Zevachim 101

וחכמים עשו חיזוק לדבריהם יותר משל תורה

And the same holds for the night after the day of burial, even though the acute mourning of that day itself is by rabbinic law, because the Sages reinforced their pronouncements with greater severity than Torah law.

תנו רבנן כי כן צויתי כאשר צויתי כאשר צוה ה׳ כי כן צויתי באנינות יאכלוה כאשר צויתי בשעת מעשה אמר להן כאשר צוה ה׳ לא מאליי אני אומר

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: On the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, on which two of Aaron’s sons died, Moses spoke to Aaron and his sons using three different forms of the word command: “For so I am commanded [tzuveiti]” (Leviticus 10:13), “as I commanded [tziveiti]” (Leviticus 10:18), and “as the Lord has commanded [tziva]” (Leviticus 10:15). Moses said to Aaron: “And you shall eat it…for so I am commanded,” to teach that Aaron and his remaining sons shall partake of the offerings even in acute mourning. The statement: “You should certainly have eaten it…as I commanded,” Moses said to them at the time of the incident, when Aaron and his sons burned the sin offering for the New Moon. Moses said: “As the Lord has commanded,” to emphasize that it is not of my own initiative that I say this, but it is from the word of God.

ורמינהי מפני אנינות נשרפה לכך נאמר כאלה

And the Sages raise a contradiction from another baraita: The sin offering was burned due to the acute mourning of Aaron and his sons, since they felt they could not partake of it. Therefore, it is stated in Aaron’s explanation: “There have befallen me such things as these; and if I had consumed the sin offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord?” (Leviticus 10:19). Moses conceded to Aaron that he was correct (see Leviticus 10:20), indicating that it was not permitted for Aaron to partake of the sin offering in acute mourning.

אמר שמואל לא קשיא הא רבי יהודה הא רבי נחמיה

Shmuel said: This is not difficult. This first baraita, according to which Moses commanded Aaron and his sons to consume the sacrificial meat in acute mourning, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; and that baraita, according to which they acted properly in refraining from eating it, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya.

דתניא מפני אנינות שרפוה לכך נאמר כאלה דברי רבי נחמיה רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון אומרים מפני טומאה נשרפה שאם אתה אומר מפני אנינות נשרפה היו לשלשתן שישרפוה דבר אחר היו ראוי לאוכלן לערב דבר אחר והלא פינחס היה עמהן

This is as it is taught in a baraita: Aaron and his sons burned the sin offering due to their acute mourning. Therefore, it is stated: “As these”; this is the statement of Rabbi Neḥemya. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon say: The sin offering was burned due to ritual impurity. As, if you say that it was burned due to acute mourning, they should have burned all three of the sin offerings offered that day. Alternatively, if it was burned due to acute mourning, they would have been fit to partake of the sin offerings in the evening, and there would have been no need to burn them. Alternatively, if it was burned due to acute mourning, wasn’t Pinehas, son of Elazar the priest, with them? He was not in mourning, and he could have partaken of the sin offering.

רבא אמר אידי ואידי רבי נחמיה ולא קשיא כאן בקדשי שעה כאן בקדשי דורות

Rava said: Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, who holds that the sin offering was burned due to acute mourning. And this is not difficult. Here, the baraita according to which Moses commanded that Aaron and his sons partake of the offering as acute mourners is referring to the offerings of a particular time, i.e., the meal offering, which was unique to the inauguration ceremony. There, the baraita according to which they rightly burned the sin offering, due to acute mourning, is referring to the offerings of all future generations. That sin offering was brought for the New Moon of Nisan, and such an offering would be brought at every New Moon from that day onward. Moses conceded that such offerings should not be consumed by acute mourners.

רבי נחמיה היכי מתריץ להני קראי ורבנן היכי מתרצי להו להני קראי

The Gemara asks: How would Rabbi Neḥemya reconcile these apparently contradictory verses about the sin offering, and how would the Sages reconcile these verses (see Leviticus 10:17–20)?

רבי נחמיה מתריץ להו הכי מדוע לא אכלתם אמר לו משה לאהרן שמא נכנס דמה לפני ולפנים אמר לו הן לא הובא את דמה שמא חוץ למחיצתה יצאת אמר לו בקדש היתה

Rabbi Neḥemya would reconcile them like this: When Moses asked: “Why have you not eaten the sin offering?” (Leviticus 10:17), this is what Moses said to Aaron: Perhaps the blood of this sin offering entered the innermost sanctum, thereby disqualifying it (see Leviticus 6:23). Is this why you burned it? Aaron said to him: “Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the Sanctuary within” (Leviticus 10:18). Moses then asked: Perhaps it went outside its partition, i.e., it exited the courtyard of the Tabernacle, and was thereby disqualified? Aaron said to him: It was inside the sacred area at all times.

ודלמא באנינות אקריבתוה ופסלתוה אמר לו משה וכי הם הקריבו אני הקרבתי ואמר לו הן לא הובא את דמה ובקדש היתה אכול תאכלו אתה כאשר צויתי באנינות יאכלוה

Moses then suggested: But perhaps you sacrificed it in acute mourning, which is prohibited for ordinary priests, and disqualified it. Aaron said to him: Moses, was it they, i.e., my sons, who sacrificed the offering? I sacrificed the offering, and as High Priest, I may serve even as an acute mourner (see Leviticus 21:10–12). And Moses said to him: “Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the Sanctuary within,” and it was inside the sacred area at all times; therefore: “You should certainly have consumed it in the sacred area, as I commanded” (Leviticus 10:18), i.e., just as I commanded that the priests should consume today’s meal offering in acute mourning.

אמר לו ותקראנה אתי כאלה ואכלתי חטאת היום הייטב בעיני ה׳ שמא לא שמעת אלא בקדשי שעה

Aaron said to him: “Behold, today have they sacrificed their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord, and there have befallen me such things as these; and if I had consumed the sin offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord?” (Leviticus 10:19). Perhaps you heard the command to consume the offering only with regard to offerings of a particular time, i.e., the meal offering, which was unique to that day.

דאי בקדשי דורות קל וחומר ממעשר הקל ומה מעשר הקל אמרה תורה לא אכלתי באני ממנו בקדשי דורות לא כל שכן

As, if you claim that it also applies to the offerings of all generations, then one can prove this is not so via an a fortiori inference from the second tithe, for which the halakha is more lenient than for sacrificial meat: Just as with regard to the second tithe, for which the halakha is more lenient, the Torah stated: “I have not eaten thereof in my mourning [ve’oni]” (Deuteronomy 26:14), teaching that an acute mourner [onen] is prohibited from partaking of it, all the more so is it not clear that with regard to the offerings of all generations, an acute mourner is prohibited from partaking of them?

מיד וישמע משה וייטב בעיניו הודה ולא בוש משה לומר לא שמעתי אלא אמר שמעתי ושכחתי

Moses immediately conceded to Aaron, as the verse states: “And Moses heard, and it was good in his eyes” (Leviticus 10:20). And Moses was not embarrassed and did not attempt to justify himself by saying: I did not hear of this halakha until now. Rather, he said: I heard it, and I forgot it, as the verse indicates by stating: “Moses heard.”

ורבי יהודה ורבי שמעון היכי מתרצי להו הכי מתרצי להו מדוע לא אכלתם את החטאת במקום [הקדש] שמא נכנס דמה לפני ולפנים אמר לו הן לא הובא את דמה אל הקדש פנימה

The Gemara continues: And how would Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who hold that the sin offering was burned due to ritual impurity, reconcile those verses? They would reconcile them like this: When Moses said to Aaron and his sons: “Why have you not eaten the sin offering in the place of the Sanctuary?” (Leviticus 10:17), he meant: Perhaps its blood entered the innermost sanctum, disqualifying the offering. Aaron said to him in response: “Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the Sanctuary within” (Leviticus 10:18).

שמא חוץ למחיצתה יצאת אמר לו הן בקודש היתה ודילמא באנינות אקריבתוה ופסלתוה אמר לו משה הן הקריבוה דפסלה בהו אנינות אני הקרבתיה

Moses then asked: Perhaps it went outside its partition, i.e., the courtyard of the Tabernacle, and was thereby disqualified? Aaron said to him: It was inside the sacred area at all times. Moses then asked: But perhaps you sacrificed it in acute mourning and disqualified it? Aaron said to him: Moses, was it my sons who sacrificed the offering, that their acute mourning would disqualify the offering? I, the High Priest, sacrificed the offering, and I may serve even in acute mourning.

ודילמא אגב מררייכו פשעתו בה ואיטמאי אמר לו משה כך אני בעיניך שאני מבזה קדשי שמים ותקראנה אתי כאלה ואפילו אלה וכאלה אין אני מבזה קדשי שמים

Moses then asked: Or perhaps, due to your bitterness in mourning, were you neglectful of the offering and it became impure? Aaron said to him: Moses, am I in your eyes such a person, that I would treat an offering consecrated to Heaven with contempt? “There have befallen me such things as these” (Leviticus 10:19), i.e., even if these tragedies and more such as them should befall me, I would not treat an offering consecrated to Heaven with contempt.

אמר לו ואי הן לא הובא את דמה ובקודש היתה אכול תאכלו אתה בקודש כאשר צויתי באנינות יאכלוה

Moses said to him: If so, and if, as you say: “Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the Sanctuary within,” and it was inside the sacred area at all times, then: “You should certainly have eaten it in the sacred area, as I commanded,” i.e., as I commanded that the priests should consume the meal offering even in acute mourning.

אמר לו שמא לא שמעת אלא בלילה דאי ביום קל וחומר ממעשר הקל ומה מעשר הקל אמרה תורה לא אכלתי באני ממנו קודש חמור לא כל שכן

Aaron said to him: Perhaps you heard the command to consume the offering only with regard to the night following the day of acute mourning, but during the day itself the prohibition stands. As, if you claim that it may be consumed during the day itself, I can prove that this is not so via an a fortiori inference from the second tithe, for which the halakha is more lenient than for sacrificial meat: Just as with regard to the second tithe, for which the halakha is more lenient, the Torah stated: I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, all the more so is it not clear that in the stringent case of sacrificial meat, an acute mourner is prohibited from partaking of it?

מיד וישמע משה

Moses immediately conceded to Aaron, as the verse states: “And Moses heard,

וייטב בעיניו לא בוש משה לומר לא שמעתי אלא שמעתי ושכחתי

and it was good in his eyes” (Leviticus 10:20). Moses was not embarrassed and did not attempt to justify himself by saying: I did not hear this halakha until now. Rather, he said: I heard it, and I forgot it.

איבעי להו לשהוייה ולמיכלא באורתא טומאה באונס באתה

The Gemara asks: According to this opinion, why was the sin offering burned? They should have delayed its consumption and consumed it that night. The Gemara answers: Ritual impurity came upon this sin offering due to circumstances beyond the priests’ control, and they were forced to burn it.

בשלמא לרבנן היינו דכתיב היום אלא לרבי נחמיה מאי היום חובת היום

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, this is as it is written: “And if I had consumed the sin offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord”? The verse indicates that Aaron could have eaten it at night. But according to Rabbi Neḥemya, who holds that Aaron distinguished between the offerings of that particular time and the offerings of all later generations, what did Aaron mean by the word “today”? The Gemara answers: He meant: And if I had eaten the sin offering of the New Moon, which is today’s obligation, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord?

בשלמא לרבי נחמיה היינו דכתיב הן היום אלא לרבנן מאי הן היום הכי קאמר הן הקריבו אני הקרבתי

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Neḥemya, this is as it is written: “Behold, today have they sacrificed their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord,” i.e., they offered it as the obligation of the day. But according to the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, what did Aaron mean by the phrase “behold [hen], today”? The Gemara answers: This is what Aaron is saying: Did they [hen], my sons, sacrifice the offering today, which would have been prohibited to them in acute mourning? No, I sacrificed the offering, and as High Priest, I may perform the service in acute mourning.

אמר מר היו לשלשתן שישרפו מאי שלשתן

§ The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita. The Master says: If the sin offering was burned due to acute mourning, then the priests should have burned all three of the sin offerings offered that day. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: All three of the sin offerings?

דתניא ואת שעיר החטאת דרש דרש משה שעיר זו שעיר נחשון חטאת זו חטאת שמיני דרש שעיר של ראש חודש

The Gemara responds: As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it was burned” (Leviticus 10:16). When the verse states: “The goat,” this is referring to the goat of Nahshon, son of Amminadav, the prince of the tribe of Judah, who brought the offering on the first day of the Tabernacle’s inauguration (see Numbers 7:12). When the verse states: “The sin offering,” this is referring to the sin offering that the people brought on the eighth day of the inauguration (see Leviticus 9:13). The term “inquired” is referring to the goat sacrificed at every New Moon (see Numbers 28:15). The Tabernacle was erected on the New Moon of Nisan (see Exodus 40:17). These are the three goats that were sacrificed that day.

יכול שלשתן נשרפו תלמוד לומר והנה שרף אחד נשרף ולא שלשתן נשרפו דרש דרש שתי דרישות למה אמר להו מפני מה חטאת זו נשרפה ואלו מונחות ואיני יודע איזהו כשהוא אומר ואתה נתן לכם לשאת את עון העדה הוי אומר זה שעיר של ראש חודש

One might have thought that all three of them were burned. Therefore, the verse states: “And Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burned,” to teach that one of the offerings was burned, but not all three of them were burned. The verse states: “And Moses diligently inquired [darosh darash].” Why were there two inquiries? Moses said to them: For what reason is this sin offering burned, and secondly, for what reason are those left unburned? The baraita comments: Still, I do not know which of them was burned. When it states with regard to the burned goat: “And He has given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation” (Leviticus 10:17), you must say: This is the goat of the New Moon, which atones for impurity in the Temple.

שפיר קאמרי ליה רבי נחמיה לטעמיה דאמר קדשי שעה לא פסלה בהו אנינות

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon say well to Rabbi Neḥemya; if the sin offering was burned due to acute mourning, then all three goats should have been burned. How would Rabbi Neḥemya respond? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Neḥemya conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says: Acute mourning does not disqualify offerings of a particular time. Therefore, they burned only the New Moon sin offering, which applies to future generations as well.

אמר מר היה לו לאכלה לערב שפיר קאמרי ליה קסבר אנינות לילה דאורייתא

The Master says in the baraita: If the sin offering was burned due to acute mourning, why was it burned at all? He should have eaten it in the evening. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon say well to Rabbi Neḥemya in posing this difficulty. How would he respond? The Gemara explains: He holds that acute mourning in the evening is by Torah law, and therefore the priests were not permitted to eat it even then.

דבר אחר והלא פינחס היה עמהן שפיר קאמרי ליה סבר לה כרבי אלעזר דאמר רבי אלעזר אמר רבי חנינא לא נתכהן פינחס עד שהרגו לזמרי דכתיב והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו ברית כהנת עולם

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon also stated: Alternatively, wasn’t Pinehas, son of Elazar the priest, with them? He was not an acute mourner. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon say well to Rabbi Neḥemya. The Gemara explains: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. As Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: Pinehas did not become a priest until he killed Zimri, who had engaged in intercourse with a Midianite woman (see Numbers 25:6–8). As it is written only after that incident concerning Pinehas: “And it shall be unto him and to his seed after him the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (Numbers 25:13). Before that incident, at the time of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, the only priests were Aaron and his sons.

רב אשי אמר עד ששם שלום בין השבטים שנאמר וישמע פינחס הכהן ונשיאי העדה וראשי אלפי ישראל וגו׳

Rav Ashi said: Pinehas did not become a priest until he made peace among the tribes at the time of the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, when the tribes east of the Jordan River built their own altar and nearly provoked a civil war. Before this, Pinehas was always referred to as: Son of Elazar the priest, but during this incident he is himself referred to as a priest for the first time, as it is stated: “And Pinehas the priest, and the princes of the congregation, and the heads of the thousands of Israel that were with him, heard the words that the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the children of Manasseh spoke, and it pleased them well” (Joshua 22:30).

ואידך נמי והכתיב והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו כי כתיב ההוא בברכה הוא דכתיב

The Gemara asks: And for the other Sage, Rav Ashi, as well, isn’t it written: “And it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood”? Apparently, Pinehas became a priest after he killed Zimri. The Gemara responds: When that verse is written, it is with regard to the blessing that it is written, that his descendants would always be priests. It did not indicate that Pinehas became a priest immediately.

ואידך נמי הא כתיב וישמע פינחס הכהן ההוא ליחס זרעו אחריו

The Gemara asks: And for the other Sages as well, who hold that Pinehas became a priest immediately after he killed Zimri, isn’t it written: “And Pinehas the priest…heard”? Apparently he became a priest only after the conquest of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara answers: That verse serves to entitle his descendants after him, that they would continue as High Priests through his merit.

אמר רב משה רבינו כהן גדול וחולק בקדשי שמים היה שנאמר מאיל המלאים למשה היה למנה

§ Rav says: Moses, our teacher, was a High Priest and would receive a share of offerings consecrated to Heaven, as it is stated: “And Moses took the breast, and waved it for a wave offering before the Lord; it was Moses’ portion of the ram of inauguration, as the Lord commanded Moses” (Leviticus 8:29).

מיתיבי והלא פינחס היה עמהן ואם איתא לימא והלא משה רבינו היה עמהן דילמא שאני משה דטריד בשכינה דאמר מר משה בהשכמה עלה ובהשכמה ירד

The Gemara raises an objection: In the baraita, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon claim that acute mourning was not the reason the sin offering was burned by asking: Wasn’t Pinehas with them? And if it is so that Moses could partake of sacrificial meat, let them say: Wasn’t Moses, our teacher, with them? The Gemara responds: Perhaps Moses is different, since as a prophet, he was preoccupied with the Divine Presence, and was not available. As the Master says: Moses ascended Mount Sinai early in the morning, and he descended early in the morning.

מיתיבי לחם אלהיו מקדשי הקדשים ומן הקדשים יאכל אם נאמרו קדשי קדשים למה נאמר קדשים קלים ואם נאמרו קדשים קלים למה נאמר קדשי קדשים

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s statement from another baraita: The verse states with regard to a blemished priest: “He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most sacred, and of the sacred” (Leviticus 21:22). If offerings of the most sacred order are stated, that a blemished priest may eat them, then why are offerings of lesser sanctity also stated? And if offerings of lesser sanctity are stated, why are offerings of the most sacred order stated?

אילו לא נאמר קדשים קלים הייתי אומר קדשי קדשים הוא דאוכל שהרי הותרו לזר ולהן קדשים קלים לא יאכל ואילו לא נאמרו קדשי קדשים הייתי אומר בקדשים קלים יהא אוכל שהן קלים בקדשי קדשים לא יהא אוכל לכך נאמרו קדשי קדשים ולכך נאמר קדשים קלים

The baraita answers: Had offerings of lesser sanctity not been stated, I would have said: It is only offerings of the most sacred order that a blemished priest may eat, as they were permitted both to a non-priest and to the priests, but a blemished priest may not eat offerings of lesser sanctity, which were not permitted to non-priests. And had offerings of the most sacred order not been stated, I would have said: A blemished priest may eat offerings of lesser sanctity, as they are of lesser sanctity, but he may not eat of offerings of the most sacred order, as they are of higher sanctity. Therefore, offerings of the most sacred order are stated, and therefore, offerings of lesser sanctity are stated.

קתני מיהא שהרי הותרו לזר ולהן לאו משה אמר רב ששת לא בבמה לזר וכדברי האומר יש מנחה בבמה

The Gemara explains the objection: In any event, the baraita teaches: As they were permitted both to a non-priest and to the priests. What non-priest is permitted to eat offerings of the most sacred order? Is this not referring to Moses? This indicates that Moses was not considered a High Priest, contrary to Rav’s statement. Rav Sheshet said: No, this is referring to a non-priest sacrificing on a private altar. Once the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, it was permitted for a time for them to build private altars, on which even non-priests could serve. And although only offerings of lesser sanctity were offered on private altars, this baraita is in accordance with the statement of the Sage who says: There is a meal offering that may be offered on a private altar. Meal offerings are of the most sacred order.

מיתיבי מרים מי הסגירה אם תאמר משה הסגירה משה זר הוא

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s statement: When Miriam became a leper (see Numbers 12:10), who diagnosed and quarantined her? If you say that Moses quarantined her, that is difficult, as Moses was a non-priest,