Comentário sobre Levítico 10:19

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).

AND AARON SPOKE UNTO MOSES: BEHOLD, THIS DAY HAVE THEY OFFERED. “What did Aaron mean to say by this? But [the explanation is]: Moses had said to them: ‘Perhaps you sprinkled the blood of [the sin-offering of the New Moon] whilst you were onenim,⁸⁵An 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. and an onen who performs the Service invalidates [the offering, and therefore you burnt it]?’ To this Aaron replied [that Moses should not be angry with his sons]: ‘Did they bring the offerings [on that day] — they who are ordinary priests? It was I that offered — and I, as High Priest, am permitted to offer when an onen.’”¹⁴¹The reason, Aaron continued, why the sin-offering was burnt, is because there is a difference between occasional [such as the people’s sin-offering brought on that particular day, and the sin-offering of Nachshon, prince of the tribe of Judah — see Numbers 7:16] and offerings that are obligatory for all generations [such as the sin-offering of the New Moon]. “If you [Moses] have been commanded that the occasional offerings be eaten by the priests even while they are onenim, you cannot apply this leniency in the case of offerings that are obligatory for all generations.” As Verse 20 states, Moses was well-pleased with this answer, and as explained by Rashi, he was not ashamed to admit his error. This is Rashi’s language. So too is it found in the Gemara [of Tractate Zebachim], in the Chapter Tebul Yom:¹⁴²Literally: “One who [having incurred some impurity] immersed himself [in an immersion-pool] on that day,” but must wait for sunset to be perfectly pure. — In passing it may be noted that in the time of Ramban all texts of the Talmud were in manuscript form, and page numbers were unknown. A reference to any particular place in the Talmud had to be made on the basis of the name of the chapter. Hence Ramban’s expression here: “and so it is in the Gemara, in the Chapter Tebul Yom.” [Moses said to Aaron’s sons]: “But perhaps you offered it [while you were onenim]⁸⁵An 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. and thus you invalidated it.”
But I wonder! For all the offerings were brought before they became mourners, as it is written, and he Aaron] came down from offering the sin-offering, and the burnt-offering, and the peace-offerings,¹⁴³Above, 9:22. and afterwards they entered the Tent of Meeting¹⁴⁴Ibid., Verse 23. and prayed, following which there came forth the fire [that consumed] the offerings¹⁴⁵Ibid., Verse 24. and only then did Nadab and Abihu offer up this incense!¹⁴⁶Verse 1 in this chapter. [So how could Moses have thought that Elazar and Ithamar had performed the Service while they were mourners because of the death of their brothers, since their death occurred only after the performing of the Service!]¹⁴⁷The Tur answers Ramban’s question by pointing out that the verse in 9:23 speaks only of the particular offerings that were brought especially on that day, but mentions nothing of the sin-offering of the New Moon, obligatory for all generations. That offering had not yet been brought, and Moses therefore properly questioned them on it. Perhaps Moses had not seen their acts, and was therefore afraid that they may have found the blood of this sin-offering [of the New Moon] which had not yet been sprinkled [upon the altar], and that they sprinkled it. So Aaron told Moses: “The sprinkling was to be done by me, and when it was [in fact] sprinkled, it was done by my hand and thus the offering did not become invalidated by mourning [since the High Priest may bring offerings even when an onen].”¹⁴⁸And as to the reason why the offering was burnt, see above, Note 141. But the whole discussion [between Moses and Aaron] was theoretical, for nothing at all was done while they were in a state of mourning [since all the offerings had in fact been brought before the death of Nadab and Abihu].

הן היום הקריבו, a construction similar to Jeremiah 3,1 הן ישלח איש את אשתו, “if a man divorces his wife, etc.” Or, Chagai 2,12 הן ישא איש בשר קודש, “if a man is carrying sacrificial flesh…and his garment touches bread, will the latter become holy?” Aaron’s reasoning goes as follows: “if the subject matter had merely been that these sons of mine had offered mandatory sin offerings, and burnt offerings which were of a voluntary category, even though they would not constitute mandatory public offerings in the future, and we had consumed the meat of these sacrifices today being in the state of aninut pre-mourning, that we are in, would this have been pleasing to the Lord?” Is it not an ironclad rule that the eating of sacrificial meat deliberately while in such a “hybrid” ritual state will not advance the atonement sought for? In Deuteronomy 26,14 we learn that it is forbidden to consume such sacrificial meat of offerings of the second degree of sanctity, קדשים קלים. Aaron argues that notwithstanding the fact that he was ordered to consume the remains of the minchah offering which was only a one time offering, such a rule did not apply to sacrifices which are part of the regular Temple service.

וידבר אהרון אל משה. Aaron spoke (harshly) to Moses. Torat Kohanim reminds us that the word דבר invariably signals harsh talk. Why was Aaron justified in adopting this tone of voice when speaking to Moses? Moses had not even addressed him, much less criticised him! Perhaps Aaron had felt slighted by Moses' angry reproof in verse 16-17 to his sons why they had not eaten the meat of the sin-offering. Moses' accusation did not sound unlike a curse. Aaron felt that at a time when he was still in shock from the death of his two older sons and Satan had a relatively free hand that such an accusation would endanger the lives of his surviving sons. Aaron's outburst may therefore be interpreted as the complaint of a father whose feelings of mercy towards his children have been aroused.

הן היום הקריבו את חטאתם ואת עולתם, the reference is to the burnt offering and sin offering of Aaron and his sons concerning which the instructions had been issued in 9,2. Aaron’s sons had assisted him in the transfer of the blood from the place where the slaughtering took place to the altar. This too, has been mentioned in 9,9. This is why Aaron remonstrated with Moses. asking why he was angry at his sons seeing that both he and his sons had offered the mandatory offerings of their consecration rites. Seeing that while engaged in such a holy pursuit fate had dealt him such a blow, how could he be expected to eat, i.e. enjoy, other sacred meats of a permanent character, not part of his inaugural rites. His enjoyment of this day had already been spoiled! The thought is echoed in Gittin 36 עלובה כלה שזינתה בקרב החופה, “a bride who committed adultery while still next to her wedding canopy has indeed been humbled.”

הן היום הקריבו את חטאתם, “was it they that offered their sin offering on this day?” Both the Talmud’s references to this verse, as well as those of Rashi, allow us to read this as a question, i.e. Moses expressing amazement to his brother Aaron that his sons, while in a state of aninut, had seen fit to perform their priestly duties in the Tabernacle. Nachmanides claims that no aninut was involved, as all the duties that Eleazar and Ittamar had performed had been completed before they became bereaved of their elder brothers. In other words, the question of performing priestly duties while in a state of aninut did not even arise. He derives this from the verse in which Aaron is described as descending from the altar after having performed all his duties for that forenoon. (Compare 9,22) Aaron and his sons then entered the Tabernacle, and offered a prayer, and only subsequently did heavenly fire descend on the offerings presented and consumed them. After that had occurred Nadav and Avihu offered incense, using man made fire. Only then did heavenly fire descend and killed the two older sons of Aaron, Nachmanides answers the problem by saying that possibly Moses had not seen what the sons of Aaron had done, and he assumed that they might have found some blood from the he-goat which had not yet been sprinkled, and they had proceeded to sprinkle that blood. My sainted father of blessed memory the R’osh, said that what Nachmanides poses as a problem is no problem at all. The verse (9,22) describing Aaron descending and subsequently blessing the people referred only to his having completed the specific offerings of that particular day of the inaugural offerings; it did not say that Aaron had already offered the male goat as a sin-offering on account of the day being the New Moon. This offering, being a mussaph offering, was not yet due to have been offered, and was therefore not included in the report of Aaron having concluded his duties, in other words, the reason it had not been mentioned at all was that it had not been offered as yet.

The term “speaking” is an expression of harshness. Meaning: [This is true] where it is not written afterwards לאמר, as I explained in Parshas Va’eira (6:2). Alternatively, when the speech comes in a private conversation, such as (Bamidbar 21:5): “The people spoke (וידבר) against Hashem and against Moshe, ‘Why have you brought us up...’” in which it should say ויאמר since it is a private conversation. Here, too, it should say ויאמר אהרן וגו', since it is a private conversation (Re’m). And this is what I wrote in Parshas Va’eira.

הן היום הקריבו, “behold they have offered their sin offerings and burnt offerings this day,” Rashi explains this line as follows: “what kind of answer does Aaron give to Moses here? Moses had asked him why they had not eaten from the offerings? If they had not first offered them, how could they have eaten from the remains? Besides, all the offerings of that day had been performed by Aaron, not by his sons, as the Torah has already stated! What Moses must have meant and have said referring to the sons of Aaron was: “did you perhaps perform the sprinkling of the blood, etc, seeing that a priest in mourning would have disqualified and desecrated that offering?” To this implication Aaron answered: “did they perform the ritual? Seeing that they are only ordinary priests, how could they have arrogated to themselves the right to substitute for me? I have performed all the rites? Seeing that I am not legally a mourner as my sons have not yet been buried, I have performed all these rites seeing they must be performed during certain hours of this day. This is also why they have been eaten.”

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 arid who may therefore offer when an Onan (Zevachim 101a).

(2) SUCH THINGS HAVE BEFALLEN ME. And how can I eat a sin offering of the highest sanctity today when our joy has been ruined and sullied? This is analogous to the shame of a bride who whored under the huppah.

Rather. Meaning: Why does it need to say: “Behold, today they brought...”? It would have been sufficient to say: “Such [tragedy] befell me, if I had eaten...” Rather, this is what it means to say: Moshe said to them [Elozor and Isomor]: Perhaps you sprinkled its blood as אוננים after the death of your brothers, and an אונן who performs the service profanes it? Therefore, you did not eat it. Moshe did not see their actions because he was heavily involved with the Shechinoh on that day And he was afraid they found the blood of this he-goat that had not yet been sprinkled and they sprinkled it. Aharon answered him: “And did they, who are ordinary kohanim, bring [it], so that you would think it is invalid? I brought [it], for it is incumbent upon me, as it is written (9:7): “Approach the altar,” and a kohein godol may bring [a sacrifice while being] an אונן. Accordingly, the ן of הן היום is in place of a ם, [meaning: Did they bring today?], as in (Rus 1:13): “הלהן תשברנה (Would you wait for them?).” Re’m explained this at length, but I was brief. Re’m writes: “[You might ask:] Bringing a sacrifice is more lenient than eating it, for a kohein godol may bring a sacrifice while he is an אונן but he may not eat from it, and here they were permitted even to eat from it while they were אוננים, so much more so they [would be permitted to] bring the sacrifice. [The answer is:] Nevertheless, Moshe said to them: “Perhaps you erred and thought...” This raises a difficulty, though, for according to Re’m’s words — that the bringing of the sacrifice is more lenient and it is permitted [to an אונן] — if so, why did Aharon reply: “And did they bring it...” which implies that it would be invalid if they indeed brought it, from the perspective of bringing it. [On the contrary,] Aharon should have answered better: “Would it be invalid today? It is permitted! Rather, the reason it was burnt was because such [tragedy] befell me, and there was no one to eat it, since there is a difference in the law between the sacrifices earmarked for a [specific] time and the sacrifices prescribed for generations.” Therefore, it appears to me that it should be interpreted according to its plain meaning: An אונן who performs Divine service actually profanes it, and Aharon ruled as the law is for [future] generations. The kal vachomer, indeed, can be refuted, because the leniency for eating the sacrifices of an אונן is different here, in that it was only so the sacrifices would not become נותר (left-over), for there were no other kohanim in the world, only these, and they were אוננים. This is not so regarding the bringing of the sacrifice, however, since the kohein godol was permitted to bring it. Thus, it remained prohibited [for an ordinary kohein to bring it]. It would be impossible, however, for the kohein godol to eat the entire amount, and ultimately it would become נותר. This is the reason for the law of [future] generations as well: A kohein godol may bring sacrifices while he is an אונן since there are many Divine services that only he is allowed to perform. However, [regarding to eating from the sacrifices] all kohanim are allowed to eat from the sacrifices, therefore, the kohein godol may not eat. [The point is that] it is not because the prohibition of eating the sacrifice is more stringent than the prohibition of bringing it, and therefore there is no kal vachomer (Nachalas Yaakov). Gur Aryeh explains that Divine service is more stringent than eating [sacrifices], because we find that a kohein with a blemish may eat sacrifices, but he is invalid to perform Divine service. If so, we cannot use the [following] kal vachomer: Eating [sacrifices] is more stringent because it is prohibited to a kohein godol when he is an אונן, yet it was permitted to the sons of Aharon while they were אוננים, then the Divine service, which is more lenient, in that it is permitted to the kohein godol when he is an אונן, is it not logical that it should be permitted to the sons of Aharon who are אוננים! [This kal vachomer can be refuted] because we can object: Eating has a leniency that it is permitted to a kohein with a blemish [whereas such a kohein is invalid to perform Divine service].

הן היום, "behold, this very day, etc." Our sages in Zevachim 101 understand this expression as follows: "did Eleazar and Ittamar offer the sin-offerings this day, a day when they are prohibited of performing the service seeing their brothers have not yet been interred and this is why you acuse them of have burned the meat? It was I who have offered the sacrifice and in my capacity as High Priest I am entitled to perform this sacrifice even while in mourning for my sons who have not yet been interred!" The implication is "why did you accuse my sons of something they have not been guilty of at all?"

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).

And if I had eaten. Meaning: [Rashi adds if because the expression] ואכלתי implies he had already eaten it, but this was not so, for it had been burnt (Kitzur Mizrachi).

The plain meaning of the verse is this: הן היום הקריבו, Nadav and Avihu offered their burnt-offerings and their sin-offerings in the presence of the Lord this very day. Aaron reminded Moses that he was an אונן, a mourner who had not yet commenced the mourning rites as his sons had not yet been buried ואכלתי חטאת היום, He went on: "If I had eaten the regular sin-offering this day?" i.e. the sin-offering which is offered on every New Moon. This was Aaron's way of hinting that there is a difference between eating of the meal-offering which was a one-time offering and eating of the sin-offering which was part of a cycle of regular public offerings. He questioned: "would it have been pleasing in the eyes of the Lord if I had eaten this offering?"

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

Permitted, for [the laws applying to] an אונן [relate] only... You might ask: This answer is only according to the view that it was burnt because it had touched something impure; for if it was because of אנינות (the state of being an אונן), so much more so it would pose a difficulty: Why did they burn it, they should have waited until the night [to eat it], as Ramban writes. If so, what difference does it make that he answered him that it was prohibited due to the אנינות of the day, but not at night, considering that it was burnt because it touched something impure. What kind of answer was this? We can give a forced answer: Moshe was not asking that perhaps it touched something impure, because according to his reasoning they should have eaten it right away. If so, they certainly could have prevented it from touching impurity in the short amount of time from sprinkling the blood until eating. Probably, they would have eaten it right away, as those with alacrity perform mitzvos as soon as possible. Thus, Aharon answered: “Today” — i.e., there is a prohibition for אנינות in the day, and they were forced to leave it [i.e., not to eat it] until the evening. This made created the possibility for it to have been touched by impurity and therefore it was burnt.

Perhaps we can prove from here under what circumstances a disciple is permitted to give a halachic ruling in the presence of his teacher instead of referring the problem to the teacher first. I have seen a comment by the רא"ש on Eyruvin 63 that in the situation quoted of Ravina examining the knife of a ritual slaughterer in a location some distance removed from his teacher Rav Ashi, that in such a situation the teacher may be presumed not to feel that his dignity has been offended. [The subject matter discussed in the Talmud there is the permissibility of students giving halachic rulings in the area presided over by their teacher. The standard opinion is that even a relatively simple query such as if one may use a fully formed egg found inside a hen after one has slaughtered it together with milk, the query must be submitted to the local Rabbi. Ed.] At any rate, it seems that Aaron had taken it upon himself to give a ruling and thereby offended the honour of Moses his teacher. Perhaps we can answer this by saying that Aaron's decision was not really what we call a halachic ruling. Aaron had simply used logic. We know from Deut. 26,14 that the farmer had to declare that he had not eaten of the second tithes or the like while in a state of אנינות, pre-mourning. Seeing that the level of sanctity of such tithes was on a far lower level than that of the sin-offering, Aaron simply reasoned that he would most certainly be forbidden to partake of the meat of that offering (compare Rashi on Yuma 5 and Zevachim 101). He himself had been taught the law about the tithes by Moses. All he had done therefore was apply what Moses had taught him to a different situation. He had therefore thought that Moses himself had instructed him to burn the meat seeing there was no one authorised to eat it. This is much less than the example given in the Talmud about the egg found within the chicken we mentioned earlier. It is worthwile to study what Tossaphot have to say on that subject in Eyruvin 62.

ותקראנה אותי כאלה, “seeing that I have been struck by such a tragic loss,” that two of my sons who were priests have died suddenly; they were supposed to help me eat the relevant parts of the sacrifice so that none would have become leftovers that had to be burned.

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).

I, in my state of premourning, was not allowed to eat these parts, just as the Levites if in such a state of premourning would not have been allowed to sing the songs which it is their duty to sing.” (Sifra on this verse)

'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).

ואכלתי חטאת היום, “I have eaten the parts of the sin offering this day that I was halachically permitted to eat together with my two remaining sons.”

'הייטב בעיני ה, “would it have been pleasing in the eyes of the Lord that these parts would have become “leftovers, ”and thus would have to be burned outside the holy precincts, seeing that only three of us are left?”

'הייטב בעיני ה, “the letter ה at the beginning of the word הייטב has the vowel patach, whereas it actually should have a chataf patach [seeing that it introduces a question. See Ibn Ezra)