Zevachim 100

Sugya Map

Issue

The central tension revolves around Rabbi Shimon's seemingly contradictory statements regarding an onen (acute mourner) and the Korban Pesach on Erev Pesach (14th of Nisan). In one baraita, R' Shimon holds an onen may not send his Paschal offering, implying aninut (mourning) overrides the korban and is d'Oraita even at night. In another (the Mishna in Pesachim, which R' Shimon cites), an onen immerses and eats his Korban Pesach, implying aninut at night is d'Rabanan and is suspended for the korban. The Gemara seeks to resolve this contradiction.

Nafka Mina(s)

1. Nature of Aninut: When is aninut considered d'Oraita versus d'Rabanan? Specifically, does the aninut of yom mitah (day of death) or yom kevurah (day of burial) extend into the night by Torah law or Rabbinic decree?
2. Priority of Korban Pesach: Does the mitzvat Korban Pesach override aninut? This depends on the d'Oraita/d'Rabanan status of aninut and the indispensable nature of achilat Pesach.
3. Temporal Distinctions: The impact of death/burial occurring kodem chatzot (before midday) vs. achar chatzot (after midday), or kodem shechita v'zerika (before slaughter and sprinkling of blood) vs. achar shechita v'zerika.

Primary Sources

• Zevachim 100a: The core sugya itself, containing multiple baraitot and Amoraic discussions.
• Mishna Pesachim 8:6 (implicit): "אונן טובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב".
• Leviticus 21:3: "לְאֲחֹתוֹ הַבְּתוּלָה הַקְּרֹבָה אֵלָיו אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָיְתָה לְאִישׁ לָהּ יִטַּמָּא" (regarding a Kohen's tumah).
• Numbers 6:7: "עַל נֶפֶשׁ מֵת לֹא יָבֹא לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ לְאָחִיו וּלְאֲחֹתוֹ לֹא יִטַּמָּא לָהֶם בְּמֹתָם כִּי נֵזֶר אֱלֹהָיו עַל רֹאשׁוֹ" (regarding a Nazir's tumah).
• Amos 8:10: "...וְאַחֲרִיתָהּ כְּיוֹם מָר" (regarding aninut).
• Leviticus 10:19: "הֵן הַיּוֹם הִקְרִיבוּ אֶת חַטָּאתָם וְאֶת עֹלָתָם לַה' וַתִּקְרֶאנָה אֹתִי כָּאֵלֶּה וְאָכַלְתִּי חַטָּאת הַיּוֹם הֲיִיטַב בְּעֵינֵי ה'" (Aaron's statement regarding onen status).

Text Snapshot

The Gemara on Zevachim 100a opens with a classic "לא קשיא" (it is not difficult) structure, attempting to reconcile Rabbi Shimon's contradictory stances on an onen and Korban Pesach:

"לא קשיא. כאן כשמת וקברו בי"ד, ד יום מיתה דאורייתא ותפיס לילו מדאורייתא. כאן כשמת בי"ג וקברו בי"ד, ד יום קבורה דרבנן ולא תפיס לילו אלא מדרבנן." (Zevachim 100a)

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance

The phrase "ותפיס לילו" (and it takes hold of its night) is critical. It refers to the aninut status established during the day extending into the following night. The distinction here is whether this extension is d'Oraita (by Torah law) or d'Rabanan (by Rabbinic decree). This nuance underpins much of the sugya's analysis regarding the permissibility of an onen partaking in Korban Pesach, as a d'Rabanan prohibition may be suspended for a mitzvat aseh like Korban Pesach, whereas a d'Oraita one would not. The Gemara's pursuit of a consistent halacha for R' Shimon requires identifying different scenarios where aninut bears different legal weight.

Readings

The Gemara offers several resolutions to the contradiction in R' Shimon's statements, each proposing a different distinction.

Rav Mari's Distinction: Yom Mitah vs. Yom Kevurah

Rav Mari provides the initial resolution:

"לא קשיא. כאן כשמת וקברו בי"ד, דיום מיתה דאורייתא ותפיס לילו מדאורייתא. כאן כשמת בי"ג וקברו בי"ד, דיום קבורה דרבנן ולא תפיס לילו אלא מדרבנן." (Zevachim 100a)

Rav Mari distinguishes between two scenarios for the 14th of Nisan (Erev Pesach):

1. Death and Burial on the 14th: In this case, it is "יום מיתה" (the day of death). According to Rav Mari, aninut on the day of death is d'Oraita (by Torah law), and therefore, "ותפיס לילו מדאורייתא" (it takes hold of its night by Torah law). If aninut extends d'Oraita into the night, it would indeed prevent the onen from bringing the Korban Pesach, aligning with R' Shimon's stringent view.
2. Death on the 13th, Burial on the 14th: Here, the 14th is "יום קבורה" (the day of burial) but not the day of death. Rav Mari asserts that aninut on the day of burial, when it is not also the day of death, is "דרבנן" (by Rabbinic law). Consequently, "ולא תפיס לילו אלא מדרבנן" (it takes hold of its night only by Rabbinic law). In this d'Rabanan scenario, the aninut would be suspended for the mitzvat Korban Pesach, allowing the onen to immerse and partake, aligning with R' Shimon's lenient view.

Rashi's Clarification: Rashi elucidates Rav Mari's explanation, linking it to the source of aninut d'Oraita. He references R' Yehuda's future derivation (which comes later in the sugya on 100b from Aaron's story) that aninut on yom mitah is d'Oraita. He also clarifies that Rav Mari's distinction resolves the contradiction between R' Shimon's baraita and the Mishna in Pesachim, where the Mishna's halacha applies specifically to the Korban Pesach, which is so critical that a d'Rabanan aninut is set aside for it.

"לא קשיא - דר"ש אדר"ש... כשמת וקברו בי"ד דיום מיתה דאורייתא ותפיס לילו מדאורייתא כדיליף ליה רבי יהודה לקמן והא דקתני לעיל אוכל פסחו בשמת בי"ג וקברו בי"ד דיום קבורה גופיה דרבנן ולא תפיס לילו אלא מדרבנן..." (Rashi, Zevachim 100a:1:1)

Abaye's Distinction: Before Midday vs. After Midday

Abaye proposes a different distinction, focusing on the timing of death relative to chatzot (midday) on the 14th of Nisan, the time when the Korban Pesach obligation begins:

"כאן כשמת קודם חצות, דלא חזי לפסח חייל עליה אנינות. כאן כשמת לאחר חצות, דחזי לפסח לא חייל עליה אנינות." (Zevachim 100a)

Abaye argues:

1. Death Before Midday: If the relative died before chatzot, the individual was not yet "fit for bringing a Paschal offering" (lo chazi l'Pesach) because the obligation hadn't begun. In this scenario, "חייל עליה אנינות" (aninut applies to him), and it would prevent him from bringing the Korban Pesach.
2. Death After Midday: If the relative died after chatzot, the individual was already "fit for bringing a Paschal offering" (chazi l'Pesach). In this case, "לא חייל עליה אנינות" (aninut does not apply to him) with regard to the Korban Pesach. This allows him to partake.

The Gemara then attempts to support Abaye's distinction by drawing a parallel from tumah laws of a Kohen and a Nazir, distinguishing between death before and after midday for their respective tumah obligations/prohibitions (Zevachim 100a). However, this support is ultimately rejected.

Rava's Distinction: Before Shechita/Zerika vs. After Shechita/Zerika

Rava offers a third resolution, assuming aninut at night is always d'Rabanan (a point debated later in the sugya but implied here for the Korban Pesach context):

"הכא כשמת קודם ששחטו וזרקו עליו, והתם כשמת לאחר ששחטו וזרקו עליו." (Zevachim 100a)

Rava distinguishes based on the ritual stage of the Korban Pesach:

1. Death Before Shechita/Zerika: If the relative died before the animal was slaughtered and its blood sprinkled on behalf of the onen, the onen is still fully subject to aninut (even if d'Rabanan), and therefore cannot send or partake of the korban.
2. Death After Shechita/Zerika: If the relative died after these critical steps, the korban has already been ritually processed on his behalf. At this point, even though he is an onen (by d'Rabanan decree), he is permitted to partake.

Ravina's Justification: Ravina provides the crucial rationale for Rava's distinction: "אכילת פסח לא שביקא" (partaking of the Paschal offering is indispensable). The Sages did not make a d'Rabanan decree of aninut override the indispensable mitzva of eating the Korban Pesach once the korban was already validly offered. This highlights the unique nature of Korban Pesach consumption compared to other kodshim, where the chiyuv achilah is not as severe.

"אכילת פסח לא שביקא, מדתניא רבה בר רב הונא: יום שמועה כיום ליקוט עצמות לאכילת פסח, טובל ואוכל קדשים לערב." (Zevachim 100a)

This emphasizes that achilat Pesach is a more central component of the mitzva than the consumption of other kodshim, justifying its overriding of a d'Rabanan aninut.

Friction

The Strongest Kushya: Rav Ashi's Rebuttal to Rav Mari

Rav Ashi delivers a potent kushya against Rav Mari's resolution. Rav Mari distinguished between yom mitah d'Oraita and yom kevurah d'Rabanan. However, R' Shimon, in the baraita where he forbids the onen from sending the Korban Pesach (implying aninut d'Oraita), uses the Mishna from Pesachim as a proof-text for his position (where an onen does partake, implying aninut d'Rabanan).

"אמר ליה רב אשי לרב מרי: אלא מעתה, מאי דקתני: אמר ר' שמעון לר' יהודה: דע כי אמרו: אונן טובל ואוכל פסחו, אבל לא קדשים. לימא ליה: אני יום מיתה קאמינא לך מדאורייתא, ואת יום קבורה קאמרת לי מדרבנן?!" (Zevachim 100a)

Rav Ashi argues: If, as Rav Mari claims, the baraita (R' Shimon's stringent view) deals with yom mitah d'Oraita and the Mishna (R' Shimon's lenient proof) deals with yom kevurah d'Rabanan, then R' Shimon's proof is nonsensical. R' Yehuda could simply retort, "You're talking about a Torah-level aninut on the day of death, and you're bringing a proof from a Rabbinic-level aninut on the day of burial? The halachot are fundamentally different!" This highlights a critical flaw in Rav Mari's logic: a tanna would not cite a proof from a case with a different legal status to support a claim about a different case. The Gemara concludes this is indeed "קשיא" (a difficulty).

The Best Terutz: Rava's Resolution with Ravina's Justification

Rava's resolution, supported by Ravina, stands out as particularly strong and aligns well with later halachic principles. Rava asserts that both cases (the baraita and the Mishna) involve death achar chatzot on the 14th of Nisan. The distinction lies in whether the death occurred:

1. Before Shechita/Zerika: In this instance, the Korban Pesach has not yet been offered on the onen's behalf. Even if aninut at night is d'Rabanan, the Sages did not suspend it to allow the onen to initiate the korban process. Thus, he may not send it. This aligns with the stringent baraita.
2. After Shechita/Zerika: Here, the Korban Pesach has already been validly offered for the onen. At this point, "אכילת פסח לא שביקא" (the partaking of the Paschal offering is indispensable). Ravina explains that because consumption is an essential component of the mitzva, the Sages did not extend their d'Rabanan aninut prohibition to prevent the onen from fulfilling the mitzva by eating the meat of an already-sacrificed offering. This aligns with the lenient Mishna.

This terutz is compelling because:

• It maintains the integrity of R' Shimon's argument, as both cases are achar chatzot, making the comparison logical in his view.
• It introduces a nuanced understanding of aninut relative to the stages of the Korban Pesach, acknowledging the unique chiyuv of achilat Pesach.
• The justification of "אכילת פסח לא שביקא" provides a principled reason for the suspension of a d'Rabanan aninut, a concept that resonates with the halachic weight of Korban Pesach.

This resolution is ultimately embraced by the sugya as it leads to a deeper discussion about the indispensability of achilat Pesach and the status of aninut at night.

Intertext

Pesachim 92a – The Indispensability of Eating the Paschal Offering

The concept that "אכילת פסח לא שביקא" (partaking of the Paschal offering is indispensable) is not an arbitrary assertion but is rooted in the unique status of the Korban Pesach. The Gemara supports this by citing Rabba bar Rav Huna:

"מדתניא רבה בר רב הונא: יום שמועה כיום ליקוט עצמות לאכילת פסח, טובל ואוכל קדשים לערב." (Zevachim 100a)

This baraita equates "יום שמועה" (the day one hears tidings of a death) to "יום ליקוט עצמות" (the day of gathering bones, i.e., secondary burial) regarding achilat Pesach. On both these days, one immerses and may partake of kodshim in the evening. The baraita initially seems contradictory, implying that yom kevurah (day of burial) prevents eating even at night, but then states "both this and that" (day of tidings and day of burial) allow eating. This contradiction is resolved by Ravina explaining that achilat Pesach lo shevikei. The reference to "ליקוט עצמות" is significant. Pesachim 92a discusses the laws of likutei atzmot at length. There, the ananut period for likut atzmot is considered lenient, allowing one to shave and tear clothes, unlike initial burial. This leniency concerning likut atzmot is leveraged here to demonstrate the priority given to Korban Pesach consumption, even over aninut that might otherwise apply. The parallel emphasizes that lesser forms of mourning give way to the chiyuv of Pesach.

Nazir 48b – Girsa Nuance and Derasha

When Abaye attempts to prove his "before midday/after midday" distinction, the Gemara brings a baraita about a Nazir and tumah. This baraita states:

"ר' עקיבא אומר: נפש אלו הקרובים, מת אלו הרחוקים." (Zevachim 100a)

This interpretation of "נפש מת" (Numbers 6:6) as "נפש" referring to relatives and "מת" referring to non-relatives is crucial for R' Akiva's derasha. However, Tosafot highlights a girsa issue:

"נפש אלו הקרובים מת אלו הרחוקים – בנזיר בפ' כ"ג (דף מח:) גרס איפכא ועיקר ועושה שם [חדא] דרשא מלאביו ולאמו." (Tosafot, Zevachim 100a:10:1)

Tosafot points out that in Nazir 48b, the girsa is inverted: "נפש" refers to non-relatives and "מת" to relatives. This is not a trivial difference; the entire derasha and the resulting halacha regarding a Nazir's tumah would be affected. The fact that Tosafot here states "ועיקר" (and that is primary) suggests that the girsa in Nazir is the more accepted one. This serves as a powerful reminder of the meticulousness required in Lomdus, where the precise wording and girsa of a baraita can fundamentally alter its meaning and the halachic conclusions drawn from it. It also shows the Gemara's willingness to cross-reference and challenge internal consistency even within rabbinic texts.

Psak/Practice

The sugya concludes with a fundamental clarification of R' Yehuda HaNasi's view on aninut at night. After a lengthy debate regarding Tannaitic disputes on aninut duration, Rava deduces that since R' Yehuda HaNasi holds aninut of yom kevurah (Rabbinic) takes hold of its night (also Rabbinic), by inference, aninut of yom mitah (Torah) would take hold of its night (Torah). However, the Gemara immediately challenges this:

"ואין ר' אונינות לילה דאורייתא סבר? והתניא: ר' אומר: אונינות לילה לאו מדאורייתא, אלא מדרבנן." (Zevachim 100b)

The Gemara explicitly states that R' Yehuda HaNasi's actual position is that "אונינות לילה לאו מדאורייתא, אלא מדרבנן" (aninut at night is not by Torah law, but by Rabbinic law). This is a critical psak.

In practice, the halacha follows the view that aninut at night is d'Rabanan.

• Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 547:2-3 discusses the laws of onen. An onen is prohibited from achilat kodshim and from mitzvos aseh that bring joy (e.g., tefillin), but is obligated in other mitzvos. The aninut status lasts until burial.
• Regarding the Korban Pesach, the halachic conclusion aligns with Rava's final resolution, supported by Ravina: aninut d'Rabanan is suspended for the indispensable mitzva of achilat Korban Pesach, especially once the offering has already been sacrificed. This means an onen would generally be permitted to eat the Korban Pesach at night, provided the death occurred achar chatzot and achar shechita v'zerika.
• The general principle that mitzvos aseh may override issurei d'Rabanan (a concept known as "קום ועשה דוחה לא תעשה דרבנן") is at play here, reinforced by the unique indispensability of achilat Pesach.

Takeaway

This sugya masterfully navigates the intricate layers of aninut and its interaction with the Korban Pesach, demonstrating how temporal distinctions and the very nature of Rabbinic vs. Torah law shape halacha. The pivotal conclusion—that aninut at night is d'Rabanan and yields to the indispensable mitzva of achilat Pesach after the korban is offered—highlights the nuanced balance between mourning and communal obligation.