Zevachim

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, ‘I heard it and forgot.’ But they should have kept it and eaten it in the evening? — It was accidentally defiled. 1 As for the Rabbis, it is well: for that reason it is written, ‘[and if I had eaten the sin-offering] this day.’2 But on R. Nehemiah's explanation, why [did he say] ‘this day’? — [He meant that it was] a statutory obligation of the day.3 As for R. Nehemiah, it is well: for that reason it is written, ‘Behold, this day [have they offered etc.]’4 But according to the Rabbis, what is [the ‘significance of] ‘Behold, this day’?5 — This is what he meant: Behold, have they offered?’ It was I who offered.6 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’:7 ‘Goat’ alludes to Nahshon's goat;8 ‘sin-offering’ refers to the sin-offering of the eighth day;9 ‘[Moses] inquired’ refers to the goat of New Moon.10 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?11 He said to them: ‘Why is this sin-offering burnt, and these others lying?’12 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’,13 it follows that it was the goat of New Moon.14 They said well to him?15 — R. Nehemiah is consistent with his view, for he maintained [that] bereavement did not disqualify ad hoc sacrifices.16 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.17 ‘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.18 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.19 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,20 as to the other too, surely it is written, ‘And when Phinehas the priest heard’? — That was to invest his descendants with his rank.21 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.22 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,23 for a master said: Moses ascended early in the morning and descended early in the morning.24 An objection is raised: He may eat the bread of his God both of the most holy, and of the holy:25 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 zar26 and to them,27 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,28 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?29 — 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.30 An objection is raised: Who shut Miriam up?31 If you say, Moses shut her up, surely Moses was a zar, a goat on behalf of the tribe of Judah (Num. VII, 12-17; Seder ‘Olam). mean two enquiries. Shebu. 2a. on account of their bereavement, is sound! 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. 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. ram of consecration, which was a higher sacrifice. Thus Moses is counted as a zar, not as a priest 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.