זבחים 100 — parallel

100:1

There is no difficulty: in the one case the man died on the fourteenth and was buried on the fourteenth; in the other the man died on the thirteenth and was buried on the fourteenth. If the man died on the fourteenth and was buried on the fourteenth, the day of death embraces the night [that follows] by Scriptural law; if the man died on the thirteenth and was buried on the fourteenth, [aninuth even on] the day of burial is [only] Rabbinical, and it embraces the night [that follows only] by Rabbinical law. Said R. Ashi to R. Mari: If so, when it is taught, R. Simeon said to him, The proof is that they [the Rabbis] said: An onen performs immersion and eats his Passover-offering in the evening, but [may] not [partake] of [other] sacrifices; let him [R. Judah] answer him: I speak to you of the day of death, [when one is an onen] by Scriptural law, whereas you tell me about the day of burial, [when aninuth is only] Rabbinical? That is a difficulty. Abaye said, There is no difficulty: In the one case he died before midday [of the fourteenth]; in the other he died after midday. [If he died] before midday, when he had [as yet] no obligation of the Passover-offering, aninuth falls upon him; [if he died] after midday, when he is subject to the Passover-offering, aninuth does not fall upon him. And how do you know that we differentiate between [death] before midday and [death] after midday? — Because it was taught: For her shall he defile himself: this is obligatory; if he does not wish to, we defile him by force. Now, the wife of Joseph the priest happened to die on the eve of Passover, and he did not wish to defile himself, whereupon his brother priests took a vote and defiled him by force. But the following contradicts it: [He shall not make himself unclean for his father . . .] and for his sister [when they die]: why is this stated? [For this reason:] Behold if he was on his way to slaughter the Passover-offering or to circumcise his son, and he learnt that a near relation of his had died, you might think that he may defile himself; hence you read, ‘he shall not make himself unclean’. You might think that just as he may not defile himself for his sister, so may he not defile himself for an unattended corpse: therefore it states, ‘and for his sister’: he may not defile himself for his sister, but he must defile himself for an unattended corpse. Hence you must surely infer that one holds good [where the person died] before midday, and the other where he died after midday. Whence [does this follow]? Perhaps I can argue that in truth both refer to after midday, but one agrees with R. Ishmael and the other with R. Akiba. For it was taught: ‘For her shall he defile himself’: this is permissive; these are the words of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba said: It is an obligation! — You cannot think so, for the first clause of that [Baraitha] was taught by R. Akiba. For it was taught, R. Akiba said: [He shall not come near to a body, [to] the dead. ‘Body’ refers to strangers; ‘dead’ refers to relations. ‘For his father’ he may not defile himself, but he must defile himself for an unattended corpse. ‘For his mother’: [even] if he was [both] a priest and nazirite, only for his mother he may not defile himself, but he must defile himself for an unattended corpse. For his brother’: [even] if he was [both] a High Priest and a nazirite, only for his brother he may not defile himself, but he must defile himself for an unattended corpse. ‘And for his sister’: why is this stated? If he was on his way to slaughter his Passover-offering or to circumcise his son, and he learnt that a near relation of his had died, you might think that he may defile himself; hence you read, ‘he shall not make himself unclean’. You might think that just as he may not defile himself for his sister, so he may not defile himself for an unattended corpse; therefore it states, ‘and for his sister’: he may not defile himself for his sister, but he must defile himself for an unattended corpse.

—

100:2

Raba said: Both are meant after midday, yet there is no difficulty: in the one case it was before they had slaughtered [the Passover-offering] and sprinkled [its blood] on his account; in the other it was after they had slaughtered and sprinkled on his account. R. Adda b. Mattenah said to Raba: after they slaughtered and sprinkled on his account, what is done is done! — Said Rabina to him: The eating of the Passover-offering is indispensable, [which follows] from Rabbah son of R. Huna's [teaching]. Said [Raba] to him: Pay heed to what your master [Rabina] has told you [R. Adda b. Mattenah]. What was Rabbah son of R. Huna's [teaching]? — It was taught: The day when one learns [of a near relation's death] is as the day of burial in respect of the laws of seven and thirty [days’ mourning]; In respect of eating the Passover-offering it is as the day on which the bones [of one's parents] are collected. In both cases he performs immersion and eats [of] sacrifices in the evening. Now this is self-contradictory: You say, the day when one learns is as the day of burial in respect of seven and thirty [days’ mourning], but in respect of eating the Passover-offering it is as the day when the bones [of one's parents] are collected; whence it follows that as for the day of burial, one may not eat even in the evening; and then you teach, in both cases he performs immersion and eats of sacrifices in the evening? Said R. Hisda: It is a controversy of Tannaim. Rabbah son of R. Huna said: There is no difficulty. In the one case he learnt about his bereavement just before sunset, and similarly the bones of his dead were gathered just before sunset, and similarly his relation died and was buried just before sunset. In the other case [these things happened] after sunset. ‘After sunset’! but what has been has been! Hence you must surely infer from this that the eating of the Passover-offering is indispensable. R. Ashi said: What does ‘both the one and the other’ [mean]? It means that both on the day of hearing and on the day of gathering the bones, he performs immersion and eats of the sacrifices in the evening. But this statement of R. Ashi is fiction. Consider: he [the Tanna] is discussing these; then he should say, ‘the one and the other.’ Hence it surely follows that it is fiction. Now, what is this controversy of Tannaim? — For it was taught: For how long is he an onen on his account? The whole day. Rabbi said: As long as he is not buried. What are we discussing? Shall we say, the day of death? does anyone reject the view that the day of death embraces the night following by Rabbinical law? Moreover, ‘Rabbi said: As long as he is not buried’; but if he was buried, he is permitted? Does anyone reject [the implication of] And the end thereof as a bitter day? — Said R. Shesheth: [We are discussing] the day of burial. To this R. Joseph demurred: Then when it is taught, He who learns about his bereavement, and he who gathers bones, performs immersion and eats in the evening; whence it follows that as for the day of burial, he may not even eat in the evening; with whom will it agree? Rather, explain it thus: For how long is he an onen on his account? The whole of that day and the [following] night. Rabbi said: That is only as long as he was not buried; but if he was buried, [it is the day] without the [following] night. Now, this was reported before R. Jeremiah, whereupon he observed: That a great man like R. Joseph should say thus! Are we to assume then that Rabbi is more lenient? Surely it was taught: How long is he an onen on his account? As long as he is not buried, even for ten days: these are the words of Rabbi; but the Sages maintain: He observes aninuth on his account only on that day itself! Rather, explain it thus: How long does he observe aninuth on his account? The whole of that day without the [following] night. Rabbi maintained: As long as he is not buried, it embraces the [following] night. Now, it was stated before Raba: Since Rabbi maintained that the day of burial embraces the [following] night by Rabbinical law, it follows that the day of death embraces the [following] night by Scriptural law. Does then Rabbi hold that aninuth at night is Scriptural? Surely it was taught: ‘Behold, this day [etc]. I am forbidden by day yet am permitted at night; but [future] generations will be forbidden both by day and by night’: these are the words of R. Judah. Rabbi maintained: Aninuth at night is not Scriptural but a law of the Scribes! — In truth, it is Rabbinical. 29

—