Zevachim Daf 17 זבחים דַף 17

Rabbah explains why the Torah needed to teach that a טמא, a טבול יום, and a מחוסר כפורים all invalidate avodah. Had the Torah only written טמא invalidates avodah, that may have been שכן מטמא – because it uniquely can make other items tamei. מחוסר כפורים could not be derived from טבול יום, שכן פסול בתרומה – because [a טבול יום] is ineligible for eating terumah, in contrast to מחוסר כפורים. A טבול יום could not be derived from מחוסר כפורים, שכן מחוסר מעשה – because [a מחוסר כפורים] lacks an act (bringing his korban), whereas a טבול יום’s purification finishes automatically at night. Furthermore, מחוסר כפורים could not be derived from both טמא and טבול יום, since both are ineligible to eat terumah. However, the Gemara asks that טבול יום could be derived from טמא and מחוסר כפורים together, for although both require an action (since a טמא needs טבילה), סוף סוף קלישא לה טומאתן – in the end, the tumah of [מחוסר כפורים] is weaker, since a מחוסר כפורים has already passed nightfall. The Gemara concludes that Rabbah holds מחוסר כפורים דזב כזב דמי – a zav who lacks atonement is similar to a full-fledged zav (and would be חייב כרת for eating kodashim, and be metamei it as a ראשון).

The Gemara suggests that the question if מחוסר כפורים דזב is like a זב is a machlokes Tannaim. In a Baraisa, the Tanna Kamma says that if a מחוסר כפורים burned the פרה אדומה, it is כשר, but יוסף הבבלי says it is פסול. The Gemara presumes that they disagree whether a מחוסר כפורים דזב is like a זב; יוסף הבבלי holds he does, and since the procedure must be performed by a “tahor,” he is ineligible. However, the Gemara responds that they argue about the following derashah: והזה הטהור – and the “tahor” person shall sprinkle (which is repetitive, since the previous passuk already required a tahor), מכלל שהוא טמא – this implies that he is someone who is still tamei after attaining some taharah. לימד על טבול יום שכשר בפרה – This teaches that a טבול יום is eligible for פרה procedures. The Tanna Kamma holds a טבול יום of any tumah of the Torah is eligible (including one requiring a korban the next day), and Yosef HaBavli limits the permit to the tumah discussed there, i.e., טומאת מת (and certainly lesser tumah, like שרץ), but not a מחוסר כפורים, שכן טומאה יוצאה עליו מגופו – since his tumah issues from his body.

The Gemara provides the source that a מחוסר בגדים – one lacking requisite clothing of a Kohen invalidates avodah. The passuk commands Moshe to clothe the Kohanim, and concludes: והיתה להם כהונה לחקת עולם – and the priesthood shall be for them as an eternal law, teaching: בזמן שבגדיהם עליהם כהונתם עליהם – when their clothing is upon them, their Kehunah is upon them, but if they are lacking in בגדי כהונה, their Kehunah is “not upon them,” i.e., they cannot perform avodah, like any זר. The Gemara asks that there is another source for this law: a passuk teaches that שתויי יין – those who have drunk wine invalidate avodah, and a gezeirah shavah (חוקה חוקה) extends this to a מחוסר בגדים and one who did not wash his hands and feet. The Gemara answers that this latter source would only teach to invalidate avodah for a זר which incurs the death penalty; the first source teaches that a מחוסר בגדים even invalidates an avodah which does not incur the death penalty.