1) WHY THE “CHATAS” WAS BURNED

(a) (Beraisa #1): (Regarding eating the Milu’im it says) “Ki Chen Tzuveisi”, “Ka’Asher Tziveisi”, and “Ka’Asher Tzivah Hash-m”:
1. “Ki Chen Tzuveisi” – I (Moshe) was commanded, they should be eaten in Aninus;
2. “Ka’asher Tziveisi” – I commanded (you to eat them) at the time (after Nadav and Avihu died);
3. “Ka’asher Tzivah Hash-m” – I did not say this on my own.
(b) Contradiction (Beraisa #2): The goat (Chatas Rosh Chodesh) was burned on account of Aninus, therefore it says “Ka’Eleh” (all three surviving Kohanim were Onenim, they could not eat it).
(c) Answer #1 (Shmuel): Beraisa #1 is like R. Yehudah (and R. Shimon), Beraisa #2 is like R. Nechemyah:
1. (Beraisa – R. Nechemyah): The goat was burned on account of Aninus, therefore it says “Ka’Eleh”;
2. R. Yehudah and R. Shimon say, it was burned because it became Tamei;
i. If it was burned on account of Aninus, all three (this will be explained) should have been burned; also, they could have eaten it at night; also, Pinchas was with them (he could have eaten it, he was not an Onen!)
(d) Answer #2 (Rava): Both Beraisos are like R. Nechemyah – Beraisa #1 discusses Kodshei Sha’ah (of the Milu’im), Beraisa #2 discusses Kodshei Doros (that apply to all generations.)
(e) Question: How do R. Nechemyah and R. Yehudah explain the Parshah?
(f) Answer – part 1: R. Nechemyah explains, Moshe asked ‘Why didn’t you (plural) eat the Chatas?’, and suggested possible ways it may have become Pasul:
1. Moshe: Perhaps the blood entered the Heichal!
2. Aharon: “Hen Lo Huva Es Damah El ha’Kodesh Penimah”.
3. Moshe: Perhaps the meat left Chatzer ha’Mishkan!
4. Aharon: It was “Ba’Kodesh”.
5. Moshe: Perhaps your sons offered it in Aninus, disqualifying it!
6. Aharon: They did not offer it, I did! (Aninus does not Posel a Kohen Gadol for Avodah.)
7. Moshe: If so, you (plural) should have eaten it in Aninus, “Ka’Asher Tziveisi”!
8. Aharon: “Va’Tikrenah Osi Ka’Eleh v’Achalti Chatas ha’Yom ha’Yitav b’Einei Hash-m” – perhaps Hash-m commanded only to eat Kodshei Sha’ah in Aninus;
i. A Kal va’Chomer teaches that Kodshei Doros may not be eaten in Aninus!
ii. Ma’aser (Sheni) is more lenient than Kodshim, yet “Lo Achalti v’Oni Mimenu” (it may not be eaten in Aninus) – Kodshim are more stringent, all the more so they may not be eaten in Aninus!
9. “Va’Yishma Moshe va’Yitav b’Einav” – Moshe admitted his mistake, he did not say ‘I did not hear’ to spare himself embarrassment, rather he said ‘I heard and forgot’.
(g) Answer – part 2: R. Yehudah and R. Shimon explain, Moshe asked ‘Why didn’t you eat the Chatas?’:
1. (The first three questions and answers are the same as above, up to ‘They did not offer it, I did.’)
2. Moshe: Perhaps amidst your sorrow, you were not careful and it became Tamei!
3. Aharon: Do you suspect me of negligence? “Va’Tikrenah Osi Ka’Eleh” – in spite of my loss, even if I would have lost double (i.e. all four of my sons), I would not be negligent with Kodshim!
4. Moshe: If so, you should have eaten it in Aninus, “Ka’Asher Tziveisi”!
5. Aharon: Perhaps Hash-m commanded only to eat during Aninus Laylah – a Kal va’Chomer teaches that Kodshim may not be eaten in Aninus during the day!
i. Ma’aser is more lenient than Kodshim, yet “Lo Achalti v’Oni Mimenu” – Kodshim are more stringent, all the more so they may not be eaten in Aninus!
6. “Va’Yishma Moshe va’Yitav b’Einav” – Moshe admitted his mistake, he did not say ‘I did not hear’ to spare himself embarrassment, rather he said ‘I heard and forgot’.
101b—————————————101b

(h) Question: They should have kept the Chatas to eat it at night!
(i) Answer: It became Tamei through Ones.
(j) Question: We understand according to Chachamim (R. Yehudah and R. Shimon), why Aharon said “V’Achalti Chatas *ha’Yom* ha’Yitav b’Einei Hash-m” (it was forbidden during the day and permitted at night);
1. But according to R. Nechemyah, whatever was forbidden by day (Kodshei Doros) was also forbidden at night!
(k) Answer: It means, ‘Had I eaten the obligatory Korban *of this day* (i.e. Chatas Rosh Chodesh, which is Kodshei Doros), would Hash-m be pleased?!’
(l) Version #1 (our text, Rashi) Question: We understand according to R. Nechemyah, why Aharon said “Hen *ha’Yom* Hikrivu” (this was an obligatory Korban of this day, i.e. Kodshei Doros, we could not eat it);
1. But according to Chachamim, there is no distinction between the Korbanos (all were forbidden during the day and permitted at night)!
(m) Version #2 (Tosfos) Question: According to Chachamim, we understand “Hen ha’Yom Hikrivu” (we could not eat it until night, and it became Tamei in the interim);
1. But according to R. Nechemyah, anything forbidden during the day was also forbidden at night! (End of Version #2)
(n) Answer: This was said incredulously – did my sons offer it (in Aninus, which is Posel)?! No, I offered it!
2) WHY THE “CHATAS” WAS BURNED (cont.)
(a) (Beraisa – R. Yehudah (and R. Shimon)): If it was burned on account of Aninus, all three should have been burned.
1. Question: Which three Korbanos do they refer to?
2. Answer (Beraisa): “V’Es Se’ir ha’Chatas Darash Darash Moshe”:
i. “V’Es Se’ir” – this refers to the Chatas that Nachshon voluntarily offered;
ii. “Ha’Chatas” – this refers to the Chatas of the eighth day of the Milu’im;
iii. “Darash” – this refers to the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh.
iv. Suggestion: Perhaps all three of them were burned!
v. Rejection: “V’Hinei Nisraf” – only one of them was burned.
3. Question: “Darash Darash” connotes two investigations – what were they?
4. Answer: Moshe asked why one Chatas was burned, and the others were not being eaten.
5. Question: How do we know which was burned?
6. Answer: “V’Oso Nosan Lachem Lases Es Avon ha’Edah” – this is Chatas Rosh Chodesh (which atones for Tum’ah of the congregation.)
(b) Question: Seemingly, this refutes R. Nechemyah!
(c) Answer: R. Nechemyah holds that Kodshei Sha’ah are permitted to an Onen.
(d) (Beraisa – R. Yehudah): (If it was burned on account of Aninus…) also, they could have eaten it at night!
(e) Question: Seemingly, this refutes R. Nechemyah!
(f) Answer: R. Nechemyah holds that Aninus Laylah is mid’Oraisa.
(g) (Beraisa – R. Yehudah): …Pinchas was with them (he could have eaten it!)
(h) Question: Seemingly, this refutes R. Nechemyah!
(i) Answer: R. Nechemyah holds like R. Elazar (or Rav Ashi):
1. (R. Elazar): Pinchas did not become a Kohen until after he killed Zimri – “V’Haysah Lo ul’Zar’o Acharav Bris Kehunas Olam”.
2. (Rav Ashi): He did not become a Kohen until after he resolved the conflict between the Shevatim (when Benei Gad and Benei Reuven built their own Mizbe’ach) – “Va’Yishma Pinchas ha’Kohen…” (this is the first time he himself is called a Kohen).
(j) Question: How does Rav Ashi explain “V’Haysah Lo ul’Zar’o…”
(k) Answer: That was only a Brachah.
(l) Question: How does R. Elazar explain “Va’Yishma Pinchas ha’Kohen”
(m) Answer: That teaches that (all or most of) the future Kohanim Gedolim would descend from him.
3) WAS MOSHE A “KOHEN”
(a) (Rav): Moshe was a Kohen Gadol, he received a share of Kodshim – “Me’Eil ha’Milu’im l’Moshe Hayah l’Manah”.
(b) Question (Beraisa): …Pinchas was with them!
1. According to Rav, they should have also asked that Moshe was with them (he could have eaten the Chatas!)
(c) Answer: Perhaps (they did not ask, because) Moshe had no time to eat for he was always speaking with Hash-m!
1. Moshe went up Har Sinai early (at the start of the morning), and came down early.
(d) Question (Beraisa): “(A Ba’al Mum) Mi’Kodshei ha’Kodoshim u’Min ha’Kodoshim Yochel”;
1. Question: Why must it mention both Kodshei Kodoshim and Kodshim (Kalim)?
2. Answer: If it only said Kodshei Kodoshim, one might have thought that only they are permitted (to a Ba’al Mum), because they are (or were) permitted to a Zar and Kohanim;
i. If it only said Kodshim Kalim, one might have thought that only they are permitted, because they are more lenient.
3. Summation of question – suggestion: The Beraisa says that Kodshei Kodoshim are (were) permitted to a Zar – this refers to Moshe!
(e) Answer (Rav Sheshes): No, they are permitted to a Zar if they were offered on a Bamah;
1. This is according to the opinion that Menachos may be offered on a Bamah. (There is no other case of Kodshei Kodoshim – all agree that Chatas and Asham are not offered on Bamos, and Olah is never eaten.)