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.