Zevachim 102
Summary
- This sugya challenges Rav’s claim that Moshe Rabbeinu is a kohen gadol, derives honor for monarchy from Moshe’s conduct toward Pharaoh, explores whether Moshe holds kingship, codifies when a ba’al mum is cholek bekodashim, refines the rule of kol she’eino ra’uy la’avodah eino cholek against notable exceptions, fixes the timing of tumah that disqualifies for chalukah, excludes a tvul yom from chalukah through a chain of rejected kal va-chomers anchored in pesukim, and concludes with the limit on hirhur divrei Torah in a beit ha-kisei subject to le’onso shani.
- The Gemara challenges Rav by asking who was soger Miriam, since a non-kohen may not be ro’eh nega’im and a karov is invalid, and answers that Hashem grants Miriam special honor: אותה שעה אני כהן ואני מסגירה אני חולטה ואני פוטרה. Tosafot notes that Aharon called it a hefsed for Miriam, and the sugya clarifies that the declaration of a kohen effects tum’ah and taharah even if the kohen is am ha’aretz. The Gemara concludes that Moshe can still be a kohen because *mar’ot nega’im* are written specifically for “*Aharon u’vanav*,” excluding Moshe from that role despite his kehuna. The Maharsha, Birkat HaZevach, and Tzon Kodashim offer reasons why Moshe or other relatives (such as Pinchas) did not see her nega, including prior disqualification as a non-kohen, derashah of *karov*, lack of chashad, or familial proximity.
- The baraita lists five simchot of Elisheva—yevama melech, isha kohen gadol, bena segan, ben b’na mashuach milchamah, v’achiah nasi shevet—and concludes that tragedy accompanied them. The Gemara reads the phrase to mean “af melech,” supporting that Moshe is also a melech in addition to being a kohen gadol. The Maharsha cites a Midrash counting four joys and connects this to whether Pinchas became a kohen before or after Zimri, and the Da’at Zekeinim and other Acharonim qualify Pinchas’s status across generations. Teshuvot Torah Lishmah infers a basis for additional kavod accruing to a woman by virtue of a brother-in-law who is a talmid chacham from the honor implied in yevama melech.
- Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai states that every charon af leaves a rosem and proves it here from “halo Aharon achicha haLevi,” meaning “I said you will be the kohen and he the Levi; now he is the kohen and you the Levi,” while Chachamim hold Moshe’s kehuna lasts only the seven days of milu’im and Yesh Omrim say only Moshe’s descendants lose kehuna, citing “Moshe ish haElokim banav yikare’u al shevet haLevi” and “Moshe v’Aharon b’kohanev.” The rosem rule is upheld for “vayetze me’im Paro bechari af” by saying he struck Pharaoh, then reconciled with the duty to honor kings by assigning deference to Pharaoh’s status as melech. The Gemara derives kevod malkhut from Moshe’s restraint—“veyardu kol avadecha eilei elai”—and from Eliyahu’s running before Achav; Rabbi Yannai states “le’olam tehei eimat malkhut alecha.” The Tumim rules that a melech Yisrael who is a rasha eino oseh ma’aseh amcha does not warrant kavod, and the Chatam Sofer writes that any melech over whom one recites the beracha requires Torah-level honor, while the applicability of this to presidents is questioned.
- Ulla says Moshe requests malkhut at the sneh and is denied from him and his descendants, reading “Al tikrav halom” as an expression of kingship. Rava reconciles this with yevama melech by explaining that kingship is not granted ledorot, and the exceptions and punishments in Shaul’s case are addressed by Ish-Boshet and by the rule of Rabbi Elazar in the name of Rabbi Chanina that when greatness is decreed it extends to descendants unless arrogance brings demotion. The Yalkut reads “hineni” as Moshe requesting both kehuna and malkhut and “Al tikrav halom” denying both, and the Maharil Diskin ties “Shel na’alecha” and Moshe’s need to sit to remove shoes at age eighty to אין ישיבה בעזרה אלא למלכות בית דוד בלבד, reading “Al tikrav halom” as keep distance from the makom kadosh.
- Multiple “kol zachar” derashot include a ba’al mum for achilah and for chalukah, extend this to a ba’al mum me’ikara, and further to a mum over. Rav Sheshet flips an initial hierarchy and makes ba’al mum kavua the greater chidush, while Rav Ashi maintains the text and explains that a mum over is a greater novelty because one might have delayed his rights like a davar sheyesh lo matirin until he is metukan. The rule remains that even a ba’al mum—whether kavua or over—is cholek and ochel now.
- The Mishnah states כל שאינו ראוי לעבודה אינו חולק, but the Gemara limits this by ribbuyim for a ba’al mum who is not ra’uy la’avodah yet is cholek, and by excluding a tamei in korbanot tzibur who is ra’uy la’avodah yet is not cholek. The sugya first recasts the criterion as ra’uy le’achilah, then rejects an overbroad diyuk from a katan, and finally returns to the original formulation with the proviso that a ba’al mum is an explicit exception by pasuk. The net rule is that lack of ra’uy la’avodah blocks chalukah, with ba’al mum as a scripted exception.
- The Mishnah’s case implies that status at zerikat ha-dam governs chalukah even if he is tahor at hak’tarat chalavim, which is not like Abba Shaul who requires taharah from zerikah until k’tarah based on “hamakriv et dam hashelamim ve’et hachelev.” Rav Ashi asks whether being tahor at both endpoints but tamei in between satisfies Abba Shaul’s requirement or if uninterrupted taharah is necessary, and the sugya leaves it teiku.
- Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon formulates dialogues in which a tvul yom seeks portions of a mincha, a chatat, or the chazeh v’shok of a shelamim le’echol la’erev through kal va-chomer reasoning, and a kohen tahor rebuts each by pesukim: “lakohen hamakriv otah lo tihyeh,” “hakohen hamachta otah yochlena,” and “lakohen hazorek et dam hashelamim lo tihyeh,” each concluding ba hakrev/zarok ve’echol. Rav Acha asks to extend this to a bechor via “damam tizrok al hamizbe’ach ve’chalbam takt’ir vehabasar yihyeh lecha,” and Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon rejects that proof since “vehabasar yihyeh lecha” implies it may go even to a different kohen. The sugya states that an onen and a mechusar kapparah are similarly excluded from chalukah by the same service-based criteria.
- The report that Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon taught these derashot in a beit ha-kisei prompts the rule of Rabbi Yochanan that one may think divrei Torah everywhere except a merchatz and a beit ha-kisei, and the Gemara answers *le’onso shani*. The Shulchan Aruch prohibits hirhur Torah in a beit ha-kisei, and the Mishnah Berurah records the *le’onso shani* qualification. Contemporary poskim debate modern facilities: the Chazon Ish is uncertain about their status, Rav Ovadia Yosef permits listening to shiurim in the shower, and Rav Vilg is lenient in various bathroom cases, while stories of Rav Yonasan Eybeschutz highlight the sensitivity to unintended hirhur.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions