זבחים 101 — Soncino English Talmud

¹but the Sages made their law even stricter than Scripture. Our Rabbis taught: ‘For so I am commanded’; ‘as I commanded’; ‘as the Lord hath commanded’: ‘For so I am commanded’ that they should eat it during their bereavement [aninuth]; ‘As I commanded’, when it happened; ‘As the Lord commanded’, I did not bid you [to do this] on my own authority. But the following contradicts it: [The sin-offering] was burnt on account of aninuth, for which reason it is said, [And there have befallen me] such things as these? — Said Samuel, There is no difficulty: one agrees with R. Nehemiah, the other with R. Judah and R. Simeon. For it was taught: They burnt it because of aninuth; therefore it is stated, ‘such things as these’: these are the words of R. Nehemiah. R. Judah and R. Simeon maintained: It was burnt because of defilement, for if because of bereavement, they should have burnt the three. Another argument: they would have been fit to eat them in the evening. Another argument: surely Phinehas was with them! Raba said: Both agree with R. Nehemiah, yet there is no difficulty: one refers to special ad hoc sacrifices, and the other to regular sacrifices. Now, how does R. Nehemiah explain these texts, and how do the Rabbis explain these texts? — R. Nehemiah explains it thus: ‘Wherefore have ye not eaten etc?’ ‘Perhaps’, said Moses to Aaron, ‘its blood entered the innermost sanctuary?’ ‘Behold, the blood of it was not brought [into the sanctuary within]’, he answered. ‘Perhaps it passed without its barrier?’ he suggested. ‘It was in the sanctuary’, he replied. ‘And perhaps ye offered it in bereavement, and thus disqualified it?’ ‘Moses’, replied he, ‘did they, [my sons] offer it: I offered it?’ Thereupon he exclaimed, ‘Behold, the blood of it was not brought within, and it was in the sanctuary, then ye should certainly have eaten it, as I commanded, [viz.,] that they should eat it in their bereavement.’ Said he to him: ‘And there have befallen me such things as these, and if I had eaten the sin-offering to-day, would it have been pleasing in the sight of the Lord? perhaps you heard thus only about the special sacrifices? For if [you would apply it] to the regular sacrifices, [you may argue] a minori from tithe, which is of lesser holiness, [that it is not so]. For if the Torah said of tithe, which is of lesser holiness, I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, how much the more does it apply to sacrifices, which are more holy?’ Forthwith, and when Moses heard that, it was pleasing in his sight. He admitted [his error], and Moses was not ashamed [to excuse himself] by saying, ‘I had not heard it’, but said, ‘I heard it and forgot. How do R. Judah and R. Simeon explain these verses? — They explain it thus: ‘Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin-offering’: perhaps the blood entered the innermost sanctuary? ‘Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within’, he replied. Perhaps it passed without its barrier? It was in the sanctuary, was his answer. And perhaps ye offered it in bereavement, and thus disqualified it? Moses, replied he, did they offer it, that bereavement should disqualify? I offered it. And perhaps ye were negligent through your grief, and it was defiled? Moses, he exclaimed, am I thus in your eyes, that I would despise Divine sacrifices? ‘And there have befallen me such things as these’, and even many more, yet would I not despise Divine sacrifices. If then, said he, ‘behold, the blood of it was not brought within, and it was in the sanctuary, then ye should certainly have eaten it, as I commanded’, [viz.] that they should eat it in their bereavement! Perhaps you heard thus only of the night, he suggested; for if [you would apply it to] the day, [you may argue] a minori from tithe, which is of lesser holiness, [that it is not so]. For if the Torah said of tithe, which is of lesser holiness, ‘I have not eaten thereof in my mourning’, how much the more does it apply to sacrifices, which are more holy! Forthwith, ‘and when Moses heard that,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ

^ᵃnote:Lit., ‘strengthened their words more than did Scripture.’ Thus, while Scripture prescribes aninuth only on the day of death, the Rabbis decreed aninuth on the day of burial and on the night following.
^ᵇnote:Lev. X, 13. 18. 15. The first refers to the meal-offering, the second to the sin-offering, and the third to the peace-offering. These three were brought at the consecration of Aaron and his sons into the priesthood, and Moses ordered them to eat them, adding, For so I am commanded etc.
^ᶜnote:Sc. the death of Nadab and Abihu. He then told them that they were still to eat the sacrifice.
^ᵈnote:Sc. the death of my children. Now, Moses admitted that they had acted rightly (v. 19); evidently then he had not been instructed that they were to eat it in bereavement.
^ᵉnote:Three he-goats were sacrificed, yet only one was burnt.
^ᶠnote:R. Simeon holds that aninuth does not extend to the following evening by Scriptural law at all. And even R. Judah, who maintains that it does, admits that on that occasion it did not (supra 100b).
^ᵍnote:He was not an onen, and could have eaten it. Hence the sin-offering must have become defiled, and on that account only was it burnt.
^ʰnote:Lit., ‘of the hour . . . of generations’. R. Nehemiah holds that the meal-offering was to be eaten in bereavement, as it is written, ‘for so I am commanded’. Now, that meal-offering was a special sacrifice, and was permitted by a special dispensation. The sin-offering, however, was the ordinary New Moon sin-offering (this happened on New Moon). Moses erroneously thought that what he had been told about the meal-offering also applied to the sin-offering, and was therefore angry that it was burnt. Aaron, however, pointed out that he might have been told only about the special meal-offering, and Moses then admitted that he was right.
^ⁱnote:Sc. R. Judah and R. Simeon.
^ʲnote:Lev. X, 17.
^ᵏnote:I.e., into the Hekal, in which case you rightly burnt it.
^ˡnote:I.e., outside the Temple court.
^ᵐnote:He renders v. 19: And Aaron spoke unto Moses: Behold, have they this day offered their sin-offering etc.? Surely I offered it, and I, being the High priest, was permitted to do so.
^ⁿnote:He thus renders v. 18.
^ᵒnote:Sc. that I should eat in spite of my bereavement.
^ᵖnote:Lit., ‘tithe, which is light’.
^ᵠnote:Deut. XXVI, 14.
^ʳnote:Lit., ‘which is heavier’. Emended text (Sh.M.).
^ˢnote:Lev. ibid. 20.
^ᵗnote:That the sacrifice is to be eaten on the night following the day of death.

²it was pleasing in his sight’. He admitted his error, and Moses was not ashamed [to excuse himself] by saying, ‘I had not heard it’, but, ‘I heard it and forgot.’ But they should have kept it and eaten it in the evening? — It was accidentally defiled. As for the Rabbis, it is well: for that reason it is written, ‘[and if I had eaten the sin-offering] this day.’ But on R. Nehemiah's explanation, why [did he say] ‘this day’? — [He meant that it was] a statutory obligation of the day. As for R. Nehemiah, it is well: for that reason it is written, ‘Behold, this day [have they offered etc.]’ But according to the Rabbis, what is [the ‘significance of] ‘Behold, this day’? — This is what he meant: Behold, have they offered?’ It was I who offered. The Master said: ‘Then the three should have been burnt.’ What were the three? — For it was taught: ‘And Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin-offering’: ‘Goat’ alludes to Nahshon's goat; ‘sin-offering’ refers to the sin-offering of the eighth day; ‘[Moses] inquired’ refers to the goat of New Moon. You might think that the three of them were burnt; therefore it says, ‘and, behold, it was burnt’: one was burnt, but three were not burnt — ‘Diligently inquired’: why these two enquiries? He said to them: ‘Why is this sin-offering burnt, and these others lying?’ Now, I do not know which one [was burnt]. But when it says, ‘And He hath given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation’, it follows that it was the goat of New Moon. They said well to him? — R. Nehemiah is consistent with his view, for he maintained [that] bereavement did not disqualify ad hoc sacrifices. The Master said: ‘Then they should have eaten it in the evening.’ They said well to him? — He holds that [the law of] aninuth at night is Scriptural. ‘Another argument: surely Phinehas was with them.’ They said well to him? — He agrees with R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said in R. Hanina's name: Phinehas was not elevated to the priesthood until he slew Zimri, for it is written, And it shall be unto him, and unto his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood. R. Ashi said: Until he made peace between the tribes, for it is said, And when Phinehas the priest, and the princes of the congregation, even the heads of the thousands of Israel that were with him, heard etc. And as to the others too, surely it is written, ‘And it shall be unto him, and unto his seed after him’ [etc.]? — That is written as a blessing, as to the other too, surely it is written, ‘And when Phinehas the priest heard’? — That was to invest his descendants with his rank. Rab said: Our teacher Moses was a High Priest, and received a share of the holy sacrifices, as it is said, It was Moses’ portion of the ram of consecration. An objection is raised: ‘But was not Phinehas with them?’ Now if this is correct, let them argue, But was not our teacher Moses with them? Perhaps Moses was different, because he was engaged by the Shechinah, for a master said: Moses ascended early in the morning and descended early in the morning. An objection is raised: He may eat the bread of his God both of the most holy, and of the holy: if sacrifices of higher sanctity are stated, why are lesser sacrifices stated; and if lesser sacrifices are stated, why are sacrifices of higher sanctity stated? If lesser sacrifices were not stated, I would say, He may eat only of higher sacrifices, because they were permitted to a zar and to them, but he may not eat of lesser sacrifices. And if higher sacrifices were not stated I would say: He may eat only of lesser sacrifices, since they are lesser, but not of higher sacrifices. For that reason both higher sacrifices and lesser sacrifices are stated. At all events he [the Tanna] teaches, Because they were permitted to a zar and to them: surely that means [to] Moses? — Said R. Shesheth: No; it refers to the High Places [bamah], this agreeing with the view that a meal-offering could be offered at the High Places. An objection is raised: Who shut Miriam up? If you say, Moses shut her up, surely Moses was a zar,^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ

^ᵘnote:But not through negligence.
^ᵛnote:He stressed that it was only during the day that he could not eat it, but he had intended to eat it that night.
^ʷnote:Could I eat the sin-offering, which is a statutory obligation for this day, and not a special sacrifice? (as supra a.)
^ˣnote:Meaning that it was a statutory and regular offering for that day. and therefore might not be eaten in mourning.
^ʸnote:It is apparently quite irrelevant.
^ᶻnote:As supra a.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lev. X, 16.
^ᵃᵇnote:It was the first of Nisan, and the first day of the consecration ceremonies of the Tabernacle, when Nahshon sacrificed a goat on behalf of the tribe of Judah (Num. VII, 12-17; Seder ‘Olam).
^ᵃᶜnote:Of Aaron's consecration rites.
^ᵃᵈnote:Thus this verse is made to refer to three sacrifices, not to one.
^ᵃᵉnote:The emphatic ‘diligently’ is expressed in Hebrew, as usual, by the repetition of the verb, and hence understood to mean two enquiries.
^ᵃᶠnote:Waiting for the evening to be eaten: why did you not eat it during the day?
^ᵃᵍnote:Lev. X, 17.
^ᵃʰnote:Which ‘bears the iniquity of the congregation’ by atoning for the defilement of the sanctuary and the sacrifices, Shebu. 2a.
^ᵃⁱnote:This reverts to the earlier part of the discussion. Surely the argument that all three should have been burnt, if it was on account of their bereavement, is sound!
^ᵃʲnote:Such as the other two were.
^ᵃᵏnote:Hence they could not eat it in the evening either.
^ᵃˡnote:Num. XXV, 13. This was spoken after he had slain Zimri: thus only then was the priesthood conferred upon him.
^ᵃᵐnote:Josh. XXII, 30; v. whole chapter for the controversy between the two and a half tribes in Transjordan and the rest of Israel, and how it was settled. This is the first time that Phinehas is spoken of as ‘the priest’; previously he is always referred to as ‘Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the Priest’. Thus Priesthood is ascribed to his forbears, but not to himself.
^ᵃⁿnote:He was informed that he would be invested with the priesthood, but it was not conferred upon him until later.
^ᵃᵒnote:Tosaf: a promise that all High Priests would be descended from him.
^ᵃᵖnote:Lev. VIII, 29.
^ᵃᵠnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃʳnote:During the days preceding Revelation, when he ascended the mountain of Sinai and descended thence to the people.
^ᵃˢnote:Lev. XXI, 22. This refers to a blemished priest, who may not officiate, yet may partake of the sacrifices.
^ᵃᵗnote:V. Glos. Though normally higher sacrifices might be eaten by male priests only, yet we do find an instance where they were permitted to a zar; the instance(s) is discussed anon. But a zar was never permitted to eat the priestly portions (viz., the breast and thigh) of lesser sacrifices. — Since then a zar may sometimes partake of higher sacrifices, it is logical that a blemished priest may always do so.
^ᵃᵘnote:Sc. the priests.
^ᵃᵛnote:Their sanctity is not so great.
^ᵃʷnote:The only instance found of a zar eating of higher sacrifices was when Moses received the breast and thigh of the ram of consecration, which was a higher sacrifice. Thus Moses is counted as a zar, not as a priest
^ᵃˣnote:Infra 113a. The meal-offering was a higher sacrifice, and when offered at the High Places (where a zar could officiate), after the handful had been burnt on the altar the remainder might be eaten by a zar, whereas in the Temple this belonged to the priests only.
^ᵃʸnote:As a leper; v. Num. XII, 14 seq. Before she could be shut away, the symptoms had to be duly diagnosed as leprous.