Commentary for Zevachim 31:18

דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא אתיא בק"ו מבעל מום ומה

It was I who offered. Hence it follows that had 'they' offered, it would rightly have been burnt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A he-goat was sacrificed as a sin-offering on the eighth day of Aaron's consecration (v. Lev. VIII, 33-IX, 3) On that same day Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, died (Ibid. X, 1-2) . and the he-goat,instead of being eaten, was burnt. Moses was angry, and enquired whether the reason was that Aaron's other sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, had officiated in their bereavement, to which Aaron replied as in the text. R. Eleazar's interpretation of the text as a rhetorical question does not agree with E.V., which makes it a positive statement. His reason is because if it were a positive statement it is superfluous, as Aaron should simply have answered, 'Behold, there have befallen one such things as these this day,' as he goes on to say, and which was the real cause of the burning of the sacrifice.');">²³</span> Now, why does not R'Eleazar draw [the inference] from [the text] 'Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary'? - He can answer you: Is it then written, but if another goes out, he does profane it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not. Possibly an ordinary priest too does not disqualify the sacrifice, yet Scripture specifically states that a High Priest does not disqualify it, lest it be thought that precisely because his sanctity is greater he does disqualify it.');">²⁴</span> And the other; why does he not draw [the inference] from [the text] 'Behold, have they offered'? - He holds that it was burnt on account of uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 101a. Hence the passage has nothing to do with bereavement.');">²⁵</span> The school of R'Ishmael taught: It is inferred a minori from a [priest] with a blemish. If

Explore commentary for Zevachim 31:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.