Zevachim 16a — the Talmud in English

A non-priest,

who is more stringent than he,

who may not eat

the most holy offerings—

is it not [a matter of] kal va-chomer that if he performed [the service], he invalidated [it]!

If you would say:

What is [the case with] one with a blemish? For a blemish makes the offering equivalent to the one offering it.

For the blemish disqualifies both the priest who offers and the offering that is offered, and therefore the disqualification of one with a blemish is stringent, and so he disqualifies through his service. Would you say the same with regard to a non-priest, in whom there is no such stringency—and from where [would we know] that he disqualifies?

Your answer is:

A ritually impure person proves [it],

who cannot have in his case “the offering equivalent to the one offering it,” for the animal being offered does not become ritually impure while alive, and it follows that the disqualification of ritual impurity is possible only with regard to the priest; nevertheless, it disqualifies through his service, as it is written concerning a ritually impure person who performed the service: “They shall separate themselves—and they shall not profane!” And the same law applies: a non-priest disqualifies through his service.

And perhaps if you would say:

What is [the case with] a ritually impure person? For he renders impure

other things through his impurity, and therefore he also disqualifies the offering through his service. Would you say the same with regard to a non-priest, for we have not found that non-priesthood causes the disqualification of another thing?

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 judgment returns: This one is not like that one, and that one is not like that one; the common side of them is

in a ritually impure person and in one with a blemish

that they are warned

not to perform service with sacred things,

and if they performed [the service], they profaned

the offering.

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

not to perform the service,

and if he performed [it], he profaned [it]!

And we raised it in connection with this:

Where is it stated that he is warned

that a non-priest may not perform the service?

If [you say it is derived] from “

They shall separate themselves,”

as we expounded above, that this prohibition also includes the service of non-priests, because “the Children of Israel” is stated in it—if so, it is difficult: why did the school of Rabbi Ishmael’s tanna need to learn the disqualification of a non-priest by a kal va-chomer from one with a blemish? After all,

profanation is written explicitly with regard to him,

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

And we answer:

Rather,

the school of Rabbi Ishmael’s tanna learned the warning concerning the service of a non-priest

from

what is stated in the section 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”!

И возражают:

And we reject this: still

there is room to refute

the derivation by a kal va-chomer from one with a blemish and from the common side with a ritually impure person:

What is the common side of them

in one with a blemish and in a ritually impure person?

For they were not permitted on a private altar .

Would you say the same with regard to a non-priest, who is permitted to offer on a private altar ? If so, from where [would we know] that a non-priest disqualifies through his service in the Temple?

And we answer:

Do not say that a ritually impure person proves [it]; rather, say that an acute mourner proves [it],

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

And we challenge this:

What is [the case with] an acute mourner,

whose disqualification is stringent,

for

he is forbidden

to

eat

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

[как сказано: «Я не ел от неё в своей скорби»]. Но можешь ли ты утверждать то же о неразрешённом, которому разрешено есть вторую десятину?

And we answer:

One with a blemish proves [it],

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

And the judgment returns: This one is not like that one, and that one is not like that one; the common side of them

in one with a blemish and in an acute mourner

is that they are warned

not to perform the service, and if they performed [it], they profaned [the offering]. I will likewise bring 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: What is the common side of them, for they were not permitted

one with a blemish and an acute mourner

on a private altar.

Would 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 the common side of one with a blemish and an acute mourner, who are forbidden on a private altar”:

And who says that an acute mourner is forbidden

to perform the service

on a private altar? Perhaps it is permitted

for an acute mourner to perform the service

on a private altar?

For below they learned the warning to an acute mourner not to perform the service from the verse, “He shall not leave the Sanctuary and he shall not profane,” and perhaps he was warned not to perform the service only in the Temple, but on a private altar it is permitted to him. If so, one cannot refute: What is the common side, since they are forbidden on a private altar?

Rav Mesharsheya said:

This law—that a non-priest profanes through his service—

is derived

from

a kal va-chomer from

a priest who performs the service while

sitting,

who thereby profanes his service [and the law of one who sits is expounded below in this chapter]:

And

a priest

who sits, who may eat

sacred 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

sacred offerings,

is it not a matter of kal va-chomer that if he performed [the service], he profaned [it]?!

And we challenge this:

What is [the case with] one who sits, for

he

is disqualified as a witness

when he is sitting, and therefore his disqualification is more stringent and he disqualifies the offering. Would you say the same with regard to a non-priest, who is not disqualified as a 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 when he is sitting.

And we reject this: there is still room to refute:

What is [the case with] the “

one who sits”

for

we find that he is

disqualified as a witness

when he is not a Torah scholar. Since the designation “one who sits” carries a stringent disqualification, it is impossible to learn from him by a kal va-chomer to a non-priest, and not even from a Torah scholar who sits, who is fit to testify.

And we answer: Rav Mesharsheya does not refute with the stringency of

the designation “one who sits.”

And

also,

even if you should say

that Rav Mesharsheya does refute with the designation “one who sits,”

he refutes,

still

a non-priest is derived

from one who sits and from one of these [others]

through one of the other [

acute mourner, ritually impure person, or one with a blemish], by the derivation of the common side. For these do not possess the stringency of “the designation ‘one who sits.’”

And we raise it in connection with this:

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

For Rav Mesharsheya learned that a non-priest is disqualified specifically from one who sits, because it is impossible to learn from one with a blemish, an acute mourner, or a ritually impure person, since their disqualification applies also 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 only in the Temple, which is the place called “

“

before the Lord,”

is one required to stand,

but not “

before a private altar”!

before a private altar”!

We learned in the Mishna: “With regard to all offerings whose blood was received by

an acute mourner”—

he invalidated [them]!

From where [do we know]

that an acute mourner disqualifies the offering through his service?

For it is written

concerning an acute-mourning High Priest: “

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

meaning that if he wishes, he offers an offering without profaning [it] .

This

[implies that] a

different

ordinary

priest who does not leave

the Sanctuary, but rather performs the service of the offerings,

profaned

them through his service while in acute mourning!

Rabbi Elazar said: From here

we learn that an onen invalidates his service, for it is written in the section of Shemini, in the reply that Aaron the priest answered Moses our teacher concerning his question why the sin-offering goat was burned on the eighth day of the inauguration and was not eaten: “Today they brought their sin-offering and their burnt-offering before the Lord, and such things befell me; and had I eaten the sin-offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord?”

And from Aaron’s reply to Moses we learn that Moses’s question to Aaron was: Was the offering disqualified because Elazar and Itamar brought the sin-offering while they were onenim over the death of Nadav and Avihu, and therefore it was burned? And concerning this Aaron answered: Did

they bring it?

when

I brought it!

for only I am fit for this service, as a High Priest. For you said to me, “And make the offering of the people”; and since I am a High Priest, I bring it even when I am an onen, and the offering is valid, and if so, this is not the reason for the burning of the sin-offering goat, but rather because we were all onenim, and an onen is forbidden to eat sacrificial food because of the mitzva to eat it with joy, and an onen is not joyful.

And we infer:

by inference, if they

Elazar and Itamar

had brought it

when they were onenim,

it was properly burned

the sin-offering, because they had invalidated it through their service in mourning. And it is proven that an onen invalidates through his service! And we inquire concerning this:

And Rabbi Elazar, for what reason did he not say

as they said above, that the source that an onen invalidates the service is learned

from

“And from the Temple he shall not go out”

“and he shall not profane,” whose meaning is that after he did not go out and served, he invalidated it!?

He can say to you

Rabbi Elazar:

Is it written “

Behold, another who did not go out invalidated”?

Perhaps, in truth, even an ordinary priest who served in mourning does not invalidate; rather, the verse needed to inform us that even a High Priest does not disqualify, lest it be said that because of his importance and his special sanctity, he disqualifies when he serves in mourning.

We further inquire concerning this:

And the other one,

the first version, which learned the disqualification of an onen from “And from the Temple he shall not go out, and he shall not profane,”

for what reason did he not say

like Rabbi Elazar, that the source is

from

“Did they bring it?”?

And we answer:

He holds: It was burned because of impurity

that sin-offering, and not because of mourning; there was no discussion at all between Moses and Aaron concerning the subject of mourning.

A tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught:

The disqualification of an onen

comes by a kal va-chomer

and a kal va-chomer from a blemished priest—