## Zevachim Daf 102a

###### Zevachim 102a:1
[Zevachim 102a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:1)

וְאֵין זָר רוֹאֶה אֶת הַנְּגָעִים! וְאִם תֹּאמַר אַהֲרֹן הִסְגִּירָהּ – אַהֲרֹן קָרוֹב הוּא, וְאֵין קָרוֹב רוֹאֶה אֶת הַנְּגָעִים! אֶלָּא כָּבוֹד גָּדוֹל חָלַק לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמִרְיָם אוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה: אֲנִי כֹּהֵן וַאֲנִי מַסְגִּירָהּ, אֲנִי חוֹלְטָהּ וַאֲנִי פּוֹטְרָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and a non-priest may not inspect the** shades of leprous **marks** to diagnose them. **And if you say** that **Aaron quarantined her,** that is difficult, as **Aaron** was **a relative,** Miriam’s brother, **and a relative may not inspect the** shades of leprous **marks. Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, bestowed a great honor on Miriam at that time,** and said: **I** Myself **am a priest, and I** will **quarantine her** for seven days to see if the shades of leprous marks persist, and **I** will **declare her** a leper if she is impure, **and I** will **exempt her** if she is not impure.


###### Zevachim 102a:2
[Zevachim 102a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:2)

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: מֹשֶׁה זָר, וְאֵין זָר רוֹאֶה אֶת הַנְּגָעִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In any event,** the midrash **teaches: Moses** was **a non-priest, and a non-priest may not inspect the** shades of leprous **marks,** which contradicts the statement of Rav that Moses was a priest.


###### Zevachim 102a:3
[Zevachim 102a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:3)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: שָׁאנֵי מַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים, דְּאַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו כְּתוּבִין בַּפָּרָשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:** The *halakhot* of the examination of **shades of** leprous **marks are different, because** specifically **Aaron and his sons,** and not Moses, **are written in the passage** that discusses them: “Then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests” (Leviticus 13:2). Therefore, there is no proof from this *baraita* that Moses was not a priest.


###### Zevachim 102a:4
[Zevachim 102a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:4)

מֵיתִיבִי: חָמֵשׁ שְׂמָחוֹת הָיְתָה אֱלִישֶׁבַע יְתֵירָה עַל בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל – יְבָמָהּ מֶלֶךְ, אִישָׁהּ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, בְּנָהּ סְגָן, בֶּן בְּנָהּ מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה, וְאָחִיהָ נְשִׂיא שֵׁבֶט; וַאֲבֵילָה עַל שְׁנֵי בָּנֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rav’s statement from a *baraita*: **Elisheva,** the daughter of Amminadav and the wife of Aaron, **had five more** reasons for **joy than** the other **daughters of Israel** on the day the Tabernacle was dedicated: **Her brother-in-law,** Moses, was **a king; her husband,** Aaron, was the **High Priest; her son,** Elazar, was the **deputy** High Priest; **her son’s son,** Pinehas, was the priest **anointed for war,** who would lead the army out to battle; **and her brother,** Nahshon, son of Amminadav, was **the prince of** the **tribe** of Judah, who brought his offering on that day, as the first of all the princes. **But** on that same day of joy she was **in mourning for her two sons,** Nadav and Avihu, who died on that day.


###### Zevachim 102a:5
[Zevachim 102a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:5)

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: יְבָמָהּ מֶלֶךְ – מֶלֶךְ אִין, כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לָא! אֵימָא: אַף מֶלֶךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In any event,** the *baraita* **teaches: Her brother-in-law,** Moses, was **a king.** From this one can infer that **yes,** he was **a king,** but he was **not a High Priest,** contrary to Rav’s statement. The Gemara responds: **Say** that the *baraita* means: Moses was **a king as well,** in addition to being a High Priest.


###### Zevachim 102a:6
[Zevachim 102a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:6)

כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״וַיִּחַר אַף ה׳ בְּמֹשֶׁה״ – רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל חֲרוֹן אַף שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ רוֹשֶׁם, וְזֶה לֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ רוֹשֶׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: The question of whether Moses was a High Priest is **subject to** a dispute among ***tanna’im*,** as is taught in a *baraita*: When Moses was at the burning bush and expressed hesitation to deliver God’s message to Pharaoh, the verse states: **“And the anger of the Lord burned against Moses,** and He said: Is there not Aaron your brother the Levite? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he comes forth to meet you, and when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart” (Exodus 4:14). **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says:** For **every burning anger that** is stated **in the Torah, its effect is** also **stated,** i.e., the Torah records an action or pronouncement as a consequence of that anger, **but** in **this** case **no effect of** the anger **is stated.**


###### Zevachim 102a:7
[Zevachim 102a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:7)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: אַף זֶה נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ רוֹשֶׁם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הֲלֹא אַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ הַלֵּוִי״ – וַהֲלֹא כֹּהֵן הוּא! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֲנִי אָמַרְתִּי אַתָּה כֹּהֵן וְהוּא לֵוִי, עַכְשָׁיו הוּא כֹּהֵן וְאַתָּה לֵוִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Even in this** case the anger’s **effect is stated, as it is stated** there: **“Is there not Aaron your brother the Levite?** I know that he can speak well.” **But isn’t** Aaron **a priest?** Why is he referred to as a Levite? **This** is what God **is saying** to Moses: **I** initially **said** that **you** would be the **priest and he** would be the **Levite; now he** will be the **priest and you** will be the **Levite.**


###### Zevachim 102a:8
[Zevachim 102a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:8)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא נִתְכַּהֵן מֹשֶׁה, אֶלָּא שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּלּוּאִים בִּלְבַד. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: לֹא פָּסְקָה כְּהוּנָּה אֶלָּא מִזַּרְעוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמֹשֶׁה אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים בָּנָיו יִקָּרְאוּ עַל שֵׁבֶט הַלֵּוִי״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן בְּכֹהֲנָיו וּשְׁמוּאֵל בְּקֹרְאֵי שְׁמוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say: Moses became a priest** for **the seven days of inauguration alone,** and after that his priesthood expired. **And some say:** The **priesthood expired only for the descendants of Moses,** but Moses himself remained a priest, **as it is stated: “But as for Moses the man of God, his sons are named among the tribe of Levi”** (I Chronicles 23:14). This verse indicates that it was his sons who were Levites, but he himself remained a priest. **And** so too the verse **states: “Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among them that call upon His name,** did call upon the Lord, and He answered them” (Psalms 99:6).


###### Zevachim 102a:9
[Zevachim 102a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:9)

מַאי וְאוֹמֵר? וְכִי תֵּימָא לְדוֹרוֹת הוּא דִּכְתִיב, וְאוֹמֵר: ״מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן בְּכֹהֲנָיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is meant by: **And** so too the verse **states?** Why did the *tanna* need to cite a second proof? The Gemara explains: **And if you would say** the first verse **is written only for** future **generations,** to include Moses’ descendants in the tribe of Levi but not to exclude him, then there is a second proof: **And** so too, the verse **states: “Moses and Aaron among His priests.”** The statement of Rav that Moses was a High Priest is in accordance with the opinion in this *baraita*.


###### Zevachim 102a:10
[Zevachim 102a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:10)

וְכׇל חֲרוֹן אַף שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ רוֹשֶׁם?! וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיֵּצֵא מֹשֶׁה מֵעִם פַּרְעֹה בׇּחֳרִי אָף״, וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי! אֲמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: סְטָרוֹ וְיָצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa: **And** is it true that for **every burning anger that** is stated **in the Torah, its effect is** also **stated? But isn’t it written** with regard to Moses: **“And he went out from Pharaoh in hot anger”** (Exodus 11:8)? **And** Moses **did not say anything to** Pharaoh. **Reish Lakish said:** Moses **slapped him and left.**


###### Zevachim 102a:11
[Zevachim 102a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:11)

וּמִי אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ הָכִי?! וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְנִצַּבְתָּ לִקְרָאתוֹ עַל שְׂפַת הַיְאֹר״, וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מֶלֶךְ הוּא וְהַסְבֵּיר לוֹ פָּנִים, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: רָשָׁע הוּא וְהָעֵיז פָּנֶיךָ בּוֹ! אֵיפוֹךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **And does Reish Lakish** actually **say this? But isn’t it written:** “Go unto Pharaoh in the morning; lo, he goes out unto the water; **and you shall stand by the river’s brink to meet him,** and the rod which was turned to a serpent shall you take in your hand” (Exodus 7:15); **and Reish Lakish says:** God meant: Pharaoh **is a king, and** so you should **be amiable toward him, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** God meant: Pharaoh **is wicked, and** so you should **be insolent toward him.** If according to Reish Lakish Moses was commanded to greet Pharaoh with respect, how could he say that Moses slapped Pharaoh? The Gemara answers: **Reverse** the names of the Sages in this dispute; it is Reish Lakish who says that Moses was commanded to be insolent.


###### Zevachim 102a:12
[Zevachim 102a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: לְעוֹלָם תְּהֵא אֵימַת מַלְכוּת עָלֶיךָ; דִּכְתִיב: ״וְיָרְדוּ כׇל עֲבָדֶיךָ אֵלֶּה אֵלַי״ – וְאִילּוּ לְדִידֵיהּ לָא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the respect accorded to a king, **Rabbi Yannai says: Fear of** the **kingship should always be upon you,** even when the king does not deserve respect, **as it is written** that Moses said to Pharaoh: **“And all these your servants shall come down unto me** and bow down unto me, saying: Get you out, and all the people that follow you, and after that I will go out” (Exodus 11:8). He mentioned Pharaoh’s servants, **but he did not say** this **of** Pharaoh **himself,** even though this was the eventual outcome. Rather, he spoke to Pharaoh with the respect due to a king.


###### Zevachim 102a:13
[Zevachim 102a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:13)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״וְיַד ה׳ הָיְתָה אֶל אֵלִיָּהוּ, וַיְשַׁנֵּס מׇתְנָיו וַיָּרׇץ לִפְנֵי אַחְאָב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** Derive the principle **from here: “And the hand of the Lord was on Elijah, and he girded up his loins and ran before Ahab** to the entrance of Jezreel” (I Kings 18:46). Elijah the prophet ran before the evil king Ahab out of respect.


###### Zevachim 102a:14
[Zevachim 102a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:14)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: בִּקֵּשׁ מֹשֶׁה מַלְכוּת, וְלֹא נָתְנוּ לוֹ; דִּכְתִיב: ״אַל תִּקְרַב הֲלֹם״, וְאֵין ״הֲלוֹם״ אֶלָּא מַלְכוּת – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִי אָנֹכִי ה׳ אֱלֹהִים [וְגוֹ׳] כִּי הֲבִיאֹתַנִי עַד הֲלֹם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to discuss the roles of Moses: **Ulla says: Moses requested** that he be given the **kingship, but it was not given to him, as it is written: “Do not draw hither”** (Exodus 3:5); **and** the word **“hither”** refers to **nothing other than kingship, as it is stated:** “Then David the king went in and sat before the Lord, and he said: **Who am I, O Lord God,** and what is my house, **that You have brought me hither”?** (II Samuel 7:18).


###### Zevachim 102a:15
[Zevachim 102a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:15)

מֵתִיב רָבָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: יְבָמָהּ מֶלֶךְ! אָמַר רָבָא: לוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises an objection** from the *baraita* cited earlier: **Rabbi Yishmael says:** Elisheva’s **brother-in-law,** Moses, was **a king.** This teaches that Moses was in fact granted kingship. **Rava said:** Ulla **is saying** that Moses did not receive kingship **for himself and for his descendants,** i.e., it was not bequeathed to his sons.


###### Zevachim 102a:16
[Zevachim 102a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:16)

וְכֹל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיב ״הֲלוֹם״ – לְדוֹרוֹת הוּא?! וְהָא גַּבֵּי שָׁאוּל דִּכְתִיב: ״הֲבָא עוֹד הֲלֹם אִישׁ״ – הוּא אִין, זַרְעוֹ לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: **And** is it so that **anywhere that it is written “hither”** the verse **is** referring to kingship **for** future **generations** as well? **But isn’t it written about** the kingship of **Saul:** “They asked of the Lord further: **Is there yet a man who comes hither”** (I Samuel 10:22), and Saul was **indeed** a king, but **his descendants** were **not.**


###### Zevachim 102a:17
[Zevachim 102a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:17)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא הֲוָה אִישׁ בּשֶׁת, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: שָׁאנֵי שָׁאוּל – דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּגַוֵּיהּ לָא קָאֵים;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **If you wish, say: There was Ish-Bosheth,** Saul’s son, who was a king (see II Samuel 2:10), indicating that Saul’s kingship did pass to his son. **And if you wish, say** instead: **Saul is different, because** the kingship **did not stand even for himself,** and this is why it did not pass on to his descendants.


###### Zevachim 102a:18
[Zevachim 102a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:18)

כִּדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁפּוֹסְקִים גְּדוּלָּה לָאָדָם – פּוֹסְקִים לוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ עַד סוֹף כׇּל הַדּוֹרוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יִגְרַע מִצַּדִּיק עֵינָיו וְאֶת מְלָכִים לַכִּסֵּא וְגוֹ׳״. וְאִם הֵגֵיס דַּעְתּוֹ – הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַשְׁפִּילוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִם אֲסוּרִים בַּזִּקִּים יִלָּכְדוּן בְּחַבְלֵי עֹנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The second response is **in accordance with** that which **Rabbi Elazar** says that **Rabbi Ḥanina says: When greatness is apportioned to a person** in Heaven, it **is apportioned to him and to his descendants until the end of all generations, as it is stated: “He withdraws not His eyes from the righteous; but with kings upon the throne** He sets them forever, and they are exalted” (Job 36:7). **But if he** then **became arrogant, the Holy One, Blessed be He, humiliates him, as is stated** in the next verse: **“And if they be bound in fetters, and be held in cords of affliction”** (Job 36:8). This was the case with Saul.


###### Zevachim 102a:19
[Zevachim 102a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:19)

בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין, בֵּין בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כׇּל זָכָר״ – לְרַבּוֹת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Blemished** priests, **whether** they are temporarily **blemished** or permanently blemished, receive a share and partake of offerings, but do not sacrifice them. The Gemara explains: **From where are these matters** derived? **As the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to the meal offering: **“Every male** among the sons of Aaron shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:11). The phrase “every male” serves **to include blemished** priests.


###### Zevachim 102a:20
[Zevachim 102a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:20)

לְמַאי? אִי לַאֲכִילָה – הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״לֶחֶם אֱלֹהָיו מִקׇּדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים יֹאכֵל״! אֶלָּא לַחֲלוּקָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **For what** matter is this derivation necessary? **If** one suggests it is **for** the matter of **consumption, it is already stated** explicitly: “Any man of the seed of Aaron the priest who has a blemish…**He may eat the bread of his God, of the most sacred,** and of the sacred” (Leviticus 21:21–22). **Rather,** Leviticus 6:11 is necessary **for** the matter of **receiving a share,** teaching that blemished priests may do so along with the other priests. This is the source for the mishna’s statement.


###### Zevachim 102a:21
[Zevachim 102a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:21)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״כׇּל זָכָר״ – לְרַבּוֹת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין. לְמַאי? אִי לַאֲכִילָה – הֲרֵי כְּבָר אָמוּר! אִי לַחֲלוּקָּה – הֲרֵי כְּבָר אָמוּר! שֶׁיָּכוֹל אֵין לִי אֶלָּא תָּם וְנַעֲשָׂה בַּעַל מוּם, בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל זָכָר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **is taught** in **another** *baraita*: The verse states with regard to the sin offering: **“Every male** among the priests may eat thereof” (Leviticus 6:22). The phrase “every male” serves **to include blemished** priests. The Gemara explains: **For what** matter is this derivation necessary? **If** one suggests it is **for** the matter of **consumption, isn’t** that **already stated** in Leviticus, chapter 21? **If** one suggests it is **for** the matter of **receiving a share, isn’t** that **already stated** in verse 6:11? Rather, the verse is necessary **because** one **might** have thought that **I have** derived **only** the *halakha* with regard to a priest who was at first **unblemished and** later **became blemished. From where** is it derived that one **blemished from birth** also receives a share? **The verse states** here: **“Every male.”**


###### Zevachim 102a:22
[Zevachim 102a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:22)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״כׇּל זָכָר״ – לְרַבּוֹת בַּעַל מוּם. לְמַאי? אִי לַאֲכִילָה – הֲרֵי כְּבָר אָמוּר! וְאִי לַחֲלוּקָּה – הֲרֵי כְּבָר אָמוּר! וְאִי לְבַעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ – הֲרֵי כְּבָר אָמוּר! שֶׁיָּכוֹל אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּעַל מוּם קָבוּעַ, בַּעַל מוּם עוֹבֵר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל זָכָר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **is taught** in **another** *baraita*: The verse states with regard to the guilt offering: **“Every male** among the priests may eat thereof” (Leviticus 7:6). The phrase “every male” serves **to include a blemished** priest. The Gemara explains: **For what** matter is this derivation necessary? **If** one suggests it is **for** the matter of **eating, isn’t** that **already stated? And if** one suggests it is **for** the matter of **receiving a share, isn’t** that **already stated? And if** one suggests it is **for** a priest **blemished from birth, isn’t** that **already stated?** Rather, the verse is necessary **because** one **might** have thought that **I have** derived **only** the *halakha* with regard to **a permanently blemished** priest. **From where** is it derived that a **temporarily blemished** priest also receives a share? **The verse states** here: **“Every male.”**


###### Zevachim 102a:23
[Zevachim 102a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:23)

כְּלַפֵּי לְיָיא? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אֵיפוֹךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **Isn’t it the opposite [*kelapei layya*]?** Wouldn’t I have thought that a priest with a permanent blemish would be treated more stringently than one with a temporary blemish? **Rav Sheshet said: Reverse** the wording as follows: One might have thought that I have derived only the *halakha* with regard to a priest with a temporary blemish; from where is it derived that one with a permanent blemish also receives a share?


###### Zevachim 102a:24
[Zevachim 102a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/102a:24)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם לָא תֵּיפוֹךְ; וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: Actually, do not reverse** the wording, **and** this is not difficult. It **was necessary** to teach that even a priest with a temporary blemish receives a share, because it might **enter your mind to say**