Zevachim

GEMARA. How do we know it? — Said Resh Lakish, Because Scripture saith, The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it:1 the priest who offers for sin2 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?3 — 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.4 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].5 which includes a [priest] with a blemish.6 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?7 — Nevertheless, he is not eligible at present. R. Joseph said:8 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 eat9 does not share [in it].10 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.11 This proves that one must be fit to eat [when the sacrifice is offered]. This proves it.12 R. Oshaia asked: Is a share of public sacrifices given to an unclean [priest]?13 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;14 or perhaps, he who is fit to eat receives a share, he who is not fit to eat does not receive a share?15 — 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?16 — 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: aninuth17 returns to him?18 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;19 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: Inattention20 requires sprinkling on the third and the seventh [days]!21 — There is no difficulty: In the one case he was careless about defilement of the dead;22 in the other he was careless about defilement by a reptile.23 Defilement of the dead is genuine defilement and requires sunset?24 moreover, even terumah too [should require immersion]?25 — 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.26 And is there half watchfulness? — Yes, and it was taught even so: If the basket was still on his head27 sprinkled the blood of a particular sacrifice, yet the whole of the ward to which he belonged would share it. we learn that a tebul yom and one who lacks atonement do not receive shares. 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. until the evening. could not sacrifice just then, yet in general he was eligible for public sacrifices. immersion is insufficient. above. for eating sacred flesh (i.e., of sacrifices, whose sanctity is higher than that of terumah). immersion only. Also, the former disqualifies one in respect of terumah too, but not the latter.