Zevachim 101a — the Talmud in English

And

it is not difficult. For

the Sages strengthened their words

when they prohibited the day of burial,

more than the Torah.

That is, more than the Torah strengthened its words when it prohibited the day of death; and although the Torah did not strengthen its words to prohibit the following night, the Sages strengthened their words and prohibited even the night.

It is written concerning the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle [which was on the first day of Nisan, and it was the first day of the offerings of the princes, and on it Nahshon son of Amminadab, the prince of Judah, offered his offering, as explained in the portion of Naso]: “

And it came to pass on the eighth day that Moses called Aaron, and said to Aaron: And to the children of Israel you shall speak, saying: Take a he-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, Nadab and Abihu, took each man 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 spoke to Aaron and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his remaining sons, saying: Take the meal-offering remaining from the fire-offerings of the Lord, and eat it unleavened in a holy place, for it is your portion and your sons’ portion from the fire-offerings of the Lord, for thus I was commanded [the letter tsadi with a shuruk]. And the breast of the waving and the thigh of the offering [from the calf and the ram of the peace-offerings] you shall eat in a pure place. The thigh of the offering and the breast of the waving they shall bring upon the fire-offerings of the fats, to wave it as a waving before the Lord, and it shall be for you and for your sons with you as an eternal portion, as the Lord commanded.”

And concerning the he-goat of the sin-offering [as is explained in our sugya, the reference is to the sin-offering of the New Moon, which is sanctity for generations, in contrast to the offerings of the eighth day and of the princes, which are sanctity for the hour], Moses thoroughly inquired, and behold, it had been burned; and he became angry with Eleazar and with Ithamar, the remaining sons of Aaron, saying: Why did you not eat the sin-offering in the holy place? Behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary; you shall surely eat it in the holy place [you should have eaten it in the holy place], as I commanded [with a hiriq beneath the tsadi]. And Aaron spoke to Moses: Behold, today they offered their sin-offering and their burnt-offering before the Lord, and such things befell me, and 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 of the eighth day of the inauguration, that he had been so commanded:

a. “

For thus I was commanded.”

b. “

As I commanded.”

c. “

As the Lord commanded.”

And this is their interpretation:

a. “And you shall eat it [the meal-offering]

for thus I was commanded,”

that

they should eat it in mourning.

b. “You shall surely eat it [the sin-offering that was burned]

as I commanded”—

at the time of the act,

when their mourning occurred,

he said to them

that they should not refrain from eating sacred offerings today, because he had heard from the Almighty that the mourning of that day differs from mourning on other days. And when he saw that it had been burned, he said to them, “You shall surely eat it,” meaning: you should have eaten it as I commanded you at the time of the act.

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

as the Lord commanded.”

Not on my own authority [

on my own initiative]

do I say

that they should eat them in mourning.

And we raise a contradiction,

an apparent contradiction to what we learned in the beraita that eating in mourning was permitted to them, from a beraita in which we learned:

Because of mourning,

as they were prevented from eating it,

they burned it,

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

for this reason it is said

in Aaron’s reply to Moses’ demand concerning the burning: “And such things befell me

like these;

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 proven that Moses had not heard a permission for mourning. For if so, he would not have agreed!?

Samuel said: It is not difficult:

For

this

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

is Rabbi Nehemiah’s

opinion.

This

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

is the opinion of Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon

.

As it was taught: Because of mourning they burned it; for this reason it is said “

And such things befell me

like these,”

the words of Rabbi Nehemiah.

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon say: Because of impurity

that had become impure,

it was burned,

the sin-offering,

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

the three sin-offering he-goats that were offered on that day, as explained in the Gemara below,

burned them.

Alternatively:

If because of mourning, why did they burn it?

They should have eaten them in the evening.

Alternatively:

If because of mourning, why did they burn it?

But Pinchas

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

was with them,

and he should have eaten it.

Rava said

to resolve the contradiction between the beraitot: In truth,

both this and that are Rabbi Nehemiah’s

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

and it is not difficult: here,

where mourning was permitted to them,

in

the meal-offering which is

sanctity for the hour,

with which they were not commanded for generations.

Here,

the sin-offering that they burned,

is sanctity for generations;

it is the sin-offering of the New Moon, concerning which they were commanded for generations, and with sanctity for generations their mourning was not permitted.

That is, Moses had indeed heard a permission for mourning, but he had heard it only concerning sanctity for the hour. And because Moses erred in equating sanctity for generations with sanctity for the hour, he also said concerning the sin-offering that was burned, which was sanctity for generations, “You shall surely eat it in the holy place as I commanded,” meaning, as I commanded you concerning sanctity for the hour, you should have done with the sin-offering of the New Moon, and Aaron again told him that a distinction must be made between sanctity for the hour and sanctity for generations, and Moses agreed with him.

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

How does Rabbi Nehemiah interpret these verses [

how does he interpret the verses] in which the exchange between Moses and Aaron is written?

And the Rabbis [

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon]

how do they interpret these verses?

Rabbi Nehemiah 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

of the sin-offering

inside [

into the Sanctuary], and it was thereby disqualified?

He said to him,

Aaron to Moses:

Behold, its blood was not brought

inside the holy place.

Moses again asked Aaron:

Perhaps outside its enclosure [

outside the courtyard, which is the enclosure of the sin-offering]

it went out

and was disqualified?

He said to him,

Aaron to Moses:

It was in the holy place

and did not go out.

Moses again asked Aaron:

And perhaps you offered it in mourning,

for the offering was not permitted to them,

and disqualified it?

He said to him,

Aaron to Moses:

Moses! And did they

my sons, who are not High Priests,

offer it!?

Surely

I,

who am a High Priest and am permitted to offer in mourning,

offered it,

for thus you commanded me to offer 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”!

And when Moses heard all these answers, he returned

and said to him,

Moses to Aaron:

Behold, its blood was not brought

inside the holy place,

and

also

it was in the holy place

and did not go out; therefore,

you shall surely eat it [

you should have eaten it]

as I commanded,

saying:

They should eat it in mourning.

He said to him,

Aaron to Moses: “

And such things befell me like these, 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 in mourning,

except with sanctity for the hour,

and not with sanctity for generations, such as the sin-offering he-goat of the New Moon that was burned,

for

behold,

if it is with sanctity for generations,

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

kal va-chomer

from

the tithe

second

which is lenient:

And just as concerning the lenient tithe the Torah said, “

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

I have not eaten of it in my mourning,”

how much more so sacred offering, which is stringent.

Immediately “

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

he admitted and was not ashamed to say “

I did not hear,”

but rather

he admitted and said, “

I heard and forgot.”

And how do Rabbi Judah 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 inside

and therefore you burned it?

He said to him,

Aaron to Moses:

Behold, its blood was not brought

inside the holy place.

Moses again asked Aaron:

Perhaps it went outside its enclosure,

and therefore it was burned?

He said to him,

Aaron to Moses:

It was in the holy place

and did not go out.

Moses again asked Aaron:

And perhaps you offered it in mourning, and disqualified it?

He said to him,

Aaron to Moses:

Moses!

And did

they offer it, such that mourning would disqualify them?

Surely

I offered it,

and I, who am a High Priest, am not disqualified through offering in mourning.

Moses again asked Aaron:

And perhaps because of your bitterness you were negligent with it and it became impure [

perhaps because of the bitterness you were negligent with the sin-offering and it became impure]?

He said to him,

Aaron to Moses:

Moses!

And could

I be such in your eyes that I would show contempt for sacred offerings?

Rather, “

And such things befell me like these,”

and even if such things and such things [

twice as much as what happened to me],

I would not show contempt for sacred offerings.

He said to him,

Moses to Aaron:

But if,

and since

its blood was not brought

inside the holy place,

and

also

it was in the holy place

and did not go out, therefore:

You shall surely eat it in the holy place [

you should have eaten it in the holy place]

as I commanded,

saying:

They should eat it in mourning.

He said to him,

Aaron to Moses:

Perhaps you did not hear,

to permit eating in mourning,

except at night, for if during the day

then

it is a kal va-chomer

from

the tithe

second

which is lenient:

And just as concerning the lenient tithe the Torah said, “

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

I have not eaten of it in my mourning,”

how much more so sacred offering, which is stringent.