זבחים 99 — Soncino English Talmud

¹GEMARA. How do we know it? — Said Resh Lakish, Because Scripture saith, The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: the priest who offers for sin may eat; he who does not offer for sin, may not eat. Yet is this a general rule? surely there is the whole ward, which do not offer for sin, yet they eat? — We mean he who is eligible to offer for sin. But lo, a minor is not eligible to offer for sin, yet he eats [thereof]? — Rather, what does ‘Shall eat it’ mean? He shall receive a share therein: he who is eligible to offer for sin, receives a share; he who is not eligible to offer for sin, does not receive a share. But surely one who is blemished is not eligible to offer for sin, yet he receives a share? — The Divine Law included a blemished [person] [in the privilege of sharing], viz., Every male among the priests. [may eat thereof]. which includes a [priest] with a blemish. Yet say that ‘every male’ includes a tebul yom? — It is logical to include a blemished [priest], since he may eat. On the contrary, one should include a tebul yom, since he will be eligible in the evening? — Nevertheless, he is not eligible at present. R. Joseph said: Consider: what does ‘shall eat it’ mean? [Surely] shall share therein. Then let the Divine Law write ‘shall share therein’? why ‘shall eat therein’? That you may infer: he who is fit to eat, shares [therein]; he who is not fit to eat does not share [in it]. Resh Lakish asked: Is a share to be given to a blemished [priest] who is unclean? [Do we say,] Since he is not eligible [to perform the service] and yet the Divine Law included him, it makes no difference, for what does it matter whether he is unclean or blemished? Or perhaps, he who is fit to eat [when the sacrifice is offered] receives a share, [while] he who is not fit to eat does not receive a share? — Said Rabbah, Come and hear: A High Priest can offer [a sacrifice] as an onen, but he may not eat nor receive a share to eat in the evening. This proves that one must be fit to eat [when the sacrifice is offered]. This proves it. R. Oshaia asked: Is a share of public sacrifices given to an unclean [priest]? Do we say, the Divine Law saith, ‘The priest that offereth it for sin [shall eat it]’, and this one too can offer for sin; or perhaps, he who is fit to eat receives a share, he who is not fit to eat does not receive a share? — Said Rabina, Come and hear: A High Priest may offer [sacrifices] as an onen, but he may not eat, nor receive a share to eat in the evening. This proves that he must be fit to eat. This proves it. AN ONEN MAY HANDLE [SACRED FLESH], BUT MAY NOT OFFER etc. An onen may handle [sacred flesh]? Surely the fol!owing contradicts it: An onen and one who lacks atonement need immersion for sacred flesh? — Said R. Ammi in R. Johanan's name: There is no difficulty: here [in the Mishnah] he had performed immersion; there, he had not performed immersion. But what even if he did perform immersion: aninuth returns to him? for Rabbah son of R. Huna said: If an onen performed immersion, his aninuth returns to him! — Rather, there is no difficulty: here he dismissed [it] from his mind; in the other case he did not dismiss [it] from his mind. But inattention requires [sprinkling on] the third and the seventh [days]: for R. Justai son of R. Mathun said in R. Johanan's name: Inattention requires sprinkling on the third and the seventh [days]! — There is no difficulty: In the one case he was careless about defilement of the dead; in the other he was careless about defilement by a reptile. Defilement of the dead is genuine defilement and requires sunset? moreover, even terumah too [should require immersion]? — Said R. Jeremiah: [This law holds good] when he declares, I was on my guard against anything that would defile me, but not against anything that would disqualify me. And is there half watchfulness? — Yes, and it was taught even so: If the basket was still on his head27^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ

^ᵃnote:Ibid. VI, 19.
^ᵇnote:I.e., sprinkles the blood and performs the priestly rites.
^ᶜnote:The priests were divided into wards, which officiated in rotation, (v. Glos. s.v. Mishmar). Only one of the priests sprinkled the blood of a particular sacrifice, yet the whole of the ward to which he belonged would share it.
^ᵈnote:A minor accordingly does not receive a share in his own right, but merely eats of another priest's share. — From this we learn that a tebul yom and one who lacks atonement do not receive shares.
^ᵉnote:Lev. VI, 22.
^ᶠnote:It is shewn infra 102a that he is included in respect of sharing, for it is explicitly stated elsewhere that he may eat, viz., He (sc. a blemished priest) may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy (ibid. XXI, 22). No extension therefore would be required to shew that he may eat.
^ᵍnote:Even to perform the sacrificial rites.
^ʰnote:In reply to your question that one should include a tebul yom.
^ⁱnote:When it is actually offered.
^ʲnote:Hence it includes a blemished priest, who is fit to eat when it is sacrificed, but not a tebul yom, who will not be fit until the evening.
^ᵏnote:When he ceases to be an onen.
^ˡnote:Hence an unclean blemished priest does not receive a share.
^ᵐnote:The sacrifices having been offered by clean priests.
^ⁿnote:For public sacrifices can be offered in uncleanness, if the whole congregation is unclean. Hence, though this priest could not sacrifice just then, yet in general he was eligible for public sacrifices.
^ᵒnote:He is definitely not fit to eat, for a public sacrifice brought in uncleanness may not be eaten.
^ᵖnote:Which they may not handle otherwise.
^ᵠnote:The status of onen.
^ʳnote:Since aninuth lasts to the end of the first day.
^ˢnote:Sc. the care not to become unclean. He paid no attention to this, knowing that he could not officiate in any case.
^ᵗnote:To ritual cleanness.
^ᵘnote:From the day that he ceased to be watchful, for he may have been defiled through the dead on that day. Thus mere immersion is insufficient.
^ᵛnote:He did not even take care to avoid that. Then he needs sprinkling on the third and the seventh days.
^ʷnote:But took care not to be defiled by the dead.
^ˣnote:Even after immersion the priest may not eat flesh of sacrifices until sunset, whereas only immersion is required above.
^ʸnote:He who is defiled by a reptile may not eat terumah without immersion, whereas immersion is required above only for eating sacred flesh (i.e., of sacrifices, whose sanctity is higher than that of terumah).
^ᶻnote:‘Defile’ means by Scriptural, ‘disqualify’ by Rabbinical law. The former requires sunset, but the latter requires immersion only. Also, the former disqualifies one in respect of terumah too, but not the latter.
^ᵃᵃnote:It is not clear to what ‘still’ refers. It is absent in Tosef. Toh. VIII, whence it is cited in the present passage.

²and a shovel was in it, and he declared, ‘My mind was on the basket but not on the shovel’, the basket is clean, but the shovel is unclean. But let the shovel defile the basket? — One utensil cannot defile another. Then let it defile its contents? Said Raba: It means that he declared: ‘I guarded it from anything which might defile, but not from anything which might disqualify it.’ The matter was eventually reported to R. Abba b. Memmel. Said he to them: Have they not heard what R. Johanan said: He who eats terumah of the third degree may not eat [terumah again], but he may touch [terumah]? This proves that the Rabbis raised eating to a high degree but did not raise touch to a high degree. AND DOES NOT RECEIVE A SHARE FOR CONSUMPTION etc. He merely does not receive a share, but may eat if he is invited? Surely the following contradicts it: An onen performs immersion and eats his Passover-offering in the evening, but [may] not [partake] of [other] sacrifices? — Said R. Jeremiah of Difti: There is no difficulty: the former means on Passover [itself]; the latter, during the rest of the year. On Passover, since he may eat the Passover-offering, he may also eat other sacrifices; during the rest of the year, when he is not fit [for the former], he is not fit [for the latter]. And what does ‘but [may] not [partake] of [other] sacrifices’ mean? But [may] not [partake] of [other] sacrifices of the whole year. R. Assi said, There is no difficulty: In the one case the man died on the fourteenth [of Nisan] and was buried on the fourteenth; in the other [sc. our Mishnah], the man died on the thirteenth and was buried on the fourteenth,[for] the day of burial does not embrace the night [that follows] [even] by Rabbinical law. Which Tanna holds that [the law of] aninuth at night is Rabbinical [only]? — R. Simeon. For it was taught: [The law of] aninuth at night is Scriptural: these are the words of R. Judah. R. Simeon said: [The law of] aninuth at night is not Scriptural but of the rulings of the Scribes. The proof is that they [the Rabbis] said: An onen performs immersion and eats his Passover-offering in the evening, but [may] not [partake] of [other] sacrifices. Now, does R. Simeon hold [that the law of] aninuth at night is [only] Rabbinical? Surely it was taught, R. Simeon said: An onen may not send his sacrifices. Now does that mean, even on Passover? — No, except the Passover-offering. But it was taught, R. Simeon said: [The designation] ‘Peace-offerings’ [shelamim] [indicates that] a man may bring [it] when he is whole [shalem] but not when he is an onen. How do I know to include the thanksoffering? I include the thanksoffering, because it is eaten with rejoicing, like a peace-offering. How do I know to include a burnt-offering? I include a burnt-offering. because it is brought as a vow or as a freewill-offering, like the peace-offering. How do I know to include a firstling, tithe, and the Passover-offering? I include firstling, tithe, and the Passover-offering because they are not brought on account of sin, like a peace-offering. How do I know to include the sin-offering and the guilt-offering? Because it says, ‘sacrifice’. How do we know to include bird[offerings], meal-offerings, wine, wood and frankincense? Because it says, ‘his offering be shelamim’: all offerings which he brings, he brings when he is whole [shalem], but does not bring [them] when he is an onen. Thus at all events he includes the Passover-offering? — Said R. Hisda: The Passover-offering is mentioned en courant. R. Shesheth said: What does the ‘Passover-offering’ mean? The Passover peace-offerings. If so, it is identical with peace-offerings? — He teaches about peace-offerings which are brought on account of Passover, and he teaches about peace-offerings which are brought independently. For if he did not teach about the peace-offering which is brought on account of Passover, I would argue: Since it comes on account of the Passover-offering, it is like the Passover-offering itself. Hence he informs us [that it is not so]. R. Mari said:^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ

^ᵃᵇnote:To guard it from defilement.
^ᵃᶜnote:Sc. the food or eatables in the basket.
^ᵃᵈnote:‘Defile’ means to render an object unclean in the sense that it can render another object unclean (or disqualified) in turn; ‘disqualify’ means to render an object unfit for use on account of uncleanness, but that object cannot disqualify another object in turn; v Pes. (Sonc. ed.) p. 62 n. 2 for this and the rest of the passage
^ᵃᵉnote:Lit., ‘the matter was rolled about and reached’.
^ᵃᶠnote:Var. lec. Jonathan.
^ᵃᵍnote:His body becomes, as it were, unclean (or disqualified) in the third degree; he may not eat terumah again without immersion, nevertheless his touch does not render terumah unfit.
^ᵃʰnote:They demanded a high standard of purity for eating.
^ᵃⁱnote:And so here too, when we learnt that an onen needs immersion, it means for eating, but not for touching.
^ᵃʲnote:As a right.
^ᵃᵏnote:An onen may not eat the flesh of sacrifices (v. Lev. X, 19f). By Scriptural law a man is an onen on the day of death only, but not at night; the Rabbis, however, extended these restrictions to the night too. As, however, the Passover-offering is a Scriptural obligation, they waived their prohibition in respect of the night, and he may eat thereof. He is not unclean, but requires immersion to emphasize that until evening sacred flesh was forbidden to him, whereas now it is permitted.
^ᵃˡnote:Obviously, since the Passover-offering can be eaten only on Passover.
^ᵃᵐnote:V. n. 2. That, however, applies only when the person died on the same day too; but if he was merely buried on that day, but died the previous day, there is no aninuth at all by night. Accordingly, the passage quoted (from Pes. 91b) treats of Passover itself, and not of the rest of the year.
^ᵃⁿnote:I.e., Rabbinical only. On Soferim (scribes) v. Kid. (Sonc. ed.) p. 79, n. 7.
^ᵃᵒnote:Whereas if the interdict were Scriptural, he could. not partake of the Passover-offering either.
^ᵃᵖnote:To be offered on his account.
^ᵃᵠnote:The very word for peace-offering, shelamim, indicates that a man must be whole (shalem, sing. of shelamim) — The verse discussed is Lev. III, 6: And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace-offerings etc.
^ᵃʳnote:In the same limitation.
^ᵃˢnote:V. Deut. XXVII, 7: And thou shalt sacrifice peace-offerings, and shalt eat there; and thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy God. This precept to rejoice is fulfilled by the eating of either peace-offerings or thanks-offerings, which are called peace-offerings, v. Lev. VII, 11-12.
^ᵃᵗnote:Lit., ‘a slaughtering’. hence including every slaughtered sacrifice. (A bird was not slaughtered but nipped (melikah), which explains the question that follows.)
^ᵃᵘnote:One who donated wood brought a sacrifice along with it.
^ᵃᵛnote:Firstling tithe and the Passover-offering are generally mentioned together, and so it is mentioned here too. But actually it does not apply to the Passover-offering.
^ᵃʷnote:When a large company shared in the Paschal lamb, an additional peace-offering (called hagigah) was brought and eaten before the Passover-offering.
^ᵃˣnote:To remedy its inadequateness.