Zevachim 102a — the Talmud in English

And no non-kohen examines the afflictions.

And if you will say: Aaron

the

kohen

is the one who

confined her,

even so it is impossible to say this, for

Aaron was a relative of Miriam, since he was her brother,

and a relative does not examine the afflictions.

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

He said

the Holy One, blessed be He:

I am a kohen, and I confine her; I declare her definitively afflicted, and I release her.

In any event, it teaches

in the beraita:

Moses is a non-kohen,

he is,

and no non-kohen examines the afflictions;

and this is difficult for Rav, who holds: Moses was a kohen.

He said

he answered,

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak: The examination of afflictions is different, for Aaron and his sons are written in the passage

of the afflicted person, as it is said [Leviticus 13:2]: “When a person has on the skin of his flesh a swelling, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it becomes on the skin of his flesh a lesion of a skin affliction, he shall be brought to Aaron the kohen, or to one of his sons, the kohanim.” Thus, with regard to an afflicted person, the Torah required Aaron and his sons, and not Moses, even though he was a kohen.

He raised an objection

to Rav, who holds that Moses was kohen gadol, from that which was taught:

Elisheva had five joys

the daughter of Amminadav, the sister of Nahshon, who was Aaron’s wife,

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

a king.

b.

Her husband,

Aaron, was

kohen gadol.

c.

Her son,

Eleazar, was

deputy

kohen gadol.

d.

Her grandson,

Pinhas son of Eleazar, was

anointed for war,

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

e.

And her brother,

Nahshon, was

the prince of the tribe

of Judah.

And she mourned

over

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 a king.

And it implies:

A king, yes,

indeed, he was a king, but

a kohen gadol, no,

he was not; and this is difficult for Rav, who holds that Moses our master was kohen gadol!?

And we answer:

Say

with regard to Moses: Her brother-in-law was

also a king,

in addition to his being kohen gadol.

And the Gemara explains that Rav’s words

are [the subject of a dispute between] tannaim,

who disagreed about this matter, as it was taught:

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

And Moses answered and said: But they will not believe me and they 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 will surely speak, and moreover, behold, he is going out to meet you, and he will see you and rejoice in his heart. And you shall speak to him and place the words in his mouth.”

Rabbi Joshua ben Korha says: Every burning of anger in the Torah is stated with an impression,

that is, some sign of burning anger accompanies it—sometimes striking, sometimes rebuke, sometimes cursing and insult—

But

if

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

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: “Here too, a visible effect is stated, since

was not stated with

any

impression.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says: This too was stated with an impression, for

indeed it is

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

to Moses:

Is there not Aaron your brother, the Levite”;

but

Aaron

is a kohen,

not a Levite.

Rather, this is what He said to him

the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses:

I had said,

it had been My intention that

you be a kohen and

that

he

Aaron

be a Levite; now,

since you answered Me as you answered Me,

he,

Aaron, shall be

a kohen, and

that

you be a Levite;

and this is the impression.

And the Sages say:

Moses was never deprived of the priesthood, and

Moses was invested with the priesthood only for the seven days of the inauguration,

when he was serving as kohen gadol.

And some say:

Moses was deprived of the priesthood, but he was not deprived of it in order to give it to Aaron; rather,

the priesthood was deprived 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 Kohath: Amram and Izhar. The sons of Amram: Aaron and Moses.

And Moses, the man of God, his sons shall be called by the tribe of Levi”;

thus, only his sons were Levites, whereas he himself was a kohen.

And it says [and another verse in Psalms 99 indicates this]:

“

Moses and Aaron among His kohanim, and Samuel among those who call His name,”

thus Moses himself was a kohen.

It follows that tannaim disagreed about the matter, whether Moses our master was kohen gadol even after the seven days of the inauguration.

The Gemara returns to explain the beraita and asks:

What is

“And it says,”

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

And we explain:

And should you say that that

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

was written for generations,

that is, this verse was written later, when the kohanim and Levites were being traced genealogically; at that time Moses was already no longer alive, and the verse refers only to his sons, to identify them with the tribe of Levi—

for this reason it says:

“And it says,” “

Moses and Aaron among His kohanim,”

and we learn that Moses himself was kohen gadol like Aaron.

And

we raise a difficulty against what Rabbi Joshua ben Korha said: Every burning of anger in the Torah is stated with an impression:

And

is it so that

every burning of anger in the Torah is stated with an impression!? But it is written

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

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

and answered

and he did not say to him

Moses to Pharaoh

anything

[Moses did not add any rebuke or the like]; thus, not every burning of anger has an impression!?

He said

he answered,

Reish Lakish:

There was an impression even in this burning of 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 raise a difficulty against this:

And did Reish Lakish say this,

that Moses struck Pharaoh the king!?

But it is written [Exodus 7:14]: “And the Lord said to Moses: The heart of Pharaoh is heavy; he has refused to send out the people. Go to Pharaoh in the morning; behold, he is going out to the water,

If so, since Reish Lakish holds this position, how could he say that Moses struck the face of the king!?

and you shall stand to meet him on the bank of the Nile”—

And

Reish Lakish

explained: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: He is a king, and show him respect,

and this is [the meaning of] “and you shall stand to meet him”: In accordance with his greatness, prepare to meet him.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: He is wicked, and show boldness before him,

and this is [the meaning of] “and you shall stand to meet him”: You shall stand opposite him for battle and speak words of boldness.

If so, Reish Lakish according to his own view—how could he say that Moses struck the cheek of the king!?

And we answer:

Reverse

the statements of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yohanan. Reish Lakish is the one who said: He is wicked, and show boldness before him; and according to his view he also said that Moses struck him and went out.

Rabbi Yannai said: The fear of royalty 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 go down to me and bow to me, saying,”

“Go out, you and all the people who are at your feet,”

whereas concerning him he did not say it to him

[Moses did not mention Pharaoh himself among those who would come down to him].

Rabbi Yohanan said: From here

we learn that the fear of royalty should be upon you:

As it is stated [I Kings 18]: “

“The Lord saw that he had 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:

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 so for the honor of King Ahab, for it is not the way of kings to walk alone.

Ulla said: Moses sought kingship, but it was not given 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 within the bush and said: Moses, Moses; and he said: Here I am. And He said:

Do not come near here,”

and

“here”

means nothing other than kingship, as it is stated

[II Samuel 7:18]: “

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

Who am I, O Lord

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

Rava raised an objection

from that which was taught:

Rabbi Ishmael says: Her brother-in-law

of Elisheva

was a king;

thus Moses was a king!?

He said

he answered,

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

that he

said “Moses sought [kingship] and it was not given to him”; but Moses himself was a king.

[Translation continues: Moses himself was a king.]

And we raise a difficulty against this: If so, necessarily “here” signifies kingship for him and his descendants,

and

is it so that

everywhere that “here” is written

it means for him and his descendants

forever!?

But concerning Saul, for whom it is written

[I Samuel 10], when Samuel cast lots to determine who would be king: “And the tribe of Benjamin was taken by lot. And he brought the tribe of Benjamin near, and Saul son of Kish was taken by lot, and they sought him but he was not found. And they asked further of the Lord:

Is there still a man who has come 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-bosheth,

the son of Saul, who was king.

And if you wish, say:

In truth, at 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 was not maintained], because he brought this upon himself when he became presumptuous and his heart became haughty.

And

as Rabbi Eleazar said in the name of Rabbi Hanina, for Rabbi Eleazar said in the name of Rabbi Hanina:

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.”

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

[in the continuation of the passage in Job]: “

And He seats them forever, and they are exalted.

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

that is, if they raise their hearts, they will be judged through suffering and cords of poverty.

We learned in the Mishna:

Those with blemishes, whether those with blemishes

permanent or those with blemishes that pass, divide and eat:

The Gemara asks:

From where are these matters

that one with a blemish also divides, even though he is unfit for the ritual service, and the verse says, “The one who effects atonement for it shall eat it”?

And we answer:

For the Sages taught:

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

Every male

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

to include those with blemishes.

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 was already stated

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

The bread of his God, from the most holy things

and from the holy things

he shall eat”;

so why do I need another verse?

Rather, it is for division:

the verse included those with blemishes, so that they divide the sacred portions like those without blemishes.

Another [teaching] was taught:

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

Every male

among the kohanim shall eat it,”

to include

the verse

those with blemishes.

For what purpose

did the verse include them?

If it is to

permit them to

eat, it is already stated: “The bread of his God, from the most holy things and from the holy things he shall eat.”

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

If it is for division, it is already stated

in the passage of the meal-offering, “Every male,” and the verse came to include them for division, as explained above.

Rather, to

include

one with a blemish from the outset

[one with a blemish from birth] the verse came.

For one might have thought

I would say:

I have only one without a blemish who became one with a blemish

who eats and divides the sacred portions, but

from where do I know that one with a blemish from the outset

also eats and divides? Therefore

the verse says “

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 [teaching] was taught:

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

Every male

among the kohanim shall eat it,”

to include one with a blemish.

For what purpose? If for eating, it is already stated: “The bread of his God, from the most holy things and from the holy things he shall eat.”

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

And if for division, it is already stated:

“Every male” in the passage of the meal-offering.

And if for one with a blemish from the outset, it is already stated:

“Every male” in the passage of the sin-offering.

Rather, the verse was needed to include one with a blemish, because

one might have thought

I would say:

I have only one with a permanent blemish

who eats and divides the sacred portions, but

from where do I know that one with a passing blemish

also eats and divides the sacred portions? Therefore

the verse says “

Every male.”

And we wonder:

What is this direction!?

For the reverse is more logical: It is more reasonable to include one with a passing blemish than one with a permanent blemish, whereas you say that if this verse were not written, I would include only one with a permanent blemish and not one with a passing blemish!?

Rav Sheshet said:

Indeed,

reverse

it, and say: One might have thought: I have only one with a passing blemish; from where do I know one with a permanent blemish? The verse says, “Every male.”

Rav Ashi said: In truth, do not reverse it, and it was necessary

for the verse to include one with a passing blemish for eating and dividing the sacred portions, even though we already knew that one with a permanent blemish eats and divides the sacred portions, because

it might have entered your mind to say: