Avrohom As Kohan Gadol And Sacrifices Of An Onan

The Yalkut Shimoni (remez 101) says אמר יצחק לאביו אבא קשור שתי ידי ושתי רגלי שלא אבעט אותך ונמצאתי מחלל מצות כבד ועשה כן וככהן גדול הגיש את מנחתו ואת נסכו והקב"ה רואה את האב מעקיד בכל לב והבן נעקד בכל לב ומלאכי השרת צועקים ובוכים שנאמר הן אראלם וגו.  The Zais Ra'anan says the Yalkut had to say that Avrohom had the status of a Kohan Gadol for otherwise how would he be able to sacrifice Yitzchak, as he is slaughtering him he would become an אונן and that would defile the avodah as it says in Zevachim (16a.)  Therefore, the Yalkut says Avrohom has the status of a Kohan Gadol that can offer sacrifices even as an אונן.  It is noteworthy that the Gemorah there is unsure if an  אונן can sacrifice on a במה so it would be possible to say that even if he isn't a Kohan Gadol, Avrohom may still be able to do the avodoh for he was sacrificing on a במה as there was no Mikdash.  However, the source of this Yalkut is the Pirkey D'Rebbe Eliezer Ch. 31.  Two weeks ago this blog discussed if the sacrifices of Noach were considered that of a במה or that of the Mikdash. It is clear from the Gemorah Zevachim (115b) that has a derash of ויבן נח מזבח לה' ויקח מכל הבהמה הטהורה ומכל עוף הטהור בהמה כמשמעו חיה בכלל בהמה that Noach was allowed to offer even חיות even though they can't be offered  in the Mikdash.  That is because the Gemotah understands the sacrifice of Noach was considered to be a במה offering as mentioned in the previous post.  However, the Pirkey D'Rebbe Eliezer Ch. 23 assumes that Noach only sacrificed animals that are allowed to be brought in the Mikdash (see Radal.)  Presumably that is because he holds that the sacrifices of Noach were offered in the place of the Mikdash and hence had the status of Mikdash offerings.  Therefore, לשיטתו we can't say the offering of Avrohom (in the same spot,) had the status of a במה offering.

The Mikor Baruch siman 5 takes issue with the Zais Ra'anan that his point should be dependent upon the machlokes Rashi and Tosfos in Yoma (13b) if Rebbe Yosi allows one who became an אונן in the middle of the avodah to complete the avodah.  According to Rashi that learns the Geomrah is refering to a regular Kohan, once you started at a valid time, you finish the job.  If that's the case, Avrohom would become an אונן only after doing the shechitah, and hence would be allowed to finish the job, so we don't have to say he is a Kohan Gadol?

The din of Rashi itself needs to be explained for the Gevuros Ari asks why is becoming an אונן midway different from becoming a בעל מום where he can't finish the job (Zevachim 15a?)  Furthermore, according to Rebbe Yishmoel the whole source that an אונן invalidates the avodah is learnt out from a בעל מום, so how can the din be different?

What we see is that Rashi understood the disqualification of an אונן is distinct from that of a בעל מום.  The Gemorah (16b) says אונן: מנלן דכתיב (ויקרא כא, יב) ומן המקדש לא יצא ולא יחלל הא אחר שלא יצא חילל רבי אלעזר אמר מהכא (ויקרא י, יט) הן הקריבו אני הקרבתי מכלל דאי אינהו אקריב שפיר אישתרוף.  From here we learn out that an אונן disqualifies the avodah.  We see from here the גדר of why a kohan gadol serves is because he is tied to the mikdash.  He is not allowed to leave the mikdash even in his state of אנינות.  The Rambam writes in Beas Mikdash (2:5) כֹּהֵן שֶׁיָּצָא מִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בִּשְׁעַת הָעֲבוֹדָה בִּלְבַד חַיָּב מִיתָה בֵּין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בֵּין כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא י ז) "וּמִפֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא תֵצְאוּ פֶּן תָּמֻתוּ."  This din not to leave the mikdash has an application regarding a regular kohan when he is doing the avodah.  Hence, it's quite understandable that in the middle of avodah a kohan doesn't have to stop for vis-a-vis this avodah he has the same status as a kohan gadol.  A בעל מום must interrupt his avodah for he will always create a pesul.  However, the kohan mid avodah is so to speak promoted to kohan gadol status where he continues to finish what he is doing.

The Gemorah in Moad Katan (14b) says והא כה"ג דכל השנה כרגל לכולי עלמא דמי דתנן כהן גדול מקריב אונן.    Rashi explains the Gemorah (ibid) דתנן כ"ג מקריב אונן מדאמר לו אהרן למשה ואכלתי חטאת היום (ויקרא י׳:י״ט) ולא אמר למשה והקרבתי מכלל דהקרבה באנינות ולמדנו דכ"ג מקריב אונן אבל כולי עלמא בשאר ימות השנה אונן אינו משלח קרבנותיו כדאמרינן לקמן (מועד קטן דף טו:) שלמים בזמן שהוא שלם ולא בזמן שהוא אונן וברגל משלח וכהן גדול אונן מקריב כל השנה אלמא כל השנה לדידיה כרגל דמי.  Why does Rashi contrast that other kohanim can't send their korbanot when their in אנינות and not the fact that they can't offer their korbanot?  The Minchas Chinuch (264:29) proves because that even on a regel a kohan can't offer a korban for אנינות applies on the regel as well.  The heter for the kohan gadol to serve in אנינות isn't because he is considered in the midst of the regel, rather because the Torah allows him to serve.  The manner in which see he is considered to be in the regel is since he is allowed to send a korban to the mikdash in אנינות.  Hence, Rashi explains the distinction regarding sending korbanot.  What is the difference between sending in or offering the korban? According to the above explanation the kohan gadol can serve because of his connection to the mikdash, its only regarding sending in a korban that his heter is because he is considered to be in the regel. [However, even according to the Minchas Chinuch the Rashi is difficult because its פתח בכד וסיים בחבית, he starts with talking about offering the sacrifice and then switches to sending the sacrifices.] (See Radal, Rogatchover, Avi Ezri, Chabatzoles Hasaron, Masseh Yad.)
A nice addition from the Mishmar Halevi: