יח (ולא תותר ולא תותר אנינות וטומאה טומאה יחיד ויחיד ציבור סימן)
18 of uncleanness is nevertheless raised.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is an exception to the general interdict of uncleanness, viz. ' in the case of the Paschal offering.');"><sup>10</sup></span> R'Mesharshia said: It is inferred a minori from [a priest] who sits: if a priest, who eats sitting, profanes [the sacrifice] if he officiates whil sitting, it is surely logical that an onen, who may not eat [thereof], profanes [the sacrifice] by his officiati As for one who sits, the reason may be because he is unfit to testify? - [The argument is] from a scholar who sits. [Then refute it thus:] As for the interdict of sitting, that may be because such is unfit to testify? - On does not refute from the [general] interdict of sitting. And should you say that you can refute thus, [say that] it is inferred from one who sits and one of these others.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra a for notes.');"><sup>11</sup></span> [All SACRIFICES WHOSE BLOOD WAS CAUGHT BY.] AN ONEN. ARE DISQUALIFIED. Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Text as emended by Sh. M. Cur. edd. Raba.');"><sup>12</sup></span> said: They learned this only of a private sacrifice, but i the case of a public sacrifice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One offered on behalf of the whole community.');"><sup>13</sup></span> it is accepted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the technical term to denote that it is made valid (generally, in virtue of the headplate worn by the High Priest) .');"><sup>14</sup></span> [this being inferred] from uncleanness, a minori: if the general interdict of uncleanness was not raised in favour of a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice, yet it wa permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice; then bereavement, whose general interdict was raised in favour of a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice, is surely permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice. To this Raba B'Ahilai demurred: Let [the interdict of] bereavement no be raised in favour of a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice, a minori: if [the interdict of] unclean was not raised in favour of a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice, though it was raised for an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice; is it not logical that [the interdict of] bereavement, which not raised for an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice, shall not be raised for a High Priest in th case of a private sacrifice? [Or. argue thus: ] Let uncleanness be permitted to a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice, a minori: if bereavement, which is not permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a publi sacrifice, is permitted to a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice; is it not logical that uncleanness, which is permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice, is permitted to a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice? Again. [argue thus:] let uncleanness not be permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice, a minori: If bereavement is not permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice, though it is permitted to a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice; then uncleanness which is not permitted to a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice, is surely not permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice? [Mnemonic:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the various arguments just adduced.');"><sup>15</sup></span> Let it not be permitted; let it not be permitted bereavement and uncleanness, private sacrifice; private sacrifice; public sacrifice.]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The point of all these objections is this: if the Scriptural law can be qualified by logical arguments, these can easily be reversed and precisely the opposite conclusions drawn.');"><sup>16</sup></span>