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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 24, 2018 | 讬状讘 讘讗讘 转砖注状讞

  • 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 102

Was Moshe a high聽priest? From where do we derive that kohanim who have blemishes of all types can get portions of the priestly gifts? The line in the mishna聽that says those who can’t serve in the temple dont’ get a portion contradicts the line about the kohanim with blemishes. This contradiction is discussed.


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

讜讗讬谉 讝专 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐 讜讗诐 转讗诪专 讗讛专谉 讛住讙讬专讛 讗讛专谉 拽专讜讘 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 拽专讜讘 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐 讗诇讗 讻讘讜讚 讙讚讜诇 讞诇拽 诇讛 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇诪专讬诐 讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讗谞讬 讻讛谉 讜讗谞讬 诪住讙讬专讛 讗谞讬 讞讜诇讟讛 讜讗谞讬 驻讜讟专讛

and a non-priest may not inspect the shades of leprous marks to diagnose them. And if you say that Aaron quarantined her, that is difficult, as Aaron was a relative, Miriam鈥檚 brother, and a relative may not inspect the shades of leprous marks. Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, bestowed a great honor on Miriam at that time, and said: I Myself am a priest, and I will quarantine her for seven days to see if the shades of leprous marks persist, and I will declare her a leper if she is impure, and I will exempt her if she is not impure.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 诪砖讛 讝专 讜讗讬谉 讝专 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐

In any event, the midrash teaches: Moses was a non-priest, and a non-priest may not inspect the shades of leprous marks, which contradicts the statement of Rav that Moses was a priest.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 砖讗谞讬 诪专讗讜转 谞讙注讬诐 讚讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讻转讜讘讬谉 讘驻专砖讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The halakhot of the examination of shades of leprous marks are different, because specifically Aaron and his sons, and not Moses, are written in the passage that discusses them: 鈥淭hen he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests鈥 (Leviticus 13:2). Therefore, there is no proof from this baraita that Moses was not a priest.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讞诪砖 砖诪讞讜转 讛讬转讛 讗诇讬砖讘注 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讬讘诪讛 诪诇讱 讗讬砖讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘谞讛 住讙谉 讘谉 讘谞讛 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 讜讗讞讬讛 谞砖讬讗 砖讘讟 讜讗讘讬诇讛 注诇 砖谞讬 讘谞讬讛

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 statement from a baraita: Elisheva, the daughter of Amminadav and the wife of Aaron, had five more reasons for joy than the other daughters of Israel on the day the Tabernacle was dedicated: Her brother-in-law, Moses, was a king; her husband, Aaron, was the High Priest; her son, Elazar, was the deputy High Priest; her son鈥檚 son, Pinehas, was the priest anointed for war, who would lead the army out to battle; and her brother, Nahshon, son of Amminadav, was the prince of the tribe of Judah, who brought his offering on that day, as the first of all the princes. But on that same day of joy she was in mourning for her two sons, Nadav and Avihu, who died on that day.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讬讘诪讛 诪诇讱 诪诇讱 讗讬谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诪诇讱

In any event, the baraita teaches: Her brother-in-law, Moses, was a king. From this one can infer that yes, he was a king, but he was not a High Priest, contrary to Rav鈥檚 statement. The Gemara responds: Say that the baraita means: Moses was a king as well, in addition to being a High Priest.

讻转谞讗讬 讜讬讞专 讗祝 讛壮 讘诪砖讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讞专讜谉 讗祝 砖讘转讜专讛 谞讗诪专 讘讜 专讜砖诐 讜讝讛 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘讜 专讜砖诐

The Gemara comments: The question of whether Moses was a High Priest is subject to a dispute among tanna鈥檌m, as is taught in a baraita: When Moses was at the burning bush and expressed hesitation to deliver God鈥檚 message to Pharaoh, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the anger of the Lord burned against Moses, and He said: Is there not Aaron your brother the Levite? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he comes forth to meet you, and when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart鈥 (Exodus 4:14). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: For every burning anger that is stated in the Torah, its effect is also stated, i.e., the Torah records an action or pronouncement as a consequence of that anger, but in this case no effect of the anger is stated.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讝讛 谞讗诪专 讘讜 专讜砖诐 砖谞讗诪专 讛诇讗 讗讛专谉 讗讞讬讱 讛诇讜讬 讜讛诇讗 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗谞讬 讗诪专转讬 讗转讛 讻讛谉 讜讛讜讗 诇讜讬 注讻砖讬讜 讛讜讗 讻讛谉 讜讗转讛 诇讜讬

Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: Even in this case the anger鈥檚 effect is stated, as it is stated there: 鈥淚s there not Aaron your brother the Levite? I know that he can speak well.鈥 But isn鈥檛 Aaron a priest? Why is he referred to as a Levite? This is what God is saying to Moses: I initially said that you would be the priest and he would be the Levite; now he will be the priest and you will be the Levite.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 谞转讻讛谉 诪砖讛 讗诇讗 砖讘注转 讬诪讬 讛诪诇讜讗讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 驻住拽讛 讻讛讜谞讛 讗诇讗 诪讝专注讜 砖诇 诪砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪砖讛 讗讬砖 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讘谞讬讜 讬拽专讗讜 注诇 砖讘讟 讛诇讜讬 讜讗讜诪专 诪砖讛 讜讗讛专谉 讘讻讛谞讬讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讘拽专讗讬 砖诪讜

And the Rabbis say: Moses became a priest for the seven days of inauguration alone, and after that his priesthood expired. And some say: The priesthood expired only for the descendants of Moses, but Moses himself remained a priest, as it is stated: 鈥淏ut as for Moses the man of God, his sons are named among the tribe of Levi鈥 (I聽Chronicles 23:14). This verse indicates that it was his sons who were Levites, but he himself remained a priest. And so too the verse states: 鈥淢oses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among them that call upon His name, did call upon the Lord, and He answered them鈥 (Psalms 99:6).

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讚讜专讜转 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讜诪专 诪砖讛 讜讗讛专谉 讘讻讛谞讬讜

The Gemara asks: What is meant by: And so too the verse states? Why did the tanna need to cite a second proof? The Gemara explains: And if you would say the first verse is written only for future generations, to include Moses鈥 descendants in the tribe of Levi but not to exclude him, then there is a second proof: And so too, the verse states: 鈥淢oses and Aaron among His priests.鈥 The statement of Rav that Moses was a High Priest is in accordance with the opinion in this baraita.

讜讻诇 讞专讜谉 讗祝 砖讘转讜专讛 谞讗诪专 讘讜 专讜砖诐 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬爪讗 诪砖讛 诪注诐 驻专注讛 讘讞专讬 讗祝 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 住讟专讜 讜讬爪讗

The Gemara challenges the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣: And is it true that for every burning anger that is stated in the Torah, its effect is also stated? But isn鈥檛 it written with regard to Moses: 鈥淎nd he went out from Pharaoh in hot anger鈥 (Exodus 11:8)? And Moses did not say anything to Pharaoh. Reish Lakish said: Moses slapped him and left.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讻讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜谞爪讘转 诇拽专讗转讜 注诇 砖驻转 讛讬讗专 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪诇讱 讛讜讗 讜讛住讘讬专 诇讜 驻谞讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专砖注 讛讜讗 讜讛注讬讝 驻谞讬讱 讘讜 讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara challenges: And does Reish Lakish actually say this? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淕o unto Pharaoh in the morning; lo, he goes out unto the water; and you shall stand by the river鈥檚 brink to meet him, and the rod which was turned to a serpent shall you take in your hand鈥 (Exodus 7:15); and Reish Lakish says: God meant: Pharaoh is a king, and so you should be amiable toward him, and Rabbi Yo岣nan says: God meant: Pharaoh is wicked, and so you should be insolent toward him. If according to Reish Lakish Moses was commanded to greet Pharaoh with respect, how could he say that Moses slapped Pharaoh? The Gemara answers: Reverse the names of the Sages in this dispute; it is Reish Lakish who says that Moses was commanded to be insolent.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇注讜诇诐 转讛讗 讗讬诪转 诪诇讻讜转 注诇讬讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬专讚讜 讻诇 注讘讚讬讱 讗诇讛 讗诇讬 讜讗讬诇讜 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

With regard to the respect accorded to a king, Rabbi Yannai says: Fear of the kingship should always be upon you, even when the king does not deserve respect, as it is written that Moses said to Pharaoh: 鈥淎nd all these your servants shall come down unto me and bow down unto me, saying: Get you out, and all the people that follow you, and after that I will go out鈥 (Exodus 11:8). He mentioned Pharaoh鈥檚 servants, but he did not say this of Pharaoh himself, even though this was the eventual outcome. Rather, he spoke to Pharaoh with the respect due to a king.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讬讚 讛壮 讛讬转讛 讗诇 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬砖谞住 诪转谞讬讜 讜讬专抓 诇驻谞讬 讗讞讗讘

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Derive the principle from here: 鈥淎nd the hand of the Lord was on Elijah, and he girded up his loins and ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel鈥 (I聽Kings 18:46). Elijah the prophet ran before the evil king Ahab out of respect.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘拽砖 诪砖讛 诪诇讻讜转 讜诇讗 谞转谞讜 诇讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 转拽专讘 讛诇诐 讜讗讬谉 讛诇讜诐 讗诇讗 诪诇讻讜转 砖谞讗诪专 诪讬 讗谞讻讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬诐 [讜讙讜壮] 讻讬 讛讘讬讗转谞讬 注讚 讛诇诐

The Gemara continues to discuss the roles of Moses: Ulla says: Moses requested that he be given the kingship, but it was not given to him, as it is written: 鈥淒o not draw hither鈥 (Exodus 3:5); and the word 鈥渉ither鈥 refers to nothing other than kingship, as it is stated: 鈥淭hen David the king went in and sat before the Lord, and he said: Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my house, that You have brought me hither鈥? (II聽Samuel 7:18).

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讬讘诪讛 诪诇讱 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讜 讜诇讝专注讜 拽讗诪专

Rava raises an objection from the baraita cited earlier: Rabbi Yishmael says: Elisheva鈥檚 brother-in-law, Moses, was a king. This teaches that Moses was in fact granted kingship. Rava said: Ulla is saying that Moses did not receive kingship for himself and for his descendants, i.e., it was not bequeathed to his sons.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讛诇讜诐 诇讚讜专讜转 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 讙讘讬 砖讗讜诇 讚讻转讬讘 讛讘讗 注讜讚 讛诇诐 讗讬砖 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 讝专注讜 诇讗

The Gemara counters: And is it so that anywhere that it is written 鈥渉ither鈥 the verse is referring to kingship for future generations as well? But isn鈥檛 it written about the kingship of Saul: 鈥淭hey asked of the Lord further: Is there yet a man who comes hither鈥 (I聽Samuel 10:22), and Saul was indeed a king, but his descendants were not.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讛讜讛 讗讬砖 讘砖转 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 砖讗讜诇 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讙讜讬讛 诇讗 拽讗讬诐

The Gemara responds: If you wish, say: There was Ish-Bosheth, Saul鈥檚 son, who was a king (see II聽Samuel 2:10), indicating that Saul鈥檚 kingship did pass to his son. And if you wish, say instead: Saul is different, because the kingship did not stand even for himself, and this is why it did not pass on to his descendants.

讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘砖注讛 砖驻讜住拽讬诐 讙讚讜诇讛 诇讗讚诐 驻讜住拽讬诐 诇讜 讜诇讝专注讜 注讚 住讜祝 讻诇 讛讚讜专讜转 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙专注 诪爪讚讬拽 注讬谞讬讜 讜讗转 诪诇讻讬诐 诇讻住讗 讜讙讜壮 讜讗诐 讛讙讬住 讚注转讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪砖驻讬诇讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诐 讗住讜专讬诐 讘讝拽讬诐 讬诇讻讚讜谉 讘讞讘诇讬 注谞讬

The second response is in accordance with that which Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi 岣nina says: When greatness is apportioned to a person in Heaven, it is apportioned to him and to his descendants until the end of all generations, as it is stated: 鈥淗e withdraws not His eyes from the righteous; but with kings upon the throne He sets them forever, and they are exalted鈥 (Job 36:7). But if he then became arrogant, the Holy One, Blessed be He, humiliates him, as is stated in the next verse: 鈥淎nd if they be bound in fetters, and be held in cords of affliction鈥 (Job 36:8). This was the case with Saul.

讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讘讬谉 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讝讻专 诇专讘讜转 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: Blemished priests, whether they are temporarily blemished or permanently blemished, receive a share and partake of offerings, but do not sacrifice them. The Gemara explains: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the meal offering: 鈥淓very male among the sons of Aaron shall eat it鈥 (Leviticus 6:11). The phrase 鈥渆very male鈥 serves to include blemished priests.

诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讞诐 讗诇讛讬讜 诪拽讚砖讬 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讬讗讻诇 讗诇讗 诇讞诇讜拽讛

The Gemara clarifies: For what matter is this derivation necessary? If one suggests it is for the matter of consumption, it is already stated explicitly: 鈥淎ny man of the seed of Aaron the priest who has a blemish鈥He may eat the bread of his God, of the most sacred, and of the sacred鈥 (Leviticus 21:21鈥22). Rather, Leviticus 6:11 is necessary for the matter of receiving a share, teaching that blemished priests may do so along with the other priests. This is the source for the mishna鈥檚 statement.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讻诇 讝讻专 诇专讘讜转 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛专讬 讻讘专 讗诪讜专 讗讬 诇讞诇讜拽讛 讛专讬 讻讘专 讗诪讜专 砖讬讻讜诇 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 转诐 讜谞注砖讛 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪注讬拽专讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讝讻专

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states with regard to the sin offering: 鈥淓very male among the priests may eat thereof鈥 (Leviticus 6:22). The phrase 鈥渆very male鈥 serves to include blemished priests. The Gemara explains: For what matter is this derivation necessary? If one suggests it is for the matter of consumption, isn鈥檛 that already stated in Leviticus, chapter 21? If one suggests it is for the matter of receiving a share, isn鈥檛 that already stated in verse 6:11? Rather, the verse is necessary because one might have thought that I have derived only the halakha with regard to a priest who was at first unblemished and later became blemished. From where is it derived that one blemished from birth also receives a share? The verse states here: 鈥淓very male.鈥

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讻诇 讝讻专 诇专讘讜转 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛专讬 讻讘专 讗诪讜专 讜讗讬 诇讞诇讜拽讛 讛专讬 讻讘专 讗诪讜专 讜讗讬 诇讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪注讬拽专讜 讛专讬 讻讘专 讗诪讜专 砖讬讻讜诇 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐 拽讘讜注 讘注诇 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讝讻专

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states with regard to the guilt offering: 鈥淓very male among the priests may eat thereof鈥 (Leviticus 7:6). The phrase 鈥渆very male鈥 serves to include a blemished priest. The Gemara explains: For what matter is this derivation necessary? If one suggests it is for the matter of eating, isn鈥檛 that already stated? And if one suggests it is for the matter of receiving a share, isn鈥檛 that already stated? And if one suggests it is for a priest blemished from birth, isn鈥檛 that already stated? Rather, the verse is necessary because one might have thought that I have derived only the halakha with regard to a permanently blemished priest. From where is it derived that a temporarily blemished priest also receives a share? The verse states here: 鈥淓very male.鈥

讻诇驻讬 诇讬讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara objects: Isn鈥檛 it the opposite [kelapei layya]? Wouldn鈥檛 I have thought that a priest with a permanent blemish would be treated more stringently than one with a temporary blemish? Rav Sheshet said: Reverse the wording as follows: One might have thought that I have derived only the halakha with regard to a priest with a temporary blemish; from where is it derived that one with a permanent blemish also receives a share?

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗

Rav Ashi said: Actually, do not reverse the wording, and this is not difficult. It was necessary to teach that even a priest with a temporary blemish receives a share, because it might enter your mind to say

讻讬 讟诪讗 诪讛 讟诪讗 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 讟讛讜专 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 诪转拽谉 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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

讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 讜讻讜壮 讜诇讗 讜讛专讬 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讚诇讗 专讗讜讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讜讞讜诇拽 讜转讜 讛讗 专讗讜讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讞讜诇拽 讛专讬 讟诪讗 讘拽专讘谞讜转 爪讬讘讜专 讚专讗讜讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽

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

专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 拽讗诪专

The Gemara answers: The mishna is saying that any priest who is not fit for partaking of sacrificial meat does not receive a share. Blemished priests may partake of sacrificial meat, and impure priests may not.

讜讛专讬 拽讟谉 讚专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 讛讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬

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

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚拽讗诪专 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讟诪讗 讟诪讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讘注诇 诪讜诐 专讞诪谞讗 专讘讬讬讛

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

讗驻讬诇讜 讟诪讗 讘砖注转 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讜讟讛讜专 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专 讞诇讘讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 讛讗 讟讛讜专 讘砖注转 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讜讟诪讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专 讞诇讘讬诐 讞讜诇拽

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

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讟讛讜专 诪砖注转 讝专讬拽讛 注讚 砖注转 讛拽讟专 讞诇讘讬诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛诪拽专讬讘 讗转 讚诐 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讜讗转 讛讞诇讘 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讟专 讞诇讘讬诐 谞诪讬 讘注讬

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

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 谞讟诪讗 讘讬谞转讬讬诐 诪讛讜 讘砖注转 讝专讬拽讛 讜讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讟讛讜专 诪砖注转 讝专讬拽讛 讜注讚 砖注转 讛拽讟专 讞诇讘讬诐 转讬拽讜

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

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 讚讬谞讗 诪专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讙诪讬专谞讗 讚讗诪专 讘讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讚谞转讛 讘讗 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讗诪专 转谉 诇讬 诪诪谞讞讛 讜讗讜讻诇

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

讗诪专 诇讜 讜诪讛 讗诐 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讱 讘讞讟讗转讱 讚讞讬转讬讱 诪讞讟讗转 讬砖专讗诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讱 讘诪谞讞转讱 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讚讬讞讱 诪诪谞讞转 讬砖专讗诇

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

讜诪讛 讗诐 讚讞讬转谞讬 诪讞讟讗转 讬砖专讗诇 砖讻砖诐 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讬 讻讱 讬驻讛 讻讞讱 转讚讞讬谞讬 诪诪谞讞讛 砖讻砖诐 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讬 讻讱 讛讜专注 讻讞讱

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

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讻讛谉 讛诪拽专讬讘 讗转讛 诇讜 转讛讬讛 讘讗 讛拽专讘 讜讗讻讜诇

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

转谉 诇讬 诪讞讟讗转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讜讻诇

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

讗诪专 诇讜 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讬 讘诪谞讞转讬 讚讞讬转讬讱 诪诪谞讞转 讬砖专讗诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讬 讘讞讟讗转讬 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讚讬讞讱 诪讞讟讗转 讬砖专讗诇

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

讗诪专 诇讜 讜诪讛 讗诐 砖讚讞讬转谞讬 诪诪谞讞转 讬砖专讗诇 砖讻砖诐 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讱 讻讱 讛讜专注 讻讞讬 转讚讞讬谞讬 诪讞讟讗转 讬砖专讗诇 砖讻砖诐 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讱 讻讱 讬驻讛 讻讞讬

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

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛讻讛谉 讛诪讞讟讗 讗转讛 讬讗讻诇谞讛 讘讗 讞讟讗 讜讗讻讜诇

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

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谉 诇讬 诪讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讜讗讜讻诇

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

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讱 讘讞讟讗转讱 讚讞讬转讬讱 [诪讞讟讗转 讬砖专讗诇] (诪讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽) 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讱 讘砖诇诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讛谉 讗诇讗 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讚讬讞讱

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

诪讛 讗诐 讚讞讬转谞讬 诪讞讟讗转 砖讻谉 讛讜专注 讻讞讬 讗爪诇 谞砖讬讬 讜注讘讚讬讬 转讚讞讬谞讬 诪讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 砖讻谉 讬驻讛 讻讞讬 讗爪诇 谞砖讬讬 讜注讘讚讬

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

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讻讛谉 讛讝讜专拽 讗转 讚诐 讛砖诇诪讬诐 诇讜 讬讛讬讛 讘讗 讝专讜拽 讜讗讻讜诇

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

讬爪讗 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 拽讜诇讬讜 讜讞诪讜专讬讜 注诇 专讗砖讜 讗讜谞谉 诪讬诪讬谞讜 诪讞讜住专 讻驻专讛 诪砖诪讗诇讜

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

驻专讬讱 专讘 讗讞讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 转谉 诇讬 诪讘讻讜专 讜讗讜讻诇

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

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讬 讘讞讟讗转 讗爪诇 谞砖讬讬 讜注讘讚讬讬 讚讞讬转讬讱 诪讞讟讗转 讬砖专讗诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讬 讘讘讻讜专 讚讻讜诇讬讛 讚讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讚讞讱 诪诪谞讜

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

讜诪讛 讗诐 讚讞讬转谞讬 诪讞讟讗转 砖讻砖诐 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讱 讻讱 讛讜专注 讻讞讬 转讚讬讞谞讬 诪讘讻讜专 砖讻砖诐 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讱 讻讱 讬驻讛 讻讞讬

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

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗转 讚诪诐 转讝专拽 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讜讗转 讞诇讘诐 转拽讟讬专 讜讘砖专诐 讬讛讬讛 诇讱 讘讗 讝专讜拽 讜讗讻讜诇

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

讜讗讬讚讱 驻专讬讱 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讘砖专诐 诇讻讛谉 讛讝讜专拽 讜讘砖专诐 讬讛讬讛 诇讱 讻转讬讘 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻讛谉 讗讞专

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

讜讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讜转专 诇讛专讛专 讞讜抓 诪诪专讞抓 讜诪讘讬转 讛讻住讗 诇讗讜谞住讜 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara returns to Rava鈥檚 statement that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, taught this halakha in the bathroom. And how did Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, do this? But doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is permitted to contemplate matters of Torah in all places except the bathhouse and the bathroom? The Gemara answers: A case where the matter was involuntary is different. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was so preoccupied by the issue that he taught it even though he was in the bathroom.

  • 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 102

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 102

讜讗讬谉 讝专 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐 讜讗诐 转讗诪专 讗讛专谉 讛住讙讬专讛 讗讛专谉 拽专讜讘 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 拽专讜讘 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐 讗诇讗 讻讘讜讚 讙讚讜诇 讞诇拽 诇讛 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇诪专讬诐 讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讗谞讬 讻讛谉 讜讗谞讬 诪住讙讬专讛 讗谞讬 讞讜诇讟讛 讜讗谞讬 驻讜讟专讛

and a non-priest may not inspect the shades of leprous marks to diagnose them. And if you say that Aaron quarantined her, that is difficult, as Aaron was a relative, Miriam鈥檚 brother, and a relative may not inspect the shades of leprous marks. Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, bestowed a great honor on Miriam at that time, and said: I Myself am a priest, and I will quarantine her for seven days to see if the shades of leprous marks persist, and I will declare her a leper if she is impure, and I will exempt her if she is not impure.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 诪砖讛 讝专 讜讗讬谉 讝专 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐

In any event, the midrash teaches: Moses was a non-priest, and a non-priest may not inspect the shades of leprous marks, which contradicts the statement of Rav that Moses was a priest.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 砖讗谞讬 诪专讗讜转 谞讙注讬诐 讚讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讻转讜讘讬谉 讘驻专砖讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The halakhot of the examination of shades of leprous marks are different, because specifically Aaron and his sons, and not Moses, are written in the passage that discusses them: 鈥淭hen he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests鈥 (Leviticus 13:2). Therefore, there is no proof from this baraita that Moses was not a priest.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讞诪砖 砖诪讞讜转 讛讬转讛 讗诇讬砖讘注 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讬讘诪讛 诪诇讱 讗讬砖讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘谞讛 住讙谉 讘谉 讘谞讛 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 讜讗讞讬讛 谞砖讬讗 砖讘讟 讜讗讘讬诇讛 注诇 砖谞讬 讘谞讬讛

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 statement from a baraita: Elisheva, the daughter of Amminadav and the wife of Aaron, had five more reasons for joy than the other daughters of Israel on the day the Tabernacle was dedicated: Her brother-in-law, Moses, was a king; her husband, Aaron, was the High Priest; her son, Elazar, was the deputy High Priest; her son鈥檚 son, Pinehas, was the priest anointed for war, who would lead the army out to battle; and her brother, Nahshon, son of Amminadav, was the prince of the tribe of Judah, who brought his offering on that day, as the first of all the princes. But on that same day of joy she was in mourning for her two sons, Nadav and Avihu, who died on that day.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讬讘诪讛 诪诇讱 诪诇讱 讗讬谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诪诇讱

In any event, the baraita teaches: Her brother-in-law, Moses, was a king. From this one can infer that yes, he was a king, but he was not a High Priest, contrary to Rav鈥檚 statement. The Gemara responds: Say that the baraita means: Moses was a king as well, in addition to being a High Priest.

讻转谞讗讬 讜讬讞专 讗祝 讛壮 讘诪砖讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讞专讜谉 讗祝 砖讘转讜专讛 谞讗诪专 讘讜 专讜砖诐 讜讝讛 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘讜 专讜砖诐

The Gemara comments: The question of whether Moses was a High Priest is subject to a dispute among tanna鈥檌m, as is taught in a baraita: When Moses was at the burning bush and expressed hesitation to deliver God鈥檚 message to Pharaoh, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the anger of the Lord burned against Moses, and He said: Is there not Aaron your brother the Levite? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he comes forth to meet you, and when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart鈥 (Exodus 4:14). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: For every burning anger that is stated in the Torah, its effect is also stated, i.e., the Torah records an action or pronouncement as a consequence of that anger, but in this case no effect of the anger is stated.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讝讛 谞讗诪专 讘讜 专讜砖诐 砖谞讗诪专 讛诇讗 讗讛专谉 讗讞讬讱 讛诇讜讬 讜讛诇讗 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗谞讬 讗诪专转讬 讗转讛 讻讛谉 讜讛讜讗 诇讜讬 注讻砖讬讜 讛讜讗 讻讛谉 讜讗转讛 诇讜讬

Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: Even in this case the anger鈥檚 effect is stated, as it is stated there: 鈥淚s there not Aaron your brother the Levite? I know that he can speak well.鈥 But isn鈥檛 Aaron a priest? Why is he referred to as a Levite? This is what God is saying to Moses: I initially said that you would be the priest and he would be the Levite; now he will be the priest and you will be the Levite.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 谞转讻讛谉 诪砖讛 讗诇讗 砖讘注转 讬诪讬 讛诪诇讜讗讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 驻住拽讛 讻讛讜谞讛 讗诇讗 诪讝专注讜 砖诇 诪砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪砖讛 讗讬砖 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讘谞讬讜 讬拽专讗讜 注诇 砖讘讟 讛诇讜讬 讜讗讜诪专 诪砖讛 讜讗讛专谉 讘讻讛谞讬讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讘拽专讗讬 砖诪讜

And the Rabbis say: Moses became a priest for the seven days of inauguration alone, and after that his priesthood expired. And some say: The priesthood expired only for the descendants of Moses, but Moses himself remained a priest, as it is stated: 鈥淏ut as for Moses the man of God, his sons are named among the tribe of Levi鈥 (I聽Chronicles 23:14). This verse indicates that it was his sons who were Levites, but he himself remained a priest. And so too the verse states: 鈥淢oses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among them that call upon His name, did call upon the Lord, and He answered them鈥 (Psalms 99:6).

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讚讜专讜转 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讜诪专 诪砖讛 讜讗讛专谉 讘讻讛谞讬讜

The Gemara asks: What is meant by: And so too the verse states? Why did the tanna need to cite a second proof? The Gemara explains: And if you would say the first verse is written only for future generations, to include Moses鈥 descendants in the tribe of Levi but not to exclude him, then there is a second proof: And so too, the verse states: 鈥淢oses and Aaron among His priests.鈥 The statement of Rav that Moses was a High Priest is in accordance with the opinion in this baraita.

讜讻诇 讞专讜谉 讗祝 砖讘转讜专讛 谞讗诪专 讘讜 专讜砖诐 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬爪讗 诪砖讛 诪注诐 驻专注讛 讘讞专讬 讗祝 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 住讟专讜 讜讬爪讗

The Gemara challenges the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣: And is it true that for every burning anger that is stated in the Torah, its effect is also stated? But isn鈥檛 it written with regard to Moses: 鈥淎nd he went out from Pharaoh in hot anger鈥 (Exodus 11:8)? And Moses did not say anything to Pharaoh. Reish Lakish said: Moses slapped him and left.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讻讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜谞爪讘转 诇拽专讗转讜 注诇 砖驻转 讛讬讗专 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪诇讱 讛讜讗 讜讛住讘讬专 诇讜 驻谞讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专砖注 讛讜讗 讜讛注讬讝 驻谞讬讱 讘讜 讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara challenges: And does Reish Lakish actually say this? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淕o unto Pharaoh in the morning; lo, he goes out unto the water; and you shall stand by the river鈥檚 brink to meet him, and the rod which was turned to a serpent shall you take in your hand鈥 (Exodus 7:15); and Reish Lakish says: God meant: Pharaoh is a king, and so you should be amiable toward him, and Rabbi Yo岣nan says: God meant: Pharaoh is wicked, and so you should be insolent toward him. If according to Reish Lakish Moses was commanded to greet Pharaoh with respect, how could he say that Moses slapped Pharaoh? The Gemara answers: Reverse the names of the Sages in this dispute; it is Reish Lakish who says that Moses was commanded to be insolent.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇注讜诇诐 转讛讗 讗讬诪转 诪诇讻讜转 注诇讬讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬专讚讜 讻诇 注讘讚讬讱 讗诇讛 讗诇讬 讜讗讬诇讜 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

With regard to the respect accorded to a king, Rabbi Yannai says: Fear of the kingship should always be upon you, even when the king does not deserve respect, as it is written that Moses said to Pharaoh: 鈥淎nd all these your servants shall come down unto me and bow down unto me, saying: Get you out, and all the people that follow you, and after that I will go out鈥 (Exodus 11:8). He mentioned Pharaoh鈥檚 servants, but he did not say this of Pharaoh himself, even though this was the eventual outcome. Rather, he spoke to Pharaoh with the respect due to a king.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讬讚 讛壮 讛讬转讛 讗诇 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬砖谞住 诪转谞讬讜 讜讬专抓 诇驻谞讬 讗讞讗讘

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Derive the principle from here: 鈥淎nd the hand of the Lord was on Elijah, and he girded up his loins and ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel鈥 (I聽Kings 18:46). Elijah the prophet ran before the evil king Ahab out of respect.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘拽砖 诪砖讛 诪诇讻讜转 讜诇讗 谞转谞讜 诇讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 转拽专讘 讛诇诐 讜讗讬谉 讛诇讜诐 讗诇讗 诪诇讻讜转 砖谞讗诪专 诪讬 讗谞讻讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬诐 [讜讙讜壮] 讻讬 讛讘讬讗转谞讬 注讚 讛诇诐

The Gemara continues to discuss the roles of Moses: Ulla says: Moses requested that he be given the kingship, but it was not given to him, as it is written: 鈥淒o not draw hither鈥 (Exodus 3:5); and the word 鈥渉ither鈥 refers to nothing other than kingship, as it is stated: 鈥淭hen David the king went in and sat before the Lord, and he said: Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my house, that You have brought me hither鈥? (II聽Samuel 7:18).

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讬讘诪讛 诪诇讱 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讜 讜诇讝专注讜 拽讗诪专

Rava raises an objection from the baraita cited earlier: Rabbi Yishmael says: Elisheva鈥檚 brother-in-law, Moses, was a king. This teaches that Moses was in fact granted kingship. Rava said: Ulla is saying that Moses did not receive kingship for himself and for his descendants, i.e., it was not bequeathed to his sons.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讛诇讜诐 诇讚讜专讜转 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 讙讘讬 砖讗讜诇 讚讻转讬讘 讛讘讗 注讜讚 讛诇诐 讗讬砖 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 讝专注讜 诇讗

The Gemara counters: And is it so that anywhere that it is written 鈥渉ither鈥 the verse is referring to kingship for future generations as well? But isn鈥檛 it written about the kingship of Saul: 鈥淭hey asked of the Lord further: Is there yet a man who comes hither鈥 (I聽Samuel 10:22), and Saul was indeed a king, but his descendants were not.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讛讜讛 讗讬砖 讘砖转 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 砖讗讜诇 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讙讜讬讛 诇讗 拽讗讬诐

The Gemara responds: If you wish, say: There was Ish-Bosheth, Saul鈥檚 son, who was a king (see II聽Samuel 2:10), indicating that Saul鈥檚 kingship did pass to his son. And if you wish, say instead: Saul is different, because the kingship did not stand even for himself, and this is why it did not pass on to his descendants.

讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘砖注讛 砖驻讜住拽讬诐 讙讚讜诇讛 诇讗讚诐 驻讜住拽讬诐 诇讜 讜诇讝专注讜 注讚 住讜祝 讻诇 讛讚讜专讜转 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙专注 诪爪讚讬拽 注讬谞讬讜 讜讗转 诪诇讻讬诐 诇讻住讗 讜讙讜壮 讜讗诐 讛讙讬住 讚注转讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪砖驻讬诇讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诐 讗住讜专讬诐 讘讝拽讬诐 讬诇讻讚讜谉 讘讞讘诇讬 注谞讬

The second response is in accordance with that which Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi 岣nina says: When greatness is apportioned to a person in Heaven, it is apportioned to him and to his descendants until the end of all generations, as it is stated: 鈥淗e withdraws not His eyes from the righteous; but with kings upon the throne He sets them forever, and they are exalted鈥 (Job 36:7). But if he then became arrogant, the Holy One, Blessed be He, humiliates him, as is stated in the next verse: 鈥淎nd if they be bound in fetters, and be held in cords of affliction鈥 (Job 36:8). This was the case with Saul.

讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讘讬谉 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讝讻专 诇专讘讜转 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: Blemished priests, whether they are temporarily blemished or permanently blemished, receive a share and partake of offerings, but do not sacrifice them. The Gemara explains: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the meal offering: 鈥淓very male among the sons of Aaron shall eat it鈥 (Leviticus 6:11). The phrase 鈥渆very male鈥 serves to include blemished priests.

诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讞诐 讗诇讛讬讜 诪拽讚砖讬 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讬讗讻诇 讗诇讗 诇讞诇讜拽讛

The Gemara clarifies: For what matter is this derivation necessary? If one suggests it is for the matter of consumption, it is already stated explicitly: 鈥淎ny man of the seed of Aaron the priest who has a blemish鈥He may eat the bread of his God, of the most sacred, and of the sacred鈥 (Leviticus 21:21鈥22). Rather, Leviticus 6:11 is necessary for the matter of receiving a share, teaching that blemished priests may do so along with the other priests. This is the source for the mishna鈥檚 statement.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讻诇 讝讻专 诇专讘讜转 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛专讬 讻讘专 讗诪讜专 讗讬 诇讞诇讜拽讛 讛专讬 讻讘专 讗诪讜专 砖讬讻讜诇 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 转诐 讜谞注砖讛 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪注讬拽专讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讝讻专

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states with regard to the sin offering: 鈥淓very male among the priests may eat thereof鈥 (Leviticus 6:22). The phrase 鈥渆very male鈥 serves to include blemished priests. The Gemara explains: For what matter is this derivation necessary? If one suggests it is for the matter of consumption, isn鈥檛 that already stated in Leviticus, chapter 21? If one suggests it is for the matter of receiving a share, isn鈥檛 that already stated in verse 6:11? Rather, the verse is necessary because one might have thought that I have derived only the halakha with regard to a priest who was at first unblemished and later became blemished. From where is it derived that one blemished from birth also receives a share? The verse states here: 鈥淓very male.鈥

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讻诇 讝讻专 诇专讘讜转 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛专讬 讻讘专 讗诪讜专 讜讗讬 诇讞诇讜拽讛 讛专讬 讻讘专 讗诪讜专 讜讗讬 诇讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪注讬拽专讜 讛专讬 讻讘专 讗诪讜专 砖讬讻讜诇 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐 拽讘讜注 讘注诇 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讝讻专

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states with regard to the guilt offering: 鈥淓very male among the priests may eat thereof鈥 (Leviticus 7:6). The phrase 鈥渆very male鈥 serves to include a blemished priest. The Gemara explains: For what matter is this derivation necessary? If one suggests it is for the matter of eating, isn鈥檛 that already stated? And if one suggests it is for the matter of receiving a share, isn鈥檛 that already stated? And if one suggests it is for a priest blemished from birth, isn鈥檛 that already stated? Rather, the verse is necessary because one might have thought that I have derived only the halakha with regard to a permanently blemished priest. From where is it derived that a temporarily blemished priest also receives a share? The verse states here: 鈥淓very male.鈥

讻诇驻讬 诇讬讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara objects: Isn鈥檛 it the opposite [kelapei layya]? Wouldn鈥檛 I have thought that a priest with a permanent blemish would be treated more stringently than one with a temporary blemish? Rav Sheshet said: Reverse the wording as follows: One might have thought that I have derived only the halakha with regard to a priest with a temporary blemish; from where is it derived that one with a permanent blemish also receives a share?

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗

Rav Ashi said: Actually, do not reverse the wording, and this is not difficult. It was necessary to teach that even a priest with a temporary blemish receives a share, because it might enter your mind to say

讻讬 讟诪讗 诪讛 讟诪讗 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 讟讛讜专 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 诪转拽谉 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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

讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 讜讻讜壮 讜诇讗 讜讛专讬 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讚诇讗 专讗讜讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讜讞讜诇拽 讜转讜 讛讗 专讗讜讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讞讜诇拽 讛专讬 讟诪讗 讘拽专讘谞讜转 爪讬讘讜专 讚专讗讜讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽

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

专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 拽讗诪专

The Gemara answers: The mishna is saying that any priest who is not fit for partaking of sacrificial meat does not receive a share. Blemished priests may partake of sacrificial meat, and impure priests may not.

讜讛专讬 拽讟谉 讚专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 讛讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬

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

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚拽讗诪专 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讟诪讗 讟诪讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讘注诇 诪讜诐 专讞诪谞讗 专讘讬讬讛

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

讗驻讬诇讜 讟诪讗 讘砖注转 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讜讟讛讜专 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专 讞诇讘讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 讛讗 讟讛讜专 讘砖注转 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讜讟诪讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专 讞诇讘讬诐 讞讜诇拽

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

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讟讛讜专 诪砖注转 讝专讬拽讛 注讚 砖注转 讛拽讟专 讞诇讘讬诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛诪拽专讬讘 讗转 讚诐 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讜讗转 讛讞诇讘 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讟专 讞诇讘讬诐 谞诪讬 讘注讬

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

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 谞讟诪讗 讘讬谞转讬讬诐 诪讛讜 讘砖注转 讝专讬拽讛 讜讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讟讛讜专 诪砖注转 讝专讬拽讛 讜注讚 砖注转 讛拽讟专 讞诇讘讬诐 转讬拽讜

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

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 讚讬谞讗 诪专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讙诪讬专谞讗 讚讗诪专 讘讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讚谞转讛 讘讗 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讗诪专 转谉 诇讬 诪诪谞讞讛 讜讗讜讻诇

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

讗诪专 诇讜 讜诪讛 讗诐 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讱 讘讞讟讗转讱 讚讞讬转讬讱 诪讞讟讗转 讬砖专讗诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讱 讘诪谞讞转讱 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讚讬讞讱 诪诪谞讞转 讬砖专讗诇

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

讜诪讛 讗诐 讚讞讬转谞讬 诪讞讟讗转 讬砖专讗诇 砖讻砖诐 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讬 讻讱 讬驻讛 讻讞讱 转讚讞讬谞讬 诪诪谞讞讛 砖讻砖诐 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讬 讻讱 讛讜专注 讻讞讱

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

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讻讛谉 讛诪拽专讬讘 讗转讛 诇讜 转讛讬讛 讘讗 讛拽专讘 讜讗讻讜诇

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

转谉 诇讬 诪讞讟讗转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讜讻诇

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

讗诪专 诇讜 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讬 讘诪谞讞转讬 讚讞讬转讬讱 诪诪谞讞转 讬砖专讗诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讬 讘讞讟讗转讬 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讚讬讞讱 诪讞讟讗转 讬砖专讗诇

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

讗诪专 诇讜 讜诪讛 讗诐 砖讚讞讬转谞讬 诪诪谞讞转 讬砖专讗诇 砖讻砖诐 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讱 讻讱 讛讜专注 讻讞讬 转讚讞讬谞讬 诪讞讟讗转 讬砖专讗诇 砖讻砖诐 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讱 讻讱 讬驻讛 讻讞讬

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

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛讻讛谉 讛诪讞讟讗 讗转讛 讬讗讻诇谞讛 讘讗 讞讟讗 讜讗讻讜诇

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

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谉 诇讬 诪讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讜讗讜讻诇

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

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讱 讘讞讟讗转讱 讚讞讬转讬讱 [诪讞讟讗转 讬砖专讗诇] (诪讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽) 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讱 讘砖诇诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讛谉 讗诇讗 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讚讬讞讱

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

诪讛 讗诐 讚讞讬转谞讬 诪讞讟讗转 砖讻谉 讛讜专注 讻讞讬 讗爪诇 谞砖讬讬 讜注讘讚讬讬 转讚讞讬谞讬 诪讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 砖讻谉 讬驻讛 讻讞讬 讗爪诇 谞砖讬讬 讜注讘讚讬

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

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讻讛谉 讛讝讜专拽 讗转 讚诐 讛砖诇诪讬诐 诇讜 讬讛讬讛 讘讗 讝专讜拽 讜讗讻讜诇

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

讬爪讗 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 拽讜诇讬讜 讜讞诪讜专讬讜 注诇 专讗砖讜 讗讜谞谉 诪讬诪讬谞讜 诪讞讜住专 讻驻专讛 诪砖诪讗诇讜

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

驻专讬讱 专讘 讗讞讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 转谉 诇讬 诪讘讻讜专 讜讗讜讻诇

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

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讬 讘讞讟讗转 讗爪诇 谞砖讬讬 讜注讘讚讬讬 讚讞讬转讬讱 诪讞讟讗转 讬砖专讗诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讬 讘讘讻讜专 讚讻讜诇讬讛 讚讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讚讞讱 诪诪谞讜

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

讜诪讛 讗诐 讚讞讬转谞讬 诪讞讟讗转 砖讻砖诐 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讱 讻讱 讛讜专注 讻讞讬 转讚讬讞谞讬 诪讘讻讜专 砖讻砖诐 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讱 讻讱 讬驻讛 讻讞讬

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

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗转 讚诪诐 转讝专拽 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讜讗转 讞诇讘诐 转拽讟讬专 讜讘砖专诐 讬讛讬讛 诇讱 讘讗 讝专讜拽 讜讗讻讜诇

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

讜讗讬讚讱 驻专讬讱 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讘砖专诐 诇讻讛谉 讛讝讜专拽 讜讘砖专诐 讬讛讬讛 诇讱 讻转讬讘 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻讛谉 讗讞专

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

讜讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讜转专 诇讛专讛专 讞讜抓 诪诪专讞抓 讜诪讘讬转 讛讻住讗 诇讗讜谞住讜 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara returns to Rava鈥檚 statement that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, taught this halakha in the bathroom. And how did Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, do this? But doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is permitted to contemplate matters of Torah in all places except the bathhouse and the bathroom? The Gemara answers: A case where the matter was involuntary is different. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was so preoccupied by the issue that he taught it even though he was in the bathroom.

Scroll To Top