sacrificed – is unclean dead can send a victim?

Issue, which stretches from the Honorable EA to mid-page Achgi EA, presents a dispute between the elders of the South and Rish Kish, about two questions:

Heathrow to the victim dead unclean, unclean dead Heathrow work of the temple.

Elders know the South, unclean dead victim may bring, at least in retrospect, and Cohen unclean dead does not invalidate his work.

Rish Lakish know, however, the unclean dead does not bring the victim, and Cohen worked his unclean rule out the victim died.

Gemara not interpreted what the victims were forbidden to the unclean send his offering, divided by views first. Rashi believes (Achgi IA, DH because they said) that the ban is only for Passover monk defiled. While in the rest of the victims there own impurity inhibits the sending of the victim.

In contrast, Maimonides, Laws of the coming of Temple Chapter XII gone, he wrote:

“Unclean dead … but it is not a victim at all Mckeribine to purify”

Ie, unclean dead can not bring any sacrifice.

In light of these two methods of distribution should be interpreted Rish Lakish elders of the South. According to Rashi, a point of dispute is over whether victims should be sacrificed in the way that goal can be realized. Therefore, the debate is actually about two of these victims, which the impurity interferes with the way their realization – Passover sacrifice offered to be eaten, unclean can not eat, victim friar defiled offered to start a new nuns, and as long as he is unclean dead, he can start the new Nezirotho. the rest of the victims, there is no impurity disturbs the realization of their purpose, and therefore there is no reason unclean can not be sent even r Lakish.

According to Maimonides, however, the dividing point between Southern and elders can not Resh Lakish destination sacrifices can not be realized, but the meaning of holy law died impurity. Elders of the South have learned from the law that permitted public dead impurity, that with respect to this holy impurity that is not severe – of the individual lecturer in public lectures. Therefore, one can also send his offering impurity.

Rish Lakish, however, believed that the press do not permit public permit only. Permit to the victim even when the majority of the unclean dead is not due to impurity of the dead canes, but the importance of the public. Therefore, the unclean one can not bring a dead victim of it all.

According to the Rambam’s way, Matbarr that there is a connection between the two controversies which divided the Elders South with Rish Lakish; One controversy over whether Cohen worked his unclean dead rule, a second controversy is unclean dead can send victims owners. Both point of dispute is about the severity impurity of the dead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rabbi Baruch Weintraub