כִּי טָמֵא, מַה טָּמֵא כַּמָּה דְּלָא טָהוֹר לָא אָכֵיל, אַף הַאי נַמִי, כַּמָּה דְּלָא מִתְקַן לָא אָכֵיל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.

that the halakha of this priest is like that of a ritually impure priest: Just as an impure priest may not partake as long as he is not pure, so too, this priest with a temporary blemish may not partake as long as he does not become fit. The verse therefore teaches us that he may receive a share even before his blemish heals.

״כָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי״ וכו׳. וְלָא? וַהֲרֵי בַּעַל מוּם, דְּלָא רָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה, וְחוֹלֵק! וְתוּ: הָא רָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה חוֹלֵק; הֲרֵי טָמֵא בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת צִיבּוּר, דְּרָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק!

§ The mishna teaches: The principle is: Any priest who is unfit for the service that day does not receive a share of the sacrificial meat. The Gemara objects: But doesn’t he? Isn’t there a blemished priest, who is not fit for the service and who nevertheless receives a share of the meat, as the mishna itself teaches? And furthermore, this principle indicates that only priests unfit for the service do not receive a share, but any priest who is fit for the service does receive a share. But isn’t there an impure priest, who, with regard to offerings of the community, is fit for the service, and who nevertheless does not receive a share?

רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה קָאָמַר.

The Gemara answers: The mishna is saying that any priest who is 
not fit for partaking of sacrificial meat does not receive a share.

וַהֲרֵי קָטָן, דְּרָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק! הָא לָא קָתָנֵי.

The Gemara objects: This indicates that any priest who is fit to partake may receive a share. But isn’t there is a minor, who is fit for partaking and who does not receive a share? The Gemara answers: This inverse principle, that any priest who is fit to partake may receive a share, is not taught. The mishna means to teach only that any priest who is unfit does not receive a share.

הָשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, לְעוֹלָם כִּדְקָאָמַר מֵעִיקָּרָא: אִי מִשּׁוּם טָמֵא – טָמֵא לָא קָתָנֵי, וְאִי מִשּׁוּם בַּעַל מוּם – רַחֲמָנָא רַבְּיֵיהּ.

The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this conclusion, that the mishna’s statement only teaches what it says explicitly, one can say that the mishna actually means what the Gemara said at the outset, that no priest unfit for the service receives a share. If one raises an objection with regard to an impure priest, who is fit for the service of communal offerings but does not receive a share, answer that the mishna does not teach that every fit priest, even an impure one, receives a share, only the inverse. And if you raise an objection with regard to a blemished priest, who is unfit for the service but nevertheless receives a share, answer that the Merciful One included him as an exception by the phrase: Every male, as derived above (102a).

״אֲפִילּוּ טָמֵא בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקַת דָּמִים וְטָהוֹר בִּשְׁעַת הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק״. הָא טָהוֹר בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקַת דָּמִים וְטָמֵא בִּשְׁעַת הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים – חוֹלֵק.

§ The mishna teaches: Even if the priest was ritually impure only at the time of the sprinkling of the blood of the offering, and he was pure at the time of the burning of the fats, he still does not receive a share of the meat. The Gemara notes: Consequently, one can infer that a priest who was pure at the time of the sprinkling of the blood, even one who was impure at the time of the burning of the fats, does receive a share.

מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל, דְּתַנְיָא, אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא טָהוֹר מִשְּׁעַת זְרִיקָה עַד שְׁעַת הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״הַמַּקְרִיב אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים וְאֶת הַחֵלֶב״ – דַּאֲפִילּוּ הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים נַמִי בָּעֵי.

The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, as it is taught in a baraita : Abba Shaul says: A priest never partakes, i.e., receives a share, of sacrificial meat, unless he is pure from the time of sprinkling until the time of 
the burning of the fats, as the verse states: “He among the sons of Aaron who sacrifices the blood of the peace offerings and the fat shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). The verse requires that the priest be pure even at the time of the burning of the fats.

בָּעֵי רַב אַשִׁי: נִטְמָא בֵּינְתַיִים, מַהוּ? בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקָה וּבִשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה בָּעֵינַן – וְהָאִיכָּא, אוֹ דִּלְמָא: עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא טָהוֹר מִשְּׁעַת זְרִיקָה וְעַד שְׁעַת הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים? תֵּיקוּ.

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: According to the opinion of Abba Shaul, in a case where the priest became impure between the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats what is the halakha ? Do we require only that he be pure both at the time of sprinkling and at the time of the burning of the fats, and there is purity at these times? Or perhaps Abba Shaul meant that the priest may not receive a share in the meat unless he is pure from the time of sprinkling until the time of the burning of the fats, without interruption. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי דִּינָא מֵרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן גָּמֵירְנָא, דַּאֲמַר בְּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא: דַּנְתָּה, בָּא טְבוּל יוֹם וְאָמַר: ״תֵּן לִי מִמִּנְחָה וְאוֹכַל״.

§ The mishna teaches that an impure priest who immersed that 
day, such that he will not be pure until sunset, and likewise an 
acute mourner and one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, do not receive a share of sacrificial meat in order to partake of it in the evening. Rava says: I learned this halakha from Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who said in the bathroom: You can contend by way of a story: who immersed that day came and said to a pure priest of the same patrilineal priestly family serving in the Temple that day, who was apportioning the sacrificial food: Give me a share of a meal offering, and I will partake of it 
in the evening.

אָמַר לוֹ: וּמָה אִם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיָּפֶה כֹּחֲךָ, בְּחַטָּאתְךָ – דְּחִיתִיךָ מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל, מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּרַע כֹּחֲךָ, בְּמִנְחָתְךָ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאַדִּיחֲךָ מִמִּנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל?

The pure priest said an a fortiori inference to him: Just as with regard to a matter where your right is superior, i.e., in the case of your own sin offering, to which you have a right even when your family is not serving in the Temple, I can nevertheless deny you a share of the sin offering of an Israelite because you immersed today; is it not logical that with regard to a matter where your 
right is inferior, i.e., in the case of your own meal offering, as 
the meal offering of a priest is not eaten at all, that I can deny you a share of the meal offering of an Israelite?

וּמָה אִם דְּחִיתָנִי מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁיָּפֶה כֹּחִי – כָּךְ יָפֶה כֹּחֲךָ, תִּדְחֵינִי מִמִּנְחָה? שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּרַע כֹּחִי – כָּךְ הוּרַע כֹּחֲךָ!

The priest who immersed that day responded: But even if you can deny me a share of the sin offering of an Israelite on the day I immersed, perhaps this is since just as my right is superior in the case of my own sin offering, so too, your right is superior in the case of your own sin offering. If so, is it necessarily so that you can refuse me a share of the meal offering of an Israelite, where just as my right is inferior, so your right is inferior, as neither of us may eat from our own meal offerings?

הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לַכֹּהֵן הַמַּקְרִיב אֹתָהּ לוֹ תִהְיֶה״, בֹּא הַקְרֵב וֶאֱכוֹל.

The pure priest responded: The verse states: “And every meal offering that is baked in the oven, and all that is dressed in the stewing pan, and on the griddle, shall be the priest’s that offers it” (Leviticus 7:9). If you wish to receive a share of a meal offering, come sacrifice and partake of one. Since you cannot sacrifice a meal offering, having immersed only today, neither can you receive a share.

״תֵּן לִי מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאוֹכַל״.

The priest who immersed that day made another demand: Give 
me a share of the sin offering of an Israelite, and I will partake of it in the evening when I am pure.

אָמַר לוֹ: וּמָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהוּרַע כֹּחִי, בְּמִנְחָתִי – דְּחִיתִיךָ מִמִּנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, מָקוֹם שֶׁיָּפֶה כֹּחִי, בְּחַטָּאתִי – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאַדִּיחֲךָ מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל?

The pure priest said to him: Just as with regard to a matter where my right is inferior, i.e., in the case of my own meal offering, which is not eaten, I can deny you a share of the meal offering of an Israelite, as I explained; so too, is it not logical that with regard 
to a matter where my right is superior, i.e., in the case of my own sin offering, to which I have a right even when my family is not serving in the Temple, I can deny you a share of the sin offering 
of an Israelite?

אָמַר לוֹ: וּמָה אִם שֶׁדְּחִיתָנִי מִמִּנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל – שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּרַע כֹּחֲךָ כָּךְ הוּרַע כֹּחִי, תִּדְחֵינִי מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל? שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁיָּפֶה כֹּחֲךָ כָּךְ יָפֶה כֹּחִי!

The priest who immersed that day said to him: But if you can deny me a share of the meal offering of an Israelite, where just as your right is inferior, so too my right is inferior, is it necessarily so that you can deny me a share of the sin offering of an Israelite, where just as your right is superior in the case of your own sin offering, so too my right is superior in the case of my own sin offering?

הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״הַכֹּהֵן הַמְחַטֵּא אֹתָהּ יֹאכְלֶנָּה״, בֹּא חַטֵּא וֶאֱכוֹל.

The pure priest responded: The verse states with regard to the sin offering: “The priest who effects atonement shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:19). If you wish to receive a share of a sin offering, come effect atonement and partake of one. Since you cannot perform the service of a sin offering, having immersed only today, you cannot receive a share in its meat either.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תֵּן לִי מֵחָזֶה וְשׁוֹק וְאוֹכַל.

The priest who immersed that day made another demand, and said to him: Give me a share of the breast and thigh, the portions that priests receive of peace offerings, and I will partake of it in the evening when I am pure.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וּמָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיָּפֶה כֹּחֲךָ בְּחַטָּאתְךָ – דְּחִיתִיךָ [מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל] (מֵחָזֶה וְשׁוֹק), מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּרַע כֹּחֲךָ בִּשְׁלָמִים, שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בָּהֶן אֶלָּא חָזֶה וְשׁוֹק – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאַדִּיחֲךָ?

The pure priest said to him: Just as with regard to a matter where your right is superior, i.e., in the case of your own sin offering, to which you have a right to its meat in its entirety, I can deny you a share of the sin offering of an Israelite, as I explained, so too is it not logical that with regard to a matter where your right is inferior, i.e., in the case of a peace offering, of which you have only the 
right to a share of the breast and thigh, I can deny you a share?

מָה אִם דְּחִיתָנִי מֵחַטָּאת – שֶׁכֵּן הוּרַע כֹּחִי אֵצֶל נָשַׁיי וַעֲבָדַיי, תִּדְחֵינִי מֵחָזֶה וְשׁוֹק? שֶׁכֵּן יָפֶה כֹּחִי אֵצֶל נָשַׁיי וַעֲבָדַי!

The priest who immersed that day responded: But if you can deny me a share of a sin offering, where my right is inferior with regard to my wives and my slaves, as a sin offering can be consumed only by male priests, is it necessarily so that you can deny me a share of the breast and thigh of a peace offering, where my right is superior with regard to my wives and my slaves, who may also partake of them?

הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לַכֹּהֵן הַזּוֹרֵק אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים לוֹ יִהְיֶה״, בֹּא זְרוֹק וֶאֱכוֹל.

The pure priest responded: The verse states with regard to the peace offering: “It shall be the priest’s that sprinkles the blood of the peace offerings against the altar” (Leviticus 7:14). If you wish to partake of a peace offering, come sprinkle its blood and partake of it. Since you cannot perform this service, having immersed only today, you cannot receive a share of its meat either.

יָצָא טְבוּל יוֹם קוּלָּיו וַחֲמוּרָיו עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, אוֹנֵן מִימִינוֹ, מְחוּסַּר כַּפָּרָה מִשְּׂמֹאלוֹ.

The story concludes: The priest who immersed that day left in disappointment, with his a fortiori inferences upon his head, as they did not help him. And along with him walked an acute mourner on his right and a priest who had not yet brought an atonement offering on his left. They too were denied shares, because they were unfit for the Temple service.

פָּרֵיךְ רַב אַחַאי, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: תֵּן לִי מִבְּכוֹר וְאוֹכַל!

Rav Aḥai refutes this: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, could have added to the contentions described in the story. Let the priest who immersed that day say to the pure priest: Give me a share of a firstborn offering, and I will partake of it in the evening.

מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: וּמָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהוּרַע כֹּחִי בְּחַטָּאת אֵצֶל נָשַׁיי וַעֲבָדַיי – דְּחִיתִיךָ מֵחַטַּאת יִשְׂרָאֵל, מָקוֹם שֶׁיָּפֶה כֹּחִי בִּבְכוֹר, דְּכוּלֵּיהּ דִּילִי הִיא – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאַדִּחֲךָ מִמֶּנּוּ?

Perhaps it is because the pure priest could say to him: Just as with regard to a sin offering, where my right is inferior with regard to my wives and my slaves, since it may be eaten only by male priests, I can nevertheless deny you a share of the sin offering of an Israelite, as I explained; so too is it not logical that with regard to a first­-
born, where my right is superior because all of its meat is mine, as firstborn offerings are given to a specific priest, I can deny you a share of it?

וּמָה אִם דְּחִיתָנִי מֵחַטָּאת – שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּרַע כֹּחֲךָ כָּךְ הוּרַע כֹּחִי, תְּדִיחֵנִי מִבְּכוֹר? שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁיָּפֶה כֹּחֲךָ כָּךְ יָפֶה כֹּחִי!

But the priest who immersed that day could respond: But if you can deny me a share of a sin offering, where just as your right is inferior, so is my right inferior; is it necessarily so that you can deny me a share of a firstborn offering, where just as your right is superior, so my right is superior?

הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אֶת דָּמָם תִּזְרֹק עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְאֶת חֶלְבָּם תַּקְטִיר…וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָּךְ״, בֹּא זְרוֹק וֶאֱכוֹל.

The pure priest could respond: The verse says with regard to a firstborn offering: “You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and shall make their fat smoke for an offering made by fire, for a pleasing aroma to the Lord. And the flesh of them shall be yours, as the breast and as the thigh, it shall be yours” (Numbers 18:17–18). If you wish to receive a share in the meat of a firstborn, come sprinkle its blood and partake of it. Why did Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, not include this exchange as another stage in his story?

וְאִידָךְ פָּרֵיךְ: מִי כְּתִיב ״וּבְשָׂרָם לַכֹּהֵן הַזּוֹרֵק״? ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָּךְ״ כְּתִיב, אֲפִילּוּ לְכֹהֵן אַחֵר.

The Gemara responds: But the other priest, the one who immersed that day, could refute this proof: Is it written: And the flesh of them shall be for the priest who sprinkles, as is written with regard to a meal offering, a sin offering, and a peace offering? Rather, it is written: “And the flesh of them shall be yours,” indicating that it can be given even to a priest other than the one who sacrificed it. This is why Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, did not include this exchange in his story.

וְהֵיכִי עֲבֵיד הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּכָל מָקוֹם מוּתָּר לְהַרְהֵר, חוּץ מִמֶּרְחָץ וּמִבֵּית הַכִּסֵּא! לְאוֹנְסוֹ שָׁאנֵי.

The Gemara returns to Rava’s statement that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, taught this halakha in the bathroom. And how did Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, do this? But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is permitted to contemplate matters of Torah in all places except the bathhouse and the bathroom? The Gemara answers: A case where the matter was involuntary is different. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was so preoccupied by the issue that he taught it even though he was in the bathroom.