Zevachim 31

Chapter 31

א זר שאינו אוכל אינו דין שאם עבד חילל
1 is it not logical that a zar, who may not eat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The flesh of the most sacred sacrifices, such as a sin-offering.');"><sup>1</sup></span> profanes [the sacrifice] by officiating?
ב מה לבעל מום שכן עשה בו קרב כמקריב
2 [No:] as for [a priest] w a blemish, the reason may be because in his case the man who offers [officiates] is treated on a par with what is offered!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A blemish disqualifies a priest from offering the sacrifice, just as it disqualifies an animal from being sacrificed.');"><sup>2</sup></span> Then let an unclean [priest] prove it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He may not officiate; but an animal cannot become unclean while alive, to render it unfit for a sacrifice. He too disqualifies a sacrifice by officiating.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג טמא יוכיח מה לטמא שכן מטמא
3 As for an unclean [priest], the reason is that he defiles [th 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.
ד בעל מום יוכיח וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שמוזהרין ואם עבדו חיללו אף אני אביא זר שהוא מוזהר ואם עבד חילל
4 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?
ה מנלן דמוזהר אי מוינזרו חילול בגופיה כתיב ביה אלא (במדבר יח, ד) מוזר לא יקרב אליכם
5 If from, 'that they separate themselves',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As on 15b.');"><sup>4</sup></span> surely profanation is written in its very context!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why infer it a minori?');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו איכא למיפרך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן לא הותרו בבמה
6 - Rather, from [the text] But a common man [zar] shall not draw nigh unto you.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 4.');"><sup>6</sup></span> But the [argument] can be refuted: the feature common to both is that they were not permitted at the high places!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the Temple was built sacrifices were offered at the bamoth or high places (v. infra 112a) . A priest with a blemish and an unclean priest might not officiate, as in the Temple. but a zar could do so.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ז לא תימא טמא יוכיח אלא אימא אונן יוכיח מה לאונן שכן אסור במעשר [בעל מום] יוכיח
7 Do not say.' Let an unclean [priest] prove it', but say.'
ח וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שמוזהרין כו'
8 Let an onen prove it'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He could officiate at the high places, yet if he officiated in the Temple he disqualified the sacrifice.');"><sup>8</sup></span> As for an onen, [the reason is] because he is forbidden [to partake of] the Second tithe!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXVI, 14.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ט ה"נ לפרוך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן לא הותרו בבמה מתקיף לה רב סמא בריה דרבא ומאן לימא לן דאונן אסור בבמה דלמא שרי בבמה
9 Then let a [priest] with a blemish prove it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is not so forbidden.');"><sup>10</sup></span> 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?
י רב משרשיא אמר אתיא ק"ו מיושב מה יושב שאוכל אם עבד חילל זר שאינו אוכל אינו דין שאם עבד חילל
10 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This objection is left unanswered. Hence the argument by inference from a priest with a blemish cannot be sustained.');"><sup>11</sup></span> R'Mesharshia said: It is inferred a minori from [a priest who] sits.
יא מה ליושב שכן פסול לעדות מיושב ת"ח
11 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A witness may not sit when giving his testimony. Of course, this has nothing to do with sacrifices, but in order to 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.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יב מה לשם יושב שכן פסול לעדות שם יושב לא פריך ואם ת"ל פריך אתיא מיושב ומחדא מהנך
12 - [The inference is] from a scholar who is sitting.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He was permitted to testify sitting.');"><sup>13</sup></span> [Then refute it thus:] As for the general interdict<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'name' .');"><sup>14</sup></span>
יג ויושב דכשר בבמה מנלן אמר קרא (דברים י, ח) לעמוד לפני ה' לשרתו לפני ה' ולא לפני במה:
13 of one who sits the reason may be because such is unfit to testify!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., we find that sitting disqualifies one (though not all) from testifying, but we never find a zar disqualified from testifying.');"><sup>15</sup></span> - One does not refute by a general interdict.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the abstract, but rather from the actual person. Since then the argument is based on a scholar who sits, it remains unrefuted.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
יד אונן: מנלן דכתיב (ויקרא כא, יב) ומן המקדש לא יצא ולא יחלל הא אחר שלא יצא חילל
14 And should you say that you can refute [thus], [then say that] it is inferred from one who sits and one of these others.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An onen, an unclean priest, or a priest with a blemish.');"><sup>17</sup></span> And how do we know that one who is sitting is fit at the high place?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For otherwise this inference too can be refuted as above.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
טו רבי אלעזר אמר מהכא (ויקרא י, יט) הן הקריבו אני הקרבתי מכלל דאי אינהו אקריב שפיר אישתרוף
15 - Scripture saith, To stand before the Lord, to minister to Him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. X, 8.');"><sup>19</sup></span> before the Lord [one must stand], but not at the high place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' ' Before the Lord' is understood to mean in the Temple.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
טז ורבי אלעזר מאי טעמא לא אמר מומן המקדש לא יצא אמר לך מי כתיב הא אחר שלא יצא חילל
16 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]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 12. This refers to a High Priest when an onen: he must remain in the sanctuary (for sacrificing) . and is assured that he will not profane, i.e. , disqualify the sacrifices at which he officiates.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
יז ואידך מ"ט לא אמר מהן הקריבו קסבר מפני טומאה נשרפה
17 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 a burnt-offering this day before the Lord]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. X, 19.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
יח דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא אתיא בק"ו מבעל מום ומה
18 It was I who offered. Hence it follows that had 'they' offered, it would rightly have been burnt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A he-goat was sacrificed as a sin-offering on the eighth day of Aaron's consecration (v. Lev. VIII, 33-IX, 3) On that 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.');"><sup>23</sup></span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not. Possibly an ordinary priest too does not disqualify the sacrifice, yet Scripture specifically states that a High Priest does not disqualify it, lest it be thought that precisely because his sanctity is greater he does disqualify it.');"><sup>24</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 101a. Hence the passage has nothing to do with bereavement.');"><sup>25</sup></span> The school of R'Ishmael taught: It is inferred a minori from a [priest] with a blemish. If
Previous ChapterNext Chapter