a [priest] with a blemish, who does eat [thereof], profanes [it ] if he officiates, it is surely logical that an onen, who may not eat thereof, profanes it by his officiating. In the case of a [priest] with a blemish, the reason may be because they who sacrifice are regarded the same as those which are sacrificed! (1) Then let a zar prove it. As for a zar, the reason may be because there is no remedy for him! (2) Then let a [priest] with a blemish prove it. (3) And thus the argument revolves: the feature peculiar to one is not that of the other, and the feature which characterizes the other is not that of the first. The feature common to both is that they are admonished [not to officiate], and if they do officiate, they profane it. So do I adduce an onen too who is admonished, and if he officiates, he profanes it. Now, where is he admonished? Shall we say, in the text, ‘Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary’? Surely profanation is written in that very context! (4) — Rather, [it is inferred] from [the text]. ‘Behold, have they offered’, and he [the school of R. Ishmael] holds that it was burnt on account of bereavement. (5) This argument may be refuted: As for the feature common to both, it is that there is no exception to the general interdict! (6) Then let an unclean [priest ] prove it. (7) As for an unclean [priest], the reason is that he defiles [the flesh]! Then let the others prove it. And thus the argument revolves, etc. The feature common to both is that they are admonished, etc. Yet let us refute it [thus]: As for their common feature, it is that there is no exception to the general [interdict] in favor of a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice? (8) — The interdict (9) of uncleanness is nevertheless raised. (10) R. Mesharshia said: It is inferred a minori from [a priest] who sits: if a priest, who eats sitting, profanes [the sacrifice] if he officiates whilst sitting, it is surely logical that an onen, who may not eat [thereof], profanes [the sacrifice] by his officiating. As for one who sits, the reason may be because he is unfit to testify? — [The argument is] from a scholar who sits. [Then refute it thus:] As for the interdict of sitting, that may be because such is unfit to testify? — One does not refute from the [general] interdict of sitting. And should you say that you can refute thus, [say that] it is inferred from one who sits and one of these others. (11) [All SACRIFICES WHOSE BLOOD WAS CAUGHT BY...] AN ONEN... ARE DISQUALIFIED. Rabbah (12) said: They learned this only of a private sacrifice, but in the case of a public sacrifice13 it is accepted. (14) [this being inferred] from uncleanness, a minori: if the general interdict of uncleanness was not raised in favor of a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice, yet it was permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice; then bereavement, whose general interdict was raised in favor of a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice, is surely permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice. To this Raba b. Ahilai demurred: Let [the interdict of] bereavement not be raised in favor of a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice, a minori: if [the interdict of] uncleanness was not raised in favor of a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice, though it was raised for an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice; is it not logical that [the interdict of] bereavement, which was not raised for an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice, shall not be raised for a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice? [Or. argue thus:] Let uncleanness be permitted to a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice, a minori: if bereavement, which is not permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice, is permitted to a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice; is it not logical that uncleanness, which is permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice, is permitted to a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice? Again. [argue thus:] let uncleanness not be permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice, a minori: If bereavement is not permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice, though it is permitted to a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice; then uncleanness which is not permitted to a High Priest in the case of a private sacrifice, is surely not permitted to an ordinary priest in the case of a public sacrifice? [Mnemonic: (15) Let it not be permitted; let it not be permitted; bereavement and uncleanness, private sacrifice; private sacrifice; public sacrifice.] (16)

---

(1). ↑ V. supra a, p. 81 ‘ n.6.
(2). ↑ Under no circumstances can he become fit to officiate. An onen however, will be fit on the next day.
(3). ↑ He may become whole again.
(4). ↑ If it is so interpreted as to make it bear upon an ordinary priest. there is no need for the inference a minori.
(5). ↑ Nevertheless the text itself does not prove that if an onen officiates the sacrifice is disqualified. as Moses may have meant: Perhaps you transgressed the law by sacrificing it in bereavement, and having done so, you mistakenly thought that it is now disqualified (Rashi, as elaborated by Tosaf.).
(6). ↑ Lit., ‘it was not permitted out of its general rule’. There is no exception to the general law that a zar and a blemished priest may not officiate; but a High Priest is excepted from the law interdicting an onen to officiate.
(7). ↑ There is an exception in his case, for if the majority of the people are unclean on the eve of Passover, they offer the Paschal lamb in their unclean state.
(8). ↑ As opposed to a communal sacrifice. The Passover-offering is accounted as the latter, since the whole nation had to offer one.
(9). ↑ Lit., ‘name’.
(10). ↑ There is an exception to the general interdict of uncleanness, viz. ‘ in the case of the Paschal offering.
(11). ↑ Cf. supra a for notes.
(12). ↑ Text as emended by Sh. M. Cur. edd. Raba.
(13). ↑ One offered on behalf of the whole community.
(14). ↑ This is the technical term to denote that it is made valid (generally, in virtue of the head-plate worn by the High Priest).
(15). ↑ For the various arguments just adduced.
(16). ↑ The point of all these objections is this: if the Scriptural law can be qualified by logical arguments, these can easily be reversed and precisely the opposite conclusions drawn.