Sifra Shemini Chapter 2

¹1) (Vayikra 10:16): "And for the goat of the sin-offering Moses inquired, inquired, and, behold, it was burned": "the goat": This is the goat of Nachshon (Bamidbar 7:16, for the consecration of the altar); "the sin-offering": This is the sin-offering of the eighth day (of miluim, Vayikra 4:3); ²2) "Moses inquired, inquired": This is the goat of Rosh Chodesh (Nissan). I might think that all three were burned; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "and, behold it was burned" — one was burned and not all three. What is the intent of "Moses inquired, inquired" — two inquiries: Why was this one burned and why were the others eaten (i.e., if you were concerned about aninuth for Nadav and Avihu, you should have burned all of them; and if not, you should have eaten all of them!) I would not know which was burned if it were not written (Vayikra 4:17): "and He has given it to you to forgive the sin of the congregation to make atonement for them." Which goat forgives the sin of the congregation? The Rosh Chodesh goat, as it is written (in that regard): "and one goat for a sin-offering to make atonement for you." ³3) ("And he was wroth with Elazar and Ithamar, the remaining sons of Aaron, to say"): "And he was wroth with Elazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron": We are hereby taught that he faced his sons (out of deference to Aaron) and directed his anger to Aaron, whereby we are apprised that Aaron, too, was the object of his wrath. "the remaining": Pinchas was not among them, (not yet having entered the priesthood). "to say": (He said to them:) Answer my words. ⁴4) (Vayikra 10:17) "Why did you not eat the sin-offering in the holy place?": Now did they eat it in an unholy place? Was it not burned? viz. (Vayikra 10:16): "and it was burned!" If so, why did he say "Why did you not eat it, etc."? — He said to them: Perhaps it went outside of the (court) curtains? For a sin-offering that leaves the precincts of the curtains is unfit. This tells me only of this ("a sin-offering") alone. Whence do I derive the same for holy of holies? From (Vayikra 10:17): "for it is holy of holies." Whence is it derived that the eating of offerings (by the Cohanim) is atonement for Israel? From (Vayikra 10:17): "And it has He given to you to forgive the sin of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the L–rd." How so? Cohanim eat and the owners are atoned for. ⁵5) (Vayikra 10:18): "Behold, its blood was not brought within the sanctuary.": He had said to them: Perhaps some of its blood entered within (the sanctuary). For if the blood of an "outer" sin-offering enters within, it becomes unfit (viz. Vayikra 6:23). R. Yossi Haglili says: This tells us that if the blood of a sin-offering entered the holy of holies (kodesh kadashim) it becomes unfit. This tells me only of the holy of holies. Whence do I derive (the same for) the sanctuary? From "within the sanctuary (kodesh)." ⁶6) (Vayikra 10:18): "You should have eaten it in the holy place" — whereby we are taught that it is to be eaten in the sanctuary. Whence is it derived that it is also to be burned in the sanctuary (if it became unfit)? From "achol (consume) tochlu (consume) it in the sanctuary" (— two "consumings," one for the mouth; the other, for the fire). I might think that even if it became tamei outside, it should be burned inside. It is, therefore, written ("You should have eaten) it" Just as it, "its tumah is inside and its burning is inside," so (the other), if its tumah is outside, its burning is outside. ⁷7) (Vayikra 10:19): "And Aaron spoke (vayedaber) to Moses": "dibbur" connotes "strong" speech, as in (Bamidbar 21:25): "And the people spoke (vayedaber) against G d and against Moses." ⁸8) (Vayikra 10:19): "Now did they (Elazar and Ithamar, who are forbidden to officiate when onenim [mourners]) this day offer their sin-offering and their burnt-offering before the L–rd?" (It is I [the high-priest (who does officiate when an onein)] who did so.) "And if there had befallen me (even the death of other kin for whom I must become an onein) such as these (my sons) and I had eaten the sin-offering this day, would it be good in the eyes of he L–rd!" (for which reason I burnt it.) R. Nechemiah says that it was burned because of aninuth, (for which reason "these" is mentioned.) ⁹9) What is the intent of "such as these"? I might think that only (the death of) sons forbids one (to eat) in (a state of) aninuth. Whence do I derive (the same) for all mentioned in that section (of aninuth), including (by Rabbinical enactment) one's brother and sister by his mother and his married sister? From "such as these." R. Yaakov says: I might think that Levites in a state of aninuth would be forbidden to sing (the Levitical songs); it is, therefore, written ("and if there had befallen) me." I (i.e., a Cohein) am forbidden in (a state of aninuth), but Levites in aninuth are not forbidden to sing. ¹⁰10) R. Yehudah and R. Shimon say: Now was it burned because of aninuth? Was it not burned because of tumah? For if it were burned because of aninuth, then they should have burned all three. Variantly: Could they not have eaten them at night? Variantly: Was not Pinchas with them (who was not an onein)? What is the intent of ("such as) these"? (according to R. Nechemiah, who says that it was burned because of tumah and not because of aninuth)? (Moses had said to Aaron: Perhaps you were so overwrought with grief that you allowed the offering to become tamei, and he replied in strong denial:) Should I not have been deterred therefrom by seeing what happened to these (Nadav and Avihu), who failed to take counsel and were swept away! And what is the intent of "such as these"? He said: Even if I had buried not only these, but also these and these, not thus would I shame the offerings of the sanctuary (by allowing them to become tamei!) ¹¹11) (Vayikra 10:19) "and if I had eaten the sin-offering this day, etc.": It is forbidden for me in the daytime, but it is permitted at night. And in future generations, it is forbidden both in the daytime and at night. These are the words of R. Yehudah. Rebbi says: An onein is forbidden to eat offerings at night only by interdict of the scribes. Know this to be so, for they said: An onein immerses and eats his Pesach offering at night. ¹²12) (Vayikra 10:20): "And Moses heard, and it was good in his eyes": He admitted immediately that he had heard the halachah and had forgotten it, and was not shamed into saying: I did not hear it. R. Yehudah said: Chananiah b. Yehudah was wont to expound all his days: Sore is officiousness (in this instance, Moses' officiousness with Aaron), which caused Moses to err (in the halachah). After his death, I demur: What caused him to be officious? His erring.