## Zevachim Daf 102b

###### Zevachim 102b:1
[Zevachim 102b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:1)

כִּי טָמֵא; מָה טָמֵא – כַּמָּה דְּלָא טָהוֹר לָא אָכֵיל, אַף הַאי נָמֵי – כַּמָּה דְּלָא מִתְּקַן לָא אָכֵיל; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
that the *halakha* of this priest is **like** that of **a ritually impure** priest: **Just as an impure** priest **may not partake as long as he is not pure, so too, this** priest with a temporary blemish **may not partake as long as he does not become fit.** The verse therefore **teaches us** that he may receive a share even before his blemish heals.


###### Zevachim 102b:2
[Zevachim 102b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:2)

כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי וְכוּ׳. וְלָא?! וַהֲרֵי בַּעַל מוּם, דְּלֹא רָאוּי לָעֲבוֹדָה, וְחוֹלֵק! וְתוּ, הָא רָאוּי לָעֲבוֹדָה חוֹלֵק?! הֲרֵי טָמֵא בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹת צִיבּוּר, דְּרָאוּי לָעֲבוֹדָה, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: The principle is: **Any** priest **who is unfit** for the service that day does not receive a share of the sacrificial meat. The Gemara objects: **But doesn’t** he? **Isn’t** there **a blemished** priest, **who is not fit for the service and** who nevertheless **receives a share** of the meat, as the mishna itself teaches? **And furthermore,** this principle indicates that only priests unfit for the service do not receive a share, **but** any priest who is **fit for the service** does **receive a share.** But **isn’t** there **an impure** priest, **who, with regard to offerings of the community, is fit for the service, and** who nevertheless **does not receive a share?**


###### Zevachim 102b:3
[Zevachim 102b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:3)

רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The mishna **is saying** that any priest who is not **fit for partaking** of sacrificial meat does not receive a share. Blemished priests may partake of sacrificial meat, and impure priests may not.


###### Zevachim 102b:4
[Zevachim 102b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:4)

וַהֲרֵי קָטָן, דְּרָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק! הָא לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: This indicates that any priest who is fit to partake may receive a share. **But isn’t** there a **minor, who is fit for partaking and** who **does not receive a share?** The Gemara answers: **This** inverse principle, that any priest who is fit to partake may receive a share, **is not taught.** The mishna means to teach only that any priest who is unfit does not receive a share.


###### Zevachim 102b:5
[Zevachim 102b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:5)

הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, לְעוֹלָם (כדקאמר) [כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ] מֵעִיקָּרָא; אִי מִשּׁוּם טָמֵא – טָמֵא לָא קָתָנֵי, וְאִי מִשּׁוּם בַּעַל מוּם – רַחֲמָנָא רַבְּיֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **Now that you have arrived at this** conclusion, that the mishna’s statement only teaches what it says explicitly, one can say that the mishna **actually** means **what** the Gemara **said at the outset,** that no priest unfit for the service receives a share. **If** one raises an objection **with regard to an impure** priest, who is fit for the service of communal offerings but does not receive a share, answer that the mishna **does not teach** that every fit priest, even **an impure** one, receives a share, only the inverse. **And if** you raise an objection **with regard to a blemished** priest, who is unfit for the service but nevertheless receives a share, answer that **the Merciful One included him** as an exception by the phrase: Every male, as derived above (102a).


###### Zevachim 102b:6
[Zevachim 102b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:6)

אֲפִילּוּ טָמֵא בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, וְטָהוֹר בִּשְׁעַת הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים – אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק. הָא טָהוֹר בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, וְטָמֵא בִּשְׁעַת הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים – חוֹלֵק;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Even** if the priest was **ritually impure** only **at the time of the sprinkling of the blood** of the offering, **and** he was **pure at the time of the burning of the fats,** he still **does not receive a share** of the meat. The Gemara notes: **Consequently,** one can infer that a priest who was **pure at the time of the sprinkling of the blood,** even one who was **impure at the time of the burning of the fats, does receive a share.**


###### Zevachim 102b:7
[Zevachim 102b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:7)

מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל. דְּתַנְיָא, אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא טָהוֹר מִשְּׁעַת זְרִיקָה עַד שְׁעַת הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים; דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״הַמַּקְרִיב אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים וְאֶת הַחֵלֶב״ – דַּאֲפִילּוּ הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים נָמֵי בָּעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **The mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Abba Shaul, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Abba Shaul says:** A priest **never partakes,** i.e., receives a share, of sacrificial meat, **unless he is pure from the time of sprinkling until the time of the burning of the fats, as the verse states:** “He among the sons of Aaron **who sacrifices the blood of the peace offerings and the fat** shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). The verse **requires** that the priest be pure **even** at the time of **the burning of the fats.**


###### Zevachim 102b:8
[Zevachim 102b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:8)

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: נִטְמָא בֵּינְתַיִים מַהוּ? בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקָה וּבִשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה בָּעֵינַן, וְהָאִיכָּא; אוֹ דִּלְמָא עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא טָהוֹר מִשְּׁעַת זְרִיקָה וְעַד שְׁעַת הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi raises a dilemma:** According to the opinion of Abba Shaul, in a case where the priest **became impure between** the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats but became pure again before the latter, **what is** the *halakha*? **Do we require** only that he be pure both **at the time of sprinkling and at the time of** the **burning** of the fats, **and there is** purity at these times? **Or perhaps** Abba Shaul meant that the priest may not receive a share in the meat **unless he is pure from the time of sprinkling until the time of the burning of the fats,** without interruption. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Zevachim 102b:9
[Zevachim 102b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:9)

אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי דִּינָא – מֵרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן גְּמִירְנָא, דְּאָמַר בְּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא דַּנְתָּהּ – בָּא טְבוּל יוֹם וְאָמַר: תֵּן לִי מִמִּנְחָה וְאוֹכַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that an impure priest who immersed that day, such that he will not be pure until sunset, and likewise an acute mourner and one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, do not receive a share of sacrificial meat in order to partake of it in the evening. **Rava says: I learned this *halakha* from Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who said in the bathroom: You** can **contend** by way of a story: A priest **who immersed that day came and said** to a pure priest of the same patrilineal priestly family serving in the Temple that day, who was apportioning the sacrificial food: **Give me** a share **of a meal offering, and I will partake** of it in the evening.


###### Zevachim 102b:10
[Zevachim 102b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:10)

אָמַר לוֹ: וּמָה אִם בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחֲךָ – בְּחַטָּאתֶךָ, דְּחִיתִיךְ מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל; מְקוֹם שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחֲךָ – בְּמִנְחָתֶךָ, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֶדְחֲךָ מִמִּנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The pure priest **said** an *a fortiori* inference **to him: Just as with regard to** a matter **where your right is superior,** i.e., **in** the case of **your** own **sin offering,** to which you have a right even when your family is not serving in the Temple, **I** can nevertheless **deny you** a share **of the sin offering of an Israelite** because you immersed today; **is it not logical that** with regard to a matter **where your right is inferior,** i.e., **in** the case of **your** own **meal offering,** as the meal offering of a priest is not eaten at all, that **I** can **deny you** a share **of the meal offering of an Israelite?**


###### Zevachim 102b:11
[Zevachim 102b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:11)

וּמָה אִם דְּחִיתַנִי מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל – שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחִי כָּךְ יִפָּה כֹּחֶךָ; תִּדְחֵינִי (מִמִּנְחָה) [מִמִּנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל], שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחִי כָּךְ הוֹרַע כֹּחֶךָ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The priest who immersed that day responded: **But** even **if you** can **deny me** a share **of the sin offering of an Israelite** on the day I immersed, perhaps this is **since just as my right is superior** in the case of my own sin offering, **so too, your right is superior** in the case of your own sin offering. If so, is it necessarily so that **you** can **refuse me** a share **of** the **meal offering** of an Israelite, **where just as my right is inferior, so your right is inferior,** as neither of us may eat from our own meal offerings?


###### Zevachim 102b:12
[Zevachim 102b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:12)

הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לַכֹּהֵן הַמַּקְרִיב אֹתָהּ לוֹ תִהְיֶה״ – בֹּא הַקְרֵב וֶאֱכוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The pure priest responded: The verse **states:** “And every meal offering that is baked in the oven, and all that is dressed in the stewing pan, and on the griddle, **shall be the priest’s that offers it”** (Leviticus 7:9). If you wish to receive a share of a meal offering, **come sacrifice and partake** of one. Since you cannot sacrifice a meal offering, having immersed only today, neither can you receive a share.


###### Zevachim 102b:13
[Zevachim 102b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:13)

תֵּן לִי מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאוֹכַל –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The priest who immersed that day made another demand: **Give me** a share **of the sin offering of an Israelite, and I will partake** of it in the evening when I am pure.


###### Zevachim 102b:14
[Zevachim 102b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:14)

אָמַר לוֹ: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחִי – בְּמִנְחָתִי, דְּחִיתִיךְ מִמִּנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל; מְקוֹם שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחִי – בְּחַטָּאתִי, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֶדְחֲךָ מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The pure priest **said to him: Just as with regard to** a matter **where my right is inferior,** i.e., **in** the case of **my** own **meal offering,** which is not eaten, **I** can **deny you** a share **of the meal offering of an Israelite,** as I explained; so too, **is it not logical that** with regard to a matter **where my right is superior,** i.e., **in** the case of **my** own **sin offering,** to which I have a right even when my family is not serving in the Temple, **I** can **deny you** a share **of the sin offering of an Israelite?**


###### Zevachim 102b:15
[Zevachim 102b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:15)

אָמַר לוֹ: וּמָה אִם שֶׁדְּחִיתַנִי מִמִּנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל – שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחֶךָ כָּךְ הוֹרַע כֹּחִי; תִּדְחֵינִי מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל – שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחֶךָ כָּךְ יִפָּה כֹּחִי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The priest who immersed that day **said to him: But if you** can **deny me** a share **of the meal offering of an Israelite, where just as your right is inferior, so too my right is inferior,** is it necessarily so that **you** can **deny me** a share **of the sin offering of an Israelite, where just as your right is superior** in the case of your own sin offering, **so too my right is superior** in the case of my own sin offering?


###### Zevachim 102b:16
[Zevachim 102b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:16)

הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״הַכֹּהֵן הַמְחַטֵּא אֹתָהּ יֹאכְלֶנָּה״ – בֹּא חַטֵּא וֶאֱכוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The pure priest responded: The verse **states** with regard to the sin offering: **“The priest who effects atonement shall eat it”** (Leviticus 6:19). If you wish to receive a share of a sin offering, **come effect atonement and partake** of one. Since you cannot perform the service of a sin offering, having immersed only today, you cannot receive a share in its meat either.


###### Zevachim 102b:17
[Zevachim 102b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:17)

אָמַר לוֹ: תֵּן לִי מֵחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק וְאוֹכַל –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The priest who immersed that day made another demand, and **said to him: Give me** a share **of** the **breast and thigh,** the portions that priests receive of peace offerings, **and I will partake** of it in the evening when I am pure.


###### Zevachim 102b:18
[Zevachim 102b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:18)

אָמַר לוֹ: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחֲךָ – בְּחַטָּאתֶךָ, דְּחִיתִיךְ [מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל] (מֵחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק); מְקוֹם שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחֲךָ – בִּשְׁלָמִים, שֶׁאֵין לָךְ בָּהֶן אֶלָּא חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֶדְחֲךָ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The pure priest **said to him: Just as with regard to** a matter **where your right is superior,** i.e., **in** the case of **your** own **sin offering,** to which you have a right to its meat in its entirety, **I** can **deny you** a share **of the sin offering of an Israelite,** as I explained, so too **is it not logical that** with regard to a matter **where your right is inferior,** i.e., **in** the case of **a peace offering, of which you have only** the right to a share of the **breast and thigh, I** can **deny you** a share?


###### Zevachim 102b:19
[Zevachim 102b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:19)

מָה אִם דְּחִיתַנִי מֵחַטָּאת – שֶׁכֵּן הוֹרַע כֹּחִי אֵצֶל נָשַׁיי וַעֲבָדַיי; תִּדְחֵינִי מֵחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק – שֶׁכֵּן יִפָּה כֹּחִי אֵצֶל נָשַׁיי וַעֲבָדַי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The priest who immersed that day responded: But **if you** can **deny me** a share **of a sin offering, where my right is inferior with regard to my wives and my slaves,** as a sin offering can be consumed only by male priests, is it necessarily so that **you** can **deny me** a share **of** the **breast and thigh** of a peace offering, **where my right is superior with regard to my wives and my slaves,** who may also partake of them?


###### Zevachim 102b:20
[Zevachim 102b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:20)

הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לַכֹּהֵן הַזּוֹרֵק אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים לוֹ יִהְיֶה״ – בֹּא זְרוֹק וֶאֱכוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The pure priest responded: The verse **states** with regard to the peace offering: **“It shall be the priest’s that sprinkles the blood of the peace offerings** against the altar” (Leviticus 7:14). If you wish to partake of a peace offering, **come sprinkle** its blood **and partake** of it. Since you cannot perform this service, having immersed only today, you cannot receive a share of its meat either.


###### Zevachim 102b:21
[Zevachim 102b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:21)

יָצָא טְבוּל יוֹם קוּלָּיו וַחֲמוּרָיו עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, אוֹנֵן מִימִינוֹ, מְחוּסַּר כַּפָּרָה מִשְּׂמֹאלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The story concludes: The priest **who immersed that day left** in disappointment, with **his *a fortiori*** inferences **upon his head,** as they did not help him. And along with him walked **an acute mourner on his right** and a priest **who had not yet** brought an **atonement** offering **on his left.** They too were denied shares, because they were unfit for the Temple service.


###### Zevachim 102b:22
[Zevachim 102b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:22)

פָּרֵיךְ רַב אַחַאי, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: תֵּן לִי מִבְּכוֹר וְאוֹכַל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥai refutes** this: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, could have added to the contentions described in the story. **Let** the priest who immersed that day **say to** the pure priest: **Give me** a share **of a firstborn** offering, **and I will partake** of it in the evening.


###### Zevachim 102b:23
[Zevachim 102b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:23)

מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחִי – בְּחַטָּאת, אֵצֶל נָשַׁיי וַעֲבָדַיי, דְּחִיתִיךְ מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל; מְקוֹם שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחִי – בִּבְכוֹר, דְּכוּלֵּיהּ דִּילִי הִיא – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֶדְחֲךָ מִמֶּנּוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Perhaps it is **because** the pure priest could **say to him: Just as with regard to a sin offering, where my right is inferior with regard to my wives and my slaves,** since it may be eaten only by male priests, **I** can nevertheless **deny you** a share **of the sin offering of an Israelite,** as I explained; so too **is it not logical that with regard to a first-born, where my right is superior because all of** its meat **is mine,** as firstborn offerings are given to a specific priest, **I** can **deny you** a share **of it?**


###### Zevachim 102b:24
[Zevachim 102b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:24)

וּמָה אִם דְּחִיתַנִי מֵחַטָּאת – שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחֲךָ כָּךְ הוֹרַע כֹּחִי; תִּדְחֵינִי מִבְּכוֹר – שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחֲךָ כָּךְ יִפָּה כֹּחִי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But the priest who immersed that day could respond: **But if you** can **deny me** a share **of a sin offering, where just as your right is inferior, so is my right inferior;** is it necessarily so that **you** can **deny me** a share **of a firstborn** offering, **where just as your right is superior, so my right is superior?**


###### Zevachim 102b:25
[Zevachim 102b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:25)

הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אֶת דָּמָם תִּזְרֹק עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְאֶת חֶלְבָּם תַּקְטִיר... וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לְךָ״ – בֹּא זְרוֹק וֶאֱכוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The pure priest could respond: The verse **says** with regard to a firstborn offering: **“You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and shall make their fat smoke** for an offering made by fire, for a pleasing aroma to the Lord. **And the flesh of them shall be yours,** as the breast and as the thigh, it shall be yours” (Numbers 18:17–18). If you wish to receive a share in the meat of a firstborn, **come sprinkle** its blood **and partake** of it. Why did Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, not include this exchange as another stage in his story?


###### Zevachim 102b:26
[Zevachim 102b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:26)

וְאִידַּךְ פָּרֵיךְ: מִי כְּתִיב ״וּבְשָׂרָם לַכֹּהֵן הַזּוֹרֵק״?! ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָךְ״ כְּתִיב – אֲפִילּוּ לְכֹהֵן אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **But the other** priest, the one who immersed that day, could **refute** this proof: **Is it written: And the flesh of them shall be for the priest who sprinkles,** as is written with regard to a meal offering, a sin offering, and a peace offering? Rather, it **is written: “And the flesh of them shall be yours,”** indicating that it can be given **even to a priest other** than the one who sacrificed it. This is why Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, did not include this exchange in his story.


###### Zevachim 102b:27
[Zevachim 102b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102b:27)

וְהֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּכׇל מְקוֹם מוּתָּר לְהַרְהֵר, חוּץ מִמֶּרְחָץ וּמִבֵּית הַכִּסֵּא! לְאוֹנְסוֹ שָׁאנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to Rava’s statement that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, taught this *halakha* in the bathroom. **And how did** Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, **do this? But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** It is **permitted to contemplate** matters of Torah **in all places except the bathhouse and the bathroom?** The Gemara answers: A case where the matter was **involuntary is different.** Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was so preoccupied by the issue that he taught it even though he was in the bathroom.