## Zevachim Daf 101b

###### Zevachim 101b:1
[Zevachim 101b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/101b:1)

וַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינָיו״ – לֹא בּוֹשׁ מֹשֶׁה לוֹמַר ״לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי״, אֶלָּא ״שָׁמַעְתִּי וְשָׁכַחְתִּי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and it was good in his eyes”** (Leviticus 10:20). **Moses was not embarrassed** and did not attempt to justify himself **by saying: I did not hear** this *halakha* until now. **Rather,** he said: **I heard** it, **and I forgot** it.


###### Zevachim 101b:2
[Zevachim 101b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/101b:2)

אִיבְּעִי לְהוּ לְשַׁהוֹיַיהּ, וּלְמֵיכְלַהּ בְּאוּרְתָּא! טוּמְאָה בְּאוֹנֶס בָּאתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: According to this opinion, why was the sin offering burned? **They should have delayed its** consumption **and consumed** it that **night.** The Gemara answers: **Ritual impurity came** upon this sin offering **due to circumstances beyond** the priests’ **control,** and they were forced to burn it.


###### Zevachim 101b:3
[Zevachim 101b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/101b:3)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּנַן, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״הַיּוֹם״; אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, מַאי ״הַיּוֹם״? חוֹבַת הַיּוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted, according to the Rabbis,** i.e., Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, **this is as it is written:** “And if I had consumed the sin offering **today,** would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord”? The verse indicates that Aaron could have eaten it at night. **But according to Rabbi Neḥemya,** who holds that Aaron distinguished between the offerings of that particular time and the offerings of all later generations, **what** did Aaron mean by the word **“today”?** The Gemara answers: He meant: And if I had eaten the sin offering of the New Moon, which is **today’s obligation,** would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord?


###### Zevachim 101b:4
[Zevachim 101b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/101b:4)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״הֵן הַיּוֹם״; אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן, מַאי ״הֵן הַיּוֹם״? הָכִי קָאָמַר: הֵן הִקְרִיבוּ?! אֲנִי הִקְרַבְתִּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted, according to Rabbi Neḥemya, this is as it is written: “Behold, today** have they sacrificed their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord,” i.e., they offered it as the obligation of the day. **But according to the Rabbis,** i.e., Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, **what** did Aaron mean by the phrase “**behold [*hen*], today”?** The Gemara answers: **This** is what Aaron **is saying: Did they [*hen*],** my sons, **sacrifice** the offering today, which would have been prohibited to them in acute mourning? No, **I sacrificed** the offering, and as High Priest, I may perform the service in acute mourning.


###### Zevachim 101b:5
[Zevachim 101b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/101b:5)

אָמַר מָר: (הָיוּ) [הָיָה] לִשְׁלׇשְׁתָּן שֶׁיִּשָּׂרְפוּ. מַאי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues to analyze the *baraita*. **The Master says:** If the sin offering was burned due to acute mourning, then the priests **should have burned** all **three of** the sin offerings offered that day. The Gemara asks: **What** is meant by: All **three of** the sin offerings?


###### Zevachim 101b:6
[Zevachim 101b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/101b:6)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְאֵת שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת דָּרֹשׁ דָּרַשׁ מֹשֶׁה״; ״שְׂעִיר״ – זוֹ שָׂעִיר נַחְשׁוֹן, ״חַטָּאת״ – זוֹ חַטַּאת שְׁמִינִי, ״דָּרַשׁ״ – שָׂעִיר שֶׁל רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: **“And Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin offering,** and behold, it was burned” (Leviticus 10:16). When the verse states: “The **goat,” this** is referring to **the goat of Nahshon,** son of Amminadav, the prince of the tribe of Judah, who brought the offering on the first day of the Tabernacle’s inauguration (see Numbers 7:12). When the verse states: “The **sin offering,” this** is referring to the **sin offering** that the people brought on the **eighth** day of the inauguration (see Leviticus 9:13). The term **“inquired”** is referring to the **goat** sacrificed at every **New Moon** (see Numbers 28:15). The Tabernacle was erected on the New Moon of Nisan (see Exodus 40:17). These are the three goats that were sacrificed that day.


###### Zevachim 101b:7
[Zevachim 101b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/101b:7)

יָכוֹל שְׁלָשְׁתָּן נִשְׂרְפוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִנֵּה שֹׂרָף״ – אֶחָד נִשְׂרַף וְלֹא שְׁלָשְׁתָּן נִשְׂרְפוּ. ״דָּרֹשׁ דָּרַשׁ״ – שְׁתֵּי דְרִישׁוֹת לָמָּה? אֲמַר לְהוּ: מִפְּנֵי מָה חַטָּאת זוֹ נִשְׂרְפָה, וְאֵלּוּ מוּנָּחוֹת? וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶהוּ; כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְאֹתָהּ נָתַן לָכֶם לָשֵׂאת אֶת עֲוֹן הָעֵדָה״, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה שָׂעִיר שֶׁל רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that all **three of them were burned.** Therefore, **the verse states:** “And Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin offering, **and, behold, it was burned,”** to teach that **one** of the offerings **was burned, but not** all **three of them were burned.** The verse states: “And Moses **diligently inquired [*darosh darash*].” Why** were there **two inquiries?** Moses **said to them: For what** reason is **this sin offering burned, and** secondly, for what reason are **those left** unburned? The *baraita* comments: Still, **I do not know which of them** was burned. **When it states** with regard to the burned goat: **“And He has given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation”** (Leviticus 10:17), **you must say: This is the goat of the New Moon,** which atones for impurity in the Temple.


###### Zevachim 101b:8
[Zevachim 101b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/101b:8)

שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ! רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: קׇדְשֵׁי שָׁעָה לָא פָּסְלָה בְּהוּ אֲנִינוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon **say well to** Rabbi Neḥemya; if the sin offering was burned due to acute mourning, then all three goats should have been burned. How would Rabbi Neḥemya respond? The Gemara explains: **Rabbi Neḥemya** conforms **to his** line of **reasoning, as he says: Acute mourning does not disqualify offerings of** a particular **time.** Therefore, they burned only the New Moon sin offering, which applies to future generations as well.


###### Zevachim 101b:9
[Zevachim 101b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/101b:9)

אָמַר מָר: הָיָה לוֹ לְאׇכְלָהּ לָעֶרֶב. שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ! קָסָבַר: אֲנִינוּת לַיְלָה – דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master says** in the *baraita*: If the sin offering was burned due to acute mourning, why was it burned at all? **He should have eaten it in the evening.** The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon **say well to** Rabbi Neḥemya in posing this difficulty. How would he respond? The Gemara explains: He **holds** that **acute mourning in the evening** is **by Torah law,** and therefore the priests were not permitted to eat it even then.


###### Zevachim 101b:10
[Zevachim 101b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/101b:10)

דָּבָר אַחֵר: וַהֲלֹא פִּינְחָס הָיָה עִמָּהֶן. שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ! סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לֹא נִתְכַּהֵן פִּינְחָס עַד שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ לְזִמְרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon also stated: **Alternatively, wasn’t Pinehas,** son of Elazar the priest, **with them?** He was not an acute mourner. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon **say well to** Rabbi Neḥemya. The Gemara explains: **He holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar. As Rabbi Elazar says** that **Rabbi Ḥanina says: Pinehas did not become a priest until he killed Zimri,** who had engaged in intercourse with a Midianite woman (see Numbers 25:6–8). **As it is written** only after that incident concerning Pinehas: **“And it shall be unto him and to his seed after him the covenant of an everlasting priesthood”** (Numbers 25:13). Before that incident, at the time of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, the only priests were Aaron and his sons.


###### Zevachim 101b:11
[Zevachim 101b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/101b:11)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: עַד שֶׁשָּׂם שָׁלוֹם בֵּין הַשְּׁבָטִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשְׁמַע פִּינְחָס הַכֹּהֵן וּנְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה וְרָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** Pinehas did not become a priest **until he made peace among the tribes** at the time of the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, when the tribes east of the Jordan River built their own altar and nearly provoked a civil war. Before this, Pinehas was always referred to as: Son of Elazar the priest, but during this incident he is himself referred to as a priest for the first time, **as it is stated: “And Pinehas the priest, and the princes of the congregation, and the heads of the thousands of Israel** that were with him, **heard** the words that the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the children of Manasseh spoke, and it pleased them well” (Joshua 22:30).


###### Zevachim 101b:12
[Zevachim 101b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/101b:12)

וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו״! כִּי כְתִיב הָהוּא, בִּבְרָכָה הוּא דִּכְתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** for **the other** Sage, Rav Ashi, **as well, isn’t it written: “And it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him,** the covenant of an everlasting priesthood”? Apparently, Pinehas became a priest after he killed Zimri. The Gemara responds: **When that** verse **is written,** it is **with regard to** the **blessing that it is written,** that his descendants would always be priests. It did not indicate that Pinehas became a priest immediately.


###### Zevachim 101b:13
[Zevachim 101b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/101b:13)

וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּשְׁמַע פִּינְחָס הַכֹּהֵן״! הָהוּא לְיַחֵס זַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** for **the other** Sages **as well,** who hold that Pinehas became a priest immediately after he killed Zimri, **isn’t it written: “And Pinehas the priest…heard”?** Apparently he became a priest only after the conquest of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara answers: **That** verse serves **to entitle his descendants after him,** that they would continue as High Priests through his merit.


###### Zevachim 101b:14
[Zevachim 101b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/101b:14)

אָמַר רַב: מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ – כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְחוֹלֵק בְּקׇדְשֵׁי שָׁמַיִם הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מֵאֵיל הַמִּלֻּאִים לְמֹשֶׁה הָיָה לְמָנָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav says: Moses, our teacher,** was **a High Priest and would receive a share of offerings** consecrated **to Heaven, as it is stated:** “And Moses took the breast, and waved it for a wave offering before the Lord; **it was Moses’ portion of the ram of inauguration,** as the Lord commanded Moses” (Leviticus 8:29).


###### Zevachim 101b:15
[Zevachim 101b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/101b:15)

מֵיתִיבִי: וַהֲלֹא פִּינְחָס הָיָה עִמָּהֶן. וְאִם אִיתָא, לֵימָא: וַהֲלֹא מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ הָיָה עִמָּהֶן! דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי מֹשֶׁה, דִּטְרִיד בִּשְׁכִינָה; דְּאָמַר מָר: מֹשֶׁה בְּהַשְׁכָּמָה עָלָה וּבְהַשְׁכָּמָה יָרַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection:** In the *baraita*, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon claim that acute mourning was not the reason the sin offering was burned by asking: **Wasn’t Pinehas with them? And if it is so** that Moses could partake of sacrificial meat, **let them say: Wasn’t Moses, our teacher, with them?** The Gemara responds: **Perhaps Moses is different, since** as a prophet, **he was preoccupied with the Divine Presence,** and was not available. **As the Master says: Moses ascended** Mount Sinai **early in the morning, and** he **descended early in the morning.**


###### Zevachim 101b:16
[Zevachim 101b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/101b:16)

מֵיתִיבִי: ״לֶחֶם אֱלֹהָיו מִקׇּדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים וּמִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים יֹאכֵל״ – אִם נֶאֶמְרוּ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, לָמָּה (נאמר) [נֶאֶמְרוּ] קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים? וְאִם נֶאֶמְרוּ קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, לָמָּה (נאמר) [נֶאֶמְרוּ] קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rav’s statement from another *baraita*: The verse states with regard to a blemished priest: **“He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most sacred, and of the sacred”** (Leviticus 21:22). **If offerings of the most sacred order are stated,** that a blemished priest may eat them, then **why** are **offerings of lesser sanctity** also **stated? And if offerings of lesser sanctity are stated, why** are **offerings of the most sacred order stated?**


###### Zevachim 101b:17
[Zevachim 101b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/101b:17)

אִילּוּ לֹא (נאמר) [נֶאֶמְרוּ] קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים הוּא דְּאוֹכֵל, שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּתְּרוּ לְזָר וְלָהֶן; קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים – לֹא יֹאכַל. וְאִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֶמְרוּ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים יְהֵא אוֹכֵל, שֶׁהֵן קַלִּים; בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים – לֹא יְהֵא אוֹכֵל. לְכָךְ נֶאֶמְרוּ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וּלְכָךְ (נאמר) [נֶאֶמְרוּ] קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* answers: **Had offerings of lesser sanctity not been stated, I would have said: It is** only **offerings of the most sacred order that** a blemished priest **may eat, as they were permitted** both **to a non-priest and to** the priests, but a blemished priest **may not eat offerings of lesser sanctity,** which were not permitted to non-priests. **And had offerings of the most sacred order not been stated, I would have said:** A blemished priest **may eat offerings of lesser sanctity, as they are of lesser sanctity,** but **he may not eat of offerings of the most sacred order,** as they are of higher sanctity. **Therefore, offerings of the most sacred order are stated, and therefore, offerings of lesser sanctity** are **stated.**


###### Zevachim 101b:18
[Zevachim 101b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/101b:18)

קָתָנֵי מִיהָא: שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּתְּרוּ לְזָר וְלָהֶן. לָאו מֹשֶׁה? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לָא; בְּבָמָה לְזָר, וּכְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the objection: **In any event,** the *baraita* **teaches: As they were permitted** both **to a non-priest and to** the priests. What non-priest is permitted to eat offerings of the most sacred order? Is this **not** referring to **Moses?** This indicates that Moses was not considered a High Priest, contrary to Rav’s statement. **Rav Sheshet said: No,** this is referring **to a non-priest** sacrificing **on** a private **altar.** Once the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, it was permitted for a time for them to build private altars, on which even non-priests could serve. **And** although only offerings of lesser sanctity were offered on private altars, this *baraita* is **in accordance with the statement of the** Sage who **says: There is a meal offering** that may be offered **on** a private **altar.** Meal offerings are of the most sacred order.


###### Zevachim 101b:19
[Zevachim 101b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/101b:19)

מֵיתִיבִי: מִרְיָם מִי הִסְגִּירָהּ? אִם תֹּאמַר מֹשֶׁה הִסְגִּירָהּ – מֹשֶׁה זָר הוּא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rav’s statement: When **Miriam** became a leper (see Numbers 12:10), **who** diagnosed and **quarantined her? If you say** that **Moses quarantined her,** that is difficult, as **Moses** was **a non-priest,**