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

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 slaughter also, it is possible, in a case where he fashions a long knife and slaughters the animal while standing outside the Temple courtyard.

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׳.

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), 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.

אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: טָמֵא שֶׁהִכְנִיס יָדוֹ לִפְנִים – לוֹקֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּכָל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע״ וגו׳, מַקִּישׁ בִּיאָה לִנְגִיעָה, מַה נְּגִיעָה בְּמִקְצָת שְׁמָהּ נְגִיעָה, אַף בִּיאָה בְּמִקְצָת שְׁמָהּ בִּיאָה.

§ 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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּיאָה בְּמִקְצָת שְׁמָהּ בִּיאָה – הֵיכִי מְעַיֵּיל יְדֵיהּ בַּבְּהוֹנוֹת? אִידִי וְאִידִי עֲשֵׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת הוּא!

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 .

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

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.

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

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 .

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

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. There- fore, 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.

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

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.

וְאַכַּתֵּי לָא דָּמֵי, מְצוֹרָע הֶיתֵּירָא הוּא, הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתְּרֵי – אִישְׁתְּרֵי. טוּמְאָה דְּחוּיָה הִיא, לְהָא אִידְּחַאי, לְהָא לָא אִידְּחַאי!

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אַדְּרַבָּה, אִיפְּכָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא: מְצוֹרָע הֶיתֵּירָא הוּא, לְהָא אִישְׁתְּרַאי וּלְהָא לָא אִישְׁתְּרַאי. טוּמְאָה דְּחוּיָה הוּא, מַה לִּי חַד דִּחוּיָא מַה לִּי שְׁתֵּי דְחִיּוֹת.

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?