Leviticus 10:16

And on this day three goats shall be offered; the goat for the beginning of the month, (or, new moon,) the goat of the people's sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering which Nachson bar Aminadab hath brought for the dedication of the altar. And Aharon and his sons went and burned those three. (But) Mosheh came and inquired for the goat of the people's sin offering; he sought it, but, behold, it had been burned, and he was angry with Elasar and Ithamar, the sons of Aharon who were left, and said,

burned a verb in the passive voice. Its form is similar to “scoured” and “boiled” [6:21].

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. 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, and the he-goat brought by Nachshon [in honor of the dedication of the altar], and the he-goat for the New Moon. 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 those 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’? 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 onen 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.]

ואת שעיר החטאת, our sages interpret this animal as being the one offered on the new moon for all future generations. (Zevachim 9) The male goat offered by Nachshon and that on behalf of the congregation had to be eaten by the priests. [The death of Nadav and Avihu had occurred on the first day of Nissan of the second year. Ed.]

ואת שעיר החטאת, the very he-goat which will be a permanent fixture, i.e. the one to be offered on the new moon, as long as there would be a Temple.

ואת שעיר החטאת דרש, “and he (Moses) demanded an accounting about what had been done with the he-goat that was a sin offering;” When commenting on Leviticus 9,11, Rashi points out that we never find that a sin-offering slaughtered on the copper altar was burned up except the one discussed in that verse, and the bullock serving as sin offering during the consecration rites for the High Priest. In both those instances there had to be a special commandment from Hashem to do so. [Normally parts of these sin offerings were consumed by the priests. Ed.] This is in contrast to sin offerings offered on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary, no parts of which were ever eaten. This raises the problem with Rashi’s commentary on Numbers 8,8, where the bullock serving as sin offering when the Levites were appointed in lieu of the firstborns is discussed. [The text describes that offering as a sin offering, whereas Rashi calls it עולה, burnt offering, i.e. none of it is to be eaten. This offering was slaughtered on the copper altar on the courtyard of the Tabernacle. The function of this animal is first not described at all, whereas the Torah then proceeds to describe a second bullock to be offered on that occasion as a sin-offering. The reader will understand Rashi’s difficulty when he looks up the verse in question. Ed.] We must therefore assume that what Rashi had meant to say is that we do not find more than these two sin offerings which had been slaughtered on the copper altar as having been burned up including their skins outside sacred grounds. Our author finds additional problems involving the definitions of some offerings, none of which he was able to offer a solution to.