Mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 201:5

דתניא מפני אנינות שרפוה לכך נאמר כאלה דברי רבי נחמיה רבי יהודה ור"ש אומרים מפני טומאה נשרפה שאם אתה אומר מפני אנינות נשרפה היו לשלשתן שישרפוה ד"א היו ראוי לאוכלן לערב ד"א והלא פינחס היה עמהן

Another argument: surely Phinehas was with them!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He was not an onen, and could have eaten it. Hence the sin-offering must have become defiled, and on that account only was it burnt.');">⁷</span> Raba said: Both agree with R'Nehemiah, yet there is no difficulty: one refers to special ad hoc sacrifices, and the other to regular sacrifices.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'of the hour . . of generations'. R. Nehemiah holds that the meal-offering was to be eaten in bereavement, as it is written, 'for so I am commanded'. Now, that meal-offering was a special sacrifice, and was permitted by a special dispensation. The sin-offering, however, was the ordinary New Moon sin-offering (this happened on New Moon) . Moses erroneously thought that what he had been told about the meal-offering also applied to the sin-offering, and was therefore angry that it was burnt. Aaron, however, pointed out that he might have been told only about the special meal-offering, and Moses then admitted that he was right.');">⁸</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 201:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.