If the iniquity of piggul, (1) surely it is already said, it shall not be accepted? (2) If the iniquity of nothar, (3) surely it is already said, neither shall it be imputed [unto him that offereth it]? (4) Hence he bears naught but the iniquity of defilement, which is inoperative, (5) in opposition to its general rule, in the case of a community. (6) Now which uncleanness [is meant]? if we say, the uncleanness of a reptile, where has that been waived? (7) Hence it must mean uncleanness through a corpse, which proves that if the owners become unclean through a corpse they send their sacrifices. And of whom [is this said]? If of a Nazirite, the Divine Law saith, And if any man die very suddenly beside him, etc! (8) Hence it can only refer to one who is offering the Paschal lamb! — In truth it refers to [the uncleanness of] a reptile, yet uncleanness elsewhere [was waived]. (9) Others make this deduction: (10) [The head-plate makes atonement] only for the iniquity of the holy things, but not for the iniquity of those who hallow them. (11) Which uncleanness [is meant]? If we say, the uncleanness of a reptile? Is then that inoperative in the case of a community? Hence it must surely be the uncleanness of a corpse, and yet only the iniquity of the holy things [is atoned for], but not the iniquity of those who hallow them? — No: in truth it means uncleanness through a reptile, yet uncleanness elsewhere [is waived]. [A PRIEST] SITTING. Whence do we know it? — Said Raba in R. Nahman's name: Scripture saith, [For the Lord thy God hath chosen him — the priest — out of all thy tribes,] to stand to minister [in the name of the Lord]: (12) I have chosen him to stand, but not to sit. Our Rabbis taught: ‘To stand to minister’ is a recommendation; (13) when it says [further], who stand [there before the Lord]. (14) the Writ has repeated it, to make [standing] indispensable. Raba said to R. Nahman: Consider: one sitting is as a zar, (15) and profanes the service; then let us say: just as a zar is liable to death, (16) so is one who sits liable to death. Why then was it taught: But an uncircumcised [priest], an onen, and one sitting are not liable to death but are merely under an injunction [not to officiate]? — Because [a priest] lacking the [priestly] vestments and one whose hands and feet are not washed are two laws which come as one, (17)

---

(1). ↑ V. Glos.
(2). ↑ Lev. XIX, 7.
(3). ↑ V. Glos.
(4). ↑ Ib. VII, 18. Text as emended by Rashi on the basis of Torath Kohanim. The edd. reverse the proof-texts, and Tosaf. defends their reading.
(5). ↑ Lit., ‘permitted’.
(6). ↑ If the whole community or the majority thereof is unclean, they sacrifice the Passover-offering in the first month, as usual, and are not relegated to the second month as an individual would be.
(7). ↑ In favor of a community — Scripture speaks only of uncleanness through a corpse.
(8). ↑ Num. VI, 9. Scripture proceeds to say that he must then bring certain sacrifices and recommence his period of Naziriteship, at the conclusion of which he brings the prescribed sacrifices on the shaving of his head. Thus whilst unclean he cannot bring the latter.
(9). ↑ Though the Scriptural permission to a community applies only to uncleanness through a corpse, yet since we find that same form of uncleanness is inoperative, it is logical to say that the propitiating powers of the head-plate hold good in the case of uncleanness through a reptile.
(10). ↑ Which supports Rami b. Hama and refutes the Elders of the south.
(11). ↑ I.e., only when the sacrifice itself is defiled, but not when its owners or the priests — ‘those who hallow them’ — are unclean. This is deduced direct from Scripture, which speaks only of the ‘holy things’.
(12). ↑ Deut. XVIII, 5.
(13). ↑ I.e., this text alone would merely indicate that it is preferable that the priest shall stand.
(14). ↑ Ibid. XVIII, 7.
(15). ↑ For since he has not been chosen ‘to sit’, he is then like a zar (a lay-Israelite) who has not been chosen.
(16). ↑ For officiating.
(17). ↑ I.e., to teach the same thing. They too profane the service, and it is stated in Sanh. 83a that they are liable to death, and the same analogy might be drawn from each, viz., that those who profane the service are liable to death.