are fit to participate in the rite of the red heifer. But with regard to a zav who has not yet brought an atonement offering, who is treated more stringently, since his impurity emerges onto him from his body rather than being imparted from without, one does not derive that he is fit to participate in the rite of the red heifer.

״מְחוּסַּר בְּגָדִים״. מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וּמָטוּ בָּהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְחָגַרְתָּ אוֹתָם אַבְנֵט אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו וְחָבַשְׁתָּ לָהֶם מִגְבָּעֹת וְהָיְתָה לָהֶם כְּהֻנָּה לְחֻקַּת עוֹלָם״, בִּזְמָן שֶׁבִּגְדֵיהֶם עֲלֵיהֶם – כְּהוּנָּתָם עֲלֵיהֶם, אֵין בִּגְדֵיהֶם עֲלֵיהֶם – אֵין כְּהוּנָּתָם עֲלֵיהֶם.

§ The mishna teaches that a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments disqualifies the rites he performs. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rabbi Avuh says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some determined it to be stated in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: As the verse states: “And you shall gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons, and bind mitres on them; and they shall have the priesthood by a perpetual statute” (Exodus 29:9). The verse indicates that when their vestments are on them, their priesthood is upon them, but if their vestments are not on them, their priesthood is not upon them and their rites are disqualified.

וְהָא מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא? מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא, דְּתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לִשְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן שֶׁאִם עָבַד חִילֵּל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר אַל תֵּשְׁתְּ וגו׳ וּלְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין הַחֹל״; מְחוּסַּר בְּגָדִים וְשֶׁלֹּא רְחוּץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם, מִנַּיִן?

The Gemara asks: But is this halakha derived from here? It is derived from there, as it is taught in a baraita : From where is it derived that if those who drank wine performed sacrificial rites they have desecrated the service? The verse states with regard to the priests: “Drink no wine or strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting, so that you not die; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations. That you may put difference between the holy and the common” (Leviticus 10:9–10). The baraita continues: With regard to one lacking the requisite vestments and one whose hands and feet are not washed, from where is it derived that their rites are disqualified as well?