Comentário sobre Levítico 10:12

For the sin of the Golden Calf. You might ask: Above (v. 2), Rashi brings a Tannaic disagreement: One view holds because they rendered halachic decisions in the presence of their master, and the other holds because they entered the Sanctuary intoxicated with wine. The answer is: Both factors were the cause. If there had been only the deed of the Golden Calf, why did Hashem wait until now? Alternatively, why did He kill Nodov and Avihu, and not Elozor and Isomor? Rather, it must be [that the cause of death] can be attributed to another sin as well, each Tanna according to his reasoning. But if it was only for the last reason, I would say that there is no punishment without [a prior] warning, therefore the sin of the Golden Calf was necessary as well, since it had a warning.

אצל המזבח, “next to the altar,” and not within the Sanctuary nor on the altar. How do I know that the Torah also excludes the Holy of Holies? The Torah wrote: קדש קדשים היא, “it is most holy.” קדש קדשים היא, thus far I only know that this expression refers to the proximity of the altar, how do I know that it includes the offices adjoining the Temple walls? (The Torah discusses the permanent Temple in the future). The answer is found in the words: ואכלתם אותה במקום קדוש, “you are to eat it on consecrated grounds.”(Verse 13)

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

And I also prayed. [The word] “also” includes the [Aharon’s] children.

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 אצל המזבח, “and eat it unleavened near the Altar.” the Torah also writes ואכלתם אותה במקום קדוש, “you are to eat it in a sacred place.” These words mean that the meal-offering of which the Torah speaks may be eaten anywhere in the courtyard of the Tabernacle/Temple. In order that we should not interpret the words “near the Altar” too literally, the Torah added the words: “in a sacred place.” The entire courtyard of the Tabernacle is sacred. In that event, what do the words “near the Altar” contribute? The Torah wishes to tell us that the closer to the actual Altar the Priest stands when eating his share of the meal-offering the better (Zevachim 61).

And holy things are forbidden to an אונן (mourner on whom the obligation of burying the deceased still rests). Otherwise, why does it need to say this to them? It already speaks about it in Parshas Tzav (6:9): “Whatever remains from it shall be eaten by Aharon and his sons” (Re’m).

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).

Meal-offering of the eighth. The twelve princes began to bring offerings and Nachshon was the first. [You might ask:] There was also the [meal-offering of the] he-goat of Rosh Chodesh, and so there were three he-goats! [The answer is:] Nevertheless, Rashi did not want to mention the he-goat of Rosh Chodesh since Moshe did not command him to eat that meal-offering, as it is implied at the end, when Aharon told Moshe: If you heard [this law] regarding holy offerings of a [specific] time, etc. (see Rashi, end of v. 19). Moshe agreed [with the rationale of] Aharon’s words. This implies that Moshe did not explicitly say to eat it in the first place.

What does this verse teach? You might ask: Above, as well, why did Rashi not explain: “Take the meal offering” — What does this verse teach? Because it is [a communal mealoffering,] etc.? Why did he need to explain: “Even though you are אוננים and holy things are forbidden to an אונן”? Another difficulty: Nearby (v. 13), Rashi explains: “For so have I been commanded” — “That they should eat it while they are אוננים.” Perhaps “for so have I been commanded” [means] they should eat the meal-offering as matzos? The answer is: “For so I have been commanded” implies a novel law — even though the law is otherwise regarding other meal-offerings. If it refers to [the law] that they should eat the meal-offering as matzos, this is obvious, for every meal-offering is eaten as matzos. Therefore, Rashi needs to explain: They should eat it while they are אוננים. Also, this is why he needs to explain above: “Take the meal-offering” — “Even though you are אוננים...” because the verse, “For so have I been commanded” refers back to it. However, if he was to explain above [on “Take the meal-offering”]: Because it is a communal meal-offering, it would no longer be applicable to write: “For so I have been commanded,” because with one command alone, in which He commands them regarding a meal-offering that this meal-offering will be treated like any other meal-offering, it would be sufficient. Why does it say again: “For so I have been commanded”? Rather, perforce, it was because of אנינות He commanded, which is contrary to the precedent that an אונן is prohibited to eat holy sacrifices.