Zevachim 99a (צט.) — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna: One who immersed that day and one lacking atonement do not receive a portion of sacrificial food. An onen does not receive a portion to eat in the evening:

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses this:

From where are these matters derived,

that they do not receive a portion of sacrificial food?

Said

—he explained—

Reish Lakish: For the verse says [Leviticus 6:19], in the passage concerning the sin-offering: "

The priest who offers it shall eat it."

The priest who offers it shall eat it."

The verse teaches that only

the priest who offers it [who sprinkles the blood of the sin-offering]

[who sprinkles the blood of the sin offering]

eats.

But a priest

who does not offer it does not eat.

Reish Lakish infers that the matter cannot be interpreted literally,

for one must ask:

And

is

this a general rule,

that anyone who did not perform the service does not receive a portion?!

But the entire division

of kohanim

does,

not offer the blood,

for not all the members of the division sprinkle the blood of the offering; only one priest from the division performs the service for the offering being divided,

and

nevertheless all the members of the division

eat?!

It is therefore necessary to explain that

we are speaking of one fit to offer it: one who is fit to offer it eats, while one who is unfit to offer it does not eat. But the entire division, every member of which is fit to offer it, is not included in the exclusion.

And you cannot say that the verse comes to exclude from eating everyone who is unfit to offer it, for

behold,

a

minor, who is unfit to offer it, and

nevertheless

eats?!

Rather,

necessarily,

what does "

shall eat it" mean,

that those unfit to offer it are excluded? —

shall divide it.

And this is how we expound the verse: A priest who is

fit to offer it

is

entitled to a portion.

But a priest

who is unfit to offer it,

such as one who immersed that day, one lacking atonement, or an onen,

is not entitled to a portion. A minor is also included in this rule: although he is permitted to eat, he does not receive a portion; rather, he eats from his father's portion.

A minor is also included in this rule: although he is permitted to eat, he does not receive a share; rather, he eats from his father's portion.

We have therefore learned that one who immersed that day, one lacking atonement, and an onen do not receive a portion of sacrificial food, as stated in our Mishna.

We nevertheless ask:

But what of one with a physical defect, who is unfit to offer it, and

nevertheless

receives a portion,

as explicitly stated in our Mishna?!

And we answer: That is why

one with a physical defect receives a portion,

because

the Torah included him

[the Torah explicitly included him] for purposes of receiving a portion, as it is stated [Leviticus 6:22] in the passage concerning the sin-offering: "

Every male among the priests

shall eat it"; since the verse says "every male,"

it includes one with a physical defect,

who likewise receives a portion of sacrificial food, as explained below, 102a.

And we ask:

But perhaps "

every male"

does not come to include one with a physical defect, but rather

to include one who immersed that day,

who receives a portion of sacrificial food in order to eat it in the evening?!

And we answer:

It is more reasonable that one with a physical defect should be included, since he eats

[he is fit to eat]. Can you say the same concerning one who immersed that day, who is forbidden to eat?

And we ask:

On the contrary! One who immersed that day should have been included

[we should have included him],

since at least in the evening he is fit

to offer it [for in the evening he will be fit to offer it]. Can you say the same concerning one with a physical defect, who will not be fit to offer it even in the evening?!

And we answer:

At present, he is not fit

to offer it, for one who immersed that day is unfit to offer it now. The fact that he will be fit to offer it in the evening does not add anything; on the contrary, it is more reasonable to include one with a physical defect, since he is fit to eat now.

Rav Yosef said

a different reason why one who immersed that day cannot be included for purposes of receiving a portion:

Since,

after all,

what does "

shall eat it" mean?

Necessarily, its meaning is

shall divide it, as explained above. If so,

the Torah should have written

"

shall divide it."

Why did it write "

shall eat it"?

Why did the Torah say "shall eat it"? Rather,

learn from this: the verse comes to teach us that

one who is

fit to eat receives a portion, while one who is unfit to eat,

such as one who immersed that day,

does not receive a portion.

Reish Lakish raised a dilemma: What is the law concerning one with a physical defect

whom the Torah included for purposes of receiving a portion even though he is unfit to offer the blood,

who is impure

and therefore does not receive a portion of sacrificial food:

may a portion be given to him?

The two sides of the dilemma are:

Since

one with a physical defect

is not fit

[he is unfit to offer the blood],

and

nevertheless

the Torah included him,

if so,

it makes no difference

that he is also impure, for

what difference is there between one with a physical defect

alone

and one with a physical defect who is impure?

In either case, he should be included.

Or perhaps, only a priest who is

fit to eat receives a portion.

fit to eat receives a share.

But a priest

who is unfit to eat,

such as this one who is impure,

does not receive a portion?

Rabba said: Come and hear

from that which was taught in a beraita:

The High Priest performs the service while in mourning,

unlike other kohanim, who do not perform the service while in mourning,

and

however

he does not eat and does not receive a portion to eat in the evening,

unlike other kohanim in mourning.

Thus,

learn from this

that the High Priest does not receive a portion even though he is fit to offer the blood, because

we require that he be fit to eat,

and the law does not depend on being fit to offer the blood. If so, one cannot say that since one with a physical defect receives a portion, he should likewise receive a portion when impure. One with a physical defect receives a portion because he is fit to eat, and we do not care that he is unfit to offer the blood; but when he is impure and unfit to eat, from where do we know that he receives a portion?

And we conclude: Indeed, it follows

that one with a physical defect who is impure does not receive a portion.

Rav Oshaya raised a dilemma: An impure person

[one who immersed that day or one lacking atonement]

in communal offerings,

which override impurity, so that even an impure person is fit to offer the blood, although he is not fit to eat,

what is the law: may a portion be given to him

to eat once he becomes pure?

The two sides of the dilemma are:

Do we say: "

The priest who offers it"

the Torah stated

as the one who receives a portion of sacrificial food,

and

this one,

an impure priest serving in communal offerings for which impurity is permitted,

also offers it,

and therefore he receives a portion;

or perhaps, it is only a priest who is

fit to eat

who

receives a portion,

but a priest

who is unfit to eat does not receive a portion?

who is not fit to eat does not receive a share?

Ravina said: Come and hear

from what we learned:

The High Priest performs the service while in mourning, but does not eat and does not receive a portion to eat in the evening.

Learn from this: We require that he be fit to eat,

as explained above.

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from this.

We learned in the Mishna:

An onen may touch sacrificial food, but does not perform the service:

And we ask: Is it true that

an onen may touch

sacrificial food?!

And we juxtapose it

with an apparent contradiction from a Mishna in Hagiga 21a:

An onen and one lacking atonement

who has brought his atonement offering and has become completely pure by Torah law

require

by rabbinic ordinance

immersion

first in order to permit them

to partake of consecrated food,

but not to partake of teruma,

It is thus clear that an onen requires immersion and is not permitted to touch sacrificial food?!

Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yohanan said: It is not difficult:

Here,

in our Mishna,

when

he had already

immersed

during the period of his mourning.

Here,

in the Mishna in tractate Hagiga,

when he had not immersed

during the period of his mourning.

And we raise an objection:

But if he immersed

during the period of his mourning,

what difference does it make [

what benefit is there in this ],

for the mourning returns upon him—

that is, even after he immersed, he is still an onen, and immersion is of no avail to him unless he immerses after his mourning has ended. If so, with regard to our Mishna, which is dealing with one whose mourning has not yet ended, the difficulty still remains: Why is he permitted to touch consecrated objects!?

For

indeed,

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: An onen who immersed

before his mourning ended,

his mourning returns upon him—

that is, his immersion did not help him, since he is still an onen.

Rather,

it is not difficult:

This,

that [the Mishna] in Hagiga is speaking of a case where

he diverted his attention

from guarding himself [he diverted his attention] from guarding his body against impurity, since in any event he was forbidden to partake of consecrated food because of his mourning, and diversion of attention invalidates one with regard to consecrated food.

This,

our Mishna, is speaking of a case where

he did not divert his attention.

And we raise an objection: If the Mishna in Hagiga is speaking of a case where he diverted his attention, the difficulty is:

diversion of attention—

does he not also

require the sprinkling on the third and seventh days

as one who is impure with corpse impurity,

does he

not require it, and is immersion alone sufficient for him!?

For Rabbi Yustai bar Rabbi Matun said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Diversion of attention requires sprinkling on the third and seventh days,

and therefore, necessarily, the onen is forbidden even when it is not known that he diverted his attention, because of the concern that perhaps he did divert his attention. Since this is merely a concern, however, the Sages did not impose upon him the same stringency as in the case of ordinary diversion of attention, requiring him to undergo sprinkling on the third and seventh days. If so, the difficulty with our Mishna remains!?

And we answer: In fact, the onen is forbidden only in a case where he diverted his attention; nevertheless,

it is not difficult:

This,

that we require sprinkling on the third and seventh days, is in a case where

he diverted his attention from corpse impurity [from impurity imparted by a corpse].

This,

that the onen requires immersion, is in a case where

he diverted his attention from the impurity of a creeping creature [from impurity imparted by a creeping creature],

but he did not divert his attention from corpse impurity.

We still raise an objection:

A person impure from a creeping creature—

that is, even if we say that the Mishna in Hagiga is dealing with one who knows that he diverted his attention only from the impurity of a creeping creature, there is still a difficulty:

he is fully impure

by rabbinic decree, and even

requires sunset

in order to be permitted to eat consecrated food, and immersion alone is insufficient!?

Rather, necessarily, the Mishna in Hagiga is dealing with one who does not know that he diverted his attention, but where there is merely a concern that he did so. Therefore, the Sages did not impose upon him even the requirement of sunset. If so, the difficulty with our Mishna remains!?

Furthermore,

there is another difficulty: If the Mishna in Hagiga is dealing with a case where he knows that he diverted his attention, then

even teruma as well

is forbidden for him to eat, since diversion of attention invalidates one even with regard to teruma. Yet the Mishna in Hagiga requires him to immerse only with regard to consecrated food, and not with regard to teruma!? Rather, necessarily, the Mishna is dealing even with a case where it is not known that he diverted his attention, and nevertheless they required him to immerse. If so, the difficulty with our Mishna remains!?

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

In fact, the Mishna in tractate Hagiga is dealing with a case where it is known that he diverted his attention, but he did not divert his attention in a manner that would require sunset, nor even immersion for teruma. What are we dealing with here?

With one who says: I guarded myself against anything that would render me impure,

an impurity under Torah law that requires sunset,

but

he did not guard himself

against anything that would disqualify me

by rabbinic decree from eating consecrated food' and does not require me to undergo sunset. Therefore, he requires immersion only with regard to consecrated food. Even with regard to consecrated food, he requires only immersion and not sunset.

And we raise an objection:

Is there such a thing as partial guarding—

can there be guarding of ritual purity that is not complete guarding but only partial, guarding against one particular form of impurity, such that it is considered guarding and yet is not considered diversion of attention? Surely it is more reasonable that in such a case he is like one who diverted his attention entirely from impurity, and by law should require even sprinkling on the third and seventh days, and even with regard to teruma.

And we answer:

No,

there is indeed partial guarding: with regard to what he guarded, he is pure, and with regard to what he diverted his attention from, he is impure.

But was it not taught [as an affirmative proof]:

[in a conciliatory tone]

while the basket

of dried figs

is still on his head—

that is, one who had a basket of dried figs on his head.