An Italian disc set edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud). Masechet Zevachim (Tractate Zevachim) has been dedicated by our good friend and student of the shiur daf yomi (daily Talmud class), Binyamin HaKohen, Benny Cohen, whom they call Benny C, that has dedicated this masechet. Be'ezrat Hashem, he will have hatzlachah ve'harvachah (success and prosperity). And since he is a kohen (priest), be'ezrat Hashem, when Mashiach (Messiah) comes, he will serve in the Beit HaMikdash (Holy Temple) with the other kohanim who will serve, in the zechut (merit) that he dedicated this masechet, which specifically discusses the avodah (service) of the kohanim in the Beit HaMikdash and the korbanot (offerings).
Daf kuf-alef (folio 101). Today's class is le'ilui nishmat (for the elevation of the soul of) Avraham ben Ester, u'refuat hanefesh u'refuat haguf (healing of the soul and healing of the body), lirefuah sheleimah (for a complete recovery) Miki ben Jamie, and u'lirefuat vehatzlachat (for recovery and success) Binyamin Mordechai ben Ester.
Tanu rabanan (the Sages taught): We're on the second line of kuf-alef: Ki chen tzuveti (For so I was commanded), ka'asher tziviti (as I commanded), ka'asher tzivah Hashem (as Hashem commanded). These are pesukim (verses) written in the Torah after the death of Nadav ve'Avihu. The Gemara is going to explain these pesukim. As a matter of fact, we're probably going to need a little introduction here. Parashah zo oseket be'aninutam shel Aharon u'vanav (This portion concerns the mourning of Aaron and his sons). Remember, this all happened on Rosh Chodesh Nisan (the first of Nisan).
There were three korbanot brought that day: the minchah, which you'll see what that was; the shelamim (peace-offerings); and the chatat (sin-offering). The minchah and the shelamim were inaugural korbanot. Whatever happens regarding those korbanot, you can't learn for the future, because those are once-in-a-lifetime korbanot, so they have a special, special din (law). The chatat is a regular chatat of Rosh Chodesh. You brought a korban chatat on every Rosh Chodesh. So whatever we're going to say about the chatat, you can apply to the future as well.
Haparashah sham muva sheMoshe tzivah et Aharon le'echol et haminchah ve'et hechazeh veshok shel shelamim (There it is stated that Moses commanded Aaron to eat the meal-offering and the breast and thigh of the peace-offerings).
Now they were onanim (mourners). It was yom yom kevurah, the day, the day they died. So Moshe tells them, even though they were onen (a mourner), to eat the inaugural offerings: eat the minchah, eat the shelamim. Le'achar miken matza Moshe shehachatat nisrefah (Afterward Moses found that the sin-offering had been burned). So he got angry. He said, “Why did you burn the chatat?” Aharon explained why he didn't eat it, and Moshe agreed. That's the skeleton of the story. “Hey, the chatat! What did you burn the chatat for?” And Aharon comes along and says, “This is my logic.” So it says Moshe agreed, hoda ve'lo bosh (he acknowledged it without embarrassment). He didn't get ashamed to say, you know, ta'iti (I was mistaken).
The Gemara is now going to discuss the dialogue. What did Aharon hold? What did Moshe hold? What did he answer him back? So on and so forth. So tanu rabanan: On that day, which was the eighth day, vayehi bayom hashemini (And it came to pass on the eighth day), the eighth day of the milu'im (inauguration), it says about the minchah, “Take the minchah and eat it, ki chen tzuveti, as I commanded you.” About the chatat it also says, “Eat it, ka'asher tziviti.” About the shelamim it says, “Eat the shelamim ka'asher tzivah Hashem.” Why did it have to say ka'asher tzivah, ka'asher tzivah three times?
Ki chen tzuveti, be'aninut yocheluhu (they shall eat it in mourning): even though you're in aninut (mourning), because his sons Nadav ve'Avihu died, and kodashim (sacred offerings) are normally asur (forbidden) for an onen, he told them, “Eat it. Ki chen tzuveti. I have a special hora'at sha'ah (temporary ruling), a special dispensation for you. Eat it.”
Ka'asher tziviti, besha'at ma'aseh amar lahem (At the time of the event he told them): when Moshe Rabbeinu (Moses our teacher) heard that they had burned the se'ir chatat (goat sin-offering), he rebuked them: “Why didn't you listen to me?” Which means, I guess, he told them when they were onanim, “Eat the chatat.” That's why it says about the chatat, ka'asher tziviti. He was rebuking them: “I told you when you were onen to eat the chatat. Now I'm finding”—in the past tense—“now I'm finding out that you didn't listen, that you burned it?”
Ka'asher tzivah Hashem, ve'lo me'elai ani omer (as Hashem commanded, and it is not from myself that I say this). “Guys, I know it's a chiddush (novel teaching) that I'm telling you to eat it be'aninut, but what should I tell you? It's not of my own, ve'lo me'elai ani omer. Therefore, what I'm telling you is true. So don't do to the shelamim what you did to the chatat. The chatat, I don't know why you burned it, but listen, I'm not making this up, so go...” Okay, no, I want to read this beraita (early rabbinic teaching) once to see it inside.
Vayedaber Moshe el Aharon ve-el El'azar ve-el Itamar banav hanotarim kechu et haminchah hanoteret ve-achluha matzot etzel hamizbeach ki kodesh hi va-achaltem otah bimkom kadosh ki chokcha vechok banecha hu me'ishei Hashem ki chein tzuveti (Moses spoke to Aaron and his remaining sons: Take the remaining meal-offering, eat it unleavened beside the altar, for it is holy; eat it in a holy place, for it is your portion and your sons' portion from Hashem's offerings, for so I was commanded). Ki chen tzuveti: eat it even though you're an onen. Chazeh hatenufah ve-shok haterumah (the breast of the waving and the thigh of the offering)—that's the shelamim—yitnu bazevach... shok haterumah vechazeh hatenufah, vehayah lecha ulebanecha itcha lechok olam ka'asher tzivah Hashem (It shall be yours and your sons' with you as an eternal statute, as Hashem commanded). “Listen, I'm not making this stuff up. Ka'asher tzivah Hashem. Whatever you did with the chatat, don't do this to the shelamim.”
Ve'et se'ir hachatat, when he came to the se'ir hachatat, darosh darash Moshe vehinei soraf. He said, “Where is it?” He sees it's burned. Vayiktzof al El'azar ve'al Itamar (He became angry with Elazar and Itamar); he got angry at the kohanim. Madua lo achaltem et hachatat bimkom hakodesh (Why did you not eat the sin-offering in the holy place)? “Why didn't you eat it? Ki kodesh kodashim hu (for it is most holy). Hakol tochlu otah (you shall surely eat it), because ki chen tzuveti, like I told you earlier.” Then Aharon is going to answer: Vayedaber Aharon el Moshe hein hayom. Whatever he's going to answer, we'll have to see.
According to this beraita, he tells them they have to eat all the korbanot, even though they were onanim. Ureminhi (but we have a contradiction). It says that the chatat of Rosh Chodesh mipenei aninut nisrefah (it was burned because of mourning). Since all the kohanim were onanim—there were only El'azar, Itamar, and Aharon, all kohanim—who can eat it? What are you going to do with a chatat that cannot be eaten? You burn it. Lekach ne'emar (therefore it is said), vatikrenah (these things happened), says this pasuk (verse), ka'eleh—meaning these events. Aharon answers back: “After this happened to me”—ka'eleh, meaning these events, meaning the death of Nadav va-Avihu—“hayitav be'einei Hashem (Would it be pleasing in Hashem's eyes)? You think Hashem wants me to eat the se'ir be'aninut?”
So how could you tell me that Moshe was telling him to eat the korbanot be'aninut? You see Aharon is clearly saying, “How could I eat the korban chatat? There's aninut!” Moshe agreed, which means Moshe is telling Aharon that they should have eaten it even though they were onanim. But we see here that the reason they didn't eat it was that they were onanim. So should they or shouldn't they have eaten it?
Amar Shemuel lo kashya (Samuel said: This is not difficult). Ha Rabbi Yehudah, ha Rabbi Nechemyah. De-tanya (as it was taught): mipenei aninut serafeha lekach ne'emar ka'eleh divrei Rabbi Nechemyah (They burned it because of mourning; therefore it says “these things,” the words of Rabbi Nechemyah). That's according to Rabbi Nechemyah. He said, “After these events happened to me, what should I do?” Ka'eleh, these events. Rabbi Yehudah ve-Rabbi Shimon omerim mipenei tumah nisrefah (it was burned because of impurity). Ah, not because of an onen. Something happened to them; they became tamei be'ones (impure through an unavoidable accident). New, new chiddush here. It had nothing to do with aninut; from the side of aninut, they could have eaten it. So why didn't they eat it? They became tamei.
She'im atah omer aninut serafeha (if you say they burned it because of mourning), hayu lishloshtan sheyisrefuha (they should have burned all three). If they burned it, they should have burned all the korbanot. They only burned the chatat. Why did they eat the other ones? Davar acher (another explanation): hayah ra'uy le'ochlan la'erev (they could have eaten them in the evening). Another reason is that they didn't eat it be'aninut; they could have eaten it at night. What does that mean? They wouldn't have burned it for reasons of aninut, because even though they couldn't eat it then, they could have eaten it at night. Look at Rashi. Hayah lahem le'ochlam la'erev. You see Rashi; it's like a whole thing on it.
Rabbi Yehudah af al gav de'amar aninut lailah de'oraita (nighttime mourning is biblical), modeh hu (he agrees) de-le'oto hayom hutrah lahem aninut lailah (that on that day nighttime mourning was permitted for them), ve-chol shekein Rabbi Shimon de'af ledorot eino ela midivrei soferim kimeforash ta'am de-Rabbi Nechemyah. So therefore, the reason they didn't burn the other stuff is that they could have eaten it at night, because there wasn't going to be aninut lailah in those days. And what was he answering? It must have been burned for another reason besides aninut, because if it was burned for aninut, they would have eaten it at night. I guess the duration is still—you have until the next morning. So if it was aninut, they could have eaten it at night because the aninut would have departed. Therefore, it shows you it must have been for a different reason, fine. It must have been tumah (impurity), for example.
Davar acher, vahalo Pinchas hayah imahem (Wasn't Pinchas with them)? Aha, you had a kohen over there! Granted, El'azar and Itamar were onanim, and Aharon—he wasn't a kohen yet. Oh, we'll see. He was not at this point. Ah, yeah, Pinchas. So if Pinchas is a kohen, why didn't they give it to him to eat? Ela (rather), something else must have happened to it; it wasn't a din of onen.
Before we go further, we have two ways to analyze this parashah. One way is to look at it as an aninut subject. But that poses a problem, because if it was an aninut subject, they ate two out of the three. If it's aninut, they shouldn't have eaten any of them. So the other rabbi comes along and says it must have been tumah; aninut isn't an issue. They were able to eat, for some reason, even though normally an onen doesn't eat. Well, they weren't really tamei; they didn't come in contact with the bodies, let's say. But they were onen, and for some reason this type of aninut allowed them to eat the two. So why did they burn the third one? Why did they burn the chatat? Something happened to it. It became tamei or something.
The Gemara proves it from two standpoints. I'll prove it to you: if it was an aninut standpoint, they could have eaten it at night. They didn't have to—Which means you're right, they didn't have to burn it. Why did they burn the chatat? Because of onen? Wait until night and eat it. There is no aninut lailah from the Torah. Another reason: why burn it bichlal (at all)? Give it to Pinchas and let him eat it if it's an aninut issue. He wasn't an onen. So something else must be happening here. Rashi says: Pinchas shelo hayah onen.
Now, that's what Rava amar (Rava said). So those are the two answers. Now we have a machloket (dispute): Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Nechemyah. Is it aninut, or is it because of something else? Ve-Rava amar idi ve-idi Rabbi Nechemyah, la kashya, kan be-kodshei sha'ah kan be-kodshei dorot (here, offerings for the occasion; there, offerings for generations). Okay. It was an aninut issue. Rabbi Nechemyah holds that it was an aninut issue. How am I going to remember that Nechemyah holds aninut? We have to figure out a name so you can remember that. Rabbi Nechemyah holds aninut. Nechemyah is mi-leshon nechamah (from the language of consolation). Nechamah, chamah, aninut, onen. He holds that it was an aninut issue.
So they ate two out of the three. Why? Because those were inaugural korbanot, once-in-a-lifetime korbanot. With once-in-a-lifetime korbanot, the law of onen doesn't kick in. The se'ir of Rosh Chodesh, which is a korban dorot, has the regular laws apply. Very simple answer. So Aharon made a chiluk (distinction) on his own. He said, “Well, kodshei sha'ah (offerings for the occasion), kodshei dorot. Kodshei sha'ah we'll eat; kodshei dorot we'll burn.”
Now the Gemara says—we're going to get into the pesukim: Rabbi Nechemyah heichi metareitz le-hanei kra'ei ve-rabbanan heichi metratsu hanei kra'ei (How does Rabbi Nechemyah interpret these verses, and how do the Sages interpret them)? Now that you have the two ways of learning, they had to act like generations, which means that aninut was on in the night? The aninut was on with them in the day. Right, but the answer to why they didn't—Well, we're going to see the pesukim now. Instead of asking why they waited until night—We're going to see now. We're going to see now. We're going to see now. You're asking a good question. We're going to see now; watch!
So there's two ways of looking at it here: either it's an aninut issue or it's a tumah issue. And then you have another version of it: it was a difference between kodshei sha'ah and kodshei dorot. So the Gemara begins: Rabbi Nechemyah, how does Rabbi Nechemyah learn the pesukim? How do rabbanan (the Sages) learn the pesukim? Rabbi Nechemyah metareitz lehu hachi (Rabbi Nechemyah answers them this way): Madua lo achaltem (Why did you not eat)? Amar lo Moshe le-Aharon (Moshe said to Aharon), shema nichnas damah lifnim ve-lifnim (Perhaps its blood entered inside). Remember, we learned that a chatat whose blood goes inside is supposed to remain outside; it was a chatat chitzonah (outer sin-offering). The blood of the chatat that goes inside to the heichal (sanctuary) becomes pasul (invalid). So Moshe Rabbeinu is asking, “Why didn't you eat the chatat? Maybe something happened to the blood?” The pasuk's lashon (wording)—that's the pasuk's lashon. The pasuk says, Madua lo achaltem et hachatat bimkom hakodesh, hen lo huva et damah el hakodesh penimah (Behold, its blood was not brought inside the sanctuary). Did the blood go penimah (inside)? Did the blood go inside?
Amar lo (he said to him). So what does Aharon answer? Hen lo huva et damah. “No, that's not what happened to it.” Shema chutz limechitzatah yatzat (Perhaps it went outside its enclosure)? So Moshe Rabbeinu says, “Maybe it went outside of the mechitzot (partitions)? Is that why you didn't eat it?” Amar lo bakodesh haytah (He said to him: It was in the holy place). Aharon answers back, “No, it remained in the kodesh (holy place); it never went out.”
Ve-dilma be-aninut akravtuha u-fsaltuha (Perhaps you offered it in mourning and invalidated it)? Maybe you brought it when you were an onen? That's pasul. Amar lo—He wasn't allowed to? No, you can't bring it when you're an onen. He was allowed to eat it now. When he brought it, it was okay; Aharon's children died after. So Moshe Rabbeinu says, “Ah, I figured out why you didn't eat it! Because you brought it be'aninut; you made a mistake, and that's why it's pasul.” Will you say kohen gadol makriv onen (a High Priest may offer while mourning)? Ve-dilma b'aninut akravtah ufsaltah? El'azar and Itamar weren't kohen gadol. Oh, that's what we—yeah, maybe they brought it. They brought it b'onen, and that's pasul.
Amar lo Moshe, “V'chi hem hikrivu (Did they offer it)?” What's the next line? “Ani hikravti (I offered it)!” So even if it was onen, it doesn't matter; I'm kohen gadol, kohen gadol makriv onen. Whatever Moshe is telling him, Aharon gives him the right answers. Amar lo, “Hen lo huva et damah.” The blood didn't go inside. “Hen lo huva et damah... Uvakodesh haytah,” and it was always in the kodesh; it never went out. “Achol tochlu otah ka'asher tziveti (You shall surely eat it as I commanded),” which means b'aninut yochluha. And therefore... Why didn't you eat it? If nothing happened, and you answer me positively on all the questions—“Achol tochlu otah,” which means eat it even though you're an onen.
Amar lo. Aharon comes back and says, just as I told you to eat the minchah and the other stuff, what's the difference? You should have eaten the chatat of Rosh Chodesh, ka'asher tziveti. Amar lo, “Vatikrena oti ka'eleh (These things happened to me),” this happened to me with the death of Aharon's sons, Nadav and Avihu. “V'achalti chatat hayom hayitav b'einei Hashem? Shema lo shamata ela b'kodshei sha'ah?” Maybe you only heard that they waived the aninut on the inaugural korbanot, the kodshei sha'ah, the temporary ones. “D'i b'kodshei dorot, kal vachomer (a fortiori inference) mima'aser hakal: u'mah ma'aser hakal, amrah Torah: lo achalti v'oni mimenu (I did not eat of it in my mourning), b'kodshei dorot lo kol sheken?” If ma'aser sheni (second tithe), which is kal (lesser) than korbanot, isn't allowed to be eaten b'onen, and the person has to confess, “Lo achalti v'oni,” I did not eat the ma'aser b'onen, do you think you can eat a korban dorot be'aninut?
Moshe—next line: “Miyad: Vayishma Moshe vayitav b'einav (Immediately, Moses heard and it was good in his eyes).” Moshe heard, and it made sense. “Hoda v'lo bosh Moshe lomar: Lo shamati (Moses acknowledged it without embarrassment, saying: I did not hear).” He could've said, “Oh, nice chiluk, but I never heard that chiluk.” You know, he could've covered himself. He could've said, “I never heard this chiluk.” Instead, he said, “Ela amar: Shamati v'shachachti (I heard and I forgot).” He said, “You're right. Hashem said this, but I forgot it.”
So according to the opinion that says it was an aninut issue, and there's a chiluk between kodshei sha'ah and kodshei dorot, everything makes sense here. Understand the whole story there? B'onen. U'mah ma'aser sheni hakal she'asur le'echol b'aninut, korbanot, korban chatat shezeh kodesh, zeh chamur, kol sheken you can't eat b'aninut. And this is kodshei sha'ah, kodshei dorot.
But Rabbi Yehudah v'Rabbi Shimon hachi metartzei lah. The other Rabbis—that's who the rabbanan are. Rabbanan means Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon. Hachi metartzu? Vos iz zeyer sevara? What is their reasoning? It wasn't an aninut issue. They hold you're allowed to eat b'aninut. So why did they burn the chatat? Something happened to it. Okay, how do they learn? “Madua lo achaltem et hachatat bimkom hakodesh?” Same story. “Hey, Aharon, they burned the chatat.” So Moshe comes: “Hey, why don't you eat it? Shema nichnas damah lifnim?” Amar lo: “Hen lo huva et damah penimah.” “Shema chutz limchitzatah yatztah?” Amar lo: “Hen bakodesh haytah.” “U-dilma b'aninut akraftuha ufsaltuha?” Amar lo Moshe: “Hen hikrivuha difsaluha b'aninut? Ani hikravtiha!”
Then there's the key now: “U-dilma agav meriduchaychu, p'shatem bah v'itmai?” Maybe you became tamei? Maybe you were so bitter and upset from the death that somehow you made it tamei? “Amar lo Moshe, ‘Kach ani b'einecha? She'ani mevazeh kodshei shamayim?’” What, you think I'm going to be mevazeh (disrespect) the kodshei shamayim (sacred things of Heaven)? “Vatikrena oti ka'eleh, afillu eleh v'cha'eleh.” Even if it happened, bar minan (God forbid), twice such a tragedy, would I be mevazeh kodshei shamayim? Which means he said, “Eleh ka'eleh,” meaning even if another thing like this had happened, chas v'shalom (God forbid), would I be mevazeh kodshei shamayim?
So what was the reason? Amar lo, “V'i hen lo huva et damah...” Again, the Gemara says: If the dam (blood) didn't go inside, and uvakodesh haytah, it didn't go outside the azarah (Temple courtyard), achol tochlu otah, bakodesh, because if it's ba'aninut, tochluha. So what's the only issue you're telling me? It wasn't a tumah issue; it was an aninut issue. You should have eaten it ba'aninut, like you ate the other ones.
Amar lo, shema lo shamata ela balaylah (perhaps you only heard about nighttime)? De'i bayom, kal vachomer mima'aser hakal. U'mah ma'aser hakal, amrah Torah, lo achalti ve'oni mimenu, kodesh chamur, lo kol sheken? “Moshe, you heard that you can eat b'aninut. You're right. When did you hear? Maybe you heard that you can eat aninut lailah. But did you hear about aninut yom? It's kal vachomer mima'aser hakal. U'mah ma'aser hakal, lo achalti ve'oni on the day of the aninut, so certainly the same applies to the chatat.” Miyad vayishma Moshe vayitav b'einav. Lo bosh Moshe lomar lo shamati, ela shamati veshachachti.
So then the question is: why did it cost them—why? Why not? He still agrees to Samuel. But the point is, eat the chatat at night then. That's the question. Why? It didn't become tamei. Aninut in the day, let's say, means you can't eat it because it's kodshei dorot, but eat it at night. That's the question according to this version. Why did they burn it? The Gemara asks, iba'i lehu leshahuyei ulemichlah be'orta (They should have left it and eaten it at night). They should have waited and eaten it at night; don't burn it!
Tum'ah be'ones ba. There was an ones (unavoidable circumstance): sheratzu lehahotah ad halaylah ule'ochlan kulan yachad venitme'at be'ones. It was an ones. They put it on the side, and something happened. Moshe... Could be somebody touched it beshogeg (unintentionally), a sheretz (creeping creature), on that. Maybe agav meriduchaych you did something, you touched it, did something. So why did they get upset about this? Why did Moshe have a problem with this? Moshe, why? I don't have a problem with this. But Moshe claims against them: “Oh, maybe agav meriduchaychu you got all nervous and whatever, something happened.” Ah! It happened twice that morning. I wouldn't have been careful; I wouldn't have been poshe'a (negligent). Why? Because Aharon didn't become tamei in the end. The item became tamei. No, nobody became tamei, so Moshe said maybe you became tamei. Right, you weren't careful. Your mind was—you took your mind off the taharah (purity). Chas v'shalom, I'm a kohen. I wouldn't be poshe'a bekodshei, bekodshei shamayim. Good, so they put the meat on the side, but the meat became tamei. Yeah, a sheretz dropped on it, whatever. Okay, fine. I'll hear that. So they burned it.
Oh, so it works beautifully. So we have two different pshatim (interpretations) here, gorgeous pshatim. They wouldn't eat it! They wouldn't eat it. They couldn't eat it in the day because there's aninut. Why did they eat the other stuff? No, we agreed to that: it's kodshei sha'ah, which you could eat during the day, but kodshei dorot, no. Good. So nothing happened to it; eat it at night! Ones: it became tamei out of their control. And the first, Rabbi Nechemyah: they didn't eat the chatat because that's kodshei sha'ah, so kodshei sha'ah you're not allowed to eat. Okay, kodshei sha'ah is not allowed to eat, so they ate the kodshei dorot—they can't, it's right. Kodshei sha'ah they're not allowed to eat. They ate the kodshei sha'ah be'aninut, and they didn't eat the chatat. So why did they leave the chatat until night? They can't eat it ba'aninut, so according to the first opinion, why did they leave it until night? Mide'orayta (by Torah law)? Miderabbanan (by rabbinic law), Aharon goes like that. So they were acting for the dorot; they, they is miderabbanan. Why didn't they eat it at night? Okay, is the Gemara going to ask that? I think that's the next question.
Bishlama lerabbanan, haynu dechtiv hayom. According to rabbanan, that's why it says “today.” According to rabbanan, it says, ve'achalti chatat hayom, meaning, like Nechemyah's—rabbanan is good—meaning I can't eat it today; I can eat it tonight. Ela leRabbi Nechemyah mai hayom? What's hayom? What does Rashi say? Bishlama lerabbanan de'amri echad kodshei sha'ah ve'echad kodshei dorot laylah hutar lahem velo yom, ad halaylah hayu rotzim lehahotah. Haynu dechtiv ve'achalti chatat hayom: “Ani onen ve'ochel hayom?” Atah shema lo shamata ela balaylah. Ela leRabbi Nechemyah de'amar mah shehutar lahem hutar afilu beyom kodshei sha'ah, umah shelo hutar lo hutar af balaylah. Because everyone must hold that aninut lailah is de'oraita. So, right, that wasn't an option at night. So why did he say ve'achalti hayom? Even halaylah that's asur (forbidden). Understand?
The Gemara says, okay, that's one question. Another question: bishlama le-Rabbi Nechemyah, haynu dechtiv hen hayom. Ela le-rabbanan, mai hen hayom? Which means chovat hayom (obligation of the day). Chovat hayom. Rashi: Mai hayom? Chovat hayom. It doesn't mean today. Kelomar kodshei dorot shel chovat hayom shel Rosh Chodesh, atah omer li le'echol onen? Vehaynu chatat hayom, chatat kavu'a leyomah. Which means hen hayom doesn't mean today. He meant chatat hayom, the chovat hayom. That's like Aharon answering back: “You want me to eat chatat hayom, meaning chatat shehu chovat hayom shel kol hadorot? Not today and not tonight either! Tonight I can't eat it either. But you want me to eat it just because Moshe says, ‘Eat the other ones’? The other ones are kodshei sha'ah! So yeah, kodshei sha'ah; this is kodshei dorot.”
Bishlama, bishlama. One more line, boys. Bishlama le-Rabbi Nechemyah haynu dechtiv hen hayom, ela le-rabbanan mai hen hayom? Rashi: Bishlama le-Rabbi Nechemyah—that's the aninut rabbi—haynu dechtiv hen hayom hikrivu, kelomar korban zeh lechovat hayom karev vekodshei dorot hu. Excellent. Ve'ani ochlam onen, bitmihah, shema lo shamata ela beshel sha'ah. Good, so that pasuk makes sense. Hen hayom hikrivu, which means these are daily korbanot, korbanot brought specifically today. So just because I ate the kodshei sha'ah, you mean you want me to eat the kodshei dorot? Kelomar korban zeh lechovat hayom karev vekodshei dorot hu. Oh, right, hayom is chovat hayom. He says, “Hen hayom, this is a chovat hayom, which is kodshei dorot. You want me to eat it be'aninut? If I ate the other stuff, that's because it's kodshei sha'ah.” So it makes sense now, the way we're explaining it.
Ela le-rabbanan de'amri shema lo shamata ela balaylah. Oh, but according to the other rabbis, they said, “Yeah, we can't eat it in the day, but we can eat it at night.” Mai hi dekamar lahen hen hayom hikrivu? Right, according to that version, why does it say hen hayom, meaning, “You want us to eat it—”? Well, it makes sense: “You want us to eat it today?” You know, we can eat it only at night. Why is that a question? Why is that a question? Bishlama le-Rabbi Nechemyah haynu dechtiv hayom, ela le-rabbanan mai hen hayom? He says, leda'at Rabbi Yehudah, kavanat Aharon haytah lomar she'isur aninut lo hutar ela balaylah. Uleda'ato lo chilek bein kodshei sha'ah lekodshei dorot. Ve'im ken, mah hitkaven Aharon ka'asher amar hen hayom hikrivu?
Ah, let's go slowly. According to Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon, they're not making a chiluk between kodshei sha'ah and kodshei dorot. Is that possible? Which means, why did they eat the other ones too? According to Rabbi Yehudah, why did they eat the other ones? Maybe they didn't come by night. It says kodshei sha'ah. No, oh, those they ate at night also? How do you mean that Moshe came to them that night? He said, “You ate these.” You ate these—what about those? So what does Aharon come along and say? Aharon says, “Hen hayom,” today we're bringing these items. According to Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon, they don't make a—That their issue, wait, exactly. Their issue was not saying the chatat is a kodshei dorot issue. Their issue was that they were saying it became tamei. They would've eaten it from the aninut standpoint; they just would've waited until the night. So what do you say, hen hayom, this is chovat hayom, this is a kodshei dorot issue? That wasn't their claim. They don't make a chiluk between kodshei sha'ah and kodshei dorot. Oh, why? I thought they do; that's why they waited. That's why they waited. Why didn't they wait for the other ones? Because it was kodshei sha'ah. Because that was—that was for the—that's kodshei sha'ah.
So the Gemara says, hachi ka'amar: “Hen? Hen hikrivu, ani hikravti?” Hen? Ah, hen! They brought it; I didn't bring it. Oh. Ah. So therefore, wait: hen hikrivu, hen hikrivu? It took place during the day. During the day. Exactly. Hen hikrivu means on that day. Hen hikrivu, ani hikravti? Oh, so they're on cue for that, because they brought it; they didn't bring it. Hen hikrivu, ani hikravti. That's shame. Hachi ka'amar leih: Amar, dilma be'aninut akrivteih? You told me maybe it was brought be'aninut? Vechi hein, banai, hedyotot hayom, hikrivu shum korban? Ani hikravti et hakol! Okay, fine.
But my last question is: according to that opinion of Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon, aninut was not the problem, and that's why they were planning to eat the chatat as well. Because aninut is de'oraita on the day itself, they were going to wait until night, and something happened. So why did they eat the other ones during the day? Oh, they made the same chiluk: kodshei sha'ah, kodshei sha'ah. Chiluk. So why can't you explain the pasuk like this according to Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon? When they were—Because they said, “This is a chovat hayom.” Which would mean Aharon—Moshe Rabbeinu told him, “Yet you ate the other ones.” So then he would say, “Yeah, I ate the other ones.” According to Rabbi Nechemyah, that's good. Hen hayom means this one I'm supposed to eat. “This is chovat hayom, and that's sha'ah.” But the answer to—But Nechemyah, the answer according to the other one is—Yeah. You gotta eat it anyway. But it's tonight. You're allowed to eat it. Yeah, but you ate the other ones during the day. Why did you eat the other ones during the day? This one we're supposed to eat at night. They would give a—They would give the tonight answer. Why couldn't you say, “Well, hen hayom, you want us to eat this. This is a chovat hayom, which is chovat sha'ah. Therefore, chovat sha'ah is not docheh (override) the day; we have to wait until night”? Why can't they say, “This is a chovat sha'ah, and this is chovat dorot, which is different, it's chovat zeh, therefore we can't do what we did to the other one; we have to wait until night”?
Okay. We're starting at amar mar. It's a little way up, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven from the top. Amar mar: Hayu lishlashtan sheyisarefu (that they should be burned). Which means, if the chatat of Rosh Chodesh is a din in aninut, they burned the chatat. What are you burning the chatat for? They should have burned all the korbanot, all three. Which three should they have burned? According to Rabbi Nechemyah, it's an aninut issue. Ah, so what happened? They couldn't eat the chatat because it was onen, and at night also—So what did they do when it came to night? They burned it. So they should have burned all of them. Which three was he referring to? Mai shlashtan? So it's the three chata'ot they were referring to.
Three chata'ot were brought that day. De-tanya, we had a beraita: ve'se'ir hachatat darosh darash Moshe. Now, regarding the se'ir hachatat, Moshe Rabbeinu made a derashah (exposition) on it. Why is it darosh darash? There were three: se'ir, zeh se'ir Nachshon. Nachshon ben Aminadav was the nasi (leader) who brought the korban on the first day, so he brought a se'ir as well, a chatat. Chatat, zo chatat Shemini, that was the chatat they brought on Yom HaShemini (the eighth day) for the inauguration. Darash, zeh se'ir shel Rosh Chodesh. Yachol shlashtan nisrefu? Talmud lomar, vehinei soraf. Echad nisraf, velo shlashtan nisrefu. Soraf—it doesn't say nisrefu, so they only burned the chatat of Rosh Chodesh.
Which was—No, according to Rabbi Nechemyah, it did not become tamei. No, no, according to Rabbi Nechemyah, he makes the chiluk between kodshei sha'ah and kodshei dorot. That was the kodshei dorot they burned, and the other ones they actually ate. So it says, darosh darash, shtei drishot shtei drishot lamah li (Why do I need two inquiries)? Why does Moshe say darosh darash? What's the double darosh darash? Amar lehu, Moshe tells Aharon, mipnei mah chatat zo nisrefah ve'eilu munachot (Why was this sin-offering burned while these were left)? “Darosh darash! Why did you eat this one and burn this one?” Ve'eini yodei'a eizehu. Now, how do we know which one was burned? Keshehu omer, ve'otah natan lachem laset et avon ha'edah (He gave it to you to bear the congregation's sin). Moshe Rabbeinu, regarding the one that was burned, says, “What did you burn this for? There's kaparah (atonement) for that chatat! God gave that chatat in order to mechaper (atone) for the avon (sin) of the edah (congregation)!” Misvara (by reasoning), hevei omer zeh se'ir shel Rosh Chodesh, which is indeed brought for kaparah for Bnei Yisrael (the children of Israel). That's how we know, because it doesn't say it was the se'ir of Rosh Chodesh; it says the se'ir of chatat that was burned. How do we know it was the se'ir chatat? Because it says ve'otah natan lachem laset et avon ha'edah, which has to be Rosh Chodesh.
So the Gemara says, shapir ka'amrei leih (They answered him well). Hey, that's a good claim Aharon had against Moshe. So the Gemara says—okay, oh, sorry, that Rabbi Yehudah has against Rabbi Nechemyah. Which means, why did they burn all three? The Gemara says, Rabbi Nechemyah leta'meih (according to his reasoning), de'amar kodshei sha'ah lo paslah behu aninut. He holds that the kodshei sha'ah do not posel (invalidate) aninut. That means the once-in-a-lifetime korbanot: even though you're onen, you eat them during aninut. You don't learn kodshei sha'ah from kodshei dorot. It's not posel. Good. So therefore, what's the only one that's going to be posel? The chatat of Rosh Chodesh. So they waited until night. At night they can't bring it either because aninut lailah de'oraita according to Rabbi Nechemyah. Therefore, they have no choice but to burn it.
If that's the case, then we can explain the machloket clearly. The Gemara says they told Rabbi Nechemyah, “Good, because what do you mean? Why did you burn the chatat? You should have burned all of them. Aninut is aninut.” Ah, Rabbi Nechemyah holds there's a chiluk between kodshei sha'ah and kodshei dorot. Aninut doesn't apply to the kodshei sha'ah; aninut applies to the kodshei dorot. That's why they had to burn the chatat. Beautiful.
Now, the shittah (position) of Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon: first of all, aninut lailah doesn't apply min haTorah (by Torah law); aninut yom applies min haTorah. Therefore, during the day they could not eat any, because he doesn't make a chiluk between kodshei sha'ah and kodshei dorot. Therefore aninut applied to all three. But once the night came, they technically would have been able to eat all three. So Moshe Rabbeinu sits and says, “Eh, so why did you burn the chatat?” “Oh, because something happened to the chatat; it became tamei be'ones.” Therefore everything is fine according to that shittah. That's what the Gemara asked earlier in the daf (page): how do they explain the word hen hayom? According to Rabbi Nechemyah, he explained hen hayom to mean we're bringing chovat hayom. There's a chiluk between chovat hayom, which is the chatat of Rosh Chodesh, and the other ones. Whereas Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehudah don't make that chiluk, so how do they learn hen hayom? The Gemara gave a different answer to explain hen hayom according to them. It's not the chovat hayom issue, because to them there's no chiluk between chovat hayom and chovat sha'ah.
Okay, very good. Amar mar. Now we move on to the amar mar: Hayah lo le'ochlo la'erev. They tell Rabbi Nechemyah, “Okay, you hold aninut. They didn't eat it during the day, but they should have waited until night to eat it.” Shapir ka'amrei leih, they said good to him. Kasavar aninut lailah de'oraita: he holds aninut lailah de'oraita. Therefore, there's no option to eat it at night. So they had to give a different answer. Davar acher, vahalo Pinchas hayah imahem. That was another claim: forget about aninut. Let's say they couldn't eat it because of aninut, which means Nadav va'Avihu died and El'azar and Itamar are left; they can't eat because they're onen. But Pinchas is also a kohen. Give the korban to Pinchas to eat.
The Gemara says, savar lah ke'Rebbi Elazar. Amar Rebbi Elazar amar Rebbi Chanina, lo nitkahen Pinchas ad sheharago leZimri (Pinchas did not become a priest until he killed Zimri), dichtiv vehaytah lo ulezaro acharav berit kehunat olam (It shall be for him and his descendants after him, a covenant of eternal priesthood). Pinchas wasn't a kohen yet. His kehunah (priesthood) didn't come until he killed Zimri. Therefore, there was no option to give the korban to Pinchas.
Rav Ashi says Pinchas became a kohen actually much later on. When? Ad shesam shalom bein hashevatim shene'emar vayishma Pinchas hakohen unesi'ei ha'edah verashei alfei Yisrael. That was a story in the Nevi'im (Prophets), in the times of Yehoshua (Joshua). Bnei Gad (the children of Gad) and Bnei Reuven (the children of Reuben) built a monument on the other side of the midbar (wilderness). Because they were on the ever haYarden (the other side of the Jordan), the Jewish people thought they were doing avodah zarah (idol worship), so they wanted to make war against them. Pinchas went with a delegation to see what was going on over there. They actually saw that, no, they were doing it to commemorate the Torah. They weren't doing anything wrong. It wasn't avodah zarah at all. So Pinchas came back and told everybody, “No, no, no, they're okay. It's a shalom (peace).” So he made peace between Bnei Yisrael, who wanted to make a civil war. At that point, the pasuk says, vayishma Pinchas hakohen. Now they call Pinchas kohen for the first time. So it's a machloket about when he became a kohen: either to top—Either way, it's after the story of mitat Nadav va'Avihu.
The Gemara says, ve'idach nami veha ketiv vehaytah lo ulezaro acharav? What does Rav Ashi do with the first pasuk, that's vehaytah lo ulezaro acharav by Zimri? Ki chtiv hahu biberachah hu dichtiv. No, that means you'll have a berachah (blessing). That's all, but not a kehunah. You'll have the berachah, beriti shalom (My covenant of peace), whatever it may be, but it doesn't mean kohen.
Oh, ve'idach nami ha ketiv vayishma Pinchas hakohen? What does the other rabbi do? It says by Yehoshua that at the point when he made peace, he became Pinchas hakohen. Mashma (it implies) at that point, keman? Ki hai: zehu deyuchas lo acharav. That's coming to say that the children, his children, are going to have a status as him, meaning kohen gadol (High Priest). Really, he became a kohen after he killed Zimri, and when he made shalom im hashevatim (peace with the tribes), he got an extra berachah that his zera (offspring) will be bema'alah hagdolah shel hakehunah (the highest rank of priesthood), kohanim gedolim. Right? Which means—and that's the law, by the way—kohanim gedolim all came from Pinchas. Pinchas HaKohen was upgraded. He was a kohen gadol, let's say. But his children, no. At the point when he made the shalom, they upgraded his kids to become kohanim gedolim as well.
The Gemara continues: Amar Rav: Moshe Rabbeinu kohen gadol (Rav said: Moses our teacher was a High Priest). Moshe Rabbeinu had a status of a kohen gadol, vecholek bekodshei shamayim hayah (and he shared in the sacred offerings), and he would get a piece of the korbanot, shene'emar: Me'eil hamilu'im leMoshe hayah lemanah (From the ram of inauguration, a portion belonged to Moses). The eil hamilu'im was a korban shelamim (peace-offering) brought during the seven days of the inauguration of the Mishkan (Tabernacle). The chazeh (breast), the chest of the animal, was given to Moshe as a gift me'et Hashem (from Hashem). So you see what? He is eating korbanot. Oh, he's eating korbanot; that means he's a kohen, he's cholek bematanot (shares in the gifts).
Meitivei (they objected). The Gemara has a question: Vahalo Pinchas hayah imahem, ve'i ita, leima: vahalo Moshe Rabbeinu hayah imahem! Strong question: if Moshe Rabbeinu was a kohen, why did Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon, when they asked against Rabbi Nechemyah, say, “What do you mean, onen? Pinchas was there!”? Let them ask a much better question: “Moshe was there! Give it to Moshe; Moshe was not an onen!” The Gemara says, “No, deshani Moshe detarid bishchinah (Moshe was different, for he was occupied with the Divine Presence).” It could be Moshe Rabbeinu was a kohen, but he's busy back and forth with the Shechinah (Divine Presence), so it wasn't an option to give it to Moshe Rabbeinu. How do we know he's busy on Har Sinai (Mount Sinai), always with the Shechinah? De'amar mar: Moshe bahashkamah alah uvahashkamah yarad. Moshe Rabbeinu always went up to Har Sinai in the morning and came down in the morning. So he was always by Har Sinai. He was busy there, his days dealing with the Shechinah, talking to the Shechinah. So he could be a kohen, but the reason Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon didn't discuss Moshe Rabbeinu was that they knew he's tarud (occupied), tarud bishchinah, he's busy.
Oh, so the Gemara says: Meitivei. It says in the pasuk: Lechem Elohav mikodshei hakodashim umin hakodashim yochel (The bread of his God, from the most holy and holy offerings, he may eat). This is talking about a kohen who's a ba'al mum (blemished priest). The Torah says that a ba'al mum is able to eat mikodshei kodashim (from the most holy offerings)—that's the holy of holies, let's say, korban chatat—and is able to eat from the regular kodashim, meaning kodashim kalim (lesser sacred offerings). So the Gemara says: Im ne'emru kodshei kodashim, lamah ne'emar kodashim kalim? Ve'im ne'emru kodashim kalim, lamah ne'emar kodshei kodashim? (If the most holy offerings were stated, why state the lesser offerings, and vice versa?) Why did the pasuk have to write both, that a ba'al mum can eat from both levels of korbanot?
She'ilu lo ne'emar kodashim kalim (If the lesser offerings had not been stated), if it had just said kodashim kalim, hayiti omer: kodshei kodashim hu de'ochel (I would have said: it is the most holy offerings that he may eat), sheharei... Wait, she'ilu lo ne'emar kodashim kalim: if it did not say kodashim kalim, I would have said what? Sherak kodesh... kodshei kodashim hu de'ochel, sheharei hutru lezar velahen (were permitted to a non-priest). Which means we found a case where a zar (non-priest) can eat kodshei kodashim, even a non-kohen. Okay? We'll see. Oh, since we find that a non-kohen can eat kodshei kodashim, we could be lenient for a ba'al mum. Aval, however, kodashim kalim lo yochel (But he may not eat the lesser offerings). We never found that a zar can eat kodashim kalim. That's why they had to say kodashim kalim.
Now the Gemara goes the other way: Ve'ilu lo ne'emar kodshei kodashim, if it hadn't said kodshei kodashim, hayiti omer: bekodashim kalim yehe ochel; shehem kalim. Simple. Kodashim kalim they can eat, a ba'al mum, because it's kal; aval kodshei kodashim lo yehe ochel. Lekach ne'emar kodshei kodashim ulekach ne'emar kodashim kalim.
Katani mihat (at any rate, it teaches): sheharei hutru lezar velahen. Who's the zar? Lav Moshe (Isn't it Moses)? Which means the kodshei kodashim in the beraita—“Oh, I'll be lenient on kodshei kodashim for a ba'al mum, because I found that a zar can eat it.” Who's the zar that eats kodshei kodashim? Moshe! That eil hamilu'im they brought on the first day of the inauguration, seven days, was considered like kodshei kodashim, even though they call it a shelamim. It had the status of kodshei kodashim. And who ate it? Moshe! And they're calling him a zar! How? You just said Moshe Rabbeinu is a kohen. Now the beraita is calling him a zar! Understand?
The Gemara says: Amar Rav Sheshet: Lo, bebamah (private altar) lezar, uleman de'amar yesh minchah bebamah (according to the one who says there is a meal-offering on a private altar). It means no, a real zar. Kodshei kodashim, according to some opinions, which is called a minchah, was brought on a bamah. Oh, so if it was brought on a bamah, who eats the meat that goes on a bamah? Anybody! A bamah is a private altar in a guy's backyard. Who eats it? Anybody! So we found that kodshei kodashim brought on a bamah, according to some opinions, is eaten by a zar. So if I would say maybe, okay, it could be eaten by a ba'al mum as well—not Moshe. Zar means a regular zar on the bamah.
The bottom Rashi—and Rashi says: Bekodshei kalim, no, no, no, uvameh ka'amar, the bottom Rashi. Dehutru lezar, ledivrei ha'omer deveferek ha'acharon yesh minchah bebamah ketanah, uminchah kodshei kodashim. When it says minchah, minchah means kodshei kodashim. Ve'ochlim shireha zarim shehayu ovdim bebamah ketanah, which is the zarim working on a regular bamah ketanah (small private altar). They were the kohanim, so to speak, shehazar oved sham kede'ita beferek batra. Aval kodashim kalim lo ye'achel bachazeh vashok shel kohanim sheharei lo hutar lezar. That means the parts divided among the kohanim in the shelamim—the zar doesn't get those. But in the kodshei kodashim, we found that they get part of the division that goes to the kohanim. Where do we find that? In the bamah. De'ilu bemikdash ne'echal lakohanim (for in the Temple it is eaten by the priests). Ah, what about bamah ketanah? Uvebamah ketanah lo hayah chazeh vashok. There was no chazeh vashok on a bamah ketanah. That part of the animal that went to the kohen didn't exist.
Kedetanya beferek batra: chazeh vashok bebamah gedolah ve'ein chazeh vashok bebamah ketanah (There is a breast and thigh at a large altar, but no breast and thigh at a small altar). Rules! You'll learn it later on in this perek (chapter) in Masechet. There was no chazeh vashok. You could ask me a question: if they ate the kohen's part on the kodshei kodashim of a bamah, surely they ate the kohen's part on a shelamim of a bamah? No, there was no kohen's part on that bamah. There was no chazeh vashok bebamah. You got pesukim. You mean the din is not? The din, there was no din. You don't bring it, so you don't give it. Therefore, you can't bring me a re'ayah (proof): “Oh, if they ate kodshei kodashim, kol sheken they ate kodashim kalim.” It didn't exist! It didn't exist!
Oh, so therefore, the Gemara says: Ah, so I found that kodshei kodashim is mutar bezar (permitted to a non-priest). Now who's the zar? It must be Moshe! No, Moshe really is a kohen. So who's the zar? We find that kodshei kodashim meat is eaten by a zar bebamah. Oh, so I would say maybe only kodshei kodashim; why not kodashim kalim? Because we know that kodashim kalim brought on a bamah, legabei that—So the Gemara says, you see, you have no re'ayah. Amar mar, I was—I might have stayed shut. No, we'll go ahead.
Meitivei: Okay, Miryam (Miriam). Miryam got tzara'at (skin affliction), Miryam, yes? So now they have to put her in quarantine. The Gemara says: Mi hisgirah (Who confined her)? First you need somebody to say that she's a metzora'at (woman with tzara'at), because you need a kohen to do that. A kohen has to make the ruling on her, and then you take her out of the machaneh (camp). So who processed the tzara'at of Miryam? It says, im tomar Moshe hisgirah, Moshe zar hu (If you say Moses confined her, Moses is a non-priest). If you say Moshe did this, Moshe can't do it; he's a zar. He's not a kohen. The tzara'at is only dealt with by the kohanim. Ve'ein zar ro'eh et hanega'im (A non-priest does not inspect afflictions). A zar does not do nega'im (afflictions). So clearly, you have a question, because he was calling Moshe Rabbeinu a zar!
Ve'im tomar Aharon hisgirah (And if you say Aaron confined her), that can't be. Aharon karov hu (Aaron is a relative), ve'ein karov ro'eh et hanega'im (A relative does not inspect afflictions). He's a relative; a relative cannot see the nega'im of his family. Ela? Oh, so kohen is a brother. Brother is different than brother, brother, brother. You know what, I'll show you this one. I'll answer your question: why couldn't they answer about Moshe Rabbeinu as well? They could have answered Moshe Rabbeinu as well. It's like ruling for that reason; he's a zar even if he wasn't a relative. It's a better answer. Even if he wasn't a brother, he's still asur because he's not a kohen. Aharon is a kohen, but he's a brother.
Ela kavod gadol chalak lo Hakadosh Baruch Hu le-Miryam (The Holy One, blessed be He, bestowed great honor upon Miriam). “Otah sha'ah ani kohen va'ani masgirah” (At that moment, I am a priest and I will confine her). Borei Olam (Creator of the world) says, “I'm going to give honor to Miryam HaNeviah,” and for now I'm a kohen for this. Hakadosh Baruch Hu says, “Ani kohen va'ani masgirah,” and He made the ruling on her. Therefore it says hesger (confinement), that's the initial process. Ani choltah va'ani potrah (I declare her confined and I release her). Normally, muchlat (confirmed as afflicted) is after seven days, if the tzara'at is still there. The kohen looks at it again and then puts her in a second stage. Here it was immediately: musgar (confined), muchlat, it's confined, it's confirmed, and what? “Va'ani potrah”—and now take her out also. After seven days, the kohen has to make the ruling that she's okay.
But what do you see from this beraita? Katani mihat Moshe zar, ve'ein zar ro'eh et hanega'im. Ah, so it says he's a zar! Amar Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, shani mar'ot nega'im de-Aharon uvanav ketuvin baparashah (The laws of inspecting afflictions are different, for Aaron and his sons are specified in the passage). Moshe really was a kohen, but gezeirat hakatuv (scriptural decree): regarding nega'im it says Aharon uvanav, which means he's a kohen for other things, but for nega'im, what do we do? Gezeirat hakatuv Aharon uvanav. It's a gezeirat hakatuv, so that's why he could not inspect them.
Baruch Hashem le'olam amen ve'amen. Amen ve'amen.