Lévitique 10:19

And Aharon said to Mosheh, Behold, this day the sons of Israel have brought the oblation of their sin offering and their burnt sacrifice before the Lord; but a stroke hath befallen me, in those my two sons. Of the second tythe is it not commanded, Thou shalt not eat of it while mourning? How much more, then of the sin offering? If I had eaten of the sin offering this day with my two sons who are left, would it not have been all error, so that they too might have been burned by a judgment, for doing that which was not pleasing before the Lord?

Many grammarians have said that the interrogatory heh doubles the consonant that follows it only when the consonant is pronounced with a voiced schwa, but not with any of the seven other vowels. In such a case the heh is pronounced with a pattaḥ because the language will not permit two voiced semi-vowels to follow one another. Because the yod in would it have pleased [Hebrew: hayyiṭav] is doubled, they say that the heh must be the sign of the definite article, as in “the one that came back with Naomi” [Ruth 2:6], “the ones that are present here” [I Chronicles 29:17], and “the city that was strong” [Ezekiel 26:17]. There the heh acts as a relative pronoun, and they say the same is true here with hayyiṭav . They also say that the verb if I were to eat is really in the simple past tense — if it were in the subjunctive, it would be stressed on the final syllable (compare, “I have spoken by the prophets” [Hosea 12:11] and “I shall speak to you” [Exodus 25:22]) — and that Aaron refers to their (his burnt sons’) sin-offering and their burnt-offering because the calf and the ram were for Aaron and his sons.

When these befell me the implied subject is the concern or the anguish over the death of the sons. Because of this, I was unable to eat all of the sin-offering. I only ate “that which was pleasing [Hebrew: hayyiṭav] to God” — meaning, the minimum that would relieve me of my obligation. Those Exegetes who maintain that the heh in hayyiṭav is interrogatory perforce imply that the word is irregular. The same is also true of the explanation which I mentioned above, since in all of Scripture we do not find the heh of the definite article used as a relative pronoun in conjunction with a verb in the future tense. If the former Exegetes are correct, then we must translate if I were to eat — using the future tense as the subjunctive. We do find such words in the future tense accented on the penultimate syllable (e.g., “lest I be poor, and steal” [Proverbs 30:9]). In such a case, Aaron’s meaning would be: I was a mourner who had not yet buried his dead; and a mourner who has not yet buried his dead may not eat from the sin-offering (compare to, “I have not eaten of it in my mourning” [Deuteronomy 26:14]).

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, 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.’” [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:.” [Moses said to Aaron’s sons]: “But perhaps you offered it [while you were onenim] 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 …

הן היום הקריבו את חטאתם ואת עולתם, the reference is to the burnt offering and sin offering of Aaron and his sons concerning which the instructions had been issued in 9,2. Aaron’s sons had assisted him in the transfer of the blood from the place where the slaughtering took place to the altar. This too, has been mentioned in 9,9. This is why Aaron remonstrated with Moses. asking why he was angry at his sons seeing that both he and his sons had offered the mandatory offerings of their consecration rites. Seeing that while engaged in such a holy pursuit fate had dealt him such a blow, how could he be expected to eat, i.e. enjoy, other sacred meats of a permanent character, not part of his inaugural rites. His enjoyment of this day had already been spoiled! The thought is echoed in Gittin 36 עלובה כלה שזינתה בקרב החופה, “a bride who committed adultery while still next to her wedding canopy has indeed been humbled.”

הן היום הקריבו, a construction similar to Jeremiah 3,1 הן ישלח איש את אשתו, “if a man divorces his wife, etc.” Or, Chagai 2,12 הן ישא איש בשר קודש, “if a man is carrying sacrificial flesh…and his garment touches bread, will the latter become holy?” Aaron’s reasoning goes as follows: “if the subject matter had merely been that these sons of mine had offered mandatory sin offerings, and burnt offerings which were of a voluntary category, even though they would not constitute mandatory public offerings in the future, and we had consumed the meat of these sacrifices today being in the state of aninut pre-mourning, that we are in,

would this have been pleasing to the Lord?” Is it not an ironclad rule that the eating of sacrificial meat deliberately while in such a “hybrid” ritual state will not advance the atonement sought for? In Deuteronomy 26,14 we learn that it is forbidden to consume such sacrificial meat of offerings of the second degree of sanctity, קדשים קלים. Aaron argues that notwithstanding the fact that he was ordered to consume the remains of the minchah offering which was only a one time offering, such a rule did not apply to sacrifices which are part of the regular Temple service.