Zevachim 202:1

וייטב בעיניו לא בוש משה לומר לא שמעתי אלא שמעתי ושכחתי

it was pleasing in his sight'. He admitted his error, and Moses was not ashamed [to excuse himself] by saying, 'I had not heard it', but, 'I heard it and forgot.'

איבעי להו לשהוייה ולמיכלא באורתא טומאה באונס באתה

But they should have kept it and eaten it in the evening? - It was accidentally defiled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not through negligence.');">¹</span> As for the Rabbis, it is well: for that reason it is written, '[and if I had eaten the sin-offering] this day.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He stressed that it was only during the day that he could not eat it, but he had intended to eat it that night.');">²</span>

בשלמא לרבנן היינו דכתיב היום אלא לרבי נחמיה מאי היום חובת היום

But on R'Nehemiah's explanation, why [did he say] 'this day'? - [He meant that it was] a statutory obligation of the day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Could I eat the sin-offering, which is a statutory obligation for this day, and not a special sacrifice? (as supra a.)');">³</span> As for R'Nehemiah, it is well: for that reason it is written, 'Behold, this day [have they offered etc.]'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Meaning that it was a statutory and regular offering for that day. and therefore might not be eaten in mourning.');">⁴</span>

בשלמא לרבי נחמיה היינו דכתיב הן היום אלא לרבנן מאי הן היום ה"ק הן הקריבו אני הקרבתי

But according to the Rabbis, what is [the 'significance of] 'Behold, this day'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is apparently quite irrelevant.');">⁵</span> - This is what he meant: Behold, have they offered? ' It was I who offered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As supra a.');">⁶</span>

אמר מר היו לשלשתן שישרפו מאי שלשתן

The Master said: 'Then the three should have been burnt.' What were the three? - For it was taught: 'And Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin-offering':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. X, 16.');">⁷</span>

דתניא (ויקרא י, טז) ואת שעיר החטאת דרש דרש משה שעיר זו שעיר נחשון חטאת זו חטאת שמיני דרש שעיר של ראש חודש

'Goat' alludes to Nahshon's goat;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was the first of Nisan, and the first day of the consecration ceremonies of the Tabernacle, when Nahshon sacrificed a goat on behalf of the tribe of Judah (Num. VII, 12-17; Seder 'Olam) .');">⁸</span> 'sin-offering' refers to the sin-offering of the eighth day;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Aaron's consecration rites.');">⁹</span>

יכול שלשתן נשרפו ת"ל והנה שורף אחד נשרף ולא שלשתן נשרפו דרש דרש שתי דרישות למה אמר להו מפני מה חטאת זו נשרפה ואלו מונחות ואיני יודע איזהו כשהוא אומר (ויקרא י, יז) ואותה נתן לכם לשאת את עון העדה הוי אומר זה שעיר של ראש חודש

'[Moses] inquired' refers to the goat of New Moon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus this verse is made to refer to three sacrifices, not to one.');">¹⁰</span> You might think that the three of them were burnt; therefore it says, 'and, behold, it was burnt': one was burnt, but thre were not burnt - 'Diligently inquired': why these two enquiries?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The emphatic 'diligently' is expressed in Hebrew, as usual, by the repetition of the verb, and hence understood to mean two enquiries.');">¹¹</span>

שפיר קאמרי ליה רבי נחמיה לטעמיה דאמר קדשי שעה לא פסלה בהו אנינות

He said to them: 'Why is this sin-offering burnt, and these others lying? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Waiting for the evening to be eaten: why did you not eat it during the day?');">¹²</span> Now, I do not know which one [was burnt].

אמר מר היה לו לאכלה לערב שפיר קאמרי ליה קסבר אנינות לילה דאורייתא

But when it says, 'And He hath given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. X, 17.');">¹³</span> it follows that it was the goat of New Moon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which 'bears the iniquity of the congregation' by atoning for the defilement of the sanctuary and the sacrifices, Shebu. 2a.');">¹⁴</span>

דבר אחר והלא פינחס היה עמהן שפיר קאמרי ליה סבר לה כרבי אלעזר דאר"א א"ר חנינא לא נתכהן פינחס עד שהרגו לזמרי דכתיב (במדבר כה, יג) והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו ברית כהונת עולם

They said well to him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This reverts to the earlier part of the discussion. Surely the argument that all three should have been burnt, if it was on account of their bereavement, is sound!');">¹⁵</span> - R'Nehemiah is consistent with his view, for he maintained [that] bereavement did not disqualify ad hoc sacrifices.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as the other two were.');">¹⁶</span>

רב אשי אמר עד ששם שלום בין השבטים שנאמר (יהושע כב, ל) וישמע פינחס הכהן ונשיאי העדה וראשי אלפי ישראל וגו'

The Master said: 'Then they should have eaten it in the evening.' They said well to him? - He holds that [the law of] aninuth at night is Scriptural.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence they could not eat it in the evening either.');">¹⁷</span>

ואידך נמי והכתיב והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו כי כתיב ההוא בברכה הוא דכתיב

'Another argument: surely Phinehas was with them.' They said well to him? - He agrees with R'Eleazar.

ואידך נמי הא כתיב וישמע פינחס הכהן ההוא ליחס זרעו אחריו

For R'Eleazar said in R'Hanina's name: Phinehas was not elevated to the priesthood until he slew Zimri, for it is written, And it shall be unto him, and unto his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXV, 13. This was spoken after he had slain Zimri: thus only then was the priesthood conferred upon him.');">¹⁸</span> R'Ashi said: Until he made peace between the tribes, for it is said, And when Phinehas the priest, and the princes of the congregation, even the heads of the thousands of Israel that were with him, heard etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Josh. XXII, 30; v. whole chapter for the controversy between the two and a half tribes in Transjordan and the rest of Israel, and how it was settled. This is the first time that Phinehas is spoken of as 'the priest'; previously he is always referred to as 'Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the Priest'. Thus Priesthood is ascribed to his forbears, but not to himself.');">¹⁹</span>

אמר רב משה רבינו כהן גדול וחולק בקדשי שמים היה שנאמר (ויקרא ח, כט) מאיל המלואים למשה היה למנה

And as to the others too, surely it is written, 'And it shall be unto him, and unto his seed after him' [etc.]? - That is written as a blessing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He was informed that he would be invested with the priesthood, but it was not conferred upon him until later.');">²⁰</span> as to the other too, surely it is written, 'And when Phinehas the priest heard'? - That was to invest his descendants with his rank.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosaf: a promise that all High Priests would be descended from him.');">²¹</span>

מיתיבי והלא פינחס היה עמהן ואם איתא לימא והלא משה רבינו היה עמהן דילמא שאני משה דטריד בשכינה דאמר מר משה בהשכמה עלה ובהשכמה ירד

Rab said: Our teacher Moses was a High Priest, and received a share of the holy sacrifices, as it is said, I was Moses' portion of the ram of consecration.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VIII, 29.');">²²</span> An objection is raised: 'But was not Phinehas with them? ' Now if this is correct, let them argue, But was not our teacher Moses with them?

מיתיבי (ויקרא כא, כב) לחם אלהיו מקדשי הקדשים ומן הקדשים יאכל אם נאמרו קדשי קדשים למה נאמר קדשים קלים ואם נאמרו קדשים קלים למה נאמר קדשי קדשים

Perhaps Moses was different, because he was engaged by the Shechinah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">²³</span> for a master said: Moses ascended early in the morning and descended early in the morning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the days preceding Revelation, when he ascended the mountain of Sinai and descended thence to the people.');">²⁴</span>

אילו לא נאמר קדשים קלים הייתי אומר קדשי קדשים הוא דאוכל . שהרי הותרו לזר ולהן קדשים קלים לא יאכל ואילו לא נאמרו קדשי קדשים הייתי אומר בקדשים קלים יהא אוכל שהן קלים בקדשי קדשים לא יהא אוכל לכך נאמרו קדשי קדשים ולכך נאמר קדשים קלים

An objection is raised: He may eat the bread of his God both of the most holy, and of the holy:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 22. This refers to a blemished priest, who may not officiate, yet may partake of the sacrifices.');">²⁵</span> if sacrifices of higher sanctity are stated, why are lesser sacrifices stated; and if lesser sacrifices are stated, are sacrifices of higher sanctity stated?

קתני מיהא שהרי הותרו לזר ולהן לאו משה אמר רב ששת לא בבמה לזר וכדברי האומר יש מנחה בבמה

If lesser sacrifices were not stated, I would say, He may eat only of higher sacrifices, because they were permitted to a zar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Though normally higher sacrifices might be eaten by male priests only, yet we do find an instance where they were permitted to a zar; the instance (s) is discussed anon. But a zar was never permitted to eat the priestly portions (viz., the breast and thigh) of lesser sacrifices. - Since then a zar may sometimes partake of higher sacrifices, it is logical that a blemished priest may always do so.');">²⁶</span> and to them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the priests.');">²⁷</span>

מיתיבי מרים מי הסגירה א"ת משה הסגירה משה זר הוא

but he may not eat of lesser sacrifices. And if higher sacrifices were not stated I would say: He may eat only of lesser sacrifices, since they are lesser,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Their sanctity is not so great.');">²⁸</span> but not of higher sacrifices. For that reason both higher sacrifices and lesser sacrifices ar stated. At all events he [the Tanna] teaches, Because they were permitted to a zar and to them: surely that means [to] Moses?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The only instance found of a zar eating of higher sacrifices was when Moses received the breast and thigh of the ram of consecration, which was a higher sacrifice. Thus Moses is counted as a zar, not as a priest');">²⁹</span> - Said R'Shesheth: No; it refers to the High Places [bamah], this agreeing with the view that a meal-offering could be offered at the High Places.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 113a. The meal-offering was a higher sacrifice, and when offered at the High Places (where a zar could officiate) , after the handful had been burnt on the altar the remainder might be eaten by a zar, whereas in the Temple this belonged to the priests only.');">³⁰</span> An objection is raised: Who shut Miriam up?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a leper; v. Num. XII, 14 seq. Before she could be shut away, the symptoms had to be duly diagnosed as leprous.');">³¹</span> If you say, Moses shut her up, surely Moses was a zar,