Lev 10:16-20 | KD | STEP | After the directions occasioned by this judgment of God, Moses reminded Aaron and his sons of the general laws concerning the consumption of the priests’ portions of the sacrifices, and their relation to the existing circumstances: first of all ( , ), of the law relating to the eating of the meat-offering, which belonged to the priests after the azcarah had been lifted off ( ; ), and then ( , ) of that relating to the wave-breast and heave-leg ( ). By the minchah in we are to understand the meal and oil, which were offered with the burnt-offering of the nation ( and ); and by the אשּׁים in and , those portions of the burnt-offering, meat-offering, and peace-offering of the nation which were burned upon the altar ( , , and ). He then looked for “ the he-goat of the sin-offering, ” - i.e., the flesh of the goat which had been brought for a sin-offering ( ), and which was to have been eaten by the priests in the holy place along with the sin-offerings, whose blood was not taken into the sanctuary ( , ); - “ and, behold, it was burned ” (שׂרף, 3 perf . Pual ). Moses was angry at this, and reproved Eleazar and Ithamar, who had attended to the burning: “ Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin-offering in a holy place? ” he said; “ for it is most holy, and He ( Jehovah ) hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for it before Jehovah, ” as its blood had not been brought into the holy place (הוּבא construed as a passive with an accusative, as in , etc.). “ To bear the iniquity ” does not signify here, as in , to bear and atone for the sin in its consequences, but, as in , to take the sin of another upon one’s self, for the purpose of cancelling it, to make expiation for it. As, according to , the high priest was to appear before the Lord with the diadem upon his forehead, as the symbol of the holiness of his office, to cancel, as the mediator of the nation and by virtue of his official holiness, the sin which adhered to the holy gifts of the nation (see the note on this passage), so here it is stated with regard to the official eating of the most holy flesh of the sin-offering, which had been enjoined upon the priests, that they were thereby to bear the sin of the congregation, to make atonement for it. This effect or signification could only be ascribed to the eating, by its being regarded as an incorporation of the victim laden with sin, whereby the priests actually took away the sin by virtue of the holiness and sanctifying power belonging to their office, and not merely declared it removed, as Oehler explains the words ( Herzog's Cycl. x. p. 649). is decisive in opposition to the declaratory view, which does not embrace the meaning of the words, and is not applicable to the passage at all. “Incorporabant quasi peccatum populique reatum in se recipiebant” ( Deyling observv. ss. i. 45, 2).

‏ Leviticus 10:16-20

After the directions occasioned by this judgment of God, Moses reminded Aaron and his sons of the general laws concerning the consumption of the priests’ portions of the sacrifices, and their relation to the existing circumstances: first of all (Lev 10:12, Lev 10:13), of the law relating to the eating of the meat-offering, which belonged to the priests after the azcarah had been lifted off (Lev 2:3; Lev 6:9-11), and then (Lev 10:14, Lev 10:15) of that relating to the wave-breast and heave-leg (Lev 7:32-34). By the minchah in Lev 10:12 we are to understand the meal and oil, which were offered with the burnt-offering of the nation (Lev 9:4 and Lev 9:7); and by the אשּׁים in Lev 10:12 and Lev 10:15, those portions of the burnt-offering, meat-offering, and peace-offering of the nation which were burned upon the altar (Lev 9:13, Lev 9:17, and Lev 9:20). He then looked for “the he-goat of the sin-offering,” - i.e., the flesh of the goat which had been brought for a sin-offering (Lev 9:15), and which was to have been eaten by the priests in the holy place along with the sin-offerings, whose blood was not taken into the sanctuary (Lev 6:19, Lev 6:22); - “and, behold, it was burned” (שׂרף, 3 perf. Pual). Moses was angry at this, and reproved Eleazar and Ithamar, who had attended to the burning: “Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin-offering in a holy place?” he said; “for it is most holy, and He (Jehovah)hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for it before Jehovah,” as its blood had not been brought into the holy place (הוּבא construed as a passive with an accusative, as in Gen 4:18, etc.). “To bear the iniquity” does not signify here, as in Lev 5:1, to bear and atone for the sin in its consequences, but, as in Exo 28:38, to take the sin of another upon one’s self, for the purpose of cancelling it, to make expiation for it. As, according to Exo 28:38, the high priest was to appear before the Lord with the diadem upon his forehead, as the symbol of the holiness of his office, to cancel, as the mediator of the nation and by virtue of his official holiness, the sin which adhered to the holy gifts of the nation (see the note on this passage), so here it is stated with regard to the official eating of the most holy flesh of the sin-offering, which had been enjoined upon the priests, that they were thereby to bear the sin of the congregation, to make atonement for it. This effect or signification could only be ascribed to the eating, by its being regarded as an incorporation of the victim laden with sin, whereby the priests actually took away the sin by virtue of the holiness and sanctifying power belonging to their office, and not merely declared it removed, as Oehler explains the words (Herzog's Cycl. x. p. 649). Exo 28:38 is decisive in opposition to the declaratory view, which does not embrace the meaning of the words, and is not applicable to the passage at all. “Incorporabant quasi peccatum populique reatum in se recipiebant” (Deyling observv. ss. i. 45, 2). ^{▼▼C. a Lapide has given this correct interpretation of the passage: “ut scilicet cum hostiis populi pro peccato simul etiam populi peccata in vos quasi recipiatis, ut illa expietis.” There is no foundation for the objection offered by Oehler, that the actual removal of guilt and the atonement itself were effected by the offering of the blood. For it by no means follows from Lev 17:11, that the blood, as the soul of the sacrificial animal, covered or expiated the soul of the sinner, and that the removal and extinction of the sin had already taken place with the covering of the soul before the holy God, which involved the forgiveness of the sin and the reception of the sinner to mercy.} Lev 10:19-20

Aaron excused his sons, however, by saying, “Behold, this day have they offered their sin-offering and their burnt-offering, and this has happened to me,” i.e., the calamity recorded in Lev 10:1. has befallen me (קרא = קרה, as in Gen 42:4); “and if I had eaten the sin-offering to-day, would it have been well-pleasing to Jehovah?” וגו ואכלתּי is a conditional clause, as in Gen 33:13, cf. Ewald, §357. Moses rested satisfied with this answer. Aaron acknowledged that the flesh of the sin-offering ought to have been eaten by the priest in this instance (according to Lev 6:19), and simply adduced, as the reason why this had not been done, the calamity which had befallen his two eldest sons. And this might really be a sufficient reason, as regarded both himself and his remaining sons, why the eating of the sin-offering should be omitted. For the judgment in question was so solemn a warning, as to the sin which still adhered to them even after the presentation of their sin-offering, that they might properly feel “that they had not so strong and overpowering a holiness as was required for eating the general sin-offering” (M. Baumgarten). This is the correct view, though others find the reason in their grief at the death of their sons or brethren, which rendered it impossible to observe a joyous sacrificial meal. But this is not for a moment to be thought of, simply because the eating of the flesh of the sin-offering was not a joyous meal at all (see at Lev 6:19). ^{▼▼Upon this mistaken view of the excuse furnished by Aaron, Knobel has founded his assertion, that “this section did not emanate from the Elohist, because he could not have written in this way,” an assertion which falls to the ground when the words are correctly explained.}