Zevachim 101b (קא:) — the Talmud in English

Immediately "

And Moses heard

and it was pleasing in his eyes."

Moses was not embarrassed to say "

I have not heard,"

but

he acknowledged and said: "

I heard, but I forgot."

And we raise a difficulty: Since Aaron said only that they were forbidden during the day because of aninut, if so,

they should have left it until evening and eaten it at night [

Aaron and his sons should have waited until evening and then eaten the sin-offering]!?

And we answer:

Impurity came upon them through circumstances beyond their control

before they had time to eat it in the evening, as Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon said: "It was burned because of impurity."

And we raise a difficulty:

Granted, according to the Rabbis [

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon],

this is what is meant by what is written: "

And I ate the sin-offering

today,"

meaning: Was aninut permitted even during the day?

But according to Rabbi Neḥemya, what is meant by "

today"?

After all, they were also forbidden to eat it at night, for otherwise it would not have been burned!?

And we answer:

The obligation of the day,

meaning, this is what Aaron said to him: Can I eat the sin-offering that is the obligation of the day, namely, the goat of the New Moon? After all, it is an offering sanctified for all generations, and aninut was not permitted in its case.

And we raise a difficulty:

Granted, according to Rabbi Neḥemya,

whose claim was that aninut was not permitted in the case of the obligation of the day,

this is what is meant by what is written: "

Behold, today

they have offered ... and I ate the sin-offering today; would it have been pleasing in the eyes of the Lord?" Meaning: This sin-offering was offered as the obligation of the day; can I eat it, seeing that it is an offering sanctified for all generations?

But according to the Rabbis [

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon],

what is meant by "

Behold, today"?

And we answer:

This is what he said: "

And did

they offer it?

Rather,

I offered it."

The Master said:

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon say: It was burned because of impurity, for if you say that it was burned because of aninut,

all three of them should have burned their offerings.

And the Gemara discusses this:

What is meant by “all three of them”?

And it explains: As

it was taught:

It is written: "

And Moses thoroughly inquired about the goat of the sin-offering

and behold, it had been burned." The verse is explained as follows: "

The goat":

This is the goat

of the sin-offering

of Nahshon,

who was the first of the tribal leaders to offer a sacrifice, and whose offering included a sin-offering goat. "

The sin-offering":

This is the sin-offering of the eighth day. "

Moses thoroughly inquired":

This is the goat

of the sin-offering

of the New Moon.

Could it be that all three were burned? The verse states

in the singular: "

And behold, it had been burned."

We have therefore learned:

One was burned, but all three were not burned. "

Thoroughly inquired":

Why are there two inquiries?

He said to them,

Moses said to Aaron and his sons:

Why was this sin-offering,

the one of the New Moon,

burned, whereas these [

the other two sin-offerings]

are lying there? The two inquiries were: a. Why was this one burned? b. Why are the others lying there, and why are you not eating them?

The beraita further explains:

And I do not know which one is

the sin-offering about which the verse says, "and behold, it had been burned."

When it says: "

And He gave it to you to bear the iniquity of the assembly,"

we have learned:

Which one bears the iniquity of the assembly? You must say: This is the goat of the New Moon,

for it atones for the assembly for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings.

Here the Gemara returns to the discussion between Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon, and raises a difficulty:

Indeed,

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon have argued well

against Rabbi Neḥemya: How can you say that it was burned because of aninut? If so, how does the sin-offering of the New Moon, which was burned, differ from the other sin-offerings, which were not burned!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Neḥemya follows his own reasoning, as he says: aninut does not disqualify offerings sanctified for a limited time,

and the other sin-offerings were offerings sanctified for a limited time; therefore, they were not burned.

The beraita further explains the give-and-take between Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Neḥemya:

The Master said:

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon say: It was burned because of impurity, for if you say that it was burned because of aninut,

they should have eaten it in the evening.

And we raise a difficulty:

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon have argued well

against Rabbi Neḥemya!?

And we answer:

He holds

that Rabbi Neḥemya maintains that even

the aninut of the night is from the Torah,

and leaving it until evening would therefore not help. We learned further in the beraita:

Alternatively,

this is what Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Neḥemya: If you say that it was burned because of aninut,

but Pinḥas was with them,

and he could have eaten it without aninut:

And we raise a difficulty:

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon have argued well

against Rabbi Neḥemya!?

And we answer:

He holds

Rabbi Neḥemya,

in accordance with that which Rabbi Ila'i said!

For Rabbi Ila'i said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Pinḥas did not become a koen until he killed Zimri.

As it is written [

Numbers 25]: "

And it shall be for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood."

This implies that from that point onward he was a koen.

Rav Ashi said:

Pinḥas did not become a koen

until he made peace between the tribes,

after they had nearly gone to war with one another, when the children of Gad and the children of Reuben built an altar beside the Jordan.

As it is stated [

Joshua 22]: "

And Pinḥas the koen and the princes of the assembly and the heads of the thousands of Israel

who were with him heard the words spoken by the children of Reuben, the children of Gad, and the children of Manasseh, and it was pleasing in their eyes."

Until this point, we do not find the priesthood attributed to Pinḥas himself, but only "Pinḥas, son of Elazar, son of Aaron the koen"; the verse attributes the priesthood to Aaron, not to Pinḥas.

And we raise a difficulty:

But the other one,

Rav Ashi,

also, is it not written: "

And it shall be for him and for his descendants after him"?

This shows that he became a koen through the incident involving Zimri, contrary to Rav Ashi's view that it was only when he made peace between the tribes!?

And we answer:

When that verse was written, "

and it shall be for him and for his descendants after him,"

it was written as a blessing,

meaning, He blessed him that the priesthood would not cease from his descendants, but he had not yet become a koen.

And we raise a difficulty:

But the other one,

Rabbi Ila'i in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina, who holds that Pinḥas became a koen when he killed Zimri,

also, is it not written: "

And Pinḥas the koen heard"?

This shows that he became a koen only when he made peace between the tribes!?

And we answer:

That

verse, "And Pinḥas the koen heard,"

came to establish the status of his descendants after him,

meaning, he became a koen from the time of Moses, and when he made peace, he was accorded recognition as a koen and his descendants were established in the ranks of the priesthood, to be kohanim gedolim, for so we find that the kohanim gedolim were descended only from Pinḥas.

Rav said: Moses our teacher was a koen gadol, and he received a portion of the sacred offerings of Heaven [

he took a portion of the sacred offerings],

as it is stated

regarding the inauguration offerings [Leviticus 8]: "And he brought the second ram, the ram of the inauguration. And Moses took the breast and waved it as a wave-offering before the Lord

; from the ram of the inauguration it became Moses' portion,"

and the word "portion" indicates division, as with the kohanim.

The Gemara raises an objection

from the beraita that we learned above on page 101a: "For if you say that it was burned because of aninut

; but Pinḥas was with them,"

and he could have eaten the sin-offering on the eighth day of the inauguration,

And if it is so,

according to Rav's statement that Moses our teacher was a koen and fit to eat sacred offerings,

let us say: "

But Moses our teacher was with them,"

so that he could eat the sin-offering; why, then, was it burned!?

And we answer:

Perhaps Moses is different,

as he could not eat because

he was occupied with the Divine Presence,

being on the mountain from morning until evening.

For the Master said: Moses ascended early in the morning

to the mountain during the days of the giving of the Torah,

and he descended early in the morning

to sanctify the people and to bring the people's words back to the Lord, as explained in the portion of Yitro; thus Moses was occupied.

The Gemara raises an objection

from that which was taught: It is written concerning one with a physical defect [Leviticus 21:22]: "

The bread of his God, from the most sacred offerings and from the sacred offerings he may eat."

If the most sacred offerings are stated, why are the less sacred offerings stated? And if the less sacred offerings are stated, why are the most sacred offerings stated?

That is, why did the verse need to specify both, rather than say only, "From the sacred offerings he may eat"?

If it had not been stated

that one with a physical defect may eat

less sacred offerings, I would say that only the most sacred offerings

may be eaten by him,

that he may eat,

one with a physical defect,

since the most sacred offerings were permitted

to

a non-koen,

as will be explained,

and therefore they were also permitted

to them [

those with physical defects]. But

less sacred offerings,

for which we find no permission for non-kohanim,

he may not eat.

And if it had not been stated that the most sacred offerings

may be eaten by one with a physical defect,

I would say that he may eat less sacred offerings, since they are less stringent,

but

he may not eat the most sacred offerings.

Therefore the most sacred offerings are stated, and therefore the less sacred offerings are stated.

In any event, it is taught

in the beraita:

since they were permitted,

the most sacred offerings

to a non-koen and to them,

and

what is meant by “a non-koen”?

Where do we find that the most sacred offerings were permitted to a non-koen? Is it not

rather

that this was

Moses,

to whom it was permitted during the days of the inauguration to eat the breast of the ram of the inauguration, which was among the most sacred offerings!? If so, it is explicit that Moses was a non-koen, contrary to Rav's statement that he was a koen!?

He said

in reply,

Rav Sheshet: No,

not as you explained, that the most sacred offerings were permitted to a non-koen during the inauguration. Rather, the most sacred offerings were permitted to a non-koen

at a private altar,

during the period when private altars were permitted, for at a private altar non-kohanim officiate and eat

and

this beraita follows

the view of the one who says that there is a meal-offering at a private altar,

and non-kohanim eat it. For if it followed the view that says, "There is no meal-offering at a private altar," then no most sacred offering would be found that could be eaten at a private altar, since sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, which are eaten by kohanim in the Temple, are universally not offered at a private altar, as will be explained below on page 117b.

The Gemara raises an objection

to Rav, who holds that Moses our teacher was a koen, from that which was taught:

When a person developed a leprous affliction on his skin, he was brought to the koen so that he could determine whether the affliction was impure. The koen alone determined and declared him a leper. At times the koen quarantined the leper for seven days to observe the development of the affliction, and afterward either released him or declared him a leper. Likewise, once the leprous affliction had healed, the koen alone purified him.

It is written [Numbers 12]: "And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses concerning the Cushite woman whom he had taken. And the cloud departed from the Tent, and behold, Miriam was leprous, like snow. And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous."

Miriam,

when she became leprous,

who quarantined her?

If you say: Moses quarantined her,

that is impossible, for

Moses was a non-koen.