Above, 6:18. 76. Numbers 28:15. 77. Be’er Mayim Chaim on this verse. 78. Above, 6:23. 79. Above, v. 12. 80. Mizrachi. 81. Be-low, 21:12. them from eating any sacrifices other than the two grain-offerings that had been mentioned explicitly, Moses inquired about the other sacrifices and found that they had been eaten. So he became angry with Aaron for his seemingly careless attitude toward God’s instructions. But out of respect for Aaron, he instead accosted Eleazar and Itamar, Aaron’s surviving sons, demanding a response to his question,
17 “Why did you not eat the sin-offering for the first of the month? Was it, per-haps, at any time not in the holy place, i.e., the Tabernacle precincts, thereby being rendered unfit for consumption—for it is a sacrifice of superior holiness, which becomes disqualified if taken out of the Tabernacle precincts?”
They answered, “No, it was not.” “If so,” Moses continued, “why did you not eat it as required? God has given it to you to eat in order to thereby gain forgiveness for the sin of the community—in case anyone unknowingly entered the Tabernacle or ate sacrifices while either they or the sacrifices were in a state of defilement—to effect their atonement before God! The atonement of the community is dependent upon your eating the sacrifices, so even if you wished to be more stringent than was required of you—by refraining from eating them because of your state of mourning—you had no right to be!
18 Behold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary, which would also have necessitated burning it, so you should have surely eaten it within holy precincts, even though your brothers died today, as I commanded you with regard to the grain-offering, which, like the sin-offering, is a sacrifice of superior holiness and which therefore can be taken as a precedent for the sin-offering!”
Moses then continued to interrogate them: “Did you apply the blood to the Altar yourselves, which would also have invalidated the sacrifice—since a mourner who performs any sacrificial rite thereby invalidates the sacrifice—and you would have therefore been required to burn the sacrifice?”
19 Although Eleazar and Itamar could have responded conclusively to Moses, they felt it would not be respectful to Aaron, their father, to speak in his presence, nor would it be respectful to contradict Moses, their teacher. So they remained silent and waited for Aaron to respond. Seeing this, Aaron said harshly to Moses, “Did they offer up their sin-offering or their ascent-offering today before God? It was I who sacrificed these offerings, and this is permitted for I am the high priest, who, as you have taught us, is permitted to perform sacrificial rites even on the day his close relative dies. So the sin-offering goat was not burned up because it had become invalid. It was burned up because you have no justification for applying the leniency you heard from God regarding eating the special sacrifices prescribed for today to sacrifices that will also be offered up on a regular basis from now on. You argue that God does not want us to dampen the mood by observing the laws of mourning. Perhaps this is true only with regard to the sacrificial rites themselves, which must take place next to the Altar—the focus of the celebration—and I did indeed offer up all the sacrifices there, including the sin-offering for the first of the month, as required. But since eating the sacrifices need not take place next to the Altar (just somewhere within the Tabernacle precincts), observing the laws of mourning with regard to eating the sacrifices cannot be construed as dampening the celebratory mood of the day. Therefore, the fact that God only explicitly allowed us to eat today’s special sacrifices implies that this leniency applies only to them, because they are an intrinsic part of today’s installation ceremonies. If so, this leniency cannot be applied to sacrifices that will also be offered up on a regular basis from now on.
Therefore, inasmuch as tragic events like these befell me, and I am in mourning, if I had eaten a regular sin-offering today, would it have pleased God? He Himself has taught us that mourners may not eat sacrificial meat!”
20 Moses heard and understood this explanation, and accepted it. It pleased him so much that he was not embarrassed to admit that Aaron’s argument was superior to his, and he let it be known that he accepted Aaron’s conclusion even though he only heard it from him, not from God. In his anger, what was obvious to Aaron eluded him.
Alternatively, Aaron and his sons burned up the sin-offering of the first of the month because it had become defiled through contact with some defiled creature. Since it could no longer be eaten, they burned it up immediately. When Moses heard that this was the case, he agreed with what they did; there was no argument over the proper course of action.
