Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 23, 2018 | 讬状讗 讘讗讘 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Zevachim 101

Study Guide Zevachim 101. Shiur sponsored for refuah shleima of Zelig Natan HaKohen ben Dina. There are two versions of the interaction between Moshe and Aharon on the 8th day of the miluim聽– did Aharon burn the sin offering because of aninut or because of impurity?
 


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讞讻诪讬诐 注砖讜 讞讬讝讜拽 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讬讜转专 诪砖诇 转讜专讛

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讻谉 爪讜讬转讬 讻讗砖专 爪讜讬转讬 讻讗砖专 爪讜讛 讛壮 讻讬 讻谉 爪讜讬转讬 讘讗谞讬谞讜转 讬讗讻诇讜讛 讻讗砖专 爪讜讬转讬 讘砖注转 诪注砖讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讻讗砖专 爪讜讛 讛壮 诇讗 诪讗诇讬讬 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专

The Sages taught in a baraita: On the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, on which two of Aaron鈥檚 sons died, Moses spoke to Aaron and his sons using three different forms of the word command: 鈥淔or so I am commanded [tzuveiti]鈥 (Leviticus 10:13), 鈥渁s I commanded [tziveiti]鈥 (Leviticus 10:18), and 鈥渁s the Lord has commanded [tziva]鈥 (Leviticus 10:15). Moses said to Aaron: 鈥淎nd you shall eat it鈥for so I am commanded,鈥 to teach that Aaron and his remaining sons shall partake of the offerings even in acute mourning. The statement: 鈥淵ou should certainly have eaten it鈥as I commanded,鈥 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: 鈥淎s the Lord has commanded,鈥 to emphasize that it is not of my own initiative that I say this, but it is from the word of God.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诪驻谞讬 讗谞讬谞讜转 谞砖专驻讛 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 讻讗诇讛

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鈥檚 explanation: 鈥淭here 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?鈥 (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.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛

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 Ne岣mya.

讚转谞讬讗 诪驻谞讬 讗谞讬谞讜转 砖专驻讜讛 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 讻讗诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讟讜诪讗讛 谞砖专驻讛 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪驻谞讬 讗谞讬谞讜转 谞砖专驻讛 讛讬讜 诇砖诇砖转谉 砖讬砖专驻讜讛 讚讘专 讗讞专 讛讬讜 专讗讜讬 诇讗讜讻诇谉 诇注专讘 讚讘专 讗讞专 讜讛诇讗 驻讬谞讞住 讛讬讛 注诪讛谉

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: 鈥淎s these鈥; this is the statement of Rabbi Ne岣mya. 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鈥檛 Pinehas, son of Elazar the priest, with them? He was not in mourning, and he could have partaken of the sin offering.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘拽讚砖讬 砖注讛 讻讗谉 讘拽讚砖讬 讚讜专讜转

Rava said: Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, 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.

专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讻讬 诪转专讬抓 诇讛谞讬 拽专讗讬 讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讻讬 诪转专爪讬 诇讛讜 诇讛谞讬 拽专讗讬

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

专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诪转专讬抓 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 诪讚讜注 诇讗 讗讻诇转诐 讗诪专 诇讜 诪砖讛 诇讗讛专谉 砖诪讗 谞讻谞住 讚诪讛 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 诇讗 讛讜讘讗 讗转 讚诪讛 砖诪讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讬爪转讛 讬爪讗转 讗诪专 诇讜 讘拽讚砖 讛讬转讛

Rabbi Ne岣mya would reconcile them like this: When Moses asked: 鈥淲hy have you not eaten the sin offering?鈥 (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: 鈥淏ehold, the blood of it was not brought into the Sanctuary within鈥 (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.

讜讚诇诪讗 讘讗谞讬谞讜转 讗拽专讬讘转讜讛 讜驻住诇转讜讛 讗诪专 诇讜 诪砖讛 讜讻讬 讛诐 讛拽专讬讘讜 讗谞讬 讛拽专讘转讬 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 诇讗 讛讜讘讗 讗转 讚诪讛 讜讘拽讚砖 讛讬转讛 讗讻讜诇 转讗讻诇讜 讗转讛 讻讗砖专 爪讜讬转讬 讘讗谞讬谞讜转 讬讗讻诇讜讛

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鈥12). And Moses said to him: 鈥淏ehold, the blood of it was not brought into the Sanctuary within,鈥 and it was inside the sacred area at all times; therefore: 鈥淵ou should certainly have consumed it in the sacred area, as I commanded鈥 (Leviticus 10:18), i.e., just as I commanded that the priests should consume today鈥檚 meal offering in acute mourning.

讗诪专 诇讜 讜转拽专讗谞讛 讗转讬 讻讗诇讛 讜讗讻诇转讬 讞讟讗转 讛讬讜诐 讛讬讬讟讘 讘注讬谞讬 讛壮 砖诪讗 诇讗 砖诪注转 讗诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬 砖注讛

Aaron said to him: 鈥淏ehold, 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?鈥 (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.

讚讗讬 讘拽讚砖讬 讚讜专讜转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讜诪讛 诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 讘讗谞讬 诪诪谞讜 讘拽讚砖讬 讚讜专讜转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

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: 鈥淚 have not eaten thereof in my mourning [ve鈥檕ni]鈥 (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?

诪讬讚 讜讬砖诪注 诪砖讛 讜讬讬讟讘 讘注讬谞讬讜 讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讜砖 诪砖讛 诇讜诪专 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 砖诪注转讬 讜砖讻讞转讬

Moses immediately conceded to Aaron, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd Moses heard, and it was good in his eyes鈥 (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: 鈥淢oses heard.鈥

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讻讬 诪转专爪讬 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 诪转专爪讬 诇讛讜 诪讚讜注 诇讗 讗讻诇转诐 讗转 讛讞讟讗转 讘诪拽讜诐 [讛拽讚砖] 砖诪讗 谞讻谞住 讚诪讛 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 诇讗 讛讜讘讗 讗转 讚诪讛 讗诇 讛拽讚砖 驻谞讬诪讛

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: 鈥淲hy have you not eaten the sin offering in the place of the Sanctuary?鈥 (Leviticus 10:17), he meant: Perhaps its blood entered the innermost sanctum, disqualifying the offering. Aaron said to him in response: 鈥淏ehold, the blood of it was not brought into the Sanctuary within鈥 (Leviticus 10:18).

砖诪讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讬爪转讛 讬爪讗转 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 讘拽讜讚砖 讛讬转讛 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讘讗谞讬谞讜转 讗拽专讬讘转讜讛 讜驻住诇转讜讛 讗诪专 诇讜 诪砖讛 讛谉 讛拽专讬讘讜讛 讚驻住诇讛 讘讛讜 讗谞讬谞讜转 讗谞讬 讛拽专讘转讬讛

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.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讗讙讘 诪专专讬讬讻讜 驻砖注转讜 讘讛 讜讗讬讟诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讜 诪砖讛 讻讱 讗谞讬 讘注讬谞讬讱 砖讗谞讬 诪讘讝讛 拽讚砖讬 砖诪讬诐 讜转拽专讗谞讛 讗转讬 讻讗诇讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗诇讛 讜讻讗诇讛 讗讬谉 讗谞讬 诪讘讝讛 拽讚砖讬 砖诪讬诐

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? 鈥淭here have befallen me such things as these鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讜 讜讗讬 讛谉 诇讗 讛讜讘讗 讗转 讚诪讛 讜讘拽讜讚砖 讛讬转讛 讗讻讜诇 转讗讻诇讜 讗转讛 讘拽讜讚砖 讻讗砖专 爪讜讬转讬 讘讗谞讬谞讜转 讬讗讻诇讜讛

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

讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪讗 诇讗 砖诪注转 讗诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讚讗讬 讘讬讜诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讜诪讛 诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 讘讗谞讬 诪诪谞讜 拽讜讚砖 讞诪讜专 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

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?

诪讬讚 讜讬砖诪注 诪砖讛

Moses immediately conceded to Aaron, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd Moses heard,

讜讬讬讟讘 讘注讬谞讬讜 诇讗 讘讜砖 诪砖讛 诇讜诪专 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讗诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讜砖讻讞转讬

and it was good in his eyes鈥 (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.

讗讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇砖讛讜讬讬讛 讜诇诪讬讻诇讗 讘讗讜专转讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讗讜谞住 讘讗转讛

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鈥 control, and they were forced to burn it.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讛讬讜诐 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讬讜诐 讞讜讘转 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, this is as it is written: 鈥淎nd if I had consumed the sin offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord鈥? The verse indicates that Aaron could have eaten it at night. But according to Rabbi Ne岣mya, 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 鈥渢oday鈥? The Gemara answers: He meant: And if I had eaten the sin offering of the New Moon, which is today鈥檚 obligation, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord?

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讛谉 讛讬讜诐 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讛谉 讛讬讜诐 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛谉 讛拽专讬讘讜 讗谞讬 讛拽专讘转讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Ne岣mya, this is as it is written: 鈥淏ehold, today have they sacrificed their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord,鈥 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 鈥behold [hen], today鈥? 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.

讗诪专 诪专 讛讬讜 诇砖诇砖转谉 砖讬砖专驻讜 诪讗讬 砖诇砖转谉

搂 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?

讚转谞讬讗 讜讗转 砖注讬专 讛讞讟讗转 讚专砖 讚专砖 诪砖讛 砖注讬专 讝讜 砖注讬专 谞讞砖讜谉 讞讟讗转 讝讜 讞讟讗转 砖诪讬谞讬 讚专砖 砖注讬专 砖诇 专讗砖 讞讜讚砖

The Gemara responds: As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it was burned鈥 (Leviticus 10:16). When the verse states: 鈥淭he goat,鈥 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鈥檚 inauguration (see Numbers 7:12). When the verse states: 鈥淭he sin offering,鈥 this is referring to the sin offering that the people brought on the eighth day of the inauguration (see Leviticus 9:13). The term 鈥渋nquired鈥 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.

讬讻讜诇 砖诇砖转谉 谞砖专驻讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛谞讛 砖专祝 讗讞讚 谞砖专祝 讜诇讗 砖诇砖转谉 谞砖专驻讜 讚专砖 讚专砖 砖转讬 讚专讬砖讜转 诇诪讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讞讟讗转 讝讜 谞砖专驻讛 讜讗诇讜 诪讜谞讞讜转 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗转讛 谞转谉 诇讻诐 诇砖讗转 讗转 注讜谉 讛注讚讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 砖注讬专 砖诇 专讗砖 讞讜讚砖

One might have thought that all three of them were burned. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burned,鈥 to teach that one of the offerings was burned, but not all three of them were burned. The verse states: 鈥淎nd Moses diligently inquired [darosh darash].鈥 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: 鈥淎nd He has given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation鈥 (Leviticus 10:17), you must say: This is the goat of the New Moon, which atones for impurity in the Temple.

砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 拽讚砖讬 砖注讛 诇讗 驻住诇讛 讘讛讜 讗谞讬谞讜转

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon say well to Rabbi Ne岣mya; if the sin offering was burned due to acute mourning, then all three goats should have been burned. How would Rabbi Ne岣mya respond? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Ne岣mya 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.

讗诪专 诪专 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讗讻诇讛 诇注专讘 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 拽住讘专 讗谞讬谞讜转 诇讬诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

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 Ne岣mya 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.

讚讘专 讗讞专 讜讛诇讗 驻讬谞讞住 讛讬讛 注诪讛谉 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 谞转讻讛谉 驻讬谞讞住 注讚 砖讛专讙讜 诇讝诪专讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬转讛 诇讜 讜诇讝专注讜 讗讞专讬讜 讘专讬转 讻讛谞转 注讜诇诐

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon also stated: Alternatively, wasn鈥檛 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 Ne岣mya. The Gemara explains: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. As Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi 岣nina says: Pinehas did not become a priest until he killed Zimri, who had engaged in intercourse with a Midianite woman (see Numbers 25:6鈥8). As it is written only after that incident concerning Pinehas: 鈥淎nd it shall be unto him and to his seed after him the covenant of an everlasting priesthood鈥 (Numbers 25:13). Before that incident, at the time of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, the only priests were Aaron and his sons.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 注讚 砖砖诐 砖诇讜诐 讘讬谉 讛砖讘讟讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬砖诪注 驻讬谞讞住 讛讻讛谉 讜谞砖讬讗讬 讛注讚讛 讜专讗砖讬 讗诇驻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜壮

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Joshua 22:30).

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讛讬转讛 诇讜 讜诇讝专注讜 讗讞专讬讜 讻讬 讻转讬讘 讛讛讜讗 讘讘专讻讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: And for the other Sage, Rav Ashi, as well, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood鈥? 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.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讬砖诪注 驻讬谞讞住 讛讻讛谉 讛讛讜讗 诇讬讞住 讝专注讜 讗讞专讬讜

The Gemara asks: And for the other Sages as well, who hold that Pinehas became a priest immediately after he killed Zimri, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd Pinehas the priest鈥eard鈥? 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.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讞讜诇拽 讘拽讚砖讬 砖诪讬诐 讛讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 诪讗讬诇 讛诪诇讗讬诐 诇诪砖讛 讛讬讛 诇诪谞讛

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

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讛诇讗 驻讬谞讞住 讛讬讛 注诪讛谉 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬诪讗 讜讛诇讗 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 讛讬讛 注诪讛谉 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 诪砖讛 讚讟专讬讚 讘砖讻讬谞讛 讚讗诪专 诪专 诪砖讛 讘讛砖讻诪讛 注诇讛 讜讘讛砖讻诪讛 讬专讚

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鈥檛 Pinehas with them? And if it is so that Moses could partake of sacrificial meat, let them say: Wasn鈥檛 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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讞诐 讗诇讛讬讜 诪拽讚砖讬 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜诪谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讬讗讻诇 讗诐 谞讗诪专讜 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜讗诐 谞讗诪专讜 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 statement from another baraita: The verse states with regard to a blemished priest: 鈥淗e may eat the bread of his God, both of the most sacred, and of the sacred鈥 (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?

讗讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讗诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讜讻诇 砖讛专讬 讛讜转专讜 诇讝专 讜诇讛谉 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讜讗讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讗诪专讜 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讬讛讗 讗讜讻诇 砖讛谉 拽诇讬诐 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专讜 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐

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.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 砖讛专讬 讛讜转专讜 诇讝专 讜诇讛谉 诇讗讜 诪砖讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 讘讘诪讛 诇讝专 讜讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讬砖 诪谞讞讛 讘讘诪讛

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鈥檚 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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪专讬诐 诪讬 讛住讙讬专讛 讗诐 转讗诪专 诪砖讛 讛住讙讬专讛 诪砖讛 讝专 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 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,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 101

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 101

讜讞讻诪讬诐 注砖讜 讞讬讝讜拽 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讬讜转专 诪砖诇 转讜专讛

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讻谉 爪讜讬转讬 讻讗砖专 爪讜讬转讬 讻讗砖专 爪讜讛 讛壮 讻讬 讻谉 爪讜讬转讬 讘讗谞讬谞讜转 讬讗讻诇讜讛 讻讗砖专 爪讜讬转讬 讘砖注转 诪注砖讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讻讗砖专 爪讜讛 讛壮 诇讗 诪讗诇讬讬 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专

The Sages taught in a baraita: On the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, on which two of Aaron鈥檚 sons died, Moses spoke to Aaron and his sons using three different forms of the word command: 鈥淔or so I am commanded [tzuveiti]鈥 (Leviticus 10:13), 鈥渁s I commanded [tziveiti]鈥 (Leviticus 10:18), and 鈥渁s the Lord has commanded [tziva]鈥 (Leviticus 10:15). Moses said to Aaron: 鈥淎nd you shall eat it鈥for so I am commanded,鈥 to teach that Aaron and his remaining sons shall partake of the offerings even in acute mourning. The statement: 鈥淵ou should certainly have eaten it鈥as I commanded,鈥 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: 鈥淎s the Lord has commanded,鈥 to emphasize that it is not of my own initiative that I say this, but it is from the word of God.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诪驻谞讬 讗谞讬谞讜转 谞砖专驻讛 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 讻讗诇讛

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鈥檚 explanation: 鈥淭here 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?鈥 (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.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛

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 Ne岣mya.

讚转谞讬讗 诪驻谞讬 讗谞讬谞讜转 砖专驻讜讛 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 讻讗诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讟讜诪讗讛 谞砖专驻讛 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪驻谞讬 讗谞讬谞讜转 谞砖专驻讛 讛讬讜 诇砖诇砖转谉 砖讬砖专驻讜讛 讚讘专 讗讞专 讛讬讜 专讗讜讬 诇讗讜讻诇谉 诇注专讘 讚讘专 讗讞专 讜讛诇讗 驻讬谞讞住 讛讬讛 注诪讛谉

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: 鈥淎s these鈥; this is the statement of Rabbi Ne岣mya. 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鈥檛 Pinehas, son of Elazar the priest, with them? He was not in mourning, and he could have partaken of the sin offering.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘拽讚砖讬 砖注讛 讻讗谉 讘拽讚砖讬 讚讜专讜转

Rava said: Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, 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.

专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讻讬 诪转专讬抓 诇讛谞讬 拽专讗讬 讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讻讬 诪转专爪讬 诇讛讜 诇讛谞讬 拽专讗讬

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

专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诪转专讬抓 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 诪讚讜注 诇讗 讗讻诇转诐 讗诪专 诇讜 诪砖讛 诇讗讛专谉 砖诪讗 谞讻谞住 讚诪讛 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 诇讗 讛讜讘讗 讗转 讚诪讛 砖诪讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讬爪转讛 讬爪讗转 讗诪专 诇讜 讘拽讚砖 讛讬转讛

Rabbi Ne岣mya would reconcile them like this: When Moses asked: 鈥淲hy have you not eaten the sin offering?鈥 (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: 鈥淏ehold, the blood of it was not brought into the Sanctuary within鈥 (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.

讜讚诇诪讗 讘讗谞讬谞讜转 讗拽专讬讘转讜讛 讜驻住诇转讜讛 讗诪专 诇讜 诪砖讛 讜讻讬 讛诐 讛拽专讬讘讜 讗谞讬 讛拽专讘转讬 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 诇讗 讛讜讘讗 讗转 讚诪讛 讜讘拽讚砖 讛讬转讛 讗讻讜诇 转讗讻诇讜 讗转讛 讻讗砖专 爪讜讬转讬 讘讗谞讬谞讜转 讬讗讻诇讜讛

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鈥12). And Moses said to him: 鈥淏ehold, the blood of it was not brought into the Sanctuary within,鈥 and it was inside the sacred area at all times; therefore: 鈥淵ou should certainly have consumed it in the sacred area, as I commanded鈥 (Leviticus 10:18), i.e., just as I commanded that the priests should consume today鈥檚 meal offering in acute mourning.

讗诪专 诇讜 讜转拽专讗谞讛 讗转讬 讻讗诇讛 讜讗讻诇转讬 讞讟讗转 讛讬讜诐 讛讬讬讟讘 讘注讬谞讬 讛壮 砖诪讗 诇讗 砖诪注转 讗诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬 砖注讛

Aaron said to him: 鈥淏ehold, 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?鈥 (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.

讚讗讬 讘拽讚砖讬 讚讜专讜转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讜诪讛 诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 讘讗谞讬 诪诪谞讜 讘拽讚砖讬 讚讜专讜转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

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: 鈥淚 have not eaten thereof in my mourning [ve鈥檕ni]鈥 (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?

诪讬讚 讜讬砖诪注 诪砖讛 讜讬讬讟讘 讘注讬谞讬讜 讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讜砖 诪砖讛 诇讜诪专 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 砖诪注转讬 讜砖讻讞转讬

Moses immediately conceded to Aaron, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd Moses heard, and it was good in his eyes鈥 (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: 鈥淢oses heard.鈥

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讻讬 诪转专爪讬 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 诪转专爪讬 诇讛讜 诪讚讜注 诇讗 讗讻诇转诐 讗转 讛讞讟讗转 讘诪拽讜诐 [讛拽讚砖] 砖诪讗 谞讻谞住 讚诪讛 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 诇讗 讛讜讘讗 讗转 讚诪讛 讗诇 讛拽讚砖 驻谞讬诪讛

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: 鈥淲hy have you not eaten the sin offering in the place of the Sanctuary?鈥 (Leviticus 10:17), he meant: Perhaps its blood entered the innermost sanctum, disqualifying the offering. Aaron said to him in response: 鈥淏ehold, the blood of it was not brought into the Sanctuary within鈥 (Leviticus 10:18).

砖诪讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讬爪转讛 讬爪讗转 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 讘拽讜讚砖 讛讬转讛 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讘讗谞讬谞讜转 讗拽专讬讘转讜讛 讜驻住诇转讜讛 讗诪专 诇讜 诪砖讛 讛谉 讛拽专讬讘讜讛 讚驻住诇讛 讘讛讜 讗谞讬谞讜转 讗谞讬 讛拽专讘转讬讛

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.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讗讙讘 诪专专讬讬讻讜 驻砖注转讜 讘讛 讜讗讬讟诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讜 诪砖讛 讻讱 讗谞讬 讘注讬谞讬讱 砖讗谞讬 诪讘讝讛 拽讚砖讬 砖诪讬诐 讜转拽专讗谞讛 讗转讬 讻讗诇讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗诇讛 讜讻讗诇讛 讗讬谉 讗谞讬 诪讘讝讛 拽讚砖讬 砖诪讬诐

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? 鈥淭here have befallen me such things as these鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讜 讜讗讬 讛谉 诇讗 讛讜讘讗 讗转 讚诪讛 讜讘拽讜讚砖 讛讬转讛 讗讻讜诇 转讗讻诇讜 讗转讛 讘拽讜讚砖 讻讗砖专 爪讜讬转讬 讘讗谞讬谞讜转 讬讗讻诇讜讛

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

讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪讗 诇讗 砖诪注转 讗诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讚讗讬 讘讬讜诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讜诪讛 诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 讘讗谞讬 诪诪谞讜 拽讜讚砖 讞诪讜专 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

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?

诪讬讚 讜讬砖诪注 诪砖讛

Moses immediately conceded to Aaron, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd Moses heard,

讜讬讬讟讘 讘注讬谞讬讜 诇讗 讘讜砖 诪砖讛 诇讜诪专 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讗诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讜砖讻讞转讬

and it was good in his eyes鈥 (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.

讗讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇砖讛讜讬讬讛 讜诇诪讬讻诇讗 讘讗讜专转讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讗讜谞住 讘讗转讛

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鈥 control, and they were forced to burn it.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讛讬讜诐 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讬讜诐 讞讜讘转 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, this is as it is written: 鈥淎nd if I had consumed the sin offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord鈥? The verse indicates that Aaron could have eaten it at night. But according to Rabbi Ne岣mya, 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 鈥渢oday鈥? The Gemara answers: He meant: And if I had eaten the sin offering of the New Moon, which is today鈥檚 obligation, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord?

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讛谉 讛讬讜诐 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讛谉 讛讬讜诐 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛谉 讛拽专讬讘讜 讗谞讬 讛拽专讘转讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Ne岣mya, this is as it is written: 鈥淏ehold, today have they sacrificed their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord,鈥 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 鈥behold [hen], today鈥? 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.

讗诪专 诪专 讛讬讜 诇砖诇砖转谉 砖讬砖专驻讜 诪讗讬 砖诇砖转谉

搂 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?

讚转谞讬讗 讜讗转 砖注讬专 讛讞讟讗转 讚专砖 讚专砖 诪砖讛 砖注讬专 讝讜 砖注讬专 谞讞砖讜谉 讞讟讗转 讝讜 讞讟讗转 砖诪讬谞讬 讚专砖 砖注讬专 砖诇 专讗砖 讞讜讚砖

The Gemara responds: As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it was burned鈥 (Leviticus 10:16). When the verse states: 鈥淭he goat,鈥 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鈥檚 inauguration (see Numbers 7:12). When the verse states: 鈥淭he sin offering,鈥 this is referring to the sin offering that the people brought on the eighth day of the inauguration (see Leviticus 9:13). The term 鈥渋nquired鈥 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.

讬讻讜诇 砖诇砖转谉 谞砖专驻讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛谞讛 砖专祝 讗讞讚 谞砖专祝 讜诇讗 砖诇砖转谉 谞砖专驻讜 讚专砖 讚专砖 砖转讬 讚专讬砖讜转 诇诪讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讞讟讗转 讝讜 谞砖专驻讛 讜讗诇讜 诪讜谞讞讜转 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗转讛 谞转谉 诇讻诐 诇砖讗转 讗转 注讜谉 讛注讚讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 砖注讬专 砖诇 专讗砖 讞讜讚砖

One might have thought that all three of them were burned. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burned,鈥 to teach that one of the offerings was burned, but not all three of them were burned. The verse states: 鈥淎nd Moses diligently inquired [darosh darash].鈥 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: 鈥淎nd He has given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation鈥 (Leviticus 10:17), you must say: This is the goat of the New Moon, which atones for impurity in the Temple.

砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 拽讚砖讬 砖注讛 诇讗 驻住诇讛 讘讛讜 讗谞讬谞讜转

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon say well to Rabbi Ne岣mya; if the sin offering was burned due to acute mourning, then all three goats should have been burned. How would Rabbi Ne岣mya respond? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Ne岣mya 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.

讗诪专 诪专 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讗讻诇讛 诇注专讘 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 拽住讘专 讗谞讬谞讜转 诇讬诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

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 Ne岣mya 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.

讚讘专 讗讞专 讜讛诇讗 驻讬谞讞住 讛讬讛 注诪讛谉 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 谞转讻讛谉 驻讬谞讞住 注讚 砖讛专讙讜 诇讝诪专讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬转讛 诇讜 讜诇讝专注讜 讗讞专讬讜 讘专讬转 讻讛谞转 注讜诇诐

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon also stated: Alternatively, wasn鈥檛 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 Ne岣mya. The Gemara explains: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. As Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi 岣nina says: Pinehas did not become a priest until he killed Zimri, who had engaged in intercourse with a Midianite woman (see Numbers 25:6鈥8). As it is written only after that incident concerning Pinehas: 鈥淎nd it shall be unto him and to his seed after him the covenant of an everlasting priesthood鈥 (Numbers 25:13). Before that incident, at the time of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, the only priests were Aaron and his sons.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 注讚 砖砖诐 砖诇讜诐 讘讬谉 讛砖讘讟讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬砖诪注 驻讬谞讞住 讛讻讛谉 讜谞砖讬讗讬 讛注讚讛 讜专讗砖讬 讗诇驻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜壮

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Joshua 22:30).

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讛讬转讛 诇讜 讜诇讝专注讜 讗讞专讬讜 讻讬 讻转讬讘 讛讛讜讗 讘讘专讻讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: And for the other Sage, Rav Ashi, as well, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood鈥? 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.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讬砖诪注 驻讬谞讞住 讛讻讛谉 讛讛讜讗 诇讬讞住 讝专注讜 讗讞专讬讜

The Gemara asks: And for the other Sages as well, who hold that Pinehas became a priest immediately after he killed Zimri, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd Pinehas the priest鈥eard鈥? 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.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讞讜诇拽 讘拽讚砖讬 砖诪讬诐 讛讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 诪讗讬诇 讛诪诇讗讬诐 诇诪砖讛 讛讬讛 诇诪谞讛

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

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讛诇讗 驻讬谞讞住 讛讬讛 注诪讛谉 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬诪讗 讜讛诇讗 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 讛讬讛 注诪讛谉 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 诪砖讛 讚讟专讬讚 讘砖讻讬谞讛 讚讗诪专 诪专 诪砖讛 讘讛砖讻诪讛 注诇讛 讜讘讛砖讻诪讛 讬专讚

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鈥檛 Pinehas with them? And if it is so that Moses could partake of sacrificial meat, let them say: Wasn鈥檛 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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讞诐 讗诇讛讬讜 诪拽讚砖讬 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜诪谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讬讗讻诇 讗诐 谞讗诪专讜 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜讗诐 谞讗诪专讜 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 statement from another baraita: The verse states with regard to a blemished priest: 鈥淗e may eat the bread of his God, both of the most sacred, and of the sacred鈥 (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?

讗讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讗诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讜讻诇 砖讛专讬 讛讜转专讜 诇讝专 讜诇讛谉 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讜讗讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讗诪专讜 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讬讛讗 讗讜讻诇 砖讛谉 拽诇讬诐 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗讜讻诇 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专讜 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐

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.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 砖讛专讬 讛讜转专讜 诇讝专 讜诇讛谉 诇讗讜 诪砖讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 讘讘诪讛 诇讝专 讜讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讬砖 诪谞讞讛 讘讘诪讛

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鈥檚 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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪专讬诐 诪讬 讛住讙讬专讛 讗诐 转讗诪专 诪砖讛 讛住讙讬专讛 诪砖讛 讝专 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 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,

Scroll To Top