Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 29, 2018 | 讬状讚 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Zevachim 16

Study Guide Zevachim 16. The mishna lists various聽cases where one of the 3 sacrificial rites (after slaughtering) were done in a way that disqualifies the dsacrifice. The gemara starts with the first 2 – a non-kohen and a聽kohen who is an onen, (after the death and before the burial of a close relative) and for each one various proofs are brought to show from where we learn that these cases are disqualified. Rava suggests that the disqualification of onen聽is only for a private sacrifice but his suggestion is rejected.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讝专 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇

then with regard to a non-priest, who may not partake of the meat of offerings of the most sacred order, is it not right that if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service?

诪讛 诇讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖讻谉 注砖讛 讘讜 拽专讘 讻诪拽专讬讘

The Gemara rejects the inference: One cannot draw an a fortiori inference from a blemished priest, as what is notable about the case of a blemished priest? It is notable in that the Torah rendered an animal that is sacrificed like the priest who sacrifices it, i.e., both blemished animals and blemished priests are disqualified. Since there is an added element of stringency with regard to the case of a blemished priest, one cannot draw an a fortiori inference from it.

讟诪讗 讬讜讻讬讞 诪讛 诇讟诪讗 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗

The Gemara suggests: The case of an impure priest will prove that this is no reason to reject the a fortiori inference. While an animal and the priest are not equated with regard to ritual impurity, as an animal cannot become impure while alive but a priest can, an impure priest desecrates the service. The Gemara rejects this as well: What is notable about the case of an impure priest? It is notable in that an impure priest imparts impurity to others.

讘注诇 诪讜诐 讬讜讻讬讞 讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖诪讜讝讛专讬谉 讜讗诐 注讘讚讜 讞讬诇诇讜 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 讝专 砖讛讜讗 诪讜讝讛专 讜讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇

The Gemara responds: A blemished priest will prove that this is no reason to reject the inference, as he cannot impart his blemish to others. And the inference has reverted to its starting point. Therefore, one may derive the halakha of a non-priest from the combination of the case of a blemished priest and that of an impure priest: The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case, and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case. Their common element is that they are prohibited from performing sacrificial rites and if they performed these rites they have desecrated the service. Therefore, I will also include a non-priest, who is prohibited from performing sacrificial rites, and conclude that if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service.

诪谞诇谉 讚诪讜讝讛专 讗讬 诪讜讬谞讝专讜 讞讬诇讜诇 讘讙讜驻讬讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讜讝专 诇讗 讬拽专讘 讗诇讬讻诐

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that a non-priest is prohibited from performing sacrificial rites? If it is derived from the verse: 鈥淪peak to Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, and that they not profane My holy name鈥 (Leviticus 22:2), then the a fortiori inference is unnecessary, since profanation itself is writ-ten in the verse. Rather, it must be that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淜eep the charge of the Tent of Meeting, whatever the service of the Tent may be; but a common man shall not draw close to you鈥 (Numbers 18:4).

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 诇讗 讛讜转专讜 讘讘诪讛

The Gemara asks: Still, the a fortiori inference drawn from the cases of a blemished priest and an impure priest can be refuted: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that a blemished priest and an impure priest were not permitted to perform sacrificial rites on a private altar during times when there was no Temple or permanent Tabernacle. Since it was permitted for non-priests to perform rites on private altars, perhaps non-priests do not desecrate the sacrificial rites performed in the Temple.

诇讗 转讬诪讗 讟诪讗 讬讜讻讬讞 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讜谞谉 讬讜讻讬讞 诪讛 诇讗讜谞谉 砖讻谉 讗住讜专 讘诪注砖专 [讘注诇 诪讜诐] 讬讜讻讬讞

The Gemara responds: Do not say that the case of an impure priest will prove the a fortiori inference with the case of a blemished priest; rather, say that the case of an acute mourner will prove it, as it is prohibited for him to perform the service and, if he were to perform it, he would desecrate it. This, too, is rejected: What is notable about the case of an acute mourner? It is notable in that he is prohibited from partaking of second tithe, whereas a non-priest may partake of second tithe. The Gemara responds: A blemished priest will prove the inference, as he may partake of second tithe.

讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖诪讜讝讛专讬谉 讻讜壮

And the inference has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case. Their common element is that they are prohibited from performing sacrificial rites ab initio, and they desecrate the service if they do so. Therefore, with regard to a non-priest, who is prohibited from performing sacrificial rites, if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇驻专讜讱 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 诇讗 讛讜转专讜 讘讘诪讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 住诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗讜谞谉 讗住讜专 讘讘诪讛 讚诇诪讗 砖专讬 讘讘诪讛

The Gemara asks: Here, too, let one refute the inference: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that both an acute mourner and a blemished priest were not permitted to perform sacrificial rites on a private altar, unlike a non-priest. Rav Samma, son of Rava, objects to this: And who shall say to us that an acute mourner was prohibited from performing rites on a private altar? Perhaps it was permitted for him to perform the rites on a private altar.

专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讗诪专 讗转讬讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讜砖讘 诪讛 讬讜砖讘 砖讗讜讻诇 讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇 讝专 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇

Rav Mesharshiyya says: The halakha that a non-priest desecrates the service is derived by an a fortiori inference from the case of a priest who performed sacrificial rites while sitting: Just as with regard to a priest who was sitting, who may partake of the meat of offerings, if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service, then with regard to a non-priest, who may not partake of the meat of offerings of the most sacred order, is it not right that if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service?

诪讛 诇讬讜砖讘 砖讻谉 驻住讜诇 诇注讚讜转 诪讬讜砖讘 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐

The Gemara rejects this: What is notable about the case of a sitting priest? It is notable in that one who sits is disqualified from bearing witness, as witnesses must stand when testifying. Since there is an added aspect of stringency with regard to the case of a sitting priest, one cannot derive the halakha with regard to a non-priest from it. The Gemara responds: Learn instead from the halakha of a sitting Torah scholar, as the court may allow a Torah scholar to sit while testifying.

诪讛 诇砖诐 讬讜砖讘 砖讻谉 驻住讜诇 诇注讚讜转 砖诐 讬讜砖讘 诇讗 驻专讬讱 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 驻专讬讱 讗转讬讗 诪讬讜砖讘 讜诪讞讚讗 诪讛谞讱

The Gemara challenges: Still, one cannot derive the halakha from this, as what is notable about the category of a sitting priest? It is notable in that generally speaking, one who sits is disqualified from bearing witness, even though there are exceptions. The Gemara responds: The category of a sitting priest cannot refute the derivation. One can refute a derivation only from concrete cases, not general concepts. And even if you say it can refute the derivation, the halakha with regard to a non-priest can be derived from the case of a sitting priest and from one of those other cases, i.e., a blemished priest, an impure priest, or an acute mourner, all of whom may testify.

讜讬讜砖讘 讚讻砖专 讘讘诪讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇注诪讚 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 诇砖专转讜 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讜诇讗 诇驻谞讬 讘诪讛

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that one who is sitting is fit to perform sacrificial rites on a private altar? If he is not, one can refute the common element in the same manner as above. The Gemara responds: The verse states: 鈥淭he Lord separated the tribe of Levi to bear the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister to Him鈥 (Deuteronomy 10:8). The verse indicates that the sacrificial rites must be performed while standing only before the Lord, i.e., in the Temple, where the Divine Presence resides, and not before a private altar, which is a mere place of worship.

讗讜谞谉 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪谉 讛诪拽讚砖 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讛讗 讗讞专 砖诇讗 讬爪讗 讞讬诇诇

搂 The mishna teaches that rites performed by an acute mourner are disqualified. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As it is written with regard to a High Priest who is an acute mourner: 鈥淎nd he shall not leave the Sanctuary, and he will not profane the Sanctuary of his God鈥 (Leviticus 21:12). One can infer: But any other ordinary priest who did not leave the Sanctuary while he was an acute mourner and continued to perform the service has desecrated the rites he performed.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讛谉 讛拽专讬讘讜 讗谞讬 讛拽专讘转讬 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬 讗讬谞讛讜 讗拽专讬讘 砖驻讬专 讗讬砖转专讜祝

Rabbi Elazar says: One can derive it from here instead: When Moses asked Aaron why the sin offering that was sacrificed on the day that Nadav and Avihu died was burned and not eaten, he suspected that Aaron鈥檚 other sons, Eleazar and Itamar, had sacrificed the sin offering while acute mourners, which disqualified it and forced them to burn it. Aaron responded to Moses: 鈥淭his day have they offered their sin offering?鈥 (Leviticus 10:19). Rather, I offered it. As High Priest, I do not desecrate the Temple service even when I am an acute mourner; I burned it only because, as acute mourners, my sons and I are prohibited from partaking of the meat. Rabbi Elazar continues: By inference, one can derive that if they had offered the sin offering they would have disqualified it, and it would have been proper that it was burned.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诪讜诪谉 讛诪拽讚砖 诇讗 讬爪讗 讗诪专 诇讱 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讛讗 讗讞专 砖诇讗 讬爪讗 讞讬诇诇

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rabbi Elazar does not say that this halakha is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall not leave the Sanctuary鈥? The Gemara responds: He could have said to you: Is it written: But any other ordinary priest that did not leave the Sanctuary has desecrated the rites he performed? It is only an inference, and so it is not conclusive.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诪讛谉 讛拽专讬讘讜 拽住讘专 诪驻谞讬 讟讜诪讗讛 谞砖专驻讛

The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, who derives it from the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall not leave the Sanctuary,鈥 what is the reason that he did not say to derive it from the verse: 鈥淭his day have they offered their sin offering?鈥 The Gemara responds: He holds that the sin offering was burned because it became ritually impure, not because Aaron and his sons were acute mourners.

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讘注诇 诪讜诐 讜诪讛

A tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The halakha is derived by an a fortiori inference from the case of a blemished priest: And just as

讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖讗讜讻诇 讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇 讗讜谞谉 砖讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇

with regard to a blemished priest, who may partake of the meat of offerings, if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service, then with regard to an acute mourner, who may not partake of the meat of offerings, is it not right that if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service?

诪讛 诇讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖讻谉 注砖讛 讘讜 拽专讬讘讬谉 讻诪拽专讬讘讬谉

The Gemara rejects the inference: One cannot derive this halakha from the case of a blemished priest, as what is notable about a blemished priest? It is notable in that the Torah rendered animals that are sacrificed like the priests who sacrifice them. Since this stringency does not exist with regard to acute mourning, perhaps an acute mourner may perform sacrificial rites as well.

讝专 讬讜讻讬讞 诪讛 诇讝专 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛

The Gemara responds: The case of a non-priest will prove that this is no reason to reject the a fortiori inference, since there is no equivalence between priest and sacrifice in this regard, yet a non-priest desecrates the service. The Gemara rejects this as well: One cannot cite a proof from the case of a non-priest, as what is notable about the case of a non-priest? It is notable in that he has no remedy, i.e., a non-priest may never perform the sacrificial rites. By contrast, an acute mourner will eventually become permitted to perform the service.

讘注诇 诪讜诐 讬讜讻讬讞 讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讛谉 诪讜讝讛专讬谉 讜讗诐 注讘讚讜 讞讬诇诇讜 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 讗讜谞谉 砖诪讜讝讛专 讜讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇

The Gemara responds: A blemished priest will prove that this is no reason to reject the inference, as even though the priest may perform the service if the blemish is healed, he desecrates the service so long as he remains blemished. And the inference has reverted to its starting point. Therefore, one learns the halakha from the combination of the cases of a blemished priest and a non-priest: The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case, and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case. Their common element is that they are prohibited from performing sacrificial rites, and if they performed such rites they have desecrated the service. Therefore, I will also include an acute mourner, who is prohibited from performing sacrificial rites, and conclude that if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service.

讛讬讻谉 诪讜讝讛专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讜诪谉 讛诪拽讚砖 诇讗 讬爪讗 讞讬诇讜诇 讘讙讜驻讬讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讛谉 讛拽专讬讘讜 讜拽住讘专 诪驻谞讬 讗谞讬谞讜转 谞砖专驻讛

The Gemara clarifies: Where is an acute mourner prohibited from performing sacrificial rites, as asserted in the inference? If we say that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall not leave the Sanctuary, and he will not profane the Sanctuary of his God鈥 (Leviticus 21:12), then the above a fortiori inference is unnecessary, since profanation itself is written in the verse. Rather, it must be that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淭his day have they offered their sin offering?鈥 (Leviticus 10:19), and this tanna holds that the sin offering brought by Aaron was burned because Aaron and his sons were in acute mourning.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 诇讗 讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讜

The Gemara challenges: The inference from the common element of the cases of a blemished priest and a non-priest can be refuted: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that there are no circumstances in which its general prohibition was permitted. There is an exception to the prohibition against an acute mourner performing the Temple service, namely the High Priest, who may perform the sacrificial rites while an acute mourner.

讟诪讗 讬讜讻讬讞

The Gemara responds: The case of an impure priest will prove that this is no reason to reject the inference, as there is an exception to the prohibition against performing the service while impure, namely that the prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity is permitted in cases involving the public, yet an impure priest desecrates the service.

诪讛 诇讟诪讗 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗 讛谞讱 讬讜讻讬讞讜 讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 讻讜壮 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖诪讜讝讛专讬谉 讻讜壮

The Gemara asks: What is notable about the case of an impure priest? It is notable in that he imparts impurity to others. Perhaps it is only for this reason that an impure priest desecrates the service. The Gemara responds: Those other cases, i.e., a blemished priest and a non-priest, will prove that this does not reject the inference, since they do not impart their status to others. And the inference has reverted to its starting point. Therefore, one can derive the halakha from the combination of the cases of an impure priest, a blemished priest, and a non-priest: The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case; their common element is that they are prohibited from performing sacrificial rites and they desecrate the service. Therefore, I will also conclude that since an acute mourner is prohibited from performing sacrificial rites, he desecrates the service.

讜诇驻专讜讱 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 诇讗 讛讜转专讜 诪讻诇诇谉 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 砖诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讬讛讗 讗讬砖转专讗讬

The Gemara asks: But let one refute this as well: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that its general prohibition was not permitted, even in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering. By contrast, a High Priest in acute mourning may perform rites even for individual offerings. The Gemara responds: The category of impurity, at least, is permitted in the case of communal offerings. Therefore, one cannot claim that an impure priest, a non-priest, and a blemished priest all share a lack of exemptions.

专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讗诪专 讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讜砖讘 讜诪讛 讬讜砖讘 砖讗讜讻诇 讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇 讗讜谞谉 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇

Rav Mesharshiyya says: The halakha with regard to an acute mourner is derived by a fortiori inference from the case of a sitting priest: And just as with regard to a sitting priest, who may partake of the meat of offerings, if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service, then with regard to an acute mourner, who may not partake of the meat of offerings, is it not right that if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service?

诪讛 诇讬讜砖讘 砖讻谉 驻住讜诇 诇注讚讜转 诪讬讜砖讘 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐

The Gemara rejects this: What is notable about the case of a sitting priest? It is notable in that one who sits is disqualified from bear-ing witness, as witnesses must stand when testifying. The Gemara responds: Learn instead from the halakha of a sitting Torah scholar, as the court may allow a Torah scholar to sit while testifying.

诪讛 诇砖诐 讬讜砖讘 砖讻谉 驻住讜诇 诇注讚讜转 砖诐 讬讜砖讘 诇讗 驻专讬讱 讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 驻专讬讱 讗转讬讗 诪讬讜砖讘 讜诪讞讚讗 诪讛谞讱

The Gemara challenges: Still, one cannot derive from this, as what is notable about the category of a sitting priest? It is notable in that generally speaking, one who sits is disqualified from bearing witness, even though there are exceptions. The Gemara responds: The category of a sitting priest cannot refute the derivation. One can refute a derivation only from concrete cases, not general concepts. And even if you say it can refute the derivation, the halakha with regard to a non-priest can be derived from the case of a sitting priest and from one of those other cases, i.e., a non-priest, an impure priest, or a blemished priest, through their common element.

讗讜谞谉 驻住讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讗讘诇 讘拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专 诪专爪讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讟讜诪讗讛

搂 The mishna teaches that if an acute mourner collects the blood of an offering, the offering is disqualified. Rava says: They taught this only with regard to an individual鈥檚 offering. But with regard to a communal offering, a rite performed by an acute mourner does effect acceptance. One can derive this by a fortiori inference from ritual impurity.

诪讛 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讛讚讬讜讟 讘拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专 讗谞讬谞讜转 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讘拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专

Just as the prohibition against performing rites in a state of ritual impurity, whose general prohibition was not permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering, as no individual offering may be sacrificed in a state of impurity, was nevertheless permitted in the case of an ordinary [hedyot] priest performing rites for a communal offering, as communal offerings may be sacrificed by an impure priest when necessary; then so too, with regard to the prohibition against performing rites while in a period of acute mourning, whose general prohibition was permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering, as the High Priest may perform all rites while an acute mourner, is it not right that this prohibition was permitted in the case of an ordinary priest performing rites for a communal offering?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讘专 讗讛讬诇讗讬 诇讗 转讜转专 讗谞讬谞讜转 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讘爪讘讜专 诇讗 讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讗谞讬谞讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讘拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讜转专 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚

Rava bar Ahilai objects to this: On the contrary, if such an inference can be made, then perhaps one can make the following mistaken inference: The performance of rites in a state of acute mourning should not be permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering, by a fortiori inference: And just as the prohibition against performing rites in a state of ritual impurity, whose general prohibition was permitted in the case of an ordinary priest performing rites for a communal offering, was not permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering; then so too, with regard to the prohibition against performing the rites during a period of acute mourning, whose general prohibition was not permitted in the case of an ordinary priest performing rites for a communal offering, is it not right that this prohibition should not be permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering?

讜转讜转专 讟讜诪讗讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讗谞讬谞讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜转专 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讘拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专 讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讘拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚

And similarly, one may claim: The performance of rites in a state of ritual impurity should be permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering, by a fortiori inference: And just as the prohibition against performing rites in a state of acute mourning, whose general prohibition was not permitted in the case of an ordinary priest performing rites for a communal offering, still was permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering; then so too, with regard to the prohibition against performing the rites in a state of ritual impurity, whose general prohibition was permitted in the case of an ordinary priest performing rites for a communal offering, is it not right that this prohibition was permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering?

讜诇讗 转讜转专 讟讜诪讗讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讘拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讗谞讬谞讜转 砖讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 诇讗 讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讘拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讜转专 讘讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讘拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专

And similarly, one may claim: The performance of rites in a state of ritual impurity should not be permitted in the case of an ordinary priest performing rites for a communal offering, by a fortiori inference: And just as the prohibition against performing rites in a state of acute mourning, whose general prohibition was permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering, still was not permitted in the case of an ordinary priest performing rites for a communal offering; then so too, with regard to the prohibition against performing the rites in a state of ritual impurity, whose general prohibition was not permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual offering, is it not right that this prohibition should not be permitted in the case of an ordinary priest performing rites for a communal offering?

(讜诇讗 转讜转专 讜诇讗 转讜转专 讗谞讬谞讜转 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讬讞讬讚 讜讬讞讬讚 爪讘讜专 住讬诪谉)

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for recalling the above rejections of Rava bar Ahilai: And should not be permitted, and should not be permitted, acute mourning, and ritual impurity, ritual impurity, individual, and individual, communal.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 16

讝专 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇

then with regard to a non-priest, who may not partake of the meat of offerings of the most sacred order, is it not right that if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service?

诪讛 诇讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖讻谉 注砖讛 讘讜 拽专讘 讻诪拽专讬讘

The Gemara rejects the inference: One cannot draw an a fortiori inference from a blemished priest, as what is notable about the case of a blemished priest? It is notable in that the Torah rendered an animal that is sacrificed like the priest who sacrifices it, i.e., both blemished animals and blemished priests are disqualified. Since there is an added element of stringency with regard to the case of a blemished priest, one cannot draw an a fortiori inference from it.

讟诪讗 讬讜讻讬讞 诪讛 诇讟诪讗 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗

The Gemara suggests: The case of an impure priest will prove that this is no reason to reject the a fortiori inference. While an animal and the priest are not equated with regard to ritual impurity, as an animal cannot become impure while alive but a priest can, an impure priest desecrates the service. The Gemara rejects this as well: What is notable about the case of an impure priest? It is notable in that an impure priest imparts impurity to others.

讘注诇 诪讜诐 讬讜讻讬讞 讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖诪讜讝讛专讬谉 讜讗诐 注讘讚讜 讞讬诇诇讜 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 讝专 砖讛讜讗 诪讜讝讛专 讜讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇

The Gemara responds: A blemished priest will prove that this is no reason to reject the inference, as he cannot impart his blemish to others. And the inference has reverted to its starting point. Therefore, one may derive the halakha of a non-priest from the combination of the case of a blemished priest and that of an impure priest: The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case, and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case. Their common element is that they are prohibited from performing sacrificial rites and if they performed these rites they have desecrated the service. Therefore, I will also include a non-priest, who is prohibited from performing sacrificial rites, and conclude that if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service.

诪谞诇谉 讚诪讜讝讛专 讗讬 诪讜讬谞讝专讜 讞讬诇讜诇 讘讙讜驻讬讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讜讝专 诇讗 讬拽专讘 讗诇讬讻诐

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that a non-priest is prohibited from performing sacrificial rites? If it is derived from the verse: 鈥淪peak to Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, and that they not profane My holy name鈥 (Leviticus 22:2), then the a fortiori inference is unnecessary, since profanation itself is writ-ten in the verse. Rather, it must be that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淜eep the charge of the Tent of Meeting, whatever the service of the Tent may be; but a common man shall not draw close to you鈥 (Numbers 18:4).

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 诇讗 讛讜转专讜 讘讘诪讛

The Gemara asks: Still, the a fortiori inference drawn from the cases of a blemished priest and an impure priest can be refuted: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that a blemished priest and an impure priest were not permitted to perform sacrificial rites on a private altar during times when there was no Temple or permanent Tabernacle. Since it was permitted for non-priests to perform rites on private altars, perhaps non-priests do not desecrate the sacrificial rites performed in the Temple.

诇讗 转讬诪讗 讟诪讗 讬讜讻讬讞 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讜谞谉 讬讜讻讬讞 诪讛 诇讗讜谞谉 砖讻谉 讗住讜专 讘诪注砖专 [讘注诇 诪讜诐] 讬讜讻讬讞

The Gemara responds: Do not say that the case of an impure priest will prove the a fortiori inference with the case of a blemished priest; rather, say that the case of an acute mourner will prove it, as it is prohibited for him to perform the service and, if he were to perform it, he would desecrate it. This, too, is rejected: What is notable about the case of an acute mourner? It is notable in that he is prohibited from partaking of second tithe, whereas a non-priest may partake of second tithe. The Gemara responds: A blemished priest will prove the inference, as he may partake of second tithe.

讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖诪讜讝讛专讬谉 讻讜壮

And the inference has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case. Their common element is that they are prohibited from performing sacrificial rites ab initio, and they desecrate the service if they do so. Therefore, with regard to a non-priest, who is prohibited from performing sacrificial rites, if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇驻专讜讱 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 诇讗 讛讜转专讜 讘讘诪讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 住诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗讜谞谉 讗住讜专 讘讘诪讛 讚诇诪讗 砖专讬 讘讘诪讛

The Gemara asks: Here, too, let one refute the inference: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that both an acute mourner and a blemished priest were not permitted to perform sacrificial rites on a private altar, unlike a non-priest. Rav Samma, son of Rava, objects to this: And who shall say to us that an acute mourner was prohibited from performing rites on a private altar? Perhaps it was permitted for him to perform the rites on a private altar.

专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讗诪专 讗转讬讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讜砖讘 诪讛 讬讜砖讘 砖讗讜讻诇 讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇 讝专 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇

Rav Mesharshiyya says: The halakha that a non-priest desecrates the service is derived by an a fortiori inference from the case of a priest who performed sacrificial rites while sitting: Just as with regard to a priest who was sitting, who may partake of the meat of offerings, if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service, then with regard to a non-priest, who may not partake of the meat of offerings of the most sacred order, is it not right that if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service?

诪讛 诇讬讜砖讘 砖讻谉 驻住讜诇 诇注讚讜转 诪讬讜砖讘 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐

The Gemara rejects this: What is notable about the case of a sitting priest? It is notable in that one who sits is disqualified from bearing witness, as witnesses must stand when testifying. Since there is an added aspect of stringency with regard to the case of a sitting priest, one cannot derive the halakha with regard to a non-priest from it. The Gemara responds: Learn instead from the halakha of a sitting Torah scholar, as the court may allow a Torah scholar to sit while testifying.

诪讛 诇砖诐 讬讜砖讘 砖讻谉 驻住讜诇 诇注讚讜转 砖诐 讬讜砖讘 诇讗 驻专讬讱 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 驻专讬讱 讗转讬讗 诪讬讜砖讘 讜诪讞讚讗 诪讛谞讱

The Gemara challenges: Still, one cannot derive the halakha from this, as what is notable about the category of a sitting priest? It is notable in that generally speaking, one who sits is disqualified from bearing witness, even though there are exceptions. The Gemara responds: The category of a sitting priest cannot refute the derivation. One can refute a derivation only from concrete cases, not general concepts. And even if you say it can refute the derivation, the halakha with regard to a non-priest can be derived from the case of a sitting priest and from one of those other cases, i.e., a blemished priest, an impure priest, or an acute mourner, all of whom may testify.

讜讬讜砖讘 讚讻砖专 讘讘诪讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇注诪讚 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 诇砖专转讜 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讜诇讗 诇驻谞讬 讘诪讛

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that one who is sitting is fit to perform sacrificial rites on a private altar? If he is not, one can refute the common element in the same manner as above. The Gemara responds: The verse states: 鈥淭he Lord separated the tribe of Levi to bear the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister to Him鈥 (Deuteronomy 10:8). The verse indicates that the sacrificial rites must be performed while standing only before the Lord, i.e., in the Temple, where the Divine Presence resides, and not before a private altar, which is a mere place of worship.

讗讜谞谉 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪谉 讛诪拽讚砖 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讛讗 讗讞专 砖诇讗 讬爪讗 讞讬诇诇

搂 The mishna teaches that rites performed by an acute mourner are disqualified. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As it is written with regard to a High Priest who is an acute mourner: 鈥淎nd he shall not leave the Sanctuary, and he will not profane the Sanctuary of his God鈥 (Leviticus 21:12). One can infer: But any other ordinary priest who did not leave the Sanctuary while he was an acute mourner and continued to perform the service has desecrated the rites he performed.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讛谉 讛拽专讬讘讜 讗谞讬 讛拽专讘转讬 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬 讗讬谞讛讜 讗拽专讬讘 砖驻讬专 讗讬砖转专讜祝

Rabbi Elazar says: One can derive it from here instead: When Moses asked Aaron why the sin offering that was sacrificed on the day that Nadav and Avihu died was burned and not eaten, he suspected that Aaron鈥檚 other sons, Eleazar and Itamar, had sacrificed the sin offering while acute mourners, which disqualified it and forced them to burn it. Aaron responded to Moses: 鈥淭his day have they offered their sin offering?鈥 (Leviticus 10:19). Rather, I offered it. As High Priest, I do not desecrate the Temple service even when I am an acute mourner; I burned it only because, as acute mourners, my sons and I are prohibited from partaking of the meat. Rabbi Elazar continues: By inference, one can derive that if they had offered the sin offering they would have disqualified it, and it would have been proper that it was burned.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诪讜诪谉 讛诪拽讚砖 诇讗 讬爪讗 讗诪专 诇讱 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讛讗 讗讞专 砖诇讗 讬爪讗 讞讬诇诇

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rabbi Elazar does not say that this halakha is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall not leave the Sanctuary鈥? The Gemara responds: He could have said to you: Is it written: But any other ordinary priest that did not leave the Sanctuary has desecrated the rites he performed? It is only an inference, and so it is not conclusive.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诪讛谉 讛拽专讬讘讜 拽住讘专 诪驻谞讬 讟讜诪讗讛 谞砖专驻讛

The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, who derives it from the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall not leave the Sanctuary,鈥 what is the reason that he did not say to derive it from the verse: 鈥淭his day have they offered their sin offering?鈥 The Gemara responds: He holds that the sin offering was burned because it became ritually impure, not because Aaron and his sons were acute mourners.

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讘注诇 诪讜诐 讜诪讛

A tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The halakha is derived by an a fortiori inference from the case of a blemished priest: And just as

讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖讗讜讻诇 讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇 讗讜谞谉 砖讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇

with regard to a blemished priest, who may partake of the meat of offerings, if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service, then with regard to an acute mourner, who may not partake of the meat of offerings, is it not right that if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service?

诪讛 诇讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖讻谉 注砖讛 讘讜 拽专讬讘讬谉 讻诪拽专讬讘讬谉

The Gemara rejects the inference: One cannot derive this halakha from the case of a blemished priest, as what is notable about a blemished priest? It is notable in that the Torah rendered animals that are sacrificed like the priests who sacrifice them. Since this stringency does not exist with regard to acute mourning, perhaps an acute mourner may perform sacrificial rites as well.

讝专 讬讜讻讬讞 诪讛 诇讝专 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛

The Gemara responds: The case of a non-priest will prove that this is no reason to reject the a fortiori inference, since there is no equivalence between priest and sacrifice in this regard, yet a non-priest desecrates the service. The Gemara rejects this as well: One cannot cite a proof from the case of a non-priest, as what is notable about the case of a non-priest? It is notable in that he has no remedy, i.e., a non-priest may never perform the sacrificial rites. By contrast, an acute mourner will eventually become permitted to perform the service.

讘注诇 诪讜诐 讬讜讻讬讞 讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讛谉 诪讜讝讛专讬谉 讜讗诐 注讘讚讜 讞讬诇诇讜 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 讗讜谞谉 砖诪讜讝讛专 讜讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇

The Gemara responds: A blemished priest will prove that this is no reason to reject the inference, as even though the priest may perform the service if the blemish is healed, he desecrates the service so long as he remains blemished. And the inference has reverted to its starting point. Therefore, one learns the halakha from the combination of the cases of a blemished priest and a non-priest: The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case, and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case. Their common element is that they are prohibited from performing sacrificial rites, and if they performed such rites they have desecrated the service. Therefore, I will also include an acute mourner, who is prohibited from performing sacrificial rites, and conclude that if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service.

讛讬讻谉 诪讜讝讛专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讜诪谉 讛诪拽讚砖 诇讗 讬爪讗 讞讬诇讜诇 讘讙讜驻讬讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讛谉 讛拽专讬讘讜 讜拽住讘专 诪驻谞讬 讗谞讬谞讜转 谞砖专驻讛

The Gemara clarifies: Where is an acute mourner prohibited from performing sacrificial rites, as asserted in the inference? If we say that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall not leave the Sanctuary, and he will not profane the Sanctuary of his God鈥 (Leviticus 21:12), then the above a fortiori inference is unnecessary, since profanation itself is written in the verse. Rather, it must be that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淭his day have they offered their sin offering?鈥 (Leviticus 10:19), and this tanna holds that the sin offering brought by Aaron was burned because Aaron and his sons were in acute mourning.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 诇讗 讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讜

The Gemara challenges: The inference from the common element of the cases of a blemished priest and a non-priest can be refuted: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that there are no circumstances in which its general prohibition was permitted. There is an exception to the prohibition against an acute mourner performing the Temple service, namely the High Priest, who may perform the sacrificial rites while an acute mourner.

讟诪讗 讬讜讻讬讞

The Gemara responds: The case of an impure priest will prove that this is no reason to reject the inference, as there is an exception to the prohibition against performing the service while impure, namely that the prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity is permitted in cases involving the public, yet an impure priest desecrates the service.

诪讛 诇讟诪讗 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗 讛谞讱 讬讜讻讬讞讜 讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 讻讜壮 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖诪讜讝讛专讬谉 讻讜壮

The Gemara asks: What is notable about the case of an impure priest? It is notable in that he imparts impurity to others. Perhaps it is only for this reason that an impure priest desecrates the service. The Gemara responds: Those other cases, i.e., a blemished priest and a non-priest, will prove that this does not reject the inference, since they do not impart their status to others. And the inference has reverted to its starting point. Therefore, one can derive the halakha from the combination of the cases of an impure priest, a blemished priest, and a non-priest: The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case; their common element is that they are prohibited from performing sacrificial rites and they desecrate the service. Therefore, I will also conclude that since an acute mourner is prohibited from performing sacrificial rites, he desecrates the service.

讜诇驻专讜讱 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 诇讗 讛讜转专讜 诪讻诇诇谉 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 砖诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讬讛讗 讗讬砖转专讗讬

The Gemara asks: But let one refute this as well: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that its general prohibition was not permitted, even in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering. By contrast, a High Priest in acute mourning may perform rites even for individual offerings. The Gemara responds: The category of impurity, at least, is permitted in the case of communal offerings. Therefore, one cannot claim that an impure priest, a non-priest, and a blemished priest all share a lack of exemptions.

专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讗诪专 讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讜砖讘 讜诪讛 讬讜砖讘 砖讗讜讻诇 讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇 讗讜谞谉 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗诐 注讘讚 讞讬诇诇

Rav Mesharshiyya says: The halakha with regard to an acute mourner is derived by a fortiori inference from the case of a sitting priest: And just as with regard to a sitting priest, who may partake of the meat of offerings, if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service, then with regard to an acute mourner, who may not partake of the meat of offerings, is it not right that if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service?

诪讛 诇讬讜砖讘 砖讻谉 驻住讜诇 诇注讚讜转 诪讬讜砖讘 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐

The Gemara rejects this: What is notable about the case of a sitting priest? It is notable in that one who sits is disqualified from bear-ing witness, as witnesses must stand when testifying. The Gemara responds: Learn instead from the halakha of a sitting Torah scholar, as the court may allow a Torah scholar to sit while testifying.

诪讛 诇砖诐 讬讜砖讘 砖讻谉 驻住讜诇 诇注讚讜转 砖诐 讬讜砖讘 诇讗 驻专讬讱 讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 驻专讬讱 讗转讬讗 诪讬讜砖讘 讜诪讞讚讗 诪讛谞讱

The Gemara challenges: Still, one cannot derive from this, as what is notable about the category of a sitting priest? It is notable in that generally speaking, one who sits is disqualified from bearing witness, even though there are exceptions. The Gemara responds: The category of a sitting priest cannot refute the derivation. One can refute a derivation only from concrete cases, not general concepts. And even if you say it can refute the derivation, the halakha with regard to a non-priest can be derived from the case of a sitting priest and from one of those other cases, i.e., a non-priest, an impure priest, or a blemished priest, through their common element.

讗讜谞谉 驻住讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讗讘诇 讘拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专 诪专爪讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讟讜诪讗讛

搂 The mishna teaches that if an acute mourner collects the blood of an offering, the offering is disqualified. Rava says: They taught this only with regard to an individual鈥檚 offering. But with regard to a communal offering, a rite performed by an acute mourner does effect acceptance. One can derive this by a fortiori inference from ritual impurity.

诪讛 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讛讚讬讜讟 讘拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专 讗谞讬谞讜转 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讘拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专

Just as the prohibition against performing rites in a state of ritual impurity, whose general prohibition was not permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering, as no individual offering may be sacrificed in a state of impurity, was nevertheless permitted in the case of an ordinary [hedyot] priest performing rites for a communal offering, as communal offerings may be sacrificed by an impure priest when necessary; then so too, with regard to the prohibition against performing rites while in a period of acute mourning, whose general prohibition was permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering, as the High Priest may perform all rites while an acute mourner, is it not right that this prohibition was permitted in the case of an ordinary priest performing rites for a communal offering?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讘专 讗讛讬诇讗讬 诇讗 转讜转专 讗谞讬谞讜转 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讘爪讘讜专 诇讗 讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讗谞讬谞讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讘拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讜转专 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚

Rava bar Ahilai objects to this: On the contrary, if such an inference can be made, then perhaps one can make the following mistaken inference: The performance of rites in a state of acute mourning should not be permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering, by a fortiori inference: And just as the prohibition against performing rites in a state of ritual impurity, whose general prohibition was permitted in the case of an ordinary priest performing rites for a communal offering, was not permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering; then so too, with regard to the prohibition against performing the rites during a period of acute mourning, whose general prohibition was not permitted in the case of an ordinary priest performing rites for a communal offering, is it not right that this prohibition should not be permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering?

讜转讜转专 讟讜诪讗讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讗谞讬谞讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜转专 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讘拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专 讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讘拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚

And similarly, one may claim: The performance of rites in a state of ritual impurity should be permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering, by a fortiori inference: And just as the prohibition against performing rites in a state of acute mourning, whose general prohibition was not permitted in the case of an ordinary priest performing rites for a communal offering, still was permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering; then so too, with regard to the prohibition against performing the rites in a state of ritual impurity, whose general prohibition was permitted in the case of an ordinary priest performing rites for a communal offering, is it not right that this prohibition was permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering?

讜诇讗 转讜转专 讟讜诪讗讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讘拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讗谞讬谞讜转 砖讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 诇讗 讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讘拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讛讜转专讛 讗爪诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讜转专 讘讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讘拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专

And similarly, one may claim: The performance of rites in a state of ritual impurity should not be permitted in the case of an ordinary priest performing rites for a communal offering, by a fortiori inference: And just as the prohibition against performing rites in a state of acute mourning, whose general prohibition was permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual鈥檚 offering, still was not permitted in the case of an ordinary priest performing rites for a communal offering; then so too, with regard to the prohibition against performing the rites in a state of ritual impurity, whose general prohibition was not permitted in the case of a High Priest performing rites for an individual offering, is it not right that this prohibition should not be permitted in the case of an ordinary priest performing rites for a communal offering?

(讜诇讗 转讜转专 讜诇讗 转讜转专 讗谞讬谞讜转 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讬讞讬讚 讜讬讞讬讚 爪讘讜专 住讬诪谉)

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for recalling the above rejections of Rava bar Ahilai: And should not be permitted, and should not be permitted, acute mourning, and ritual impurity, ritual impurity, individual, and individual, communal.

Scroll To Top