Zevachim 16b (טז:) — the Talmud in English

And what of

a blemished priest who eats

sacrificial meat, and nevertheless

if he performs the service

with them,

he invalidates

them?

An onen,

who is more stringent than he,

who does not

eat

sacrificial meat,

is it not logically inferred that if he performs the service, he invalidates it?

And we reject this:

What is distinctive about a blemished priest

whose disqualification is more severe?

For he renders both those fit to be offered and those who offer them subject to the same disqualification: the blemish disqualifies both sacrificial animals that are offered and priests who offer them. Can you say the same of an onen, who does not possess such a stringency?

And we answer:

A non-priest proves it:

he disqualifies the service even though he does not possess the stringency of “those fit to be offered and those who offer them”!

And we challenge this:

What is distinctive about a non-priest

whose disqualification is more severe?

For he has no remedy: he is disqualified from performing the service forever. Can you say the same of an onen priest, who has a remedy on the following day, once his mourning has ended?

And we answer:

A blemished priest proves it:

he has a remedy once his blemish passes, and nevertheless he disqualifies the service.

And the case returns to the original premise.

This one is not like that one, and that one is not like this one.

The common denominator between them is that they are warned

not to perform the service with sacrificial offerings,

and if they perform it, they invalidate

the offerings.

I, too, will include an onen, who is warned

not to perform the service,

and if he performs it, he invalidates it!

We address the matter:

Where is an onen warned

not to perform the service?

If you say

that it is because they expounded

from

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

meaning that a priest who did not leave but performed the service while an onen invalidated it, then why was it necessary at all to disqualify an onen by means of a kal va-chomer? After all,

profanation

is written explicitly in the body

of the verse

concerning him!

And we answer:

Rather,

the warning to an onen is derived

from

“They indeed offered”.

And he holds that the sin-offering was burned because of mourning:

it was

not eaten because there were no people fit to eat it, since they were mourners. When Moses became angry and asked Aaron and his sons, “Why did you not eat the sin-offering?” they answered that they had not eaten it because they were mourners, without specifying whether they meant that they had offered it while in mourning or that they had not eaten it because of mourning. Moses therefore asked again whether they meant to say that they had transgressed and offered the sin-offering while in mourning, thereby disqualifying it, and had therefore burned it. Aaron answered him: “Did they offer it? I offered it, and the offering was valid. But we could not eat it because we were mourners, and therefore we burned it!”

It is thus evident from Moses’ question that an onen is prohibited from offering a sacrifice . [

What made it necessary to derive by a kal va-chomer that an onen invalidates the service he performs, even though Moses’ question, “Perhaps you offered it while in mourning,” implies that his service is profaned? It is possible to explain that Moses asked whether they had transgressed and offered it while in mourning, mistakenly thinking that the offering was thereby disqualified, whereas in fact it was not disqualified. Therefore, the kal va-chomer was necessary to disqualify it].

And we challenge this: How can the law of an onen be derived from the common denominator of a blemished priest and a non-priest? After all,

it can be refuted: What is common to the common denominator between them is that neither is permitted in any instance.

A blemished priest and a non-priest are prohibited from performing the service with all offerings, and their prohibition is not permitted with regard to anyone. Can you say the same of an onen, whose prohibition is permitted in the case of the High Priest, who may offer sacrifices while in mourning?

And we answer:

A ritually impure priest proves it:

although it is permitted in an exceptional case for him to perform the service with a communal offering, he invalidates other offerings through his service .

And we reject this:

What is distinctive about a ritually impure priest

who is more stringent?

For

he

renders

others impure. Can you say the same of an onen, who does not disqualify others?

And we answer:

These—

a blemished priest and a non-priest—

prove it,

for they invalidate the service even though they do not disqualify others!

And the case returns to the original premise:

this one is not like that one, and that one is not like this one.

The common denominator between them is that they are warned

not to perform the service, and they invalidate the offering through their service. I, too, will include an onen, who is warned against performing the service and invalidates the offering through his service.

And we still challenge this:

And let us refute it: What is common to the common denominator between them—

a non-priest, a blemished priest, and a ritually impure priest—

is that they are not permitted in an exceptional case for the High Priest with an individual offering. Can you say the same of an onen, whose prohibition is permitted in an exceptional case for the High Priest with an individual offering?

And we answer:

At least the category of ritual impurity is permitted.

Ritual impurity is indeed permitted with regard to a communal offering. Therefore, a ritually impure priest proves it: his prohibition is permitted in an exceptional case, yet he invalidates the offering through his service .

Rav Mesharsheya said: This law is derived

that an onen invalidates through his service

by a kal va-chomer from one who sits:

If one who sits, who eats

sacrificial meat while sitting,

if he performs the service

while sitting,

he invalidates it,

an onen,

who is more stringent than he,

who does not eat

sacrificial meat,

is it not logically inferred that if he performs the service, he invalidates it?!

And if you would refute this,

what is distinctive about one who sits

whose disqualification is more severe?

For

one who sits

is disqualified as a witness.

It can still be proved

from a seated Torah scholar,

who is fit to testify even while seated.

And we challenge this:

What is distinctive about the category of

“one who sits,”

for he is disqualified as a witness

when he is not a Torah scholar?

And we answer: Rav Mesharsheya does not refute the argument on account of the stringency of

the category of “one who sits”;

he does not raise that objection!

And if you wish, say that he does raise the objection, this law is derived

of an onen

from one who sits and from one of these

[a blemished priest, a non-priest, or a ritually impure priest] by means of the common denominator. For these do not possess the stringency of “the category of one who sits.”

We learned in the Mishna:

An onen—

is disqualified.

Rava said: They taught this only with regard to an individual offering.

But with regard to a communal offering, he effects acceptance:

an ordinary priest who is an onen may perform the service ab initio,

by a kal va-chomer from ritual impurity:

If ritual impurity,

which is more stringent,

which was not permitted in an exceptional case for the High Priest with an individual offering, was permitted

in an exceptional case

for

an ordinary

priest with a communal offering,

mourning,

which is less stringent than ritual impurity,

is it not logically inferred that it was permitted in an exceptional case for an ordinary priest with a communal offering!

Rava bar Ahilai challenged Rava:

The plain meaning of the verse apparently indicates that an onen is prohibited from performing the service both with a communal offering and with an individual offering, since the verse makes no distinction. And if you seek to derive by a kal va-chomer and thereby depart from the plain meaning of the verse, you should likewise derive by a kal va-chomer the other laws applying to an onen and to a ritually impure priest, as follows:

a.

Mourning should not be permitted for the High Priest with an individual offering by a kal va-chomer:

If ritual impurity, which is less stringent,

which is permitted for an ordinary priest with a communal offering, is not permitted for the High Priest with an individual offering,

mourning,

which is more stringent,

is it not logically inferred that it should not be permitted for the High Priest with an individual offering!

Rather, it is necessarily the plain meaning of the verse that permission with regard to mourning applies both to an ordinary priest and to the High Priest, and one does not depart from the plain meaning of the verse!

b.

And ritual impurity should be permitted for the High Priest with an individual offering by a kal va-chomer:

If mourning,

which is more stringent,

which is not permitted for an ordinary priest

even

with a communal offering, is permitted for the High Priest

even

with an individual offering, ritual impurity,

which is less stringent,

which is permitted

even

for an ordinary priest with a communal offering

[for ritual impurity is permitted without qualification with regard to a communal offering, and the verse does not distinguish between an ordinary priest and the High Priest]—

is it not logically inferred that it is permitted for the High Priest with an individual offering?

And one can likewise expound in the reverse direction –

c.

And ritual impurity should not be permitted for an ordinary kohen in a communal offering by means of a kal va-chomer –

And as for aninut

which is lenient,

which was permitted for the High Priest

even

in an individual offering, it was not permitted for an ordinary kohen,

and not even

in a communal offering.

Ritual impurity,

which is more stringent than aninut,

which was not permitted for the High Priest in an individual offering—is it not surely the case that it should not be permitted for an ordinary kohen in a communal offering?!

And if you expound in this manner by means of a kal va-chomer and thereby derive a conclusion from the plain meaning of the verse, you will not know how to expound it, since you are able to expound it in several ways that contradict one another, when you do not know which of them is correct.