AND THERE CAME FORTH FIRE ‘MILIPHNEI’ (FROM BEFORE) THE ETERNAL. The meaning of “miliphnei the Eternal” is like: “from before the pnei (presence of) the Eternal.” The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand, for I have already explained this.⁵³ The nature of the sin of Nadab and Abihu you may know from that which it says, and they offered ‘strange fire’ before the Eternal,⁵⁴ and it does not say “and they offered before the Eternal ‘incense’ which He had not commanded them.” Thus they put incense upon the fire, similarly to that which Scripture says, they shall put incense ‘b’apecha’ (before Thee),⁵⁵ and they directed their thoughts only to this,⁵⁶ (literally: ‘before Thy anger’). It is for this reason that the burning of incense stays the plague. (Numbers 17:11-15). However, the priest who offered it had to direct his mind to the perfect Unity of G-d. And since Nadab and Abihu directed it only to the attribute of justice (see Note 58), therefore they were punished.” See further, my Hebrew commentary p. 46. and thus it was not a fire-offering of a sweet savor.⁵⁷ This is the sense of the expression, and they laid ‘aleha’ (upon her) incense.⁵⁸ (upon her) is an allusion to the attribute of justice. and it does not say “and they laid upon them [i.e., the censers] incense,” as is said with reference to the company of Korah, and put fire therein, and put incense upon them,⁵⁹ and again it is said there, and put incense upon them.⁶⁰, Verse 17. But here it says upon her, to allude [to the fact] that they put the incense only on “the fire,” [and therefore it says], And there came forth fire from before the Eternal, and devoured them. It is possible that the verse which He said, Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon,⁶¹ alludes to this, meaning that he should not cause it [the fire] to be strange. It is in connection with this that Scripture states, when they [Nadab and Abihu] drew near before the Eternal, and died,⁶² which means “when they offered l’phanav they died.”⁶³ alone [to the attribute of justice alone, as explained above] they died.

footnotes: ⁵³ Exodus 30:1. ⁵⁴ Verse 1. ⁵⁵ Deuteronomy 33:10. See following note. ⁵⁶ In quoting the language of Ramban, Menachem of Ricanti adds the following explanatory note: “Know that the incense is offered towards the attribute of justice, as it is said, they shall put incense ‘b’apecha’ ⁵⁷ Above, 1:9, etc. ⁵⁸ Verse 1. The word aleha ⁵⁹ Numbers 16:7. ⁶⁰ Ibid. ⁶¹ Exodus 30:9. ⁶² Further, 16: 1. ⁶³ I.e., when they offered the incense l’phanav

THIS IS THAT THE ETERNAL SPOKE, SAYING: ‘THROUGH THEM THAT ARE NIGH UNTO ME I WILL BE SANCTIFIED.’ “Where had He spoken this? In the verse, and [the Tent] shall be sanctified ‘bichvodi’ (by My Glory).⁶⁴ Do not read the word as bichvodi (by My Glory) but bimechubodai (through My honored ones). Moses said to Aaron: ‘My brother Aaron, I knew that this Sanctuary was to be hallowed by those who are beloved of the Holy One, blessed be He, and I thought that it would be either through me or through you. Now I see that your sons were holier⁶⁵ than I and you.’” Thus the language of Rashi, based on the interpretation of our Rabbis. But if so, the verse, and [the Tent] *shall be sanctified ‘bichvodi’*⁶⁴ means “that it will become holy in the eyes of all the people through my honored ones, and they will know that I dwell therein.” Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra also wrote: “This is that the Eternal spoke, saying, means: G-d had already told me that He would show His sanctity through those that were near to Him. This is similar in meaning to the verse, You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will visit upon you all your iniquities.⁶⁶ And when I will show them this holiness of Mine, then I will become glorified before all the people and they will fear Me.” But if this is so, then this is a statement not written [in the text], that G-d informed Moses of His ways and that such is the nature of His attribute! In my opinion there is no need for all this. For by way of the plain meaning of Scripture, the expression “G-d spoke” refers to His decrees, His thought, and the manner of His ways, and the term “speaking” is used with reference to all these [in humans]. Thus: I spoke with my own heart,⁶⁷ means “I reflected on this thought.” And this is ‘hadavar’ that Joshua did circumcise,⁶⁸ means “this is ‘the cause’ why Joshua did so.” ‘Al d’var’ (because of) the money.⁶⁹ Similarly, And let her be thy master’s son’s wife, as the Eternal hath spoken,⁷⁰, 24:51. means “as He hath decreed.” Likewise: In his days did Hiel the Beth-elite built Jericho; with his firstborn he laid the foundation thereof, and with his youngest son Segub he set up the gates thereof; according to the word of the Eternal, which He spoke by the hand of Joshua the son of Nun.⁷¹ Thus Moses said here: “This incident is that which G-d decreed, ‘saying to His heart': Through them that are nigh unto Me I will be sanctified so that they should not break forth into My sanctity; and before all the people I will be glorified, so that they treat My dwelling-place with respect.”

footnotes: ⁶⁴ Exodus 29:43. ⁶⁵ In Rashi: “greater.” ⁶⁴ Exodus 29:43. ⁶⁶ Amos 3:2. ⁶⁷ Ecclesiastes 1:16. ⁶⁸ Joshua 5:4. ⁶⁹ Genesis 43:18. ⁷⁰ Ibid. ⁷¹ I Kings 16:34. Here too, it does not mean “which G-d spoke,” since we nowhere find that He did say so, but “which He decreed.” Cf. the words of Joshua (Joshua 6:26).

VAYIDOM AHARON’ (AND AARON WAS SILENT). This means that he had cried aloud, but then he became silent. Or perhaps the meaning thereof is as in the verse, let not the apple of thine eye ‘tidom’ (cease).⁷²

footnotes: ⁷² Lamentations 2:18. Here then the meaning would be: “and Aaron ceased to shed tears.” According to the first interpretation, he was silent, not crying out aloud, but he still shed tears. But according to the second interpretation he was calmed completely.

AND MOSES CALLED MISHAEL AND ELZAPHAN, THE SONS OF UZZIEL THE UNCLE OF AARON, AND SAID UNTO THEM: DRAW NEAR, CARRY YOUR BRETHREN FROM BEFORE THE SANCTUARY OUT OF THE CAMP. I have found written in the Torath Kohanim in the section of the consecration:⁷³ 38. “Rabbi Eliezer says: the sons of Aaron died outside [the Sanctuary], in a place where the Levites [Mishael and Elzaphan] were permitted to enter, as it is said, So they drew near, and carried them in their tunics.⁷⁴ If so, why then does it say, *and they died before the Eternal?*⁷⁵ It was an angel who smote them [Nadab and Abihu] and thrust them out of the Sanctuary [and they did not die until they were outside it]. Rabbi Akiba says: they died inside the Sanctuary, as it is said, and they died before the Eternal.⁷⁵ If so, why does it say, So they drew near, and carried them in their tunics⁷⁴ [since Levites are not permitted to enter the Sanctuary]? They put iron hooks on them, and dragged them and brought them out of the Sanctuary.” Thus far is the text of the Beraitha,⁵¹ Note 65. and the meaning thereof is as follows: Even though priests are also forbidden to enter the Sanctuary except at the time of Service,⁷⁶ this prohibition applies only if they enter it needlessly. But one may enter the Sanctuary in order to remove an uncleanness, or to make Temple repairs. For thus we were taught in the Torath Kohanim:⁷⁷ 3:11. “I might think one is not permitted to enter the Sanctuary to make the beaten plates [for a covering of the golden altar, or for the Holy of Holies]; Scripture therefore says, ‘Only’ he shall not go in unto the Veil⁷⁸ [the word ‘only’ denoting an exception to the general law]; such is their command: priests may go in there [at any time to make the above repairs]. If there are no priests present, Levites may enter. If there are no [ritually] pure ones [priests or Levites], impure ones may go in. If there are no unblemished ones, blemished ones may enter there.” Now on that day [when Nadab and Abihu died] there were no priests present [who could remove them from the Sanctuary where they had died], since [Aaron and his two remaining sons] were expressly commanded that they should not defile themselves for them.⁷⁹ But since it was possible to do it through dragging them out with iron hooks, [Mishael and Elzaphan] were not permitted to enter there. [Such is the opinion of Rabbi Akiba.] But Rabbi Eliezer, who is of the opinion [that an angel thrust Nadab and Abihu out of the Sanctuary, and they died outside, thinks] that since Scripture states of Mishael and Elzaphan, so they drew near,⁷⁴ it was outside the Sanctuary [that they died], and therefore he does not say [as does Rabbi Akiba] that they dragged them outside in their tunics. The meaning of the expression in their tunics⁷⁴ is that Nadab and Abihu were then dressed in the priestly garments. Moses thus commanded that they carry them out of the camp,⁷⁴ and there they should strip them of their priestly garments, and clothe them in burial shrouds, and bury them, as was their custom with other people who died in the desert. After that they purified the sacred garments and they were used by the other priests.

footnotes: ⁷³ Torath Kohanim, beginning of Shemini ⁷⁴ Verse 5. ⁷⁵ Verse 2. ⁷⁵ Verse 2. ⁷⁴ Verse 5. ⁵¹ See Seder Vayikra ⁷⁶ In other words, there is basically no difference between the priests and the Levites as far as the prohibition against a needless entry into the Sanctuary is concerned. If there is a need for it, such as removing an impure object from it, both are permitted [as explained further on in the text] to enter at any time. And if so, why the opinion of Rabbi Akiba that Mishael and Elzaphan put iron hooks on the bodies of Nadab and Abihu in order to remove them from the Sanctuary when they could have gone in directly and remove them? See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 66-67. ⁷⁷ Torath Kohanim, Emor ⁷⁸ Further, 21:23. ⁷⁹ Verse 7. — So the question appears: Why did Mishael and Elzaphan have to resort to the use of iron hooks when they could have entered the Sanctuary? The answer is: since it was possible etc. ⁷⁴ Verse 5. ⁷⁴ Verse 5. ⁷⁴ Verse 5.

LET NOT THE HAIR OF YOUR HEADS GO LOOSE. “[This means]: do not grow your hair long. From this [the fact that Scripture forbade these particular mourners to let their hair grow long], we learn that a mourner is forbidden to cut his hair. [Moses thus said to them: Normally a mourner may not cut his hair], but you must not disturb the joy of G-d. THAT YE DIE NOT. But if you do this you shall die.” Thus far the language of Rashi. Now that which Rashi says, “From this we learn that a mourner is forbidden to cut his hair,” is merely a Scriptural support for a Rabbinic enactment.⁸⁰, p. 314, Note 449. Moreover, according to this explanation one cannot then interpret: “But if you do this [i.e., you let your hair grow long] you shall die.” Rather⁸¹. But if you [the sons of Aaron] do this [i.e., let your hair grow long] you shall die” — the real explanation is as follows: “That ye die not. You need not fear death for not letting your hair grow long,” as other mourners would be so punishable if they would not let their hair grow. it was optional in the case of Aaron’s sons, Scripture stating: “You are not obliged to let your hair grow long and rend your garments, as are other mourners; that ye die not, meaning that you will not be liable to death if you do so [i.e., neither let your hair grow nor rend your garments], but other mourners are liable [to death] if they fail to observe it.” Thus also have the Rabbis said in the Gemara of *Mashkin:*⁸² is the name of the first chapter of the tractate. On the term Gemara see in Exodus, Seder Bo, p. 132, Note 204. “A mourner who did not let his hair grow long, and did not rent his garments, is liable [to punishment of death], as it is said, Let not the hair of your heads go loose, neither rend your clothes, that ye die not; but other mourners who do not let their hair grow long, or rend their garments, are liable [to that punishment].” But this text is similar to other Rabbinic laws for which the Talmud merely found a Scriptural support, for letting one’s hair grow long and rending one’s garments when in mourning are only matters of Rabbinic ordinance. Or perhaps the mourning of the first day [after the death and burial] is a law given to Moses at Sinai, being derived from that of aninuth [the state of mourning before the burial of a relative] according to the opinion of the Gaonim.⁸³, p. 521, Note 74. But the real meaning of the verse is an admonition to Aaron’s sons, and listen to the meaning thereof. Our Rabbis have already said⁸⁴ that a High Priest may bring an offering whilst he is still an onen⁸⁵ by law of the Torah is a mourner on the day of death of his relative whether before or after burial on that day. [On the night following he is an onen by law of the Rabbis. If burial has not taken place on the day of death he continues to be an onen by law of the Rabbis. When burial finally takes place he is an onen by law of the Rabbis even after burial, but at night he is no longer considered an onen at all.] An onen is to be distinguished from an avel who is a mourner for a period of seven or thirty days. The laws of mourning as affecting the Divine Service in the Tabernacle and its holy offerings relate to the priest when he is an onen. but may not eat it. If any of his next of kin⁸⁶ 2:1). die, he is not allowed to let his hair grow or rend his garments or defile himself for them, as it is said, he shall not let the hair of his head go loose, nor rend his clothes; neither shall he enter [a tent containing] a dead body.⁸⁷ Now since he is permitted to bring offerings whilst he is an onen,⁸⁵ by law of the Torah is a mourner on the day of death of his relative whether before or after burial on that day. [On the night following he is an onen by law of the Rabbis. If burial has not taken place on the day of death he continues to be an onen by law of the Rabbis. When burial finally takes place he is an onen by law of the Rabbis even after burial, but at night he is no longer considered an onen at all.] An onen is to be distinguished from an avel who is a mourner for a period of seven or thirty days. The laws of mourning as affecting the Divine Service in the Tabernacle and its holy offerings relate to the priest when he is an onen. Scripture therefore said about him, Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary, nor profane the Sanctuary of his G-d.⁸⁸, Verse 12. This means that He warned him against going out of the Sanctuary and leaving the Service, for this would be a profanation of G-d’s Name. Now this warning against leaving the Sanctuary at the time of the Service applies to all priests, except that in the case of the High Priest He taught that he may bring offerings whilst he is still an onen⁸⁵ by law of the Torah is a mourner on the day of death of his relative whether before or after burial on that day. [On the night following he is an onen by law of the Rabbis. If burial has not taken place on the day of death he continues to be an onen by law of the Rabbis. When burial finally takes place he is an onen by law of the Rabbis even after burial, but at night he is no longer considered an onen at all.] An onen is to be distinguished from an avel who is a mourner for a period of seven or thirty days. The laws of mourning as affecting the Divine Service in the Tabernacle and its holy offerings relate to the priest when he is an onen. [whereas an ordinary priest must interrupt his Service and another one completes it, and he is not permitted to leave the Sanctuary until it is completed]. Accordingly, if the High Priest [on becoming apprised of the death of a near relative], leaves the Service and goes out of the Sanctuary whilst he is an onen, he is liable [to punishment] just like any [ordinary] priest who leaves the Service and goes as he pleases. Now Moses warned Aaron here that he should not let his hair grow long, nor rend his garments, for this [negative] commandment applies to him [as High Priest] for all times. But his sons who were ordinary priests, were not permitted to bring offerings on that day since they were onenim [mourners whose dead are still unburied], and an onen who officiates profanes the Service. They were in fact obliged to defile themselves for their brothers, and similarly they were either permitted or obliged⁸⁹” (see Note 82) is merely a Scriptural support for a Rabbinic ordinance, as Ramban has it; “obliged,” if the final decision of the law is in accordance with the opinion of the Gaonim (mentioned above), that the mourning of the first day [after death and burial] is a law declared to Moses on Sinai. to let their hair grow and to rend their garments. Yet Moses warned them against doing all this as a special decision [“in order not to disturb the joy of G-d” on that occasion, as mentioned above by Rashi]. Therefore Moses charged Mishael and Elzaphan that they should defile themselves for the dead, and not the priests. He further commanded [the priests] not to let their hair grow, nor to rend their garments, just like their father, [who as High Priest was not permitted to do so], and not to cry at all. This is the meaning of the verse, but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Eternal hath kindled,⁹⁰ but not you. All this was in order not to disturb G-d’s joy [by their displaying signs of mourning]. He treated this strictly by making them liable to death [by the hand of Heaven] if they would disturb the joyous occasion in any way. It is possible that Moses was commanded about this from the mouth of the Almighty, even though it is not expressly written, or that he derived it from that which he was commanded [to relay to Aaron and his sons for the seven days of consecration], and ye shall keep the charge of the Eternal, that ye die not,⁹¹ [from which Moses learned] that the charge of the Eternal includes also the eighth day. Now it was revealed to and known by the Creator of the world that the sons of Aaron were destined to be onenim, and yet He commanded that they should not leave the Sanctuary; thus [we see that here exceptionally] they were not to defile themselves for the dead or to mourn at all. Now the sons of Aaron, the priests that were anointed,⁹² even though they were ordinary priests, yet [G-d] made the law applicable to them during the days of the consecration to be like the law of the priest anointed for war in future generations,⁹³ since he [too] must not let his hair grow long or rend his garments or defile himself for deceased relatives, just like the High Priest, but he may not perform the rites of offerings whilst he is an onen [although the High Priest may do so]. Thus Aaron’s sons, too, did not perform the rites of the offerings on that day, as the Rabbis interpreted:⁹⁴ “And Aaron spoke unto Moses: Behold, this day have they offered their sin-offering.⁹⁵ Did they [i.e., my sons] then bring the offering — they who are ordinary priests? It was I [Aaron] that offered — I who am the High Priest [who may offer even when being an onen].” Now during this entire incident nothing [which was to be done during] the consecration was abolished, since the offerings had already been brought, and at night they all ate of the hallowed food which they were to eat. It is possible that this law applied to Elazar and Ithamar [Aaron’s remaining sons] all their lives, namely, that their laws be like those of the priest anointed for war [as mentioned above], because they had been anointed with the oil of anointment, this being the sense of the expression, [And ye shall not go out from the door of the Tent of Meeting …] for the anointing oil of the Eternal is upon you.⁹⁶ I have already mentioned⁹⁷, Verse 35. the Beraitha of the Torath Kohanim⁹⁸ 42. which states: “And ye shall not go out from the door of the Tent of Meeting.⁹⁶ I might think that [on becoming apprised of the death of a near relative, an ordinary priest may not leave the Sanctuary] whether he is ministering or not; Scripture therefore says, Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary, nor profane.⁹⁹ When is he not permitted to go out, so that [only by his staying there] he does not profane it? I must say that this applies only when he is ministering. Lest ye die⁹⁶ — from the negative you infer the positive [that if they do go out in the middle of their ministering, they are liable to death by the hand of Heaven]. For the anointing oil of the Eternal is upon you.⁹⁶ Why is this said? I might think that this tells me only that Aaron and his sons, who were anointed with the oil of anointment, are liable to death if they leave the Sanctuary whilst they are ministering. How do I know that [the prohibition applies also to] all priests at all times? Scripture therefore says, for the anointing oil of the Eternal is upon you.”¹⁰⁰ Similarly have I also seen in the Tosephta¹⁰¹ of Tractate Sanhedrin: “The Sages said to Rabbi Yehudah: The verse Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary⁹⁹ only applies at the time of ministration.” Now according to this interpretation, the warning and punishment [under consideration] applied to [both] Aaron and his sons, so that if they went out from the door of the Tent of Meeting⁹⁶ at the time of performing the Service, they would be liable [to death by the hand of Heaven]. But since it was Aaron who brought the offerings on that day, therefore [Moses] warned him [especially] that he should not leave the Service and go out. His sons, however, were onenim⁸⁵ by law of the Torah is a mourner on the day of death of his relative whether before or after burial on that day. [On the night following he is an onen by law of the Rabbis. If burial has not taken place on the day of death he continues to be an onen by law of the Rabbis. When burial finally takes place he is an onen by law of the Rabbis even after burial, but at night he is no longer considered an onen at all.] An onen is to be distinguished from an avel who is a mourner for a period of seven or thirty days. The laws of mourning as affecting the Divine Service in the Tabernacle and its holy offerings relate to the priest when he is an onen. on that day and did not perform the Service. If so, [the question appears]: how were they included in this warning [not to leave the Service and go out of the Sanctuary, when they were in fact doing no Service to begin with]? Perhaps we may say that Moses said to all of them, and ye shall not go out from the door of the Tent of Meeting at the time of the Service, lest ye die,⁹⁶ and they knew that Aaron [as High Priest] could perform the rites of offering [although] an onen,⁸⁵ by law of the Torah is a mourner on the day of death of his relative whether before or after burial on that day. [On the night following he is an onen by law of the Rabbis. If burial has not taken place on the day of death he continues to be an onen by law of the Rabbis. When burial finally takes place he is an onen by law of the Rabbis even after burial, but at night he is no longer considered an onen at all.] An onen is to be distinguished from an avel who is a mourner for a period of seven or thirty days. The laws of mourning as affecting the Divine Service in the Tabernacle and its holy offerings relate to the priest when he is an onen. and therefore he is included in the prohibition at once, but his sons are included in the prohibition and punishment whenever they would be fit for the Service from that day onwards. It is for this reason that He said here in an unqualified manner, and ye shall not go out from the door of the Tent of Meeting,⁹⁶ and did not explain until when this [prohibition] applied, whether until the evening or the next day, since His intent was that they should not leave the Service, and this was to be a commandment applying to all generations. It is possible that the command to the sons of Aaron was a special decision, that they should not go out from there on that day¹⁰² and was therefore prohibited from leaving the Sanctuary. This was to serve as a mark of honor and indication of the joyousness of the occasion. [specifically], just as their father [could not leave], this being in honor of the joyous occasion [i.e., the culmination of the erection of the Tabernacle and inauguration of the priests], but ordinary priests throughout the generations are warned against leaving their Service on the basis of the verse which states, Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary, nor profane,⁹⁹ which means that any priest who goes out of the Sanctuary and leaves his Service profanes it thereby. Thus the verse here [And ye shall not go out from the door of the Tent of Meeting, lest ye die, for the anointing oil of the Eternal is upon you],⁹⁶ is only necessary to derive the punishment, that whoever leaves the Service and goes out is subject to death [by the hand of Heaven], for it says, for the anointing oil of the Eternal is upon you, and that anointment is upon them for all generations, as it says, and their anointing oil shall be to them for an everlasting priesthood.¹⁰³ So also the Rabbis taught in the Beraitha of Torath Kohanim:¹⁰⁴ 28. “From here the Rabbis have derived the principle that no mark of mourning whatever is shown for those executed by the court.¹⁰⁵” (Verse 6) (Rabad, in his commentary on Torath Kohanim). Perhaps you will say, ‘We [the brothers] will go to our homes and mourn, grieve and cry [over the death of Nadab and Abihu], behold G-d has already commanded us not to go out of the Sanctuary.’” From this text it would appear that it was a special decision to the effect that those who died through the Heavenly Court, should be treated like those executed by a [human] court for transgressions, in which case the rule is that [the relatives of the executed] come and greet the judges and the witnesses.¹⁰⁶). Here too, they were to remain standing before G-d in the day of his espousals, and in the day of the gladness of his heart.¹⁰⁷ “In the day of his espousals — this is the day of Sinai [i.e., the Giving of the Torah]. And in the day of the gladness of his heart — this is the day [of the setting up] of the Tent of Meeting.”¹⁰⁸ — this is the Giving of the Torah. And in the day of the gladness of his heart — this is the building of the Sanctuary” [in Jerusalem].

footnotes: ⁸⁰ See in Exodus, Seder Yithro ⁸¹ Ramban’s point is thus: Instead of Rashi’s interpretation — “That ye die not ⁸² This tractate of the Talmud is now called Moed Katan. The text referred to is found there, 24 a. ‘Mashkin’ ⁸³ See in Exodus, Seder Ki Thisa ⁸⁴ Moed Katan 14 b. ⁸⁵ An onen ⁸⁶ These are: mother, father, son, daughter, brother and sister by the same father. The Sages added: husband, wife, brother and sister by the same mother (Mishneh Torah, Shoftim, Hilchoth Avel ⁸⁷ Further, 21:10-11. ⁸⁵ An onen ⁸⁸ Ibid. ⁸⁵ An onen ⁸⁹ “Permitted,” if the text quoted above from “the Gemara of Mashkin ⁹⁰ Verse 6. ⁹¹ Above, 8:35. ⁹² Numbers 3:3. ⁹³ Horayoth 12 b. ⁹⁴ Zebachim 101 a. ⁹⁵ Further, Verse 19. ⁹⁶ Verse 7. ⁹⁷ At the end of Seder Tzav ⁹⁸ Torath Kohanim, Shemini Milu’im ⁹⁶ Verse 7. ⁹⁹ Further, 21:12. ⁹⁶ Verse 7. ⁹⁶ Verse 7. ¹⁰⁰ See Ramban above, 8:35, at end of verse, for explanation of this final interpretation. ¹⁰¹ “Supplement.” After the Mishnah was completed by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi, a contemporary of his, Rabbi Chiya, compiled a collection of Tannaitic statements and traditions closely allied in form to the Mishnah. The Tosephta follows the order of the tractates of the Mishnah. ⁹⁹ Further, 21:12. ⁹⁶ Verse 7. ⁸⁵ An onen ⁹⁶ Verse 7. ⁸⁵ An onen ⁹⁶ Verse 7. ¹⁰² Having explained above that the admonition applied to Aaron’s sons not on that eighth day, but its effect began from the following day onwards, when they would be permitted to minister in the Sanctuary, Ramban now writes that it was possibly a special decision that even on that eighth day they should not leave the Sanctuary, just like their father, who, as High Priest, was permitted to bring offerings as an onen ⁹⁹ Further, 21:12. ⁹⁶ Verse 7. ¹⁰³ Exodus 40:15. ¹⁰⁴ Torath Kohanim, Shemini Milu’im ¹⁰⁵ “The analogy is not complete. For those executed by the court no one mourns, neither close relatives nor anyone else. Here only the close relatives were forbidden to mourn, while for others it was expressly commanded, let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Eternal hath kindled ¹⁰⁶ Sanhedrin 46 a. “As if to say, ‘We have nothing against you in our hearts, for you have judged the judgment of truth’” (ibid. ¹⁰⁷ Song of Songs 3:11. ¹⁰⁸ There are various versions to this interpretation. The final Mishnah in Tractate Taanith has it: “In the day of his espousals

DRINK NO WINE NOR STRONG DRINK. “[Do not drink] wine to such an extent that it has an intoxicating effect.” This is Rashi’s language. The meaning thereof is that if he paused during the drinking [of a fourth of a log of wine], or if he mixed a little water into it, he is free from punishment. The opinion of the Rabbi [Rashi] is thus that the priests were only prohibited from drinking wine, but not from other intoxicating drinks, the meaning of the term sheichar (strong drink) mentioned here being derived from the law of the Nazirite [where a similar expression appears,¹⁰⁹ (strong drink) (Numbers 6:3). and only wine is forbidden to him].¹¹⁰ must not therefore be understood as strong drink [as it is found in all English translations], but rather as “strong wine.” The vav in the Hebrew yayin v’sheichar (literally: “wine and strong wine”) is thus to be understood as if it said yayin k’shehu sheichar — you must not drink “wine when it is strong wine,” or “when it is intoxicating” (Mizrachi). Rambam’s opinion, however, as mentioned further on in the text, is that sheichar means “strong drink,” and the priests were warned against both — wine and strong drink, although the punishment for violation was different for each. This is correct according to my opinion. But in the opinion of Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon],¹¹¹ 1:2. however, other intoxicating drinks are prohibited [through a negative commandment, without being punishable by death, and the Service performed after drinking them is not invalidated, whereas for drinking wine the punishment is death by the hand of Heaven, and the Service is invalidated]; thus sheichar is to be understood in its plain sense [i.e., strong drink]. The reason why this commandment was given at that time, was in order that the priest should not go astray through the intoxicating effect of wine, and thus come to entertain some improper thought which might cause his death, as happened to [Aaron’s] sons. It is possible that when the Rabbis interpreted¹¹² that Nadab and Abihu died because they entered the Sanctuary whilst intoxicated by wine, they meant to say that it was because of the wine they had drunk that they erred in the matter of the strange fire,¹¹³ but not that their punishment actually was because they had drunk the wine, since they had not yet been warned against it. Rather, their punishment was because they erred with respect to the fire of G-d, as I have alluded to.¹¹³

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ He shall abstain from wine and ‘sheichar’ ¹¹⁰ The word sheichar ¹¹¹ Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Bi’ath Hamikdash ¹¹² Vayikra Rabbah 12:1. ¹¹³ Above, Verse 1. ¹¹³ Above, Verse 1.

WHEN YE GO INTO THE TENT OF MEETING. “From this verse I know only [that they are forbidden to drink wine and strong drink] when they go into the Sanctuary. Whence do I know that this applies also whenever they approach the altar? Entering the Tent of Meeting is mentioned here, and entering the Tent is also mentioned in connection with the washing of hands and feet.¹¹⁴ (Exodus 30:20). Now just as there the Torah made approaching the altar similar to entering the Tent of Meeting, so here too it made approaching the altar like entering the Tent of Meeting.” This is Rashi’s language, and that of the Torath Kohanim.¹¹⁵ 1:4. It would appear from this analogy that a priest [drunk with wine] is not liable to death for approaching the altar or for entering the Sanctuary, unless he performed there some [Divine] Service, just as in the case of washing the hands and feet, where the admonition is only against performing the Service [without washing], as it says, or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn a fire-offering unto the Eternal.¹¹⁴ (Exodus 30:20). In this form it is taught there in the Sifra:¹¹⁶ “Sifra” is another name for the Torath Kohanim. See in Seder Vayikra, Note 121. “Rabbi¹¹⁷, “our holy teacher,” or simply “Rabbi.” states: Here it says, when ye go into the Tent of Meeting, and there [in connection with the law of the priests washing their hands and feet] it says, when they go into the Tent of Meeting.¹¹⁴ (Exodus 30:20). Now just as there He made going out [of the Sanctuary] similar to going into it,¹¹⁸ and the altar similar to the Tent of Meeting, and the penalty of death [by the hand of Heaven] is only if he performed the Service [without washing], so here also He made going out [of the Sanctuary] similar to going into it,¹¹⁹). and the altar similar to the Tent of Meeting, and the punishment is only if he performs the Service [whilst intoxicated].” That is to say, the liability [to punishment] is only if the priest performs the Service, whether he entered while drunk, or drank there [after he had come in] and then performed some Service. There [in the Sifra]¹²⁰ 1:5. the Rabbis have said: “It shall be a statute forever.¹²¹ This includes the pouring of oil [upon the flour of a meal-offering], mixing it, waving it, bringing near [the meal-offering to the altar], removing the handful and burning it, pinching a bird’s head, and sprinkling the blood,” [so that all these acts must not be done by the priest while drunk, and if he did any of them in that state, he is liable to death by the hand of Heaven]. For since Scripture stated, to burn a fire-offering unto the Eternal,¹¹⁴ (Exodus 30:20). [I might have excluded these acts from this law since they are not “a fire-offering”], therefore it was necessary to include them [here in the verse before us]. It further appears that this liability [to punishment] does not apply where one offers up on a bamah.¹²² were permitted until the eighth day of consecration when the Tabernacle was erected, but from that day onwards they were prohibited until the people came into the Land of Israel, when for a period of fourteen years comprising the conquest and division of the Land, the Tabernacle was at Gilgal, and bamoth were temporarily permitted. Then a central Sanctuary was built at Shiloh, which lasted for 369 years, and during that time the bamoth were again prohibited. After the Philistines destroyed the Sanctuary at Shiloh, the bamoth were once again permitted. This period [covering also the reigns of Saul and David] lasted 57 years, and is known as that of Nob and Gibeon. Then finally the Sanctuary at Jerusalem was built, and from then on the bamoth were prohibited forever, since that is “the Eternal House,” so that even when it was destroyed, the place is still holy. — From this account it is thus clear why as stated in the Torath Kohanim [mentioned further on in the text] the central Sanctuary at Shiloh and “the Eternal House” at Jerusalem were alike as far as the prohibition to perform the Service while drunk is concerned. In both only a priest could perform the Service, while at a bamah even an Israelite was permitted to do it. That is why the Rabbis said there [in the Torath Kohanim]:¹²⁰ 1:5. “From this verse I know only that it is prohibited [to perform the Service] in the Tent of Meeting [while drunk]. Whence do I know to include the Sanctuary at Shiloh and the Eternal House at Jerusalem? Scripture therefore says, it shall be a statute for ever.” For this prohibition applies to the priests performing their Services, and it was not necessary that it be a priest who performed the Service at a *bamah;*¹²² were permitted until the eighth day of consecration when the Tabernacle was erected, but from that day onwards they were prohibited until the people came into the Land of Israel, when for a period of fourteen years comprising the conquest and division of the Land, the Tabernacle was at Gilgal, and bamoth were temporarily permitted. Then a central Sanctuary was built at Shiloh, which lasted for 369 years, and during that time the bamoth were again prohibited. After the Philistines destroyed the Sanctuary at Shiloh, the bamoth were once again permitted. This period [covering also the reigns of Saul and David] lasted 57 years, and is known as that of Nob and Gibeon. Then finally the Sanctuary at Jerusalem was built, and from then on the bamoth were prohibited forever, since that is “the Eternal House,” so that even when it was destroyed, the place is still holy. — From this account it is thus clear why as stated in the Torath Kohanim [mentioned further on in the text] the central Sanctuary at Shiloh and “the Eternal House” at Jerusalem were alike as far as the prohibition to perform the Service while drunk is concerned. In both only a priest could perform the Service, while at a bamah even an Israelite was permitted to do it. [therefore the prohibition did not apply there]. Now the meaning of the expression when ye go into the Tent of Meeting, is “when you perform Service,” and He used this expression because all the Services were done there, either inside the Tent or at the altar of the burnt-offering which was at the door of the Tent of Meeting. The general principle then, is that the prohibition and punishment in these matters are only to the effect that the priest should not perform the Service while drunk with wine or with hands and feet unwashed, likewise if he lacks any of the required priestly garments; but merely for entering the Sanctuary in these conditions, there is no prohibition in the Torah. Thus that which we have been taught in the Mishnah:¹²³ “Rabbi Yosei says: In five things is the space between the Porch [of the Sanctuary] and the altar equal to the Sanctuary: that those priests may not enter there who have a blemish, or who have dishevelled hair,¹²⁴ or who have hands and feet unwashed” and the whole Mishnah there — all these are gradations of Rabbinic enactment [and are not matters prohibited by Scriptural law]. In the opinion, however, of Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon],¹²⁵ 1:15-16. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II pp. 68, 72-73. one who [wilfully] enters the Sanctuary [in the above-mentioned conditions] without performing the Service, [has also violated] a negative commandment, for which the punishment is not death [by the hand of Heaven but whipping].

footnotes: ¹¹⁴ When they go into the Tent of Meeting, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn a fire-offering unto the Eternal ¹¹⁵ Torath Kohanim, Shemini ¹¹⁴ When they go into the Tent of Meeting, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn a fire-offering unto the Eternal ¹¹⁶ Ibid. ¹¹⁷ The redactor of the Mishnah, or as he is often known, Rabbeinu Hakadosh ¹¹⁴ When they go into the Tent of Meeting, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn a fire-offering unto the Eternal ¹¹⁸ If the priest who was in the Sanctuary touched something which necessitates washing of his hands and feet, or if he had given up his intent of doing any more ministration and then decides to do it, he must wash his hands and feet a second time, even though he is no longer, strictly speaking, “entering the Sanctuary,” since he is there already (Derech Hakodesh, commentary on the Sifra by Vidal Hatzarfati). See also my Hebrew commentary, p. 51, for a different commentary on this text by Rabad. ¹¹⁹ Thus if he drank the wine whilst inside the Sanctuary and performed the Service, he is liable just like when he drank the wine outside the Sanctuary and entered it in a state of intoxication (ibid. ¹²⁰ Torath Kohanim, Shemini ¹²¹ In Verse 9 before us. ¹¹⁴ When they go into the Tent of Meeting, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn a fire-offering unto the Eternal ¹²² Literally: “a high place.” This was an altar built prior to the establishment of a central Sanctuary, on which offerings to G-d could be brought; on such an altar even a non-priest could perform the rites of offering. Bamoth ¹²⁰ Torath Kohanim, Shemini ¹²² Literally: “a high place.” This was an altar built prior to the establishment of a central Sanctuary, on which offerings to G-d could be brought; on such an altar even a non-priest could perform the rites of offering. Bamoth ¹²³ Keilim 1:9. ¹²⁴ In our Mishnah: “or who have dishevelled hair, or who have drunk wine.” ¹²⁵ Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Bi’ath Hamikdash

THE THIGH OF HEAVING AND THE BREAST OF WAVING. “This expression is similar to the verse, [the breast of the wave-offering, and the thigh of the heave-offering], which is waved, and which is heaved up.¹²⁶ ‘Waving’ is an expression for moving to and fro [in a horizontal direction]. ‘Heaving’ is an expression for moving up and down. But why Scripture divided them, mentioning ‘heaving’ in connection with the thigh and ‘waving’ in connection with the breast, I do not know, for both of them [required] waving and heaving.” Thus far is the language of Rashi.¹²⁷ It appears to me that the reason for it is that during the [seven days of] consecration, the thigh was a heave-offering to G-d, being burned together with the bread and the fats,¹²⁸ and that which is set aside from a peace-offering [to be burnt on the altar] is called “a heave-offering,” just as it is said, And of it he shall offer one out of each offering for a heave-offering unto the Eternal,¹²⁹ and [it follows] all the more so that these parts [of the ram of consecration] offered on the altar, were all “a heave-offering unto the Eternal.” [Hence the expression “the thigh of heaving.”] It was not called by the term “waving,” for that movement [to and fro in a horizontal direction] was done to the thigh together with the fats and the bread so as to burn them unto the Eternal. The breast, however, was waved by itself, and was only different from the rest of the meat [which was to be eaten by the priests] in that it was waved, and it was through this waving alone that it became sanctified and that Moses acquired it as his portion.¹³⁰ [Moses] shalt take the breast of Aaron’s ram of consecration, and wave it for a wave-offering before the Eternal; and it shall be thy portion. Now since the right of Aaron and his sons to the breast and thigh [of peace-offerings] in future generations was [derived] from the day of their consecration as priests, when they acquired the thigh through its being a heave-offering to G-d and the breast through its being waved, whilst the rest of the meat belonged to the owners, therefore the thigh was forever called [the thigh of] “heaving,” and the breast that of “waving,” as was done to them on the day of [the priests] acquiring their rights to them.

footnotes: ¹²⁶ Exodus 29:27. ¹²⁷ This whole text of Rashi quoted by Ramban is missing in all standard versions of Rashi. It is found, however, in the Reggio edition of 1475, “Rashi’s Commentary to the Pentateuch.” This book incidentally was the first Hebrew book to appear in print. A facsimilie thereof has lately appeared in Jerusalem. ¹²⁸ Exodus 29:22-25. ¹²⁹ Above, 7:14. ¹³⁰ It is so clearly stated in Exodus 29:26: And thou

AL ISHEI HACHALAVIM’ (UPON THE FIRE-OFFERINGS OF THE FAT). “This is like: ‘upon the fat of the fire-offerings.’¹³¹ From here we learn that at the time of waving the fat-portions were beneath.” This is the language of Rashi. But there is no need for it [i.e., to invert the verse, and to derive this law from the verse here]. For the word ishei (“fire-offerings of”) is an adjectival-noun qualifying the word chalavim (fats), just as He said, ‘ishei Hashem’ (the fire-offerings of the Eternal) and His inheritance they [the priests] shall eat.¹³² does not have its precise meaning of “the fires of,” since the priests do not eat that which has actually been on the fire upon the altar. The word ishei must therefore be taken as an adjectival-noun for all offerings, since most of them are put upon the fire. Consequently the fats are not called ishei because of the fire, and the expression in the verse need not be inverted. — Ramban now proceeds to comment on the second point that Rashi made, namely that from the verse here we learn that the fat-portions were at the bottom at the time of waving. The explanation of this verse is that it constitutes a reason for that which He said [in the preceding verse], for they [the offerings] are given as thy due, and thy sons’ due, out of the offerings of the peace-offerings of the children of Israel.¹³³ [With reference to this] He now said, The thigh of heaving and the breast of waving shall they — that is, the children of Israel, mentioned [in the previous verse] — bring upon the fire-offerings of the fat, to wave it for a wave-offering before the Eternal, that they [i.e., the thigh and the breast] be hallowed before Him, and they shall be thine and thy sons’ with thee, as a due forever. For this is not the place of the command concerning the waving,¹³⁴ but incidentally¹³⁵ we learn that at the time of waving the fats were beneath the others.

footnotes: ¹³¹ Since the fats are burnt with fire they are called “the fats of the fire,” not “the fire of the fats.” This comment is found in Rashi’s text as quoted by Mizrachi and other commentators. It is not in our printed texts of Rashi. ¹³² Deuteronomy 18:1. — Ramban’s intent is as follows: Rashi had inverted the expression in the verse before us because since the fats are burned with fire, they are called “the fats of the fire,” and not “the fire-offerings of the fats” as the verse literally has it. But Ramban quotes the above-mentioned verse from Deuteronomy to show that the word ishei ¹³³ Verse 14. ¹³⁴ It is above, 7:30. See Ramban ibid. ¹³⁵ Rashi therefore should not have written, “From here we learn etc.,” as it is not from here that we learn it, since the law of waving is mentioned elsewhere; here it is mentioned only incidentally.

AND MOSES DILIGENTLY INQUIRED FOR THE GOAT OF THE SIN-OFFERING, AND BEHOLD, IT WAS BURNT. “This was the he-goat of the Additional Offerings of the New Moon.¹³⁶ Three he-goats for sin-offerings were offered up that day: [the people’s sin-offering brought especially on that day, as it is said], Take ye a he-goat for a sin-offering,¹³⁷ and the he-goat brought by Nachshon [in honor of the dedication of the altar],¹³⁸ and the he-goat for the New Moon.¹³⁶ Of all these, it was only the he-goat for the New Moon that was burnt [although ordinarily it would have been eaten by the priests]. The Sages of Israel differed regarding the reason why it was burnt. Some say that it was burnt on account of some impure object that touched it, and some say it was burnt on account of the mourning [of Aaron’s sons].” All this is the language of Rashi. It is in accordance with the opinion of those¹³⁹ who say that it was burnt on account of some impure object that touched it, that the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote on the verse, “*and if I had eaten of the sin-offering ‘today’*¹⁴⁰? Now it is on the word “today” that Rashi comments: “by day etc.” — by ‘day’ it was forbidden to eat thereof, but in the case of an onen⁸⁵ by law of the Torah is a mourner on the day of death of his relative whether before or after burial on that day. [On the night following he is an onen by law of the Rabbis. If burial has not taken place on the day of death he continues to be an onen by law of the Rabbis. When burial finally takes place he is an onen by law of the Rabbis even after burial, but at night he is no longer considered an onen at all.] An onen is to be distinguished from an avel who is a mourner for a period of seven or thirty days. The laws of mourning as affecting the Divine Service in the Tabernacle and its holy offerings relate to the priest when he is an onen. on the night [following the death and burial] it is permitted [to eat the offering], since the [Scriptural] law of the onen applies only to the day of burial.” Accordingly, if it was burnt on account of mourning, they should have [left it to be] eaten at night! We must perforce say that those Rabbis [who say that it was burnt on account of mourning] are of the opinion that the [Scriptural] law of an onen [forbidding him to eat an offering] applies even on the night following the burial! [Therefore Aaron’s defense of his sons’ action in burning the sin-offering was correct, since they could not have eaten of it even at night. But Rashi, who is of the opinion that an onen may eat the offering at night, must hold that the reason why they burnt it, was on account of some impure object which touched the offering, as a result of which it could never be eaten, and hence Aaron’s defense of them was completely correct.]

footnotes: ¹³⁶ Numbers 28:15. — The eighth day on which all the events described here, took place was the first of Nisan, the New Moon. ¹³⁷ Above, 9:3. ¹³⁸ Numbers 7:16. ¹³⁶ Numbers 28:15. — The eighth day on which all the events described here, took place was the first of Nisan, the New Moon. ¹³⁹ Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon (Zebachim 101 a). ¹⁴⁰ Verse 19. These are Aaron’s words to Moses in defense of his sons having burnt the sin-offering, saying, and if I had eaten the sin-offering today, would it have been pleasing in the sight of the Eternal ⁸⁵ An onen

AND AARON SPOKE UNTO MOSES: BEHOLD, THIS DAY HAVE THEY OFFERED. “What did Aaron mean to say by this? But [the explanation is]: Moses had said to them: ‘Perhaps you sprinkled the blood of [the sin-offering of the New Moon] whilst you were onenim,⁸⁵ by law of the Torah is a mourner on the day of death of his relative whether before or after burial on that day. [On the night following he is an onen by law of the Rabbis. If burial has not taken place on the day of death he continues to be an onen by law of the Rabbis. When burial finally takes place he is an onen by law of the Rabbis even after burial, but at night he is no longer considered an onen at all.] An onen is to be distinguished from an avel who is a mourner for a period of seven or thirty days. The laws of mourning as affecting the Divine Service in the Tabernacle and its holy offerings relate to the priest when he is an onen. and an onen who performs the Service invalidates [the offering, and therefore you burnt it]?’ To this Aaron replied [that Moses should not be angry with his sons]: ‘Did they bring the offerings [on that day] — they who are ordinary priests? It was I that offered — and I, as High Priest, am permitted to offer when an onen.’”¹⁴¹ [such as the people’s sin-offering brought on that particular day, and the sin-offering of Nachshon, prince of the tribe of Judah — see Numbers 7:16] and offerings that are obligatory for all generations [such as the sin-offering of the New Moon]. “If you [Moses] have been commanded that the occasional offerings be eaten by the priests even while they are onenim, you cannot apply this leniency in the case of offerings that are obligatory for all generations.” As Verse 20 states, Moses was well-pleased with this answer, and as explained by Rashi, he was not ashamed to admit his error. This is Rashi’s language. So too is it found in the Gemara [of Tractate Zebachim], in the Chapter *Tebul Yom:*¹⁴².” [Moses said to Aaron’s sons]: “But perhaps you offered it [while you were onenim]⁸⁵ by law of the Torah is a mourner on the day of death of his relative whether before or after burial on that day. [On the night following he is an onen by law of the Rabbis. If burial has not taken place on the day of death he continues to be an onen by law of the Rabbis. When burial finally takes place he is an onen by law of the Rabbis even after burial, but at night he is no longer considered an onen at all.] An onen is to be distinguished from an avel who is a mourner for a period of seven or thirty days. The laws of mourning as affecting the Divine Service in the Tabernacle and its holy offerings relate to the priest when he is an onen. and thus you invalidated it.” But I wonder! For all the offerings were brought before they became mourners, as it is written, and he Aaron] came down from offering the sin-offering, and the burnt-offering, and the peace-offerings,¹⁴³ and afterwards they entered the Tent of Meeting¹⁴⁴, Verse 23. and prayed, following which there came forth the fire [that consumed] the offerings¹⁴⁵, Verse 24. and only then did Nadab and Abihu offer up this incense!¹⁴⁶ [So how could Moses have thought that Elazar and Ithamar had performed the Service while they were mourners because of the death of their brothers, since their death occurred only after the performing of the Service!]¹⁴⁷ Perhaps Moses had not seen their acts, and was therefore afraid that they may have found the blood of this sin-offering [of the New Moon] which had not yet been sprinkled [upon the altar], and that they sprinkled it. So Aaron told Moses: “The sprinkling was to be done by me, and when it was [in fact] sprinkled, it was done by my hand and thus the offering did not become invalidated by mourning [since the High Priest may bring offerings even when an onen].”¹⁴⁸ But the whole discussion [between Moses and Aaron] was theoretical, for nothing at all was done while they were in a state of mourning [since all the offerings had in fact been brought before the death of Nadab and Abihu].

footnotes: ⁸⁵ An onen ¹⁴¹ The reason, Aaron continued, why the sin-offering was burnt, is because there is a difference between occasional ¹⁴² Literally: “One who [having incurred some impurity] immersed himself [in an immersion-pool] on that day,” but must wait for sunset to be perfectly pure. — In passing it may be noted that in the time of Ramban all texts of the Talmud were in manuscript form, and page numbers were unknown. A reference to any particular place in the Talmud had to be made on the basis of the name of the chapter. Hence Ramban’s expression here: “and so it is in the Gemara, in the Chapter Tebul Yom ⁸⁵ An onen ¹⁴³ Above, 9:22. ¹⁴⁴ Ibid. ¹⁴⁵ Ibid. ¹⁴⁶ Verse 1 in this chapter. ¹⁴⁷ The Tur answers Ramban’s question by pointing out that the verse in 9:23 speaks only of the particular offerings that were brought especially on that day, but mentions nothing of the sin-offering of the New Moon, obligatory for all generations. That offering had not yet been brought, and Moses therefore properly questioned them on it. ¹⁴⁸ And as to the reason why the offering was burnt, see above, Note 141.