Zevachim 197

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנא הני מילי אמר ר"ל דאמר קרא (ויקרא ו, יט) הכהן המחטא אותה יאכלנה כהן המחטא יאכל שאינו מחטא אינו אוכל

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>How do we know it? - Said Resh Lakish, Because Scripture saith, The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VI, 19.');">¹</span> the priest who offers for sin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., sprinkles the blood and performs the priestly rites.');">²</span>

וכללא הוא והרי משמרה כולה דאין מחטאין ואוכלין ראוי לחיטוי קאמרינן

may eat; he who does not offer for sin, may not eat. Yet is this general rule?

הרי קטן דאינו ראוי לחיטוי ואוכל אלא מאי יאכלנה יחלקנה ראוי לחיטוי חולק שאינו ראוי לחיטוי אינו חולק

surely there is the whole ward, which do not offer for sin, yet they eat?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">³</span> - We mean he who is eligible to offer for sin.

הרי בעל מום דאינו ראוי לחיטוי וחולק בעל מום רחמנא רבייה (ויקרא ו, כב) כל זכר בכהנים לרבות בעל מום

But lo, a minor is not eligible to offer for sin, yet he eats [thereof]? - Rather, wh does 'Shall eat it' mean? He shall receive a share therein: he who is eligible to offer for sin, receives a shar he who is not eligible to offer for sin, does not receive a share.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁴</span>

ואימא כל זכר לרבות טבול יום מסתברא בעל מום ה"ל לרבויי שכן אוכל

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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 22.');">⁵</span>

אדרבה טבול יום הוה ליה לרבויי דלאורתא מיחזא חזי השתא מיהא הא לא חזי

which includes a [priest] with a blemish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is shewn infra ');">⁶</span> Yet say that 'every male' includes a tebul yom? - It is logical to include a blemished [priest], since he may eat.

רב יוסף אמר מכדי מאי יאכלנה יחלקנה לכתוב רחמנא יחלקנה מאי יאכלנה ש"מ ראוי לאכילה חולק שאינו ראוי לאכילה אינו חולק

On the contrary, one should include a tebul yom, since he will be eligible in the evening?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even to perform the sacrificial rites.');">⁷</span> - Nevertheless, he is not eligible at present.

בעי ר"ל בעל מום והוא טמא מהו שיחלקו לו כיון דלא חזי ורחמנא רבייה לא שנא מה לי טמא מה לי בעל מום או דלמא ראוי לאכילה חולק שאינו ראוי לאכילה אינו חולק

R'Joseph said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reply to your question that one should include a tebul yom.');">⁸</span> Consider: what does 'shall eat it' mean?

אמר רבה ת"ש כהן גדול מקריב אונן ואינו אוכל ואינו חולק לאכול לערב ש"מ ראוי לאכילה בעינן ש"מ

[Surely] shall share therein. Then let the Divine Law write 'shall share therein'?

בעי רב אושעיא טמא בקרבנות ציבור מהו שיחלקו לו מי אמרינן המחטא אמר רחמנא והאי נמי מחטא הוא או דלמא ראוי לאכילה חולק שאין ראוי לאכילה אינו חולק

why 'shall eat therein'? That you may infer: he who is fit to eat, shares [therein]; he who is n fit to eat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it is actually offered.');">⁹</span>

אמר רבינא ת"ש כהן גדול מקריב אונן ואינו אוכל ואינו חולק לאכול לערב ש"מ ראוי לאכילה בעינן ש"מ:

does not share [in it].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁰</span> Resh Lakish asked: Is a share to be given to a blemished [priest] who is unclean?

אונן נוגע ואינו מקריב כו': אונן נוגע ורמינהי אונן ומחוסר כיפורים צריכין טבילה לקודש

[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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he ceases to be an onen.');">¹¹</span>

א"ר אמי א"ר יוחנן לא קשיא כאן בשטבל כאן בשלא טבל

This proves that one must be fit to eat [when the sacrifice is offered]. This proves it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence an unclean blemished priest does not receive a share.');">¹²</span>

וכי טבל מאי הוי הא הדרא עליה אנינות דאמר רבה בר רב הונא אונן שטבל אנינותו חוזרת עליו

R'Oshaia asked: Is a share of public sacrifices given to an unclean [priest]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sacrifices having been offered by clean priests.');">¹³</span> 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁴</span>

ל"ק הא דאסח דעתיה הא דלא אסח דעתיה

or perhaps, he who is fit to eat receives a share, he who is not fit to eat does not receive a share?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is definitely not fit to eat, for a public sacrifice brought in uncleanness may not be eaten.');">¹⁵</span> - 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.

היסח הדעת שלישי ושביעי בעי דא"ר יוסטאי ברבי מתון א"ר יוחנן היסח הדעת צריך הזאה שלישי ושביעי

This proves that he must be fit to eat. This proves it.

לא קשיא הא דאסח דעתיה מטמא מת הא דאסח דעתיה מטמא שרץ

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which they may not handle otherwise.');">¹⁶</span>

טמא שרץ טמא מעלייא הוא הערב שמש בעי ועוד אפילו תרומה נמי

- 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The status of onen.');">¹⁷</span>

א"ר ירמיה באומר נשמרתי מדבר המטמאני ולא נשמרתי מדבר הפוסלני

returns to him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since aninuth lasts to the end of the first day.');">¹⁸</span> 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the care not to become unclean. He paid no attention to this, knowing that he could not officiate in any case.');">¹⁹</span>

ומי איכא נטירותא לפלגא אין והתניא עודהו הסל על ראשו

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To ritual cleanness.');">²⁰</span> requires sprinkling on the third and the seventh [days]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²¹</span> - There is no difficulty: In the one case he was careless about defilement of the dead;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He did not even take care to avoid that. Then he needs sprinkling on the third and the seventh days.');">²²</span> in the other he was careless about defilement by a reptile.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But took care not to be defiled by the dead.');">²³</span> Defilement of the dead is genuine defilement and requires sunset?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even after immersion the priest may not eat flesh of sacrifices until sunset, whereas only immersion is required above.');">²⁴</span> moreover, even terumah too [should require immersion]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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) .');">²⁵</span> - 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' '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.');">²⁶</span> And is there half watchfulness? - Yes, and it was taught even so: If the basket was still on his head<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not clear to what 'still' refers. It is absent in Tosef. Toh. VIII, whence it is cited in the present passage.');">²⁷</span>