GEMARA. How do we know it? — Said Resh Lakish, Because Scripture saith, The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: (1) the priest who offers for sin (2) may eat; he who does not offer for sin, may not eat. Yet is this a general rule? surely there is the whole ward, which do not offer for sin, yet they eat? (3) — We mean he who is eligible to offer for sin. But lo, a minor is not eligible to offer for sin, yet he eats [thereof]? — Rather, what does ‘Shall eat it’ mean? He shall receive a share therein: he who is eligible to offer for sin, receives a share; he who is not eligible to offer for sin, does not receive a share. (4) But surely one who is blemished is not eligible to offer for sin, yet he receives a share? — The Divine Law included a blemished [person] [in the privilege of sharing], viz., Every male among the priests. [may eat thereof]. (5) which includes a [priest] with a blemish. (6) Yet say that ‘every male’ includes a Tebul Yom? — It is logical to include a blemished [priest], since he may eat. On the contrary, one should include a Tebul Yom, since he will be eligible in the evening? (7) — Nevertheless, he is not eligible at present. R. Joseph said: (8) Consider: what does ‘shall eat it’ mean? [Surely] shall share therein. Then let the Divine Law write ‘shall share therein’? why ‘shall eat therein’? That you may infer: he who is fit to eat, shares [therein]; he who is not fit to eat (9) does not share [in it]. (10) Resh Lakish asked: Is a share to be given to a blemished [priest] who is unclean? [Do we say,] Since he is not eligible [to perform the service] and yet the Divine Law included him, it makes no difference, for what does it matter whether he is unclean or blemished? Or perhaps, he who is fit to eat [when the sacrifice is offered] receives a share, [while] he who is not fit to eat does not receive a share? — Said Rabbah, Come and hear: A High Priest can offer [a sacrifice] as an Onen, but he may not eat nor receive a share to eat in the evening. (11) This proves that one must be fit to eat [when the sacrifice is offered]. This proves it. (12) R. Oshaia asked: Is a share of public sacrifices given to an unclean [priest]? (13) Do we say, the Divine Law saith, ‘The priest that offereth it for sin [shall eat it]’, and this one too can offer for sin; (14) or perhaps, he who is fit to eat receives a share, he who is not fit to eat does not receive a share? (15) — Said Rabina, Come and hear: A High Priest may offer [sacrifices] as an Onen, but he may not eat, nor receive a share to eat in the evening. This proves that he must be fit to eat. This proves it. AN ONEN MAY HANDLE [SACRED FLESH], BUT MAY NOT OFFER, etc. An Onen may handle [sacred flesh]? Surely the following contradicts it: An Onen and one who lacks atonement need immersion for sacred flesh? (16) — Said R. Ammi in R. Johanan's name: There is no difficulty: here [in the Mishnah] he had performed immersion; there, he had not performed immersion. But what even if he did perform immersion: aninuth (17) returns to him? (18) for Rabbah son of R. Huna said: If an Onen performed immersion, his Aninuth returns to him! — Rather, there is no difficulty: here he dismissed [it] from his mind; (19) in the other case he did not dismiss [it] from his mind. But inattention requires [sprinkling on] the third and the seventh [days]: for R. Justai son of R. Mathun said in R. Johanan's name: Inattention (20) requires sprinkling on the third and the seventh [days]! (21) — There is no difficulty: In the one case he was careless about defilement of the dead; (22) in the other he was careless about defilement by a reptile. (23) Defilement of the dead is genuine defilement and requires sunset? (24) moreover, even terumah too [should require immersion]? (25) — Said R. Jeremiah: [This law holds good] when he declares, I was on my guard against anything that would defile me, but not against anything that would disqualify me. (26) And is there half watchfulness? — Yes, and it was taught even so: If the basket was still on his head (27)

---

(1). ↑ Ibid. VI, 19.
(2). ↑ I.e., sprinkles the blood and performs the priestly rites.
(3). ↑ The priests were divided into wards, which officiated in rotation, (v. Glos. s.v. Mishmar). Only one of the priests sprinkled the blood of a particular sacrifice, yet the whole of the ward to which he belonged would share it.
(4). ↑ A minor accordingly does not receive a share in his own right, but merely eats of another priest's share. — From this we learn that a Tebul Yom and one who lacks atonement do not receive shares.
(5). ↑ Lev. VI, 22.
(6). ↑ It is shown infra 102a that he is included in respect of sharing, for it is explicitly stated elsewhere that he may eat, viz., He (sc. a blemished priest) may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy (ibid. XXI, 22). No extension therefore would be required to show that he may eat.
(7). ↑ Even to perform the sacrificial rites.
(8). ↑ In reply to your question that one should include a Tebul Yom.
(9). ↑ When it is actually offered.
(10). ↑ Hence it includes a blemished priest, who is fit to eat when it is sacrificed, but not a Tebul Yom, who will not be fit until the evening.
(11). ↑ When he ceases to be an Onen.
(12). ↑ Hence an unclean blemished priest does not receive a share.
(13). ↑ The sacrifices having been offered by clean priests.
(14). ↑ For public sacrifices can be offered in uncleanness, if the whole congregation is unclean. Hence, though this priest could not sacrifice just then, yet in general he was eligible for public sacrifices.
(15). ↑ He is definitely not fit to eat, for a public sacrifice brought in uncleanness may not be eaten.
(16). ↑ Which they may not handle otherwise.
(17). ↑ The status of Onen.
(18). ↑ Since Aninuth lasts to the end of the first day.
(19). ↑ Sc. the care not to become unclean. He paid no attention to this, knowing that he could not officiate in any case.
(20). ↑ To ritual cleanness.
(21). ↑ From the day that he ceased to be watchful, for he may have been defiled through the dead on that day. Thus mere immersion is insufficient.
(22). ↑ He did not even take care to avoid that. Then he needs sprinkling on the third and the seventh days.
(23). ↑ But took care not to be defiled by the dead.
(24). ↑ Even after immersion the priest may not eat flesh of sacrifices until sunset, whereas only immersion is required above.
(25). ↑ He who is defiled by a reptile may not eat terumah without immersion, whereas immersion is required above only for eating sacred flesh (i.e., of sacrifices, whose sanctity is higher than that of terumah).
(26). ↑ ‘Defile’ means by Scriptural, ‘disqualify’ by Rabbinical law. The former requires sunset, but the latter requires immersion only. Also, the former disqualifies one in respect of terumah too, but not the latter.
(27). ↑ It is not clear to what ‘still’ refers. It is absent in Tosef. Toh. VIII, whence it is cited in the present passage.