Parallel
זבחים 16
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
is it not logical that a zar, who may not eat, profanes [the sacrifice] by officiating? [No:] as for [a priest] with a blemish, the reason may be because in his case the man who offers [officiates] is treated on a par with what is offered! Then let an unclean [priest] prove it. As for an unclean [priest], the reason is that he defiles [the flesh of the sacrifice]! Then let one with a blemish prove it. And thus the argument revolves, the distinguishing feature of one not being that of the other, and the distinguishing feature of the other not being that of the first. The feature common to both is that they are admonished [not to officiate], and if they do officiate, they profane [the sacrifice]; so will I also adduce a zar, who is [likewise] admonished, that if he officiates, he profanes. How do we know that he is admonished? If from, ‘that they separate themselves’, surely profanation is written in its very context! — Rather, from [the text] But a common man [zar] shall not draw nigh unto you. But the [argument] can be refuted: the feature common to both is that they were not permitted at the high places! Do not say. ‘Let an unclean [priest] prove it’, but say. ‘Let an onen prove it’ As for an onen, [the reason is] because he is forbidden [to partake of] the Second tithe! Then let a [priest] with a blemish prove it. And thus the argument revolves, the distinguishing feature of one is not that of the other [and vice versa]; the feature common to both is that they are forbidden etc. But here too let us refute [the argument]: the feature common to both is that they were not permitted at the high places? To this R. Sama the son of Raba demurred: And who is to tell us that an onen was forbidden at the high places; perhaps he was permitted at the high places? R. Mesharshia said: It is inferred a minori from [a priest who] sits. If one who is sitting profanes [the sacrifice] if he officiates, though he may eat [thereof when sitting]; is it not logical that a zar, who may not eat, profanes [it] if he officiates? As for one who is sitting, the reason may be because he is unfit to testify! — [The inference is] from a scholar who is sitting. [Then refute it thus:] As for the general interdict of one who sits the reason may be because such is unfit to testify! — One does not refute by a general interdict. And should you say that you can refute [thus], [then say that] it is inferred from one who sits and one of these others. And how do we know that one who is sitting is fit at the high place? — Scripture saith, To stand before the Lord, to minister to Him: before the Lord [one must stand], but not at the high place. ONEN. How do we know it? — Because it is written, Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary, and he shall not profane [the Sanctuary of his God]: hence if another [priest, when an onen,] does not go out, he does profane [it]. R. Eleazar said, [it is inferred] from this verse: Behold, have they offered [their sin-offering and burnt-offering this day before the Lord]? It was I who offered. Hence it follows that had ‘they’ offered, it would rightly have been burnt. Now, why does not R. Eleazar draw [the inference] from [the text] ‘Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary’? — He can answer you: Is it then written, but if another goes out, he does profane it? And the other; why does he not draw [the inference] from [the text] ‘Behold, have they offered’? — He holds that it was burnt on account of uncleanness. The school of R. Ishmael taught: It is inferred a minori from a [priest] with a blemish. If
—
a [priest] with a blemish, who does eat [thereof], profanes [it ] if he officiates, it is surely logical that an onen, who may not eat thereof, profanes it by his officiating. In the case of a [priest] with a blemish, the reason may be because they who sacrifice are regarded the same as those which are sacrificed! Then let a zar prove it. As for a zar, the reason may be because there is no remedy for him! Then let a [priest] with a blemish prove it. And thus the argument revolves: the feature peculiar to one is not that of the other, and the feature which characterises the other is not that of the first. The feature common to both is that they are admonished [not to officiate], and if they do officiate, they profane it. So do I adduce an onen too who is admonished, and if he officiates, he profanes it. Now, where is he admonished? Shall we say, in the text, ‘Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary’? Surely profanation is written in that very context! — Rather, [it is inferred] from [the text]. ‘Behold, have they offered’, and he [the school of R. Ishmael] holds that it was burnt on account of bereavement. This argument may be refuted: As for the feature common to both, it is that there is no exception to the general interdict! Then let an unclean [priest ] prove it. As for an unclean [priest], the reason is that he defiles [the flesh]! Then let the others prove it. And thus the argument revolves etc. The feature common to both is that they are admonished etc. Yet let us refute it [thus]: As for their common feature, it is that there is no exception to the general [interdict] in favour of a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice? — The interdict of uncleanness is nevertheless raised. R. Mesharshia said: It is inferred a minori from [a priest] who sits: if a priest, who eats sitting, profanes [the sacrifice] if he officiates whilst sitting, it is surely logical that an onen, who may not eat [thereof], profanes [the sacrifice] by his officiating. As for one who sits, the reason may be because he is unfit to testify? — [The argument is] from a scholar who sits. [Then refute it thus:] As for the interdict of sitting, that may be because such is unfit to testify? — One does not refute from the [general] interdict of sitting. And should you say that you can refute thus, [say that] it is inferred from one who sits and one of these others. [All SACRIFICES WHOSE BLOOD WAS CAUGHT BY...] AN ONEN... ARE DISQUALIFIED. Rabbah said: They learned this only of a private sacrifice, but in the case of a public sacrifice it is accepted. [this being inferred] from uncleanness, a minori: if the general interdict of uncleanness was not raised in favour of a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice, yet it was permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice; then bereavement, whose general interdict was raised in favour of a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice, is surely permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice. To this Raba b. Ahilai demurred: Let [the interdict of] bereavement not be raised in favour of a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice, a minori: if [the interdict of] uncleanness was not raised in favour of a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice, though it was raised for an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice; is it not logical that [the interdict of] bereavement, which was not raised for an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice, shall not be raised for a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice? [Or. argue thus: ] Let uncleanness be permitted to a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice, a minori: if bereavement, which is not permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice, is permitted to a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice; is it not logical that uncleanness, which is permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice, is permitted to a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice? Again. [argue thus:] let uncleanness not be permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice, a minori: If bereavement is not permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice, though it is permitted to a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice; then uncleanness which is not permitted to a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice, is surely not permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice? [Mnemonic: Let it not be permitted; let it not be permitted; bereavement and uncleanness, private sacrifice; private sacrifice; public sacrifice.] 16
—