## Zevachim Daf 99a

###### Zevachim 99a:1
[Zevachim 99a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:1)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״הַכֹּהֵן הַמְחַטֵּא אֹתָהּ יֹאכְלֶנָּה״ – כֹּהֵן הַמְחַטֵּא יֹאכַל, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחַטֵּא אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that a priest who is unfit for the Temple service does not receive a share of the sacrificial meat. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **Reish Lakish said:** It is derived from a verse, **as the verse states** about a sin offering: **“The priest who effects atonement shall eat it;** in a sacred place shall it be eaten, in the court of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 6:19). This teaches that only **a priest who effects atonement** by performing the rites of the offering **shall partake** of its meat, but a priest **who does not effect atonement does not partake** of its meat.


###### Zevachim 99a:2
[Zevachim 99a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:2)

וּכְלָלָא הוּא?! וַהֲרֵי מִשְׁמָרָה כּוּלָּהּ – דְּאֵין מְחַטְּאִין, וְאוֹכְלִין! רָאוּי לְחִיטּוּי קָאָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **And is** this an established **principle? But** there are **all the** priests of the **priestly watch** of that week in the Temple, **who do not effect atonement** for that offering, because the blood of a specific sin offering is presented by just one priest, **and** yet they all **partake** of its meat. The Gemara explains: **We** mean to **say** that any priest who is **fit for effecting atonement** may partake of it, even one who did not participate in the service.


###### Zevachim 99a:3
[Zevachim 99a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:3)

הֲרֵי קָטָן – דְּאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְחִיטּוּי, וְאוֹכֵל! אֶלָּא מַאי ״יֹאכְלֶנָּה״ – יְחַלְּקֶנָּה. רָאוּי לְחִיטּוּי – חוֹלֵק, שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְחִיטּוּי – אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** there is the case of **a minor, who is unfit for effecting atonement, and** who nevertheless **partakes** of sacrificial meat. The Gemara explains: **Rather, what** is meant by the term: **“Shall eat it”?** It means that he **shall receive a share of it.** The *halakha* is therefore that a priest who is **fit for effecting atonement receives a share** of the meat, but a priest **who is unfit for effecting atonement does not receive a share** of the meat. Minors do not receive a share, though they may partake of meat given to them by others.


###### Zevachim 99a:4
[Zevachim 99a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:4)

הֲרֵי בַּעַל מוּם – דְּאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְחִיטּוּי, וְחוֹלֵק! בַּעַל מוּם רַחֲמָנָא רַבְּיֵיהּ: ״כׇּל זָכָר בַּכֹּהֲנִים״ – לְרַבּוֹת בַּעַל מוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: But there is **a blemished priest, who is unfit for effecting atonement, and** yet he **receives a share** of its meat. The Gemara replies: **The Merciful One included a blemished** priest as an exception, as the verse that states: **“Every male among the priests** shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:22), serves **to include a blemished** priest.


###### Zevachim 99a:5
[Zevachim 99a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:5)

וְאֵימָא: ״כׇּל זָכָר״ – לְרַבּוֹת טְבוּל יוֹם! מִסְתַּבְּרָא בַּעַל מוּם הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן אוֹכֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **But say** that the phrase **“every male”** serves **to include one who immersed that day,** teaching that he may also receive a share in the sacrificial meat. Why should it be understood as referring specifically to a blemished priest? The Gemara replies: **It stands to reason** that the Torah **should include a blemished** priest for receiving his own share of the meat, **because** he may **partake** of sacrificial meat in any event. By contrast, one who immersed that day is impure and may not touch or partake of sacrificial meat.


###### Zevachim 99a:6
[Zevachim 99a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:6)

אַדְּרַבָּה – טְבוּל יוֹם הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, דִּלְאוּרְתָּא מִיחְזָא חֲזֵי! הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא הָא לָא חֲזֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **On the contrary,** the Torah **should include one who immersed that day, because,** unlike a blemished priest, **in the evening he will be fit** to perform the service. The Gemara replies: **Now, in any event,** the one who immersed himself **is not fit.**


###### Zevachim 99a:7
[Zevachim 99a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:7)

רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: מִכְּדֵי מַאי ״יֹאכְלֶנָּה״ – יְחַלְּקֶנָּה; לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״יְחַלְּקֶנָּה״! מַאי ״יֹאכְלֶנָּה״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה – חוֹלֵק, שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה – אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said** another explanation: **Now what** is meant by the term: **“Shall eat it”?** It means: He **shall receive a share of it.** But if so, **let the Merciful One write: Shall receive a share of it. What** is the reason for writing: **“Shall eat it”? Learn from it** that only a priest who is **fit for partaking** of sacrificial meat, which includes a blemished priest, **receives a share** in the meat; but a priest **who is not fit for partaking** of sacrificial meat, e.g., one who immersed that day, **does not** receive a **share** in the meat.


###### Zevachim 99a:8
[Zevachim 99a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:8)

בָּעֵי רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: בַּעַל מוּם וְהוּא טָמֵא, מַהוּ שֶׁיַּחְלְקוּ לוֹ? כֵּיוָן דְּלָא חֲזֵי וְרַחֲמָנָא רַבְּיֵיהּ – לָא שְׁנָא, מָה לִי טָמֵא מָה לִי בַּעַל מוּם; אוֹ דִלְמָא, רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה חוֹלֵק, שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Reish Lakish raises a dilemma:** If a priest is **blemished and he is impure, what is** the *halakha*? Must the other priests **give him a share** of the meat? Perhaps we say that **since he is not fit** to perform the rite as a blemished priest **and** nevertheless **the Merciful One included him** to receive a share in the meat, there **is no difference: What** is the difference **to me** if he is **impure,** and **what** is the difference **to me** if he is only **blemished?** In any event he is not fit, yet the Torah allows him to receive a share in the meat. **Or perhaps** he may not receive a share in the meat, because only a priest who is **fit for partaking** of sacrificial meat **receives a share** of the meat, but a priest **who is not fit for partaking** of sacrificial meat **does not receive a share** of the meat.


###### Zevachim 99a:9
[Zevachim 99a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:9)

אָמַר רַבָּה, תָּא שְׁמַע: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מַקְרִיב אוֹנֵן, וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק לֶאֱכוֹל לָעֶרֶב. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה בָּעֵינַן! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said: Come** and **hear** a resolution to this dilemma from a *baraita*: If **a High Priest** is serving in the Temple and one of his immediate relatives dies, **he sacrifices** offerings even as **an acute mourner. But he does not partake** of sacrificial meat, **and he does not receive a share to partake** of it **in the evening. Conclude from** the *baraita* that in order for the priest to receive a share in sacrificial meat, **we require** that he be **fit for partaking** of it, and accordingly, a blemished priest who is impure does not receive a share. The Gemara affirms: **Conclude from** the *baraita* that this is so.


###### Zevachim 99a:10
[Zevachim 99a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:10)

בָּעֵי רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: טָמֵא בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹת צִיבּוּר, מַהוּ שֶׁיַּחְלְקוּ לוֹ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: ״הַמְחַטֵּא״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא – וְהַאי נָמֵי מֵחֵטְא הוּא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה חוֹלֵק, שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Oshaya raises a dilemma:** If a priest is **impure,** then **in** a case of **communal offerings,** which may be offered by an impure priest, **what is** the *halakha*? Do the other priests **give him a share** of the meat, so that he may partake of it in the evening when he becomes pure? **Do we say** that **the Merciful One states:** “The priest **who effects atonement,” and** therefore any priest who is fit for effecting atonement receives a share, as derived earlier, and **this** priest **is also** one who may **effect atonement,** since this is a communal offering? **Or perhaps** he may not, due to the principle that only a priest who is **fit for partaking** of sacrificial meat **receives a share** of the meat, but a priest **who is unfit for partaking** of sacrificial meat **does not receive a share.**


###### Zevachim 99a:11
[Zevachim 99a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:11)

אָמַר רָבִינָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מַקְרִיב אוֹנֵן, וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק לֶאֱכוֹל לָעֶרֶב. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה בָּעֵינַן! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: Come** and **hear** a resolution to this dilemma from a *baraita*: If **a High Priest** is serving in the Temple and one of his relatives dies, **he sacrifices** offerings even as **an acute mourner, but he does not partake** of sacrificial meat **and he does not receive a share** of it **to partake in the evening. Conclude from** the *baraita* that in order for a priest to receive a share in sacrificial meat, **we require** that he be **fit for partaking** of it at the time of the service, without regard to whether he can perform the service. The Gemara affirms: **Conclude from** the *baraita* that this is so.


###### Zevachim 99a:12
[Zevachim 99a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:12)

אוֹנֵן נוֹגֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מַקְרִיב כּוּ׳. אוֹנֵן נוֹגֵעַ?! וּרְמִינְהִי: אוֹנֵן וּמְחוּסַּר כִּיפּוּרִים – צְרִיכִין טְבִילָה לַקּוֹדֶשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: A priest who is **an acute mourner** is permitted to **touch** sacrificial meat, **but he may not sacrifice** offerings. The Gemara asks: Is it in fact permitted for **an acute mourner** to **touch** sacrificial meat? **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from another mishna (*Ḥagiga* 21a): **An acute mourner and one who has not yet** brought **an atonement** offering, even after their respective disqualifications have expired, **require immersion** in order **to** eat **sacrificial** food. According to that mishna, an acute mourner who did not immerse may not touch sacrificial meat.


###### Zevachim 99a:13
[Zevachim 99a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:13)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן בְּשֶׁטָּבַל, כָּאן בְּשֶׁלֹּא טָבַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ami said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** This is **not difficult. Here,** the ruling of the mishna is stated **with regard to** a case **where** the mourner **immersed** during his day of acute mourning. This is why he is permitted to touch the sacrificial meat. **There,** the ruling of the mishna in tractate *Ḥagiga* is stated **with regard to** a case **where** the mourner **did not immerse.**


###### Zevachim 99a:14
[Zevachim 99a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:14)

וְכִי טָבַל מַאי הָוֵי? הָא הָדְרָא עֲלֵיהּ אֲנִינוּת; דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: אוֹנֵן שֶׁטָּבַל – אֲנִינוּתוֹ חוֹזֶרֶת עָלָיו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** even **if** he **immersed, what of it? But** doesn’t his **acute mourning return to him? As Rabba, son of Rav Huna, says:** In a case of **an acute mourner who immersed** during his day of his acute mourning, **his acute mourning returns to him.**


###### Zevachim 99a:15
[Zevachim 99a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:15)

לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא דְּאַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ, הָא דְּלָא אַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult. That** case, in tractate *Ḥagiga*, is one **where he was distracted** from safeguarding his state of purity, so he may not touch sacrificial meat in the event that he is impure. **This** case, in the mishna here, is one **where he was not distracted.**


###### Zevachim 99a:16
[Zevachim 99a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:16)

הֶיסַּח הַדַּעַת – שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי בָּעֵי; דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסְטַאי בְּרַבִּי מָתוּן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֶיסַּח הַדַּעַת – צָרִיךְ הַזָּאָה שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: If the mishna in tractate *Ḥagiga* is discussing a case of **distraction,** then his status is like that of one who contracted ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, who **requires** sprinkling with water of purification on the **third and seventh** days of his impurity. **As Rabbi Yustai, son of Rabbi Matun, says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** One who experienced **a distraction requires sprinkling** with water of purification on the **third and seventh** days.


###### Zevachim 99a:17
[Zevachim 99a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:17)

לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא דְּאַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ מִטְּמֵא מֵת, הָא דְּאַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ מִטְּמֵא שֶׁרֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: This is **not difficult. That** statement, that he requires sprinkling, is discussing a case **where he was distracted** and careless **about** contracting **impurity imparted by a corpse. This** mishna in tractate *Ḥagiga*, stating that he requires immersion but not sprinkling, is discussing a case **where he was distracted** and careless **about** contracting **impurity imparted by** the carcass of **a creeping animal.**


###### Zevachim 99a:18
[Zevachim 99a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:18)

טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ – טָמֵא מְעַלְּיָיא הוּא, הֶעֱרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ בָּעֵי! וְעוֹד, אֲפִילּוּ תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: One who was careless about becoming **impure due to** the carcass of **a creeping animal is fully impure,** and so he requires not only immersion to become pure, but he also **requires sunset. And furthermore,** if the mishna in tractate *Ḥagiga* is discussing this case, the mourner should be prohibited from touching **even *teruma*,** not just sacrificial meat. Why does the mishna mention only the latter?


###### Zevachim 99a:19
[Zevachim 99a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:19)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: בְּאוֹמֵר נִשְׁמַרְתִּי מִדָּבָר הַמְטַמְּאֵנִי, וְלֹא נִשְׁמַרְתִּי מִדָּבָר הַפּוֹסְלֵנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya said:** The mishna is discussing a case **where he says: I safeguarded myself from anything that would render me impure,** so I am certain that I did not contract impurity that requires waiting until sunset; **but I did not safeguard myself from anything that would render me unfit** for touching sacrificial meat.


###### Zevachim 99a:20
[Zevachim 99a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/99a:20)

וּמִי אִיכָּא נְטִירוּתָא לְפַלְגָא?! אִין; וְהָתַנְיָא: עוֹדֵהוּ הַסַּל עַל רֹאשׁוֹ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But is there** such a concept of **partial care,** that one can claim to have safeguarded himself from one form of impurity but not another? The Gemara answers: **Yes, and it is taught** in a *baraita*: If one was carrying a basket, and **the basket was still on his head,**