Zevachim 100bזבחים ק׳ ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Zevachim 100b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
100bק׳ ב
1 א

רבא אמר אידי ואידי אחר חצות ול"ק כאן קודם ששחטו וזרקו עליו כאן לאחר ששחטו וזרקו עליו

Rava said there is a different resolution to the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Shimon. Both this baraita and that baraita are discussing cases where the relative died after midday on the fourteenth of Nisan, and still it is not difficult. Here, his relative died before the priests would have slaughtered the Paschal offering and sprinkled its blood on his account, and he may not send the offering. There, the relative died after the priests slaughtered the Paschal offering and sprinkled its blood on his account. Since acute mourning at night is by rabbinic law, it is suspended to allow him to consume an offering that was already sacrificed.

2 ב

א"ל רב אדא בר מתנה לרבא אחר ששחטו וזרקו את דמו מה דהוה הוה א"ל רבינא אכילת פסחים מעכבא מדרבה בר רב הונא א"ל ציית מאי דקאמר לך רבך

Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: In a case where one’s relative died after the priests slaughtered the Paschal offering and sprinkled its blood, why should he be permitted to partake of the Paschal offering? What was, was, and although the offering was sacrificed, isn’t he still an acute mourner by rabbinic law? Ravina said to Rav Adda bar Mattana: Partaking of the Paschal offering is indispensable for the mitzva, as is seen from that which Rabba bar Rav Huna taught, as the Gemara will explain. Therefore, the Sages did not prohibit the acute mourner from partaking of the Paschal offering as they do for other offerings, for which consumption of the meat is dispensable. Rava said to Rav Adda bar Mattana: Listen to what your master, Ravina, told you, as his explanation is correct.

3 ג

מאי דרבה בר רב הונא דתניא יום שמועה כיום קבורה למצות שבעה ושלשים ולאכילת פסחים כיום ליקוט עצמות אחד זה ואחד זה טובל ואוכל בקדשים לערב

What is the statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna that teaches that partaking of the Paschal offering is indispensable? As it is taught in a baraita: The day that a person receives tidings that his relative died is considered as if it were the day of burial with regard to the mitzva of the seven-day mourning period, when he may not bathe or wear shoes, and with regard to the thirty-day period when he may not wear ironed garments. And with regard to partaking of the Paschal offering, the day he receives the tidings is like the day of the gathering of the bones of the deceased after the flesh decomposed (see Pesaḥim 92a). In both this and that case, he immerses and partakes of sacrificial meat in the evening.

4 ד

הא גופא קשיא אמרת יום שמועה כיום קבורה למצות שבעה ושלשים ולאכילת פסחים כיום ליקוט עצמות מכלל דיום קבורה אפילו לערב נמי לא אכיל והדר תני אחד זה ואחד זה טובל ואוכל בקדשים לערב

The Gemara challenges: This baraita itself is difficult. At first you say: The day of tidings is considered as if it were the day of burial for the mitzva of the seven-day and thirty-day mourning periods; and with regard to partaking of the Paschal offering, it is like the day of the gathering of bones, when one may immerse and partake of sacrificial meat in the evening. By inference, one concludes that on the day of burial, he may not partake of the Paschal offering even in the evening, and all the more so other sacrificial meat. And then it is taught: In both this and that case, i.e., on both the day of burial and the day of the gathering of bones, he immerses and partakes of sacrificial meat in the evening.

5 ה

אמר רב חסדא תנאי היא

Rav Ḥisda said: Whether it is permitted to partake of sacrificial meat the night after the day of burial is a dispute between tanna’im, as the Gemara will explain.

6 ו

רבה בר רב הונא אמר ל"ק כאן ששמע שמועה על מתו סמוך לשקיעת החמה וכן שליקטו לו עצמות סמוך לשקיעת החמה וכן שמת לו מת וקברו סמוך לשקיעת החמה וכאן לאחר שקיעת החמה

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: This is not difficult. Here, in the latter clause, where the baraita teaches that on both the day of burial and the day of the gathering of bones he immerses and partakes of sacrificial meat in the evening, it is referring to a case where he heard tidings of his dead relative just before sunset, and likewise a case where they gathered the bones for him just before sunset, and likewise a case where his relative died and he buried him just before sunset. But there, in the first clause, from which it is inferred that he may not consume any sacrificial meat the night after the day of burial, the burial occurred after sunset, i.e., on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan itself.

7 ז

לאחר שקה"ח מאי דהוה הוה אלא ש"מ אכילת פסחים מעכבא

The Gemara objects: If so, why not say that even if he gathered bones after sunset, then what was, was? Why did the Sages permit him to partake of the Paschal offering, as opposed to other sacrificial meat? Rather, learn from this baraita that partaking of the Paschal offering is indispensable to fulfilling the obligation, and due to the severity of the mitzva, the Sages suspended their decree prohibiting one from partaking of it.

8 ח

רב אשי אמר מאי אחד זה ואחד זה ה"ק אחד יום שמועה ואחד יום ליקוט טובל ואוכל בקדשים לערב

Rav Ashi said there is another resolution to this question: What is meant by the latter clause in the baraita: In both this and that case? It does not mean both the day of burial and the day of the gathering of bones. Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: Both on the day of tidings and on the day of the gathering of bones, the mourner immerses and partakes of sacrificial meat in the evening. But after the day of burial, he may not partake of the Paschal offering, and all the more so of other sacrificial meat, as indicated in the first clause in the baraita.

9 ט

והא דרב אשי בדותא היא מכדי עלה קאי זה וזה מיבעי ליה אלא ש"מ בדותא היא

The Gemara notes: And this resolution of Rav Ashi is a mistake, since the tanna is already discussing those two cases and equating them. According to Rav Ashi’s resolution, it is extraneous to say: In both this and that case; the tanna should have simply said: In this and that case. Rather, learn from the language of the baraita that Rav Ashi’s resolution is a mistake.

10 י

ומאי תנאי דתניא עד מתי מתאונן עליו כל היום רבי אומר כל זמן שלא נקבר

The Gemara returns to discuss Rav Ḥisda’s resolution: And what is the dispute between tanna’im with regard to the night following the day of burial? As it is taught in a baraita: Until when does a person mourn acutely for his relative, such that he is prohibited to partake of sacrificial meat? The entire day. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: As long as his relative has not been buried.

11 יא

במאי עסקינן אילימא ביום מיתה מי איכא דלית ליה דיום מיתה דתפיס לילו מדרבנן

The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with? If we say we are dealing with the day of death, is there a tanna who does not hold that the day of death takes hold of its following night, at least by rabbinic law? In accordance with whose opinion is the statement of the first tanna, who says that the acute mourning is only during the day, and not at night?

12 יב

ותו רבי אומר כל זמן שלא נקבר הא קברו אישתרי ליה ומי איכא דלית ליה (עמוס ח, י) ואחריתה כיום מר

And furthermore, if we are dealing with the day of death, then when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: As long as his relative has not been buried, it indicates that consequently, once he has buried him, it becomes permitted for him to partake of sacrificial meat, even on the day of death itself. But is there a tanna who does not hold that acute mourning extends for the entire day of death, even after burial? The verse states: “And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning for an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day” (Amos 8:10).

13 יג

אמר רב ששת איום קבורה קאי

Rav Sheshet said: The tanna of this baraita is discussing the day of burial when it is not the day of death. The tanna’im disagree whether the acute mourning lasts only until the burial, or until the end of the day of burial.

14 יד

מתקיף רב יוסף אלא הא דקתני השומע על מתו כמלקט עצמות טובל ואוכל בקדשים לערב מכלל דיום קבורה אפילו לערב נמי לא אכיל הא מני אלא תריץ עד מתי מתאוננין עליו כל אותו היום ולילו רבי אומר כל זמן שלא נקבר [אבל נקבר] בלא לילו

Rav Yosef objects to this: But there is that which is taught in a baraita: One who hears tidings of his dead relative is considered as one who gathers his relative’s bones, in that he may immerse and partake of sacrificial meat in the evening. By inference, on the day of burial he may not partake even in the evening. In accordance with whose opinion is this? This is the opinion of neither the first tanna nor Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rather, one must answer that the baraita means: Until when does a person mourn acutely for his relative? That entire day of burial and its following night. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He continues into the night only as long as his relative has not been buried; but once he is buried, the acute mourning lasts only for the rest of the day, without its night.

15 טו

אמרוה קמיה דר' ירמיה אמר גברא רבה כרב יוסף לימא הכי לימא דרבי לקולא והתניא עד מתי מתאונן עליו כל זמן שאינו נקבר אפילו מכאן ועד עשרה ימים דברי רבי וחכ"א אין מתאונן עליו אלא אותו היום בלבד

The Sages said this statement of Rav Yosef before Rabbi Yirmeya. Rabbi Yirmeya said in surprise: Would a great man like Rav Yosef say this? Would he say that the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is the more lenient of the two? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Until when does a person mourn acutely for his relative? As long as his relative has not been buried, even if he remains unburied from now until ten days from now. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Sages say: He mourns acutely for his relative only on that same day. The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is more stringent than that of the Sages.

16 טז

אלא תריץ הכי עד מתי הוא מתאונן עליו כל אותו היום בלא לילו רבי אומר כל זמן שלא נקבר ואם נקבר תופס לילו

Rather, answer like this: Until when does a person mourn acutely for his relative? That entire day of burial, without its night. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The acute mourning continues as long as his relative has not been buried, even for ten days, and once he is buried, that day takes hold of its night. This is the dispute to which Rav Ḥisda referred.

17 יז

אמרוה קמיה דרבא מדקאמר רבי יום קבורה תופס לילו מדרבנן מכלל דיום מיתה תופס לילו מדאורייתא

The Sages said this statement before Rava. Rava said: Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the day of burial, when acute mourning is by rabbinic law, takes hold of its night by rabbinic law, by inference, he must hold that the day of death, when acute mourning is by Torah law, takes hold of its night by Torah law. The Sages would not be more stringent with their ordinance than the parallel law of the Torah.

18 יח

וסבר רבי אנינות לילה דאורייתא והתניא (ויקרא י, יט) הן היום אני היום אסור ולילה מותר ולדורות בין ביום ובין בלילה אסור דברי רבי יהודה רבי אומר אנינות לילה אינה מדברי תורה אלא מדברי סופרים

The Gemara objects: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hold that acute mourning at night is by Torah law? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: On the last day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, after two of Aaron’s sons died, Aaron said to Moses: “Behold, today…there have befallen me such things as these; and if I had consumed the sin offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord?” (Leviticus 10:19). The word “today” teaches that Aaron is saying: I am prohibited from partaking today but permitted to partake at night; but for future generations, an acute mourner is prohibited from partaking of sacrificial meat whether during the day or at night. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: For future generations, acute mourning at night is not by Torah law, but rather by rabbinic law.

19 יט

לעולם דרבנן היא

The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that acute mourning on the night after death is by rabbinic law, not Torah law.