'And Moshe queried concerning the goat sin-offering (Chattas), and behold it had been burned, and he became angry with Elazar and Isamar, the remaining sons of Aharon, saying: Why did you not eat the Chattas in the holy place...And Aharon responded to Moshe: Yes, they offered their sin offering and burnt offering before God, but in light of the event that occurred to me, how could I eat a Chattas today; would it be good in the eyes of God? And Moshe hearkened and accepted.' (Vayikra 10:16-20)

Rashi explains the above passage based on the interpretation of the Gemara in Zevachim and the Medrash Toras Kohanim: rather than consuming the Chattas of Rosh Chodesh, Aharon directed that it be burned to ashes, as he was an Onen (one who just lost a close relative), for his sons Nadav and Avihu had just perished, and an Onen may not consume korbonos (sacrifices). Moshe had opined that since the Kohanim were instructed to consume the Mincha (meal offering - ibid. v. 12) irrespective of their status of Onenim, they should have also eaten the Chattas of Rosh Chodesh. Aharon retorted that the Mincha was a one-time offering in honor of the inauguration of the Mishkan and the Kohanim, and its consumption by an Onen was therefore granted a dispensation; however, one cannot apply this dispensation to the Chattas of Rosh Chodesh, which was a regular korbon of a permanent nature. (See Medrash Rabbah, Medrash Hagadol and Targum Yonasan ben Uziel for modified versions of this interpretation.)

What was the exact point of dispute between Moshe and Aharon? Why did Moshe hold that the Chattas of Rosh Chodesh should have been likened to the special Mincha of that day and eaten by Aharon while he was an Onen, and why did Aharon contend that the two offerings were incomparable as regards an Onen?

On a technical level, Moshe viewed all of the korbonos of the day as part of the inauguration of the Mishkan and the Kohanim. Just like on Yom Kippur, when the regular, daily korbonos which are not essentially related to the Yom Kippur Avodah (service) become part of it, such that the Kohen Gadol must perform them and their sequence is subsumed under the banner of the day's special Avodah, Moshe similarly felt that the offerings which occurred simultaneously with the inauguration ceremony were to be viewed as part of it and governed by its rules. Thus, the Chattas of Rosh Chodesh was subject to the dispensation for an Onen that the day's special Mincha enjoyed.

Aharon disagreed with this approach and maintained that one could not view the Chattas of Rosh Chodesh as part of the inauguration Avodah, as its mere simultaneity with the inauguration did not serve to include it as an inaugural korbon.

On a deeper level, it would appear that Moshe and Aharon's disagreement hinged on the primary emphasis of the Avodas Ha-korbonos, the Sacrificial Service. We must keep in mind that Bnei Yisroel had just been granted atonement for the Chet Ha-egel, the Sin of the Golden Calf. The Mishkan served to precipitate this atonement, and the nation anxiously awaited the Shechinah, God's Presence, to fill the Mishkan, as a sign that God again considered the Jews worthy of His closeness. (See Rashi from Toras Kohanim on 9:23.) As such, the Mishkan became the primary expression of God's Presence in this world, and Moshe envisioned the korbonos as an eternal tribute to the Shechinah's manifestation in the Mishkan. Just as the Ramban explains that the Mishkan was an eternal continuance of Ma'amad Har Sinai - the Revelation at Sinai - so, too, did Moshe believe that the Mishkan's korbonos were a continuous commemoration of God's Presence resting in the Mishkan, as it were, and the original celebration of this occurrence. Therefore, the dispensation pertaining to an Onen that applied to the korbonos of the Mishkan's and Kohanim's inauguration, which was a period of immense and unbreakable joy, was logically applicable to all korbonos of that time, as the entire institution of korbonos was a tribute to the celebration of God's Presence resting in the Mishkan. In the midst of such an event, all signs of mourning were barred, as the overwhelming state of simcha and the very nature of the korbonos, which reflected the joy of encountering the Shechinah, were inconsistent with mourning.

Aharon viewed the Avodah through a somewhat different lens. His position was that the primary emphasis of the Avodah was the opportunity to serve God - period. The celebratory mood of the inauguration that dispensed wth the rules of Aninus (being an Onen) for the inauguration's special korbonos was unrelated to the Chattas of Rosh Chodesh, which was a permanent and fixed korbon. Although the rules of Aninus were suspended for the korbonos of the inauguration, as these korbonos were symbols of the experience of joy upon Hashra'as Ha-Shechinah (the manifestation of the Shechinah), there existed a whole different type of Avodah - the enduring, normative one - that was not affected by the inauguration and its mood. This Avodah was not primarily a response to Hashra'as Ha-Shechinah; rather, its thrust was an independent expression of commitment to Hashem, by which Man serves Him and gives of his bounty to God, not as a response to Hashem but as a unilateral act.

The positions of Moshe and Aharon as they relate to the korbonos are actually reflections of the roles of these great leaders. Moshe's role was that of revelation of the Shechinah, for it was Moshe who experienced God's Presence on Sinai, who talked with Hashem in a face-to-face fashion, who brought down the Luchos (Tablets) which overflowed with kedushah (holiness), who communicated Hashem's Word to His people, and whose face shone due to his encountering the Divine in a most intense manner. Moshe's entire essence was one of encountering and revealing the Shechinah, and he thus identified the primary basis of all korbonos as a reflection of this. Just as we read about the Avos and other personalities in the Torah bringing korbonos when they experienced the Shechinah, so did Moshe feel that the revelation of the Shechinah was the basis for all future korbonos.

On the other hand, the Medrash depicts Aharon as a pursuer of peace, such that he would approach conflicting parties and suggest that each one be the first to initiate gestures of peace. Initiating gestures of goodwill and giving were the hallmarks of Aharon's identity. And so it was when serving Hashem, did Aharon seek opportunities to initiate. Therefore, Aharon did not view the Avodah of the Mishkan as primarily the manner to mark Hashra'as Ha-Shechinah; rather, Avodah was yet another opportunity to serve God and give of one's self. Unless directed otherwise, korbonos were not a response to Hashra'as Ha-Shechinah; on the contrary, they were a system of initiating unilateral service of Hashem. (These two themes - Mishkan service reflecting God's Presence and the Mishkan serving as a locus for Avodah - are elaborated upon in the d'var Torah on Parshas Terumah; please see Archive.)

Although Moshe conceded to the rightfulness of Aharon's position in their debate, both Moshe and Aharon were correct as to the dual nature of korbonos. In that vein, we should be ever so cautious to sense God's Presence and appreciate it, while at the same time seeking to serve Hashem for His sake, not merely when something specific evokes His praise or service.