Zevachim 99b — the Talmud in English

and a scraper [a utensil for separating stuck-together dried figs]

a utensil for separating clinging dried figs]

inside it

of the basket.

And he said: My mind is upon the basket and

the dried figs inside it, to guard them in purity,

but my mind is not upon the scraper

to be kept in purity.

Behold,

the basket

and the dried figs inside it are

pure,

even with regard to sacred things, since he did not divert his attention from them,

but

if

the scraper is impure

by rabbinic decree, with regard to sacred things and teruma, because of his diversion of attention.

And we raised an objection concerning it:

But

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

let the scraper render the basket impure

with regard to sacred things!?

And we answer:

One utensil does not render another utensil impure.

And we still raised an objection:

And let

the scraper render

what is inside it

impure, for the scraper touches the dried figs themselves!?

Said

—he answered—

Rava: [This is] when he says: I guarded it

the scraper

from something that renders impure

with an impurity fit to render others impure,

but I did not guard it from something that disqualifies it

with an 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 therefore learned: Even partial guarding is guarding.

The matter rolled onward and reached Rabbi Abba bar Memel

the objection concerning our Mishna, from what we learned: “An onen and one lacking atonement require immersion for sacred things,” and the Gemara was forced to reconcile it, before Rabbi Abba bar Memel.

He said to them

Rabbi Abba bar Memel: Is it so that

they have not heard

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

that which Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi:

Teruma that touched one who is a second [degree] of impurity becomes a third [degree] of impurity by Torah law, and it is forbidden to eat it. But it does not render the person who eats it impure. However, the Sages decreed that a person

who eats

food that is

a third [degree] of teruma itself,

is forbidden

he

to eat

teruma, for through eating it he becomes a third [degree] of impurity, by rabbinic decree, like the degree of impurity of the food that he ate.

But

nevertheless,

he is permitted

he

to touch

teruma.

It follows

that it is proven that we find among the levels instituted by the Sages that

with regard to eating, the Sages instituted a higher level,

whereas

with regard to touching, the Sages did not institute a higher level.

Here too,

when the Sages instituted a higher level with regard to sacred things, requiring an onen to immerse, only

with regard to eating did the Sages institute a higher level,

so that he should not eat sacred things until he immerses like an impure person; but

with regard to touching, the Sages did not institute a higher level.

We learned in the Mishna: “An onen touches but does not sacrifice,”

and he does not receive a portion to eat.

And we raise a contradiction

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

An onen immerses and eats his Paschal offering in the evening, but not sacred things.

For according to the opinion of the tannai of the Mishna, the mourning of the night following the day of death is forbidden only by rabbinic decree, and only his Paschal offering did the Sages permit him, because if we prohibited him from eating the Paschal offering, perhaps he would refrain from making the Paschal offering and become liable for karet, and the Sages did not uphold their words in a place involving karet. Unlike this, with regard to other sacred things, he is forbidden to eat even on the evening following the day of death. And this contradicts our Mishna, which permits him to eat sacred things in the evening!?

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said: It is not difficult:

Here,

our Mishna, which permits an onen to eat sacred things in the evening, is dealing

with the

night of

Passover,

which is the time for eating the Paschal offering, for then he is permitted even [to eat] other sacred things, as it proceeds to explain.

Here,

that which we learned: “but not sacred things,” [means]

during the rest of the year.

других днях года.

And we explain the reason:

On the

night of

Passover, since he eats the Paschal offering, he also eats sacred things.

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].

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

And what is the meaning of “

but not sacred things,”

which we learned in Pesahim, apparently implying that while he eats the Paschal offering he is forbidden to eat other sacred things?

This is what it means:

but not sacred things of the entire year,

yet on the night of Passover he is permitted even [to eat] other sacred things.

Rav Asi said: It is not difficult:

Here,

that which we learned, “but not sacred things,” is speaking of a case

where someone died for him

only

on the fourteenth [

the eve of Passover],

and he buried him

him

on the fourteenth,

that is, on the evening following the day of death and burial that was on the eve of Passover, and all the more so on the evening following the day of death and burial that was during the rest of the year.

Here,

our Mishna, which permits an onen to eat sacred things, is dealing with a case

where someone died for him

already

on the thirteenth, and

only

he buried him on the fourteenth,

that is, on the evening following the day of burial, which is not the day of death, whether this was on the eve of Passover or during the rest of the year; and the distinction is:

someone died for him on the fourteenth and he buried him on the fourteenth,

since he died on that day,

the day of death,

whose mourning is by Torah law,

seizes

even

its night by rabbinic decree,

and he is forbidden to eat sacred things [apart from the Paschal offering, which the Sages permitted him].

Someone died for him on the thirteenth and he buried him on the fourteenth,

for on this day he did not die but was merely buried,

the day of burial,

whose entire mourning is only by rabbinic decree,

does not seize

its

night by rabbinic decree,

and he is permitted [to eat] all sacred things. The Gemara explains the Mishna in Pesahim; and asks:

Which tanna holds that night mourning is rabbinic,

who is the tanna who holds that mourning on the night following the day of death is only by rabbinic decree, and therefore he eats the Paschal offering in the evening?

And the Gemara explains: This Mishna is

in accordance with the view of Rabbi Shimon.

For it was taught in a beraita: Night mourning

following the day of death

is from words of Torah

it is,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says: An onen,

that is, night mourning,

is not from words of Torah, but from the words of the Sages.

Rabbi Shimon added:

Know

that night mourning is only rabbinic,

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

Therefore an onen is permitted to eat his Paschal offering in the evening, because night mourning is only from the words of the Sages, as was explained above.

And we object:

But

does

Rabbi Shimon hold that night mourning is only rabbinic,

and therefore he brings a Paschal offering and eats it in the evening!?

But it was taught: Rabbi Shimon says: An onen does not send his offerings,

What, is it not even the Paschal offering,

so it follows that he does not bring a Paschal offering!? And we answer:

No,

but

outside [

outside of]

the Paschal offering.

And we continue to object:

But it was taught: 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

also

the thanksgiving-offering,

which an onen does not bring?

I include the thanksgiving-offering, since it is eaten with joy, like peace-offerings,

that is, since a person fulfills his obligation of festival joy-offerings by bringing a thanksgiving-offering, just as by bringing peace-offerings.

From where is it derived to include

also

the burnt-offering,

which an onen may not bring?

I include the burnt-offering, since it comes through a vow and a freewill offering, like peace-offerings.

From where is it derived to include

also

the firstborn, the tithe, and the Paschal offering,

which an onen does not bring, even though they do not come through a vow or a freewill offering?

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

like peace-offerings.

From where is it derived to include

also

a sin-offering and a guilt-offering,

which come on account of sin, that an onen may not bring them?

The verse says “And if a

”

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

also the offerings from

the birds,

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

and the meal-offerings, and

one who volunteers

wine [as above, 91b],

as above, 91b],

and

the

wood

and

the

frankincense,

which an onen does not bring?

The verse says “

his offering of peace-offerings,”

to teach:

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

It nevertheless teaches

in this beraita that even the

Paschal offering

an onen does not bring, according to Rabbi Shimon; and this is not in accordance with 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 answers to this objection:

The first answer:

Said

—he answered—

Rav Hisda:

“Paschal offering” was mentioned gratuitously [the tanna gratuitously mentioned the Paschal offering in his words], for the onen sends the Paschal offering and eats it in the evening.

The second answer:

Rav Sheshet said: What is

“Paschal offering”

that we learned in the beraita? It means

Paschal peace-offerings,

that is, the festival peace-offering of the fourteenth, which the members of the group bring when the group is large, so that the Paschal offering will be eaten when satiated; but the onen may send the Paschal offering itself.

And we raise an objection against it:

If so,

that the baraita deals with Passover peace-offerings,

these are peace-offerings,

and no special derivation is needed to include them!?

And we answer:

The tanna [speaks of] peace-offerings that come on account of themselves,

that is, ordinary peace-offerings,

and the tanna

also

[speaks of] peace-offerings that come on account of Passover;

and the tanna needs to teach us with regard to both of them that the onen does not bring them, because

it might enter your mind: since

the Passover peace-offering

comes on account of Passover, it is considered like the body of the Passover-offering

[it comes on account of the Passover-offering, and therefore it is like the body of the Passover-offering], and just as the onen brings the Passover-offering, so too does he bring the peace-offerings that come on account of it,

it teaches us.

The third answer:

Rav Mari said

to resolve the difficulty, that from the Mishna in Pesahim it is explained that the onen sends his Passover-offering, whereas in another baraita it is explained that the onen does not send his Passover-offering: