Zevachim 16a (טז.) — the Talmud in English

A non-priest,

who is more stringent than he,

in that he may not eat

the most sacred offerings,

is it not logical that if he performed the service, he invalidated it?

Lest you say:

What is notable about one with a blemish? The offering is made like the one who offers it.

A blemish disqualifies both the officiating priest and the offering being offered; therefore, the disqualification of one with a blemish is severe, and so he disqualifies the offering through his service. Can you say the same with regard to a non-priest, who does not possess this stringency—and from where would it follow that he disqualifies the offering?

Your answer is:

One who is impure proves it,

for the principle “the offering is made like the one who offers it” cannot apply to him, since an animal being offered does not contract ritual impurity while alive . It follows that the disqualification of impurity applies only to the priest; nevertheless, he disqualifies the offering through his service, as it is written with regard to one who is impure and performs the service: “They shall separate themselves—and they shall not profane.” The same law applies: a non-priest disqualifies his service.

And lest you say:

What is notable about one who is impure? He renders

other things impure through his impurity, and therefore he also disqualifies the offering through his service. Can you say the same with regard to a non-priest, for we have not found that being a non-priest causes another object to become disqualified?

Your answer is:

One with a blemish proves it,

for he does not disqualify others, and nevertheless he disqualifies the offering through his service!

And the argument returns: This one is not like that one, and that one is not like this one; the common denominator between them

in the case of one who is impure and one with a blemish is

that they are warned

not to perform the service with consecrated offerings,

and if they performed the service, they profaned

the offering.

I will likewise include a non-priest, who is warned

not to perform the service,

and if he performed the service, he profaned it!

And we raised a difficulty:

Where is the non-priest warned

not to perform the service?

If it is from “

They shall separate themselves,”

as we expounded above, that this prohibition also includes the service of non-priests, because the verse says “the Children of Israel,” then it is difficult: Why did the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael need to derive the disqualification of a non-priest by means of a kal va-chomer from one with a blemish? After all,

profanation is written explicitly with regard to him,

as the verse states explicitly: “They shall separate themselves, and they shall not profane”?

And we answer:

Rather,

the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael derived the warning concerning the service of a non-priest

from

the verse stated in the portion of Korah [Numbers 18:4], concerning the guarding of the Sanctuary and the altar by Aaron and his sons: “

And a non-priest shall not approach you”!

And we reject this: Even now,

there is room to refute

the derivation by a kal va-chomer from one with a blemish and by the common denominator from one who is impure:

What is notable about the common denominator between them,

one with a blemish and one who is impure, is

that they were not permitted on a private altar .

Can you say the same with regard to a non-priest, who is permitted to offer on a private altar ? If so, from where does it follow that a non-priest disqualifies an offering through his service in the Temple?

And we answer:

Do not say that one who is impure proves it; rather, say that an onen proves it,

and concerning him they derived from a verse [below] that if he performed the service, he profaned the offering.

And we challenge this:

What is notable about an onen

is that his disqualification is severe,

since

he is prohibited

from

eating

second tithe [as it is stated: “I have not eaten of it in my mourning”]. Can you say the same with regard to a non-priest, who is permitted to eat second tithe?

And we answer:

One with a blemish proves it,

for he is permitted to eat second tithe, and nevertheless he disqualifies the offering through his service.

And the argument returns: This one is not like that one, and that one is not like this one; the common denominator between them

—between one with a blemish and an onen—

is that they are warned

not to perform the service, and if they performed it, they profaned the offering. I will likewise include a non-priest, who is warned not to perform the service, and if he performed it, he profaned the offering.

And we challenge this:

Here too, let us refute it: What is notable about the common denominator between them, that they were not permitted

one with a blemish and an onen

on a private altar?

Can you say the same with regard to a non-priest, who was permitted on a private altar?!

Rav Sama, son of Rava, raised an objection

to the refutation, “What is notable about the common denominator between one with a blemish and an onen, that they are prohibited on a private altar?”:

Who says that an onen is prohibited

from performing the service

on a private altar? Perhaps it is permitted

for an onen to perform the service

on a private altar?

For below they derived the warning against an onen performing the service from the verse, “He shall not leave the Sanctuary and he shall not profane.” Perhaps he was warned not to perform the service only in the Temple, but on a private altar he is permitted. If so, one cannot refute the derivation by saying that the common denominator is that they are prohibited on a private altar.

Rav Mesharsheya said:

The law that a non-priest profanes the offering through his service

is derived

from

a kal va-chomer from

a priest who performs the service while

sitting,

thereby profaning his service [the law of one who sits is derived below in this chapter]:

And just as

a priest

who sits, who may eat

consecrated offerings while he is sitting,

if he performed the service

while sitting

he profaned it, a non-priest,

who is more stringent than he,

who may not eat

consecrated offerings,

is it not logical that if he performed the service, he profaned it?!

And we challenge this:

What is notable about one who sits, since

he is

disqualified from bearing witness

when he is sitting, and therefore his disqualification is severe and he disqualifies the offering? Can you say the same with regard to a non-priest, who is not disqualified from bearing witness?!

And we answer: It is possible to prove it by a kal va-chomer

from a Torah scholar who sits,

who is fit to testify even while sitting .

And we reject this: There is still room to refute it:

What is notable about the term “

one who sits”

since

we find that he is

disqualified from bearing witness

when he is not a Torah scholar. Since the status termed “one who sits” is stringent, it is impossible to derive from it by a kal va-chomer that a non-priest disqualifies the service, even from a Torah scholar who is fit to testify.

And we answer: Rav Mesharsheya

does not refute the stringency of the term “

one who sits”! And

further,

even if you would say

that Rav Mesharsheya

does refute the term “one who sits,”

there is still a derivation that a

non-priest is derived

from one who sits

and from one of these

[an onen, one who is impure, or one with a blemish], by means of the common denominator, since these do not possess the stringency of the “term one who sits.”

And we raised a difficulty:

And from where do we know that one who sits is fit on a private altar?

For Rav Mesharsheya derived that a non-priest is disqualified specifically from the case of one who sits, because one cannot derive it from one with a blemish, an onen, or one who is impure, whose disqualification also applies on a private altar, whereas a non-priest is fit on a private altar. If so, it is necessary to clarify from where Rav Mesharsheya knows that one who sits is fit on a private altar?

And we answer:

The verse says, concerning the obligation to stand,

“

to stand before the Lord

to serve Him,” teaching that standing is required only in the Temple, which is the place called

“

before the Lord”;

there one must stand,

but not

“

before a private altar”!

We learned in the Mishna: All offerings whose blood was received by

an onen

—he disqualified them!

From where do we know

that an onen disqualifies the offering through his service?

As it is written

with regard to a High Priest who is an onen: “

He shall not leave the Sanctuary and he shall not profane,”

which indicates that if he wishes, he may offer an offering without profaning it .

This

applies to a

different

priest,

who does not leave

the Sanctuary, but performs the service of the offerings:

he profanes

them through his service while in mourning.

Rabbi Elazar said: We learned it from here that an onen invalidates his service, as it is written in the portion of Shemini, in Aaron the kohen’s response to Moses our teacher when Moses asked why the goat of the sin-offering, brought on the eighth day of the inauguration, had been burned rather than eaten: “Behold, today they brought their sin-offering and their burnt-offering before the Lord, and such things as these befell me; if I had eaten the sin-offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord?”

From Aaron’s response to Moses we learn that Moses’s question to Aaron was: Was the offering disqualified because Eleazar and Ithamar brought the sin-offering while they were onenim, mourning the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, and was it therefore burned? To this Aaron replied:

And did

they bring it?

After all,

I brought it!

For only I am fit for this service, as the kohen gadol. You said to me, “Offer the offering of the people,” and since I am the kohen gadol, I offer it even while I am an onen, and the offering is valid; therefore, this was not the reason that the goat of the sin-offering was burned. Rather, it was because we were all onenim, and an onen is forbidden to eat consecrated offerings because of the mitzva to eat them joyfully, whereas an onen is not joyful. And we infer: By implication, if they, Eleazar and Ithamar, had brought it while they were onenim,

it was properly burned,

the sin-offering, because they had invalidated it through their service while in mourning. This proves that an onen invalidates the service!

We inquire:

And Rabbi Elazar, why did he not say

as was stated above, that the source for the principle that an onen invalidates the service is derived

from

“And he shall not leave the Sanctuary and he shall not profane”, which indicates that after he did not leave and performed the service, he invalidated it!?

«

He can say to you

Rabbi Elazar:

Is it written, “Only after he did not leave did he invalidate”? Perhaps, in truth, even an ordinary kohen who performed the service while in mourning does not invalidate it. Rather, the verse had to teach us that even a kohen gadol does not invalidate it, lest one say that because of his special importance and sanctity he invalidates the service when he performs it while in mourning. We inquire further: And the other, the first formulation, which derives the disqualification of an onen from “And he shall not leave the Sanctuary and he shall not profane,” why did he not say like Rabbi Elazar, that the source is from “Did they bring it?” And we answer: He holds that it was burned because of ritual impurity, that sin-offering, and not because of mourning; Moses and Aaron were not discussing the subject of mourning at all. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The disqualification of an onen is derived by a kal va-chomer from one with a physical blemish—

«