Zevachim

and a zar cannot inspect plagues [of leprosy].1 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 leprosy2 is different, because Aaron and his sons are specified in that section. An objection is raised: Elisheba3 had five joys more than the other daughters of Israel:4 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,5 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.6 R. Joshua b. Karhah said: A [lasting] effect is recorded of every fierce anger in the Torah,7 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?8 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,9 for it is said, But as for Moses the man of God, his sons are named among the tribe of Levi;10 and it says, Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among them that call upon His name.11 Why [add] ‘and it says’?12 — You might argue that [the first proof-text] is written for [future] generations,13 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,14 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,15 whereon Resh Lakish commented: [The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses,] He is a king, and thou must show him reverence;16 while R. Johanan maintained: [God said to him:] He is a wicked man, therefore be thou insolent toward him? — Reverse it.17 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,18 but he did not say it of [Pharoah] himself.19 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.20 ‘Ulla said: Moses desired kingship, but He did not grant it to him, for it is written, Draw not nigh halom [hither];21 ‘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]?22 Raba raised an objection: R. Ishmael said: Her [Elisheba's] brother-in-law [Moses] was a king? — Said Rabbah b. ‘Ulla:23 He [‘Ulla] meant, for himself and for his descendants.24 Does then ‘halom’ refer to [future] generations wherever it is written?25 Surely it is written in connection with Saul, Is there yet a man come halom [hither],26 yet only he [enjoyed kingship], but not his seed? — If you wish I can answer that there was Ish-bosheth.27 Alternatively, Saul was different, for it [kingship] did not remain even with him.28 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.29 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.30 MEN WITH A BLEMISH, WHETHER TRANSIENT. How do we know this?- Because our Rabbis taught: Every male [may eat of it]:31 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?32 Hence it means in respect of sharing.33 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?34 Hence [it is required] in respect of a man blemished from birth.35 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!36 — Said R. Shesheth: Reverse it. R. Ashi said: After all, do not reverse it, yet it is necessary. For I might argue, it may not prove that he was a priest. not enjoy kingship for future generations. and he lost it only through his own instability. Talmud now interprets each one.