Zevachim

is it not logical that a zar, who may not eat,1 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!2 Then let an unclean [priest] prove it.3 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’,4 surely profanation is written in its very context!5 — Rather, from [the text] But a common man [zar] shall not draw nigh unto you.6 But the [argument] can be refuted: the feature common to both is that they were not permitted at the high places!7 Do not say. ‘Let an unclean [priest] prove it’, but say. ‘Let an onen prove it’8 As for an onen, [the reason is] because he is forbidden [to partake of] the Second tithe!9 Then let a [priest] with a blemish prove it.10 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?11 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!12 — [The inference is] from a scholar who is sitting.13 [Then refute it thus:] As for the general interdict14 of one who sits the reason may be because such is unfit to testify!15 — One does not refute by a general interdict.16 And should you say that you can refute [thus], [then say that] it is inferred from one who sits and one of these others.17 And how do we know that one who is sitting is fit at the high place?18 — Scripture saith, To stand before the Lord, to minister to Him:19 before the Lord [one must stand], but not at the high place.20 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]:21 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]?22 It was I who offered. Hence it follows that had ‘they’ offered, it would rightly have been burnt.23 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?24 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.25 The school of R. Ishmael taught: It is inferred a minori from a [priest] with a blemish. If disqualifies a sacrifice by officiating. blemish and an unclean priest might not officiate, as in the Temple. but a zar could do so. sustained. refute an argument based on an inference a minori it is sufficient to shew that the premise is subject to a particular restriction from which the other is free. testifying. unrefuted. assured that he will not profane, i.e. , disqualify the sacrifices at which he officiates. same day Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, died (Ibid. X, 1-2). and the he-goat,instead of being eaten, was burnt. Moses was angry, and enquired whether the reason was that Aaron's other sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, had officiated in their bereavement, to which Aaron replied as in the text. R. Eleazar's interpretation of the text as a rhetorical question does not agree with E.V., which makes it a positive statement. His reason is because if it were a positive statement it is superfluous, as Aaron should simply have answered, ‘Behold, there have befallen one such things as these this day,’ as he goes on to say, and which was the real cause of the burning of the sacrifice. High Priest does not disqualify it, lest it be thought that precisely because his sanctity is greater he does disqualify it.