Talmud su Levitico 10:78

“According to the early Mishnah if he drinks a quartarius of wine.” They did explain “liquor”. Since “liquor” mentioned there⁹⁶Lev. 10:9, the prohibition for a priest to enter the holy precinct after he drank “wine or liquor”; Sifra Šemini Parašah 1(1). In the Babli, Keritut 13a, the rules of priests are deduced from those of the nazir. means a quartarius, so “liquor” mentioned here also means a quartarius. They changed to say “he shall not eat, he shall not drink.⁹⁷Num. 6:3. Since both expressions appear in the same verse, they should conform to the same standard. Since the volume of an average olive is much smaller than a quartarius, the smaller standard in applicable in both cases.” Since eating is defined by an olive’s size so drinking is by an olive’s size.

Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Aqiba asked Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai⁵³In the Babli, Baba Meẓiʻa 90b, R. Jonathan asked R. Simai. in order to examine him: If somebody muzzled outside and then brought [the animal] inside⁵⁴Reading the verse as: “Do not muzzle an ox while he is threshing”, does this imply that one may use a muzzled ox for threshing when the act of muzzling was done away from the threshing floor?? He said to him (Lev. 10:9): “When you come to the tent of meeting;” from when you come to the tent of meeting⁵⁵The Babli is more explicit: Since the paragraph forbids priests to serve in the Temple when they have alcohol in their system, it implies that it is forbidden for a priest, who had come to the Temple while sober, to drink alcohol during his service. Therefore, as a matter of biblical style, Deut. 25:4 has to be interpreted following R. Ezra.. Rebbi Ezra⁵⁶He is R. Azariah. said, (Deut. 25:4) “Do not muzzle an ox at his threshing;” do not thresh using a muzzled ox.

MISHNAH: One who eats First Fruits before he recited over them³³First Fruits have to be eaten by the priest (Deut. 12:17) after the Temple ceremony. This point is in dispute between R. Aqiba and others., or most holy sacrifices outside the Temple enclosure³⁴They are restricted to priests (Lev.10:15)., or simple sacrifices or Second Tithe outside of the wall³⁵Lev. 10:14 for priests, Deut. 12:17 for others.. One who breaks a bone of a pure Passover sacrifice is flogged 40 [lashes]³⁶Ex. 12:46.. But one who leaves over of the pure³⁷Example of a prohibition subordinated to a positive commandment; cf. Note 1. or breaks a bone of the impure³⁸It lost its holiness. is not flogged 40 [lashes].

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as one has a duty to instruct about actions that should be done, so one has a duty to instruct about actions that should not be done. Rebbi Eleazar said, just as it is forbidden to declare the impure as pure, so it is forbidden to declare the pure as impure. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a practical case comes before you and you do not know whether to suspend or to burn¹¹³In order Ṭahorot, the rule is that heave impure by biblical standards must be burned but heave only impure by rabbinic standards must be “suspended”, viz, one must leave it to rot until it is no longer food and, therefore, pure according to all standards., always try to burn rather than to suspend since there is nothing in the Torah more distinguished than burned bulls and burned rams, and they are burned¹¹⁴In Lev. 10:18 it is established as a general rule that any sacrifice whose blood was brought into the sanctuary, to be sprinkled either on the golden altar or before the ark, must be completely burned.. Rebbi Yose wondered, is it possible to infer from something whose commandment is in this for something whose commandment is not so¹¹⁵The simile is not convincing; one should not rush to treat rabbinic impurity as biblical.?

BARAITHA. Sit before the elders and incline your ear to listen to their words.
GEMARA. As it is written, Ask thy father, and he will declare unto thee, thine elders and they will tell thee.⁹Deut. 32, 7.
BARAITHA. Endeavour in connection with their words to reply on the first point first and on the last point last.
GEMARA. We have learnt there:¹⁰Aboth V, 10 (Sonc. ed., V, 7, p. 64). Seven marks distinguish an uncultured man and seven a wise man. Why does [the Mishnah] first mention the uncultured man? It should have mentioned the wise man [first]!¹¹It is more befitting to begin with the qualities of the wise. Further, why [immediately after mentioning the uncultured man does it enlarge upon the marks] of the wise man [without first enumerating the marks of the uncultured man]?¹²The Mishnah reads: ‘There are seven marks of an uncultured man and seven of a wise man. The wise man does not speak’, etc. Because [the Mishnah] wishes to state, ‘The wise man does not speak before him who is greater than he in wisdom’. Let, then [the Mishnah] state, ‘The uncultured man speaks’, etc.! The teacher enumerates the merits of the wise, and as for the uncultured the converse [applies to them].
R. Aḥa said to Raba, ‘Whence do we know from the Torah that one should speak to the first thing first and the last thing last?’ [He replied,] ‘Whence [do we know it]? It is a Rabbinical teaching’. [R. Aḥa] retorted, ‘According to your reasoning, whence are all of them¹³The seven marks of the wise man. derived?’ He replied, ‘I will tell you them [all from the Torah]. “The wise man does not speak, etc.” [can be learnt] from Hushai, as it is written, Shall we do after his saying? if not, speak thou.¹⁴2 Sam. 17, 6. Ḥushai did not speak in the presence of Aḥitophel, who was greater in wisdom than he, but merely reported to Absalom what he had said. “He does not break in upon the speech of the wise”, as it is written, And it came to pass, that when Jeremiah had made an end of speaking … then spoke Azariah.¹⁵Jer. 43, 1f. “He is not hasty to answer”, as it is written, Be not rash with thy mouth.¹⁶Eccl. 5, 1. “He questions according to the subject”, as it is written, And he asked them … Is your father well, the old man of whom ye spoke? Is he yet alive?¹⁷Gen. 43, 27. And they answered, Thy servant our father is well, he is yet alive.¹⁸ibid. 28. “He speaks to the first point first”, as it is written, And (he) said: Whose daughter art thou? tell me, I pray thee. Is there room in thy father’s house for us to lodge in?¹⁹ibid. XXIV, 23. And it is written, And she said unto him, I am the daughter of Bethuel²⁰ibid. 24. and then, We have both straw and provender enough.²¹ibid. 25. “And he acknowledges the truth”: This refers to Moses, as it is written, And when Moses heard that, it was well-pleasing in his sight;²²Lev. 10, 20, i.e. Moses acknowledged the force of Aaron’s argument. and it is written, For he hath spoken to us in the name of the Lord our God’.²³Jer. 26, 16. The reference is to Jeremiah, the genuineness of whose prophecy is acknowledged by the princes.

HALAKHAH: “But about where there is no knowledge,” etc. Halakhah 5: “Rebbi Simeon used to say,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah is and one goat’s he-goat sin offering for the Eternal¹²⁶Num. 28:15, the sacrifice of the Day of the New Moon. (The verse is quoted not quite correctly.) The root חטא in pā`al means “to sin” but in pi`ēl “to cleanse, to restitute, to purify.” The word חַטָּאת “purification” can also mean “sin” (Ex. 34:9). Here it is interpreted in both senses. Babli 9a.. This he-goat atones for a sin known only to the Eternal¹²⁷In Sifry Deut. 145, the example given is that of a an unknown grave which makes everybody stepping over it impure; the impure person never could know of his impurity.. I have not only the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon; from where the he-goats of the holidays? Rebbi Ze`ira said, and a he-goat<sup>128</sup>In all occurrences (Note 123) the sentence starts with וּ which also could have been left out. This is read as referring to the first case. Babli 9b., the copula adds to the prior subject. Rebbi Ze`ira and¹²⁹Probably “and” should be replaced by a comma. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He gave it to you to lift the sins of the congregation¹³⁰Lev. 10:17, referring to the inauguration of the Tabernacle which was on the first of Nisan. On that day, three purification sacrifices were offered. 1° A calf, special to this day. 2° A he-goat for the Day of the New Moon. 3° A he-goat by the chief of the tribe of Jehudah (Num. 7:16). The verse does not spell out to which of the three it refers.
In the Babli 9b, the entire argument is quoted as explanation of R. Simeon’s statement; also quoted Zevaḥim 101b.. Where do we hold? If about Naḥshon’s he-goat, it atoned for his tribe. If about the he-goat of the Day of (Atonement)¹³¹Read: Inauguration., there is nothing similar in later generations¹³²The reference is to the calf (Note 129, 1°) which only in this case served as public purification offering; in all other cases the sacrifice is a he-goat. Since the verse is in the singular, it follows that only one purification offering was burnt; the other two were eaten [Sifra Šemini Pereq 2(2)]. It is characterized as “given to lift the sin of the congregation”; this is asserted only of the New Moon’s Day he-goat. It follows that the calf of the Inauguration was particular for the Sanctuary and the priests, Naḥshon’s for his tribe.. But we must deal with the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon. What about it? It is said here “lifting sin” and it is said there “lifting sin”, Aaron shall lift the sin of the sancta”¹³³Ex. 28:38.. Since there it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers, also here it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers¹³⁴It is explicitly stated in the verse that the High Priest’s diadem is only effective to cure unknown disabilities of sacrifices, not of humans. In the Babli, Menaḥot 25a, this is the final answer by the fifth Cent. Rav Ashi after a lengthy discussion which also quotes R. Zera (Ze`ira) with a completely different suggestion which is rejected.. What did you see to say, “for the pure person who ate impure”, maybe we should say for the impure person who ate pure? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Jehudah splits the argument of Rebbi Meїr; Rebbi Simeon splits the argument of Rebbi Jehudah<sup>135</sup>R. Jehudah accepts the argument of R. Meїr but excludes the he-goats of the Day of Atonement from the group. R. Simeon accepts the argument of R. Jehudah but excludes the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon.. Rebbi Joḥanan<sup>136</sup>One may conjecture that originally the text read ר״י meaning “R. Jehudah” which was misread by a copyist as “R. Joḥanan”. (In Babli texts, ר״י has both meanings with about the same frequency.) agrees that the he-goat brought inside does not atone; rather it suspends. This parallels Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, he shall make it a purification offering¹³⁷Lev. 16:9. One would have expected the sentence to read וְהִקְרִ֤יב אַֽהֲרֹן֙ אֶת־הַשָּׂעִ֔יר אֲשֶׁ֨ר עָלָ֥ה עָלָי֛ו הַגּוֹרָ֖ל לַֽײ לַחָטָּאת. Then חַטָּאת would have referred to the he-goat and meant “purification offering.” But the clause וְעָשָׂה֭וּ חַטָּֽאת “he turns it into חַטָּאת” defines the word as “unintentional sin.” The he-goat whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary turns intentional into unintentional sins.. He fixed it for suspension, that it could not be changed¹³⁸It cannot be used for any other purpose. If the companion scapegoat would die before it is slaughtered, it could not be used for any other purpose; it must be sent grazing until it develops a bodily defect or becomes too old to be used as a sacrifice, then be sold and its value used to buy other sacrifices. Sifra Aḥare Pereq 2(5)..

If the wine¹⁶⁰In the Rome ms. שְׁתָיוֹ “if he drank it as …” Since this paragraph is not connected with the preceding or the following ones, it is difficult to decide between the readings. is freshly pressed, if the wine¹⁶⁰In the Rome ms. שְׁתָיוֹ “if he drank it as …” Since this paragraph is not connected with the preceding or the following ones, it is difficult to decide between the readings. is sour¹⁶¹This is wine for which it is a matter of opinion whether it is sour wine or sweet vinegar. It still must contain some alcohol. The first hand of the Leiden ms. wrote יַיִן תּוֹסֵס “wine fermenting”. This may be an intrusion from a similar Babylonian baraita, Sanhedrin 70a.? As it was stated: Sour wine may be used to make an eruv¹⁶²If several houses share a common courtyard, the latter can be turned into common property to be available to all dwellers for use on the Sabbath by everyone donating food for a common meal, This is called eruv, “mixing”. If the inhabitants of a dead-end stret decide to turn their street into common property for Sabbath purposes, they have to install a symbolic door at the entrance to the street and prepare common food by “participating”. Cf. Demay 1:4, Notes 192, 193. and participating, one makes a benediction for it¹⁶³Before one drinks sour wine, one has to recite the benediction for wine, not vinegar (Mishnaiot Berakhot 6:1,3)., and one may use it for the preliminary marriage of a bride¹⁶⁴Cf. Demay 4:2, Note 19; Peah 6:2, Note 46; Yebamot 1:1, Note 63., for consoling the mourner¹⁶⁵The first meal of a mourner after the burial of a close relative must be given to him by others and it includes wine; cf. Berakhot 3:1, Notes 48,49,54; Babli Ketubot 8b, Sanhedrin 90a., and it may be sold in a store as wine. If somebody made an unqualified contract for wine, he did not sell sour wine¹⁶⁶On the wholesale level, sour wine has to be labelled as such. However, if an entire inventory was sold, the buyer must expect 10% of the barrels to contain sour wine (Mishnah Baba batra 6:1).. One is prohibited from delivering a decision, or to dissolve a vow, or to enter the Temple¹⁶⁷Lev. 10:8–11 forbids entering the Temple, officiating, and delivering any religious instruction to anybody who is still under the influence of any alcoholic beverage. Since sour wine contains alcohol, it disables as wine.. Only it is forbidden on the altar¹⁶⁸Mal. 1:8 declares sinful any offering on the altar which would not be received by the Pasha as a bribe.. And about the rebellious son it is problematic¹⁶⁹The rebellious son (Deut. 21:18–21) is not guilty unless he eats and drinks immoderately, including half a log of wine (2.7 dl) in one sip. It is undecided whether drinking almost-vinegar is drinking wine in this case. The Babli (Baba batra 96a) discusses whether smell or taste decide between wine and vinegar. It is obvious (Sanhedrin 70a) that grape juice does not qualify as wine in this respect..

From where in the Torah that mourning is seven {days}? He organized seven days of mourning for his father¹⁹⁰Gen.50:10.. Can you infer anything from before the giving of the Torah¹⁹¹And in any case the mourning organized by Josef could not have followed Jewish rules.? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from the following: At the door of the Tent of Meeting you shall sit day and night for seven days, and keep the watch of the Eternal’ s sanctuary¹⁹²Lev. 8:35, quoted incorrectly.. Just as the Holy One, praise to Him, watched over His World for seven {days}, so you shall watch for your brothers for seven {days}. And from where that the Holy One, praise to Him, watched over His World for seven {days}? It was after seven days that the Deluge came over the world¹⁹³Gen. 7:10. Gen. rabba 32(10).. May one mourn before the dying person dies? Only flesh and blood who do not know what will be in the future do not mourn until the dying person dies. But the Holy One, praise to Him, Who knows what will be in the future did first watch for His world. Some want to say, these are the seven days of mourning for Methusela the Just¹⁹⁴Gen. rabba 32(10), Babli Sanhedrin108b. Methusela had Lemekh when he was 187, Lemekh had Noe when he was 182, and the Flood was in Noe’s year 600, which was Methusela’s year 969, the year of his death.. Rebbi Hoshaia said, for the Eternal’s anointing oil is on you¹⁹⁵Lev. 10:7.. Just as you were anointed with the anointing oil all of seven, so watch for your brothers all of seven. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: please let her not be like the dead¹⁹⁶Num. 12:12.. She shall be locked away¹⁹⁷Num. 12:14.. Just as the day of isolation for the dead are seven, so the days of quarantine are seven. One student reported this from Rebbi Joḥanan before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who did not accept it. He said, here he¹⁹⁸R. Joḥanan accepts two contradictory explanations of one and the same verse. uses it for isolation, but there he uses it for making absolute, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, please let her not be like the dead: just as the days of the dead are not counted, so the days of being absolute are not counted¹⁹⁹Since a nazir must be pure, a vow of nazir made when the person either was impure in the impurity of the dead or having been declared absolutely impure in the impurity of skin disease is suspended until the person becomes pure. Only then may he start counting the thirty days of his vow. Babli Nazir 56a.. Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: the days of crying of the mourning for Moses ended²⁰⁰Deut. 34:8. Gen. rabba 100(7).. “The days”, seven. “Of crying”, two. “Mourning”, thirty²⁰¹The duration of standard mourning.. Some switch, “the days”, two, “of crying”, seven, “mourning”, thirty. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ḥiyya, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Judah the Patriarch: I shall turn your holiday into mourning²⁰²Am. 8:10. There is no proof from the Torah.. Since the days of Tabernacles are seven, also the days of mourning are seven. Rebbi Immi said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Maybe since the days of Tabernacles are eight²⁰³And חג, biblically “holiday of pilgrim-age”, in Mishnaic Hebrew means “Tabernacles.” Babli 20a., also the days of mourning are eight? He answered him, the eighth day is a separate holiday²⁰⁴Ḥagigah 1:6, Note 151. Or since Pentecost is one day, also mourning is one day? He answered him, from here about a deferred information²⁰⁵When a relative is informed of a death long after it occurred and he has to observe some signs of mourning at that time only. Babli 20a.. And it was stated such: Current information requires Seven and Thirty. Deferred information does not require Seven and Thirty.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Rebbi Nehemiah and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa both said the same²³¹That under certain circumstances a disqualified sacrifice must be burned immediately, without waiting that it lose its shape, even if the disqualification is not in the victim’s body., as it was stated²³²Sifra Šeminy Pereq 2(8–10).: “it was burned because of deep mourning²³³This is R. Nehemiah’s statement. The discussion refers to Lev. 10:16–17. Since tradition fixes the inauguration of Tabernacle and Priesthood on a First of Nisan (Seder Olam Chapter 7, in the author’s edition p. 82; cf. Rashi ad 9:1), there were three goats as purification offering: the one required for every New Moon (Num. 28:15), the people’s initiation sacrifice (Lev. 10:3), and the one offered by the chief of the tribe of Judah (Num. 7:16). Only the first of these was presented pursuant a permanent law; the other two were one time affairs from which no conclusions could be drawn for generally valid principles. R. Nehemiah holds that since a deep mourner on the day of burial is biblically excluded from all sacral rites, the order given in 18:12–15 to Aaron and his sons to eat sancta even though Aaron’s sons Nadav and Avihu had been buried on that day necessarily was restricted to the one time offerings of that day, to the exclusion of offerings presented following a permanent prescription. But the mourning of the priests is a condition of the enablers, not of the victim, and nevertheless Moses agreed that the purification offering correctly had been burned and not eaten.? Was it not burned only because of impurity? But it was not burned because of impurity, since if it had been burned because of mourning, all three of them²³⁴Since in Moses’s order to eat the sancta purification offerings are not mentioned. should have been burned. Another opinion, was not Phineas with them²³⁵Phineas was born in Egypt (Ex. 6:25). As a nephew of Nadav and Avihu he had no biblical obligation to mourn and could legally have eaten all sacrifices. Since there was one eater, R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa would agree that the sacrifice cannot be burned.? Another opinion, would it not have been permitted to be eaten in the evening²³⁶Since the talmudic rule is that only the day of burial is biblically forbidden. While his sons would have to observe seven days of mourning, the High Priest is forbidden mourning where it is not prescribed; in the following night he could have joined Phineas. Purification offerings are eaten by the priests during the day of offering and the following night.?” In the opinion of Rebbi Nehemiah it should be burned but be counted²³⁷There is no doubt that the obligation for which the sacrifice was brought had been fulfilled.. Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that all three of them were burned. Should not Phineas have eaten? He was not yet appointed {High} Priest²³⁸In the initiation rites (Lev. Chapter 8), only Aaron and his sons are mentioned, not his grandson Phineas. This is the basis of the opinion that Phineas was not originally included in the priesthood; priesthood was conferred on him only after the incident with Zimry (Num. 25:13); Babli Zevaḥim 101b.. Should not Aaron have eaten in the evening? Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that deeo mourning in the night is from the Torah. Rebbi Jeremiah said, also Rebbi Yose the Galilean is with them²³⁹In the same Chapter of Sifra (Halakhah 5), he deduces from Lev. 10:18 that any purification sacrifice whose blood was brought into the sanctuary is disqualified and must be burned immediately. This proves that he agrees with R. Nehemiah that the verses have to be interpreted referring to the ordinary Temple service, and that disqualification of the enabler may trigger an obligation of immediate burning.. ²⁴⁰This paragraph has no direct connection with the preceding; the connection being that R. Yose the Galilean interprets Lev.10:18. And we have stated there:²⁴¹Mishnah Zevaḥim 8:12. “A purification sacrifice whose blood was received in two cups, of which one was brought outside²⁴²Since purification sacrifice has to be eaten by the priests in the Temple courtyard (Lev. 6:19), if any part leaves the sacred domain it becomes disqualified. Since pouring the blood on the walls of the altar enables the meat to be eaten, if blood is brought outside before it was poured the sacrifice is disqualified.; the one inside is qualified. If one of them was brought to the interior²⁴³As noted later, this is required/permitted only in extraordinary cases. The Mishnah here refers to ordinary sacrifices. Since then the blood is not in the courtyard, it is outside its prescribed domain and disqualified., Rebbi Yose the Galilean declares qualified but the Sages declare disqualified. [Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, since in a case where intent disqualifies outside²⁴⁴Slaughtering a victim with the intent of pouring the blood outside the sacred precinct disqualifies the sacrifice; Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:2.
The text in brackets was added by a corrector from a different source; it is neither in the scribe’s text nor in K. the remainder was not made equal to what was brought outside, in a case where intent does not disqualify in the interior²⁴⁵The intent to pour the blood in the Temple itself does not disqualify; Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:6. is it not logical that we not make the remainder to what was brought inside? If it was brought into the interior to atone, even if it did not atone it is disqualified, the words of Rebbi Eliezer²⁴⁶The fact that the blood was inside when it should not have been makes it “outside its place” and disqualifies.. Rebbi Simeon says, only if it atones²⁴⁷Only if something was done against the rules with the blood; the interior of the Temple still is sacred domain.. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was brought into the interior in error, it remains qualified. Of all disqualified blood which one gave on the altar, the diadem only makes the impure acceptable; for the diadem makes the impure acceptable but not what was brought outside.”] Rebbi Eleazar said, you have to know that for Rebbi Yose the Galilean it is disqualification of the enabler since the other part is outside²⁴⁸In the case that one cup was brought to the interior. and it is qualified. You have to know that for the rabbis it is disqualification of the body since it is within its enclosure²⁴⁹Since one cup remained outside, it could be poured on the walls of the altar even if the cup inside became unusable. and it is disqualified. The rabbis explain, since nothing of the blood was brought to the interior, you shall certainly eat it²⁵⁰Lev. 10:18.. Therefore if some of the blood had been brought to the interior, you²⁵¹Aaron’s sons, addressed by Moses. [would have done well] in burning it. Rebbi Yose the Galilean explains, since not all of the blood was brought to the interior, [you shall certainly eat it. Therefore if all of the blood had been brought inside,] you would have done well in burning it. What is the rabbis’ reason? Any purification offering of whose blood was brought; even part of the blood²⁵²Lev. 6:33. As usual, a prefixed mem is interpreted to mean “some, not all”.. What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary^250,Lev. 10:18.²⁵³If Lev. 10:18 is read to refer to rules of the purification sacrifices applicable at all times then it seems to contradict Lev. 6:33 since the prefixed mem is missing.. [This fits with] what was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, the entire matter only speaks of bulls to be burned and goats to be burned²⁵⁴The purification offering of the High Priest (Lev. 4:1–12), of the people (Lev.4:13–21), and of the day of Atonement (Lev.1627). Babli 83a top, Zevaḥim 82a., to prohibit eating them and to teach that if they are disqualified they are burned inside the citadel²⁵⁵Whereas all the other disqualified sacrifices have to be burned outside like the impure Pesaḥ.. They asked him, from where that a purification sacrifice becomes disqualified if some of its blood is brought inside? Not from this verse, behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary? There it does not say of whose blood but all of its blood²⁵⁶Since this is the formulation in the actual case decided by Moses, it is the operative version.. An answer to Rebbi Aqiba who was saying, of whose blood, not all of its blood²⁵⁷Whose opinion is that of the “Sages” opposing R. Yose the Galilean..

When Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s son died, his students came in to comfort him. Rabbi Eliezer came in and sat before him and said: My master, if you please, may I say something? He said: Speak. So he said: Adam the first person had a son who died and he accepted comfort. And how do we know that he accepted comfort? For it says (Genesis 4:25), “And Adam knew his wife again.” So you, too, should accept comfort. He replied: Is it not enough that I have my own pain but that you need to remind me of Adam’s pain as well?
Rabbi Yehoshua came in and said to him: If you please, may I say something before you? He said: Speak. So he said: Job had sons and daughters, and they all died on the same day, and he accepted comfort. So you, too, should accept comfort. And how do we know that Job accepted comfort? For it says (Job 1:21), “The Eternal has given, and the Eternal has taken away. Blessed is the name of the Eternal.” He replied: Is it not enough that I have my own pain but that you have to remind me of Job’s pain as well?
Rabbi Yosei came in and sat before him and said: My master, if you please, may I say something? He said: Speak. So he said: Aaron had two older sons and they both died on the same day, and he accepted comfort, as it says (Leviticus 10:3), “And Aaron was silent,” and silence always indicates comfort. He replied: Is it not enough that I have my own pain but that you have to remind me of Aaron’s pain as well?
Rabbi Shimon came in and said: My master, if you please, may I say something? He said: Speak. So he said: King David had a son who died, and he accepted comfort. So you, too, should accept comfort. And how do we know that David accepted comfort? For it says (II Samuel 12:24), “David comforted his wife Bath Sheba, and he came to her and lay with her, and she gave birth to another son, and called him Solomon.” So you, too, should accept comfort. He replied: Is it not enough that I have my own pain but that you have to remind me of King David’s pain as well?
Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah came in. When [Rabbi Yohanan] saw him, he said to his steward: Take this vessel, and follow me to the bathhouse, because this is a great man, and I will not be able to withstand him.¹Going to the bathhouse might indicate that Rabbi Yohanan’s mourning is about to end, as Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah will surely find a way to provide solace. So [Rabbi Elazar] came in and sat before [Rabbi Yohanan] and said: Let me give you a parable. To what can this be compared? [It can be compared] to a person to whom the king gave a deposit to hold. Every day he would cry and scream and say, Oy, when will I be free of this deposit? So it is with you, Rabbi. You had a son who read from the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings; the Mishnah; Halakhah; and Aggadah; and then was taken from the world free of sin. [Must you, then, accept consolation when you have returned a deposit whole?] He said: Rabbi Elazar, my son, you have comforted me as people are supposed to.
When they all left, Elazar said: I am going to Damasit, a beautiful place with good, sweet water. They said: We will go to Yavneh, a place where there is an abundance of scholars who love the Torah. So he went to Damasit, the beautiful place with good, sweet water, and his reputation in Torah study diminished. And they went to Yavneh, the place where there was an abundance of scholars who all loved the Torah, and their reputations in Torah study grew.

The wise person does not speak before one who is greater than him in wisdom.
From whom do we learn this? From Moses, as it says (Exodus 4:30), “Aaron repeated all the words that the Eternal had spoken to Moses, and he performed the signs in the sight of the people.” And who was the appropriate person to say all these things, Moses or Aaron? One would assume Moses, for Moses had heard them from the mouth of the Almighty, whereas Aaron had heard them just from Moses! However, Moses said to himself: Can I speak in place of my older brother while he is standing right there? Therefore, he told Aaron to speak, as it says (Exodus 4:30), “Aaron repeated all the words that the Eternal had spoken to Moses.”
And he does not interrupt his fellow.
This is Aaron [as it says (Leviticus 10:19), “Then Aaron spoke…see, this day they brought their sin offering and their burnt offering.” But] he was quiet until Moses had finished speaking, and he did not tell Moses to cut his words short. Only afterward did he say to Moses, “See, this day they brought their sin offering and their burnt offering,” but we are in mourning [and cannot eat of the offerings]. And some say that Aaron pulled Moses aside and said to him, “Moses my brother, tithes are the least important of the offerings, and it is still forbidden for a mourner to eat them. A sin offering is the most important of the offerings, so all the more so is it forbidden for a mourner to eat it! Immediately, Moses admitted that [Aaron] was right, as it says (Leviticus 10:20), “And when Moses heard this, it was good in his eyes.” (And in the eyes of the Almighty.)
We learn also from the fact that Moses became angry with Elazar and Itamar, Aaron’s sons. From this, they say that when a person [makes a celebration] for his students, he turns his attention to the greatest of them. But when he becomes angry with them, he directs his anger to the lowliest among them, as it says (Leviticus 10:16), “And he became angry with Elazar and Itamar.” This shows that he was actually angry with Aaron as well.
Aaron was older than Moses, but the Eternal is greater than Aaron! So why didn’t the Eternal speak to Aaron? Because he did not have his sons stand guard. Because if he had put Elazar and Itamar on guard, then he could have kept Nadav and Avihu from sinning.
We learn also from Abraham our forefather, who prayed for the men of Sodom. The Holy Blessed One said to him (Genesis 28:26), “If I find fifty righteous people in Sodom, I will save the whole place for their sake.” But the One who spoke and brought the world into being already knew full well that if there were even three or five righteous people in Sodom, it would have been saved. Yet the Holy Blessed One waited until Abraham finished talking, and only afterward replied, as it says (Genesis 18:33), “When the Eternal had finished speaking to Abraham, He departed…” (as if the Eternal had said to Abraham, see, now I am released, as it says [at the end of the verse]), “…and Abraham returned to his place.”

The wise person does not speak before one who is greater than him in wisdom.
From whom do we learn this? From Moses, as it says (Exodus 4:30), “Aaron repeated all the words that the Eternal had spoken to Moses, and he performed the signs in the sight of the people.” And who was the appropriate person to say all these things, Moses or Aaron? One would assume Moses, for Moses had heard them from the mouth of the Almighty, whereas Aaron had heard them just from Moses! However, Moses said to himself: Can I speak in place of my older brother while he is standing right there? Therefore, he told Aaron to speak, as it says (Exodus 4:30), “Aaron repeated all the words that the Eternal had spoken to Moses.”
And he does not interrupt his fellow.
This is Aaron [as it says (Leviticus 10:19), “Then Aaron spoke…see, this day they brought their sin offering and their burnt offering.” But] he was quiet until Moses had finished speaking, and he did not tell Moses to cut his words short. Only afterward did he say to Moses, “See, this day they brought their sin offering and their burnt offering,” but we are in mourning [and cannot eat of the offerings]. And some say that Aaron pulled Moses aside and said to him, “Moses my brother, tithes are the least important of the offerings, and it is still forbidden for a mourner to eat them. A sin offering is the most important of the offerings, so all the more so is it forbidden for a mourner to eat it! Immediately, Moses admitted that [Aaron] was right, as it says (Leviticus 10:20), “And when Moses heard this, it was good in his eyes.” (And in the eyes of the Almighty.)
We learn also from the fact that Moses became angry with Elazar and Itamar, Aaron’s sons. From this, they say that when a person [makes a celebration] for his students, he turns his attention to the greatest of them. But when he becomes angry with them, he directs his anger to the lowliest among them, as it says (Leviticus 10:16), “And he became angry with Elazar and Itamar.” This shows that he was actually angry with Aaron as well.
Aaron was older than Moses, but the Eternal is greater than Aaron! So why didn’t the Eternal speak to Aaron? Because he did not have his sons stand guard. Because if he had put Elazar and Itamar on guard, then he could have kept Nadav and Avihu from sinning.
We learn also from Abraham our forefather, who prayed for the men of Sodom. The Holy Blessed One said to him (Genesis 28:26), “If I find fifty righteous people in Sodom, I will save the whole place for their sake.” But the One who spoke and brought the world into being already knew full well that if there were even three or five righteous people in Sodom, it would have been saved. Yet the Holy Blessed One waited until Abraham finished talking, and only afterward replied, as it says (Genesis 18:33), “When the Eternal had finished speaking to Abraham, He departed…” (as if the Eternal had said to Abraham, see, now I am released, as it says [at the end of the verse]), “…and Abraham returned to his place.”

The wise person does not speak before one who is greater than him in wisdom.
From whom do we learn this? From Moses, as it says (Exodus 4:30), “Aaron repeated all the words that the Eternal had spoken to Moses, and he performed the signs in the sight of the people.” And who was the appropriate person to say all these things, Moses or Aaron? One would assume Moses, for Moses had heard them from the mouth of the Almighty, whereas Aaron had heard them just from Moses! However, Moses said to himself: Can I speak in place of my older brother while he is standing right there? Therefore, he told Aaron to speak, as it says (Exodus 4:30), “Aaron repeated all the words that the Eternal had spoken to Moses.”
And he does not interrupt his fellow.
This is Aaron [as it says (Leviticus 10:19), “Then Aaron spoke…see, this day they brought their sin offering and their burnt offering.” But] he was quiet until Moses had finished speaking, and he did not tell Moses to cut his words short. Only afterward did he say to Moses, “See, this day they brought their sin offering and their burnt offering,” but we are in mourning [and cannot eat of the offerings]. And some say that Aaron pulled Moses aside and said to him, “Moses my brother, tithes are the least important of the offerings, and it is still forbidden for a mourner to eat them. A sin offering is the most important of the offerings, so all the more so is it forbidden for a mourner to eat it! Immediately, Moses admitted that [Aaron] was right, as it says (Leviticus 10:20), “And when Moses heard this, it was good in his eyes.” (And in the eyes of the Almighty.)
We learn also from the fact that Moses became angry with Elazar and Itamar, Aaron’s sons. From this, they say that when a person [makes a celebration] for his students, he turns his attention to the greatest of them. But when he becomes angry with them, he directs his anger to the lowliest among them, as it says (Leviticus 10:16), “And he became angry with Elazar and Itamar.” This shows that he was actually angry with Aaron as well.
Aaron was older than Moses, but the Eternal is greater than Aaron! So why didn’t the Eternal speak to Aaron? Because he did not have his sons stand guard. Because if he had put Elazar and Itamar on guard, then he could have kept Nadav and Avihu from sinning.
We learn also from Abraham our forefather, who prayed for the men of Sodom. The Holy Blessed One said to him (Genesis 28:26), “If I find fifty righteous people in Sodom, I will save the whole place for their sake.” But the One who spoke and brought the world into being already knew full well that if there were even three or five righteous people in Sodom, it would have been saved. Yet the Holy Blessed One waited until Abraham finished talking, and only afterward replied, as it says (Genesis 18:33), “When the Eternal had finished speaking to Abraham, He departed…” (as if the Eternal had said to Abraham, see, now I am released, as it says [at the end of the verse]), “…and Abraham returned to his place.”

And he does not become agitated and respond too quickly.
This is Elihu ben Berakhel HaBuzi, as it says (Job 32:7), “I said to myself: Let age speak first.” This teaches that they were sitting in silence before Job. When he would stand up, they would stand up. When he would sit down again, they would sit down again. When he ate, they would eat. When he drank, they would drink. Finally, he asked permission to speak, as it says (Job 3:1, 3), “Afterward, Job began to speak, and cursed the day of his birth.” And he said, “Perish the day on which I was born, and the night it was announced: A male has been conceived!” Perish the day that my father came to my mother and she told him: I am pregnant. And how do we know that they did not all start speaking at the same time? For it says (Job 3:2), “Job answered and said…” and then (Job 4:1), “Elifaz HaTeimani answered and said…” and then (Job 8:1), “Bildad HaShukhi answered and said…” and then (Job 11:1), “Tzofar HaNa’amati answered and said…” and then (Job. 32:6), “Elihu ben Berakhel HaBuzi answered and said….” The book lays them out one at a time (however), to let everyone know that a wise person does not speak before someone who is greater in wisdom. And does not interrupt his fellow. And does not become agitated and respond quickly.
He asks appropriately. This is Judah, as it says (Genesis 43:9), “I will pledge myself for him.”
He asks inappropriately. This is Reuben, as its says (Genesis 42:3), “Reuben said to his father: Let my two sons die!”
He speaks of first things first. This is Jacob. And some say this is Sarah.
And last things last. These are the men of Haran.
And he admits to what is true. This is Moses, as it says (Deuteronomy 5:25), “The Eternal said to me…they did well to speak thus.” So, too, did the Holy Blessed One admit to what was true, as it says (Numbers 27:7), “The daughters of Tzelophechad have spoken correctly.”