ומגריפה בתוכו ואמר לבי על הסל ואין לבי על המגריפה הסל טהור והמגריפה טמאה
and a shovel was in the basket, and he said: I am minding the basket, that it not become impure, but I am not minding the shovel, then the basket is pure, and the shovel is impure.
ותטמא מגריפה לסל אין כלי מטמא כלי ותטמא מה שבתוכו אמר רבא באומר שמרתיה מדבר המטמאה ולא שמרתיה מדבר הפוסלה
The Gemara challenges the ruling of the baraita: But wouldn’t the shovel render the basket impure? The Gemara answers: There is a principle that a vessel does not render another vessel ritually impure. The Gemara challenges: But wouldn’t the shovel render that which is in the basket, e.g., figs, impure? Rava said: The case is where he says: I safeguarded it, the shovel, from anything that would allow it to render another item impure, but I did not safeguard it from anything that would render it itself unfit, i.e., impure.
איגלגל מילתא ומטאי לקמיה דרבי אבא בר ממל א"ל לא שמיע להו הא דאמר רבי יוחנן א"ר האוכל שלישי של תרומה אסור לאכול ומותר ליגע
The Gemara returns to discuss the contradiction between the mishna, which permits an acute mourner to touch sacrificial meat, and the mishna in tractate Ḥagiga, which requires him to immerse. The Gemara relates: The matter circulated and came before Rabbi Abba bar Memel. He said to the Sages before him: Have they not heard that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One who partakes of teruma that has third-degree impurity, i.e., teruma disqualified through contact with an item with second-degree impurity, is prohibited from partaking of teruma, but permitted to touch teruma.
אלמא באכילה עבוד רבנן מעלה בנגיעה לא עבוד רבנן מעלה:
Rabbi Abba bar Memel continued: Apparently, in a case of partaking, the Sages imposed a higher standard, whereas in a case of touching, the Sages did not impose a higher standard. Similarly, in a case of an acute mourner, the Sages require him to immerse before he may partake of sacrificial meat, as taught in tractate Ḥagiga, but they do not impose this standard for touching the meat, as taught in the mishna here.
ואינו חולק לאכול כו': מיפלג הוא דלא פליג וכי מזמני ליה אכיל
§ The mishna teaches with regard to an acute mourner: And he does not receive a share of sacrificial meat in order to partake of it in the evening. The Gemara comments: The mishna indicates only that he may not receive a share of the meat, but when other priests invite him to join in their portions, he may partake of them in the evening.
ורמינהי אונן (ומחוסר כיפורים) טובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב אבל לא בקדשים
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Pesaḥim 91b): An acute mourner immerses and partakes of his Paschal offering in the evening, but he may not partake of other sacrificial meat.
אמר רב ירמיה מדיפתי לא קשיא כאן בפסח כאן בשאר ימות השנה
Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: This is not difficult. Here, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to the first night of Passover, whereas there, in tractate Pesaḥim, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to the rest of the days of the year.
בפסח איידי דאכיל פסח אכיל נמי קדשים בשאר ימות השנה דלא חזי לא חזי ומאי אבל לא בקדשים אבל לא בקדשים של כל השנה
What is the reason for the distinction between the two? On the first night of Passover, since he partakes of the Paschal offering, he may also partake of other sacrificial meat. But on the rest of the days of the year, when he is unfit to partake of sacrificial meat, he is unfit. And what does the mishna in Pesaḥim mean when it states: But he may not partake of other sacrificial meat? It means: But he may not partake of sacrificial meat of all of the rest of the year, other than the first night of Passover.
רב אסי אמר ל"ק כאן שמת לו מת בארבעה עשר וקברו בארבעה עשר כאן שמת לו מת בשלשה עשר וקברו בארבעה עשר יום קבורה לא תפיס לילו מדרבנן
Rav Asi said there is a different resolution to the contradiction between the mishnayot: This is not difficult. Here, in the ruling of the mishna in tractate Pesaḥim, which prohibits an acute mourner from partaking of sacrificial meat, it is referring to a case where his relative died on the fourteenth day of Nisan, and he buried him on the fourteenth itself, in which case he is still considered an acute mourner by rabbinic law that evening. There, in the ruling of the mishna in this chapter, it is referring to a case where his relative died on the thirteenth of Nisan, and he buried him on the fourteenth of Nisan. The reason the mourner may partake is that since the day of burial is not the day of death, it does not take hold of its following night by rabbinic law.
מאן תנא אנינות לילה מדרבנן ר"ש היא דתניא אנינות לילה מדברי תורה דברי רבי יהודה ר"ש אומר אונן אינו מדברי תורה אלא מדברי סופרים תדע שהרי אמרו אונן טובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב אבל לא בקדשים
The Gemara clarifies: Who is the tanna who taught that acute mourning the following night is by rabbinic law, as opposed to by Torah law? This is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: Acute mourning at night is by Torah law; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: His status as an acute mourner at night is not by Torah law, but by rabbinic law. Know that this so, as the Sages said: An acute mourner immerses and partakes of his Paschal offering in the evening, but he may still not partake of other sacrificial meat. If acute mourning at night were by Torah law, he would not be permitted to partake of the Paschal offering.
וסבר ר"ש אנינות לילה מדרבנן והתניא ר"ש אומר אונן אינו משלח קרבנותיו מאי לאו ' ואפילו בפסח לא לבר מפסח
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon hold that acute mourning at night is by rabbinic law and that consequently an acute mourner partakes of his Paschal offering in the evening? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: An acute mourner does not send his offerings to the Temple to be sacrificed? What, is it not referring even to a Paschal offering? The Gemara rejects this: No, the baraita is referring to all offerings other than a Paschal offering.
והתניא ר"ש אומר שלמים כשהוא שלם מביא ואינו מביא כשהוא אונן מנין לרבות את התודה מרבה אני את התודה שכן נאכלת בשמחה כשלמים
The Gemara counters: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to the verse: “And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings [shelamim]” (Leviticus 3:1), Rabbi Shimon says: The offering is called shelamim to teach that when a person is whole [shalem], i.e., in a state of contentment, he brings his offering, but he does not bring it when he is an acute mourner. From where is it derived to include that an acute mourner does not bring even a thanks offering? I include the thanks offering because it is consumed in a state of joy, like a peace offering.
מנין לרבות את העולה מרבה אני את העולה שכן באה בנדר ובנדבה כשלמים מנין לרבות [בכור ומעשר ופסח מרבה אני] בכור ומעשר ופסח שכן אינן באין על חטא מנין לרבות חטאת ואשם ת"ל זבח
From where is it derived that the verse also serves to include a burnt offering? I include the burnt offering because it comes as a vow offering and as a gift offering, like a peace offering. From where is it derived that the verse also serves to include a firstborn offering, and an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering, which are not brought voluntarily? I include a firstborn offering, and an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering, because they too, like a peace offering, do not come to atone for a sin. From where is it derived to include a sin offering and a guilt offering, which atone for sins? The verse states: “And if his offering be a sacrifice [zevaḥ] of peace offerings,” which teaches that an acute mourner may not sacrifice any slaughtered offering [zevaḥ].
מנין לרבות העופות והמנחות והיין והעצים והלבונה ת"ל שלמים קרבנו כל קרבנות שהוא מביא כשהוא שלם מביא ואינו מביא כשהוא אונן
From where is it derived to include even the bird offerings, and the meal offerings, and the wine, and the wood, and the frankincense brought for the Temple service? The verse states: “And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings [shelamim korbano],” teaching that for all offerings [korbanot] that a person brings, he brings them when he is whole [shalem], but he does not bring them when he is an acute mourner.
קתני מיהא פסח
The Gemara explains: In any event, Rabbi Shimon teaches that it is prohibited for an acute mourner to bring a Paschal offering, even though he will cease to be an acute mourner that night; this contradicts the first baraita.
אמר רב חסדא פסח כדי נסביה
Rav Ḥisda said: The latter baraita mentions a Paschal offering for no purpose. In other words, the halakha that an acute mourner does not bring an offering does not actually apply to a Paschal offering, and the baraita mentions it only out of habit, since a firstborn-animal offering, the animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering are frequently mentioned together.
רב ששת אמר מאי פסח שלמי פסח אי הכי היינו שלמים תנא שלמים הבאין מחמת פסח ותנא שלמים הבאין מחמת עצמן
Rav Sheshet said: What is meant in this baraita by the term: Paschal offering? It is referring to the peace offerings of Passover, i.e., the peace offering that is sacrificed along with the Paschal offering. The Gemara objects: If so, that is the same as a peace offering, which Rabbi Shimon already mentioned. The Gemara answers: He taught the halakha with regard to peace offerings that come on account of the Paschal offering, and he taught separately the halakha with regard to peace offerings that come on their own account.
דאי לא תנא שלמים הבאין מחמת פסח סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ומחמת פסח אתי כגופיה דפסח דמי קמ"ל
The Gemara explains: Rabbi Shimon needed to teach both cases explicitly, because if he did not teach the halakha with regard to peace offerings that come on account of the Paschal offering, it would enter your mind to say: Since they come on account of the Paschal offering, they are considered like the Paschal offering itself, and the acute mourner offers them as well. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon teaches us that these peace offerings are also forbidden to an acute mourner.
רב מרי אמר
Rav Mari said a different resolution to the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Shimon: