Zevachim 101a

זבחים ק״א ע״א

Learn Zevachim 101a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Zevachim 101a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

אנינות and eating קדשים: the night after burial, and the story of אהרן's sons and the burned חטאת

Overview

The amud opens by finishing an earlier point: the night after burial is still treated as אנינות, because חכמים strengthened their own rules even more than Torah rules. Then a ברייתא explains three phrases משה used on the day אהרן's sons died. One of them teaches that כהנים in אנינות must eat the קדשים. A second ברייתא seems to say the opposite: the חטאת was burned because of אנינות, and that was correct. שמואל answers that the two ברייתות follow two different תנאים. רבי נחמיה says the חטאת was burned because of אנינות, while רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון say it was burned because of טומאה. רבא answers differently: both ברייתות follow רבי נחמיה, because one speaks of one-time קרבנות and the other of קרבנות for all generations. The גמרא then retells the conversation between משה and אהרן twice, once by each view. In both readings משה rules out each possible problem, and אהרן proves with a קל וחומר from מעשר that an אונן may not eat קדשים. The amud ends as משה begins to accept אהרן's answer, and the פסוק continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (27)

1. ConclusionThe Sages strengthened their own rules
2. StatementThree phrases of command spoken by משה
3. ChallengeAnother ברייתא says the burning was correct
4. ResolutionTwo ברייתות, two opinions
5. ProofThe ברייתא that shows the dispute between רבי נחמיה and רבי יהודה
6. ProofThree proofs that the חטאת was not burned because of mourning
7. Resolutionרבא: both ברייתות can follow רבי נחמיה
8. QuestionHow does each side explain the פסוקים?
9. Responseרבי נחמיה's reading: משה checks for other problems first
10. Challengeמשה suggests the offering was ruined by mourning
11. Resolutionאהרן answers that he offered it himself
12. Challengeמשה argues it should have been eaten
13. Resolutionאהרן says the command was only for one-time offerings
14. ProofProof from מעשר שני that a mourner may not eat permanent offerings
15. Conclusionמשה agrees and admits he forgot
16. QuestionHow do רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון explain the verses?
17. Responseמשה's first question: did the blood go inside?
18. Resolutionאהרן: the blood was not brought inside
19. Challengeמשה's second question: did the meat leave the courtyard?
20. Resolutionאהרן: it stayed in the holy area
21. Challengeמשה's third question: did אנינות disqualify it?
22. Resolutionאהרן: I offered it, not my sons
23. Challengeמשה's fourth question: did it become טמא through carelessness?
24. Resolutionאהרן: I would never treat holy offerings with contempt
25. Challengeמשה: then you should have eaten it even in אנינות
26. Resolutionאהרן answers that the command applied only at night, proven by a קל וחומר from מעשר
27. Conclusionמשה immediately accepts אהרן's argument