פרשת שמיני תשכ"ט - אהרן ובניו הנותרים

And Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin-offering, and, behold, it was burnt; and he was angry with Eleazar and with Ithamar, the sons of Aaron that were left, saying:

One might have thought that all three of them were burned. Therefore, the verse states: “And Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burned,” to teach that one of the offerings was burned, but not all three of them were burned. The verse states: “And Moses diligently inquired [darosh darash].” Why were there two inquiries? Moses said to them: For what reason is this sin offering burned, and secondly, for what reason are those left unburned? The baraita comments: Still, I do not know which of them was burned. When it states with regard to the burned goat: “And He has given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation” (Leviticus 10:17), you must say: This is the goat of the New Moon, which atones for impurity in the Temple.

One might have thought that all three of them were burned. Therefore, the verse states: “And Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burned,” to teach that one of the offerings was burned, but not all three of them were burned. The verse states: “And Moses diligently inquired [darosh darash].” Why were there two inquiries? Moses said to them: For what reason is this sin offering burned, and secondly, for what reason are those left unburned? The baraita comments: Still, I do not know which of them was burned. When it states with regard to the burned goat: “And He has given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation” (Leviticus 10:17), you must say: This is the goat of the New Moon, which atones for impurity in the Temple.

One might have thought that all three of them were burned. Therefore, the verse states: “And Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burned,” to teach that one of the offerings was burned, but not all three of them were burned. The verse states: “And Moses diligently inquired [darosh darash].” Why were there two inquiries? Moses said to them: For what reason is this sin offering burned, and secondly, for what reason are those left unburned? The baraita comments: Still, I do not know which of them was burned. When it states with regard to the burned goat: “And He has given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation” (Leviticus 10:17), you must say: This is the goat of the New Moon, which atones for impurity in the Temple.

And Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin-offering, and, behold, it was burnt; and he was angry with Eleazar and with Ithamar, the sons of Aaron that were left, saying:

R. Simeon ben Yohai began his discourse with the verse “He stood, and measured the earth” (Habakuk 3:6). That is, the Holy One took the measure of all peoples and found no people other than Israel worthy of receiving the Torah. The Holy One took the measure of all generations and found no generation other than the generation of the wilderness worthy of receiving the Torah. The Holy One took the measure of all mountains and found no mountain other than Sinai worthy of having the Torah given on it. The Holy One took the measure of all cities and found no city other than Jerusalem worthy of having the Temple built within it. The Holy One took the measure of all lands and found no land other than the Land of Israel worthy of being given to Israel.

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?

’Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin-offering in the place of the sanctuary, seeing it is most holy, and He hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?

Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within; ye should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded.’

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

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

And when Moses heard that, it was well-pleasing in his sight.

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).

and it was good in his eyes” (Leviticus 10:20). Moses was not embarrassed and did not attempt to justify himself by saying: I did not hear this halakha until now. Rather, he said: I heard it, and I forgot it.

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).

And when Moses heard that, it was well-pleasing in his sight.

'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).