Zevachim 101aזבחים ק״א א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
101aק״א א

וחכמים עשו חיזוק לדבריהם יותר משל תורה

And the same holds for the night after the day of burial, even though the acute mourning of that day itself is by rabbinic law, because the Sages reinforced their pronouncements with greater severity than Torah law.

תנו רבנן (ויקרא י, יג) כי כן צויתי כאשר צויתי כאשר צוה ה' כי כן צויתי באנינות יאכלוה כאשר צויתי בשעת מעשה אמר להן כאשר צוה ה' לא מאליי אני אומר

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: On the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, on which two of Aaron’s sons died, Moses spoke to Aaron and his sons using three different forms of the word command: “For so I am commanded [tzuveiti]” (Leviticus 10:13), “as I commanded [tziveiti]” (Leviticus 10:18), and “as the Lord has commanded [tziva]” (Leviticus 10:15). Moses said to Aaron: “And you shall eat it…for so I am commanded,” to teach that Aaron and his remaining sons shall partake of the offerings even in acute mourning. The statement: “You should certainly have eaten it…as I commanded,” Moses said to them at the time of the incident, when Aaron and his sons burned the sin offering for the New Moon. Moses said: “As the Lord has commanded,” to emphasize that it is not of my own initiative that I say this, but it is from the word of God.

ורמינהי מפני אנינות נשרפה לכך נאמר כאלה

And the Sages raise a contradiction from another baraita: The sin offering was burned due to the acute mourning of Aaron and his sons, since they felt they could not partake of it. Therefore, it is stated in Aaron’s explanation: “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). Moses conceded to Aaron that he was correct (see Leviticus 10:20), indicating that it was not permitted for Aaron to partake of the sin offering in acute mourning.

אמר שמואל לא קשיא הא ר"י הא ר"נ

Shmuel said: This is not difficult. This first baraita, according to which Moses commanded Aaron and his sons to consume the sacrificial meat in acute mourning, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; and that baraita, according to which they acted properly in refraining from eating it, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya.

דתניא מפני אנינות שרפוה לכך נאמר כאלה דברי רבי נחמיה רבי יהודה ור"ש אומרים מפני טומאה נשרפה שאם אתה אומר מפני אנינות נשרפה היו לשלשתן שישרפוה ד"א היו ראוי לאוכלן לערב ד"א והלא פינחס היה עמהן

This is as it is taught in a baraita: Aaron and his sons burned the sin offering due to their acute mourning. Therefore, it is stated: “As these”; this is the statement of Rabbi Neḥemya. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon say: The sin offering was burned due to ritual impurity. As, if you say that it was burned due to acute mourning, they should have burned all three of the sin offerings offered that day. Alternatively, if it was burned due to acute mourning, they would have been fit to partake of the sin offerings in the evening, and there would have been no need to burn them. Alternatively, if it was burned due to acute mourning, wasn’t Pinehas, son of Elazar the priest, with them? He was not in mourning, and he could have partaken of the sin offering.

רבא אמר אידי ואידי רבי נחמיה ולא קשיא כאן בקדשי שעה כאן בקדשי דורות

Rava said: Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, who holds that the sin offering was burned due to acute mourning. And this is not difficult. Here, the baraita according to which Moses commanded that Aaron and his sons partake of the offering as acute mourners is referring to the offerings of a particular time, i.e., the meal offering, which was unique to the inauguration ceremony. There, the baraita according to which they rightly burned the sin offering, due to acute mourning, is referring to the offerings of all future generations. That sin offering was brought for the New Moon of Nisan, and such an offering would be brought at every New Moon from that day onward. Moses conceded that such offerings should not be consumed by acute mourners.

רבי נחמיה היכי מתריץ להני קראי ורבנן היכי מתרצי להו להני קראי

The Gemara asks: How would Rabbi Neḥemya reconcile these apparently contradictory verses about the sin offering, and how would the Sages reconcile these verses (see Leviticus 10:17–20)?

רבי נחמיה מתריץ להו הכי מדוע לא אכלתם אמר לו משה לאהרן שמא נכנס דמה לפני ולפנים אמר לו (ויקרא י, יח) הן לא הובא את דמה שמא חוץ למחיצתה יצאת אמר לו בקדש היתה

Rabbi Neḥemya would reconcile them like this: When Moses asked: “Why have you not eaten the sin offering?” (Leviticus 10:17), this is what Moses said to Aaron: Perhaps the blood of this sin offering entered the innermost sanctum, thereby disqualifying it (see Leviticus 6:23). Is this why you burned it? Aaron said to him: “Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the Sanctuary within” (Leviticus 10:18). Moses then asked: Perhaps it went outside its partition, i.e., it exited the courtyard of the Tabernacle, and was thereby disqualified? Aaron said to him: It was inside the sacred area at all times.

ודלמא באנינות אקריבתוה ופסלתוה אמר לו משה וכי הם הקריבו אני הקרבתי וא"ל הן לא הובא את דמה ובקדש היתה אכול תאכלו אותה כאשר צויתי באנינות יאכלוה

Moses then suggested: But perhaps you sacrificed it in acute mourning, which is prohibited for ordinary priests, and disqualified it. Aaron said to him: Moses, was it they, i.e., my sons, who sacrificed the offering? I sacrificed the offering, and as High Priest, I may serve even as an acute mourner (see Leviticus 21:10–12). And Moses said to him: “Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the Sanctuary within,” and it was inside the sacred area at all times; therefore: “You should certainly have consumed it in the sacred area, as I commanded” (Leviticus 10:18), i.e., just as I commanded that the priests should consume today’s meal offering in acute mourning.

אמר לו (ויקרא י, יט) ותקראנה אותי כאלה ואכלתי חטאת היום הייטב בעיני ה' שמא לא שמעת אלא בקדשי שעה

Aaron said to him: “Behold, today have they sacrificed their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord, and 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). Perhaps you heard the command to consume the offering only with regard to offerings of a particular time, i.e., the meal offering, which was unique to that day.

דאי בקדשי דורות ק"ו ממעשר הקל ומה מעשר הקל אמרה תורה (דברים כו, יד) לא אכלתי באוני ממנו בקדשי דורות לא כל שכן

As, if you claim that it also applies to the offerings of all generations, then one can prove this is not so via an a fortiori inference from the second tithe, for which the halakha is more lenient than for sacrificial meat: Just as with regard to the second tithe, for which the halakha is more lenient, the Torah stated: “I have not eaten thereof in my mourning [ve’oni]” (Deuteronomy 26:14), teaching that an acute mourner [onen] is prohibited from partaking of it, all the more so is it not clear that with regard to the offerings of all generations, an acute mourner is prohibited from partaking of them?

מיד (ויקרא י, כ) וישמע משה וייטב בעיניו הודה ולא בוש משה לומר לא שמעתי אלא אמר שמעתי ושכחתי

Moses immediately conceded to Aaron, as the verse states: “And Moses heard, and it was good in his eyes” (Leviticus 10:20). And Moses was not embarrassed and did not attempt to justify himself by saying: I did not hear of this halakha until now. Rather, he said: I heard it, and I forgot it, as the verse indicates by stating: “Moses heard.”

ור"י ור"ש היכי מתרצי להו הכי מתרצי להו (ויקרא י, יז) מדוע לא אכלתם את החטאת במקום [הקודש] שמא נכנס דמה לפני ולפנים אמר לו (ויקרא י, יח) הן לא הובא את דמה (אל הקדש פנימה)

The Gemara continues: And how would Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who hold that the sin offering was burned due to ritual impurity, reconcile those verses? They would reconcile them like this: When Moses said to Aaron and his sons: “Why have you not eaten the sin offering in the place of the Sanctuary?” (Leviticus 10:17), he meant: Perhaps its blood entered the innermost sanctum, disqualifying the offering. Aaron said to him in response: “Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the Sanctuary within” (Leviticus 10:18).

שמא חוץ למחיצתה יצאת אמר לו הן בקודש היתה ודילמא באנינות אקריבתוה ופסלתוה אמר לו משה הן הקריבוה דפסלה בהו אנינות אני הקרבתיה

Moses then asked: Perhaps it went outside its partition, i.e., the courtyard of the Tabernacle, and was thereby disqualified? Aaron said to him: It was inside the sacred area at all times. Moses then asked: But perhaps you sacrificed it in acute mourning and disqualified it? Aaron said to him: Moses, was it my sons who sacrificed the offering, that their acute mourning would disqualify the offering? I, the High Priest, sacrificed the offering, and I may serve even in acute mourning.

ודילמא אגב מררייכו פשעתו בה ואיטמאי אמר לו משה כך אני בעיניך שאני מבזה קדשי שמים ותקראנה אותי כאלה ואפילו אלה וכאלה אין אני מבזה קדשי שמים

Moses then asked: Or perhaps, due to your bitterness in mourning, were you neglectful of the offering and it became impure? Aaron said to him: Moses, am I in your eyes such a person, that I would treat an offering consecrated to Heaven with contempt? “There have befallen me such things as these” (Leviticus 10:19), i.e., even if these tragedies and more such as them should befall me, I would not treat an offering consecrated to Heaven with contempt.

אמר לו ואי הן לא הובא את דמה ובקודש היתה אכול תאכלו אותה בקודש כאשר צויתי באנינות יאכלוה

Moses said to him: If so, and if, as you say: “Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the Sanctuary within,” and it was inside the sacred area at all times, then: “You should certainly have eaten it in the sacred area, as I commanded,” i.e., as I commanded that the priests should consume the meal offering even in acute mourning.

אמר לו שמא לא שמעת אלא בלילה דאי ביום ק"ו ממעשר הקל ומה מעשר הקל אמרה תורה (דברים כו, יד) לא אכלתי באוני ממנו קודש חמור לא כל שכן

Aaron said to him: Perhaps you heard the command to consume the offering only with regard to the night following the day of acute mourning, but during the day itself the prohibition stands. As, if you claim that it may be consumed during the day itself, I can prove that this is not so via an a fortiori inference from the second tithe, for which the halakha is more lenient than for sacrificial meat: Just as with regard to the second tithe, for which the halakha is more lenient, the Torah stated: I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, all the more so is it not clear that in the stringent case of sacrificial meat, an acute mourner is prohibited from partaking of it?

מיד וישמע משה

Moses immediately conceded to Aaron, as the verse states: “And Moses heard,