Zevachim 102b (קב:) — the Talmud in English

A blemished priest

because he is impure

is meant:

Just as an impure person, since he is not yet pure, may not eat [until he becomes pure],

[until he becomes pure],

so too this one—

a priest with a temporary blemish—

also

as long as

he has not been restored, he may not eat [until his blemish has healed]—

[until his blemish has been healed]—

This teaches us that even a priest with a temporary blemish may eat and share in the sacred portions; he need not wait until he has been restored.

that even a priest with a temporary blemish may eat from the sacrificial portions and receive a share of them; he need not wait until he has been restored to fitness.

We learned in the Mishna:

Anyone who is not fit

for the service does not share in the meat:

And we raise an objection to this:

But

if

one who is not fit

for the service does not share in the meat—

what of a blemished priest, who is not fit for the service, yet

nevertheless

does share!?

Furthermore,

it is difficult: it implies:

if he is fit for the service, he shares.

But an impure priest with regard to communal offerings, who is fit

is

for the service, yet

nevertheless

does not share, as the Gemara established earlier [99a]!?

And we answer:

The tanna means fit to eat,

not fit for the service. Therefore, a blemished priest shares, whereas an impure priest with regard to communal offerings does not share.

We still raise a difficulty:

But what of a minor, who is fit to eat yet does not share,

whereas the Mishna implies that everyone who is fit to eat shares!?

And we answer: The inference you drew from the wording of the Mishna, which states, “Anyone who is not fit does not share,”

namely, “

anyone who is fit shares”—

is not taught

in the Mishna. That is, do not infer from the Mishna that everyone who is fit shares, for the Mishna came only to teach the basic law that anyone who is not fit does not share. There is therefore no longer a difficulty from the case of a minor, who does not share even though he is fit.

Now that you have arrived at this [now that you have explained it in this manner], we can say:

[now that you have come to explain the Mishna in this way], we can say:

Actually, it is as we said initially:

“Anyone who is fit for the service” means precisely that—fit for the service, and not fit to eat. The first two difficulties are therefore no difficulty:

For

if it is because of the impure priest,

who troubles you—after all, an impure priest with regard to communal offerings is fit for the service yet does not share—this is no difficulty, for

the statement “

anyone who is fit for the service shares”

is not taught.

And if it is because of the blemished priest,

who troubles you—after all, he is not fit for the service and nevertheless shares—that too is no difficulty, for

the Torah granted him

the right to share, as is explained in the beraita that follows.

We learned in the Mishna:

Even if he was impure at the time of the sprinkling of the blood and pure at the time of the burning of the fats, he does not share:

And the Gemara infers:

If

he was

pure at the time of the sprinkling of the blood and impure at the time of the burning of the fats,

then he

does share. If so,

If so,

the Mishna

is

not in accordance with Abba Shaul!

As it was taught in a beraita: Abba Shaul says: He may never eat,

and he does not share in the sacred portions,

until he is pure from the time of the sprinkling until the time of the burning of the fats, as the verse says: “

The one who offers the blood of the peace-offerings and the fat

of the children of Aaron, to him shall be the right thigh as a portion,” teaching you

that even

at the time of

the burning of the fats, it is also required

that the one who shares be fit.

Rav Ashi raised a dilemma according to Abba Shaul: If he was pure at the time of the sprinkling and at the time of the burning of the fats, but

according to Abba Shaul: If he was pure at the time of the sprinkling and at the time of the burning of the fats, but

became impure in the interim

and then became pure again,

what is

the law as to whether he shares?

The sides of the dilemma are:

Do

at the time of the sprinkling and at the time of the burning

alone

we require

that he be fit for the service, since these two services are mentioned in the verse, and

there is [the priest was fit, and therefore he shares].

[a basis for saying that he receives a share, since he was fit at both of those times].

Or perhaps,

he does not share

until he is pure from the time of the sprinkling until the time of the burning of the fats; if he became impure in the interim, he does not share even though he became pure by the time of the burning of the fats.

and if he became impure in the meantime, then even if he became pure again by the time of the burning of the fats, he does not receive a share.

And we conclude:

The matter remains unresolved.

Rav said: I learned this law from Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who said

this law

in the bathroom [I learned this law from Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who stated it in the bathroom]:

[“I learned this law from Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who stated it in the lavatory]:

And this is what Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would say:

You can reason

in this manner with regard to several matters:

1.

A priest who had immersed that day came and said

to a pure priest:

Give me

a share

of an Israelite’s meal-offering [a meal-offering brought by an Israelite, from which a handful is removed, while the remainder is eaten by priests],

[a meal-offering brought by an Israelite, from which a handful is removed, while the remainder is eaten by priests],

and I will eat!

He said to him,

the pure priest could tell him that he should not take a share, by means of a kal va-chomer from a sin-offering, as was expounded above, on 99a: “The priest who effects its atonement shall eat it”—the verse teaches that a priest who is not fit to effect atonement does not take a share. And he could say to him:

If, in a case where your status is stronger, with regard to your sin-offering,

with regard to a sin-offering, when you yourself are obligated to bring it, and you are pure and offer it, you gain the entire meat, nevertheless

I exclude you

when you have immersed that day

from an Israelite’s sin-offering,

so that you do not take a share in it—

in a case where your status is weaker, with regard to your meal-offering,

as you do not take a share in the meal-offering when you offer it, since every meal-offering of a priest is entirely burned and may not be eaten,

is it not a kal va-chomer that I should exclude you

when you have immersed that day

from an Israelite’s meal-offering,

so that you should not take a share in it?

But

he said to him,

the impure priest could answer him and refute the kal va-chomer:

If you excluded me from an Israelite’s sin-offering, for just as my status is stronger

in that I may take all the meat of my sin-offering,

so your status is stronger

in that you may take all the meat of your sin-offering—does that mean

you should exclude me from an Israelite’s meal-offering, for just as my status is weaker,

if I were to bring my own meal-offering, in that I could not eat it but would have to burn it all,

so your status is weaker,

as you, too, would not eat from your meal-offering, since you are a priest and your meal-offering is entirely burned, like mine!?

He said to him,

the pure priest could answer him:

It says

with regard to the meal-offering itself: “

To the priest who offers it, to him it shall belong.”

If so,

come and offer it, and eat!

That is, you are not fit to offer it now and are not included among “the priest who offers it,” who is entitled to a share in the meal-offering.

2. If

a priest who had immersed that day said

to a pure priest:

Give me an Israelite’s sin-offering, and I will eat!

He said to him,

the pure priest could say to him:

If in the case where my status is weaker, with regard to my meal-offering,

as I do not take a share in it even when I am pure, because it is entirely burned,

I exclude you

when you have immersed that day

from an Israelite’s meal-offering,

as is derived from the verse—

in a case where my status is stronger, with regard to my sin-offering,

for if I were offering it alone, I would eat it alone,

is it not a kal va-chomer that I should exclude you

when you have immersed that day

from an Israelite’s sin-offering?

However,

he said to him,

the impure priest could say to the pure priest and refute the kal va-chomer:

If you excluded me from an Israelite’s meal-offering, for just as your status is weaker

in that you may not eat from your meal-offering,

so my status is weaker,

in that I may not eat from my meal-offering—does that mean

you should exclude me from an Israelite’s sin-offering, for just as your status is stronger

if it were yours,

so my status is stronger

if it were mine!?

He said to him,

the pure priest could say to the impure priest:

It says

with regard to a sin-offering: “

The priest who effects its atonement shall eat it”;

come, effect its atonement

[sprinkle its blood],

and eat!

Since you are not fit to effect its atonement, you do not share.

3. If

a priest who had immersed that day said

to a pure priest:

Give me the breast and the thigh

of a peace-offering

and I will eat.

He said to him,

the pure priest could say to him:

If in the case where your status is stronger, with regard to your sin-offering,

for you eat all the meat, nevertheless

I exclude you

when you have immersed that day

from an Israelite’s sin-offering,

as we derive from the verse, “the priest who effects its atonement.”

In a case where your status is weaker, with regard to peace-offerings,

for even if you were offering them

you would have only the breast and the thigh,

since the rest of the meat is eaten by the owners,

is it not a kal va-chomer that I should exclude you from them

when you have immersed that day, so that you should not take a share of the breast and thigh?

But

he said to him,

the impure priest could say to the pure priest:

If you excluded me from an Israelite’s sin-offering, for my status is thereby weakened

with regard to a sin-offering

in relation to my wives and slaves,

as I cannot give them any of it even when I am pure, since a sin-offering may be eaten only by male priests—does that mean

you should exclude me from the breast and thigh, for my status is thereby stronger in relation to my wives and slaves,

as when I am pure I take a share and give it to my wives and slaves!?

He said to him,

the pure priest could answer him:

It says

with regard to the breast and thigh: “

To the priest who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offerings, to him it shall belong.”

Come, sprinkle the blood and eat! —

The priest who had immersed that day left

in utter distress, with

his leniencies and stringencies

which he had advanced for his own benefit, as explained above,

upon his head.

That is, none of his arguments had helped him.

And together with him there also left

an acute mourner,

who was

to his right,

of the priest who had immersed that day, since he too does not share in any of these offerings, as he is not fit for the service; and there also left

one lacking atonement,

who was

to his left,

since he too does not share for the same reason.

Rav Aḥai refuted this: Let him say to him, “Give me a firstborn animal, and I will eat!”

That is, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, could also have reasoned with regard to a firstborn animal: If a priest who had immersed that day says to a pure priest, “Just as you take a firstborn, so do I,” then, if the Israelite wishes to give me a firstborn, he may give it to me.

Because the pure priest could say to the impure priest:

“If, in the case where my status is weaker, with a sin-offering, with regard to my wives and slaves,

If in the case where my status is weaker, with regard to a sin-offering, in relation to my wives and slaves,

as they do not eat from it,

I exclude you

when you have immersed that day

from an Israelite’s sin-offering,

as explained above,

in a case where my status is stronger, with regard to a firstborn, for all of it belongs to me [it is all mine],

as the Israelite may give it to any priest he wishes,

is it not a kal va-chomer that I should exclude you from it,

that is, even if the Israelite wishes to give it to you, he may give it only to me or to other pure priests.

But the impure priest could say to the pure priest:

If you excluded me from a sin-offering, for just as your status is weaker, so my status is weaker.

Does that mean

you should exclude me from a firstborn, for just as your status is stronger

in that all of it belongs to you when it is given to you,

so my status is stronger,

as if it is given to me when I am pure, all of it belongs to me!?

It says

with regard to a firstborn in the wilderness [Numbers 18]: “And the Lord spoke to Aaron: But the firstborn of an ox, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy.

Their blood you shall sprinkle upon the altar, and their fat you shall burn

as a fire-offering, a pleasing fragrance to the Lord.

And their flesh shall be yours

like the breast of the waving.”

Come, sprinkle the blood and eat!

But the other one,

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who did not reason in this manner,

refuted

this derivation:

Is it written, “

and their flesh shall be for the priest who sprinkles”?

But

“and their flesh shall be yours”

is written, even for another priest. That is, what the Torah says, “and their flesh shall be yours,” refers not to the priest who sprinkles the blood, but to all the priests.

That is, the Torah’s statement, “And their meat shall be yours,” refers not specifically to the priest who sprinkles the blood, but to all the priests.

And we raise a difficulty against Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who stated this law in the bathroom:

And how could he do this,

how could he do such a thing!?

But Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is permitted to think thoughts of Torah everywhere except in a bathhouse and a bathroom!?

And we answer:

Involuntary thoughts are different,

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was compelled in his thoughts: the teaching was fluent in his mouth, and he was thinking about it involuntarily.