## Zevachim Daf 16b

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

בַּעַל מוּם, שֶׁאוֹכֵל – אִם עָבַד חִילֵּל; אוֹנֵן, שֶׁאֵין אוֹכֵל – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאִם עָבַד חִילֵּל?!

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


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

מָה לְבַעַל מוּם, שֶׁכֵּן עָשָׂה בּוֹ קְרֵיבִין כְּמַקְרִיבִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the inference: One cannot derive this *halakha* from the case of a blemished priest, as **what** is notable **about a blemished** priest? It is notable **in that** the Torah **rendered** animals that **are sacrificed like** the priests who **sacrifice** them. Since this stringency does not exist with regard to acute mourning, perhaps an acute mourner may perform sacrificial rites as well.


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

זָר יוֹכִיחַ. מָה לְזָר, שֶׁכֵּן אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The case of **a non-priest will prove** that this is no reason to reject the *a fortiori* inference, since there is no equivalence between priest and sacrifice in this regard, yet a non-priest desecrates the service. The Gemara rejects this as well: One cannot cite a proof from the case of a non-priest, as **what** is notable **about** the case of **a non-priest?** It is notable **in that he has no remedy,** i.e., a non-priest may never perform the sacrificial rites. By contrast, an acute mourner will eventually become permitted to perform the service.


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

בַּעַל מוּם יוֹכִיחַ. וְחָזַר הַדִּין. לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה; הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁהֵן מוּזְהָרִין, וְאִם עָבְדוּ חִילְּלוּ; אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אוֹנֵן – שֶׁמּוּזְהָר, 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 even though the priest may perform the service if the blemish is healed, he desecrates the service so long as he remains blemished. **And the inference has reverted** to its starting point. Therefore, one learns the *halakha* from the combination of the cases of a blemished priest and a non-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** such **rites they have desecrated** the service. Therefore, **I will also include an acute mourner, who is prohibited** from performing sacrificial rites, **and** conclude that **if he performed** sacrificial **rites he has desecrated** the service.


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

הֵיכָן מוּזְהָר? אִילֵּימָא מִ״וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא״, חִילּוּל בְּגוּפֵיהּ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ! אֶלָּא מֵ״הֵן הִקְרִיבוּ״ – וְקָסָבַר מִפְּנֵי אֲנִינוּת נִשְׂרְפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **Where is** an acute mourner **prohibited** from performing sacrificial rites, as asserted in the inference? **If we say** that it is derived **from** the verse: **“And he shall not leave the Sanctuary,** and he will not profane the Sanctuary of his God” (Leviticus 21:12), then the above *a fortiori* inference is unnecessary, since **profanation itself is written in** the verse. **Rather,** it must be that it is derived **from** the verse: “This day have **they offered** their sin offering?” (Leviticus 10:19), **and** this *tanna* **holds** that the sin offering brought by Aaron **was burned because** Aaron and his sons were in **acute mourning.**


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

אִיכָּא לְמִפְרַךְ: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן לֹא הוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: The inference from the common element of the cases of a blemished priest and a non-priest **can be refuted: What** is notable **about their common element?** It is notable **in that** there are **no** circumstances in which **its general prohibition was permitted.** There is an exception to the prohibition against an acute mourner performing the Temple service, namely the High Priest, who may perform the sacrificial rites while an acute mourner.


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

טָמֵא יוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The case of **an impure** priest **will prove** that this is no reason to reject the inference, as there is an exception to the prohibition against performing the service while impure, namely that the prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity is permitted in cases involving the public, yet an impure priest desecrates the service.


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

מָה לְטָמֵא, שֶׁכֵּן מְטַמֵּא! הָנָךְ יוֹכִיחוּ. וְחָזַר הַדִּין כּוּ׳, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שֶׁמּוּזְהָרִין כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is notable **about** the case of **an impure** priest? It is notable **in that he imparts impurity** to others. Perhaps it is only for this reason that an impure priest desecrates the service. The Gemara responds: **Those** other cases, i.e., a blemished priest and a non-priest, **will prove** that this does not reject the inference, since they do not impart their status to others. **And the inference has reverted** to its starting point. Therefore, one can derive the *halakha* from the combination of the cases of an impure priest, a blemished priest, and a non-priest: 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 and they desecrate the service. Therefore, I will also conclude that since an acute mourner is prohibited from performing sacrificial rites, he desecrates the service.


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

וְלִפְרוֹךְ: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁכֵּן לֹא הוּתְּרוּ מִכְּלָלָן אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד! שֵׁם טוּמְאָה מִיהָא אִישְׁתְּרַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let one refute** this as well: **What** is notable **about their common element?** It is notable **in that its general prohibition was not permitted,** even **in** the case of **a High Priest** performing rites **for an individual’s offering.** By contrast, a High Priest in acute mourning may perform rites even for individual offerings. The Gemara responds: **The category of impurity, at least, is permitted** in the case of communal offerings. Therefore, one cannot claim that an impure priest, a non-priest, and a blemished priest all share a lack of exemptions.


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

רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא אָמַר: אָתְיָא בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִיּוֹשֵׁב; וּמָה יוֹשֵׁב, שֶׁאוֹכֵל – אִם עָבַד חִילֵּל; אוֹנֵן, שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹכֶל – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאִם עָבַד חִילֵּל?!

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


###### Zevachim 16b:11
[Zevachim 16b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/16b: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. 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 16b:12
[Zevachim 16b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/16b:12)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: Still, one cannot derive 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 non-priest, an impure priest, or a blemished priest, through their common element.


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

אוֹנֵן פָּסוּל. אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, אֲבָל בְּקׇרְבַּן צִבּוּר – מְרַצֶּה, קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִטּוּמְאָה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if **an acute mourner** collects the blood of an offering, the offering is **disqualified. Rava says: They taught** this **only with regard to an individual’s offering. But with regard to a communal offering,** a rite performed by an acute mourner does **effect acceptance.** One can derive this by ***a fortiori*** inference **from ritual impurity.**


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

מָה טוּמְאָה, שֶׁלֹּא הוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד – הוּתְּרָה אֵצֶל הֶדְיוֹט בְּקׇרְבַּן צִבּוּר; אֲנִינוּת, שֶׁהוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּקָרְבַּן יָחִיד – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁהוּתְּרָה אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט בְּקׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Just as** the prohibition against performing rites in a state of **ritual impurity, whose general prohibition was not permitted in** the case of **a High Priest** performing rites **for an individual’s offering,** as no individual offering may be sacrificed in a state of impurity, **was** nevertheless **permitted in** the case of **an ordinary [*hedyot*]** priest performing rites **for a communal offering,** as communal offerings may be sacrificed by an impure priest when necessary; then so too, with regard to the prohibition against performing rites while in a period of **acute mourning, whose general prohibition was permitted in** the case of **a High Priest** performing rites **for an individual’s offering,** as the High Priest may perform all rites while an acute mourner, **is it not right that** this prohibition **was permitted in** the case of **an ordinary priest** performing rites **for a communal offering?**


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא בַּר אֲהִילַאי: לֹא תּוּתַּר אֲנִינוּת אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה טוּמְאָה, שֶׁהוּתְּרָה אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט בְּצִבּוּר – לֹא הוּתְּרָה אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד; אֲנִינוּת, שֶׁלֹּא הוּתְּרָה אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט בְּקׇרְבַּן צִבּוּר – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תּוּתַּר אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava bar Ahilai objects to this:** On the contrary, if such an inference can be made, then perhaps one can make the following mistaken inference: The performance of rites in a state of **acute mourning should not be permitted in** the case of **a High Priest** performing rites **for an individual’s offering, by *a fortiori*** inference: **And just as** the prohibition against performing rites in a state of **ritual impurity,** whose general prohibition **was permitted in** the case of **an ordinary priest** performing rites **for a communal offering, was not permitted in** the case of **a High Priest** performing rites **for an individual’s offering;** then so too, with regard to the prohibition against performing the rites during a period of **acute mourning,** whose general prohibition **was not permitted in** the case of **an ordinary priest** performing rites **for a communal offering, is it not right that** this prohibition **should not be permitted in** the case of **a High Priest** performing rites **for an individual’s offering?**


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

וְתוּתַּר טוּמְאָה אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה אֲנִינוּת, שֶׁלֹּא הוּתַּר אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט בְּקׇרְבַּן צִבּוּר – הוּתְּרָה אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד; טוּמְאָה, שֶׁהוּתְּרָה אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט בְּקׇרְבַּן צִבּוּר – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁהוּתְּרָה אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** similarly, one may claim: The performance of rites in a state of **ritual impurity should be permitted in** the case of **a High Priest** performing rites **for an individual’s offering, by *a fortiori*** inference: **And just as** the prohibition against performing rites in a state of **acute mourning,** whose general prohibition **was not permitted in** the case of **an ordinary priest** performing rites **for a communal offering,** still **was permitted in** the case of **a High Priest** performing rites **for an individual’s offering;** then so too, with regard to the prohibition against performing the rites in a state of **ritual impurity,** whose general prohibition **was permitted in** the case of **an ordinary priest** performing rites **for a communal offering, is it not right that** this prohibition **was permitted in** the case of **a High Priest** performing rites **for an individual’s offering?**


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

וְלֹא תּוּתַּר טוּמְאָה אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט בְּקׇרְבַּן צִבּוּר, מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה אֲנִינוּת, שֶׁהוּתְּרָה אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד – לֹא הוּתְּרָה אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט בְּקׇרְבַּן צִבּוּר; טוּמְאָה, שֶׁלֹּא הוּתְּרָה אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּקָרְבַּן יָחִיד – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תּוּתַּר בְּכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט בְּקׇרְבַּן צִבּוּר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** similarly, one may claim: The performance of rites in a state of **ritual impurity should not be permitted in** the case of **an ordinary priest** performing rites **for a communal offering, by *a fortiori*** inference: **And just as** the prohibition against performing rites in a state of **acute mourning,** whose general prohibition **was permitted in** the case of **a High Priest** performing rites **for an individual’s offering,** still **was not permitted in** the case of **an ordinary priest** performing rites **for a communal offering;** then so too, with regard to the prohibition against performing the rites in a state of **ritual impurity,** whose general prohibition **was not permitted in** the case of **a High Priest** performing rites **for an individual offering, is it not right that** this prohibition **should not be permitted in** the case of **an ordinary priest** performing rites **for a communal offering?**


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

(וְלֹא תּוּתַּר, וְלֹא תּוּתַּר, אֲנִינוּת, וְטוּמְאָה, טוּמְאָה, יָחִיד, וְיָחִיד, צִבּוּר – סִימָן)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides **a mnemonic** for recalling the above rejections of Rava bar Ahilai: **And should not be permitted, and should not be permitted, acute mourning, and ritual impurity, ritual impurity, individual, and individual, communal.**