Zevachim 203:1

ואין זר רואה את הנגעים וא"ת אהרן הסגירה אהרן קרוב הוא ואין קרוב רואה את הנגעים אלא כבוד גדול חלק לה הקב"ה למרים אותה שעה אני כהן ואני מסגירה אני חולטה ואני פוטרה

and a zar cannot inspect plagues [of leprosy].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XIII, 2.');">¹</span> If you say that Aaron shut her away, Aaron was a relation, and a relation cannot inspect [leprous] plagues.

קתני מיהת משה זר ואין זר רואה את הנגעים

Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, bestowed great honour upon Miriam in that moment, and declared, I am a priest: I will shut her away, I will declare her a definite [leper], and I will free her. He teaches at all events, 'Moses was a zar and a zar cannot inspect plagues'? - Said R'Nahman B'Isaac: The inspection of leprosy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the appearance of plagues'.');">²</span>

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק שאני מראות נגעים דאהרן ובניו כתובין בפרשה

is different, because Aaron and his sons are specified in that section. An objection is raised: Elisheba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Aaron's wife.');">³</span>

מיתיבי חמש שמחות היתה אלישבע יתירה על בנות ישראל יבמה מלך אישה כהן גדול בנה סגן בן בנה משוח מלחמה ואחיה נשיא שבט ואבילה על שני בניה

had five joys more than the other daughters of Israel:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the day that the Tabernacle was erected.');">⁴</span> her brother-in-law [Moses] was a king, her husband was a High Priest, her son [Eleazar] was Segan [deputy High Priest], her grandson [Phinehas] was anointed for battle,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He was anointed as the deputy High Priest to lead in battle.');">⁵</span>

קתני מיהת יבמה מלך מלך אין כ"ג לא אימא אף מלך

and her brother [Nahshon] was the prince of his tribe; yet she was bereaved of her two sons. At all events he teaches, Her brother-in-law was a king: thus he was a king, but not a High Priest? - Emend, was also a king.

כתנאי (שמות ד, יד) ויחר אף ה' במשה רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר כל חרון אף שבתורה נאמר בו רושם וזה לא נאמר בו רושם

This is dependent on Tannaim: And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. IV, 14. The reason for God's anger was Moses' extreme reluctance to go to Pharaoh.');">⁶</span> R'Joshua B'Karhah said: A [lasting] effect is recorded of every fierce anger in the Torah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wherever it is stated that God's anger was kindled, it left its mark in some way.');">⁷</span>

ר"ש בן יוחי אומר אף זה נאמר בו רושם שנאמר (שמות ד, יד) הלא אהרן אחיך הלוי והלא כהן הוא הכי קאמר אני אמרתי אתה כהן והוא לוי עכשיו הוא כהן ואתה לוי

but no [lasting] effect is recorded in this instance. R'Simeon B'Yohai said: A [lasting] effect is recorded in this instance too, for it said, Is there not Aaron thy brother the Levite?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. IV, 14.');">⁸</span>

וחכמים אומרים לא נתכהן משה אלא שבעת ימי המלואים בלבד ויש אומרים לא פסקה כהונה אלא מזרעו של משה שנאמר (דברי הימים א כג, יד) ומשה איש האלהים בניו יקראו על שבט הלוי ואומר (תהלים צט, ו) משה ואהרן בכהניו ושמואל בקוראי שמו

Now surely he was a priest? Rather, this is what He meant: I had said that thou wouldst be a priest and he a Levite; now, however, he will be a priest and thou a Levite.

מאי ואומר וכי תימא לדורות הוא דכתיב ואומר משה ואהרן בכהניו

The Sages maintain: Moses was invested with priesthood only for the seven days of consecration. Some maintain: Only Moses' descendants were deprived of priesthood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But he remained a priest all his life.');">⁹</span>

וכל חרון אף שבתורה נאמר בו רושם והכתיב (שמות יא, ח) ויצא (משה) מעם פרעה בחרי אף ולא א"ל ולא מידי אמר ר"ל סטרו ויצא

for it is said, But as for Moses the man of God, his sons are named among the tribe of Levi;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Chron. XXIII, 24.');">¹⁰</span> and it says, Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among them that call upon His name.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. XCIX, 6.');">¹¹</span>

ומי אמר ר"ל הכי והכתיב (שמות ז, טו) ונצבת לקראתו על שפת היאור ואמר ר"ל מלך הוא והסביר לו פנים ורבי יוחנן אמר רשע הוא והעיז פניך בו איפוך

Why [add] 'and it says'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which implies that the first proof-text is insufficient.');">¹²</span> - You might argue that [the first proof-text] is written for [future] generations,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first text deals with the status of the people then living, and for that reason Moses himself is not included. Thus it may not prove that he was a priest.');">¹³</span>

א"ר ינאי לעולם תהא אימת מלכות עליך דכתיב (שמות יא, ח) וירדו כל עבדיך אלה אלי ואילו לדידיה לא קאמר ליה

hence it says, however, 'Moses and Aaron among His priests'. Now, is then a [lasting] effect recorded of every fierce anger in the Torah?

רבי יוחנן אמר מהכא (מלכים א יח, מו) ויד ה' היתה אל אליהו וישנס מתניו וירץ לפני אחאב

Surely it is written, And he we out from Pharaoh in hot anger,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XI, 8.');">¹⁴</span> and yet he said nothing to him? - Said Resh Lakish: He slapped him and went out.

אמר עולא בקש משה מלכות ולא נתנו לו דכתיב (שמות ג, ה) אל תקרב הלום ואין הלום אלא מלכות שנאמר (שמואל ב ז, יח) מי אנכי ה' אלהים [וגו'] כי הביאתני עד הלום

But did Resh Lakish say thus? Surely it is written, And thou shalt stand by the river's brink to meet him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VII, 15.');">¹⁵</span>

מתיב רבא רבי ישמעאל אומר יבמה מלך אמר רבא לו ולזרעו קאמר

whereon Resh Lakish commented: [The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses,] He is a king, and thou must show him reverence;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely then he would not have slapped him.');">¹⁶</span> while R'Johanan maintained: [God said to him:] He is a wicked man, therefore be thou insolent toward him? - Reverse it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Resh Lakish maintained that he was to be insolent toward him, and R. Johanan the reverse.');">¹⁷</span>

וכל היכא דכתיב הלום לדורות הוא והא גבי שאול דכתיב (שמואל א י, כב) הבא עוד הלום איש הוא אין זרעו לא

R'Jannai said: Let the awe of kingship always be upon thee, for it is written, And all these thy servants shall come down unto me,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XI, 8.');">¹⁸</span> but he did not say it of [Pharoah] himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Out of respect for royalty, though he knew that Pharoah himself would eventually appeal to him (ibid. XII, 30 seq.)');">¹⁹</span>

איבעית אימא הא הוה איש בשת ואיבעית אימא שאני שאול דאפי' בגויה לא קאים

R'Johanan said: It may be inferred from the following: And the hand of the Lord was on Elijah; and he girded up his loins, and ran before Ahab.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Kings XVIII, 46. Thus he shewed him respect as a king, in spite of the strong opposition he had always displayed.');">²⁰</span> 'Ulla said: Moses desired kingship, but He did not grant it to him, for it is written, Draw not nigh halom [hither];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. III, 5.');">²¹</span>

כדר' אלעזר אמר רבי חנינא בשעה שפוסקים גדולה לאדם פוסקים לו ולזרעו עד סוף כל הדורות שנאמר (איוב לו, ז) לא יגרע מצדיק עיניו ואת מלכים לכסא וגו' ואם הגיס דעתו הקב"ה משפילו שנאמר (איוב לו, ח) ואם אסורים בזקים ילכדון בחבלי עוני:

'halom' can only mean kingship, as it is said, [Then David. said:] 'Who am I, O Lord God.

בעלי מומין בין בעלי מומין כו': מנא ה"מ דת"ר (ויקרא ו, יא) כל זכר לרבות בעלי מומין

that Thou hast brought me halom [thus far]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 11. Sam. VII, 18. 'Halom' (thus far) there means the kingship.');">²²</span> Raba raised an objection: R'Ishmael said: Her [Elisheba's] brother-in-law [Moses] was a king? - Said Rabbah B''Ulla:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text (Sh.M.) .');">²³</span>

למאי אי לאכילה הרי כבר נאמר (ויקרא כא, כב) לחם אלהיו מקדשי הקדשים יאכל אלא לחלוקה

He ['Ulla] meant, for himself and for his descendants.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Moses desired royalty for himself and his descendants, but it was granted only for himself.');">²⁴</span> Does then 'halom' refer to [future] generations wherever it is written?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to the answer just given, when God said to Moses, 'Draw not nigh halom', He meant that he could not enjoy kingship for future generations.');">²⁵</span>

תניא אידך כל זכר לרבות בעלי מומין למאי אי לאכילה הרי כבר אמור אי לחלוקה הרי כבר אמור שיכול אין לי אלא תם ונעשה בעל מום בעל מום מעיקרו מנין ת"ל כל זכר

Surely it is written in connection with Saul, Is there yet a man come halom [hither],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 1. Sam. X, 22.');">²⁶</span> yet only he [enjoyed kingship], but not his seed? - If you wish I can answer that there was Ish-bosheth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His son, who did succeed him for a time.');">²⁷</span>

תניא אידך כל זכר לרבות בעל מום למאי אי לאכילה הרי כבר אמור ואי לחלוקה הרי כבר אמור ואי לבעל מום מעיקרו הרי כבר אמור שיכול אין לי אלא בעל מום קבוע בעל מום עובר מנין ת"ל כל זכר

Alternatively, Saul was different, for it [kingship] did not remain even with him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in his own lifetime it was torn from him. But originally it was decreed both for him and for his descendants, and he lost it only through his own instability.');">²⁸</span> This agrees with R'Eleazar's dictum in R'Hanina's name: When greatness is decreed for a man, it is decreed for him and for his seed unto all generations, for it is said: He withdraweth not His eyes from the righteous; but with kings upon the throne He setteth them for ever.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job XXXVI, 7.');">²⁹</span>

כלפי לייא אמר רב ששת איפוך

But if he becomes arrogant, the Holy One, blessed be He, abases him, for it is said [And they are exalted.] And if they be bound in fetters, and be holden in cords of affliction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 8. This is their punishment if 'they are exalted', i.e., arrogant.');">³⁰</span> MEN WITH A BLEMISH, WHETHER TRANSIENT.

רב אשי אמר לעולם לא תיפוך ואיצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא

How do we know this? - Because our Rabbis taught: Every male [may eat of it]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 11, 22; VII, 6. These refer to the meal-offering, the sin-offering, and the guilt-offering respectively. The Talmud now interprets each one.');">³¹</span> this includes men with a blemish. In which respect? If in respect of eating, surely it is said elsewhere, He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXI, 22.');">³²</span> Hence it means in respect of sharing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Blemished priests receive a share in their own rights.');">³³</span> Another [Baraitha] taught: 'Every male': this includes men with a blemish. In which respect? If in respect of eating, surely that is already stated [elsewhere]; if in respect of sharing, surely that [too] is already stated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is deduced from the first 'every male'.');">³⁴</span> Hence [it is required] in respect of a man blemished from birth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from the beginning'. - Emended text.');">³⁵</span> For I might think: I know it only of an unblemished [priest] who became blemished; how do I know it of a man blemished from birth? Therefore it says, 'Every male'. Another [Baraitha] taught: 'Every male' includes a man with a blemish. In which respect? If in respect of eating, surely it is already stated; if in respect of sharing, surely it is already stated; if in respect of a man blemished from birth, surely it is already stated? For I might think: I know it only of a man with a permanent blemish; how do I know it of a man with a transient blemish? Therefore it says, 'Every male'. Surely this should be reversed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One would include a non-permanent blemish sooner than a permanent one.');">³⁶</span> - Said R'Shesheth: Reverse it. R'Ashi said: After all, do not reverse it, yet it is necessary. For I might argue,