Zevachim 99b (צט:) — the Talmud in English

And a scraper [

a utensil for separating clinging dried figs]

inside it

of the basket.

And he said: My intention is directed toward the basket and

the dried figs inside it, to safeguard them in a state of ritual purity,

but my intention is not directed toward the scraper

that it should be safeguarded in a state of ritual purity.

Thus,

the basket

and the dried figs inside it are

pure,

even with regard to sacrificial food, since he did not divert his attention from them;

but

if

the scraper is impure

by rabbinic decree, with regard to sacrificial food and teruma, because he diverted his attention from it.

The Gemara raises this objection:

But

since he diverted his attention from the scraper, and it itself is impure by rabbinic decree with regard to sacrificial food,

should it not render the basket impure

with regard to sacrificial food!?

And we answer:

One utensil does not render another utensil impure.

The Gemara nevertheless raises this objection:

And should

the scraper not render impure

what is inside it,

since the scraper touches the dried figs themselves!?

Rabbi

explained:

Rava said: This is referring to one who says: I safeguarded it

the scraper

from something that renders impure

with a ritual impurity capable of rendering others impure,

but I did not safeguard it from something that disqualifies it

with a ritual impurity that does not render others impure. [

And if you say: Since the scraper was safeguarded from rendering others impure, what practical difference is there that it is impure? See what Rashi explained in Hagiga 20a.]

We have thus learned: Even partial safeguarding is considered safeguarding.

The matter rolled along and reached Rabbi Abba bar Memel

—the difficulty concerning our Mishna, arising from what we learned: “An onen and one lacking atonement require immersion for sacrificial food,” and which the Gemara had struggled to resolve, was brought before Rabbi Abba bar Memel.

He said to them:

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said to them: Is it possible that

they have not heard

—those who raised the difficulty against our Mishna from the Mishna in Hagiga—

that which Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi:

Teruma that came into contact with a source of second-degree ritual impurity becomes third-degree impure by Torah law, and it is forbidden to eat it. However, it does not render the person who eats it impure. Nevertheless, the Sages decreed that a person

who eats

food that is

third-degree impure with regard to teruma itself

is forbidden

to

eat

teruma, because through eating it he becomes third-degree impure by rabbinic decree, corresponding to the degree of impurity of the food he ate.

But

nevertheless,

he is permitted

to

touch

teruma.

Apparently,

it is proven that among the stringencies instituted by the Sages,

with regard to eating the Sages instituted a stringency,

whereas

with regard to touching the Sages did not institute a stringency.

Here too,

when the Sages instituted a stringency concerning sacrificial food, requiring an onen to immerse, only

with regard to eating did the Sages institute a stringency,

so that he may not eat sacrificial food until he immerses like one who is impure;

but with regard to touching the Sages did not institute a stringency.

We learned in the Mishna: “An onen may touch, but may not offer,”

and may not receive a portion in order to eat.

And we raise a contradiction

from what we learned in tractate Pesaḥim [91b]:

An onen immerses and eats his Paschal offering in the evening, but not sacrificial food.

According to the tanna of that Mishna, the aninut of the night following the day of death is prohibited only by rabbinic decree. The Sages permitted him to eat his Paschal offering, because if they prohibited him from eating the Paschal offering, he might refrain from preparing the Paschal offering and become liable for karet; the Sages did not enforce their words where karet would result. This is unlike other sacrificial food, which he may not eat even on the evening following the day of death. This would therefore pose a difficulty to our Mishna, which permits him to eat sacrificial food in the evening!?

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said: It is not difficult:

Here,

our Mishna, which permits an onen to eat sacrificial food in the evening, is dealing

with

the

night of the Paschal offering, which is the time for eating the Paschal offering. At that time he is permitted to eat even other sacrificial food, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Here,

the statement we learned, “but not sacrificial food,” refers

to the rest of the year.

And we explain the reason:

On

the

night of Passover, since he eats the Paschal offering, he may also eat sacrificial food.

But

during the rest of the year, when he is not fit, he is not fit [

since he is not fit, he is not fit].

And what does

“but not sacrificial food”

mean in the Mishna in Pesaḥim? It seemingly indicates that while he eats the Paschal offering, he is forbidden to eat other sacrificial food.

It means

“but not sacrificial food of the entire year”;

however, on the night of Passover he is permitted to eat even other sacrificial food.

Rav Asi said: It is not difficult:

Here,

the statement we learned, “but not sacrificial food,” is referring to a case in which

a relative died for him

only

on the fourteenth [

the eve of Passover],

and he buried him

on the

fourteenth.

That is, the evening following the day of death and burial, which occurred on the eve of Passover; and certainly the same applies to the evening following a day of death and burial that occurred during the rest of the year.

Here,

our Mishna, which permits an onen to eat sacrificial food, is dealing with a case in which

a relative died for him

already

on the thirteenth, and

he

buried him on the fourteenth.

That is, the evening following the day of burial, which was not the day of death, whether this occurred on the eve of Passover or during the rest of the year. The distinction is as follows:

A relative died for him on the fourteenth and he buried him on the fourteenth.

Since the relative died on that day, it is

the day of death,

on which his aninut is a matter of Torah law, and

it extends even to

its night by rabbinic decree,

so that he is forbidden to eat sacrificial food [apart from the Paschal offering, which the Sages permitted him to eat].

A relative died for him on the thirteenth and he buried him on the fourteenth.

On that day he did not experience death, but burial alone; it is

the day of burial,

when all his aninut is only by rabbinic decree.

It does not extend

to its night by rabbinic decree,

and he is permitted to eat all sacrificial food. The Gemara explains the Mishna in Pesaḥim and asks:

Who is the tanna who holds that night-aninut is rabbinic?

Who is the tanna who maintains that the aninut of the night following the day of death is only rabbinic, and therefore the onen eats his Paschal offering in the evening?

And the Gemara explains: This Mishna is

in accordance with the view of Rabbi Shimon.

As it was taught in a beraita: Night-aninut

following the day of death

is a matter of Torah law,

according to

Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says: An onen,

that is, night-aninut,

is not a matter of Torah law, but of rabbinic enactment.

Rabbi Shimon added:

Know

that night-aninut is only rabbinic,

for they said: An onen immerses and eats his Paschal offering in the evening, but not sacrificial food.

Therefore, an onen is permitted to eat his Paschal offering in the evening, because night-aninut is only a rabbinic matter, as explained above.

And we challenge this:

But

if

Rabbi Shimon holds that night-aninut is only rabbinic,

and therefore an onen offers the Paschal offering and eats it in the evening—

Was it not taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says: An onen may not send his offerings,

does this not mean even the Paschal offering

—thus indicating that he may not bring a Paschal offering!? And we answer:

No,

rather,

apart [

outside]

from the Paschal offering.

We nevertheless challenge this:

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says:

It is written [Leviticus 3:1], “And if his offering is a sacrifice of peace offerings,” teaching us:

“Peace offerings”:

When he is whole

he

brings

peace offerings,

but he does not bring

peace offerings

when he is an onen.

From where is it derived to include

even

the thanksgiving offering,

which an onen may not bring?

I include the thanksgiving offering, since it is eaten with rejoicing, like peace offerings—that is, because a person fulfills his obligation of the Festival joy-offering by bringing a thanksgiving offering just as he does by bringing peace offerings.

From where is it derived to include

even

the burnt offering,

which an onen may not bring?

I include the burnt offering, since it comes through a vow or a voluntary offering, like peace offerings.

From where is it derived to include

even

the firstborn, tithe offering, and Paschal offering,

which an onen may not bring, although they do not come through a vow or a voluntary offering?

I include the firstborn, tithe offering, and Paschal offering, since they do not come on account of sin,

like peace offerings.

From where is it derived to include

even

a sin offering and a guilt offering,

which come on account of sin and which an onen may not bring?

The verse states: “And if a

”

sacrifice of peace offerings is his offering,” to include the sin offering and the guilt offering as well, since they are slaughtered and are included in the term “sacrifice.”

of peace-offerings is his offering,” to include also the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, which are slaughtered and are included in “sacrifice.”

From where is it derived to include even offerings from

also the offerings from

birds,

which are not slaughtered and are not included in the term “sacrifice,”

and meal offerings, and

one who volunteers

wine [

as above, 91b],

and

the

wood

and

the

frankincense, which an onen may not bring?

The verse states: “

His offering is peace offerings,”

teaching:

Every offering that he brings, he brings when he is whole, but he does not bring it when he is an onen.

In any event, it teaches

in this beraita that even the

Paschal offering

may not be brought by an onen, according to Rabbi Shimon. This is contrary to what was explained above according to Rabbi Shimon, that an onen sends his Paschal offering and eats it in the evening!?

The Gemara offers five resolutions to this difficulty:

The first resolution:

He said—

he explained—

Rav Ḥisda:

“Paschal offering” was mentioned incidentally [

the tanna mentioned the Paschal offering needlessly], since an onen does send the Paschal offering and eats it in the evening. The second resolution:

Rav Sheshet said: What is

“Paschal offering”

that we learned in the beraita? It means

the peace offering of the Paschal offering—that is, the fourteenth-of-Nisan Festival peace offering brought by members of an oversized group so that the Paschal offering will be eaten when they are satiated. But an onen may send the Paschal offering itself.

And we challenge this:

If so,

if the baraita is discussing peace-offerings brought for Pesach,

that is ordinary peace-offerings,

and no special derivation is needed to include them!?

And we answer:

The tanna taught peace-offerings that come on their own—

that is, ordinary peace-offerings—

and taught

also

peace-offerings that come on account of Pesach.

The tanna therefore had to teach us with regard to both of them that an onen does not bring them, because

it might enter your mind that since

the peace-offering of Pesach

comes because of Pesach, it is considered like the body of Pesach [it comes on account of the Passover-offering, and therefore is considered like the Passover-offering itself]; just as an onen brings the Passover-offering, so too he brings the peace-offering that comes on account of it,

and therefore

it teaches us otherwise.

The third answer:

Rav Mari said

to resolve the difficulty: From the Mishna in Pesachim it is apparent that an onen sends his Passover-offering, while another baraita states that an onen does not send his Passover-offering: