레위기 10:16의 주석

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).

AND MOSES DILIGENTLY INQUIRED FOR THE GOAT OF THE SIN-OFFERING, AND BEHOLD, IT WAS BURNT. “This was the he-goat of the Additional Offerings of the New Moon.¹³⁶Numbers 28:15. — The eighth day on which all the events described here, took place was the first of Nisan, the New Moon. Three he-goats for sin-offerings were offered up that day: [the people’s sin-offering brought especially on that day, as it is said], Take ye a he-goat for a sin-offering,¹³⁷Above, 9:3. and the he-goat brought by Nachshon [in honor of the dedication of the altar],¹³⁸Numbers 7:16. and the he-goat for the New Moon.¹³⁶Numbers 28:15. — The eighth day on which all the events described here, took place was the first of Nisan, the New Moon. Of all these, it was only the he-goat for the New Moon that was burnt [although ordinarily it would have been eaten by the priests]. The Sages of Israel differed regarding the reason why it was burnt. Some say that it was burnt on account of some impure object that touched it, and some say it was burnt on account of the mourning [of Aaron’s sons].” All this is the language of Rashi.
It is in accordance with the opinion of those¹³⁹Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon (Zebachim 101 a). who say that it was burnt on account of some impure object that touched it, that the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote on the verse, “and if I had eaten of the sin-offering ‘today’¹⁴⁰Verse 19. These are Aaron’s words to Moses in defense of his sons having burnt the sin-offering, saying, and if I had eaten the sin-offering today, would it have been pleasing in the sight of the Eternal? Now it is on the word “today” that Rashi comments: “by day etc.” — by ‘day’ it was forbidden to eat thereof, but in the case of an onen⁸⁵An onen by law of the Torah is a mourner on the day of death of his relative whether before or after burial on that day. [On the night following he is an onen by law of the Rabbis. If burial has not taken place on the day of death he continues to be an onen by law of the Rabbis. When burial finally takes place he is an onen by law of the Rabbis even after burial, but at night he is no longer considered an onen at all.] An onen is to be distinguished from an avel who is a mourner for a period of seven or thirty days. The laws of mourning as affecting the Divine Service in the Tabernacle and its holy offerings relate to the priest when he is an onen. on the night [following the death and burial] it is permitted [to eat the offering], since the [Scriptural] law of the onen applies only to the day of burial.” Accordingly, if it was burnt on account of mourning, they should have [left it to be] eaten at night! We must perforce say that those Rabbis [who say that it was burnt on account of mourning] are of the opinion that the [Scriptural] law of an onen [forbidding him to eat an offering] applies even on the night following the burial! [Therefore Aaron’s defense of his sons’ action in burning the sin-offering was correct, since they could not have eaten of it even at night. But Rashi, who is of the opinion that an onen may eat the offering at night, must hold that the reason why they burnt it, was on account of some impure object which touched the offering, as a result of which it could never be eaten, and hence Aaron’s defense of them was completely correct.]

ואת שעיר החטאת, the very he-goat which will be a permanent fixture, i.e. the one to be offered on the new moon, as long as there would be a Temple.

דרוש דרש משה; Moses kept asking for, etc. Personally, I think that Moses had not yet decided to permit consumption of the meat of that sin-offering. Proof of this is the fact that he had not told the priests exactly what to do as he had done in the case of the meal-offering concerning which he had said (verse 12) "take what is left over of the meal-offering and eat it!" If it had been clear to Moses that the priests (i.e. the bereaved family of Nadav and Avihu) were to eat the meat in their present emotional state of being אוננים he himself would have told them to do so. Should you argue that Moses had assumed as a matter of fact that by telling Aaron and his remaining sons to eat the left-over parts of the meal-offering, that they would do the same with the sin-offering, then why did he enquire about the meat of the sin-offering? Why would it even have occurred to him that maybe Aaron and his sons had not eaten that meat? Therefore we must assume that Moses had left the matter of the meat of the sin-offering in abeyance, seeing he himself was not certain as to the correct procedure to be followed. It had been clear to Moses that the law applicable to the meal-offering which was a one-time affair and concerning which he had received clear instructions from G'd (verse 12) was similar to that of the male-goat offered by Nachshon (the first of the offerings by the princes which occurred on that day) which was also a one-time offering. He was not at all sure whether he could make an inference from the laws applicable to those offerings to the sin-offerings offered on the New Moon seeing that was a regular offering to be presented every New Moon for all future generations. We may therefore understand the words דרוש דרש that Moses was still busy researching the applicable הלכה. The repetition of the words is a hint that it could have either of two הלכות, rulings. The reason Moses was angry was not because Aaron and his sons had done wrong but because they had taken it upon themselves to decide the issue without asking him. It did not matter that at that time Moses would not yet have known what to answer them if they enquired. Even though Moses eventually (verse 18) told Aaron and his sons to eat that meat in accordance with his previous instructions, this only meant that Moses told them to apply the same ruling as G'd had told him to apply to the eating of the meal-offering. Torat Kohanim understands the repetition of the words דרוש דרש to mean that Moses enquired 1) why this meat should be burned, 2) why it should be eaten. This seems a far-fetched way of understanding the verse. What would have been the point in enquiring why the meat should be burned seeing it had been burned already instead of having been eaten? One needs to find a suitable answer to this comment of the Torat Kohanim.

ואת שעיר החטאת, our sages interpret this animal as being the one offered on the new moon for all future generations. (Zevachim 9) The male goat offered by Nachshon and that on behalf of the congregation had to be eaten by the priests. [The death of Nadav and Avihu had occurred on the first day of Nissan of the second year. Ed.]

Additional sacrifices for Rosh Chodesh. This is the goat of additional offerings of Rosh Chodesh that is offered as a communal sinoffering, as it is written (v. 17): “And He gave it to you, to bear the iniquity of the congregation.” Which goat bears the sin of the congregation? This is the goat of Rosh Chodesh.

ואת שעיר החטאת דרש, “and he (Moses) demanded an accounting about what had been done with the he-goat that was a sin offering;” When commenting on Leviticus 9,11, Rashi points out that we never find that a sin-offering slaughtered on the copper altar was burned up except the one discussed in that verse, and the bullock serving as sin offering during the consecration rites for the High Priest. In both those instances there had to be a special commandment from Hashem to do so. [Normally parts of these sin offerings were consumed by the priests. Ed.] This is in contrast to sin offerings offered on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary, no parts of which were ever eaten. This raises the problem with Rashi’s commentary on Numbers 8,8, where the bullock serving as sin offering when the Levites were appointed in lieu of the firstborns is discussed. [The text describes that offering as a sin offering, whereas Rashi calls it עולה, burnt offering, i.e. none of it is to be eaten. This offering was slaughtered on the copper altar on the courtyard of the Tabernacle. The function of this animal is first not described at all, whereas the Torah then proceeds to describe a second bullock to be offered on that occasion as a sin-offering. The reader will understand Rashi’s difficulty when he looks up the verse in question. Ed.] We must therefore assume that what Rashi had meant to say is that we do not find more than these two sin offerings which had been slaughtered on the copper altar as having been burned up including their skins outside sacred grounds. Our author finds additional problems involving the definitions of some offerings, none of which he was able to offer a solution to.

ואת שעיר החטאת, “and concerning the male goat sin offering;” according to the plain meaning of this verse, the animal referred is that first mentioned in chapter 9,3, whereMoses had commanded the people of Israel to take such an animal as a sin offering. Both in that verse and here the people for whom atonement was sought were called by almost identical names, i.e. עם or .עדה

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).

Why was. The following is Re’m’s text: “Why was this one burnt and why were these not eaten?” I.e., they did not eat it [the goat of the additional sacrifices for Rosh Chodesh] during the day because of אנינות but rather left it to be eaten towards evening, when the time of אנינות would be finished, according to the view of Rabbi Yuda and Rabbi Shimon (Zevachim 101a) who said that the prohibition of אנינות is permitted at night. It was burnt and not eaten because it was touched by something impure [and so it could not be rectified, thus, it was immediately burnt]. But, according to Rabbi Nechemiah [ibid.] the reason was because it was of the sacrifices [ordained] for the generations [which were not permitted to אוננים] and אוננים are prohibited to eat from offerings both during the day and the night by Torah law. Thus, they burnt it immediately (Re’m). However, if we have the text: “And why were these eaten?” it is then entirely one inquiry: Why was this one [the goat of the additional sacrifices for Rosh Chodesh] burnt and this one [the he-goat of the installation or the goat offered by Nachshon] eaten? Either both of them should have been burnt or both of them eaten! This, however, is one inquiry, [yet Rashi writes there were two inquires], therefore, we should use the text: “And why were these not eaten?” Gur Aryeh uses the text: “Why were these eaten?” He explains, however, that there are two inquires: “Why was this one burnt? If it was because of אנינות — is it not true that אנינות is permitted to you! According to your response that you were not allowed to eat them because of אנינות, why, then, did you eat the other sin-offerings?” This is considered two inquires — the first is according to the truth and the second is according to their response.

שעיר החטאת, “the male goat serving as sin offering.” According to Rashi the reference is to the mandatory sin offering on New Moon, and this day was the first day of Nissan of the second year. On this day three such animals were offered as sin offerings. The one mentioned by Rashi, the one that was part of the consecration rites, and the one offered as the first of twelve identical offerings by each of the princes of the tribes, Nachshon. Of all these three sin offerings only the one meant as the New Moon’s sin offering was burned (not offered and its parts eaten as prescribed) There are different opinions as to the reason for this. Some scholars hold that the priests had become ritually defiled by having touched the corpses of Nadav and Avihu. If you were to argue that even without their having become ritually defiled they could not have offered that offering in the proper manner as they had been ritually impure by having been in contact with at least one corpse since they had been born;they had not undergone purification rites for this, there not having been a red heifer yet without which such purification rites could not have been performed until at the earliest on the following day; we would have to answer that they had become ritually purified by dint of their having been anointed with the holy oil of anointing, (Leviticus 8,2) as well as by the blood which had been sprinkled on the altar. (Compare Talmud, tractate Yuma folio 4.) The Tabernacle had been erected on the first of the month, and the red heifer was slaughtered and burned on the second of the month. The Talmud explained there that on that occasion the water took the place of blood just as when the Jewish people had to purify themselves at the revelation of Mount Sinai when there had not yet been a red heifer.

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).

He turned. Otherwise, why was he angry at them? Aharon was included in the anger as well, and he was required to respond (v. 19): “and then such [tragedy] befell me!” This is how it appears in Toras Kohanim — that he was angry with Aharon as well.

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

Answer. Rashi was forced to explain this way, because wherever it says “לאמר” in the Torah [it means] to tell others. Alternatively, “וידבר” is a general rule, and “לאמר” is a detail (כלל ופרט). Here, however, these explanations are not applicable, and therefore Rashi has to explain: “Answer my questions!”