Zevachim 101b — the Talmud in English

Immediately "

And Moses heard"! ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

and it was good in his eyes."

Moses was not ashamed to say "

I did not hear,"

but

he acknowledged and said, "

I heard, and I forgot."

And we object: Since Aaron said only that during the day they were forbidden because of mourning, if so,

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

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

And we answer:

Impurity came upon them through circumstances beyond their control

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

And we object:

Granted, according to the Rabbis [

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon],

this is why it is written "

I ate the sin-offering

today,"

that is, was mourning even permitted during the day?

But according to Rabbi Nehemiah, what is "

today"?

For they are forbidden to eat even at night, since otherwise it would not have been burned!?

And we answer:

The obligation of the day,

that is, Aaron said to him as follows: Can I eat the sin-offering that is the obligation of the day, namely, the goat of the New Moon? But it is an offering sanctified for all generations, and mourning was not permitted with regard to it.

And we object:

Granted, according to Rabbi Nehemiah,

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

this is why it is written "

Behold, today

they offered ... and I ate the sin-offering today—would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord?" That is, this sin-offering, which was offered as the obligation of the day—could I eat it? But it is an offering sanctified for all generations.

But according to the Rabbis [

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon],

what is "

behold, today"?

And we answer:

This is what he said: "

And did

they offer?

But

I offered."

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 mourning,

all three of them should have burned it:

And the Gemara analyzes:

What does “all three of them” mean?

And it explains: As

it was taught:

It is written: "

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

and behold, it was burned." And the verse is explained as follows: "

The goat":

This is the goat

of the

sin-offering of Nahshon,

who was the first of the princes to offer, and among his offerings was 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 all three have been burned? The verse says

in the singular: "

And behold, it was burned."

We have thus learned:

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

Thoroughly inquired":

Two inquiries—why?

He said to them,

Moses to Aaron and his sons:

Why was this sin-offering,

of the New Moon,

burned, while these [

the other two sin-offerings]

are left?

These were the two inquiries: A. Why was this one burned? B. Why are the others left, and are you not eating them?

The beraita further explains:

And I do not know which one is the

sin-offering concerning which Scripture says, "And behold, it was 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 things.

Here the Gemara returns to the discussion between Rabbi Nehemiah and Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon, and raises an objection:

Behold,

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon have argued well against

Rabbi Nehemiah: How can you say that it was burned because of mourning? If so, in what is the law of the sin-offering of the New Moon, which was burned, different from that of the other sin-offerings, which were not burned!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Nehemiah follows his own view, for he says: Mourning does not invalidate offerings sanctified for a temporary occasion,

and the other sin-offerings are offerings sanctified for a temporary occasion; therefore they were not burned.

The beraita further explains the exchange between Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Nehemiah:

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 mourning,

they should have eaten it in the evening:

And we object:

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon have argued well against

Rabbi Nehemiah!?

And we answer:

He holds that

Rabbi Nehemiah considers even

mourning at night to be a Torah law,

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

Alternatively,

so Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Nehemiah: If you say that it was burned because of mourning,

but surely Phinehas was with them,

so that he could eat it without mourning:

And we object:

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon have argued well against

Rabbi Nehemiah!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Nehemiah agrees

with

that which Rabbi Ila’i said!

For Rabbi Ila’i said in the name of Rabbi Hanina: Phinehas 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 eternal priesthood."

This implies that from then onward he was a koen.

Rav Ashi said:

Phinehas 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 Phinehas the koen and the princes of the assembly and the heads of the thousands of Israel

who were with him heard the words that the children of Reuben, the children of Gad, and the children of Manasseh spoke, and it was good in their eyes."

And until this point we do not find the priesthood attributed to Phinehas himself, but only "Phinehas son of Eleazar son of Aaron the koen"; Scripture attributed the priesthood to Aaron, and not to Phinehas.

And we object:

But the other one,

Rav Ashi,

also—behold, it is written "

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

so he became a koen through the incident of Zimri, and not as Rav Ashi holds: until he made peace between the tribes!?

And we answer: And when

that verse was written, "

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

it was written as a blessing,

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

And we object:

But the other one,

Rabbi Ila’i in the name of Rabbi Hanina, who holds that Phinehas became a koen when he killed Zimri,

also—behold, it is written "

And Phinehas the koen heard."

Thus he became a koen only when he made peace between the tribes!?

And we answer:

That

verse, "And Phinehas the koen heard,"

came only to attribute his descendants after him,

that is, he became a koen from the days of Moses, and when he made peace, he was designated to be called a koen and to have his descendants attributed to him with the distinctions of the priesthood, to be kohanim gedolim; for so we find that there were no kohanim gedolim except from Phinehas.

Rav said: Moses our teacher was a koen gadol, and he shared in sacred offerings [

he took a portion of sacred offerings],

as it is stated

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

from the ram of the inaugurations it was Moses’ portion."

The wording "portion" implies a division like that of 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

The beraita raises an objection

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

but surely Phinehas was with them,"

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

let us say "

but surely Moses our teacher was with them,"

so that he could eat the sin-offering—and why was it burned!?

And we answer:

Perhaps Moses is different,

since 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

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

and descended early

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

The beraita 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 holy things and from the holy things he may eat."

If the most holy things were stated, why were the lesser holy things stated? And if the lesser holy things were stated, why were the most holy things stated?

That is, why did Scripture need to specify this, and not say merely, "From the holy things he may eat"?

If it had not been stated

that one with a physical defect eats

lesser holy things, I would say that only the most holy things

alone

may he eat,

one with a physical defect,

for they were permitted

the most holy things

to a non-koen,

as it explains and proceeds,

and

therefore they were also permitted

to them [

to those with physical defects]; but

lesser holy things,

for we do not find permission for non-kohanim with regard to them,

he may not eat.

And if the most holy things had not been stated,

that one with a physical defect eats them,

I would say: He may eat lesser holy things, for they are lesser,

but

with the most holy things he may not eat,

Therefore the most holy things were stated, and therefore the lesser holy things were stated.

At any rate, it teaches

in the beraita:

for they were permitted,

the most holy things,

to a non-koen and to them,

and behold,

what is a non-koen?

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

indeed

the case that this means

Moses,

to whom it was permitted during the days of the inauguration to eat the breast of the ram of the inaugurations, which was among the most holy things!? If so, it is explicit that Moses was a non-koen, and not a koen, contrary to Rav!?

He said

he answered,

Rav Sheshet: No,

not as you explained, that the most holy things were permitted to a non-koen during the inauguration, but that the most holy things were permitted to a non-koen

at a private altar,

during the time when private altars were permitted, for at a private altar non-kohanim serve and they eat,

and

this beraita is

according to the view of the one who says: There is a meal-offering at a private altar,

and non-kohanim eat it. For if it followed the view of the one who says, "There is no meal-offering at a private altar," you would not find most holy things eaten at a private altar, because sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, which are eaten by kohanim in the Temple, according to everyone are not offered at a private altar, as explained below, 117b.

The beraita raises an objection

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

A person on whose skin a leprous affliction appeared is brought to the koen, so that he may see whether the leprous affliction is impure. The koen alone determines and declares him a leper. Sometimes the koen confines the leper for seven days to observe the development of the affliction, and afterward releases him or declares him a leper. And likewise, once the leprous affliction of the leper has healed, the koen alone purifies 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 over 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 confined her?

If you say: Moses confined her,

it is impossible, for

Moses was a non-koen,