— He holds that a zab lacking atonement is as a zab. (1) Now, whether a zab lacking atonement is as a zab, is dependent on Tannaim. For it was taught: If an onen or one lacking atonement burns it, (2) it is fit. (3) Joseph the Babylonian said: If an onen [burns it], it is fit, [but] if one who lacks atonement burns it, it is unfit. Now surely they disagree in this: one Master holds that a zab lacking atonement is as a zab, (4) while the other Master holds that he is not as a zab! (5) — No. All agree that he is as a zab, but here they disagree in the following: For it is written, And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean, (6) whence it follows that he is unclean, thus teaching that a tebul yom is fit [to officiate] at the [red] heifer. (7) Now, one Master holds: This applies to every form of uncleanness mentioned in the Torah; (8) while the other Master holds that it applies to the uncleanness dealt with in this chapter only. (9) Therefore an onen and a tebul yom rendered [originally] unclean through a [dead] reptile, (10) who are less stringent, are derived a minori from a tebul yom rendered [originally] unclean through a dead body. But a zab who lacks atonement is not [thus derived], since he is more stringent, as his uncleanness proceeds from his own body. ONE LACKING THE [PRIESTLY] VESTMENTS. Whence do we know it? — Said R. Abbahu in R. Johanan's name, and some derive ultimately [the teaching] from R. Eleazar the son of R. Simeon: Because Scripture saith, And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and bind head-tires on them; and they shall have the priesthood by a perpetual statute: (11) When wearing their [appointed] garments, they are invested with their priesthood; when not wearing their garments, they are not invested with their priesthood. Now, is this derived from the verse quoted? Surely it is derived from elsewhere? For it was taught: How do we know that if one who had drank wine officiates, he profanes [the sacrifices]? Because it is written, Drink no wine nor strong wine....that ye may put difference between the holy and the profane. (12) How do we know [the same of] one who lacks [priestly] vestments and [of] one who had not washed his hands and feet?

---

(1). ↑ Until he brings his sacrifice, not only must he not partake of the flesh of sacrifices, but he even incurs kareth for doing so just as a zab who has not had his ritual bath at all. Similarly, he defiles the flesh just as a zab does. (Rashi. Tosaf explains it differently.) Hence his uncleanness is not less at all. — Though a zab is mentioned, the same applies to a leper too.
(2). ↑ Sc. the red heifer, v. Num. XIX.
(3). ↑ Because the red heifer does not possess the sanctity of a sacrifice, but only of anything which is dedicated for general Temple use, technically called ‘the sacred objects of the Temple repair’. An onen and one lacking atonement are disqualified to officiate at real sacrifices only.
(4). ↑ Hence his service is unfit, because Scripture specifies ‘a man that is clean’ (v. 9).
(5). ↑ Hence he is clean.
(6). ↑ Ibid. 19.
(7). ↑ ‘The clean person’ is superfluous, as the preceding verse states ‘and a clean person shall take hyssop’, etc. The repetition is understood to indicate that even if his cleanness is not absolute, but relative only, he is fit, and we do find in Lev. XIV, (8) that a tebul yom is designated ‘clean’: And he shall bath himself in water and be clean.
(8). ↑ Including a tebul yom who had been a zab. He still lacks atonement, and thus Scripture teaches that although such is unfit elsewhere, an exception is made in the case of the red heifer.
(9). ↑ Viz., that caused by contact with a dead body.
(10). ↑ Bah. emends omitting onen: therefore a tebul yom rendered (originally) unclean through a sherez or through carrion.
(11). ↑ Ex. XXIX, 9.
(12). ↑ Lev. X, 9f. This is interpreted as meaning that the officiating of such profanes, i.e., invalidates the sacrifice.