Zevachim 100b (ק:) — the Talmud in English

Here the Gemara returns to reconcile the contradiction between the Mishna in Pesaḥim and the beraita concerning an onen sending his Paschal offering:

The fifth answer:

Rava said: Both this and that

the Mishna and the beraita] are discussing a case in which a relative died for him

after midday,

and there is no difficulty

between the Mishna and the beraita:

Here,

the beraita, which prohibits an onen from sending his Paschal offering, is discussing a case in which the relative died

before they slaughtered and sprinkled its blood on his behalf

the Paschal offering, and an onen does not send his Paschal offering as he does other offerings.

Here,

the Mishna, in which we learned: An onen immerses and eats his Paschal offering in the evening, is discussing a case in which the relative died only

after

they had already

slaughtered and sprinkled its blood on his behalf,

and the only issue here is eating. Therefore, once his state of acute mourning ends in the evening, he immerses and eats.

He said

in astonishment

to him, Rav Adda bar Mattana, to Rava:

If the beraita is discussing a case in which the relative died

after they slaughtered and sprinkled its blood,

then this is difficult: Why do we permit him to eat, as we learned, “and he eats his Paschal offering in the evening”? Is he not, at the very least by rabbinic decree, forbidden to eat sacrificial meat, as explained in the beraita: “but not sacrificial meat”? If so, the Paschal offering is no different, since it had already been offered on his behalf;

what has happened has happened!

That is, the entire reason that we permit eating the Paschal offering more than other sacrificial meat is that he might refrain from having it offered if he knew that he would be unable to eat it. This applies only if the Mishna is discussing a case in which he knows that he will be an onen in the evening, at the time of eating. But if he became an onen after the Paschal offering was slaughtered, the Paschal offering is no different from other sacrificial meat, which one may not eat during the state of acute mourning of the night, even though that prohibition is rabbinic!?

Ravina said to him

to his student Rav Adda bar Mattana, when he heard what he had asked Rava:

Eating the Paschal offerings is indispensable, as stated by Rabba bar Rav Huna,

as he proceeds to explain. Since eating is indispensable, we must permit him to eat while in the state of acute mourning of the night, which is rabbinic, because of the mitzva of the Paschal offering.

Rava said to him

to Rav Adda bar Mattana:

Obey what your teacher tells you

listen to and accept the resolution that your teacher Ravina gave you for your question.

The Gemara asks:

What is the source of Rabba bar Rav Huna’s statement?

With regard to what did Rabba bar Rav Huna say that, since eating the Paschal offerings is indispensable, the Sages permitted him to eat even after the offering had been brought?

As it was taught: The day of hearing

the day on which he heard that a relative had died during the preceding thirty days]

has the status of the day of burial, with regard to

the

mitzva of observing seven

days of mourning

and thirty

days of mourning, which he begins counting from the day on which he heard, just as he counts seven and thirty from the day of burial,

but

whereas

with regard to

the permission to

eat the Paschal offerings,

the day of hearing has the status of the day of gathering bones

the day on which others gathered the bones of his relatives] and not the day of burial. For on the day of burial he does not eat his Paschal offering, whereas on the day of hearing he eats the Paschal offering, just as on the day of gathering bones he is permitted to eat,

According to its simple meaning, the beraita means that if he heard the report on the eve of Pesaḥ, he is permitted to eat the Paschal offerings on the following night, just as he is permitted to eat them on the night following the day of gathering bones, but not as on the day of burial, when he is prohibited from eating them on the following night. This is because the Sages maintained their ruling on the night following the day of burial even in the case of the Paschal offering, for which failure to eat entails karet.

The beraita continues with a ruling that apparently contradicts the first clause:

In both this case and that case, he immerses and eats sacrificial meat in the evening,

and according to its simple meaning, the beraita means: Whether it is the day of gathering bones or the day of burial, he immerses and eats sacrificial meat in the evening; all the more so, he eats his Paschal offering.

Therefore, we inquire:

This itself is difficult.

The beginning of the beraita contradicts its conclusion, because

you said

in the first clause that

the day of hearing has the status of the day of burial with regard to observing seven and thirty, but

whereas

with regard to eating the Paschal offerings

to permit him to eat them, the status of the day of hearing is

that of the day of gathering bones,

when he is permitted to eat the Paschal offering on that night, and not that of the day of burial,

By inference

you learn from this

that on the day of burial he does not eat the Paschal offering even in the evening

and since he does not eat the Paschal offering, it follows all the more so that he does not eat other sacrificial meat.

And then it teaches: In both this case and that case,

both the day of gathering bones and the day of burial,

he immerses and eats sacrificial meat in the evening.

Thus, on the night following the day of burial he is permitted to eat sacrificial meat, and all the more so he is permitted to eat the Paschal offering. If so, the first clause contradicts the conclusion!?

And

Rav Ḥisda said: It is a dispute between tannaim.

That is, the tanna who taught this did not teach that, and they disagree regarding the first and last clauses, in accordance with the dispute between the tannaim cited below concerning eating sacrificial meat on the night following the day of burial.

And

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: There is no difficulty

between the first clause and the conclusion, because the intention of the first clause of the beraita is not as explained above according to its simple meaning—that the case is one in which all these events occurred on the eve of Pesaḥ before sunset. Rather,

here,

the conclusion, in which we learned, “In both this case and that case, he immerses and eats sacrificial meat in the evening,” is indeed discussing a case in which

he heard a report concerning his deceased relative

on the eve of Pesaḥ

close to sunset,

before sunset,

or

his relatives’ bones were gathered for him

on the eve of Pesaḥ

close to sunset, or a relative died and he buried him

on the eve of Pesaḥ

close to sunset.

It follows that at the time of eating the Paschal offering, it is no longer the day of burial itself but the following night, and he is permitted to eat sacrificial meat, all the more so the Paschal offering.

And here,

the first clause, from which it follows that on the day of hearing and the day of gathering bones he is permitted to eat the Paschal offerings, whereas on the day of burial he is prohibited, is discussing a case in which all these events occurred

after sunset.

It follows that the night is still the day itself, and in this manner he is prohibited on the day of burial, but permitted on the day of gathering bones and on the day of hearing.

The Gemara discusses Rabba bar Rav Huna’s statement:

According to his view, we must say that the first clause permitted only eating the Paschal offerings, and not other sacrificial meat. For the conclusion establishes that on the day of hearing and the day of gathering bones, “he immerses and eats sacrificial meat in the evening,” indicating that before evening he does not eat; and the same law applies if this occurred to him at night: he is prohibited.

But if it occurred

after sunset, what has happened has happened!

Rather, conclude from this that eating the Paschal offerings is indispensable!

Rav Ashi said: What

“In both this case and that case”

“he immerses and eats sacrificial meat in the evening”—you think you should interpret as meaning that whether it is the day of gathering bones or the day of burial, he immerses and eats sacrificial meat in the evening, and therefore you find it difficult, since the first clause indicates that on the night following the day of burial he does not eat even the Paschal offering. That is not the interpretation. Rather,

this is what it is saying:

Whether it is the day of hearing or the day of gathering bones, he immerses and eats sacrificial meat in the evening,

but the day of burial is not mentioned in the conclusion. In all cases, on the night following the day of burial he does not eat even the Paschal offering, and all the more so other sacrificial meat.

The Gemara rejects his statement:

But Rav Ashi’s interpretation is nonsense!

Since the subject under discussion is

the day of hearing and the day of gathering bones, as the first clause teaches, “The day of hearing has the status of the day of gathering bones,” then

“this and that”

is what

the tanna should have said.

Rather, conclude from this: It is nonsense.

The Gemara now returns to explain Rav Ḥisda’s answer to the contradiction between the first clause and the conclusion, when he said, “It is a dispute between tannaim”:

The Gemara asks:

And what dispute between tannaim?

Where do we find that the tannaim disagreed about whether one may eat sacrificial meat on the night following the day of burial!?

And we explain:

As it was taught

in a beraita whose interpretation perplexed the amoraim, but according to Rabbi Yirmeya’s interpretation, it emerges that this is a dispute between tannaim:

Until when does he mourn for him

for his deceased relative—and he proceeds to explain whether this means the day on which the relative died or the day on which he was buried—in such a manner that he is prohibited from eating sacrificial meat?

The entire day,

which according to its simple meaning implies the entire day but not the following evening.

Rabbi says: As long as he has not been buried.

But

with what are we dealing? If we say it is the day of death,

and the first tanna says: He mourns for him all day but not in the evening; while Rabbi says: If he was buried that day, he mourns for him only until the time of burial—this cannot be said, because:

Is there anyone who does not hold that the day of death extends into its night

at least

by rabbinic decree?

Is there anyone who disagrees that on the night following the day of death he is prohibited from eating sacrificial meat at least by rabbinic decree? How then can you say that even the first tanna prohibited only the day and not the following night!?

Furthermore,

there is another difficulty: If you interpret the beraita as referring to the day of death, what we learned:

Rabbi says: As long as he has not been buried,

he remains prohibited,

but once he has been buried, he is permitted

to eat sacrificial meat, even though the day of death has not yet ended. But this cannot be said, because:

And is there anyone who does not have

“I shall make her [the congregation of Israel] like a solitary mourner [to mourn as one mourns for an only child]

and her end like a bitter day

that is, the day on which an only child dies”? This demonstrates that the acute mourning of the day of death is a full day by Torah law. How, then, can we say that according to Rabbi he permits eating once the deceased has been buried during the day of death!?

And

Rav Sheshet said

to explain the beraita:

The beraita is not discussing someone whose relative died and was buried today. Rather,

it is referring to the day of burial

which is not the day of death

being discussed,

and it is concerning this that the first tanna said that he is prohibited throughout the day but not in the evening, while Rabbi is more lenient and permits him to eat sacrificial meat after the burial.

And

Rav Yosef challenged

Rav Sheshet’s answer: But concerning what the beraita teaches:

One who hears about his deceased relative, and one who gathers bones, immerses and eats sacrificial meat in the evening,

and since it mentions these two cases,

by inference, on the day of burial he does not eat even in the evening,

but if, as you say, both the first tanna and Rabbi hold that the night following the day of burial is not prohibited, then

this

beraita, which prohibits eating sacrificial meat on the night following the day of burial,

whose view is it,

for it follows neither the view of this one nor the view of that one!?

Rather,

said Rav Yosef:

Interpret it this way

this is how you should interpret the beraita:

Until when does he mourn for him

on the day of burial?

The entire day and

also

its night.

Rabbi says:

He mourns for him only

as long as he has not been buried,

but

once he has

been buried

on a day other than the day of death, he observes acute mourning throughout that day

but not its night.

The Sages stated this

the interpretation of Rav Yosef concerning the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages]

before Rabbi Yirmeya

and

he said

in astonishment:

Does a great man like Rav Yosef say this

and interpret Rabbi as coming to be lenient in relation to the Sages, as Rav Yosef explained!?

But it was taught: Until when does he mourn for him? As long as he has not been buried, even from now until ten days from now; this is the statement of Rabbi.

And the Sages say: He mourns for him only that day.

Thus, Rabbi comes to be stringent, and not in accordance with Rav Yosef’s interpretation. Nevertheless, it is impossible to explain their dispute as it appears from the beraita, for if so, it would emerge that according to the Sages a person is permitted to eat sacrificial meat when his dead lies before him—and that is not possible,

Rather, explain it as follows:

Until when does he mourn for him

on the day of burial

the entire day, but not its night.

Rabbi says: As long as he has not been buried,

meaning, whenever the burial may take place—even ten days after the death—the day of burial

includes

its

night.

In the novel Torah insights of Rabbi Aryeh Leib [ (part II, section 31, s.v. “And what he cites), he explained Rabbi’s wording, “As long as he has not been buried.” This wording is seemingly puzzling: why did Rabbi need to mention this, since Rabbi intended to say that the day of burial includes its night ;

It has thus been established that the tannaim—Sages of the Mishnaic era—disputed whether, on the night following the day of burial, a person is prohibited from eating sacrificial food. This is what Rav Hisda said earlier concerning the baraita about the day on which one hears of the death: “It is a dispute among tannaim.”

They said before Rava,

It has thus been explained that the tannaim disputed whether, on the night following the day of burial, one is prohibited from eating sacrificial meat. This is what Rav Hisda said above concerning the beraita about the day on which one hears of the death: “It is subject to a dispute among tannaim.”

They stated it before Rava,

They presented before Rava the interpretation of the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages that had been explained; and those who heard it raised the following objection:

Since Rabbi says: The day of burial,

which itself is prohibited only by rabbinic law,

includes

its

night by rabbinic law, it follows that the day of death,

which itself is prohibited by Torah law,

includes its night by Torah law,

For if you say that the Torah prohibited the day of death but did not reinforce its words by also prohibiting the following night, there is no logical basis for the Sages to reinforce their enactment prohibiting the day of burial by also prohibiting the following night. Now, this presents a difficulty:

And

if

Rabbi holds: The aninut of the night

following the day of death is prohibited

by Torah law?! But isn’t it taught:

It is stated in Parashat Shemini , that on the first day of Nisan, when Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron, died, Aaron and his sons burned the sin-offering of the New Moon that they had brought, and did not eat it.

Rabbi Judah’s explanation of the reason for the burning is explained below, on 101a: since they were acute mourners, they could not eat the offering during the day, but only at night, when their acute mourning had been permitted to them by divine command; and before they ate it, it became impure.

Rabbi Yehuda’s explanation of the reason for the burning is explained below, on 101a: Since they were onenim, they could not eat it during the day, but only at night, when their aninut was permitted by Divine instruction; and before they ate it, it became impure.

And Rabbi Yehuda explains:

“Behold

these sacrifices that we brought

today,”

I

and

am prohibited today, but permitted at night,

meaning, we are prohibited from eating only these sacrifices during the day, because of our aninut, but we are permitted at night—for if we do not eat them, who will eat them?

But

for future generations,

whether during the day or at night, it is prohibited

for an onen to eat sacrificial meat,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi says: The aninut of the night,

even that following the day of death,

is not by Torah law, but by rabbinic law,

Thus, according to Rabbi, it is clear that the Torah did not reinforce its prohibition on the day of death. How, then, did the Sages reinforce their enactment on the day of burial more than the Torah reinforced its own words?!

And we answer:

Actually,

Rabbi holds that even the aninut of the night following the day of death

is rabbinic

and not by Torah law

.