Sanhedrin 84a

וְעֶרֶל בָּשָׂר לֹא יָבוֹא אֶל מִקְדָּשִׁי (לְשָׁרְתֵנִי)״.

or uncircumcised in flesh may enter My Temple” (Ezekiel 44:9).

אוֹנֵן מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל אֵת מִקְדַּשׁ אֱלֹהָיו״. הָא אַחֵר שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא, חִילֵּל.

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that it is prohibited for an acute mourner priest to perform the Temple service? It is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to a High Priest whose mother or father died: “And from the Temple he shall not emerge and he shall not desecrate the Temple of his God” (Leviticus 21:12), from which it may be inferred that another, who is not a High Priest but an ordinary priest, who did not emerge from the Temple and who continued to perform the service, has desecrated the service.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא לְרָבָא: וְנֵילַף ״חִילּוּל״ ״חִילּוּל״ מִתְּרוּמָה, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּמִיתָה – אַף כָּאן בְּמִיתָה.

Rav Adda said to Rava: And let us derive it by means of a verbal analogy: Derive the meaning of the term of desecration written with regard to an acute mourner who performs the Temple service from the term of desecration written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of teruma . Just as there, with regard to teruma , he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too here, with regard to an acute mourner who performs the Temple service, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

מִי כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ בְּגוּפֵיהּ? מִכְּלָלָא קָאָתֵי. הָוֵי דָּבָר הַבָּא מִן הַכְּלָל, וְכׇל דָּבָר הַבָּא מִן הַכְּלָל אֵין דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ בִּגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה.

Rava answers: Is desecration written with regard to the matter of a priest who performs the Temple service as an acute mourner itself? It is derived from that which is written with regard to the High Priest, by inference. Therefore, it is a matter that emerges from an inference, and the principle is: Any matter that emerges from an inference cannot be derived by means of a verbal analogy. A verbal analogy can be derived only when the matter is written explicitly.

יוֹשֵׁב מְנָלַן? אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אָמַר קְרָא ״כִּי בוֹ בָּחַר ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ מִכׇּל שְׁבָטֶיךָ לַעֲמֹד לְשָׁרֵת״. לַעֲמִידָה בְּחַרְתִּיו, וְלֹא לִישִׁיבָה.

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that it is prohibited for a priest who is seated to perform the Temple service? Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: The verse states: “For him has the Lord chosen from among all your tribes, to stand and minister in the name of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 18:5). God states in the verse that I chose him for service while he is standing, but not for service while seated.

בַּעַל מוּם: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר בְּמִיתָה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בָּאַזְהָרָה. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי? דִּכְתִיב: ״אַךְ אֶל הַפָּרֹכֶת לֹא יָבֹא וְגוֹ׳״, וְיָלֵיף חִילּוּל חִילּוּל מִתְּרוּמָה. מָה לְהַלָּן בְּמִיתָה, אַף כָּאן בְּמִיתָה.

§ The baraita continues: With regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, and the Rabbis say: He is liable only for violating a prohibition. The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It is as it is written: “But he shall not come into the curtain and he shall not approach the altar as he has a blemish, that he desecrate not My sacred places” (Leviticus 21:23). And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the punishment by means of a verbal analogy: The meaning of the term of desecration written with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service is derived from the term of desecration written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of teruma . Just as there, with regard to teruma , he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too here, with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

וְנֵילַף ״חִילּוּל״ ״חִילּוּל״ מִנּוֹתָר: מָה לְהַלָּן בְּכָרֵת, אַף כָּאן בְּכָרֵת?

The Gemara challenges: And let us derive the punishment by means of a different verbal analogy: Derive the meaning of the term of desecration written with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service from the term of desecration written with regard to notar . Just as there, with regard to notar , he is punished with karet , so too here, with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service, he is punished with karet .

מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִתְּרוּמָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן פְּסוּל הַגּוּף מִפְּסוּל הַגּוּף. אַדְּרַבָּה, מִנּוֹתָר הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן קוֹדֶשׁ, פְּנִים, פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר.

The Gemara explains: It is reasonable to say that he should have derived the punishment for a blemished priest who performs the Temple service from teruma , as the tanna derives the bodily disqualification of a blemished priest from the bodily disqualification of the impure priest. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, he should have derived the punishment for a blemished priest who performs the Temple service from notar , as there are elements common to notar and a blemished priest who performs the Temple service. Unlike teruma , both are cases involving sacrificial matters; both involve matters performed inside the Temple; and in both cases, the disqualification of piggul and the disqualification of notar are applicable.

אֶלָּא, מִטָּמֵא שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ גָּמַר. פְּסוּל הַגּוּף מִפְּסוּל הַגּוּף, קוֹדֶשׁ פְּנִים פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר מִקּוֹדֶשׁ פְּנִים פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר.

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the halakha of a blemished priest who performed the Temple service from the halakha of an impure priest who performed the Temple service, due to the elements common to both. He derives the bodily disqualification of a blemished priest from the bodily disqualification of an impure priest who performs the Temple service, and he derives the case of a blemished priest, whose case involves sacrificial matters, matters performed inside the Temple, and the relevance of both piggul and notar , from the case of an impure priest, whose case involves sacrificial matters, matters performed inside the Temple, and the relevance of both piggul and notar .

וְרַבָּנַן, אָמַר קְרָא: ״בּוֹ״, וְלֹא בְּבַעַל מוּם.

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what is the reason that they hold that he is liable only for violating a prohibition? It is as the verse states: “And die because of it if they desecrate it; I am the Lord Who sanctifies them” (Leviticus 22:9), from which it is derived: “Because of it” they receive death at the hand of Heaven, but not in the case of a blemished priest.

הֵזִיד בִּמְעִילָה: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר בְּמִיתָה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בָּאַזְהָרָה. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: גָּמַר חֵטְא חֵטְא מִתְּרוּמָה. מָה לְהַלָּן בְּמִיתָה – אַף כָּאן בְּמִיתָה.

The baraita continues: With regard to one who intentionally performed an action of misuse of consecrated property. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, and the Rabbis say: He is liable only for violating a prohibition. The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Rabbi Abbahu says: He derives a verbal analogy: The meaning of the term of sin written with regard to one who intentionally misuses consecrated property (see Leviticus 5:15) is derived from the term of sin written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of teruma (see Leviticus 22:9). Just as there, with regard to teruma , the priest is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too here, one who intentionally misuses consecrated property is punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

וְרַבָּנַן אָמְרִי: אָמַר קְרָא ״בּוֹ״, ״בּוֹ״ וְלֹא בִּמְעִילָה.

The Gemara explains: And the Rabbis say that the verse states with regard to teruma : “Because of it” they receive death at the hand of Heaven, but not in the case of the intentional misuse of consecrated property.

זָר שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ בְּמִקְדָּשׁ: תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״וְהַזָּר הַקָּרֵב יוּמָת״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״כֹּל הַקָּרֵב הַקָּרֵב אֶל מִשְׁכָּן ה׳ יָמוּת״. מָה לְהַלָּן בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם, אַף כָּאן בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם.

The Gemara cites a dispute between the Sages with regard to the punishment of a non-priest who performed the Temple service. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael says: It is stated here: “You and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood in everything that pertains to the altar …and any non-priest who approaches shall be put to death [ yumat ]” (Numbers 18:7), and it is stated there: “Anyone who approaches the Tabernacle of the Lord shall die [ yamut ]” (Numbers 17:28). Just as there, the reference is to death at the hand of Heaven; so too here, in the case of a non-priest who performs the Temple service, the reference is to death at the hand of Heaven.

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״וְהַזָּר הַקָּרֵב יוּמָת״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״וְהַנָּבִיא הַהוּא אוֹ חֹלֵם הַחֲלוֹם הַהוּא יוּמָת״. מָה לְהַלָּן בִּסְקִילָה, אַף כָּאן בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: מָה לְהַלָּן בְּחֶנֶק, אַף כָּאן בְּחֶנֶק.

Rabbi Akiva says that it is stated here: “And any non-priest who approaches shall be put to death [ yumat ]” and it is stated there: “And that prophet or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death [ yumat ]” (Deuteronomy 13:6). Just as there, with regard to the prophet, he is executed by stoning, so too here, a non-priest who performs the Temple service is executed by stoning. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: Just as there, with regard to the prophet, he is executed by strangulation, so too here, a non-priest who performs the Temple service is executed by strangulation.

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: דָּנִין ״יוּמָת״ מִ״יּוּמָת״, וְאֵין דָּנִין ״יוּמָת״ מִ״יָּמוּת״. וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: דָּנִין הֶדְיוֹט מֵהֶדְיוֹט, וְאֵין דָּנִין הֶדְיוֹט מִנָּבִיא. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִדִּיחַ – אֵין לְךָ הֶדְיוֹט גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva holds: In the verbal analogy, one derives yumat from yumat and one does not derive yumat from yamut . And Rabbi Yishmael holds: Although the terms are not identical, one derives by means of a verbal analogy the halakha of an ordinary person from the halakha of an ordinary person and one does not derive the halakha of an ordinary person from the halakha of a prophet. The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Akiva hold? Once the prophet incited others to idol worship, you have no greater example of an ordinary person than that, i.e., he no longer has the status of a prophet.

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי? בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבָּנַן, דְּתַנְיָא: נָבִיא שֶׁהִדִּיחַ – בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בְּחֶנֶק. הָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: בְּחֶנֶק.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita : A prophet who incited others to idol worship is executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: He is executed by strangulation. The Gemara asks: Didn’t we learn in a mishna with regard to a prophet who incites others to idol worship that Rabbi Akiva says: He is executed by strangulation, contrary to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion cited in the baraita ?

תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. מַתְנִיתִין – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. בָּרַיְיתָא – רַבָּנַן וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

The Gemara answers: These are two tanna’im and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The mishna, which cites the opinion that Rabbi Akiva holds that a prophet who incited others to idol worship is executed by strangulation, is citing the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon was his preeminent disciple. The baraita , which cites the opinion that Rabbi Akiva holds that a prophet who incited others to idol worship is executed by stoning, is citing the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon, and they too hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ אֵלּוּ הֵן הַנִּשְׂרָפִין.