Zvachim Daf 17 - Sacrifices - Day dipped impurity
Sacrifices Page Q - Day dipped impurity
"Soaked day. Nlan? Edtanya, R. Simao says: clue to dip a day if he worked violated Where? TL: sacred and profane are, if it does not matter defile Danpyak Mwenzro, Tanhu matter dip day.
Mother: Tanhu Icing corrupting matter Korach old wig!
Dip Day Dam worked - with death AIPM Len? Dagmar desecration desecration of donation, donation applies Edpsil work real contribution disqualification applies not work "
First split, apparently, how to understand the Talmud's last response. Rashi (sv but not maintained) emphasizes that there is no shred the beginning of this answer, but '. I mean, is not intended to replace the first study, but came to explain why the verse should be demanded, saints will be 'just about soaked day. If so, there is no source from which to learn that Cohen bald Godoy unacceptable work.
Indeed, the Ramban, in his commentary on the Torah (Deuteronomy hand a) wrote this:
"The first commandment was perhaps the priests, saying that if the priest was not bald Godoy should work, as he said and profane name of their God, and their work generates"
It seems that the version of the Talmud Ramban Rashi version was like Delete, and thus repeating his opinion that the Gemara's answer from the study of 'holy will, and finds time to learn from this verse that Cohen bald Godoy work space.
Possible that this debate reflects a fundamental disagreement over the status dipped today. Dipped today is those who have already dipped in water, but to wait for the evening sun to his cleansing process is finished. As long as the evening sun was not, he defiles objects touch them, but if you touch the contribution or sanctuary - then they are disqualified.
It's an odd middle class can be understood in two ways. One possibility is that baptism did, MacLeish, the Tomatho of lush, but some contamination still remained until the evening sun. This impurity is not enough to contaminate an object as well, but enough to disqualify.
A second approach is, to divide between the two laws impurity. We present here the words of Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein and "as formulated by R. providing Galidi:
"A state of impurity has two different components: an unclean person setting for personal status, in practice it rests impurity. Thus, for example, prohibiting the entrance of the temple is not due to snot out of fear the temple Yetmaa him, but that person is defined 'unclean' is not suitable for the temple. On the other hand , who touches Abazaab defiled because impurity hath the issue goes to, not because he touched an unclean person is defined
When a person unclean dips - impurity lying about ill of him, but the definition as 'impure' remains in force until the end of the day. Dipped in a day, then, is a man defined unclean, although contamination does not bear him. Such a person must not eat holy temple entrance, since these activities are not a luxury but a pure, but is not moving impurity touch it, because no impurity not bear it. "
Sails before the verse, saints will be, discussed two prohibitions term - 'per capita is not unclean,' and 'not insects clearing. Therefore, it is the holy commandment will be referring to one of these prohibitions. As noted in the Talmud, the prohibition impurity itself does not refer, as it has been taught a different verse. You may question whether he would treat to dip a day or Lkroah clearing, depends on our vision of Dean soaked day. If contamination is slight, it can be seen as an appendix to trial impurity. But if a new law, the unclean man, as proposed and "Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, it seems more that teach the unique laws of this theory, the disqualification of the contribution. In this case, it seems the last answer of the Gemara new proposal, which erases the first study, accept the conclusion of the Ramban.
Rabbi Baruch Weintraub