Zevachim 16b — the Talmud in English

And what of

a blemished [priest] who eats

sacred offerings, and nevertheless

if he performed the service

with them,

he invalidated

them;

an onen,

who is more stringent than he,

who does not

himself

eat

sacred offerings—

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

And we reject this:

What is special about a blemished [priest],

whose disqualification is stringent,

as it renders both those brought near like those who bring near—for a blemish disqualifies both the offerings that are brought near and the priests who bring them near; can you say this with regard to an onen, who does not have such a stringency?

And we answer:

A non-priest proves it,

who disqualifies despite not having the stringency of “those brought near like those who bring near”!

And we challenge this:

What is special about a non-priest,

whose disqualification is stringent,

as he has no remedy—for he is disqualified from the service forever; can you say this with regard to an onen priest, who has a remedy tomorrow, once his mourning ends?

And we answer:

Отвечают:

A blemished [priest] proves it,

who has a remedy when his blemish passes, and nevertheless he disqualifies.

And the case returns.

This one is not seen as that one, and that one is not seen as this one.

The common side of them is that they are warned

not to perform the service with sacred offerings,

and if they performed the service, they invalidated

them.

I too will bring an onen, who is warned

not to perform the service,

and if he performed the service, he invalidated it!

And we consider the matter:

Where is it stated that an onen is warned

not to perform the service?

If you say

that it is because they expounded

from “

And he shall not leave the Sanctuary

and he shall not profane,” whose meaning is that another priest who did not leave but performed the service while he was an onen profaned [the service]—if so, why was it necessary at all to disqualify an onen by means of a kal va-chomer? For

profanation

itself

is

written in the verse concerning him!

And we answer:

Rather,

the warning concerning an onen is learned

from “

They indeed brought it.”

And he holds: Because of mourning it was burned,

that sin-offering.

It had no one to eat it, because they were mourners. And when Moses became angry and asked Aaron and his sons: Why did you not eat the sin-offering? They answered him that they had not eaten it because they were mourners, but they did not specify in their words whether they meant that they had offered it while in mourning, or that they had not eaten it because of mourning. Therefore Moses asked again: Do you mean to say that you transgressed and offered the sin-offering while in mourning and it was thereby disqualified, and therefore you burned it? Aaron answered him: Did they offer it? I offered it, and the offering was valid; rather, we could not eat it because we were mourners, and therefore we burned it!

And it is proven from Moses’ question that an onen is forbidden to offer an offering .

[And the reason it was necessary to learn by a kal va-chomer that an onen disqualifies through his service, even though from Moses’ question, “Perhaps you offered it while mourning,” it appears that his service becomes profaned, is that Moses’ question can be explained as asking whether they transgressed and offered it while mourning, and mistakenly thought that the offering was thereby disqualified, whereas in truth it is not disqualified. Therefore a kal va-chomer was necessary to disqualify him.]

And we challenge: How is it possible to learn the law of an onen from the common side of a blemished [priest] and a non-priest?

There is room to refute: What is special about the common side of them, since it was not permitted in their general rule?

A blemished [priest] and a non-priest are forbidden to perform the service with all offerings, and their prohibition was not permitted with regard to any person. Can you say this with regard to an onen, whose prohibition was permitted with regard to the High Priest, who is permitted to offer while he is an onen?!

And we answer:

An impure person proves it,

for although it was permitted, contrary to its general rule, for him to perform the service with a communal offering, he profanes [the offering] through his service with other offerings .

And we reject this:

What is special about an impure person,

who is stringent,

since

he

renders others impure; can you say this with regard to an onen, who does not disqualify others?

And we answer:

And we answer:

These—

a blemished [priest] and a non-priest—

prove

that they profane [the offering] even though they do not disqualify others!

And the case returns:

This one is not seen as that one, and that one is not seen as this one.

The common side of them is that they are warned

not to perform the service and profane [the offering] through their service. I too will bring an onen, who is warned to perform the service, and who profanes the offering through his service.

And we still challenge:

And let us refute: What is special about the common side of them,

a non-priest, a blemished [priest], and an impure person,

since they were not permitted contrary to their general rule in the presence of the High Priest with an individual offering; can you say this with regard to an onen, whose prohibition was permitted contrary to its general rule with an individual offering in the presence of the High Priest?

And we answer:

The category of impurity, at any rate, was permitted.

For an impure person was permitted with a communal offering; therefore an impure person proves it, for he was permitted contrary to his general rule and profanes [the offering] through his service .

Rav Mesharshiyya said: It follows

that this law, that an onen profanes through his service,

by a kal va-chomer from one who is seated—

And what of one who is seated, who eats

while seated, of sacred offerings:

if he performed the service

while seated,

he invalidated it.

An onen,

who is more stringent than he,

who does not eat

sacred offerings,

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

And if you would refute:

What is special about one who is seated,

whose disqualification is more stringent,

since

one who is seated

is disqualified from testimony—

it is still possible to prove

from a seated Torah scholar,

who is fit for testimony even while seated.

And we challenge:

What is special about the category of “

one who is seated,”

since he is disqualified from testimony

when he is not a Torah scholar?

And we answer: Rav Mesharshiyya does not challenge from the stringency of

the category of one who is seated;

he does not refute it!

And if you should say that he does refute it, it follows

that an onen

from one who is seated and from one of these

[a blemished [priest], a non-priest, or an impure person], by the common side. For these do not have the stringency of “the category of one who is seated.”

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

when an ordinary priest is an onen, initially,

by a kal va-chomer from impurity—

What of impurity,

which is more stringent,

which was not permitted contrary to its general rule with the High Priest for an individual offering, was permitted

contrary to its general rule

with

an ordinary

priest for a communal offering.

Mourning,

which is lighter than impurity,

is it not logical that it was permitted contrary to its general rule with the High Priest for an individual offering, and with an ordinary priest for a communal offering?!

Rava bar Ahilai challenged Rava

as follows: The plain meaning of the verse is apparently that an onen is forbidden to perform the service both with a communal offering and with an individual offering, for the verse did not distinguish concerning him. And if you come to learn by a kal va-chomer and remove the verse from its plain meaning, then you should also learn by a kal va-chomer with regard to the other laws of an onen and an impure person, as follows:

1.

Mourning should not be permitted for the High Priest with an individual offering

by a kal va-chomer: What of the lighter impurity,

which was permitted with an ordinary priest for a communal offering but was not permitted with the High Priest for an individual offering?

Mourning,

which is more stringent,

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

Rather, necessarily, the meaning of the verse is that the permission of mourning applies both to an ordinary priest and to the High Priest, and the verse is not removed from its plain meaning!

2.

Impurity, too, should be permitted for the High Priest with an individual offering by a kal va-chomer—

And what of mourning,

which is more stringent,

which was not permitted with an ordinary priest

even

with a communal offering, was permitted with the High Priest

even

with an individual offering; impurity,

which is lighter,

which was permitted

even

with an ordinary priest for a communal offering

[for with a communal offering impurity was permitted without distinction, and the verse did not distinguish between an ordinary priest and the High Priest]—

is it not logical that it was permitted with the High Priest for an individual offering?

And likewise, it is possible to expound in the opposite direction -

3.

And impurity shall not be permitted for an ordinary priest in a communal offering by means of a kal va-chomer -

And what of mourning

which is lenient,

which was permitted to the High Priest

even

in an individual offering, was not permitted for an ordinary priest,

and not even

in a communal offering.

Impurity

which is more severe than it,

which was not permitted to the High Priest in an individual offering—is it not logical that it should not be permitted for an ordinary priest in a communal offering?!

And if you expound thus by a kal va-chomer and remove [the matter] from the plain meaning of the verse, you will not know how to expound, for it is possible for you to expound in several ways that contradict one another, when you do not know which of them is correct.