Parallel
זבחים 102
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
and a zar cannot inspect plagues [of leprosy]. If you say that Aaron shut her away, Aaron was a relation, and a relation cannot inspect [leprous] plagues. Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, bestowed great honour upon Miriam in that moment, and declared, I am a priest: I will shut her away, I will declare her a definite [leper], and I will free her. He teaches at all events, ‘Moses was a zar and a zar cannot inspect plagues’? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: The inspection of leprosy is different, because Aaron and his sons are specified in that section. An objection is raised: Elisheba had five joys more than the other daughters of Israel: her brother-in-law [Moses] was a king, her husband was a High Priest, her son [Eleazar] was Segan [deputy High Priest], her grandson [Phinehas] was anointed for battle, and her brother [Nahshon] was the prince of his tribe; yet she was bereaved of her two sons. At all events he teaches, Her brother-in-law was a king: thus he was a king, but not a High Priest? — Emend, was also a king. This is dependent on Tannaim: And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses. R. Joshua b. Karhah said: A [lasting] effect is recorded of every fierce anger in the Torah, but no [lasting] effect is recorded in this instance. R. Simeon b. Yohai said: A [lasting] effect is recorded in this instance too, for it is said, Is there not Aaron thy brother the Levite? Now surely he was a priest? Rather, this is what He meant: I had said that thou wouldst be a priest and he a Levite; now, however, he will be a priest and thou a Levite. The Sages maintain: Moses was invested with priesthood only for the seven days of consecration. Some maintain: Only Moses’ descendants were deprived of priesthood, for it is said, But as for Moses the man of God, his sons are named among the tribe of Levi; and it says, Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among them that call upon His name. Why [add] ‘and it says’? — You might argue that [the first proof-text] is written for [future] generations, hence it says, however, ‘Moses and Aaron among His priests’. Now, is then a [lasting] effect recorded of every fierce anger in the Torah? Surely it is written, And he went out from Pharaoh in hot anger, and yet he said nothing to him? — Said Resh Lakish: He slapped him and went out. But did Resh Lakish say thus? Surely it is written, And thou shalt stand by the river's brink to meet him, whereon Resh Lakish commented: [The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses,] He is a king, and thou must show him reverence; while R. Johanan maintained: [God said to him:] He is a wicked man, therefore be thou insolent toward him? — Reverse it. R. Jannai said: Let the awe of kingship always be upon thee, for it is written, And all these thy servants shall come down unto me, but he did not say it of [Pharoah] himself. R. Johanan said: It may be inferred from the following: And the hand of the Lord was on Elijah; and he girded up his loins, and ran before Ahab. ‘Ulla said: Moses desired kingship, but He did not grant it to him, for it is written, Draw not nigh halom [hither]; ‘halom’ can only mean kingship, as it is said, [Then David . . . said:] ‘Who am I, O Lord God . . . that Thou hast brought me halom [thus far]? Raba raised an objection: R. Ishmael said: Her [Elisheba's] brother-in-law [Moses] was a king? — Said Rabbah b. ‘Ulla: He [‘Ulla] meant, for himself and for his descendants. Does then ‘halom’ refer to [future] generations wherever it is written? Surely it is written in connection with Saul, Is there yet a man come halom [hither], yet only he [enjoyed kingship], but not his seed? — If you wish I can answer that there was Ish-bosheth. Alternatively, Saul was different, for it [kingship] did not remain even with him. This agrees with R. Eleazar's dictum in R. Hanina's name: When greatness is decreed for a man, it is decreed for him and for his seed unto all generations, for it is said: He withdraweth not His eyes from the righteous; but with kings upon the throne He setteth them for ever. But if he becomes arrogant, the Holy One, blessed be He, abases him, for it is said [And they are exalted . . . ] And if they be bound in fetters, and be holden in cords of affliction. MEN WITH A BLEMISH, WHETHER TRANSIENT. How do we know this?- Because our Rabbis taught: Every male [may eat of it]: this includes men with a blemish. In which respect? If in respect of eating, surely it is said elsewhere, He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy? Hence it means in respect of sharing. Another [Baraitha] taught: ‘Every male’: this includes men with a blemish. In which respect? If in respect of eating, surely that is already stated [elsewhere]; if in respect of sharing, surely that [too] is already stated? Hence [it is required] in respect of a man blemished from birth. For I might think: I know it only of an unblemished [priest] who became blemished; how do I know it of a man blemished from birth? Therefore it says, ‘Every male’. Another [Baraitha] taught: ‘Every male’ includes a man with a blemish. In which respect? If in respect of eating, surely it is already stated; if in respect of sharing, surely it is already stated; if in respect of a man blemished from birth, surely it is already stated? For I might think: I know it only of a man with a permanent blemish; how do I know it of a man with a transient blemish? Therefore it says, ‘Every male’. Surely this should be reversed! — Said R. Shesheth: Reverse it. R. Ashi said: After all, do not reverse it, yet it is necessary. For I might argue,
—
[he is] like an unclean [person]: as an unclean person may not eat-so long as he is not clean, so may this man not eat so long as he is not made whole; hence it informs us [otherwise]. WHOEVER IS NOT ELIGIBLE etc. Is he not? surely a [priest] with a blemish is not eligible, yet he receives a share? Moreover [it implies that every] one who is eligible for service receives a share; lo, an unclean [priest] is eligible for the service in public sacrifices, and yet does not receive a share? — He means: who is fit to eat. Lo, a minor is fit to eat, yet does not receive a share? — He does not teach this. Now that you have arrived at this, [you can say,] After all, it is as we first said: if [your difficulty is] on account of an unclean [priest], he does not teach this; and if [your difficulty is] on account of a [priest] with a blemish: a [priest] with a blemish was included by the Divine Law. EVEN IF ONE WAS UNCLEAN WHEN THE BLOOD WAS SPRINKLED BUT CLEAN WHEN THE FATS WERE BURNED, HE DOES NOT RECEIVE A SHARE. Hence, if he was clean when the blood was sprinkled but unclean when the fats were burned, he does receive a share. Our Mishnah does not agree with Abba Saul. For it was taught, Abba Saul said: He never receives a share unless he was clean from the time of the sprinkling of the blood until the time of the burning of the fats [inclusive], because it is said, He [among the sons of Aaron,] that offereth the blood of the peace-offerings, and the fat, [shall have the right thigh for a portion] this intimates that even [at] the burning of the fat too [cleanness] is required. R. Ashi asked: What if he was defiled in between? Do we require him [to be clean] at the sprinkling and at the burning, and [this condition] is fulfilled; or perhaps he must be clean from the time of the sprinkling until the time of the burning of the fats? The question stands over. Raba said: I have the following discussion as a tradition from R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, which he stated in a privy. You can argue: If a priest, a tebul yom, came and demanded: Give me of an Israelite's meal-offering, that I may eat thereof, one [the clean priest] can answer him: If I can repulse you from an Israelite's sin-offering, though you have a valid right to your own sin-offering, surely I can repulse you from an Israelite's meal-offering, seeing that you have no valid right in your own meal-offering. [He can reply:] If you repulse me from an Israelite's sin-offering, that is because just as I have a great privilege, so have you a great privilege; will you repulse me from an Israelite's meal-offering, where just as my own rights are weak, so are your rights weak? [He can answer:] Lo, it says, [And every meal-offering . . .] shall be the priest's that offereth it: come, offer, and eat. [If the tebul yom demands:] Give me [a share] of an Israelite's sin-offering, that I may eat, he can reply: If I can repulse you from an Israelite's meal-offering, though I have no privileges in my own meal-offering, surely I can repulse you from an Israelite's sin-offering, seeing that I have great privileges in my own sin-offering. He can retort: If you can repulse me from an Israelite's meal-offering, where just as you have no privileges so have I no privileges: will you repulse me from an Israelite's sin-offering, where just as you have great privileges, so have I great privileges? He can answer: Lo, it says, The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: come, offer it for sin, and eat! If [the tebul yom] demands Give me [a share] of the breast and the thigh, that I may eat, he can reply: If I can repulse you from an Israelite's sin-offering, though you have great privileges in your own sin-offering, surely I can repulse you from a peace-offering, where your privileges are weak, since you have rights only to the breast and thigh thereof. He can retort: If you can repulse me from a sin-offering, where my rights are weak in respect of my wives and servants, will you repulse me from the breast and thigh, where my rights are strong in respect of my wives and my slaves? He can answer: Lo, it says, It shall be the priest's that sprinkleth the blood of the peace-offerings against the altar: Come, sprinkle and eat. Thus the tebul yom departs, bearing his arguments on his head, with an onen on his right and one who lacks atonement on his left. R. Ahai raised a difficulty: Let him [the tebul yom] demand: Give me [a share] of a firstling, that I may eat. Because he [the clean priest] can answer: If I can repulse you from an Israelite's sin-offering, though my own privileges in a sin-offering are weak in respect to my wives and slaves, surely I can repulse you from a firstling, where I enjoy great privileges, as it is altogether mine. [He can answer:] If you have repulsed me from a sin-offering, where just as your privileges are weak so are my privileges weak, will you repulse me from a firstling, where just as your privileges are great, so are mine great? [He can retort:] Lo, it says, Thou shalt sprinkle their blood against the altar, and shalt make their fat smoke for an offering made by fire . . . and the flesh of them shall be thine: come, sprinkle, and eat. And the other? — Refute it [thus]: Is it then written, And the flesh of them shall be the priest's who sprinkleth? Surely it is written, And the flesh of them shall be thine, which means even another priest's. Now, how might he [R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon] do this? Surely Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: One may meditate [on learning] in all places, except in a bath-house and a privy? — It is different [when it is done] involuntarily.
—