Zevachim 100a — the Talmud in English

It is not difficult:

,

the beraita in which we learned: an onen does not send his Paschal offering,

where someone died for him on the fourteenth, and he buried him on the fourteenth.

,

the Mishna in which we learned: an onen immerses and eats his Paschal offering in the evening,

where someone died for him on the thirteenth, and he buried him on the fourteenth;

and the distinction is:

If someone died for him on the fourteenth and he buried him on the fourteenth,

he does not send his Paschal offering, because

the day of death,

which is by Torah law,

seizes

even

its night by Torah law.

,

he immerses and eats his Paschal offering in the evening, because

the day of burial,

which is

by rabbinic law, seizes its night only by rabbinic law,

and the Sages were lenient in a place involving karet.

Rav Ashi

expressed astonishment

to Rav Mari,

who had explained Rabbi Shimon’s words as referring to the night of the day of burial:

But if so,

according to your words it is difficult,

with regard to that which was taught

in the beraita cited above:

Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda,

who had said: the mourning of the night following the day of death is by Torah law:

Know

that the mourning of the night is rabbinic,

for they said: an onen immerses and eats his Paschal offering in the evening, but not with sacred offerings,

But if it is according to your words—that Rabbi Shimon also said that an onen sends his Paschal offering only on the day of burial—

let Rabbi Yehuda say to him,

Rabbi Shimon:

I am telling you about the day of death, which is by Torah law, and you are telling me about the day of burial, which is rabbinic,

that is, I too spoke only of the night of the day of death, which is by Torah law, while you answer me from the night of the day of burial, concerning which I too concede that it is only rabbinic!?

And we conclude: indeed,

the answer of Rav Mari is difficult.

Rav Mari’s answer.

The fourth answer:

Abaye said: It is not difficult,

the contradiction between the Mishna in Pesachim and the beraita, because:

,

the beraita that prohibits an onen from sending his Paschal offering concerns a case in which

the deceased died

for him

before midday

on the eve of Passover.

,

the Mishna that permits an onen to send his Paschal offering concerns a case in which

the deceased died

for him

after midday

on the eve of Passover; and the distinction is:

If the deceased died for him

before midday, for

he was still

not fit for the Paschal offering [לא היה ראוי עדיין לקרבן פסח] [he was not yet fit for the Paschal offering],

(he was not yet eligible for the Paschal offering), and

mourning took hold of him, that is, his mourning prohibits him from bringing the Paschal offering.

meaning that his mourning prohibited him from bringing the Paschal offering.

But if the deceased died for him

after midday, for

he was already

fit for the Paschal offering; mourning does not take hold of him

to prohibit him from bringing the Paschal offering.

The Gemara asks:

And from where do you say that there is a difference for us [from where do we have a source for the distinction]

[where is the source for the distinction]

between before midday and after midday?

For it was taught:

]it is written [Leviticus 21]: “Say to the priests, the sons of Aaron: He shall not defile himself among his people, except for his relative who is close to him, for his mother, his father, his son, his daughter, and his brother. And for his virgin sister who is close to him, who has not been married to a man—for her he shall defile himself.”

And the beraita explains: “

For her” [for his virgin sister]

[for his virgin sister]

he shall defile himself,

it is a mitzva.

And if

he did not wish

to defile himself for his sister or for one of the other close relatives,

they defile him against his will.

And there was an incident involving Joseph the priest, whose wife died on the eve of Passover. He did not wish to defile himself for her, and his fellow priests convened and defiled him against his will.

,

And we raise a contradiction: we have seemingly raised a contradiction to what is explained in this beraita—that because of the mitzva of defilement for close relatives, the mitzva of the Paschal offering is set aside—from another beraita taught concerning a nazir, where it is explained otherwise [and from resolving the contradiction, the distinction between before midday and after midday is compelled]: it is written in the passage concerning a nazir [Numbers 6]: “All the days that he consecrates himself to Hashem, he shall not come upon a dead person. For his father and for his mother, for his brother and for his sister, he shall not defile himself for them when they die, for the crown of his God is upon his head.”

[corrupt source segmentation: the original quotation begins with an unmatched quotation mark] “A person”—these are the close relatives.

“A dead person”—these are the distant relatives.

]“For his father” [comes to teach]: he does not defile himself for his father, but he does defile himself for a met mitzva [a dead person for whom there is no one to attend to his burial].

]. “For his mother” [comes to teach] that if he was a priest and he was a nazir, it is only for his mother that he does not defile himself, but he does defile himself for a met mitzva [that is, although he possesses two sanctities, nevertheless he defiles himself for a met mitzva].

“For his brother” [comes to teach]: if he was a High Priest and he was a nazir, it is only for his brother that he does not defile himself, but

he

]does defile himself for a met mitzva [that is, although he possesses two sanctities, and moreover has the additional sanctity of a High Priest, nevertheless he defiles himself for a met mitzva].

“And for his sister”

what does the verse come to teach:

If one went to slaughter his Paschal offering, the neglect of which incurs karet,

If it does not apply to a nazir, apply it to another matter:

If one was going to slaughter his Paschal offering

whose neglect involves karet,

and to circumcise his son [or he was going to circumcise his son so that he could fulfill the mitzva of the Paschal offering, for failure to circumcise his sons prevents him from the Paschal offering],

[or he was going to circumcise his son so that he could fulfill the mitzva of the Paschal offering, since failure to circumcise his sons prevents him from bringing the Paschal offering],

and he heard that a close relative had died for him,

from among his relatives,

might he defile himself

for him?

You say: he shall not defile himself!

And although he is obligated to defile himself for his close relatives, since he faces karet for the mitzva of the Paschal offering.

Could it be that just as he does not defile himself for his sister, so he does not defile himself for a met mitzva? The verse says “

and for his sister,”

it is only for his sister that he does not defile himself, but he does defile himself for a met mitzva,

even though the mitzva of the Paschal offering will thereby be nullified.

In any event, it is explained from this beraita that the obligation of the Paschal offering prohibits him from defiling himself. If so, this beraita is difficult against the preceding beraita, in which it was explained that the mitzva of the Paschal offering does not override the obligation to defile oneself for close relatives!?

Rather, is it not that we infer from this

that the obligation of the Paschal offering prohibits him from defiling himself, whereas the reason for the first beraita is mourning? For when the close relative dies for him, he is an onen, and an onen does not send his Paschal offering; therefore he defiles himself for close relatives even on the eve of Passover, because his mourning has removed him from the Paschal offering. According to this, the contradiction between the beraitot is resolved:

,

the first beraita, which obligates him to defile himself for close relatives even on the eve of Passover, concerns a case in which the close relative died for him

before midday,

when his mourning removes him from making the Paschal offering; therefore he defiles himself for close relatives even on the eve of Passover, since in any event he cannot make the Paschal offering.

,

the second beraita, which prohibits him from defiling himself even for close relatives so that the mitzva of the Paschal offering will not be nullified, concerns a case in which the close relative died for him

after midday,

when his mourning does not prevent him from making the Paschal offering, since he became obligated in the Paschal offering before his mourning; therefore he does not defile himself for his relative, so that the mitzva of the Paschal offering will not be nullified,

It is thus explained, through the contradiction between the beraitot, that distinction stated above concerning mourning, between before midday and after midday.

And we challenge this:

From where

is it established that this is the resolution of the contradiction between the beraitot, concerning impurity through relatives on Pesach, as you said, and that one should learn from here that the state of acute mourning invalidates the Pesach sacrifice when it came upon him before midday, but does not invalidate the Pesach sacrifice after midday,

Perhaps I will say to you in fact: both this and that [the two beraitot] concerning a case in which his dead relative died

the two beraitot are discussing a case in which his relative died

after midday,

and the contradiction between the beraitot will be resolved as follows:

And this—

the second beraita, which prohibits him from becoming impure through relatives, so that the mitzva of the Pesach sacrifice should not be nullified—

is Rabbi Ishmael;

he disagrees with what is explained in the first beraita, that there is an obligation to become impure through relatives, and therefore he does not become impure through them when the mitzva of the Pesach sacrifice would thereby be nullified.

And this—

the first beraita, which obligates him to become impure through relatives even though the mitzva of the Pesach sacrifice would be nullified—behold,

is Rabbi Akiva,

who holds that “he shall become impure for her” is a mitzva, and since it is a mitzva, he becomes impure through relatives even though the mitzva of the Pesach sacrifice would be nullified,

and again you will not learn from the contradiction between the beraitot that there is a distinction concerning the state of acute mourning with regard to the Pesach sacrifice between one who became an onen before midday and one who became an onen after midday!? And

as it was taught: “

He shall become impure” is

optional, the words of Rabbi Ishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: obligatory.

And we answer:

It does not enter our minds

to interpret the second beraita as [the opinion of] Rabbi Ishmael,

for

this

beginning of that b

eraita

was taught by Rabbi Akiva [here is the beginning of the beraita that Rabbi Akiva stated].

for the opening clause of the beraita is stated by Rabbi Akiva].

As it was taught: Rabbi Akiva says: “

A person” —

these are the relatives. “

A dead person” —

these are the distant ones. “

For his father” —

for his father he does not become impure, but he does become impure for an unattended corpse. “

For his mother” —

if he were a kohen and a nazirite, it is for his mother that he does not become impure, but he does become impure for an unattended corpse. “

For his brother” —

if he were a High Kohen and a nazirite, it is for his brother that he does not become impure, but he does become impure for an unattended corpse. “

And for his sister”

what does the text teach? If one went to slaughter his Pesach sacrifice and to circumcise his son, and he heard that his dead relative had died, one might have thought that he should become impure. You say: he shall not become impure.

One might have thought: just as he does not become impure for his sister, so he does not become impure for an unattended corpse? The text teaches “

and for his sister”:

it is for his sister that he does not become impure, but he does become impure for an unattended corpse.