Zevachim 101a (קא.) — the Talmud in English

And

this is not difficult. For

the Sages gave their words greater force

when they prohibited the day of burial

than did the Torah.

That is, they gave their words greater force than the Torah did when it prohibited the day of death. Although the Torah did not reinforce its prohibition to include the following night, the Sages reinforced theirs and prohibited even the night.

It is written concerning the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle [which was the first day of Nisan, and was the first day of the offerings of the princes; on that day Nahshon ben Aminadav, prince of Judah, offered his sacrifice, as explained in Parashat Naso]: "

And it was on the eighth day that Moses summoned Aaron, and he said to Aaron: And speak to the Children of Israel, saying: Take a goat for a sin-offering, and a calf and a ram for peace-offerings, to sacrifice before the Lord, and a meal-offering mixed with oil, for today the Lord appears to you. And the sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, each took his fire pan [on that day]. And a fire went forth from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.

And Moses said to Aaron and to Eleazar and to Itamar, his remaining sons: Take the meal-offering that remains from the offerings of the Lord, and eat it unleavened beside the altar, for it is your portion and your sons’ portion from the offerings of the Lord, for so I have been commanded [the letter tsadi with a shuruk]. And the breast of the waving and the thigh of the teruma [from the ox and the ram of the peace-offerings] you shall eat in a pure place. The thigh of the teruma and the breast of the waving they shall bring with the offerings of the fats, to wave it as a waving before the Lord; and it shall be yours and your sons’ with you as an eternal portion, as the Lord has commanded.

And concerning the goat of the sin-offering [as is explained in our sugya, the reference is to the sin-offering goat of the New Moon, which is kodshei dorot, offerings mandated for all generations, unlike the offerings of the eighth day and of the princes, which are kodshei sha'a, offerings mandated for that occasion], Moses thoroughly investigated, and behold, it had been burned. And he became angry with Eleazar and Itamar, the remaining sons of Aaron, saying: Why did you not eat the sin-offering in the sacred place? Since its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary, you should certainly have eaten it in the sacred place [you should have eaten it in the sacred place], as I commanded [with a hiriq beneath the tsadi]. And Aaron said to Moses: Behold, today they brought their sin-offering and their burnt-offering before the Lord, and such things have befallen me; had I eaten the sin-offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord? And Moses heard, and it was good in his eyes."

The Sages taught:

Moses mentioned three times, in that passage concerning the eighth day of the inauguration, that he had been so commanded:

1. "

For so I have been commanded."

2. "

As I have been commanded."

3. "

As the Lord has commanded."

And this is their interpretation:

1. “And eat it [the meal-offering]

for so I have been commanded”

—that

they should eat it while in acute mourning.

2. “You shall certainly eat it [the sin-offering that was burned]

as I have been commanded”—

at the time of the act,

when their acute mourning occurred,

he told them

not to refrain from eating consecrated food that day, because he had heard from the Almighty that acute mourning on that day differed from that on all other days. And when he saw that it had been burned, he said to them, “You shall certainly eat it,” meaning: You should have eaten it as I commanded you at the time of the act.

3. “And the breast of the waving and the thigh of the teruma you shall eat in a pure place

as the Lord has commanded.”

It is not on my own authority [

of my own accord]

that I say

that they may eat them while in acute mourning.

And we raise a contradiction,

an apparent contradiction to what we learned in the beraita, that they were permitted to eat while in acute mourning, from another beraita that we learned:

Because of acute mourning,

as they were prevented from eating it,

they burned it,

the sin-offering of the eighth day of the inauguration;

therefore it is stated

in Aaron’s response to Moses’ demand concerning its being burned: “And such things have befallen me,”

such things,

“and had I eaten the sin-offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord?” And from Moses’ agreement with him, as it is stated: “And Moses heard, and it was good in his eyes,” it is evident that Moses had not heard that acute mourning was permitted; for if so, he would not have agreed with him!?

Shmuel said: This is not difficult:

For

this

beraita, in which we learned that they burned it because of acute mourning,

is the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya

.

This

beraita, in which we learned that acute mourning was permitted to them,

is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon

.

As it was taught: “Because of acute mourning they burned it; therefore it is stated”

“And such things have befallen me,”

such things,

the words of Rabbi Neḥemya.

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon say: It was burned because of ritual impurity

that had rendered it impure;

the sin-offering was burned,

the sin-offering,

for if you say that it was burned because of acute mourning, all three of them should have

—all three sin-offering goats that were sacrificed that day, as the Gemara will explain below—

been burned.

Alternatively:

If it was because of acute mourning, why did they burn it?

They should have eaten it in the evening.

Alternatively:

If it was because of acute mourning, why did they burn it?

But Pinḥas

son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, who was not in acute mourning over his uncles,

was with them,

and he should have eaten it.

Rava said

to resolve the contradiction between the beraitot: In fact,

both this and that are the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya,

who holds that they burned the sin-offering because of acute mourning,

and it is not difficult: Here,

where acute mourning was permitted to them, it was

in the

meal-offering, which was

an offering mandated for that occasion,

as they were not commanded concerning it for all generations.

Here,

the sin-offering that they burned was

an offering mandated for all generations:

it was the New Moon sin-offering, concerning which they were commanded for all generations, and with regard to offerings mandated for all generations, acute mourning was not permitted to them.

That is, Moses had indeed heard that acute mourning was permitted, but he had heard it only with regard to offerings mandated for that occasion. Because Moses mistakenly equated offerings mandated for all generations with offerings mandated for that occasion, he also told them concerning the sin-offering that was burned—which was an offering mandated for all generations—“You shall certainly eat it in the sacred place, as I have commanded,” meaning, as I commanded you concerning offerings mandated for that occasion; you should have done the same with the New Moon sin-offering, and Aaron again told him that a distinction must be made between offerings mandated for that occasion and offerings mandated for all generations, and Moses agreed with him.

The Gemara explains the exchange between Moses and Aaron according to the two positions mentioned:

How does Rabbi Neḥemya interpret these verses

[how does he interpret the passages] in which the exchange between Moses and Aaron is recorded?

And how do the Sages

[Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon]

interpret these verses?

Rabbi Neḥemya interprets them as follows:

Moses asked Aaron and his sons:

“Why did you not eat the sin-offering!?”

And he further

said to Aaron:

“Perhaps its blood entered

the sin-offering’s

inner area

[the Sanctuary], and it was thereby rendered unfit?”

He said to him,

Aaron said to Moses:

“Its blood was not brought

inside the sacred area.

Moses again asked Aaron:

“Perhaps it left its designated boundary

[outside the courtyard, which is the boundary of the sin-offering],

and went out

and was thereby rendered unfit?”

He said to him,

Aaron said to Moses:

“It was in the sacred area

and did not leave it.”

Moses again asked Aaron:

“And perhaps you brought it while in acute mourning,

as bringing the offering was not permitted to them,

and rendered it unfit?”

He said to him,

Aaron said to Moses:

“Moses! Could they

—my sons, who are not High Priests—

have brought it!?

It was

I,

who am a High Priest and am permitted to bring an offering while in acute mourning,

who brought it,

for you commanded me to bring it, as it is written at the beginning of the passage: “Draw near to the altar and perform your sin-offering and your burnt-offering!”

When Moses heard all these answers, he again

said to him,

Moses said to Aaron:

“Its blood was not brought

inside the sacred area,

and

it was also

in the sacred area

and did not leave it; therefore,

you should certainly eat it

[you should have eaten it]

as I commanded

saying:

They should eat it while in acute mourning.”

He said to him,

Aaron said to Moses: “

Such things have befallen me, and had I eaten the sin-offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord!?”

And

behold,

perhaps you did not hear

that they should eat it while in acute mourning,

except with offerings mandated for that occasion,

but not with offerings mandated for all generations, such as the New Moon sin-offering that was burned;

For

behold,

if it concerned offerings mandated for all generations,

it is certainly reasonable that the Lord did not permit it to you, because it is a

kal va-chomer

from

the second tithe,

which is

less stringent:

And if concerning the less stringent second tithe the Torah said, “

And if concerning the less sacred second tithe the Torah said: "

I have not eaten from it while in my acute mourning,”

should it not certainly be so with the more stringent consecrated food?

Immediately, “

And Moses heard, and it was good in his eyes,”

he acknowledged and was not embarrassed to say, “

I did not hear it”;

rather,

he acknowledged and said, “

I heard and forgot.”

And how do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon interpret these verses?

They interpret them as follows:

Moses asked Aaron and his sons:

“Why did you not eat the sin-offering? Perhaps its blood entered the inner area

and that is why you burned it?”

He said to him,

Aaron said to Moses:

“Its blood was not brought

inside the sacred area.”

Moses again asked Aaron:

“Perhaps you left its designated boundary,

and therefore it was burned?”

He said to him,

Aaron said to Moses:

“It was in the sacred area

and did not leave it.”

Moses again asked Aaron:

“And perhaps you brought it while in acute mourning, and rendered it unfit?”

He said to him,

Aaron said to Moses:

“Moses!

Could it be that

they brought it, so that acute mourning would render them unfit?

It was

I who brought it,

and since I am a High Priest, acute mourning does not render me unfit when bringing an offering.”

Moses again asked Aaron:

“And perhaps, because of your bitterness, you were negligent with it and it became impure”

[perhaps, because of your distress, you were negligent with the sin-offering and it became impure]?

He said to him,

Aaron said to Moses:

“Moses!

Could it be that

I appear to you as one who treats sacred offerings contemptuously?

Rather, “

such things have befallen me”;

even if such things and such things

[twice as much as what happened to me]

had befallen me, I would not treat sacred offerings contemptuously.

Moses said to Aaron:

Moses said to Aaron:

“And if so,

since

its blood was not brought

inside the sacred area,

and

it was also

in the sacred area

and did not leave it, therefore:

“You should certainly eat it in the sacred place

[you should have eaten it in the sacred place]

as I commanded

saying:

They should eat it while in acute mourning.”

He said to him,

Aaron said to Moses:

“Perhaps you did not hear,

to permit eating while in acute mourning,

except at night; for if it is during the day

then

it is a kal va-chomer

from

the second tithe,

which is

less stringent:

And if concerning the less stringent second tithe the Torah said, “

And if concerning the less sacred second tithe the Torah said: "

I have not eaten from it while in my acute mourning,”

should it not certainly be so with the more stringent consecrated food?