Kommentar zu Wajikra 1:17

ושסע AND HE SHALL CLEAVE [IT] — The term שסע is used only for rending with the hands. Similarly it states in the story of Samson (Judges 14:6) “and he rent him (וישסעהו) as he would have rent a kid” (Zevachim 65b).

AND HE SHALL REND IT ‘BICHNAFAV’ — “together with its feathers. He need not pluck out the feathers of its plumage. Knafav means the actual feathers [not the wings].” This is the language of Rashi. But it is not correct, for if so, then Scripture does not mention from which place he is to rend [the bird], whether from its front or back. Rather, the meaning thereof is as follows: “he shall rend it at the place of its wings,” for the letter beth [in the word bichnafav] serves here as “the beth of apparatus,” [teaching that the rending is to be done from the back of the bird where “the wings” are, for knafav, as will be explained, means “its wings,” and not “its feathers” as Rashi explained]; similar to the expression, ba’aron, (in the ark), ba’bayith, (in the house), or ba’sadeh (in the field). Knafav does not mean “feathers” [as Rashi wrote], but is similar to all expressions of knafayim mentioned in Scripture [which mean wings]: every bird, whatever hath ‘kanaf’ (wings);¹⁸⁷Genesis 7:14. and he stretcheth ‘knafav’ (his wings) towards the south.¹⁸⁸Job 39:26. Similarly, ‘bichnaf’ (the skirt) of his robe.¹⁸⁹I Samuel 15:27. Literally: “the wing” of his skirt. Notzah is the down [the soft under-plumage] on the body of birds, something like that which is written, a great eagle with great wings and long pinions, full of ‘hanotzah’ (down).¹⁹⁰Ezekiel 17:3. Similarly we have learned [in the Mishnah]:¹⁹¹Taharoth 1:3. “Large feathers and down are both capable of contracting uncleanness and conveying uncleanness, and join together [with the flesh to make up the required size that is needed to convey uncleanness].” The Rabbis have also said:¹⁹²Sifra, Acharei 12:2. “excepting the beak and claws, the large feathers and the down.”

אשה ריח ניחוח לשם, a fire-offering whose fragrance is pleasing to G'd. Our sages in Menachot 110 comment that the fact that the Torah used this expression when describing the burnt-offering consisting of a four-legged animal, as well as when a bird-offering is being offered, as proof that G'd does not judge a person's offering by its monetary value but by the attitude it reflects. As long as the donor's motivation is G'd-oriented, both kinds of offerings are equally welcome in His eyes. The problem the sages wanted to overcome was that if the Torah had written the term אשה ריח ניחוח לשם only in connection with the bird-offering which is worth a few coins, it is obvious that a burnt-offering consisting of a four-legged animal should qualify for that description no less. Hence why did the Torah have to write the expression in connection with the offering of a four-legged animal? This is why they were careful to write: אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט, that there is no difference between the person who offers a valuable animal as a sacrifice and the one who offers something less valuable. We should not imagine that the fact that the Torah mentioned ריח ניחוח in connection with the bird-offering was just an act of graciousness on the part of G'd towards the poor, whereas the four-legged animal offered by the wealthy is dearer to Him. The Torah made the point that the bird-offering is not considered inferior for any reason at all by writing the otherwise unnecessary words ריח ניחוח לשם also in connection with the burnt-offering consisting of four-legged animals. This is why the Rabbi in the Talmud did not simply write הממעיט כמרבה, as this would not have conveyed his true meaning. It is a rule that when one says: "this is as good as that," that the "this" is inferior to the "that" seeing it is a derivative of it. The "this" to "that" relationship is akin to the student-teacher relationship. Even if the student has absorbed all of the teacher's knowledge, the teacher remains superior by dint of having taught the student what he knows. When the Rabbi phrased his comment: "one who does a lot is as one who does a little," he made sure the reader would not consider either of the two as superior or inferior to the second one. This consideration prompted the Torah to write the same wording once more in connection with the meal-offering in 2,2.

ושסע אותו בכנפיו, “he is to split it with its wings (feathers);” Rashi explains that the priest need not tear out the feathers from the wings, literally. Nachmanides writes that Rashi’s interpretation is not correct, for if it were, he did not give us an indication of where precisely the wings were to be torn off, whether at the front or at the back. Therefore, he claims that the correct interpretation of the words ושסע אותו is that the priest is to tear off the wings at the place where the feathers grow out of them. The word כנפים therefore is not another word describing the נוצה, the plume. The word means the same as every time we read about birds in the Torah when the Torah describes birds as צפור כנף, a winged bird, [one that is capable of flying. Ed.] The word נוצה describes the skin of the birds.

ושסע אותו בכנפיו , “he shall split it with its feathers.” The word בכנפיו, “with its feathers,” means that the priest does not have to pluck the feathers. The word בכנפיו means “literally with its feathers.” Although I could hardly have imagined something more revolting than to have to smell the feathers of burned wings, why then did the Torah legislate that the priest is to ‘bring near,’ i.e. to offer up such an evil-smelling offering? It was in order for the altar to be graced with the offering of a poor man and to make same look more substantial. [the bird offering was an accommodation to people who could not afford a more costly offering. Plucking the bird’s feathers would have made it look even less substantive. Ed.]

לא יבדיל, “he must not completely detach the wings;” the reason is that the bird is so small anyways; if he were to detach all of its parts, head and wings there would not be much left of it, if he were to offer it as a gift to a mortal king. Hence it is not appropriate to do so with a gift to the King of Kings.

בכנפיו means: he shall rend it together with its feathers he need not pluck out the feathers that form its plumage before doing so.

בכנפיו means actually the feathers (not the wings). But surely you will not find even a common sort of man who can smell the odour of burnt feathers without being disgusted with it! Why, then, does Scripture say that it shall be offered with the feathers? In order that the altar should appear full up, as it were, and adorned with the sacrifice of the poor (since the bird with its feathers makes a finer show than without them) (Leviticus Rabbah 3:5).

לא יבדיל BUT HE SHALL NOT SEPARATE IT — he must not break it entirely into two pieces, but only rends it from behind. — It is stated here of a bird-offering “a pleasing odour [to the Lord]” and it is stated (v. 13) of an animal-sacrifice “a pleasing odour [to the Lord]”, to tell you: whether one offers much or little it is equally pleasing to God provided that he directs his heart to Heaven (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 9 7; Menachot 110a).