Zevachim 16

זר שאינו אוכל אינו דין שאם עבד חילל

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?

מה לבעל מום שכן עשה בו קרב כמקריב

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.

טמא יוכיח מה לטמא שכן מטמא

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.

בעל מום יוכיח וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שמוזהרין ואם עבדו חיללו אף אני אביא זר שהוא מוזהר ואם עבד חילל

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.

מנלן דמוזהר אי מוינזרו חילול בגופיה כתיב ביה אלא מוזר לא יקרב אליכם

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: “Speak 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” (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: “Keep 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” (Numbers 18:4).

איכא למיפרך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן לא הותרו בבמה

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.

לא תימא טמא יוכיח אלא אימא אונן יוכיח מה לאונן שכן אסור במעשר [בעל מום] יוכיח

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.

וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שמוזהרין כו׳

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.

הכא נמי לפרוך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן לא הותרו בבמה מתקיף לה רב סמא בריה דרבא ומאן לימא לן דאונן אסור בבמה דלמא שרי בבמה

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.

רב משרשיא אמר אתיא קל וחומר מיושב מה יושב שאוכל אם עבד חילל זר שאינו אוכל אינו דין שאם עבד חילל

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?

מה ליושב שכן פסול לעדות מיושב תלמיד חכם

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.

מה לשם יושב שכן פסול לעדות שם יושב לא פריך ואם תמצא לומר פריך אתיא מיושב ומחדא מהנך

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.

ויושב דכשר בבמה מנלן אמר קרא לעמד לפני ה׳ לשרתו לפני ה׳ ולא לפני במה

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: “The 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” (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.

אונן מנלן דכתיב ומן המקדש לא יצא ולא יחלל הא אחר שלא יצא חילל

§ 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: “And he shall not leave the Sanctuary, and he will not profane the Sanctuary of his God” (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.

רבי אלעזר אמר מהכא הן הקריבו אני הקרבתי מכלל דאי אינהו אקריב שפיר אישתרוף

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’s 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: “This day have they offered their sin offering?” (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.

ורבי אלעזר מאי טעמא לא אמר מומן המקדש לא יצא אמר לך מי כתיב הא אחר שלא יצא חילל

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rabbi Elazar does not say that this halakha is derived from the verse: “And he shall not leave the Sanctuary”? 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.

ואידך מאי טעמא לא אמר מהן הקריבו קסבר מפני טומאה נשרפה

The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, who derives it from the verse: “And he shall not leave the Sanctuary,” what is the reason that he did not say to derive it from the verse: “This day have they offered their sin offering?” 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.

דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא אתיא בקל וחומר מבעל מום ומה

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

בעל מום שאוכל אם עבד חילל אונן שאין אוכל אינו דין שאם עבד חילל

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?

מה לבעל מום שכן עשה בו קריבין כמקריבין

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.

זר יוכיח מה לזר שכן אין לו תקנה

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.

בעל מום יוכיח וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שהן מוזהרין ואם עבדו חיללו אף אני אביא אונן שמוזהר ואם עבד חילל

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.

היכן מוזהר אילימא מומן המקדש לא יצא חילול בגופיה כתיב ביה אלא מהן הקריבו וקסבר מפני אנינות נשרפה

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: “And he shall not leave the Sanctuary, and he will not profane the Sanctuary of his God” (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: “This day have they offered their sin offering?” (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.

איכא למפרך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן לא הותרה מכללו

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.

טמא יוכיח

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.

מה לטמא שכן מטמא הנך יוכיחו וחזר הדין כו׳ הצד השוה שבהן שמוזהרין כו׳

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.

ולפרוך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן לא הותרו מכללן אצל כהן גדול בקרבן יחיד שם טומאה מיהא אישתראי

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’s 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.

רב משרשיא אמר אתיא בקל וחומר מיושב ומה יושב שאוכל אם עבד חילל אונן שאינו אוכל אינו דין שאם עבד חילל

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?

מה ליושב שכן פסול לעדות מיושב תלמיד חכם

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.

מה לשם יושב שכן פסול לעדות שם יושב לא פריך ואם תימצי לומר פריך אתיא מיושב ומחדא מהנך

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.

אונן פסול אמר רבא לא שנו אלא בקרבן יחיד אבל בקרבן צבור מרצה קל וחומר מטומאה

§ 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’s 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.

מה טומאה שלא הותרה מכללה אצל כהן גדול בקרבן יחיד הותרה אצל הדיוט בקרבן צבור אנינות שהותרה מכללה אצל כהן גדול בקרבן יחיד אינו דין שהותרה אצל כהן הדיוט בקרבן ציבור

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’s 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’s 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?

מתקיף לה רבא בר אהילאי לא תותר אנינות אצל כהן גדול בקרבן יחיד מקל וחומר ומה טומאה שהותרה אצל כהן הדיוט בצבור לא הותרה אצל כהן גדול בקרבן יחיד אנינות שלא הותרה אצל כהן הדיוט בקרבן צבור אינו דין שלא תותר אצל כהן גדול בקרבן יחיד

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’s 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’s 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’s offering?

ותותר טומאה אצל כהן גדול בקרבן יחיד מקל וחומר ומה אנינות שלא הותר אצל כהן הדיוט בקרבן צבור הותרה אצל כהן גדול בקרבן יחיד טומאה שהותרה אצל כהן הדיוט בקרבן צבור אינו דין שהותרה אצל כהן גדול בקרבן יחיד

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’s 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’s 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’s offering?

ולא תותר טומאה אצל כהן הדיוט בקרבן צבור מקל וחומר ומה אנינות שהותרה אצל כהן גדול בקרבן יחיד לא הותרה אצל כהן הדיוט בקרבן צבור טומאה שלא הותרה אצל כהן גדול בקרבן יחיד אינו דין שלא תותר בכהן הדיוט בקרבן צבור

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’s 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?

(ולא תותר ולא תותר אנינות וטומאה טומאה יחיד ויחיד צבור סימן)

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.