Zevachim Daf 23 זבחים דַף 23

A Mishnah states that the ציץ is not מרצה for "טומאת הגוף" – tumah of the body. This seems to contradict the זקני דרום, who hold a korban may be brought on behalf of an owner who is a טמא שרץ, and hold that even if he is a טמא מת, the pesach is valid if it was already brought!? The Gemara answers that this Mishnah refers to a Kohen who became tamei from a שרץ, whose avodah is invalid. The Gemara objects that the סיפא of this Mishnah states that if he was tamei with טומאת התהום – “tumah of the deep” (i.e., previously unknown tumah), the ציץ is מרצה (based on a הלכה למשה מסיני). According the זקני דרום, the Mishnah is discussing טומאת שרץ, but Rebbe Chiya said that the leniency of טומאת התהום only applies to טומאת מת, presumably excluding טומאת שרץ!? The Gemara answers that Rebbe Chiya only meant to exclude a case of טומאת זיבה (which is more stringent, since it issues from the body).

The Gemara notes that Rami bar Chama, who asked if the leniency of טומאת התהום applies to a tamei Kohen (or only a tamei owner), certainly did not interpret the above Mishnah like the זקני דרום. According to him, it teaches that the pesach of an owner who is טמא מת is invalid. This is challenged from a Baraisa analyzing when the ציץ is מרצה. The passuk says it bears "עון הקדשים" – the sin of sacred offerings. This cannot refer to avodah with intent of חוץ למקומו or חוץ לזמנו, because these are both invalid. It must refer to the sin of tumah, שהותרה מכללה בצבור – which has an exception to its general prohibition for a communal [korban], which may be brought in a state of tumah. Since טומאת שרץ is never waived for a קרבן צבור, this must refer to טומאת מת, teaching that a pesach is valid (בדיעבד) if it was brought for someone tamei, thus disproving Rami bar Chama!? The Gemara answers that the Baraisa actually refers to טומאת שרץ, ושם טומאה בעולם – and the Baraisa means that the general category of tumah has a leniency of being waived for a קרבן צבור, although the specific tumah of שרץ is not.

Another version of this exchange is presented.

The Mishnah on Daf 15b taught that the avodah of יושב – someone sitting is invalid. Rav Nachman explains that the passuk which says Hashem chose the Kohen "לעמוד לשרת" – to stand and to serve implies: לעמידה בחרתיו ולא לישיבה – I chose him for standing, but not for sitting. A Baraisa says this passuk teaches מצוה – the requirement to stand, so when another passuk says "העומדים" – who stand (before Hashem), שנה עליו הכתוב לעכב – the passuk thereby repeated this requirement to make it critical to avodah. Rava asked Rav Nachman that since יושב disqualifies avodah like a זר does, we should say that a יושב who performs avodah is liable to מיתה בידי שמים like a זר is, yet a Baraisa teaches that יושב only violates a prohibition!? The Gemara answers that since the Torah taught there is מיתה בידי שמים for a Kohen lacking בגדים, and one who did not wash his hands and feet, they are שני כתובים הבאין כאחד – two pesukim which come as one (to teach the same law), from which we do not derive the law to other cases.