Zevachim 102b — the Talmud in English

A person with a blemish

because he is impure

,

just as an impure person, as long as he has not become pure, does not eat

[until he becomes pure],

so too this one

, a person with a temporary blemish,

also

,

as long as he has not been restored, does not eat

[until his blemish has been repaired]—

It teaches us

that even a person with a temporary blemish eats and takes a share of sacred offerings, and he need not wait until he is restored.

We learned in the Mishna:

Anyone who is not fit

for the service does not take a share of the meat:

And we challenge this:

And

if

does not

one who is not fit for the service take a share of the meat!?

But a person with a blemish, who is not fit for the service, and

nevertheless

takes a share!?

And furthermore

it is difficult: for it implies:

if he is fit for the service, he takes a share.

But an impure person with communal offerings, who is fit

for the service,

and

nevertheless

does not take a share

, as the Gemara established earlier [99a]!? And we answer:

The tanna said: fit to eat

, and not fit for the service. Therefore, a person with a blemish takes a share, whereas an impure person with communal offerings does not take a share.

And we still challenge:

But a minor, who is fit to eat, does not take a share

, whereas from the Mishna it implies that everyone who is fit to eat takes a share!?

And we answer: What you inferred from the wording of the Mishna, which says, “Anyone who is not fit does not take a share,”

this

—“everyone who is fit takes a share”—

it is not taught

in the Mishna. That is, do not infer from the Mishna that everyone who is fit takes a share, for the Mishna did not come to teach us the inference, but the essential law that anyone who is not fit does not take a share; and consequently, the case of a minor, who does not take a share even though he is fit, is no longer difficult.

Now that you have come to this

[now that you have come to explain it this way], one may say:

Actually, as we said initially

, that “everyone who is fit for the service” means literally fit for the service, and not fit to eat; and the first two difficulties are not difficult:

For

if it is because of an impure person

, since it is difficult for you that an impure person with communal offerings is fit for the service and does not take a share, this is not difficult, because

this—“everyone who is fit for the service takes a share”—

anyone who is fit for the service shares”

is not taught.

And if it is because of a person with a blemish

, since it is difficult for you that he is not fit for the service and nevertheless takes a share, it is likewise not difficult: for

the Torah included him

for taking a share, as was explained in the adjacent beraita.

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 take a share:

And the Gemara infers:

This

—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

takes a share

. And if so,

the Mishna

is

not in accordance with Abba Shaul!

For it was taught: Abba Shaul says: He never eats

, and he does not take a share of sacred offerings,

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

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

of the sons of Aaron—to him shall the right thigh be,” teaching you

that even

at the time of

the burning of the fats, it is also required

that the one taking a share be fit.

Rav Ashi asked

, 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 meantime

and then became pure,

what is

the law as to his taking a share?

The sides of the uncertainty are:

Do we require him to be fit for the service only

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

alone, because these two acts of service are mentioned in the verse,

—we require

this because these two services are mentioned in the verse—

and there is

[a person who was fit, and he takes a share]?

Or perhaps

he does not take a share

until he is pure from the time of the sprinkling until the time of the burning of the fats

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

And we conclude:

teyku.

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

this law

in the lavatory

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

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

You can reason

in this manner concerning several matters:

1.

A tevul yom priest 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 and whose remainder is eaten by priests],

and I will eat!

He said to him

, the pure priest could say to him that he should not take a share in it [by means of a kal va-chomer from a sin-offering, as was expounded earlier, 99a: “The priest who effects its expiation shall eat it”; the verse teaches that a priest who is not fit to effect its expiation does not take a share]. And this is what he says to him:

If, in a place where your power is enhanced, in your sin-offering

, regarding a sin-offering, when you yourself are obligated in it, and you are pure, and you offer it, and you gain all the meat, nevertheless

I rejected you

when you are a tevul yom

from an Israelite’s sin-offering

, in which you do not take a share.

In a place where your power is diminished, in your meal-offering

, for you do not take a share in the meal-offering when you offer it, since every priest’s meal-offering “shall be entirely offered; it shall not be eaten”—then

is it not a logical inference that I should reject you

when you are a tevul yom

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 rejected me from an Israelite’s sin-offering, for just as my power is enhanced

to take all the meat from my sin-offering,

so is your power enhanced

to take all the meat from your sin-offering—does that mean

you should reject me from an Israelite’s meal-offering, for just as my power is diminished

, if I were bringing my own meal-offering, since I could not eat it but would have to offer all of it,

so is your power diminished

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

He said to him

, the pure priest could answer him:

Behold, it says

in the meal-offering itself,

“For the priest who offers it, it shall be his.”

And if so,

come, offer, and eat!

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

2. If

he said to him

, a tevul yom priest 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 a place where my power is diminished, in my meal-offering

, since I do not take a share in it when I am pure, because it is entirely offered,

I rejected you

when you are a tevul yom

from an Israelite’s meal-offering

, as is learned from the verse—

in a place where my power is enhanced, in my sin-offering

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

is it not a logical inference that I should reject you

when you are a tevul yom

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 rejected me from an Israelite’s meal-offering, for just as your power is diminished

so as not to eat from your meal-offering,

so is my power diminished

so that I do not eat from my meal-offering—does that mean

you should reject me from an Israelite’s sin-offering, for just as your power is enhanced

, if it were yours,

so is my power enhanced

, if it were mine!?

He said to him

, the pure priest could say to the impure priest:

Behold, it says

concerning a sin-offering,

“The priest who effects its expiation shall eat it.”

Come, effect its expiation

[sprinkle the blood]

and eat!

And since you are not fit to effect its expiation, you do not take a share.

3. If

he said to him

, a tevul yom priest 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 a place where your power is enhanced, in your sin-offering

, for you eat all the meat, nevertheless

I rejected you

when you are a tevul yom

from an Israelite’s sin-offering

, as we learn from the verse, “the one who effects its expiation.”

In a place where your power is diminished, in peace-offerings

, for even if you were offering them,

you have nothing in them except the breast and the thigh

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

is it not a logical inference that I should reject you from them

when you are a tevul yom, 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 rejected me from an Israelite’s sin-offering, for in it my power is diminished

in the sin-offering

with regard to my wives and slaves

, for I cannot give them any of it even when I am pure, since a sin-offering may be eaten only by males of the priesthood—does that mean

you should reject me from the breast and thigh, in which my power is enhanced with regard to my wives and slaves

, since 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:

Behold, it says

concerning the breast and thigh,

“For the priest who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offerings, it shall be his.”

Come, sprinkle and eat!—

The tevul yom left

in anguish, with

his logical inferences and refutations

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

upon his head

, for his words had accomplished nothing.

And together with him there also left an

onen

, who was

to his right

of the tevul yom, for he too does not take a share in any of these, since he is not fit for the service; and there also left a

mehusar kappara

, who was

to his left

, for he too does not take a share for the same reason.

Rav Aḥai objected: Let him say to him: Give me a firstborn, and I will eat!

That is, Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon could also have reasoned concerning a firstborn: If a tevul yom priest says to a pure priest, “Just as you take a firstborn, so do I; if the Israelite wishes to give me a firstborn, he may give it to me.”

Because the pure priest could say to him

the impure priest:

If in a place where my power is diminished, in a sin-offering, with regard to my wives and slaves

, who do not eat from it,

I rejected you

when you are a tevul yom

from an Israelite’s sin-offering

, as explained above,

in a place where my power is enhanced, with a firstborn, for all of it is mine

[it is all mine], since the Israelite gives it to whichever priest he wishes,

is it not a logical inference that I should reject you from it

, meaning that 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 rejected me from a sin-offering, for just as your power is diminished, so is my power diminished.

And does that mean

you should reject me from a firstborn, for just as your power is enhanced

to have all of it be yours when it is given to you,

so is my power enhanced

, for if it is given to me when I am pure, all of it is mine!?

Behold, it says

concerning 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 of pleasing fragrance to the Lord.

And their flesh shall be yours

like the breast of the waving.”

Come, sprinkle and eat!

And the other one

, Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, who did not reason this way,

refutes

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 said, “And their flesh shall be yours,” applies not to the priest who sprinkles, but to all the priests.

And we challenge Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, who said this law in the lavatory:

And how did he do this

, how did he do such a thing!?

But didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everywhere it is permitted to think, except in a bathhouse and a lavatory!?

And we answer:

When it is involuntary, it is different

, for Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon was compelled in his thought: his teaching was fluent in his mouth, and he was thinking about it against his will.