Vayikra 10:12-20 ויקרא י׳:י״ב-כ׳

הנותרים. מִן הַמִּיתָה, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאַף עֲלֵיהֶן נִקְנְסָה מִיתָה עַל עֲוֹן הָעֵגֶל, הוּא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ט'), וּבְאַהֲרֹן הִתְאַנַּף ה' מְאֹד לְהַשְׁמִידוֹ, וְאֵין הַשְׁמָדָה אֶלָּא כִלּוּי בָּנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (עמוס ב'), וָאַשְׁמִיד פִּרְיוֹ מִמַּעַל, וּתְפִלָּתוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה בִּטְּלָה מֶחֱצָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ט'), וָאֶתְפַּלֵּל גַּם בְּעַד אַהֲרֹן בָּעֵת הַהִיא:

הנותרים WHO WERE LEFT from death. This teaches us that upon them, also, death had been pronounced in punishment for the sin of the golden calf. This is what is meant by the words (Deuteronomy 9:20) “And with Aaron the Lord was very angry to destroy him”, for the expression “destruction” means the extirpation of offspring, as it is said (Amos 2:9) “And I destroyed its fruit above”. Moses’ prayer, however, made half the sentence of none effect, (so that only two of Aaron’s four sons died) as it is said (Deuteronomy 9:20) “And I prayed also on behalf of Aaron at that time” (cf. Rashi on that passage).

קחו את המנחה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹנְנִין וְקָדָשִׁים אֲסוּרִים לְאוֹנֵן:

קחו את המנחה TAKE THE MEAL OFFERING, although ye are אוננים and the holy things are forbidden to an אונן (Zevachim 101a).

את המנחה. זוֹ מִנְחַת שְׁמִינִי וּמִנְחַת נַחְשׁוֹן (ספרא):

את המנחה THE MEAL-OFFERING — This was the meal-offering prescribed for the eighth day of the installation ceremony and the meal-offering of Nachshon (Numbers 7:13; cf. Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 3).

ואכלוה מצות. מַה תַּ"ל? לְפִי שֶׁהִיא מִנְחַת צִבּוּר וּמִנְחַת שָׁעָה וְאֵין כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהּ לְדּוֹרוֹת, הֻצְרַךְ לְפָרֵשׁ בָּהּ דִּין שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת (שם):

ואכלהו מצות AND EAT IT AS UNLEAVENED CAKES — Why is this stated at all, since this regulation regarding the meal-offering has been previously laid down (cf. Leviticus 6:9)? Since, however, this (the meal-offering prescribed for the installation ceremony) was a communal meal-offering (cf. Leviticus 9:3—4) and an occasional meal-offering and nothing similar to it had been commanded for future generations and it was therefore possible that the regulations relating to meal-offerings in general did not apply, it was necessary expressly to set forth in respect of it the law already laid down for other meal-offerings (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 4).

וחק בניך. אֵין לַבָּנוֹת חֹק בַּקֳּדָשִׁים (שם):

וחק בניך AND THY SONS’ PORTION — Daughters are not mentioned as is the case in v. 14 because daughters have no portion in these holy things (meal-offerings; cf. Leviticus 6:10— 11) (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 7).

כי כן צויתי. בַּאֲנִינוּת יֹאכְלוּהָ (שם; זבחים ק"א):

כי כן צויתי FOR SO AM I COMMANDED — that they must eat it even when they have the status of אוננים (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 8; Zevachim 101a).

ואת חזה התנופה. שֶׁל שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר.

ואת חזה התנופה AND THE WAVE BREAST of the communal) peace-offerings,

תאכלו במקום טהור. וְכִי אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים אָכְלוּ בְּמָקוֹם טָמֵא? אֶלָּא הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁהֵם קָדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים הֻזְקְקָה אֲכִילָתָם בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ, אֲבָל אֵלּוּ אֵין צְרִיכִים תּוֹךְ הַקְּלָעִים אֲבָל צְרִיכִים הֵם לֵאָכֵל תּוֹךְ מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר מִלִּכָּנֵס שָׁם מְצֹרָעִים; מִכָּאן שֶׁקָּדָשִׁים קַלִּים נֶאֱכָלִין בְּכָל הָעִיר (שם נ"ה):

תאכלו במקום טהור YE SHALL EAT IN A CLEAN PLACE —But had they eaten those that preceded this (the sin-offering and the meal-offering) in an unclean place? But he said this because the preceding ones being holy in the highest degree the eating of them had necessarily to take place in a holy spot (in the court of the Tabernacle), but these,however, were not required to be eaten “within the hangings” (i. e. in the court which was enclosed by hangings), but they were, however, required to be eaten in the camp of Israel (and not beyond the confines of that camp), that being a clean place in so far as lepers were precluded from entering it. From this we infer that sacrifices holy in a lower degree, being similar to the peace-offerings mentioned here, may be eaten anywhere within the city of Jerusalem, this area corresponding to “the camp of Israel” in the wilderness (see Rashi on 4:12; Zevachim 55a).

אתה ובניך ובנתיך. אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ בְּחֵלֶק אֲבָל בְּנוֹתֶיךָ לֹא בְחֵלֶק, אֶלָּא אִם תִּתְּנוּ לָהֶם מַתָּנוֹת רַשָּׁאוֹת הֵן לֶאֱכֹל בְּחָזֶה וְשׁוֹק, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אַף הַבָּנוֹת בְּחֵלֶק? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר כִּי חָקְךָ וְחָק בָּנֶיךָ נִתְּנוּ — חֹק לַבָּנִים וְאֵין חֹק לַבָּנוֹת (ספרא):

אתה ובניך ובנתיך THOU AND THY SONS AND THY DAUGHTERS — You and your sons have a claim to a portion, but your daughters have no claim to a portion; if, however, you give them part of these sacrifices as a gift they are permitted to eat of the breast and the shoulder. Or perhaps this is not the meaning, but if means that the daughters have also a claim to a portion? It, however, states immediately afterwards: “for as thy due and thy sons’ due are they given” there is a due to sons but there is no due to daughters (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 10).

על אשי החלבים. מִכָּאן שֶׁהַחֲלָבִים לְמַטָּה בִּשְׁעַת תְּנוּפָה, וְיִשּׁוּב הַמִּקְרָאוֹת שֶׁלֹּא יַכְחִישׁוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה כְּבָר פֵּרַשְׁתִּי אֶת שְׁלָשְׁתָּן בְּצַו אֶת אַהֲרֹן:

על אשי החלבים WITH THE FIRE OFFERINGS OF THE FAT — From this we may learn that the fat-portions were beneath the others at the time of waving (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 11). And as for the exposition of the texts in such a manner that they shall not contradict each other I have already explained the three of them in the section צו את אהרן (Leviticus 7:30; see Rashi thereon).

שעיר החטאת. שְׂעִיר מוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ; וּשְׁלֹשָׁה שְׂעִירֵי חַטָּאוֹת קָרְבוּ בוֹ בַיּוֹם, שְׂעִיר עִזִּים וּשְׂעִיר נַחְשׁוֹן וּשְׂעִיר רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, וּמִכֻּלָּן לֹא נִשְׂרַף אֶלָּא זֶה; וְנֶחְלְקוּ בַדָּבָר חַכְמֵי יִשְֹרָאֵל, יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים מִפְּנֵי הַטֻּמְאָה שֶׁנָּגְעָה בוֹ נִשְׂרַף, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים מִפְּנֵי אֲנִינוּת נִשְׂרַף, לְפִי שֶׁהוּא קָדְשֵׁי דוֹרוֹת, אֲבָל בְּקָדְשֵׁי שָׁעָה סָמְכוּ עַל מֹשֶׁה שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶם בַּמִּנְחָה וְאִכְלוּהָ מַצּוֹת (ספרא; זבחים ק"א):

שעיר החטאת THE GOAT OF THE SIN OFFERING — This was the goat of the additonal offerings of the New Moon. Three goats for sin-offerings had been sacrificed that day: a goat of the kids prescribed for the installation ceremony (see Leviticus 9:3), and the goat brought by Nachshon as a free-will offering, and the goat for the New Moon. Of all these, this last alone had been burnt, and the Sages of Israel differ in their opinions regarding the matter. Some say that it was on account of some uncleanness (unclean thing) which had touched it that it was burnt, whilst others say that it had been burnt on account of the state of mourning in which Aaron’s sons were, for it was a holy sacrifice ordained for all generations and was not of an exceptional character whilst in the case of the occasional holy sacrifices (the two other goats) they relied on Moses’ statement when he said in respect to the occasional meal-offering (v. 12), “and eat it as unleavened cakes”, although you are Onanim, and they took this to apply also to those goats which were also of an occasional character (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 8-10; Zevachim 101a).

דרש דרש. שְׁתֵּי דְרִישׁוֹת: מִפְּנֵי מָה נִשְׂרַף זֶה? וּמִפְּנֵי מָה נֶאֶכְלוּ אֵלּוּ? כָּךְ הִיא בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים:

דרש דרש [MOSES] DILIGENTLY ENQUIRED ABOUT — The repetition of the word implies that he made two enquiries: why has this (the goat for the New Moon) been burnt and why have these other goats been eaten? — Thus it is stated in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 2).

על אלעזר ועל איתמר. בִּשְׁבִיל כְּבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן הָפַךְ פָּנָיו כְּנֶגֶד הַבָּנִים וְכָעַס (ספרא):

על אלעזר ועל איתמר [HE WAS ANGRY] WITH ELEAZAR AND ITHAMAR — Out of the respect due to Aaron he turned towards his sons and showed himself angry with them instead of with Aaron (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 3).

לאמר. אָמַר לָהֶם הֲשִׁיבוּנִי עַל דְּבָרַי (שם):

לאמר SAYING (i. e. that they should say or speak) — He said to them, “Give me replies to my questions” (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2).

מדוע לא אכלתם את החטאת במקום הקדש. וְכִי חוּץ לַקֹּדֶשׁ אֲכָלוּהָ, וַהֲלֹא שְׂרָפוּהָ, וּמַה הוּא אוֹמֵר בִּמְקוֹם הַקֹּדֶשׁ, אֶלָּא אָמַר לָהֶם שֶׁמָּא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים יָצְאָה וְנִפְסְלָה:

מדוע לא אכלתם את החטאת במקום הקדש WHEREFORE HAVE YE NOT EATEN THE SIN OFFERING IN THE HOLY PLACE? — But had they eaten it outside the holy place? Had they not burnt it? What then did he mean when he said “in the holy place”? But he said to them in effect: Had it perhaps gone forth (been taken forth) outside the hangings of the court and so become invalid?

כי קדש קדשים הוא. וְנִפְסֶלֶת בְּיוֹצֵא, וְהֵם אָמְרוּ לוֹ לָאו. אָמַר לָהֶם הוֹאִיל וּבִמְקוֹם הַקֹּדֶשׁ הָיְתָה, מַדּוּעַ לֹא אֲכַלְתֶּם אוֹתָהּ:

כי קדש קדשים הוא FOR IT IS HOLY IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE, and such sacrifices become invalid through being taken outside the hangings? If this was so you have done right in burning it! But they replied to him, “No, it has not been taken forth!” He thereupon said to them, “Since it remained in the holy place (במקום הקדש), wherefore have ye not eaten it (מדוע לא אכלתם)?!” (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 4; cf. Zevachim 101a.)

ואתה נתן לכם לשאת וגו'. שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹכְלִים וּבְעָלִים מִתְכַּפְּרִים:

'ואתה נתן לכם לשאת וגו‎ AND HE HATH GIVEN IT TO YOU TO BEAR [THE INIQUITY] etc., — for only if the priests eat it are the owners of the sin-offering (the entire Congregation in the case of the goat for the New Moon) atoned for (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 4).

לשאת את עון העדה. מִכָּאן לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁשְּׂעִיר רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ הָיָה, שֶׁהוּא מְכַפֵּר עַל עֲוֹן טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, שֶׁחַטַּאת שְׁמִינִי וְחַטַּאת נַחְשׁוֹן לֹא לְכַפָּרָה בָּאוּ:

לשאת את עון העדה TO BEAR THE INIQUITY OF THE CONGREGATION — From this we learn that it must have been the goat for the New Moon about which he made the enquiries, for it was this that made atonement for iniquity involved in causing uncleanness to the Sanctuary and holy food (cf. Shevuot 2a), whilst the sin-offering for the eighth day of the installation ceremony and the sin-offering of Nachshan did not come (were not intended) for the purpose of atonement (Zevachim 101b).

הן לא הובא וגו'. שֶׁאִלּוּ הוּבָא, הָיָה לָכֶם לְשָֹרְפָהּ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ו'), וְכָל חַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר יוּבָא מִדָּמָהּ וְגוֹ' (פסחים פ"ב):

'הן לא הובא וגו‎ BEHOLD [THE BLOOD OF IT] WAS NOT BROUGHT [IN WITHIN THE HOLY PLACE] — for if it had been brought,then indeed was it your duty to burn it, as it is said (Leviticus 6:23) “Any sin-offering whereof any of the blood is brought [into the appointed tent, … shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt in the fire]” (Zevachim 101a; Pesachim 82a);

אכל תאכלו אתה. הָיָה לָכֶם לְאָכְלָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹנְנִים:

אכל תאכלו אתה YE SHOULD INDEED HAVE EATEN IT although you were Onanim,

כאשר צויתי. לָכֶם בַּמִּנְחָה:

כאשר צויתי AS I COMMANDED you in the case of the meal-offering (vv. 12, 13).

וידבר אהרן. אֵין לְשׁוֹן דִּבּוּר אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן עַז, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיְדַבֵּר הָעָם וְגוֹ' (במדבר כ"א), אֶפְשָׁר מֹשֶׁה קָצַף עַל אֶלְעָזָר וְעַל אִיתָמָר וְאַהֲרֹן מְדַבֵּר? הָא יָדַעְתָּ שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה אֶלָּא מִדֶּרֶךְ כָּבוֹד; אָמְרוּ: אֵינוֹ בַדִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא אָבִינוּ יוֹשֵׁב וְאָנוּ מְדַבְּרִים לְפָנָיו, וְאֵינוֹ בַדִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא תַלְמִיד מֵשִׁיב אֶת רַבּוֹ; יָכוֹל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְאֶלְעָזָר לְהָשִׁיב? תַּ"ל וַיֹּאמֶר אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן אֶל אַנְשֵׁי הַצָּבָא וְגוֹמֵר (שם ל"א), הֲרֵי כְּשֶׁרָצָה, דִּבֵּר לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה וְלִפְנֵי הַנְּשִֹיאִים, זוֹ מָצָאתִי בְּסִפְרֵי שֶׁל פָּנִים שֵׁנִי:

וידבר אהרן AND AARON SAID — The term “saying” used here denotes a harsh utterance, as it is said (Numbers 21:5) “And the people spake (וידבר) against Moses, etc.” — Is it likely that when Moses expressed his indignation with Eleazar and with Ithamar, Aaron should reply to him in such harsh language? You must consequently know (conclude) that it was only by way of respect that these remained silent. They thought, “It would not be right that our father (Aaron) should be sitting here (be present) and that we should speak in his presence, nor would it be right that a disciple should retort on his teacher (Moses)”. You might think, however, that Eleazar did not possess the ability to reply, and that on this account he was silent. This was not so for it is stated (Numbers 31:21) “And Eleazar the priest spake to the men of the army, etc.” — and so you see that when he wished to do so he did speak in the presence of Moses and in the presence of the princes (cf. Numbers v. 13). This I found in the ספרי של פנים שני (known under the name of מדרש פנים or ספרי זוטא) (see Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 785:40).

הן היום הקריבו. מַהוּ אוֹמֵר? אֶלָּא אָמַר לוֹ מֹשֶׁה: שֶׁמָּא זְרַקְתֶּם דָּמָהּ אוֹנְנִין, שֶׁאוֹנֵן שֶׁעָבַד חִלֵּל? אָמַר לוֹ אַהֲרֹן וְכִי הֵם הִקְרִיבוּ שֶׁהֵם הֶדְיוֹטוֹת? אֲנִי הִקְרַבְתִּי שֶׁאֲנִי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וּמַקְרִיב אוֹנֵן (זבחים ק"א):

הן היום הקריבו BEHOLD, THIS DAY THEY HAVE OFFERED — What did he mean by this? It does not appear to be a reply to Moses rebuke! But Moses had said to them: “Perhaps you have sprinkled its blood whilst you were Onanim and have on that account burnt it, since it thereby became defiled!? — for the rule is that if an Onan does any sacrifical rite he thereby defiles the sacrifice. Aaron therefore said to him: “Did they then offer the sacrifice — they wo are ordinary priests? It was “I” that offered — I who am the High Priest and who may therefore offer when an Onan (Zevachim 101a).

ותקראנה אתי כאלה. אֲפִלוּ לֹא הָיוּ הַמֵּתִים בָּנַי, אֶלָּא שְׁאָר קְרוֹבִים שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לִהְיוֹת אוֹנֵן עֲלֵיהֶם כְּאֵלּוּ, כְּגוֹן כָּל הָאֲמוּרִים בְּפָרָשַׁת כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁהַכֹּהֵן מִטַּמֵּא לָהֶם (ספרא).

ותקראנה אתי כאלה AND IF THINGS LIKE THESE HAD BEFALLEN ME — even if those who died were not my sons but other blood relatives for whom I am bound to mourn as an Onan, even as I am bound to mourn for these — for instance all those mentioned in the section regarding the priests (ch. 21) for whom the priest may of set purpose render himself unclean (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 9).

ואכלתי חטאת. וְאִם אָכַלְתִּי הייטב וגו':

ואכלתי חטאת then IF I HAD EATEN THE SIN-OFFERING, 'הייטב וגו‎, WOULD IT HAVE BEEN PLEASING etc.

היום. אֲבָל אֲנִינוּת לַיְלָה מֻתָּר, שֶׁאֵין אוֹנֵן אֶלָּא יוֹם קְבוּרָה (ספרא; זבחים ק'):

היום THIS DAY (i. e. by day) — but in the case of the mourning of an Onan on the night following the death, the eating of an offering is permitted, for the laws regarding an Onan really (i. e. מן התורה) apply only to the day of burial which is also the day of death (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 11; Zevachim 100b).

הייטב בעיני ה'. אִם שָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקָדְשֵׁי שָׁעָה אֵין לְךָ לְהָקֵל בְּקָדְשֵׁי דוֹרוֹת:

'הייטב בעיני ה WOULD IT HAVE BEEN PLEASING IN THE EYES OF THE LORD? — If you have heard (been commanded; cf. v. 13) in the case of occasional holy offerings to which category the meal offering offered on the day of installation and that of Nachshon belonged that these may be eaten by Onanim (cf. vv. 12 and 13) you have no right to take a lenient view and to permit this also in the case of sacrifices that are obligatory on all generations, as this goat of the New Moon is! (Zevachim 101a).

וייטב בעיניו. הוֹדָה וְלֹא בוֹשׁ לוֹמַר לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי (זבחים ק"א):

וייטב בעיניו AND IT WAS PLEASING IN HIS EYES — He admitted his error and was not ashamed to do so, by saying (instead of admitting it) “I have not heard a statement (from God regarding this)", but rather he said, “I have heard, but I forgot it” (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 12; Zevachim 101b).