Zevachim 99b

גמ׳ מנא הני מילי אמר ריש לקיש דאמר קרא הכהן המחטא אתה יאכלנה כהן המחטא יאכל שאינו מחטא אינו אוכל

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a priest who is unfit for the Temple service does not receive a share of the sacrificial meat. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Reish Lakish said: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states about a sin offering: “The priest who effects atonement shall eat it; in a sacred place shall it be eaten, in the court of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 6:19). This teaches that only a priest who effects atonement by performing the rites of the offering shall partake of its meat, but a priest who does not effect atonement does not partake of its meat.

וכללא הוא והרי משמרה כולה דאין מחטאין ואוכלין ראוי לחיטוי קאמרינן

The Gemara challenges: And is this an established principle? But there are all the priests of the priestly watch of that week in the Temple, who do not effect atonement for that offering, because the blood of a specific sin offering is presented by just one priest, and yet they all partake of its meat. The Gemara explains: We mean to say that any priest who is fit for effecting atonement may partake of it, even one who did not participate in the service.

הרי קטן דאינו ראוי לחיטוי ואוכל אלא מאי יאכלנה יחלקנה ראוי לחיטוי חולק שאינו ראוי לחיטוי אינו חולק

The Gemara objects: But there is the case of a minor, who is unfit for effecting atonement, and who nevertheless partakes of sacrificial meat. The Gemara explains: Rather, what is meant by the term: “Shall eat it”? It means that he shall receive a share of it. The halakha is therefore that a priest who is fit for effecting atonement receives a share of the meat, but a priest who is unfit for effecting atonement does not receive a share of the meat. Minors do not receive a share, though they may partake of meat given to them by others.

הרי בעל מום דאינו ראוי לחיטוי וחולק בעל מום רחמנא רבייה כל זכר בכהנים לרבות בעל מום

The Gemara objects: But there is a blemished priest, who is unfit for effecting atonement, and yet he receives a share of its meat. The Gemara replies: The Merciful One included a blemished priest as an exception, as the verse that states: “Every male among the priests shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:22), serves to include a blemished priest.

ואימא כל זכר לרבות טבול יום מסתברא בעל מום הוה ליה לרבויי שכן אוכל

The Gemara suggests: But say that the phrase “every male” serves to include one who immersed that day, teaching that he may also receive a share in the sacrificial meat. Why should it be understood as referring specifically to a blemished priest? The Gemara replies: It stands to reason that the Torah should include a blemished priest for receiving his own share of the meat, because he may partake of sacrificial meat in any event. By contrast, one who immersed that day is impure and may not touch or partake of sacrificial meat.

אדרבה טבול יום הוה ליה לרבויי דלאורתא מיחזא חזי השתא מיהא הא לא חזי

The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, the Torah should include one who immersed that day, because, unlike a blemished priest, in the evening he will be fit to perform the service. The Gemara replies: Now, in any event, the one who immersed himself is not fit.

רב יוסף אמר מכדי מאי יאכלנה יחלקנה לכתוב רחמנא יחלקנה מאי יאכלנה שמע מינה ראוי לאכילה חולק שאינו ראוי לאכילה אינו חולק

Rav Yosef said another explanation: Now what is meant by the term: “Shall eat it”? It means: He shall receive a share of it. But if so, let the Merciful One write: Shall receive a share of it. What is the reason for writing: “Shall eat it”? Learn from it that only a priest who is fit for partaking of sacrificial meat, which includes a blemished priest, receives a share in the meat; but a priest who is not fit for partaking of sacrificial meat, e.g., one who immersed that day, does not receive a share in the meat.

בעי ריש לקיש בעל מום והוא טמא מהו שיחלקו לו כיון דלא חזי ורחמנא רבייה לא שנא מה לי טמא מה לי בעל מום או דלמא ראוי לאכילה חולק שאינו ראוי לאכילה אינו חולק

§ Reish Lakish raises a dilemma: If a priest is blemished and he is impure, what is the halakha? Must the other priests give him a share of the meat? Perhaps we say that since he is not fit to perform the rite as a blemished priest and nevertheless the Merciful One included him to receive a share in the meat, there is no difference: What is the difference to me if he is impure, and what is the difference to me if he is only blemished? In any event he is not fit, yet the Torah allows him to receive a share in the meat. Or perhaps he may not receive a share in the meat, because only a priest who is fit for partaking of sacrificial meat receives a share of the meat, but a priest who is not fit for partaking of sacrificial meat does not receive a share of the meat.

אמר רבה תא שמע כהן גדול מקריב אונן ואינו אוכל ואינו חולק לאכול לערב שמע מינה ראוי לאכילה בעינן שמע מינה

Rabba said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita: If a High Priest is serving in the Temple and one of his immediate relatives dies, he sacrifices offerings even as an acute mourner. But he does not partake of sacrificial meat, and he does not receive a share to partake of it in the evening. Conclude from the baraita that in order for the priest to receive a share in sacrificial meat, we require that he be fit for partaking of it, and accordingly, a blemished priest who is impure does not receive a share. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the baraita that this is so.

בעי רב אושעיא טמא בקרבנות ציבור מהו שיחלקו לו מי אמרינן המחטא אמר רחמנא והאי נמי מחטא הוא או דלמא ראוי לאכילה חולק שאין ראוי לאכילה אינו חולק

§ Rav Oshaya raises a dilemma: If a priest is impure, then in a case of communal offerings, which may be offered by an impure priest, what is the halakha? Do the other priests give him a share of the meat, so that he may partake of it in the evening when he becomes pure? Do we say that the Merciful One states: “The priest who effects atonement,” and therefore any priest who is fit for effecting atonement receives a share, as derived earlier, and this priest is also one who may effect atonement, since this is a communal offering? Or perhaps he may not, due to the principle that only a priest who is fit for partaking of sacrificial meat receives a share of the meat, but a priest who is unfit for partaking of sacrificial meat does not receive a share.

אמר רבינא תא שמע כהן גדול מקריב אונן ואינו אוכל ואינו חולק לאכול לערב שמע מינה ראוי לאכילה בעינן שמע מינה

Ravina said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita: If a High Priest is serving in the Temple and one of his relatives dies, he sacrifices offerings even as an acute mourner, but he does not partake of sacrificial meat and he does not receive a share of it to partake in the evening. Conclude from the baraita that in order for a priest to receive a share in sacrificial meat, we require that he be fit for partaking of it at the time of the service, without regard to whether he can perform the service. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the baraita that this is so.

אונן נוגע ואינו מקריב כו׳ אונן נוגע ורמינהי אונן ומחוסר כיפורים צריכין טבילה לקודש

§ The mishna teaches: A priest who is an acute mourner is permitted to touch sacrificial meat, but he may not sacrifice offerings. The Gemara asks: Is it in fact permitted for an acute mourner to touch sacrificial meat? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another mishna (Ḥagiga 21a): An acute mourner and one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, even after their respective disqualifications have expired, require immersion in order to eat sacrificial food. According to that mishna, an acute mourner who did not immerse may not touch sacrificial meat.

אמר רבי אמי אמר רבי יוחנן לא קשיא כאן בשטבל כאן בשלא טבל

Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is not difficult. Here, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a case where the mourner immersed during his day of acute mourning. This is why he is permitted to touch the sacrificial meat. There, the ruling of the mishna in tractate Ḥagiga is stated with regard to a case where the mourner did not immerse.

וכי טבל מאי הוי הא הדרא עליה אנינות דאמר רבה בר רב הונא אונן שטבל אנינותו חוזרת עליו

The Gemara asks: And even if he immersed, what of it? But doesn’t his acute mourning return to him? As Rabba, son of Rav Huna, says: In a case of an acute mourner who immersed during his day of his acute mourning, his acute mourning returns to him.

לא קשיא הא דאסח דעתיה הא דלא אסח דעתיה

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. That case, in tractate Ḥagiga, is one where he was distracted from safeguarding his state of purity, so he may not touch sacrificial meat in the event that he is impure. This case, in the mishna here, is one where he was not distracted.

היסח הדעת שלישי ושביעי בעי דאמר רבי יוסטאי ברבי מתון אמר רבי יוחנן היסח הדעת צריך הזאה שלישי ושביעי

The Gemara counters: If the mishna in tractate Ḥagiga is discussing a case of distraction, then his status is like that of one who contracted ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, who requires sprinkling with water of purification on the third and seventh days of his impurity. As Rabbi Yustai, son of Rabbi Matun, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One who experienced a distraction requires sprinkling with water of purification on the third and seventh days.

לא קשיא הא דאסח דעתיה מטמא מת הא דאסח דעתיה מטמא שרץ

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. That statement, that he requires sprinkling, is discussing a case where he was distracted and careless about contracting impurity imparted by a corpse. This mishna in tractate Ḥagiga, stating that he requires immersion but not sprinkling, is discussing a case where he was distracted and careless about contracting impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal.

טמא שרץ טמא מעלייא הוא הערב שמש בעי ועוד אפילו תרומה נמי

The Gemara counters: One who was careless about becoming impure due to the carcass of a creeping animal is fully impure, and so he requires not only immersion to become pure, but he also requires sunset. And furthermore, if the mishna in tractate Ḥagiga is discussing this case, the mourner should be prohibited from touching even teruma, not just sacrificial meat. Why does the mishna mention only the latter?

אמר רבי ירמיה באומר נשמרתי מדבר המטמאני ולא נשמרתי מדבר הפוסלני

Rabbi Yirmeya said: The mishna is discussing a case where he says: I safeguarded myself from anything that would render me impure, so I am certain that I did not contract impurity that requires waiting until sunset; but I did not safeguard my-self from anything that would render me unfit for touching sacrificial meat.

ומי איכא נטירותא לפלגא אין והתניא עודהו הסל על ראשו

The Gemara asks: But is there such a concept of partial care, that one can claim to have safeguarded himself from one form of impurity but not another? The Gemara answers: Yes, and it is taught in a baraita: If one was carrying a basket, and the basket was still on his head,

ומגריפה בתוכו ואמר לבי על הסל ואין לבי על המגריפה הסל טהור והמגריפה טמאה

and a shovel was in the basket, and he said: I am minding the basket, that it not become impure, but I am not minding the shovel, then the basket is pure, and the shovel is impure.

ותטמא מגריפה לסל אין כלי מטמא כלי ותטמא מה שבתוכו אמר רבא באומר שמרתיה מדבר המטמאה ולא שמרתיה מדבר הפוסלה

The Gemara challenges the ruling of the baraita: But wouldn’t the shovel render the basket impure? The Gemara answers: There is a principle that a vessel does not render another vessel ritually impure. The Gemara challenges: But wouldn’t the shovel render that which is in the basket, e.g., figs, impure? Rava said: The case is where he says: I safeguarded it, the shovel, from anything that would allow it to render another item impure, but I did not safeguard it from anything that would render it itself unfit, i.e., impure.

איגלגל מילתא ומטאי לקמיה דרבי אבא בר ממל אמר להו לא שמיע להו הא דאמר רבי יוחנן אמר רבי האוכל שלישי של תרומה אסור לאכול ומותר ליגע

The Gemara returns to discuss the contradiction between the mishna, which permits an acute mourner to touch sacrificial meat, and the mishna in tractate Ḥagiga, which requires him to immerse. The Gemara relates: The matter circulated and came before Rabbi Abba bar Memel. He said to the Sages before him: Have they not heard that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One who partakes of teruma that has third-degree impurity, i.e., teruma disqualified through contact with an item with second-degree impurity, is prohibited from partaking of teruma, but permitted to touch teruma.

אלמא באכילה עבוד רבנן מעלה בנגיעה לא עבוד רבנן מעלה

Rabbi Abba bar Memel continued: Apparently, in a case of partaking, the Sages imposed a higher standard, whereas in a case of touching, the Sages did not impose a higher standard. Similarly, in a case of an acute mourner, the Sages require him to immerse before he may partake of sacrificial meat, as taught in tractate Ḥagiga, but they do not impose this standard for touching the meat, as taught in the mishna here.

ואינו חולק לאכול כו׳ מיפלג הוא דלא פליג וכי מזמני ליה אכיל

§ The mishna teaches with regard to an acute mourner: And he does not receive a share of sacrificial meat in order to partake of it in the evening. The Gemara comments: The mishna indicates only that he may not receive a share of the meat, but when other priests invite him to join in their portions, he may partake of them in the evening.

ורמינהי אונן (ומחוסר כיפורים) טובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב אבל לא בקדשים

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Pesaḥim 91b): An acute mourner immerses and partakes of his Paschal offering in the evening, but he may not partake of other sacrificial meat.

אמר רב ירמיה מדיפתי לא קשיא כאן בפסח כאן בשאר ימות השנה

Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: This is not difficult. Here, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to the first night of Passover, whereas there, in tractate Pesaḥim, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to the rest of the days of the year.

בפסח איידי דאכיל פסח אכיל נמי קדשים בשאר ימות השנה דלא חזי לא חזי ומאי אבל לא בקדשים אבל לא בקדשים של כל השנה

What is the reason for the distinction between the two? On the first night of Passover, since he partakes of the Paschal offering, he may also partake of other sacrificial meat. But on the rest of the days of the year, when he is unfit to partake of sacrificial meat, he is unfit. And what does the mishna in Pesaḥim mean when it states: But he may not partake of other sacrificial meat? It means: But he may not partake of sacrificial meat of all of the rest of the year, other than the first night of Passover.

רב אסי אמר לא קשיא כאן שמת לו מת בארבעה עשר וקברו בארבעה עשר כאן שמת לו מת בשלשה עשר וקברו בארבעה עשר יום קבורה לא תפיס לילו מדרבנן

Rav Asi said there is a different resolution to the contradiction between the mishnayot: This is not difficult. Here, in the ruling of the mishna in tractate Pesaḥim, which prohibits an acute mourner from partaking of sacrificial meat, it is referring to a case where his relative died on the fourteenth day of Nisan, and he buried him on the fourteenth itself, in which case he is still considered an acute mourner by rabbinic law that evening. There, in the ruling of the mishna in this chapter, it is referring to a case where his relative died on the thirteenth of Nisan, and he buried him on the fourteenth of Nisan. The reason the mourner may partake is that since the day of burial is not the day of death, it does not take hold of its following night by rabbinic law.

מאן תנא אנינות לילה מדרבנן רבי שמעון היא דתניא אנינות לילה מדברי תורה דברי רבי יהודה רבי שמעון אומר אונן אינו מדברי תורה אלא מדברי סופרים תדע שהרי אמרו אונן טובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב אבל לא בקדשים

The Gemara clarifies: Who is the tanna who taught that acute mourning the following night is by rabbinic law, as opposed to by Torah law? This is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: Acute mourning at night is by Torah law; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: His status as an acute mourner at night is not by Torah law, but by rabbinic law. Know that this so, as the Sages said: An acute mourner immerses and partakes of his Paschal offering in the evening, but he may still not partake of other sacrificial meat. If acute mourning at night were by Torah law, he would not be permitted to partake of the Paschal offering.

וסבר רבי שמעון אנינות לילה מדרבנן והתניא רבי שמעון אומר אונן אינו משלח קרבנותיו מאי לאו ואפילו בפסח לא לבר מפסח

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon hold that acute mourning at night is by rabbinic law and that consequently an acute mourner partakes of his Paschal offering in the evening? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: An acute mourner does not send his offerings to the Temple to be sacrificed? What, is it not referring even to a Paschal offering? The Gemara rejects this: No, the baraita is referring to all offerings other than a Paschal offering.

והתניא רבי שמעון אומר שלמים כשהוא שלם מביא ואינו מביא כשהוא אונן מנין לרבות את התודה מרבה אני את התודה שכן נאכלת בשמחה כשלמים

The Gemara counters: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to the verse: “And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings [shelamim]” (Leviticus 3:1), Rabbi Shimon says: The offering is called shelamim to teach that when a person is whole [shalem], i.e., in a state of contentment, he brings his offering, but he does not bring it when he is an acute mourner. From where is it derived to include that an acute mourner does not bring even a thanks offering? I include the thanks offering because it is consumed in a state of joy, like a peace offering.

מנין לרבות את העולה מרבה אני את העולה שכן באה בנדר ובנדבה כשלמים מנין לרבות [בכור ומעשר ופסח מרבה אני] בכור ומעשר ופסח שכן אינן באין על חטא מנין לרבות חטאת ואשם תלמוד לומר זבח

From where is it derived that the verse also serves to include a burnt offering? I include the burnt offering because it comes as a vow offering and as a gift offering, like a peace offering. From where is it derived that the verse also serves to include a firstborn offering, and an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering, which are not brought voluntarily? I include a firstborn offering, and an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering, because they too, like a peace offering, do not come to atone for a sin. From where is it derived to include a sin offering and a guilt offering, which atone for sins? The verse states: “And if his offering be a sacrifice [zevaḥ] of peace offerings,” which teaches that an acute mourner may not sacrifice any slaughtered offering [zevaḥ].

מנין לרבות העופות והמנחות והיין והעצים והלבונה תלמוד לומר שלמים קרבנו כל קרבנות שהוא מביא כשהוא שלם מביא ואינו מביא כשהוא אונן

From where is it derived to include even the bird offerings, and the meal offerings, and the wine, and the wood, and the frankincense brought for the Temple service? The verse states: “And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings [shelamim korbano],” teaching that for all offerings [korbanot] that a person brings, he brings them when he is whole [shalem], but he does not bring them when he is an acute mourner.

קתני מיהא פסח

The Gemara explains: In any event, Rabbi Shimon teaches that it is prohibited for an acute mourner to bring a Paschal offering, even though he will cease to be an acute mourner that night; this contradicts the first baraita.

אמר רב חסדא פסח כדי נסביה

Rav Ḥisda said: The latter baraita mentions a Paschal offering for no purpose. In other words, the halakha that an acute mourner does not bring an offering does not actually apply to a Paschal offering, and the baraita mentions it only out of habit, since a firstborn-animal offering, the animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering are frequently mentioned together.

רב ששת אמר מאי פסח שלמי פסח אי הכי היינו שלמים תנא שלמים הבאין מחמת פסח ותנא שלמים הבאין מחמת עצמן

Rav Sheshet said: What is meant in this baraita by the term: Paschal offering? It is referring to the peace offerings of Passover, i.e., the peace offering that is sacrificed along with the Paschal offering. The Gemara objects: If so, that is the same as a peace offering, which Rabbi Shimon already mentioned. The Gemara answers: He taught the halakha with regard to peace offerings that come on account of the Paschal offering, and he taught separately the halakha with regard to peace offerings that come on their own account.

דאי לא תנא שלמים הבאין מחמת פסח סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ומחמת פסח אתי כגופיה דפסח דמי קא משמע לן

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Shimon needed to teach both cases explicitly, because if he did not teach the halakha with regard to peace offerings that come on account of the Paschal offering, it would enter your mind to say: Since they come on account of the Paschal offering, they are considered like the Paschal offering itself, and the acute mourner offers them as well. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon teaches us that these peace offerings are also forbidden to an acute mourner.

רב מרי אמר

Rav Mari said a different resolution to the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Shimon: