Zevachim 101
Share this shiur:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
There is a dispute between Rabbi Nechemia and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon regarding the reason Aaron burned the sin‑offering goat on the eighth day of the inauguration (miluim). Rabbi Nehemiah holds that the reason was aninut (the status of a mourner on the day of death), whereas Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda argue that the goat was burned because it had become impure. They raise three objections to Rabbi Nechemia’s position – how can these objections be resolved, and how does each of them interpret the verses in the passage?
When did Pinchas become a kohen?
According to Rav, Moshe served as the kohen gadol. The Gemara raises objections to his statement.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Betsy Frank in honor of Penney’s Daf Yomi Salon.
Today’s daf is sponsored by Danny Weininger in loving memory of Yohai Hai Glam, Lidor Yosef Karavani, and Asaf Hamami. “Giborei Yisrael who fought and fell defending Israel. May their memories be a blessing.”
Zevachim 101
וַחֲכָמִים עָשׂוּ חִיזּוּק לְדִבְרֵיהֶם יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁל תּוֹרָה.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי כֵן צֻוֵּיתִי״, ״כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוֵּיתִי״, ״כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳״; ״כִּי כֵן צֻוֵּיתִי״ – בַּאֲנִינוּת יֹאכְלוּהָ, ״כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוֵּיתִי״ – בִּשְׁעַת מַעֲשֶׂה אָמַר לָהֶן, ״כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳״ – לֹא מֵאֵלַיי אֲנִי אוֹמֵר.
§ 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.
וּרְמִינְהִי: מִפְּנֵי אֲנִינוּת נִשְׂרְפָה, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: ״כָּאֵלֶּה״!
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.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה.
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.
דְּתַנְיָא: מִפְּנֵי אֲנִינוּת שְׂרָפוּהָ, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: ״כָּאֵלֶּה״. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: מִפְּנֵי טוּמְאָה נִשְׂרְפָה. שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מִפְּנֵי אֲנִינוּת נִשְׂרְפָה – (הָיוּ) [הָיָה] לִשְׁלׇשְׁתָּן שֶׁיִּשָּׂרְפוּ. דָּבָר אַחֵר: (הָיוּ) [הָיָה] רָאוּי לְאוֹכְלָן לָעֶרֶב. דָּבָר אַחֵר: וַהֲלֹא פִּינְחָס הָיָה עִמָּהֶן!
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.
רָבָא אָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן בְּקׇדְשֵׁי שָׁעָה, כָּאן בְּקׇדְשֵׁי דוֹרוֹת.
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.
רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה הֵיכִי מְתָרֵיץ לְהָנֵי קְרָאֵי, וְרַבָּנַן הֵיכִי מְתָרְצִי לְהוּ לְהָנֵי קְרָאֵי?
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)?
רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה מְתָרֵיץ לְהוּ הָכִי: ״מַדּוּעַ לֹא אֲכַלְתֶּם״ – אָמַר לוֹ מֹשֶׁה לְאַהֲרֹן: שֶׁמָּא נִכְנַס דָּמָהּ לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים? אָמַר לוֹ: ״הֵן לֹא הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָהּ״. שֶׁמָּא חוּץ לִמְחִיצָתָהּ יָצָאת? אָמַר לוֹ: בַּקֹּדֶשׁ הָיְתָה.
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.
וְדִלְמָא בַּאֲנִינוּת אַקְרֵיבְתּוּהָ וּפְסַלְתּוּהָ? אָמַר לוֹ: מֹשֶׁה, וְכִי הֵם הִקְרִיבוּ?! אֲנִי הִקְרַבְתִּי! וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״הֵן לֹא הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָהּ״ וּבַקֹּדֶשׁ הָיָתָה – ״אָכוֹל תֹּאכְלוּ אוֹתָהּ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוֵּיתִי״, בַּאֲנִינוּת יֹאכְלוּהָ.
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.
אָמַר לוֹ: ״וַתִּקְרֶאנָה אֹתִי כָּאֵלֶּה וְאָכַלְתִּי חַטָּאת הַיּוֹם, הַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינֵי ה׳״ – שֶׁמָּא לֹא שָׁמַעְתָּ אֶלָּא בְּקׇדְשֵׁי שָׁעָה?
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.
דְּאִי בְּקׇדְשֵׁי דוֹרוֹת, קַל וְחוֹמֶר מִמַּעֲשֵׂר הַקַּל: וּמָה מַעֲשֵׂר הַקַּל, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי בְאֹנִי מִמֶּנּוּ״; בְּקׇדְשֵׁי דוֹרוֹת לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
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?
מִיָּד ״וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה וַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינָיו״ – הוֹדָה וְלֹא בּוֹשׁ מֹשֶׁה לוֹמַר ״לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי״, אֶלָּא אָמַר: ״שָׁמַעְתִּי וְשָׁכַחְתִּי״.
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.”
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הֵיכִי מְתָרְצִי לְהוּ? הָכִי מְתָרְצִי לְהוּ: ״מַדּוּעַ לֹא אֲכַלְתֶּם אֶת הַחַטָּאת בִּמְקוֹם [הַקֹּדֶשׁ]״ – שֶׁמָּא נִכְנַס דָּמָהּ לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים? אָמַר לוֹ: ״הֵן לֹא הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָהּ אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ פְּנִימָה״.
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).
שֶׁמָּא חוּץ לִמְחִיצָתָהּ יָצָאת? אָמַר לוֹ: הֵן בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ הָיְתָה. וְדִילְמָא בַּאֲנִינוּת אַקְרֵיבְתּוּהָ וּפְסַלְתּוּהָ? אָמַר לוֹ: מֹשֶׁה, הֵן הִקְרִיבוּהָ – דְּפָסְלָה בְּהוּ אֲנִינוּת?! אֲנִי הִקְרַבְתִּיהָ!
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.
וְדִילְמָא אַגַּב מְרָרַיְיכוּ פְּשַׁעְתּוּ בַּהּ וְאִיטַּמַּאי? אָמַר לוֹ: מֹשֶׁה, כָּךְ אֲנִי בְּעֵינֶיךָ, שֶׁאֲנִי מְבַזֶּה קׇדְשֵׁי שָׁמַיִם?! ״וַתִּקְרֶאנָה אֹתִי כָּאֵלֶּה״; וַאֲפִילּוּ אֵלֶּה וְכָאֵלֶּה – אֵין אֲנִי מְבַזֶּה קׇדְשֵׁי שָׁמַיִם!
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.
אָמַר לוֹ: וְאִי ״הֵן לֹא הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָהּ״, וּבַקּוֹדֶשׁ הָיְתָה – ״אָכוֹל תֹּאכְלוּ אֹתָהּ בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוֵּיתִי״, בַּאֲנִינוּת יֹאכְלוּהָ!
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.
אָמַר לוֹ: שֶׁמָּא לֹא שָׁמַעְתָּ אֶלָּא בַּלַּיְלָה; דְּאִי בַּיּוֹם – קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִמַּעֲשֵׂר הַקַּל: וּמָה מַעֲשֵׂר הַקַּל, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי בְאֹנִי מִמֶּנּוּ״; קוֹדֶשׁ חָמוּר – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
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?
מִיָּד ״וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה
Moses immediately conceded to Aaron, as the verse states: “And Moses heard,
וַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינָיו״ – לֹא בּוֹשׁ מֹשֶׁה לוֹמַר ״לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי״, אֶלָּא ״שָׁמַעְתִּי וְשָׁכַחְתִּי״.
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.
אִיבְּעִי לְהוּ לְשַׁהוֹיַיהּ, וּלְמֵיכְלַהּ בְּאוּרְתָּא! טוּמְאָה בְּאוֹנֶס בָּאתָה.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּנַן, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״הַיּוֹם״; אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, מַאי ״הַיּוֹם״? חוֹבַת הַיּוֹם.
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?
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״הֵן הַיּוֹם״; אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן, מַאי ״הֵן הַיּוֹם״? הָכִי קָאָמַר: הֵן הִקְרִיבוּ?! אֲנִי הִקְרַבְתִּי!
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.
אָמַר מָר: (הָיוּ) [הָיָה] לִשְׁלׇשְׁתָּן שֶׁיִּשָּׂרְפוּ. מַאי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן?
§ 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?
דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְאֵת שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת דָּרֹשׁ דָּרַשׁ מֹשֶׁה״; ״שְׂעִיר״ – זוֹ שָׂעִיר נַחְשׁוֹן, ״חַטָּאת״ – זוֹ חַטַּאת שְׁמִינִי, ״דָּרַשׁ״ – שָׂעִיר שֶׁל רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ.
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.
יָכוֹל שְׁלָשְׁתָּן נִשְׂרְפוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִנֵּה שֹׂרָף״ – אֶחָד נִשְׂרַף וְלֹא שְׁלָשְׁתָּן נִשְׂרְפוּ. ״דָּרֹשׁ דָּרַשׁ״ – שְׁתֵּי דְרִישׁוֹת לָמָּה? אֲמַר לְהוּ: מִפְּנֵי מָה חַטָּאת זוֹ נִשְׂרְפָה, וְאֵלּוּ מוּנָּחוֹת? וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶהוּ; כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְאֹתָהּ נָתַן לָכֶם לָשֵׂאת אֶת עֲוֹן הָעֵדָה״, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה שָׂעִיר שֶׁל רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ.
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.
שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ! רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: קׇדְשֵׁי שָׁעָה לָא פָּסְלָה בְּהוּ אֲנִינוּת.
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.
אָמַר מָר: הָיָה לוֹ לְאׇכְלָהּ לָעֶרֶב. שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ! קָסָבַר: אֲנִינוּת לַיְלָה – דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
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.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: וַהֲלֹא פִּינְחָס הָיָה עִמָּהֶן. שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ! סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לֹא נִתְכַּהֵן פִּינְחָס עַד שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ לְזִמְרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם״.
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.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: עַד שֶׁשָּׂם שָׁלוֹם בֵּין הַשְּׁבָטִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשְׁמַע פִּינְחָס הַכֹּהֵן וּנְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה וְרָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״.
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).
וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו״! כִּי כְתִיב הָהוּא, בִּבְרָכָה הוּא דִּכְתִיב.
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.
וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּשְׁמַע פִּינְחָס הַכֹּהֵן״! הָהוּא לְיַחֵס זַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו.
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.
אָמַר רַב: מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ – כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְחוֹלֵק בְּקׇדְשֵׁי שָׁמַיִם הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מֵאֵיל הַמִּלֻּאִים לְמֹשֶׁה הָיָה לְמָנָה״.
§ 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).
מֵיתִיבִי: וַהֲלֹא פִּינְחָס הָיָה עִמָּהֶן. וְאִם אִיתָא, לֵימָא: וַהֲלֹא מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ הָיָה עִמָּהֶן! דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי מֹשֶׁה, דִּטְרִיד בִּשְׁכִינָה; דְּאָמַר מָר: מֹשֶׁה בְּהַשְׁכָּמָה עָלָה וּבְהַשְׁכָּמָה יָרַד.
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.
מֵיתִיבִי: ״לֶחֶם אֱלֹהָיו מִקׇּדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים וּמִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים יֹאכֵל״ – אִם נֶאֶמְרוּ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, לָמָּה (נאמר) [נֶאֶמְרוּ] קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים? וְאִם נֶאֶמְרוּ קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, לָמָּה (נאמר) [נֶאֶמְרוּ] קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים?
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?
אִילּוּ לֹא (נאמר) [נֶאֶמְרוּ] קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים הוּא דְּאוֹכֵל, שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּתְּרוּ לְזָר וְלָהֶן; קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים – לֹא יֹאכַל. וְאִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֶמְרוּ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים יְהֵא אוֹכֵל, שֶׁהֵן קַלִּים; בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים – לֹא יְהֵא אוֹכֵל. לְכָךְ נֶאֶמְרוּ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וּלְכָךְ (נאמר) [נֶאֶמְרוּ] קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים.
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.
קָתָנֵי מִיהָא: שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּתְּרוּ לְזָר וְלָהֶן. לָאו מֹשֶׁה? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לָא; בְּבָמָה לְזָר, וּכְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה.
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.
מֵיתִיבִי: מִרְיָם מִי הִסְגִּירָהּ? אִם תֹּאמַר מֹשֶׁה הִסְגִּירָהּ – מֹשֶׁה זָר הוּא,
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,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Din & Daf: Aninut – Halakhah’s Immediate Response to Losing a Family Member
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
Raanana, Israel
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
Zevachim 101
וַחֲכָמִים עָשׂוּ חִיזּוּק לְדִבְרֵיהֶם יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁל תּוֹרָה.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי כֵן צֻוֵּיתִי״, ״כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוֵּיתִי״, ״כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳״; ״כִּי כֵן צֻוֵּיתִי״ – בַּאֲנִינוּת יֹאכְלוּהָ, ״כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוֵּיתִי״ – בִּשְׁעַת מַעֲשֶׂה אָמַר לָהֶן, ״כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳״ – לֹא מֵאֵלַיי אֲנִי אוֹמֵר.
§ 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.
וּרְמִינְהִי: מִפְּנֵי אֲנִינוּת נִשְׂרְפָה, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: ״כָּאֵלֶּה״!
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.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה.
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.
דְּתַנְיָא: מִפְּנֵי אֲנִינוּת שְׂרָפוּהָ, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: ״כָּאֵלֶּה״. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: מִפְּנֵי טוּמְאָה נִשְׂרְפָה. שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מִפְּנֵי אֲנִינוּת נִשְׂרְפָה – (הָיוּ) [הָיָה] לִשְׁלׇשְׁתָּן שֶׁיִּשָּׂרְפוּ. דָּבָר אַחֵר: (הָיוּ) [הָיָה] רָאוּי לְאוֹכְלָן לָעֶרֶב. דָּבָר אַחֵר: וַהֲלֹא פִּינְחָס הָיָה עִמָּהֶן!
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.
רָבָא אָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן בְּקׇדְשֵׁי שָׁעָה, כָּאן בְּקׇדְשֵׁי דוֹרוֹת.
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.
רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה הֵיכִי מְתָרֵיץ לְהָנֵי קְרָאֵי, וְרַבָּנַן הֵיכִי מְתָרְצִי לְהוּ לְהָנֵי קְרָאֵי?
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)?
רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה מְתָרֵיץ לְהוּ הָכִי: ״מַדּוּעַ לֹא אֲכַלְתֶּם״ – אָמַר לוֹ מֹשֶׁה לְאַהֲרֹן: שֶׁמָּא נִכְנַס דָּמָהּ לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים? אָמַר לוֹ: ״הֵן לֹא הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָהּ״. שֶׁמָּא חוּץ לִמְחִיצָתָהּ יָצָאת? אָמַר לוֹ: בַּקֹּדֶשׁ הָיְתָה.
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.
וְדִלְמָא בַּאֲנִינוּת אַקְרֵיבְתּוּהָ וּפְסַלְתּוּהָ? אָמַר לוֹ: מֹשֶׁה, וְכִי הֵם הִקְרִיבוּ?! אֲנִי הִקְרַבְתִּי! וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״הֵן לֹא הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָהּ״ וּבַקֹּדֶשׁ הָיָתָה – ״אָכוֹל תֹּאכְלוּ אוֹתָהּ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוֵּיתִי״, בַּאֲנִינוּת יֹאכְלוּהָ.
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.
אָמַר לוֹ: ״וַתִּקְרֶאנָה אֹתִי כָּאֵלֶּה וְאָכַלְתִּי חַטָּאת הַיּוֹם, הַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינֵי ה׳״ – שֶׁמָּא לֹא שָׁמַעְתָּ אֶלָּא בְּקׇדְשֵׁי שָׁעָה?
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.
דְּאִי בְּקׇדְשֵׁי דוֹרוֹת, קַל וְחוֹמֶר מִמַּעֲשֵׂר הַקַּל: וּמָה מַעֲשֵׂר הַקַּל, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי בְאֹנִי מִמֶּנּוּ״; בְּקׇדְשֵׁי דוֹרוֹת לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
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?
מִיָּד ״וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה וַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינָיו״ – הוֹדָה וְלֹא בּוֹשׁ מֹשֶׁה לוֹמַר ״לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי״, אֶלָּא אָמַר: ״שָׁמַעְתִּי וְשָׁכַחְתִּי״.
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.”
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הֵיכִי מְתָרְצִי לְהוּ? הָכִי מְתָרְצִי לְהוּ: ״מַדּוּעַ לֹא אֲכַלְתֶּם אֶת הַחַטָּאת בִּמְקוֹם [הַקֹּדֶשׁ]״ – שֶׁמָּא נִכְנַס דָּמָהּ לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים? אָמַר לוֹ: ״הֵן לֹא הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָהּ אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ פְּנִימָה״.
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).
שֶׁמָּא חוּץ לִמְחִיצָתָהּ יָצָאת? אָמַר לוֹ: הֵן בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ הָיְתָה. וְדִילְמָא בַּאֲנִינוּת אַקְרֵיבְתּוּהָ וּפְסַלְתּוּהָ? אָמַר לוֹ: מֹשֶׁה, הֵן הִקְרִיבוּהָ – דְּפָסְלָה בְּהוּ אֲנִינוּת?! אֲנִי הִקְרַבְתִּיהָ!
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.
וְדִילְמָא אַגַּב מְרָרַיְיכוּ פְּשַׁעְתּוּ בַּהּ וְאִיטַּמַּאי? אָמַר לוֹ: מֹשֶׁה, כָּךְ אֲנִי בְּעֵינֶיךָ, שֶׁאֲנִי מְבַזֶּה קׇדְשֵׁי שָׁמַיִם?! ״וַתִּקְרֶאנָה אֹתִי כָּאֵלֶּה״; וַאֲפִילּוּ אֵלֶּה וְכָאֵלֶּה – אֵין אֲנִי מְבַזֶּה קׇדְשֵׁי שָׁמַיִם!
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.
אָמַר לוֹ: וְאִי ״הֵן לֹא הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָהּ״, וּבַקּוֹדֶשׁ הָיְתָה – ״אָכוֹל תֹּאכְלוּ אֹתָהּ בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוֵּיתִי״, בַּאֲנִינוּת יֹאכְלוּהָ!
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.
אָמַר לוֹ: שֶׁמָּא לֹא שָׁמַעְתָּ אֶלָּא בַּלַּיְלָה; דְּאִי בַּיּוֹם – קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִמַּעֲשֵׂר הַקַּל: וּמָה מַעֲשֵׂר הַקַּל, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי בְאֹנִי מִמֶּנּוּ״; קוֹדֶשׁ חָמוּר – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
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?
מִיָּד ״וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה
Moses immediately conceded to Aaron, as the verse states: “And Moses heard,
וַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינָיו״ – לֹא בּוֹשׁ מֹשֶׁה לוֹמַר ״לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי״, אֶלָּא ״שָׁמַעְתִּי וְשָׁכַחְתִּי״.
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.
אִיבְּעִי לְהוּ לְשַׁהוֹיַיהּ, וּלְמֵיכְלַהּ בְּאוּרְתָּא! טוּמְאָה בְּאוֹנֶס בָּאתָה.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּנַן, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״הַיּוֹם״; אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, מַאי ״הַיּוֹם״? חוֹבַת הַיּוֹם.
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?
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״הֵן הַיּוֹם״; אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן, מַאי ״הֵן הַיּוֹם״? הָכִי קָאָמַר: הֵן הִקְרִיבוּ?! אֲנִי הִקְרַבְתִּי!
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.
אָמַר מָר: (הָיוּ) [הָיָה] לִשְׁלׇשְׁתָּן שֶׁיִּשָּׂרְפוּ. מַאי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן?
§ 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?
דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְאֵת שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת דָּרֹשׁ דָּרַשׁ מֹשֶׁה״; ״שְׂעִיר״ – זוֹ שָׂעִיר נַחְשׁוֹן, ״חַטָּאת״ – זוֹ חַטַּאת שְׁמִינִי, ״דָּרַשׁ״ – שָׂעִיר שֶׁל רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ.
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.
יָכוֹל שְׁלָשְׁתָּן נִשְׂרְפוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִנֵּה שֹׂרָף״ – אֶחָד נִשְׂרַף וְלֹא שְׁלָשְׁתָּן נִשְׂרְפוּ. ״דָּרֹשׁ דָּרַשׁ״ – שְׁתֵּי דְרִישׁוֹת לָמָּה? אֲמַר לְהוּ: מִפְּנֵי מָה חַטָּאת זוֹ נִשְׂרְפָה, וְאֵלּוּ מוּנָּחוֹת? וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶהוּ; כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְאֹתָהּ נָתַן לָכֶם לָשֵׂאת אֶת עֲוֹן הָעֵדָה״, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה שָׂעִיר שֶׁל רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ.
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.
שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ! רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: קׇדְשֵׁי שָׁעָה לָא פָּסְלָה בְּהוּ אֲנִינוּת.
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.
אָמַר מָר: הָיָה לוֹ לְאׇכְלָהּ לָעֶרֶב. שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ! קָסָבַר: אֲנִינוּת לַיְלָה – דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
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.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: וַהֲלֹא פִּינְחָס הָיָה עִמָּהֶן. שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ! סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לֹא נִתְכַּהֵן פִּינְחָס עַד שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ לְזִמְרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם״.
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.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: עַד שֶׁשָּׂם שָׁלוֹם בֵּין הַשְּׁבָטִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשְׁמַע פִּינְחָס הַכֹּהֵן וּנְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה וְרָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״.
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).
וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו״! כִּי כְתִיב הָהוּא, בִּבְרָכָה הוּא דִּכְתִיב.
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.
וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּשְׁמַע פִּינְחָס הַכֹּהֵן״! הָהוּא לְיַחֵס זַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו.
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.
אָמַר רַב: מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ – כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְחוֹלֵק בְּקׇדְשֵׁי שָׁמַיִם הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מֵאֵיל הַמִּלֻּאִים לְמֹשֶׁה הָיָה לְמָנָה״.
§ 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).
מֵיתִיבִי: וַהֲלֹא פִּינְחָס הָיָה עִמָּהֶן. וְאִם אִיתָא, לֵימָא: וַהֲלֹא מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ הָיָה עִמָּהֶן! דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי מֹשֶׁה, דִּטְרִיד בִּשְׁכִינָה; דְּאָמַר מָר: מֹשֶׁה בְּהַשְׁכָּמָה עָלָה וּבְהַשְׁכָּמָה יָרַד.
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.
מֵיתִיבִי: ״לֶחֶם אֱלֹהָיו מִקׇּדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים וּמִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים יֹאכֵל״ – אִם נֶאֶמְרוּ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, לָמָּה (נאמר) [נֶאֶמְרוּ] קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים? וְאִם נֶאֶמְרוּ קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, לָמָּה (נאמר) [נֶאֶמְרוּ] קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים?
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?
אִילּוּ לֹא (נאמר) [נֶאֶמְרוּ] קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים הוּא דְּאוֹכֵל, שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּתְּרוּ לְזָר וְלָהֶן; קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים – לֹא יֹאכַל. וְאִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֶמְרוּ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים יְהֵא אוֹכֵל, שֶׁהֵן קַלִּים; בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים – לֹא יְהֵא אוֹכֵל. לְכָךְ נֶאֶמְרוּ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וּלְכָךְ (נאמר) [נֶאֶמְרוּ] קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים.
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.
קָתָנֵי מִיהָא: שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּתְּרוּ לְזָר וְלָהֶן. לָאו מֹשֶׁה? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לָא; בְּבָמָה לְזָר, וּכְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה.
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.
מֵיתִיבִי: מִרְיָם מִי הִסְגִּירָהּ? אִם תֹּאמַר מֹשֶׁה הִסְגִּירָהּ – מֹשֶׁה זָר הוּא,
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,
