Zevachim 100b — the Talmud in English

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

The fifth resolution:

Rava said: Both this and that

—the Mishna and the beraita—deal with a case where a relative died to him

after midday,

and it is not difficult

—there is no contradiction between the Mishna and the beraita:

Here,

the beraita that prohibits an onen from sending his Paschal offering deals with a case where the relative died to him

before they slaughtered and sprinkled its blood for him,

and an onen does not send his Paschal offering, like other offerings.

Here,

the Mishna that we learned: “An onen immerses and eats his Paschal offering in the evening,” deals with a case where the relative died to him only

after

they had already

slaughtered and sprinkled its blood for him,

and here there is only the issue of eating; therefore, when his state of aninut ended in the evening, he immerses and eats.

He said

—he challenged—

to him, Rav Adda bar Mattana, Rava:

If the beraita deals with a case where the relative died to him

after they slaughtered and sprinkled its blood,

if so, it is difficult: why do we permit him to eat, as we learned, “and he eats his Paschal offering in the evening”? For he is in any event prohibited by rabbinic decree from eating sacred offerings, as explained in the beraita, “but not sacred offerings”; and if so, the Paschal offering is no different, since they had already offered it for him, and

what has happened has happened!

That is, the entire reason that we permit eating the Paschal offering more than other sacred offerings is that perhaps he will refrain and will not offer it, if he knows that he cannot eat his Paschal offering. But this applies specifically if the Mishna deals with a case where he knows that he will be an onen in the evening, at the time of eating. But if he became an onen after the slaughtering of the Paschal offering, the Paschal offering is no different from other sacred offerings, which may not be eaten in the mourning of the night, even though that prohibition is rabbinic!?

Ravina said to him

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

The eating of Paschal offerings is indispensable, from the statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna,

as he proceeds to explain; and since the eating is indispensable, we are compelled to permit him to eat in the rabbinic mourning of the night, on account of the mitzva of the Paschal offering.

Rava said to him

to Rav Adda bar Mattana:

Obey what your teacher says

[listen and accept what your teacher Ravina has said to resolve your question].

The Gemara asks:

What is [the source of] Rabba bar Rav Huna?

With regard to what did Rabba bar Rav Huna say that, since the eating of 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] its status is

like the day of burial, with regard to

the

mitzva of 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

permission for

eating Paschal offerings,

the status of the day of hearing is like the day of gathering bones

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

And according to its simple meaning, the intention of the beraita is that if he heard the report on the eve of Passover, he is permitted on the night following it to eat Paschal offerings, just as he is permitted on the night following the day of gathering, and unlike the day of burial, when he is prohibited on the night following it, because the Sages upheld their words on the night of the day of burial even in a place involving the Paschal offering, which entails karet.

And the beraita continues and states a law that seemingly contradicts the first clause:

Whether this one or that one, he immerses and eats sacred offerings in the evening,

and according to its simple meaning, the intention of the beraita is to say: whether the day of gathering or the day of burial, he immerses and eats sacred offerings in the evening, and all the more so he eats his Paschal offering.

And therefore we inquire:

This itself is difficult;

the beginning of the beraita contradicts its end, for

you said

in the first clause that

the day of hearing is like the day of burial for the mitzva of seven and thirty, but

whereas

with regard to eating Paschal offerings,

to permit him on those days, the status of the day of hearing is

like the day of gathering bones,

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

From this

you learn

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

the Paschal offering. And since he does not eat the Paschal offering, it follows all the more so that he does not eat other sacred offerings.

And then it teaches: Whether this one or that one,

whether the day of gathering or the day of burial,

he immerses and eats sacred offerings in the evening.

Thus, on the night following the day of burial he is permitted to eat sacred offerings, and all the more so he is permitted to eat the Paschal offering; and if so, the first clause is difficult in relation to the end clause!?

; Rashi And

Rav Hisda said: It is a dispute between tannaim.

That is, one who taught this did not teach that, and the first clause and the end clause disagree in the dispute between the tannaim cited below concerning eating sacred offerings on the night following the day of burial.

And

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It is not difficult

—the contradiction between the first clause and the end clause—because the intention of the first clause of the beraita is not as explained above according to its simple meaning, that the case is where all these events occurred on the eve of Passover before sunset, but

here,

the end clause, in which we learned, “whether this one or that one, he immerses and eats sacred offerings in the evening,” indeed deals with a case where

he heard a report concerning his dead

on the eve of Passover

close to sunset,

before sunset,

or

his bones were gathered for him

on the eve of Passover

close to sunset, or his relative died and they buried him

on the eve of Passover

close to sunset.

And it follows that at the time of eating the Paschal offering, it is no longer the day of burial itself, but the night following it, and he is permitted with sacred offerings, and all the more so with the Paschal offering.

And here,

the first clause, from which it is understood that on the day of hearing and the day of gathering he is permitted to eat Paschal offerings, whereas on the day of burial he is prohibited, deals with a case where all these events occurred

after sunset,

and it follows that the night is the day itself; in this manner he is prohibited on the day of burial, and permitted on the day of gathering and the day of hearing.

The Gemara discusses Rabba bar Rav Huna’s words:

According to him, we are compelled to say that the first clause permitted only eating Paschal offerings, specifically, and not other sacred offerings, for in the end clause it is explained that on the day of hearing and the day of gathering “he immerses and eats sacred offerings in the evening,” and it is clear that before the evening he does not eat; and the same law applies if this happened to him at night: he is prohibited.

But if it occurred

after sunset, what has happened has happened!

Rather, infer from it: the eating of Paschal offerings is indispensable!

Rav Ashi said: What is “‘

whether this one or that one

immerses and eats sacred offerings in the evening,’ which you think to explain as: whether the day of gathering or the day of burial, he immerses and eats sacred offerings in the evening, and therefore it is difficult for you, since in the first clause it is explained that on the night following the day of burial he does not eat even the Paschal offering? The explanation is not so, but

this is what it says:

Whether the day of hearing or the day of gathering bones, he immerses and eats sacred offerings in the evening,

but the day of burial is not mentioned in the end clause; and in fact, on the night following the day of burial he does not eat even the Paschal offering, and all the more so other sacred offerings.

The Gemara rejects his words:

But this statement of Rav Ashi is nonsense!

Since it is standing upon this,

for we are dealing with the day of hearing and the day of gathering, as the first clause teaches, “the day of hearing is like the day of gathering bones,” if so,

“this one and that one”

should have been required

for the tannai to say.

Rather, infer from it: it is nonsense.

Here the Gemara returns to explain Rav Hisda’s resolution of the contradiction between the first clause and the end clause, when he said, “It is a dispute between tannaim”:

The Gemara asks:

And what dispute between tannaim

do we find concerning the night following the day of burial, whether he eats sacred offerings!?

And we explain:

As it was taught

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

Until when does he mourn for him

[for his dead relative; and he proceeds to explain whether this means the day on which he died or the day on which he was buried], so as to be prohibited with sacred offerings?

The entire day,

and according to its simple meaning this implies the entire day but not the evening following it.

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

But

with what are we dealing? If you say on the day of death,

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

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

at least

by rabbinic law? Is there anyone who disputes that on the night following the day of death he is prohibited from sacred offerings at least by rabbinic law? Yet you say that even the first tanna prohibited only the day and not the following night!?

And furthermore,

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

Rabbi says: As long as he has not been buried

he is prohibited;

once he buried him, he is permitted

[but once he has been buried, he is permitted to eat sacred offerings], even though the day of death has still not ended. But this cannot be said, for:

And is there anyone who does not have

[Amos 9]: “‘And I shall make her [the congregation of Israel] like the mourning for an only one [to mourn as one mourns for an only son],’”

“and its end like a bitter day”

[that is, the day of the death of an only son]? It follows that the aninut of the day of death is Torah-based and lasts an entire day; so how can we say that according to Rabbi he permits him once the dead person is buried within the day of death!?

And

Rav Sheshet said

to explain the beraita:

The beraita is not dealing with one whose relative died and was buried today, but

with the day of burial

that is not the day of death

it stands,

and regarding this the first tanna said that he is prohibited all day but not in the evening, while Rabbi is more lenient and permits him with sacred offerings after the burial.

And

Rav Yosef challenged

Rav Sheshet’s resolution: But concerning that which the beraita teaches:

One who hears about his dead, and one who gathers bones, immerses and eats sacred offerings in the evening,

and since it mentioned these two,

it follows that on the day of burial he does not eat even in the evening,

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

this

beraita, which prohibits sacred offerings on the night following the day of burial,

whose

opinion is it? For it agrees neither with this one nor with that one!?

Rather,

said Rav Yosef:

Explain it thus

[this is how you should explain the beraita]:

Until when does he mourn for him

on the day of burial?

All that 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

not on the day of death, he practices aninut throughout that day

without its night.

The Sages said before Rabbi Yirmeya

[they told Rabbi Yirmeya Rav Yosef’s interpretation of the dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis],

he said,

Rabbi Yirmeya expressed astonishment at this:

Would a great man like Rav Yosef say this

[would a great man like Rav Yosef say such things]!?

Does this mean that Rabbi is lenient,

and that Rabbi comes to be lenient over the words of 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, the words of Rabbi.

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

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

Thus, Rabbi came to be stringent, and not as Rav Yosef explained. However, it is impossible to explain their dispute in the manner that appears from the baraita, because if so, according to the Sages, a person would be permitted to eat sacrificial food while his dead relative lies before him, and that is impossible,

but rather, explain it as follows:

Until when does he mourn over him

on the day of burial,

the entire day but not its night.

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

meaning, regardless of when the burial takes place—even if it is ten days after the death—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,

they presented to Rava the explanation that had been given of the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages, and those who presented it challenged that explanation:

Since Rabbi says: The day of burial,

whose prohibition itself is only rabbinic,

includes

also

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

whose prohibition itself is required by Torah law,

includes

its

night by Torah law.

For if you say that the Torah prohibited only the day of death and did not strengthen its prohibition by also prohibiting the following night, it would not be logical for the Sages to strengthen their prohibition of the day of burial by also prohibiting the following night. The difficulty would then be:

But

if

Rabbi maintains that the acute mourning of the night

following the day of death is prohibited

by Torah law, is that so? And it is taught in a baraita:

The account in Parashat Shemini states that on the first day of the month 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, rather than eating 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.

Aaron’s wording in his reply to Moses, who had challenged them for burning the sin-offering, was: “Today they brought their sin-offering and their burnt-offering before the Lord, and such things as these have happened to me; had I eaten the sin-offering today, would it have been pleasing in the eyes of the Lord?” That is: We are acute mourners, and we could not eat it during the day; and by the time we came to eat it, it had become impure.

And Rabbi Judah explains: “

These

sacrifices that we brought

today,”

but

I

am prohibited from eating today, but permitted at night.

That is, only with regard to these sacrifices are we prohibited from eating them during the day because of our acute mourning, whereas at night we are permitted to eat them, since if we do not eat them, who will eat them?

But

for all subsequent generations,

both during the day and at night, an acute mourner is prohibited from eating sacrificial food.

These are the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi’s opinion:

Rabbi says: The acute mourning of the night,

even of the night following the day of death,

is not a Torah requirement, but a rabbinic requirement.

It is therefore clear that according to Rabbi, the Torah did not strengthen its prohibition of the day of death by extending it to the night. How, then, did the Sages strengthen their prohibition of the day of burial more than the Torah strengthened its own prohibition!?

And we answer:

Actually,

Rabbi maintains that even the acute mourning of the night following the day of death

is rabbinic

and not required by Torah law;

it is.