זבחים קב

זבחים קב

וְאֵין זָר רוֹאֶה אֶת הַנְּגָעִים! וְאִם תֹּאמַר אַהֲרֹן הִסְגִּירָהּ – אַהֲרֹן קָרוֹב הוּא, וְאֵין קָרוֹב רוֹאֶה אֶת הַנְּגָעִים! אֶלָּא כָּבוֹד גָּדוֹל חָלַק לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמִרְיָם אוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה: אֲנִי כֹּהֵן וַאֲנִי מַסְגִּירָהּ, אֲנִי חוֹלְטָהּ וַאֲנִי פּוֹטְרָהּ.

and a non-priest may not inspect the shades of leprous marks to diagnose them. And if you say that Aaron quarantined her, that is difficult, as Aaron was a relative, Miriam’s brother, and a relative may not inspect the shades of leprous marks. Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, bestowed a great honor on Miriam at that time, and said: I Myself am a priest, and I will quarantine her for seven days to see if the shades of leprous marks persist, and I will declare her a leper if she is impure, and I will exempt her if she is not impure.

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: מֹשֶׁה זָר, וְאֵין זָר רוֹאֶה אֶת הַנְּגָעִים!

In any event, the midrash teaches: Moses was a non-priest, and a non-priest may not inspect the shades of leprous marks, which contradicts the statement of Rav that Moses was a priest.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: שָׁאנֵי מַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים, דְּאַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו כְּתוּבִין בַּפָּרָשָׁה.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The halakhot of the examination of shades of leprous marks are different, because specifically Aaron and his sons, and not Moses, are written in the passage that discusses them: “Then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests” (Leviticus 13:2). Therefore, there is no proof from this baraita that Moses was not a priest.

מֵיתִיבִי: חָמֵשׁ שְׂמָחוֹת הָיְתָה אֱלִישֶׁבַע יְתֵירָה עַל בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל – יְבָמָהּ מֶלֶךְ, אִישָׁהּ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, בְּנָהּ סְגָן, בֶּן בְּנָהּ מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה, וְאָחִיהָ נְשִׂיא שֵׁבֶט; וַאֲבֵילָה עַל שְׁנֵי בָּנֶיהָ.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s statement from a baraita: Elisheva, the daughter of Amminadav and the wife of Aaron, had five more reasons for joy than the other daughters of Israel on the day the Tabernacle was dedicated: Her brother-in-law, Moses, was a king; her husband, Aaron, was the High Priest; her son, Elazar, was the deputy High Priest; her son’s son, Pinehas, was the priest anointed for war, who would lead the army out to battle; and her brother, Nahshon, son of Amminadav, was the prince of the tribe of Judah, who brought his offering on that day, as the first of all the princes. But on that same day of joy she was in mourning for her two sons, Nadav and Avihu, who died on that day.

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: יְבָמָהּ מֶלֶךְ – מֶלֶךְ אִין, כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לָא! אֵימָא: אַף מֶלֶךְ.

In any event, the baraita teaches: Her brother-in-law, Moses, was a king. From this one can infer that yes, he was a king, but he was not a High Priest, contrary to Rav’s statement. The Gemara responds: Say that the baraita means: Moses was a king as well, in addition to being a High Priest.

כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״וַיִּחַר אַף ה׳ בְּמֹשֶׁה״ – רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל חֲרוֹן אַף שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ רוֹשֶׁם, וְזֶה לֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ רוֹשֶׁם.

The Gemara comments: The question of whether Moses was a High Priest is subject to a dispute among tanna’im, as is taught in a baraita: When Moses was at the burning bush and expressed hesitation to deliver God’s message to Pharaoh, the verse states: “And the anger of the Lord burned against Moses, and He said: Is there not Aaron your brother the Levite? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he comes forth to meet you, and when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart” (Exodus 4:14). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: For every burning anger that is stated in the Torah, its effect is also stated, i.e., the Torah records an action or pronouncement as a consequence of that anger, but in this case no effect of the anger is stated.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: אַף זֶה נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ רוֹשֶׁם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הֲלֹא אַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ הַלֵּוִי״ – וַהֲלֹא כֹּהֵן הוּא! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֲנִי אָמַרְתִּי אַתָּה כֹּהֵן וְהוּא לֵוִי, עַכְשָׁיו הוּא כֹּהֵן וְאַתָּה לֵוִי.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Even in this case the anger’s effect is stated, as it is stated there: “Is there not Aaron your brother the Levite? I know that he can speak well.” But isn’t Aaron a priest? Why is he referred to as a Levite? This is what God is saying to Moses: I initially said that you would be the priest and he would be the Levite; now he will be the priest and you will be the Levite.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא נִתְכַּהֵן מֹשֶׁה, אֶלָּא שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּלּוּאִים בִּלְבַד. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: לֹא פָּסְקָה כְּהוּנָּה אֶלָּא מִזַּרְעוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמֹשֶׁה אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים בָּנָיו יִקָּרְאוּ עַל שֵׁבֶט הַלֵּוִי״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן בְּכֹהֲנָיו וּשְׁמוּאֵל בְּקֹרְאֵי שְׁמוֹ״.

And the Rabbis say: Moses became a priest for the seven days of inauguration alone, and after that his priesthood expired. And some say: The priesthood expired only for the descendants of Moses, but Moses himself remained a priest, as it is stated: “But as for Moses the man of God, his sons are named among the tribe of Levi” (I Chronicles 23:14). This verse indicates that it was his sons who were Levites, but he himself remained a priest. And so too the verse states: “Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among them that call upon His name, did call upon the Lord, and He answered them” (Psalms 99:6).

מַאי וְאוֹמֵר ? וְכִי תֵּימָא לְדוֹרוֹת הוּא דִּכְתִיב, וְאוֹמֵר: ״מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן בְּכֹהֲנָיו״.

The Gemara asks: What is meant by: And so too the verse states? Why did the tanna need to cite a second proof? The Gemara explains: And if you would say the first verse is written only for future generations, to include Moses’ descendants in the tribe of Levi but not to exclude him, then there is a second proof: And so too, the verse states: “Moses and Aaron among His priests.” The statement of Rav that Moses was a High Priest is in accordance with the opinion in this baraita.

וְכׇל חֲרוֹן אַף שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ רוֹשֶׁם?! וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיֵּצֵא מֹשֶׁה מֵעִם פַּרְעֹה בׇּחֳרִי אָף״, וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי! אֲמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: סְטָרוֹ וְיָצָא.

The Gemara challenges the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa: And is it true that for every burning anger that is stated in the Torah, its effect is also stated? But isn’t it written with regard to Moses: “And he went out from Pharaoh in hot anger” (Exodus 11:8)? And Moses did not say anything to Pharaoh. Reish Lakish said: Moses slapped him and left.

וּמִי אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ הָכִי?! וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְנִצַּבְתָּ לִקְרָאתוֹ עַל שְׂפַת הַיְאֹר״, וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מֶלֶךְ הוּא וְהַסְבֵּיר לוֹ פָּנִים, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: רָשָׁע הוּא וְהָעֵיז פָּנֶיךָ בּוֹ! אֵיפוֹךְ.

The Gemara challenges: And does Reish Lakish actually say this? But isn’t it written: “Go unto Pharaoh in the morning; lo, he goes out unto the water; and you shall stand by the river’s brink to meet him, and the rod which was turned to a serpent shall you take in your hand” (Exodus 7:15); and Reish Lakish says: God meant: Pharaoh is a king, and so you should be amiable toward him, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: God meant: Pharaoh is wicked, and so you should be insolent toward him. If according to Reish Lakish Moses was commanded to greet Pharaoh with respect, how could he say that Moses slapped Pharaoh? The Gemara answers: Reverse the names of the Sages in this dispute; it is Reish Lakish who says that Moses was commanded to be insolent.

אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: לְעוֹלָם תְּהֵא אֵימַת מַלְכוּת עָלֶיךָ; דִּכְתִיב: ״וְיָרְדוּ כׇל עֲבָדֶיךָ אֵלֶּה אֵלַי״ – וְאִילּוּ לְדִידֵיהּ לָא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.

With regard to the respect accorded to a king, Rabbi Yannai says: Fear of the kingship should always be upon you, even when the king does not deserve respect, as it is written that Moses said to Pharaoh: “And all these your servants shall come down unto me and bow down unto me, saying: Get you out, and all the people that follow you, and after that I will go out” (Exodus 11:8). He mentioned Pharaoh’s servants, but he did not say this of Pharaoh himself, even though this was the eventual outcome. Rather, he spoke to Pharaoh with the respect due to a king.

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״וְיַד ה׳ הָיְתָה אֶל אֵלִיָּהוּ, וַיְשַׁנֵּס מׇתְנָיו וַיָּרׇץ לִפְנֵי אַחְאָב״.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Derive the principle from here: “And the hand of the Lord was on Elijah, and he girded up his loins and ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel” (I Kings 18:46). Elijah the prophet ran before the evil king Ahab out of respect.

אָמַר עוּלָּא: בִּקֵּשׁ מֹשֶׁה מַלְכוּת, וְלֹא נָתְנוּ לוֹ; דִּכְתִיב: ״אַל תִּקְרַב הֲלֹם״, וְאֵין ״הֲלוֹם״ אֶלָּא מַלְכוּת – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִי אָנֹכִי ה׳ אֱלֹהִים [וְגוֹ׳] כִּי הֲבִיאֹתַנִי עַד הֲלֹם״.

The Gemara continues to discuss the roles of Moses: Ulla says: Moses requested that he be given the kingship, but it was not given to him, as it is written: “Do not draw hither” (Exodus 3:5); and the word “hither” refers to nothing other than kingship, as it is stated: “Then David the king went in and sat before the Lord, and he said: Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my house, that You have brought me hither”? (II Samuel 7:18).

מֵתִיב רָבָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: יְבָמָהּ מֶלֶךְ! אָמַר רָבָא: לוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ קָאָמַר.

Rava raises an objection from the baraita cited earlier: Rabbi Yishmael says: Elisheva’s brother-in-law, Moses, was a king. This teaches that Moses was in fact granted kingship. Rava said: Ulla is saying that Moses did not receive kingship for himself and for his descendants, i.e., it was not bequeathed to his sons.

וְכֹל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיב ״הֲלוֹם״ – לְדוֹרוֹת הוּא?! וְהָא גַּבֵּי שָׁאוּל דִּכְתִיב: ״הֲבָא עוֹד הֲלֹם אִישׁ״ – הוּא אִין, זַרְעוֹ לָא!

The Gemara counters: And is it so that anywhere that it is written “hither” the verse is referring to kingship for future generations as well? But isn’t it written about the kingship of Saul: “They asked of the Lord further: Is there yet a man who comes hither” (I Samuel 10:22), and Saul was indeed a king, but his descendants were not.

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא הֲוָה אִישׁ בּשֶׁת, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: שָׁאנֵי שָׁאוּל – דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּגַוֵּיהּ לָא קָאֵים;

The Gemara responds: If you wish, say: There was Ish-Bosheth, Saul’s son, who was a king (see II Samuel 2:10), indicating that Saul’s kingship did pass to his son. And if you wish, say instead: Saul is different, because the kingship did not stand even for himself, and this is why it did not pass on to his descendants.

כִּדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁפּוֹסְקִים גְּדוּלָּה לָאָדָם – פּוֹסְקִים לוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ עַד סוֹף כׇּל הַדּוֹרוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יִגְרַע מִצַּדִּיק עֵינָיו וְאֶת מְלָכִים לַכִּסֵּא וְגוֹ׳״. וְאִם הֵגֵיס דַּעְתּוֹ – הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַשְׁפִּילוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִם אֲסוּרִים בַּזִּקִּים יִלָּכְדוּן בְּחַבְלֵי עֹנִי״.

The second response is in accordance with that which Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: When greatness is apportioned to a person in Heaven, it is apportioned to him and to his descendants until the end of all generations, as it is stated: “He withdraws not His eyes from the righteous; but with kings upon the throne He sets them forever, and they are exalted” (Job 36:7). But if he then became arrogant, the Holy One, Blessed be He, humiliates him, as is stated in the next verse: “And if they be bound in fetters, and be held in cords of affliction” (Job 36:8). This was the case with Saul.

בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין, בֵּין בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כׇּל זָכָר״ – לְרַבּוֹת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין.

§ The mishna teaches: Blemished priests, whether they are temporarily blemished or permanently blemished, receive a share and partake of offerings, but do not sacrifice them. The Gemara explains: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the meal offering: “Every male among the sons of Aaron shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:11). The phrase “every male” serves to include blemished priests.

לְמַאי? אִי לַאֲכִילָה – הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״לֶחֶם אֱלֹהָיו מִקׇּדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים יֹאכֵל״! אֶלָּא לַחֲלוּקָּה.

The Gemara clarifies: For what matter is this derivation necessary? If one suggests it is for the matter of consumption, it is already stated explicitly: “Any man of the seed of Aaron the priest who has a blemish…He may eat the bread of his God, of the most sacred, and of the sacred” (Leviticus 21:21–22). Rather, Leviticus 6:11 is necessary for the matter of receiving a share, teaching that blemished priests may do so along with the other priests. This is the source for the mishna’s statement.

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״כׇּל זָכָר״ – לְרַבּוֹת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין. לְמַאי? אִי לַאֲכִילָה – הֲרֵי כְּבָר אָמוּר! אִי לַחֲלוּקָּה – הֲרֵי כְּבָר אָמוּר! שֶׁיָּכוֹל אֵין לִי אֶלָּא תָּם וְנַעֲשָׂה בַּעַל מוּם, בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל זָכָר״.

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states with regard to the sin offering: “Every male among the priests may eat thereof” (Leviticus 6:22). The phrase “every male” serves to include blemished priests. The Gemara explains: For what matter is this derivation necessary? If one suggests it is for the matter of consumption, isn’t that already stated in Leviticus, chapter 21? If one suggests it is for the matter of receiving a share, isn’t that already stated in verse 6:11? Rather, the verse is necessary because one might have thought that I have derived only the halakha with regard to a priest who was at first unblemished and later became blemished. From where is it derived that one blemished from birth also receives a share? The verse states here: “Every male.”

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״כׇּל זָכָר״ – לְרַבּוֹת בַּעַל מוּם. לְמַאי? אִי לַאֲכִילָה – הֲרֵי כְּבָר אָמוּר! וְאִי לַחֲלוּקָּה – הֲרֵי כְּבָר אָמוּר! וְאִי לְבַעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ – הֲרֵי כְּבָר אָמוּר! שֶׁיָּכוֹל אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּעַל מוּם קָבוּעַ, בַּעַל מוּם עוֹבֵר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל זָכָר״.

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states with regard to the guilt offering: “Every male among the priests may eat thereof” (Leviticus 7:6). The phrase “every male” serves to include a blemished priest. The Gemara explains: For what matter is this derivation necessary? If one suggests it is for the matter of eating, isn’t that already stated? And if one suggests it is for the matter of receiving a share, isn’t that already stated? And if one suggests it is for a priest blemished from birth, isn’t that already stated? Rather, the verse is necessary because one might have thought that I have derived only the halakha with regard to a permanently blemished priest. From where is it derived that a temporarily blemished priest also receives a share? The verse states here: “Every male.”

כְּלַפֵּי לְיָיא? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אֵיפוֹךְ.

The Gemara objects: Isn’t it the opposite [kelapei layya]? Wouldn’t I have thought that a priest with a permanent blemish would be treated more stringently than one with a temporary blemish? Rav Sheshet said: Reverse the wording as follows: One might have thought that I have derived only the halakha with regard to a priest with a temporary blemish; from where is it derived that one with a permanent blemish also receives a share?

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם לָא תֵּיפוֹךְ; וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא:

Rav Ashi said: Actually, do not reverse the wording, and this is not difficult. It was necessary to teach that even a priest with a temporary blemish receives a share, because it might enter your mind to say

כִּי טָמֵא; מָה טָמֵא – כַּמָּה דְּלָא טָהוֹר לָא אָכֵיל, אַף הַאי נָמֵי – כַּמָּה דְּלָא מִתְּקַן לָא אָכֵיל; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

that the halakha of this priest is like that of a ritually impure priest: Just as an impure priest may not partake as long as he is not pure, so too, this priest with a temporary blemish may not partake as long as he does not become fit. The verse therefore teaches us that he may receive a share even before his blemish heals.

כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי וְכוּ׳. וְלָא?! וַהֲרֵי בַּעַל מוּם, דְּלֹא רָאוּי לָעֲבוֹדָה, וְחוֹלֵק! וְתוּ, הָא רָאוּי לָעֲבוֹדָה חוֹלֵק?! הֲרֵי טָמֵא בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹת צִיבּוּר, דְּרָאוּי לָעֲבוֹדָה, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק!

§ The mishna teaches: The principle is: Any priest who is unfit for the service that day does not receive a share of the sacrificial meat. The Gemara objects: But doesn’t he? Isn’t there a blemished priest, who is not fit for the service and who nevertheless receives a share of the meat, as the mishna itself teaches? And furthermore, this principle indicates that only priests unfit for the service do not receive a share, but any priest who is fit for the service does receive a share. But isn’t there an impure priest, who, with regard to offerings of the community, is fit for the service, and who nevertheless does not receive a share?

רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה קָאָמַר.

The Gemara answers: The mishna is saying that any priest who is not fit for partaking of sacrificial meat does not receive a share. Blemished priests may partake of sacrificial meat, and impure priests may not.

וַהֲרֵי קָטָן, דְּרָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק! הָא לָא קָתָנֵי.

The Gemara objects: This indicates that any priest who is fit to partake may receive a share. But isn’t there is a minor, who is fit for partaking and who does not receive a share? The Gemara answers: This inverse principle, that any priest who is fit to partake may receive a share, is not taught. The mishna means to teach only that any priest who is unfit does not receive a share.

הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, לְעוֹלָם (כדקאמר) [כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ] מֵעִיקָּרָא; אִי מִשּׁוּם טָמֵא – טָמֵא לָא קָתָנֵי, וְאִי מִשּׁוּם בַּעַל מוּם – רַחֲמָנָא רַבְּיֵיהּ.

The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this conclusion, that the mishna’s statement only teaches what it says explicitly, one can say that the mishna actually means what the Gemara said at the outset, that no priest unfit for the service receives a share. If one raises an objection with regard to an impure priest, who is fit for the service of communal offerings but does not receive a share, answer that the mishna does not teach that every fit priest, even an impure one, receives a share, only the inverse. And if you raise an objection with regard to a blemished priest, who is unfit for the service but nevertheless receives a share, answer that the Merciful One included him as an exception by the phrase: Every male, as derived above (102a).

אֲפִילּוּ טָמֵא בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, וְטָהוֹר בִּשְׁעַת הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים – אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק. הָא טָהוֹר בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, וְטָמֵא בִּשְׁעַת הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים – חוֹלֵק;

§ The mishna teaches: Even if the priest was ritually impure only at the time of the sprinkling of the blood of the offering, and he was pure at the time of the burning of the fats, he still does not receive a share of the meat. The Gemara notes: Consequently, one can infer that a priest who was pure at the time of the sprinkling of the blood, even one who was impure at the time of the burning of the fats, does receive a share.

מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל. דְּתַנְיָא, אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא טָהוֹר מִשְּׁעַת זְרִיקָה עַד שְׁעַת הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים; דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״הַמַּקְרִיב אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים וְאֶת הַחֵלֶב״ – דַּאֲפִילּוּ הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים נָמֵי בָּעֵי.

The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, as it is taught in a baraita: Abba Shaul says: A priest never partakes, i.e., receives a share, of sacrificial meat, unless he is pure from the time of sprinkling until the time of the burning of the fats, as the verse states: “He among the sons of Aaron who sacrifices the blood of the peace offerings and the fat shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). The verse requires that the priest be pure even at the time of the burning of the fats.

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: נִטְמָא בֵּינְתַיִים מַהוּ? בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקָה וּבִשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה בָּעֵינַן, וְהָאִיכָּא; אוֹ דִּלְמָא עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא טָהוֹר מִשְּׁעַת זְרִיקָה וְעַד שְׁעַת הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים? תֵּיקוּ.

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: According to the opinion of Abba Shaul, in a case where the priest became impure between the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats but became pure again before the latter, what is the halakha? Do we require only that he be pure both at the time of sprinkling and at the time of the burning of the fats, and there is purity at these times? Or perhaps Abba Shaul meant that the priest may not receive a share in the meat unless he is pure from the time of sprinkling until the time of the burning of the fats, without interruption. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי דִּינָא – מֵרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן גְּמִירְנָא, דְּאָמַר בְּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא דַּנְתָּהּ – בָּא טְבוּל יוֹם וְאָמַר: תֵּן לִי מִמִּנְחָה וְאוֹכַל.

§ The mishna teaches that an impure priest who immersed that day, such that he will not be pure until sunset, and likewise an acute mourner and one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, do not receive a share of sacrificial meat in order to partake of it in the evening. Rava says: I learned this halakha from Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who said in the bathroom: You can contend by way of a story: A priest who immersed that day came and said to a pure priest of the same patrilineal priestly family serving in the Temple that day, who was apportioning the sacrificial food: Give me a share of a meal offering, and I will partake of it in the evening.

אָמַר לוֹ: וּמָה אִם בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחֲךָ – בְּחַטָּאתֶךָ, דְּחִיתִיךְ מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל; מְקוֹם שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחֲךָ – בְּמִנְחָתֶךָ, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֶדְחֲךָ מִמִּנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל?!

The pure priest said an a fortiori inference to him: Just as with regard to a matter where your right is superior, i.e., in the case of your own sin offering, to which you have a right even when your family is not serving in the Temple, I can nevertheless deny you a share of the sin offering of an Israelite because you immersed today; is it not logical that with regard to a matter where your right is inferior, i.e., in the case of your own meal offering, as the meal offering of a priest is not eaten at all, that I can deny you a share of the meal offering of an Israelite?

וּמָה אִם דְּחִיתַנִי מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל – שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחִי כָּךְ יִפָּה כֹּחֶךָ; תִּדְחֵינִי (מִמִּנְחָה) [מִמִּנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל], שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחִי כָּךְ הוֹרַע כֹּחֶךָ!

The priest who immersed that day responded: But even if you can deny me a share of the sin offering of an Israelite on the day I immersed, perhaps this is since just as my right is superior in the case of my own sin offering, so too, your right is superior in the case of your own sin offering. If so, is it necessarily so that you can refuse me a share of the meal offering of an Israelite, where just as my right is inferior, so your right is inferior, as neither of us may eat from our own meal offerings?

הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לַכֹּהֵן הַמַּקְרִיב אֹתָהּ לוֹ תִהְיֶה״ – בֹּא הַקְרֵב וֶאֱכוֹל.

The pure priest responded: The verse states: “And every meal offering that is baked in the oven, and all that is dressed in the stewing pan, and on the griddle, shall be the priest’s that offers it” (Leviticus 7:9). If you wish to receive a share of a meal offering, come sacrifice and partake of one. Since you cannot sacrifice a meal offering, having immersed only today, neither can you receive a share.

תֵּן לִי מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאוֹכַל –

The priest who immersed that day made another demand: Give me a share of the sin offering of an Israelite, and I will partake of it in the evening when I am pure.

אָמַר לוֹ: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחִי – בְּמִנְחָתִי, דְּחִיתִיךְ מִמִּנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל; מְקוֹם שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחִי – בְּחַטָּאתִי, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֶדְחֲךָ מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל?!

The pure priest said to him: Just as with regard to a matter where my right is inferior, i.e., in the case of my own meal offering, which is not eaten, I can deny you a share of the meal offering of an Israelite, as I explained; so too, is it not logical that with regard to a matter where my right is superior, i.e., in the case of my own sin offering, to which I have a right even when my family is not serving in the Temple, I can deny you a share of the sin offering of an Israelite?

אָמַר לוֹ: וּמָה אִם שֶׁדְּחִיתַנִי מִמִּנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל – שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחֶךָ כָּךְ הוֹרַע כֹּחִי; תִּדְחֵינִי מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל – שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחֶךָ כָּךְ יִפָּה כֹּחִי?!

The priest who immersed that day said to him: But if you can deny me a share of the meal offering of an Israelite, where just as your right is inferior, so too my right is inferior, is it necessarily so that you can deny me a share of the sin offering of an Israelite, where just as your right is superior in the case of your own sin offering, so too my right is superior in the case of my own sin offering?

הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״הַכֹּהֵן הַמְחַטֵּא אֹתָהּ יֹאכְלֶנָּה״ – בֹּא חַטֵּא וֶאֱכוֹל.

The pure priest responded: The verse states with regard to the sin offering: “The priest who effects atonement shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:19). If you wish to receive a share of a sin offering, come effect atonement and partake of one. Since you cannot perform the service of a sin offering, having immersed only today, you cannot receive a share in its meat either.

אָמַר לוֹ: תֵּן לִי מֵחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק וְאוֹכַל –

The priest who immersed that day made another demand, and said to him: Give me a share of the breast and thigh, the portions that priests receive of peace offerings, and I will partake of it in the evening when I am pure.

אָמַר לוֹ: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחֲךָ – בְּחַטָּאתֶךָ, דְּחִיתִיךְ [מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל] (מֵחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק); מְקוֹם שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחֲךָ – בִּשְׁלָמִים, שֶׁאֵין לָךְ בָּהֶן אֶלָּא חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֶדְחֲךָ?!

The pure priest said to him: Just as with regard to a matter where your right is superior, i.e., in the case of your own sin offering, to which you have a right to its meat in its entirety, I can deny you a share of the sin offering of an Israelite, as I explained, so too is it not logical that with regard to a matter where your right is inferior, i.e., in the case of a peace offering, of which you have only the right to a share of the breast and thigh, I can deny you a share?

מָה אִם דְּחִיתַנִי מֵחַטָּאת – שֶׁכֵּן הוֹרַע כֹּחִי אֵצֶל נָשַׁיי וַעֲבָדַיי; תִּדְחֵינִי מֵחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק – שֶׁכֵּן יִפָּה כֹּחִי אֵצֶל נָשַׁיי וַעֲבָדַי?!

The priest who immersed that day responded: But if you can deny me a share of a sin offering, where my right is inferior with regard to my wives and my slaves, as a sin offering can be consumed only by male priests, is it necessarily so that you can deny me a share of the breast and thigh of a peace offering, where my right is superior with regard to my wives and my slaves, who may also partake of them?

הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לַכֹּהֵן הַזּוֹרֵק אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים לוֹ יִהְיֶה״ – בֹּא זְרוֹק וֶאֱכוֹל.

The pure priest responded: The verse states with regard to the peace offering: “It shall be the priest’s that sprinkles the blood of the peace offerings against the altar” (Leviticus 7:14). If you wish to partake of a peace offering, come sprinkle its blood and partake of it. Since you cannot perform this service, having immersed only today, you cannot receive a share of its meat either.

יָצָא טְבוּל יוֹם קוּלָּיו וַחֲמוּרָיו עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, אוֹנֵן מִימִינוֹ, מְחוּסַּר כַּפָּרָה מִשְּׂמֹאלוֹ.

The story concludes: The priest who immersed that day left in disappointment, with his a fortiori inferences upon his head, as they did not help him. And along with him walked an acute mourner on his right and a priest who had not yet brought an atonement offering on his left. They too were denied shares, because they were unfit for the Temple service.

פָּרֵיךְ רַב אַחַאי, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: תֵּן לִי מִבְּכוֹר וְאוֹכַל!

Rav Aḥai refutes this: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, could have added to the contentions described in the story. Let the priest who immersed that day say to the pure priest: Give me a share of a firstborn offering, and I will partake of it in the evening.

מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחִי – בְּחַטָּאת, אֵצֶל נָשַׁיי וַעֲבָדַיי, דְּחִיתִיךְ מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל; מְקוֹם שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחִי – בִּבְכוֹר, דְּכוּלֵּיהּ דִּילִי הִיא – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֶדְחֲךָ מִמֶּנּוּ?

Perhaps it is because the pure priest could say to him: Just as with regard to a sin offering, where my right is inferior with regard to my wives and my slaves, since it may be eaten only by male priests, I can nevertheless deny you a share of the sin offering of an Israelite, as I explained; so too is it not logical that with regard to a first-born, where my right is superior because all of its meat is mine, as firstborn offerings are given to a specific priest, I can deny you a share of it?

וּמָה אִם דְּחִיתַנִי מֵחַטָּאת – שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחֲךָ כָּךְ הוֹרַע כֹּחִי; תִּדְחֵינִי מִבְּכוֹר – שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחֲךָ כָּךְ יִפָּה כֹּחִי?!

But the priest who immersed that day could respond: But if you can deny me a share of a sin offering, where just as your right is inferior, so is my right inferior; is it necessarily so that you can deny me a share of a firstborn offering, where just as your right is superior, so my right is superior?

הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אֶת דָּמָם תִּזְרֹק עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְאֶת חֶלְבָּם תַּקְטִיר… וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לְךָ״ – בֹּא זְרוֹק וֶאֱכוֹל.

The pure priest could respond: The verse says with regard to a firstborn offering: “You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and shall make their fat smoke for an offering made by fire, for a pleasing aroma to the Lord. And the flesh of them shall be yours, as the breast and as the thigh, it shall be yours” (Numbers 18:17–18). If you wish to receive a share in the meat of a firstborn, come sprinkle its blood and partake of it. Why did Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, not include this exchange as another stage in his story?

וְאִידַּךְ פָּרֵיךְ: מִי כְּתִיב ״וּבְשָׂרָם לַכֹּהֵן הַזּוֹרֵק״?! ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָךְ״ כְּתִיב – אֲפִילּוּ לְכֹהֵן אַחֵר.

The Gemara responds: But the other priest, the one who immersed that day, could refute this proof: Is it written: And the flesh of them shall be for the priest who sprinkles, as is written with regard to a meal offering, a sin offering, and a peace offering? Rather, it is written: “And the flesh of them shall be yours,” indicating that it can be given even to a priest other than the one who sacrificed it. This is why Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, did not include this exchange in his story.

וְהֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּכׇל מְקוֹם מוּתָּר לְהַרְהֵר, חוּץ מִמֶּרְחָץ וּמִבֵּית הַכִּסֵּא! לְאוֹנְסוֹ שָׁאנֵי.

The Gemara returns to Rava’s statement that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, taught this halakha in the bathroom. And how did Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, do this? But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is permitted to contemplate matters of Torah in all places except the bathhouse and the bathroom? The Gemara answers: A case where the matter was involuntary is different. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was so preoccupied by the issue that he taught it even though he was in the bathroom.