Zevachim 99a — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna: A tevul yom and a mehusar kippurim do not share in sacred things. An onen does not share in order to eat in the evening:

Gemara:

And the Gemara discusses it:

From where are these words,

that they do not share in sacred things?

He said

he explained:

For Resh Lakish said: The verse states

[Leviticus 6:19], in the section of the sin offering, "

The priest who effects its expiation shall eat it."

The verse teaches that only

the priest who effects its expiation

[who sprinkles the blood of the sin offering]

eats.

But a priest

who does not effect its expiation does not eat.

And Resh Lakish infers that it is impossible to interpret the matter according to its simple meaning,

for one must ask:

And

is

it a general rule

that anyone who did not serve does not receive a share!?

But the priestly division,

of priests,

all of it,

does not effect expiation,

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

and

nevertheless all the members of the division

eat!?

And necessarily one must explain that

we are speaking of one fit to effect expiation, one fit to effect expiation eats, while one who is not fit to effect expiation does not eat. But the entire division, all of which is fit to effect expiation, is not included in the exclusion.

And you cannot say that the verse came to exclude from eating everyone who is not fit to effect expiation, for

behold,

a

minor, who is not fit to effect expiation, and

nevertheless

eats!?

Rather,

necessarily,

what is "

shall eat it," from which those who are not fit to effect expiation are excluded? —

mean, through which those unfit to perform the offering are excluded? It means:

He shall divide it.

And thus we expound: A priest who is

fit to effect expiation

is

to share.

But a priest

who is not fit to effect expiation,

such as a tevul yom, a mehusar kippurim, and an onen,

does not share.

And the minor is also included in this, for although he is permitted to eat, he does not share; rather, he eats from his father's portion.

We have thus learned that a tevul yom, a mehusar kippurim, and an onen do not share in sacred things, as stated in our Mishna.

And we still ask:

But one with a blemish, who is not fit to effect expiation and

nevertheless

shares,

as explicitly stated in our Mishna!?

And we answer: Therefore

one with a blemish shares,

because

the Merciful One included him

[the Torah explicitly included him] for sharing, as it is stated [Leviticus 6:22], in the section of the sin offering, "

Every male among the priests

shall eat it"; and therefore the verse said "every male,"

to include one with a blemish,

who also shares in sacred things, as explained below, 102a.

And we ask:

And say "

every male"

did not come to include one with a blemish, but rather

to include a tevul yom

who shares in sacred things in order to eat in the evening!?

And we answer:

It is more reasonable that one with a blemish should have been included, for he eats

[he is fit to eat]; can you say this about a tevul yom, who is forbidden to eat.

And we ask:

On the contrary! A tevul yom should have been included

[we should have included him],

for at least in the evening he is fit

for effecting expiation [behold, in the evening he will be fit to effect expiation]; can you say this about one with a blemish, who will not be fit to effect expiation even in the evening!?

And we answer:

Now, at any rate, he is not fit

for effecting expiation, a tevul yom. The fact that in the evening he will be fit to effect expiation does not add anything; on the contrary, it is more reasonable to include one with a blemish, since he is fit to eat now.

Rav Yosef said

another reason why it is impossible to include a tevul yom for sharing:

Granted,

behold,

what is "

shall eat it"?

Necessarily, the intention is

he shall divide it,

as was explained above. If so,

the Merciful One should write "

he shall divide it."

What is "

shall eat it"?

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

learn from it,

the verse comes to inform us:

one fit to eat shares, while one not fit to eat,

such as a tevul yom,

does not share.

Resh Lakish raised a question: One with a blemish

whom the Torah included for sharing even though he is not fit to effect expiation,

and he is impure,

who does not share in sacred things,

what is the law: may they divide a portion for him?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Since

one with a blemish is

not fit

[not fit to effect expiation],

and

nevertheless

the Merciful One included him,

if so,

it makes no difference,

it does not matter that he is also impure, for

what difference is there to me if he is one with a blemish

alone,

and what difference is there to me if he is one with a blemish and he is impure,

in either case there is reason to include him.

Or perhaps, only a priest who is

fit to

eat shares.

But a priest

who is not fit to eat,

such as this one who is impure,

does not share?

Rabba said: Come and hear

from that which was taught in a beraita:

The High Priest offers while an onen

unlike other priests, who do not offer when they are onenim,

and

however

he does not eat, and does not share in the evening

like other onen priests.

Behold,

learn from it

from the fact that the High Priest does not share, although he is fit to effect expiation, that

we require fitness to eat,

and the law does not depend on fitness to effect expiation. If so, one cannot say that since one with a blemish shares, the same law applies that he should share when he is impure; for one with a blemish shares because he is fit to eat, and it does not matter to us that he is not fit to effect expiation, but when he is impure and not fit to eat, from where do we know that he shares.

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from it

that an impure one with a blemish does not share.

Rav Oshaya raised a question: An impure person [ [A0282]]a tevul yom or a mehusar kippurim]

[one who immersed that day or one lacking atonement]

in communal offerings,

which override impurity, and the impure person is also fit to effect expiation but not to eat,

what is the law: may they divide a portion for him,

to eat once he becomes pure?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Do we say: "

The priest who effects expiation"

the Merciful One said,

that he shares in sacred things,

and this one,

an impure person in communal offerings in which impurity has been permitted,

also effects expiation,

and if so, he shares;

or perhaps, it is a priest who is

who is

fit to eat who

who

shares,

but a priest

who is not fit to eat does not share?

Ravina said: Come and hear

from what we learned:

The High Priest offers while an onen, and does not eat, and does not share in order to eat in the evening.

Learn from it: We require fitness to eat,

as explained above.

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from it.

We learned in the Mishna:

An onen touches, but does not offer:

And we ask: Is it so that

an onen touches

sacred things!?

And he juxtaposes

an apparent contradiction from a Mishna in Hagigah 21a:

An onen and a mehusar kippurim

who brought his atonement and became completely pure by Torah law—these

require

by rabbinic law

immersion

at the outset in order to permit them

regarding sacred things, but not regarding teruma,

but not to partake of teruma,

It is thus explicit that an onen requires immersion and is not permitted to touch sacred things!?

Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yohanan said: not difficult:

Here,

in our Mishna,

when

already

immersed

during the time of his mourning.

Here,

in the Mishna in tractate Hagiga,

when he had not immersed

during the time of his mourning.

And we object:

But if he immersed

during the time of his mourning,

what is there

what benefit is there in this],

for the mourning returns upon him,

that is, behold, even after he immersed he is still a mourner, and immersion is of benefit to him only if he immerses after his mourning has ended; and if so, our Mishna, which deals with one whose mourning has not ended, still remains difficult: why is he permitted to touch consecrated things

for

behold

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A mourner who immersed

before his mourning had ended,

his mourning returns upon him,

that is, his immersion was of no benefit, since he is still a mourner.

Rather,

it is not difficult:

This,

That

of Hagiga deals with a case in which

he diverted his attention

he diverted his attention] from guarding his body against impurity, since in any event he is forbidden to partake of consecrated things on account of his mourning, and diversion of attention invalidates [one’s status] with regard to consecrated things.

That

our Mishna deals with a case in which

he did not divert his attention.

And we object: If the Mishna in Hagiga speaks of a case in which he diverted his attention, it remains difficult:

diversion of attention,

for even

the sprinkling of the third and seventh

like one impure through contact with a corpse

is required,

and immersion alone does not suffice!?

For Rabbi Yostai son of Rabbi Matun said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Diversion of attention requires the sprinkling of the third and seventh,

and if so, necessarily, the mourner is forbidden even when it is not known that he diverted his attention, because of the concern that perhaps he diverted his attention; and since it is merely a concern, they were not stringent with him, as with other diversion of attention, to require him to undergo the sprinkling of the third and seventh; and if so, our Mishna remains difficult!?

And we answer: In fact, the mourner is forbidden only in a case in which he diverted his attention, and nevertheless

it is not difficult:

That

in which we require the sprinkling of the third and seventh is in a case in which

he diverted his attention from impurity through contact with a corpse

from impurity through contact with a corpse].

That

in which the mourner requires immersion is in a case in which

he diverted his attention from impurity through contact with a creeping creature

from impurity through contact with a creeping creature], but he did not divert his attention from impurity through contact with a corpse.

And we still object:

impurity through contact with a creeping creature,

that is, even if we say that the Mishna in Hagiga deals with one who knows that he diverted his attention only from impurity through contact with a creeping creature, it is still difficult:

he is fully impure

by rabbinic law, and even

he also requires sunset

in order to be permitted to eat consecrated things, and immersion alone does not suffice!?

Rather, necessarily, the Mishna in Hagiga deals with one who does not know that he diverted his attention, but it is merely a concern; and therefore the Sages were not stringent to require him also to wait for sunset. And if so, our Mishna remains difficult!?

And furthermore

it remains difficult: If the Mishna in Hagiga deals with a case in which it is known to him that he diverted his attention, then

even teruma also

is forbidden for him to eat, since diversion of attention invalidates [one’s status] even with regard to teruma. Yet the Mishna in Hagiga requires him to immerse only for consecrated things and not for teruma!? Rather, necessarily, the Mishna also deals with a case in which it is not known that he diverted his attention, and nevertheless they required him to immerse; and if so, our Mishna remains difficult!?

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

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

With one who says: “I guarded myself against something that renders me impure”

with a Torah-level impurity, which requires sunset,

but

however,

“I did not guard myself against something that disqualifies me”

by rabbinic law from eating consecrated things' and does not require me to wait for sunset. And therefore, only for consecrated things does he require immersion. And even for consecrated things he requires only immersion and not sunset.

And we object:

Is there partial guarding,

and is it possible that there be guarding of purity that is not complete guarding but only partial, and with regard to a particular type of impurity, so that it is considered guarding and is not considered diversion of attention? Surely it is definitely reasonable that in such a manner he is like one who diverted his attention entirely from impurity, and by law he should require even the sprinkling of the third and seventh, and even with regard to teruma.

And we answer:

No,

indeed there is partial guarding; with regard to that from which he guarded himself, he is pure, and with regard to that from which he diverted his attention, he is impure.

And it was taught [

as an affirmative statement]:

while the basket

of dried figs

was on his head,

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