“And the Kohain shall burn the fats on the altar, and the breast shall be for Aharon and his sons” (Vayikra 7:31). Our sages, of blessed memory (Toras Kohanim, Tzav, 16:4) learn from here that the Kohanim do not get their portions from the offerings until after the fats have been placed on the altar to burn. After telling us that there are exceptions (if the innards are lost or become ritually impure, and can no longer be put on the altar), a reference is made to the sons of Eili, who demanded that they be given their portion even before the fats were burned (Sh’muel I 2:15). One of the issues discussed by the commentators (on Toras Kohanim) is why the exceptions are taught in between the law that the Kohain doesn’t get his portions until the fats are burned and what the sons of Eili did, since it was this law that they transgressed. But there are other, perhaps larger, issues to contend with.

For one thing, there are three transgressions that Eili’s sons are described as having committed; they took more meat than the Torah says belongs to the Kohanim (2:13:14), they took it before putting the fats on the altar (2:15), and they slept with the women who gathered at the entrance of the Temple’s sanctuary (2:22). Yet when the Talmud (Shabbos 55b) maintains that they didn’t really sin, only the third transgression is discussed. What about the first two? It can’t be that the Talmud only discussed the third one because of the gravity of that sin (which was similar to the “sins” of R’uvein and Dovid) compared to the other two, as the second sin, which amounted to theft, was similar to the “sin” of the sons of Sh’muel, which the Talmud also discusses (and mitigates). Why would the Talmud explain how the third accusation was not what it seemed (it was considered as if they slept with the women because they delayed their being able to return to their husbands, not that they actually slept with them) without even trying to explain the other two? Additionally, both Rashi and Tosfos point out that the Talmud is only discussing the third sin, but would agree that Eili’s sons belittled the sanctity of the offerings. How could they describe their sin as “belittling the offerings” if they also broke the law in the process by taking their portion (and more than their rightful portion at that) before burning the fats?

Korbon Aharon says that the mistake the sons of Eili made was thinking that since they can eat their portion when the fats can’t be burned (because they‘re missing or are ritually impure), they can also eat their portion before the fats were burned even when they’re still around and can (and will) be burned. This, he explains, is why Toras Kohanim interrupts the prohibition against doing so and the mention of Eili’s sons with the exceptions, as the exceptions led to their mistake. However, the Talmud often does not apply the same rabbinic prohibitions to Kohanim as it does (or would) for the general population based on Kohanim being much more knowledgeable and therefore not prone to making the same mistakes as others. If the sons of Eili could have made such a mistake, it is hard to imagine that Kohanim in later generations couldn’t make similar mistakes, and prohibitions to protect against such mistakes would have been applied to Kohanim as well.

Malbim makes a similar suggestion, saying that the exceptions prove that even if the Kohanim did eat their portion before burning the fats, the offering need not be brought again. However, even if this is true, doing so would still violate the law (making it more than just “belittling”), an issue that applies to Korbon Aharon’s approach as well.

Ezras Kohanim, in his second commentary on Toras Kohanim (“Tosfos Ha’Azarah”), suggests that Eili’s sons never took their portion before the fats were burned; they took their portion only when the fats couldn’t be burned, without telling anyone that this was the case. This seems like a stretch, though, for several reasons. First of all, the verse and Toras Kohanim strongly imply that there were still fats that could be burned when they took their portions. Secondly, if they normally didn’t take their portion until after the fats were burned, why would anyone suspect that the fats from their offering hadn’t already been put on the altar? And if everything was being done properly, why didn’t Eili’s sons explain why they hadn’t burned the fats? What did they have to gain by misleading anyone?

When Rashi explains the verse, he does not quote Toras Kohanim word for word, instead telling us that the prohibition is against eating the meat of the offering before the fats are burned, whereas Toras Kohanim just says it doesn’t belong to the Kohanim until after the fats are burned. (Ra’avad explains Toras Kohanim to mean eating as well.) The commentators explain why the Kohanim can’t eat their portion until the fats are burned; the meat they eat is supposed to come from “G-d’s table” (as it were) rather than from the person who brought the offering. This can only be said to be true if the parts that are offered to G-d have already been given to Him, i.e. putting them on the altar (as opposed to when nothing can be put on the altar, whereby the Kohanim eating it doesn’t indicate that it wasn’t from “G-d’s table”). Therefore, as long as Eili’s sons didn’t eat their portion before the fats were burned, there was no “sin.” Insisting that they be given the meat before the fats were burned may indicate gluttony, and belittle the sanctity of the offerings in the process, but it didn’t transgress the prohibition against eating their portion before the fats were offered.

We are told that “the law of the Kohanim with the nation” included the Kohain taking a three pronged pitchfork and stabbing the meat in the pot, taking whatever meats came up with it (2:13). Was this a real law? Obviously not, as the Kohain was only supposed to get certain cuts of meat, not whatever stuck to the pitchfork. What does it mean that it was this law was “with the nation”? Did “the nation” have a say in this “law”? If the Kohanim just made their own rules, why would it be called “with the nation”? (It obviously applied to them, but needn’t be described as such for us to know who was affected by the “law.” Saying it was “the law of the Kohanim with the nation” implies that they were part of the process of putting this law into place.) It would therefore seem that this was an agreement between the Kohanim and those who brought offerings, that the Kohanim would be allowed to take a pitchfork and keep whatever stuck to it. If it was an agreement between the two parties, the Kohanim taking more than the portion the Torah says belonged to them was no longer “theft,” and the Talmud would have no reason to have to explain this sin; the implication of the verse itself indicates that this meat wasn’t being stolen, but was part of a previously made arrangement. The question becomes why the nation agreed to such an arrangement.

Until now we’ve discussed when the Kohanim can eat their portion. What about the person who brings a “sh’lamim,” who gets some of the meat of the offering (and shares it with others)? Rambam (Hilchos P’sulay Ha’Mukdashin 18:7, see also Mishneh L’Melech, Hilchos Ma’asaeh Ha’Karbanos 11:4) tells us that he also can’t eat his portion of the meat until after the innards are put onto the altar. Which means that everyone who brought an offering (and the offerings discussed in Sh’muel were “sh’lamim”) had a vested interest in the sons of Eili burning the fats, as they couldn’t eat their meat until the fats were put onto the altar. Knowing this, Eili’s sons used their leverage to get more meat out of “the nation.” They delayed putting the fats on the altar, leaving those who brought the offerings wondering why. Weren’t the sons of Eili in the same predicament they were in, not being able to eat their meat until the fats were burned? As with every negotiation, there was a game of chicken to see who would blink first. Would the sons of Eili finally burn the fats so that they could eat their meat or would the nation agree to give the Kohanim more meat in exchange for burning the fats?

There was one more trick up their Priestly sleeves; in order to make the nation think that they wouldn’t burn the fats, they led them to believe that they didn’t think they had to. They couldn’t bluff them by saying they would break the law, but they could bluff them by making them think that they didn’t think they would be breaking the law. Whether the sons of Eili explicitly referenced the exceptions to mislead the nation into thinking they believed the meat could be eaten even before the fats were burned or the nation talked themselves into believing that’s what the sons of Eili thought is irrelevant; the point is that the exceptions played a part in the dynamic that led to the agreement, and the sons of Eili did nothing to correct the misperception that they would eat their meat before the fats were burned. [It’s possible that people saw the sons of Eili eating their portion from an offering whose fats had been lost or became defiled, but didn’t know that’s what had happened. When they were questioned about it, it gave them the idea to pretend they thought it didn’t matter to them whether the fats could still be brought, thereby creating the leverage they needed to get the nation to agree to give them more meat if they wanted them to burn the fats first.] Even after the arrangement had been set, the nation was concerned that the sons of Eili wouldn’t burn the fats (see 2:16), something that had to be maintained for the nation to continue to be willing to hand over more meat than was otherwise required. [The women waited by the entrance of the sanctuary because they were also concerned that the fats from their offering wouldn’t be burned, or wouldn’t be burned right away. Since they wouldn’t become ritually pure, and be able to return to their husbands, until the fats were on the altar, it caused them to delay their return home.]

Was this an abuse of power? Absolutely. Did it turn what should have been a holy experience into an exercise that seemed to focus on gluttony? Unfortunately, for many (especially for the sons of Eili), it did. Did the sons of Eili belittle the sanctity of the offerings by doing so? As Rashi and Tosfos point out, they most certainly did. But they did so while abusing the law, not breaking it. They never ate their portion before the fats were burned, and never took any meat that had not already been agreed upon. And since the misperception that they were willing to eat their portion before the fats were burned was based on the exceptions, Toras Kohanim taught us about the exceptions before referencing what they did.