Zevachim 102a (קב.) — the Talmud in English

And no non-koen may inspect the afflictions.

And if you say that it was Aaron,

the koen, who

confined her,

this too cannot be said, for

Aaron was a relative who

was Miriam’s brother,

and a relative may not inspect the afflictions.

and a relative does not examine the afflictions.

Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, accorded Miriam great honor at that time!

He said,

the Holy One, blessed be He:

I am a koen, and I will confine her; I will declare her definitively impure, and I will release her.

In any event, it teaches

in the beraita:

Moses was a non-koen,

he

and no non-koen may inspect the afflictions;

but this presents a difficulty to Rav, who holds that Moses was a koen.

Rav

answered,

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Inspection of afflictions is different, since Aaron and his sons are written in the passage

concerning the metzora, as it is stated [Leviticus 13:2]: “When a person has on the skin of his flesh a swelling, a rash, or a bright spot, and it becomes on the skin of his flesh a plague of leprosy, he shall be brought to Aaron the koen or to one of his sons, the kohanim.” Thus, with regard to the metzora, the Torah required Aaron and his sons, but not Moses, even though he was a koen.

Meytivi

to Rav, who holds that Moses was the High Koen, from that which was taught:

Elisheva,

daughter of Amminadav, sister of Naḥshon, who was Aaron’s wife, had

five joys more than the daughters of Israel

on the day the Tabernacle was erected,

and one mourning:

a.

Her brother-in-law,

Moses, who was her husband’s brother, was

king.

b.

Her husband,

Aaron, was

High Koen.

c.

Her son,

Elazar, was

deputy

High Koen.

d.

Her grandson,

Pinhas son of Elazar, was

anointed for war,

as we find concerning the war against Midian [Numbers 31:6]: “And Moses sent them, a thousand from each tribe, to the army, them and Pinhas son of Elazar the koen, to the army ... .”

e.

And her brother,

Naḥshon, was

the prince of the tribe

of Judah.

And she mourned

for

her two sons,

Nadav and Avihu, who died on that same day.

In any event, it teaches

in the beraita with regard to Moses:

Her brother-in-law was king.

And it implies:

King, yes,

indeed, he was a king, but

High Koen, no,

he was not; this presents a difficulty to Rav, who holds that Moses our teacher was a High Koen!?

And we answer:

Say

with regard to Moses: He was her brother-in-law and

also a king,

in addition to being a High Koen.

The Gemara explains that Rav’s statement

is subject to a dispute between tannaim,

as it was taught:

It is written [Exodus 4], when the Holy One, blessed be He, appeared to Moses from the burning bush and instructed him to go and take the Children of Israel out of Egypt: “

Moses answered and said: But they will not believe me and will not heed my voice. And Moses said to the Lord: Please, my Lord, I am not a man of words. And he said: Please, my Lord, send now by the hand of whomever You will send.

And the anger of the Lord

burned against Moses,

and He said: Is there not Aaron your brother, the Levite? I know that he can certainly speak, and moreover, he is coming out to meet you; when he sees you, he will rejoice in his heart. And you shall speak to him and place the words in his mouth.”

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Koraḥa says: Every instance of anger in the Torah is stated with an indication,

that is, some sign of anger accompanies it—sometimes striking, sometimes reprimand, and sometimes cursing and abuse—

But

if

this, “And the anger of the Lord burned against Moses,”

“And the anger of the Lord burned against Moses,”

no indication

of any kind of

sign

is stated in it.

Rather,

it is stated: “And the anger of the Lord burned against Moses, and He said:

Is there not Aaron your brother, the Levite?”

But

is Aaron not

a Levite?

He is a koen,

not a Levite.

Rather, this is what He said to him,

the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses:

I had said,

I had intended that

you be a koen and

that

he

(Aaron)

be a Levite; now,

because you answered Me as you did,

he,

Aaron, shall be

a koen, and

that

you be a Levite;

and this is the indication.

And the Sages say:

Moses was never deprived of the kehunah, and

Moses served as a koen only during the seven days of the inauguration,

when he served as High Koen.

And some say:

Moses was deprived of the kehunah, but it was not taken from him in order to give it to Aaron; rather,

the kehunah was removed only from Moses’ descendants

alone,

as it is stated

(I Chronicles 23): “The Levites were counted, and David divided them into divisions: The sons of Kehat: Amram and Izhar. The sons of Amram: Aaron and Moses.

And Moses, the man of God—his sons shall be called after the tribe of Levi,”

indicating that only his sons were Levites, whereas he himself was a koen.

And it says

(and another verse in Psalms 99 indicates this): “

Moses and Aaron among His kohanim, and Samuel among those who invoke His Name,”

indicating that Moses himself was a koen.

Thus, tannaim disputed whether Moses our teacher remained High Koen even after the seven days of the inauguration.

The Gemara returns to explain the beraita and asks:

What is the meaning of

“And it says”,

that is, why was it necessary to bring an additional proof?

And we explain:

And if you would say that that

verse, “And Moses, the man of God—his sons shall be called after the tribe of Levi,”

was written for future generations,

that is, this verse was written later, when the kohanim and Levites were being classified, and at that time Moses was no longer alive; therefore, the verse refers only to his sons, to classify them as belonging to the tribe of Levi—

for that reason it says:

“And it says”,

“Moses and Aaron among His kohanim”,

and we learn that Moses himself was a High Koen like Aaron.

And

we challenge what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Koraḥa said: Every instance of anger in the Torah is stated with an indication:

And

is it true

that every instance of anger in the Torah is stated with an indication? Is it not written

after Pharaoh said to Moses [Exodus 10:28]: “Go away from me; beware, do not see my face again, for on the day you see my face you shall die”: “

And he went out from Pharaoh in burning anger” [ibid. 11:8],

and

he did not say to him

Moses to Pharaoh

anything at all

(Moses added no reprimand or anything similar). Thus, not every instance of anger has an indication!?

He said,

in explanation,

Reish Lakish:

There was an indication even in this anger, for

he struck him

Moses struck Pharaoh

and went out.

and stand before him on the bank of the Nile.” And Reish Lakish explained:

And we challenge this:

Did Reish Lakish really say this,

that Moses struck King Pharaoh!?

Is it not written

(Exodus 7:14): “And the Lord said to Moses: Pharaoh’s heart is heavy; he has refused to send out the people. Go to Pharaoh in the morning; behold, he is going out to the water,

and stand opposite him on the bank of the Nile”—

And

explained

Reish Lakish: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: He is a king, so show him respect,

meaning “and stand opposite him”: in accordance with his greatness, prepare yourself to meet him.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He is a wicked man, so be bold before him,

meaning “and stand opposite him”: stand opposite him for battle and speak to him harshly.

If so, according to Reish Lakish’s own view, how could he say that Moses struck the face of the king!?

And we answer:

Reverse

the statements of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan. Reish Lakish is the one who said: He is a wicked man, so be bold before him; and according to his view he also said that Moses struck him and went out.

Rabbi Yannai said: The fear of the monarchy should always be upon you, as it is stated

(Exodus 11:8), concerning Moses when he warned Pharaoh about the plague of the firstborn: “

And all these servants of yours shall come down to me and bow to me, saying

‘Go out, you and all the people who follow you,’”

but he did not say this to him personally

(Moses did not mention Pharaoh himself among those who would come down to him).

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From here we learn that the fear of the monarchy should be upon you:

As it is stated

(I Kings 18): “

And the hand of the Lord

was upon Elijah, and he girded his loins and ran before Ahab”

—

who was riding on his horse—

until you come to Jezreel,”

and he did this out of respect for King Ahab, since it is not the way of kings to walk alone.

Ulla said: Moses sought royalty, but it was not granted to him, as it is written

(Exodus 3:4): “And the Lord saw that [Moses] turned aside to see, and God called to him from the bush and said: Moses, Moses; and he said: Here I am. And He said:

Do not come closer to here,”

and

“here”

means nothing other than royalty, as it is stated

(II Samuel 7:18):

“And King David came and sat before the Lord, and he said:

Who am I, Lord

God, and what is my house, that You have brought me to here?”

Rava objected

from that which was taught:

Rabbi Yishmael says: Her brother-in-law

—Elisheva’s—

was king;

thus Moses was a king!?

He said,

in explanation,

Rabba bar Ulla: It was with regard to him and his descendants

that he

said “Moses sought it but it was not granted to him”; Moses himself, however, was a king.

And we challenge this: If so, necessarily “here” means royalty for him and his descendants,

and

does

everywhere that “here” is written

mean for him and his descendants forever

for him and his descendants

!?

But concerning Saul, it is written

(I Samuel 10), when Samuel cast lots to determine who would be king: “The tribe of Benjamin was taken by lot. He brought the tribe of Benjamin near, and Saul son of Kish was taken by lot, but they searched for him and he was not found. They inquired further of the Lord:

Is there yet a man here

and the Lord said: Behold, he is hidden among the vessels,”

and

nevertheless

he, yes,

but

his descendants, no,

were not kings!?

And we answer in two ways:

If you wish, say:

There was Ish-boshet, Saul’s son, who was king.

And if you wish, say:

In fact, from the outset kingship was granted to Saul until the end of all generations, but

Saul is different, for even within him it did not endure

(even in his own person the kingship did not remain), because he brought this upon himself when he became presumptuous and his heart grew haughty.

And this is

in accordance with what Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina, for Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina:

When greatness is granted to a person, it is granted to him and to his descendants until the end of all generations, as it is stated

(Job 36:7): “

He does not withdraw His eyes from the righteous, and He sets kings upon the throne

and seats them forever, and they are exalted.”

But if he becomes presumptuous, the Holy One, blessed be He, humbles him, as it is stated

(in the following verse there in Job):

“He seats them forever, and they are exalted.

And if they are bound in fetters, they are caught in cords of affliction,”

that is, if they raise their hearts in pride, they will be judged through suffering and the bonds of poverty.

We learned in the Mishna:

Those with physical defects, whether those with

permanent defects or those with temporary defects, divide and eat:

The Gemara asks:

From where are these matters

that one with a physical defect may divide, even though he is unfit for the rite of purification, and the verse says: “The one who purifies it shall eat it”?

And we answer:

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the meal-offering [Leviticus 6:11]: “

Every male

among the sons of Aaron shall eat it”; therefore the verse says “every”

to include those with physical defects.

But

for what purpose,

with regard to what did the verse include them?

If it is to

permit them

to eat,

this cannot be said,

for it has already been stated

in the passage concerning those with physical defects [Leviticus 21:22]: “

The bread of his God, from the most holy offerings

and from the holy offerings

he may eat”;

so why do I need another verse?

Rather, it is to include them for division:

the verse included those with physical defects, so that they may divide sacred offerings like those without defects.

Another beraita was taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the sin-offering [Leviticus 6:22]: “

Every male

among the kohanim shall eat it”;

the verse comes to include

to include one with a physical defect.

those with physical defects.

For what purpose

did the verse include them?

If it is to

permit them

to eat, it has already been stated: “

The bread of his God, from the most holy offerings and from the holy offerings he may eat.”

If it is for division, it has already been stated

in the passage concerning the meal-offering: “Every male”; the verse comes to include them for division, as explained above.

Rather, to

include

one who had a physical defect from the outset

(one whose defect was congenital), the verse comes.

For it might have been thought

that one should say:

I have derived only that one who was unblemished and became blemished

eats and divides in sacred offerings, but

from where do I derive that

one who had a physical defect from the outset eats and divides? Therefore,

the verse states: “

Every male.”

Indeed, reverse it, and say: One might have thought that I know only one with a temporary physical defect; from where do we know that one with a permanent physical defect is included? Therefore, the verse states: “Every male.” Rav Ashi said: “Actually, do not reverse it; the verse is necessary to include one with a temporary physical defect for eating and sharing in sacred offerings, even though we already know that one with a permanent physical defect eats and shares in sacred offerings, because

Another beraita was taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the guilt-offering [Leviticus 7:6]: “

Every male

among the kohanim shall eat it,”

to include one with a physical defect.

For what purpose? If for eating, it has already been stated: “

The bread of his God, from the most holy offerings and from the holy offerings he may eat.”

And if for division, it has already been stated: “Every male”

in the passage concerning the meal-offering.

And if for one who had a physical defect from the outset, it has already been stated: “Every male”

in the passage concerning the sin-offering.

Rather, the verse had to include one with a physical defect because

it might have been thought

that one should say:

I have derived only that one with a permanent defect

eats and divides in sacred offerings, but

from where do I derive that

one with a temporary defect also eats and divides in sacred offerings? Therefore,

the verse states: “

Every male.”

And we are astonished:

How could that be!?

The opposite is more logical, for it is more reasonable to include one with a temporary defect than one with a permanent defect, whereas you say that, without this verse, I would have included only one with a permanent defect and not one with a temporary defect!?

Rav Sheshet said:

Indeed,

reverse

it, and say: It might have been thought: I have derived only one with a temporary defect; from where do I derive one with a permanent defect? The verse therefore states: “Every male.”

Rav Ashi said: In fact, do not reverse it, and the verse was necessary

to include one with a temporary defect for eating and division of sacred offerings, even though we already knew that one with a permanent defect eats and divides in sacred offerings, because

it might have entered your mind to say: