disqualification

[As to] an onen, and one who is removing a heap [of stones], and likewise one whom they promised to take out of prison, and a sick or an old person who can eat as much as an olive, they slaughter on their behalf. [Yet in the case of] all these, they may not slaughter for them alone, lest they bring the pesah to disqualification. Therefore if a disqualification occurs to them, they are exempt from keeping the second pesah, except for one who was removing the heap, because he was unclean from the beginning.

[As to] an onen, and one who is removing a heap [of stones], and likewise one whom they promised to take out of prison, and a sick or an old person who can eat as much as an olive, they slaughter on their behalf. [Yet in the case of] all these, they may not slaughter for them alone, lest they bring the pesah to disqualification. Therefore if a disqualification occurs to them, they are exempt from keeping the second pesah, except for one who was removing the heap, because he was unclean from the beginning.

The following do not descend once they have ascended: [Sacrificial flesh] that was kept overnight, Or that which becomes unclean Or that that which goes out [of its permitted boundaries], Or which was slaughtered [with the intention of consuming it] after the appropriate time or outside the appropriate place; Or if unfit [persons] received and sprinkled its blood. Rabbi Judah says: that which was slaughtered at night or whose blood was spilt or whose blood went outside the curtains, if it ascended, it must descend. Rabbi Shimon says: it does not descend, because Rabbi Shimon says: anything whose disqualification arose in sanctity, the sacred [altar] receives it; if its disqualification did not arise in sanctity, the sacred [altar] does not receive it.

The following do not descend once they have ascended: [Sacrificial flesh] that was kept overnight, Or that which becomes unclean Or that that which goes out [of its permitted boundaries], Or which was slaughtered [with the intention of consuming it] after the appropriate time or outside the appropriate place; Or if unfit [persons] received and sprinkled its blood. Rabbi Judah says: that which was slaughtered at night or whose blood was spilt or whose blood went outside the curtains, if it ascended, it must descend. Rabbi Shimon says: it does not descend, because Rabbi Shimon says: anything whose disqualification arose in sanctity, the sacred [altar] receives it; if its disqualification did not arise in sanctity, the sacred [altar] does not receive it.

Which are the ones whose disqualification did not arise in sanctity: An animal which had sexual relations with a woman or with a man, or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through the caesarean section, and blemished animals. Rabbi Akiva declared blemished animals fit [to remain on the altar if they had already been put up]. Rabbi Hananya, chief of the priests, said: my father used to push blemished animals off the altar.

On the south were the wood chamber, the chamber of the exile and the chamber of hewn stones. The wood chamber: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: I forget what it was used for. Abba Shaul says: It was the chamber of the high priest, and it was behind the two of them, and one roof covered all three. In the chamber of the exile there was a fixed cistern, with a wheel over it, and from there water was provided for all of the courtyard. In the chamber of hewn stone the great Sanhedrin of Israel used to sit and judge the priesthood. A priest in whom was found a disqualification used to put on black garments and wrap himself in black and go away. One in whom no disqualification was found used to put on white garments and wrap himself in white and go in and serve along with his brother priests. They used to make a feast because no blemish had been found in the seed of Aaron the priest, and they used to say: Blessed is the Omnipresent, blessed is He, for no blemish has been found in the seed of Aaron. Blessed is He who chose Aaron and his sons to stand to minister before the Lord in the Holy of Holies.

On the south were the wood chamber, the chamber of the exile and the chamber of hewn stones. The wood chamber: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: I forget what it was used for. Abba Shaul says: It was the chamber of the high priest, and it was behind the two of them, and one roof covered all three. In the chamber of the exile there was a fixed cistern, with a wheel over it, and from there water was provided for all of the courtyard. In the chamber of hewn stone the great Sanhedrin of Israel used to sit and judge the priesthood. A priest in whom was found a disqualification used to put on black garments and wrap himself in black and go away. One in whom no disqualification was found used to put on white garments and wrap himself in white and go in and serve along with his brother priests. They used to make a feast because no blemish had been found in the seed of Aaron the priest, and they used to say: Blessed is the Omnipresent, blessed is He, for no blemish has been found in the seed of Aaron. Blessed is He who chose Aaron and his sons to stand to minister before the Lord in the Holy of Holies.

The behavior of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi disagrees since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi read psalms afterwards. But have we not stated: One does not say words after Emet Weyaẓiv? He explains that as relating to Emet Weyaẓiv of the morning prayers, since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Abba bar Jeremiah: There are three immediacies: immediately after leaning comes slaughtering, immediately after hand-washing comes benediction, immediately after redemption comes prayer. Immediately after leaning comes slaughtering: “He shall lean … he shall slaughter” (Lev. 1:4–5). Immediately after hand-washing comes benediction, (Ps. 134:2) “Lift your hands in holiness and bless the Lord.” Immediately after redemption comes prayer, (Ps. 19:15) “May the words of my mouth be for goodwill” and it is written after that (Ps. 20:2) “May the Lord answer you on the day of worry.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: For anyone who immediately slaughters after leaning, no disqualification will appear regarding his sacrifice. For anyone who immediately pronounces the benediction after washing his hands, Satan will not find anything to accuse about at that meal. For anyone who immediately prays after mentioning redemption, Satan will not find anything to accuse him of the entire day. Rebbi Zeïra said, I am used to immediately pray after mentioning redemption and I was conscripted to forced labor, to bring myrrh to the Palace. They said to him: our teacher, that is an honor. There are people who pay money to see the inside of the Palace. Rebbi Immi said: Anyone who does not immediately pray after mentioning redemption, whom is he to be likened to? To an acquaintance of the king who comes from afar to the king’s door. When the king comes to see what he wants, he finds that the person left. Hence, the king also leaves.

HALAKHAH: 7: In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan there one burns biblical impurity with biblical impurity. He comes to add biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. In the opinion of Bar Qappara there one burns rabbinical impurity with biblical impurity. Here, biblical disqualification with biblical impurity only comes to diminish. Explain it if he was ṭevul yom from a bet happeras which is rabbinical. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel.

HALAKHAH: 7: In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan there one burns biblical impurity with biblical impurity. He comes to add biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. In the opinion of Bar Qappara there one burns rabbinical impurity with biblical impurity. Here, biblical disqualification with biblical impurity only comes to diminish. Explain it if he was ṭevul yom from a bet happeras which is rabbinical. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel.

Rebbi Yasa asked: Why does Rebbi Yose say, this is not the implication? Rebbi Yasa had heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, “from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim,” and he had heard that Bar Qappara said, “original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words.” But he had not heard that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, “both these and those are words of the Torah.” Therefore, he was asking: Just as it is permitted to burn what is (rabbinically) [biblically] forbidden with what is biblically impure, since one burns what is (rabbinically) [biblically] impure with what is biblically impure, so it should be permitted to burn what is (biblically) [rabbinically] forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is (biblically) [rabbinically] impure with what is biblically impure. But there must be a difference between prohibition and impurity. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together]. Just as you did not make a difference for us between biblical prohibition and biblical impurity since one burns what is biblically impure with what is biblically impure, so you should not make a difference for us between what is rabbinically forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is rabbinically impure with what is biblically impure. But it must be that both these and those are words of the Torah. There came Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba from Tyre and said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: both these and those are words of the Torah, and I said, it is correct. There (rabbinic) [biblical] impurity with biblical impurity but here biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. Therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult for Rebbi Meïr; therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. Bar Qappara must argue like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Then the opinion of Bar Qappara is difficult for Rebbi Yose based on what Rebbi Meïr said, “from their words we learned.” Rebbi Abbin said, Rebbi Meïr is consistent since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah. Where do we find that Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥinena said, as we have stated there: “A woman who sees a stain is out of order and worries because of flux[, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, nothing in stains implies flux].”

If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service and it is disqualified. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, is there transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service? It should be qualified. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned this from thought of piggul. If he poured not for its purpose would that not cause piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification. If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified? If he slaughtered for its purpose and received its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If he slaughtered for its purpose in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose and in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, it is qualified.

Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Yudan. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan that if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, would that not be piggufl? If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If one slaughtered for its purpose and to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified, since on the act of receiving he is thinking. Therefore, if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If at the moment of burning he does not think, then if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action. He told him, do not object to me about disqualification because of piggul, since Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification.

Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Yudan. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan that if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, would that not be piggufl? If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If one slaughtered for its purpose and to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified, since on the act of receiving he is thinking. Therefore, if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If at the moment of burning he does not think, then if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action. He told him, do not object to me about disqualification because of piggul, since Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification.

Rebbi Simlai came to Rebbi Jonathan. He said to him, teach me homiletics. He answered him, I have a tradition from my forefathers not to teach homiletics either to a Babylonian or to a Southerner, since they are gross in spirit and have little learning. And you are from Nahardea and live in the South. He said to him, tell me this one thing, what is the difference between “for its purpose and not for its purpose” and “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”? He answered him, “for its purpose and not for its purpose”, the disqualification is intrinsic. “For those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”, the disqualification is of others. “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, you cannot pick out the disqualified from the qualified. [“For those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”, you can pick out the disqualified from the qualified.] “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all sacrifices; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to the Pesaḥ.

Rebbi Simlai came to Rebbi Jonathan. He said to him, teach me homiletics. He answered him, I have a tradition from my forefathers not to teach homiletics either to a Babylonian or to a Southerner, since they are gross in spirit and have little learning. And you are from Nahardea and live in the South. He said to him, tell me this one thing, what is the difference between “for its purpose and not for its purpose” and “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”? He answered him, “for its purpose and not for its purpose”, the disqualification is intrinsic. “For those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”, the disqualification is of others. “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, you cannot pick out the disqualified from the qualified. [“For those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”, you can pick out the disqualified from the qualified.] “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all sacrifices; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to the Pesaḥ.

Rebbi Yose said, from that of Rebbi Eleazar one may deduce two [conclusions]. Since Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah if he slaughtered it for those who eat it, but it was covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it. But it is disqualified if from the start he slaughtered for those who eat it and it was covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it. Then its disqualification is of others and you can pick out the disqualified from the qualified, and you are saying so? But it must be the following, “for its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all sacrifices; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Abin said, there are others. “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all services; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to slaughtering.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as we have stated there: “One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single individual, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but Rebbi Yose permits.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Mana: Where do we find “not liable and qualified”? He told him, here we stated “not liable”, and there we stated “qualified”. But about all of them did Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa say, it should lose its shape and be brought to be burned. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Yose, one understands if they died or became impure. If the owners became disinterested? If they are alive, does disqualification qualify? It is disqualified. If after it was slaughtered, can one become disinterested after slaughter? Since he has the right to become disinterested, the disqualification qualifies, and it needs {losing its} shape.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as we have stated there: “One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single individual, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but Rebbi Yose permits.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Mana: Where do we find “not liable and qualified”? He told him, here we stated “not liable”, and there we stated “qualified”. But about all of them did Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa say, it should lose its shape and be brought to be burned. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Yose, one understands if they died or became impure. If the owners became disinterested? If they are alive, does disqualification qualify? It is disqualified. If after it was slaughtered, can one become disinterested after slaughter? Since he has the right to become disinterested, the disqualification qualifies, and it needs {losing its} shape.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A disqualification of the body [is piggul and] is immediately burned. [If the owners became impure or died it is] a disqualification of enabler and needs to lose its shape. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “Pesaḥ which left or which became impure is a disqualification of the body and has to be burned immediately. If the owner became impure or died it is a disqualification of the enabler and it shall lose its shape.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A disqualification of the body [is piggul and] is immediately burned. [If the owners became impure or died it is] a disqualification of enabler and needs to lose its shape. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “Pesaḥ which left or which became impure is a disqualification of the body and has to be burned immediately. If the owner became impure or died it is a disqualification of the enabler and it shall lose its shape.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A disqualification of the body [is piggul and] is immediately burned. [If the owners became impure or died it is] a disqualification of enabler and needs to lose its shape. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “Pesaḥ which left or which became impure is a disqualification of the body and has to be burned immediately. If the owner became impure or died it is a disqualification of the enabler and it shall lose its shape.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A disqualification of the body [is piggul and] is immediately burned. [If the owners became impure or died it is] a disqualification of enabler and needs to lose its shape. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “Pesaḥ which left or which became impure is a disqualification of the body and has to be burned immediately. If the owner became impure or died it is a disqualification of the enabler and it shall lose its shape.”

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Rebbi Nehemiah and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa both said the same, as it was stated: “it was burned because of deep mourning? Was it not burned only because of impurity? But it was not burned because of impurity, since if it had been burned because of mourning, all three of them should have been burned. Another opinion, was not Phineas with them? Another opinion, would it not have been permitted to be eaten in the evening?” In the opinion of Rebbi Nehemiah it should be burned but be counted. Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that all three of them were burned. Should not Phineas have eaten? He was not yet appointed {High} Priest. Should not Aaron have eaten in the evening? Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that deeo mourning in the night is from the Torah. Rebbi Jeremiah said, also Rebbi Yose the Galilean is with them. And we have stated there: “A purification sacrifice whose blood was received in two cups, of which one was brought outside; the one inside is qualified. If one of them was brought to the interior, Rebbi Yose the Galilean declares qualified but the Sages declare disqualified. [Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, since in a case where intent disqualifies outside the remainder was not made equal to what was brought outside, in a case where intent does not disqualify in the interior is it not logical that we not make the remainder to what was brought inside? If it was brought into the interior to atone, even if it did not atone it is disqualified, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Simeon says, only if it atones. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was brought into the interior in error, it remains qualified. Of all disqualified blood which one gave on the altar, the diadem only makes the impure acceptable; for the diadem makes the impure acceptable but not what was brought outside.”] Rebbi Eleazar said, you have to know that for Rebbi Yose the Galilean it is disqualification of the enabler since the other part is outside and it is qualified. You have to know that for the rabbis it is disqualification of the body since it is within its enclosure and it is disqualified. The rabbis explain, since nothing of the blood was brought to the interior, you shall certainly eat it. Therefore if some of the blood had been brought to the interior, you [would have done well] in burning it. Rebbi Yose the Galilean explains, since not all of the blood was brought to the interior, [you shall certainly eat it. Therefore if all of the blood had been brought inside,] you would have done well in burning it. What is the rabbis’ reason? Any purification offering of whose blood was brought; even part of the blood. What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary. [This fits with] what was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, the entire matter only speaks of bulls to be burned and goats to be burned, to prohibit eating them and to teach that if they are disqualified they are burned inside the citadel. They asked him, from where that a purification sacrifice becomes disqualified if some of its blood is brought inside? Not from this verse, behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary? There it does not say of whose blood but all of its blood. An answer to Rebbi Aqiba who was saying, of whose blood, not all of its blood.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Rebbi Nehemiah and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa both said the same, as it was stated: “it was burned because of deep mourning? Was it not burned only because of impurity? But it was not burned because of impurity, since if it had been burned because of mourning, all three of them should have been burned. Another opinion, was not Phineas with them? Another opinion, would it not have been permitted to be eaten in the evening?” In the opinion of Rebbi Nehemiah it should be burned but be counted. Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that all three of them were burned. Should not Phineas have eaten? He was not yet appointed {High} Priest. Should not Aaron have eaten in the evening? Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that deeo mourning in the night is from the Torah. Rebbi Jeremiah said, also Rebbi Yose the Galilean is with them. And we have stated there: “A purification sacrifice whose blood was received in two cups, of which one was brought outside; the one inside is qualified. If one of them was brought to the interior, Rebbi Yose the Galilean declares qualified but the Sages declare disqualified. [Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, since in a case where intent disqualifies outside the remainder was not made equal to what was brought outside, in a case where intent does not disqualify in the interior is it not logical that we not make the remainder to what was brought inside? If it was brought into the interior to atone, even if it did not atone it is disqualified, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Simeon says, only if it atones. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was brought into the interior in error, it remains qualified. Of all disqualified blood which one gave on the altar, the diadem only makes the impure acceptable; for the diadem makes the impure acceptable but not what was brought outside.”] Rebbi Eleazar said, you have to know that for Rebbi Yose the Galilean it is disqualification of the enabler since the other part is outside and it is qualified. You have to know that for the rabbis it is disqualification of the body since it is within its enclosure and it is disqualified. The rabbis explain, since nothing of the blood was brought to the interior, you shall certainly eat it. Therefore if some of the blood had been brought to the interior, you [would have done well] in burning it. Rebbi Yose the Galilean explains, since not all of the blood was brought to the interior, [you shall certainly eat it. Therefore if all of the blood had been brought inside,] you would have done well in burning it. What is the rabbis’ reason? Any purification offering of whose blood was brought; even part of the blood. What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary. [This fits with] what was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, the entire matter only speaks of bulls to be burned and goats to be burned, to prohibit eating them and to teach that if they are disqualified they are burned inside the citadel. They asked him, from where that a purification sacrifice becomes disqualified if some of its blood is brought inside? Not from this verse, behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary? There it does not say of whose blood but all of its blood. An answer to Rebbi Aqiba who was saying, of whose blood, not all of its blood.

MISHNAH: One slaughters for the deep mourner, and one who digs out a collapsed building, and one who was promised that he would be freed from jail, the sick person or the old who are able to eat the volume of an olive. But for all of these one does not slaughter for themselves lest the Pesaḥ become disqualified. Therefore if a disqualification should occur they are not liable for the Second Pesaḥ except for one who digs out a collapsed building who from the start could expect to be impure.

Sometimes he has the status of them and sometimes they have the status of him. Sometimes he has the status of them, a long collapsed building. I am saying that the blood was poured for him before he reached the impurity. Sometimes they have the status of him, at a circular collapsed building; if a disqualification occurred for them between slaughter and pouring, they have the status of him at a circular collapsed building.

It was stated: one does not form a group of women, slaves, and minors, since they increase lewd behavior. Bar Qappara stated, because they bring sancta to disqualification. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Issy: One does not form a group from proselytes. Since they are [faulty they are not] diligent about it and bring it to disqualification.

It was stated: one does not form a group of women, slaves, and minors, since they increase lewd behavior. Bar Qappara stated, because they bring sancta to disqualification. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Issy: One does not form a group from proselytes. Since they are [faulty they are not] diligent about it and bring it to disqualification.

“One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen.” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rebbi Haggai said, by Moses! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him. One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry.

The rabbis say, three for qualification and three for disqualification. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon are saying, 43 for qualification and 43 for disqualification. Therefore the rabbis say, any seven are atonement by themselves. [Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon are saying, each single one is atonement by itself.] Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon: he finished atoning for the holy, even if there is only one giving, the Torah says “he finished”.

The rabbis say, three for qualification and three for disqualification. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon are saying, 43 for qualification and 43 for disqualification. Therefore the rabbis say, any seven are atonement by themselves. [Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon are saying, each single one is atonement by itself.] Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon: he finished atoning for the holy, even if there is only one giving, the Torah says “he finished”.

“Rebbi Eleazar said, if he gave part of the givings when the blood was spilled, he brings others in their place; these [and those] are (emptied) following their commandments.” We need this only if an designation of disqualification was applicable to them. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. if he gave part of the givings when the blood was spilled, he brings others in their place; and the first ones are subject to meˋilah. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, so far if he slaughtered the first ones for qualification and the second one for disqualification. If he slaughtered the first ones for disqualification and the second one for qualification? Rebbi Yose said, we find that disqualification [eliminates] piggul; do we find that disqualification eliminates qualification?

“Rebbi Eleazar said, if he gave part of the givings when the blood was spilled, he brings others in their place; these [and those] are (emptied) following their commandments.” We need this only if an designation of disqualification was applicable to them. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. if he gave part of the givings when the blood was spilled, he brings others in their place; and the first ones are subject to meˋilah. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, so far if he slaughtered the first ones for qualification and the second one for disqualification. If he slaughtered the first ones for disqualification and the second one for qualification? Rebbi Yose said, we find that disqualification [eliminates] piggul; do we find that disqualification eliminates qualification?

“Rebbi Eleazar said, if he gave part of the givings when the blood was spilled, he brings others in their place; these [and those] are (emptied) following their commandments.” We need this only if an designation of disqualification was applicable to them. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. if he gave part of the givings when the blood was spilled, he brings others in their place; and the first ones are subject to meˋilah. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, so far if he slaughtered the first ones for qualification and the second one for disqualification. If he slaughtered the first ones for disqualification and the second one for qualification? Rebbi Yose said, we find that disqualification [eliminates] piggul; do we find that disqualification eliminates qualification?

“Rebbi Eleazar said, if he gave part of the givings when the blood was spilled, he brings others in their place; these [and those] are (emptied) following their commandments.” We need this only if an designation of disqualification was applicable to them. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. if he gave part of the givings when the blood was spilled, he brings others in their place; and the first ones are subject to meˋilah. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, so far if he slaughtered the first ones for qualification and the second one for disqualification. If he slaughtered the first ones for disqualification and the second one for qualification? Rebbi Yose said, we find that disqualification [eliminates] piggul; do we find that disqualification eliminates qualification?

“Rebbi Eleazar said, if he gave part of the givings when the blood was spilled, he brings others in their place; these [and those] are (emptied) following their commandments.” We need this only if an designation of disqualification was applicable to them. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. if he gave part of the givings when the blood was spilled, he brings others in their place; and the first ones are subject to meˋilah. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, so far if he slaughtered the first ones for qualification and the second one for disqualification. If he slaughtered the first ones for disqualification and the second one for qualification? Rebbi Yose said, we find that disqualification [eliminates] piggul; do we find that disqualification eliminates qualification?

“The Cohanim accepted him and his son and disqualified his slave,” because of disqualification, “but when he came to the Court they accepted him and his slave but disqualified his son,” because of relative.

“One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen.” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him. One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry.

“The one whose urethra is cut off, anyone whose penis is cut, but he is qualified if there is a thread’s [breath] left of the corona,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Of the upper side of the corona. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Of the lower side of the corona. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, of the lower side of the corona. There, they said, if it has the shape of a drainpipe, he is qualified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it has the shape of a writing reed, he is qualified, of an inverted writing reed, he is disqualified. If it is punctured, from the inside he is disqualified, from the outside he is qualified. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, “inside” [means] from the corona towards the body; “outside” [means] from the corona away from the body. If it is punctured, he is disqualified; if it became blocked, he is qualified. If [the urethra] is punctured, he is disqualified, because it pours out; if it became blocked, he is qualified because he can be fertile. That is a disqualification which can revert to a qualification. The only difference between one injured in his lower parts and one whose testicles are injured are medical rules since an injured testicle may heal, an injured urethra does not heal. What can he do? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Jehudah: He brings ants, lets them bite, and cuts them off.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not investigate a family in which a family disqualification has disappeared. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a Mishnah says so: “There was a family in Bet Ṣerifa in Transjordan who was forcibly distanced by Ben Ṣion. Another [family] was there who was forcibly integrated by Ben Ṣion.” Nevertheless, the Sages did not want to make their names public. But the Sages transmit them to their sons and students two times in a Week. Rebbi Joḥanan said, by the Temple service, I know them and the leading personalities of the generation have disappeared in them. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Pashḥur ben Immer the priest had 5000 slaves, and their traces have disappeared in the high priesthood. These are the insolent in the priesthood. Rebbi Eleazar said, their main training: “Your people is like quarrelsome priests.” Rebbi Abbahu said, Samaritans disappeared in thirteen villages in the times of persecution. They said, the village of Moshhan is one of them.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not investigate a family in which a family disqualification has disappeared. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a Mishnah says so: “There was a family Bene Ṣerifa in Transjordan who were forcibly distanced by Ben Ṣion. Another [family] was there who were forcibly integrated by the people of Ṣion.” Nevertheless, the Sages did not want to make their names public. But the Sages transmit them to their sons and students two times in a Week. Rebbi Joḥanan said, by the Temple service, I know them and the leading personalities of the generation have disappeared in them. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Pashḥur ben Immer had 5000 slaves, and their traces have disappeared in the high priesthood. These are the insolent in the priesthood. Rebbi Eleazar said, their main training: “Your people is like quarrelsome priests.” Rebbi Abbahu said, Samaritans disappeared in thirteen villages in the times of [persecution]. They said, עדן דמשאה is one of them.

HALAKHAH: “Each of them disqualifies the other’s witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so is the Mishnah: “His witness,” but not his witnesses. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, even his witnesses, as it was stated: “One always adds judges until judgment is rendered, and the judges may change their opinions. After judgment is rendered they may no longer change their opinions.” Rebbi Joḥanan agrees, that if these were the only ones, he cannot disqualify them. Zeˋira said, he and a person from the street can team up to disqualify this testimony. Rebbi Ḥanina asked, does not one witness force an oath everywhere? Rebbi Zeˋira said, by disqualification one can only be disqualified by a court. A relative does not have to be disqualified by the court. Rava bar Binah said in the name of Rav: Three are like final judgment.

“One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen.” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him. One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry.

R. Yose further said: It happened with R. Jose b. Ulam from Tziporri that a disqualification occurred to the high priest and they appointed him in his place, and the case eventually came before the Sages and they said: The first returns to his service. The second is not qualified to act either as a high priest or as an ordinary priest: