## Zevachim Daf 16a

###### Zevachim 16a:1
[Zevachim 16a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/16a:1)

זָר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאִם עָבַד חִילֵּל?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
then with regard to **a non-priest, who may not partake** of the meat of offerings of the most sacred order, **is it not right that if he performed** sacrificial **rites he has desecrated** the service?


###### Zevachim 16a:2
[Zevachim 16a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/16a:2)

מָה לְבַעַל מוּם – שֶׁכֵּן עָשָׂה בּוֹ קָרֵב כְּמַקְרִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the inference: One cannot draw an *a fortiori* inference from a blemished priest, as **what** is notable **about** the case of **a blemished** priest? It is notable **in that** the Torah **rendered** an animal that **is sacrificed like** the priest who **sacrifices** it, i.e., both blemished animals and blemished priests are disqualified. Since there is an added element of stringency with regard to the case of a blemished priest, one cannot draw an *a fortiori* inference from it.


###### Zevachim 16a:3
[Zevachim 16a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/16a:3)

טָמֵא יוֹכִיחַ. מָה לְטָמֵא – שֶׁכֵּן מְטַמֵּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: The case of **an impure** priest **will prove** that this is no reason to reject the *a fortiori* inference. While an animal and the priest are not equated with regard to ritual impurity, as an animal cannot become impure while alive but a priest can, an impure priest desecrates the service. The Gemara rejects this as well: **What** is notable **about** the case of **an impure** priest? It is notable **in that** an impure priest **imparts impurity** to others.


###### Zevachim 16a:4
[Zevachim 16a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/16a:4)

בַּעַל מוּם יוֹכִיחַ. וְחָזַר הַדִּין. לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה; הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁמּוּזְהָרִין, וְאִם עָבְדוּ חִילְּלוּ; אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא זָר – שֶׁהוּא מוּזְהָר, וְאִם עָבַד חִילֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **A blemished** priest **will prove** that this is no reason to reject the inference, as he cannot impart his blemish to others. **And the inference has reverted** to its starting point. Therefore, one may derive the *halakha* of a non-priest from the combination of the case of a blemished priest and that of an impure priest: **The aspect of this** case **is not like the aspect of that** case, **and the aspect of that** case **is not like the aspect of this** case. **Their common element** is **that they are prohibited** from performing sacrificial rites **and if they performed** these **rites they have desecrated** the service. Therefore, **I will also include a non-priest, who is prohibited** from performing sacrificial rites, **and** conclude that **if he performed** sacrificial **rites he has desecrated** the service.


###### Zevachim 16a:5
[Zevachim 16a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/16a:5)

מְנָלַן דְּמוּזְהָר? אִי מִ״וְּיִנָּזְרוּ״ – חִילּוּל בְּגוּפֵיהּ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ! אֶלָּא מִ״וְּזָר לֹא יִקְרַב אֲלֵיכֶם״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive **that** a non-priest **is prohibited** from performing sacrificial rites? **If** it is derived **from** the verse: “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, **that they separate themselves** from the sacred items of the children of Israel, and that they not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:2), then the *a fortiori* inference is unnecessary, since **profanation itself is written in** the verse. **Rather,** it must be that it is derived **from** the verse: “Keep the charge of the Tent of Meeting, whatever the service of the Tent may be; **but a common man shall not draw close to you”** (Numbers 18:4).


###### Zevachim 16a:6
[Zevachim 16a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/16a:6)

אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן לֹא הוּתְּרוּ בְּבָמָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Still, the *a fortiori* inference drawn from the cases of a blemished priest and an impure priest **can be refuted: What** is notable **about their common element?** It is notable **in that** a blemished priest and an impure priest **were not permitted** to perform sacrificial rites **on** a private **altar** during times when there was no Temple or permanent Tabernacle. Since it was permitted for non-priests to perform rites on private altars, perhaps non-priests do not desecrate the sacrificial rites performed in the Temple.


###### Zevachim 16a:7
[Zevachim 16a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/16a:7)

לָא תֵּימָא: טָמֵא יוֹכִיחַ, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אוֹנֵן יוֹכִיחַ. מָה לְאוֹנֵן – שֶׁכֵּן אָסוּר בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר! [בַּעַל מוּם] יוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Do not say** that the case of **an impure** priest **will prove** the *a fortiori* inference with the case of a blemished priest; **rather, say** that the case of **an acute mourner will prove** it, as it is prohibited for him to perform the service and, if he were to perform it, he would desecrate it. This, too, is rejected: **What** is notable **about** the case of **an acute mourner?** It is notable **in that** he **is prohibited from** partaking of second **tithe,** whereas a non-priest may partake of second tithe. The Gemara responds: **A blemished** priest **will prove** the inference, as he may partake of second tithe.


###### Zevachim 16a:8
[Zevachim 16a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/16a:8)

וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שֶׁמּוּזְהָרִין כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the inference has reverted** to its starting point. **The aspect of this** case **is not like the aspect of that** case. **Their common element** is **that they are prohibited** from performing sacrificial rites *ab initio*, and they desecrate the service if they do so. Therefore, with regard to a non-priest, who is prohibited from performing sacrificial rites, if he performed sacrificial rites he has desecrated the service.


###### Zevachim 16a:9
[Zevachim 16a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/16a:9)

הָכָא נָמֵי לִפְרוֹךְ: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁכֵּן לֹא הוּתְּרוּ בְּבָמָה! מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב סַמָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: וּמַאן לֵימָא לַן דְּאוֹנֵן אָסוּר בְּבָמָה? דִּלְמָא שְׁרֵי בְּבָמָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Here, too, let one refute** the inference: **What** is notable **about their common element?** It is notable **in that** both an acute mourner and a blemished priest **were not permitted** to perform sacrificial rites **on** a private **altar,** unlike a non-priest. **Rav Samma, son of Rava, objects to this: And who shall say to us that an acute mourner** was **prohibited** from performing rites **on** a private **altar? Perhaps** it was **permitted** for him to perform the rites **on** a private **altar.**


###### Zevachim 16a:10
[Zevachim 16a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/16a:10)

רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא אָמַר, אָתְיָא קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִיּוֹשֵׁב: מָה יוֹשֵׁב, שֶׁאוֹכֵל – אִם עָבַד חִילֵּל; זָר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאִם עָבַד חִילֵּל?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mesharshiyya says:** The *halakha* that a non-priest desecrates the service **is derived** by **an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the case of a priest who performed sacrificial rites while **sitting: Just as** with regard to a priest who was **sitting, who may partake** of the meat of offerings, **if he performed** sacrificial **rites he has desecrated** the service, then with regard to **a non-priest, who may not partake** of the meat of offerings of the most sacred order, **is it not right that if he performed** sacrificial **rites he has desecrated** the service?


###### Zevachim 16a:11
[Zevachim 16a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/16a:11)

מָה לְיוֹשֵׁב – שֶׁכֵּן פָּסוּל לְעֵדוּת! מִיּוֹשֵׁב תַּלְמִיד חָכָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **What** is notable **about** the case of **a sitting** priest? It is notable **in that** one who sits **is disqualified from bearing witness,** as witnesses must stand when testifying. Since there is an added aspect of stringency with regard to the case of a sitting priest, one cannot derive the *halakha* with regard to a non-priest from it. The Gemara responds: Learn instead **from** the *halakha* of **a sitting Torah scholar,** as the court may allow a Torah scholar to sit while testifying.


###### Zevachim 16a:12
[Zevachim 16a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/16a:12)

מָה לְשֵׁם יוֹשֵׁב – שֶׁכֵּן פָּסוּל לְעֵדוּת! שֵׁם יוֹשֵׁב לָא פָּרֵיךְ. וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר פָּרֵיךְ – אָתְיָא מִיּוֹשֵׁב וּמֵחֲדָא מֵהָנָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: Still, one cannot derive the *halakha* from this, as **what** is notable about **the category of a sitting** priest? It is notable **in that** generally speaking, one who sits **is disqualified from bearing witness,** even though there are exceptions. The Gemara responds: **The category of a sitting** priest **cannot refute** the derivation. One can refute a derivation only from concrete cases, not general concepts. **And** even **if you say it can refute** the derivation, the *halakha* with regard to a non-priest **can be derived from** the case of **a sitting** priest **and from one of those** other cases, i.e., a blemished priest, an impure priest, or an acute mourner, all of whom may testify.


###### Zevachim 16a:13
[Zevachim 16a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/16a:13)

וְיוֹשֵׁב דְּכָשֵׁר בְּבָמָה – מְנָלַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״לַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי ה׳ לְשָׁרְתוֹ״ – לִפְנֵי ה׳ וְלֹא לִפְנֵי בָּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where do we** derive **that** one who is **sitting is fit** to perform sacrificial rites **on** a private **altar?** If he is not, one can refute the common element in the same manner as above. The Gemara responds: **The verse states:** “The Lord separated the tribe of Levi to bear the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, **to stand before the Lord to minister to Him”** (Deuteronomy 10:8). The verse indicates that the sacrificial rites must be performed while standing only **before the Lord,** i.e., in the Temple, where the Divine Presence resides, **and not before** a private **altar,** which is a mere place of worship.


###### Zevachim 16a:14
[Zevachim 16a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/16a:14)

אוֹנֵן מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא, וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל״ – הָא אַחֵר שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא, חִילֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that rites performed by **an acute mourner** are disqualified. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this? **As it is written** with regard to a High Priest who is an acute mourner: **“And he shall not leave the Sanctuary, and he will not profane** the Sanctuary of his God” (Leviticus 21:12). One can infer: **But** any **other** ordinary priest **who did not leave** the Sanctuary while he was an acute mourner and continued to perform the service **has desecrated** the rites he performed.


###### Zevachim 16a:15
[Zevachim 16a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/16a:15)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״הֵן הִקְרִיבוּ״ – אֲנִי הִקְרַבְתִּי, מִכְּלָל דְּאִי אִינְהוּ אַקְרִיב – שַׁפִּיר אִישְׂתְּרוּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar says:** One can derive it **from here** instead: When Moses asked Aaron why the sin offering that was sacrificed on the day that Nadav and Avihu died was burned and not eaten, he suspected that Aaron’s other sons, Eleazar and Itamar, had sacrificed the sin offering while acute mourners, which disqualified it and forced them to burn it. Aaron responded to Moses: “This day have **they offered** their sin offering?” (Leviticus 10:19). Rather, **I offered** it. As High Priest, I do not desecrate the Temple service even when I am an acute mourner; I burned it only because, as acute mourners, my sons and I are prohibited from partaking of the meat. Rabbi Elazar continues: **By inference,** one can derive **that if they had offered** the sin offering they would have disqualified it, and it would have been **proper** that **it was burned.**


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

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר – מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר מִ״וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא״? אָמַר לָךְ, מִי כְּתִיב: הָא אַחֵר שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא – חִילֵּל?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the reason** that **Rabbi Elazar does not say** that this *halakha* is derived **from** the verse: **“And he shall not leave the Sanctuary”?** The Gemara responds: He could have **said to you: Is it written: But** any **other** ordinary priest **that did not leave** the Sanctuary **has desecrated** the rites he performed? It is only an inference, and so it is not conclusive.


###### Zevachim 16a:17
[Zevachim 16a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/16a:17)

וְאִידַּךְ – מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר מֵ״הֵן הִקְרִיבוּ״? קָסָבַר: מִפְּנֵי טוּמְאָה נִשְׂרְפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the other** Sage, who derives it from the verse: “And he shall not leave the Sanctuary,” **what is the reason** that **he did not say** to derive it **from** the verse: “This day have **they offered** their sin offering?” The Gemara responds: He **holds** that the sin offering **was burned because** it became **ritually impure,** not because Aaron and his sons were acute mourners.


###### Zevachim 16a:18
[Zevachim 16a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/16a:18)

דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: אָתְיָא בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִבַּעַל מוּם; וּמָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A *tanna* of the **school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:** The *halakha* **is derived by an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the case of **a blemished** priest: **And just as**