Kommentar zu Wajikra 7:40

קדש קדשים הוא [THIS THE LAW OF THE GUILT OFFERING] IT IS MOST HOLY — “It is most holy”; it may be offered, but an animal that is exchanged for it (cf. Leviticus 27:34) may not be offered (Sifra, Tzav, Section 5 2).

But its exchange is not. Meaning: The exchanged animal itself is not sacrificed, nevertheless, it becomes holy and does not go out to become non-sacred. It is left to graze until it develops a blemish. Then, it is sold and its value is used to buy a voluntary offering.

שחטו THEY SHALL SLAUGHTER — By using the plural ישחטו Scripture speaks of “several slaughterers” in connection with the עולה ‎‎‎‎(ישחטו את עולה)‎ ” in order to include also the communal burnt-offering under the law that an עולה must be slaughtered on the north side of the altar. — Since we do not find a guilt-offering in the case of the whole community, the term ישחטו in the plural is used here (ישחטו את האשם) because Scripture brings it in connection with the עולה (i. e. since the plural is used of the עולה it balances it by the same expression in the next phrase) (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Section 5 3).

ואת ‎'כל חלבו וגו‎ [HE SHALL OFFER OF IT] ALL THE FAT etc. — So far the fat portions of the guilt offering that have to be offered have not yet been mentioned as having to be burnt (though the אשם itself has already been dealt with in Leviticus 5:15), Scripture therefore was compelled expressly to specify them here. So far, however, as the sin-offering is concerned, it (the burning of their fat) has already been mentioned in the Sedrah ויקרא (Leviticus ch. 4), therefore it was unnecessary to mention it in 6:18—23.

Ram or lamb. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written: “If he is bringing a lamb...” or “If he is bringing a goat...” [as it does regarding peace-offerings (3:7-12)]?

את האליה THE FAT TAIL — Because only a ram or a lamb can be offered as a guilt-offering and the altar’s share in the case of a ram and lamb has been augmented by the fat tail (cf. Leviticus 3:9), therefore it is here naturally mentioned as having to be burnt.

אשם הוא IT IS A GUILT OFFERING — it remains (הוא) a guilt offering until its appelation is removed from it. This teaches regarding a guilt-offering the owner of which has died, or the owner of which has been atoned for by another sacrifice, (e.g. if that originally destined for that purpose was lost and afterwards found), — that although its value (i. e. the animal bought from the proceeds of its sale) is destined to become a burnt-offering for the unemployed altar (lit., for the altar's summer time when there were not sufficient obligatory sacrifices for the altar), yet if one slaughtered it without a special designation) before it was condemned to pasture) it is not fit to become a burnt offering. — Scripture does not, by these words, intend to intimate concerning a guilt-offering that it becomes invalid if slaughtered not as such (but as some sacrifice other than a guilt offering — שלא לשמו) i. e., in the same sense as they (the Rabbis) explained the word הוא that is stated of a חטאת (Leviticus 4:24; cf. Rashi thereon), because in the case of אשם the limiting words אשם הוא are used only after mention of the burning of the fat pieces (not as in the case of חטאת, where חטאת הוא is stated after the command of slaughtering) and could therefore at most be taken as limitating the act of הקטרה in the sense that if this has been done שלא לשמה the sacrifice is invalid; this, however, is not a fact because הקטרה is not essential, and it itself (the אשם), even though the fat pieces have not been burnt at all, is nevertheless valid (Zevachim 5b; Menachot 4a).

אשם הוא, it is a guilt-offering. Rabbi Eliezer and the other rabbis disagree in Torat Kohanim whether the extraneous word הוא is intended to teach that if this offering was not slaughtered on the northern side of the altar that it is invalidated. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the word הוא means that if the guilt-offering was slaughtered while the priest entertained the wrong thoughts i.e. assumed that the animal in question was a different kind of offering, it is invalid. According to his reasoning, the words אשם הוא emphasise the need for the guilt-offering mentioned in verse 1 of our chapter to have been slaughtered for that purpose in order to be acceptable. We find in Zevachim 10 that Rabbi Yehoshua challenged Rabbi Eliezer's exegesis and that thereupon Rabbi Eliezer retracted and derived his ruling that the אשם must be slaughtered as such in order to be valid from the words כחטאת כאשם in verse 7 of our chapter. Considering this, we must ask what Rabbi Eliezer learns from the extraneous word הוא? Perhaps if the word הוא had not been written here I would have made the comparison made in Zevachim 11 between the guilt-offering and the sin-offering described in verse 7 as not applying to the need to perform סמיכה on the guilt-offering just as on the sin-offering, but I would have applied it to the need to slaughter either offering with the right intent in order for it to be acceptable. In order to prevent us from making such an error, the Torah wrote the word הוא next to the word אשם to inform us that this word tells us something about the אשם itself. The Torah wrote the words כחטאת כאשם in verse 7 in order to tell us that both these offerings require סמיכה as something mandatory. The other rabbis, the ones who disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer who used the word הוא to invalidate the guilt-offering unless it had been slaughtered on the northern side of the altar, understand that word to refer back to verse 2 where the principle of slaughtering the guilt-offering in the same place as the burnt-offering has first been mentioned. Repeating this by means of the word הוא indicates that the requirement is mandatory. Although one could challenge these rabbis with similar queries as the ones used by Rabbi Yehoshua to get Rabbi Eliezer to retract, the fact that they did not arrive at a new הלכה by dint of a סברה, a process of reasoning, but applied a rule applicable to other sacrifices also to the guilt-offering by their methodology, it is absolutely acceptable that the word הוא was intended by the Torah to make the site of the slaughtering mandatory. This is all the more so since in the case of the burnt-offering the Torah had spelled this law out in so many words. The contribution of those rabbis is that if we had only had verse 1 in our chapter, I would have reasoned that while it is a desired requirement, failure to slaughter the guilt-offering on the northern side of the altar would not have invalidated it.

Whose owners have died. That is, [the owners died] before they brought the guilt-offering, so it no longer needs to be offered since death atones.

אשם הוא, “it is an guilt offering.” according to Rashi, these two, at first glance superfluous words, seeing that the subject in this paragraph is the guilt offering, teach something about the guilt offering about a person who died before he had a chance to present this offering; alternately, it speaks of a guilt offering whose owner had attained atonement for his guilt before it was offered up through another means. For instance: normally, if the original animal had been sanctified and been lost before the priest appointed by its owner could slaughter it, so that he had substituted another animal for the lost one and performed all the ritual with it, the Torah teaches what is to be done with such an animal when it was found. Normally, the rules for disposition of such an animal are that it is to be offered as sacrifice on the altar when the altar “has summer vacation,” i.e. is not very busy with offerings that are mandatory for people to present. If such an animal had been entrusted to a shepherd to graze, in order to keep it alive until needed, and it was slaughtered without any specific designation, it is fit to be offered as a burnt offering. According to Rashi (in the Talmud Sukkah folio 56a the expression “summer vacation,” is to be understood as something similar to “dessert;” it is consumed in order to tickle one’s palate, not to still one’s hunger.

Have been atoned for. For instance, he separated a guilt-offering and it was lost, and he brought another guilt-offering. Afterwards, the first guilt-offering was found. If so, the owners have already received atonement. This guiltoffering needs to graze until it becomes blemished; they then sell it and buy a burnt-offering with its value. Rashi is explaining specifically that even though its value is destined to be used for the קיץ מזבח (when there were not enough sacrifices donated to keep the altar fully in use, the deficit was made up by Temple-funded sacrifices. This money is used to buy sacrifices for the “summertime altar”), if they slaughtered it without any designation it is not valid for a burnt offering before it is removed for pasture. Once it was removed for pasture, however, if it was slaughtered without any designation, it is valid. This is because it is written, “it is a guilt-offering,” implying: But not a burnt-offering. However, it is obvious that it is a guilt-offering and not a burnt-offering! Rather, this implies that sometimes it can be a burnt-offering. For instance: if it was removed for pasture and they slaughtered it without designation, it will be valid as a burnt-offering.

Even though [its fats] have not been burnt. I.e., since the guilt-offering is valid even if the fats were not burnt, it is no longer applicable to say that a guilt-offering brought for its own sake is valid but if not for its own sake is invalid. Because if you were to say this, the guilt-offering would have to have the fats burnt for its own sake, since “it is a guilt-offering” is written after the burning of the fats. [But this is not so,] for if the fats were not burnt it would still be valid, since atonement is only accomplished by the blood.

קדש קרשים הוא IT IS MOST HOLY — In Torath Cohanim these words which appear to be a mere repetition of those in v. 1, are expounded (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 9 10).

כל זכר, “every male (priest).” This is meant to include priests, who because of a physical blemish, are not allowed to perform service in the Temple.

קדש קדשים הוא, “is it;” (the offering) this excludes such offerings as the ram brought by the Nazarene at the end of his term of abstentions, and the mandatory thanksgiving offerings, known as תודה, whose status is not “the most holy.”

הוא, “it is most holy.” This expression is meant to include communal offerings that may not be eaten except by male members of the priesthood.

תורה אחת להם [AS THE SIN OFFERING IS SO IS THE GUILT OFFERING:] THERE IS ONE LAW FOR THEM in this (the following) respect:

there is a common denominator between the chatat and the asham sacrifice. While the former atones for inadvertently committed sins for which the karet penalty would be in place if the sin had been committed deliberately, the asham, although not atoning for this kind of sin, does have a similar place in the pyramid of offerings, seeing the sin it atones for involves careless behaviour vis a vis matters that are holy, something that one needs to be more than usually careful about. Symbolically speaking, i.e. as to their “Torah,” they have much in common, תורה אחת.

The one who is fit to [accomplish] atonement. Meaning: The phrase “One law applies to them both” is connected to the phrase following, “the kohein who will bring about atonement ...” for if it meant to equate the sinoffering and guilt-offering [this cannot be,] since it is already written: “As the sin-offering is, so is the guilt-offering,” in which they are equated.

that הכהן אשר יכפר בו THE PRIEST WHO MAKETH EXPIATION THEREWITH — i.e., who is fitted to effect expiation, shall have a share in it, thus excluding an unclean person who has bathed on a particular day but is awaiting sunset to be perfectly clean, one who lacks atonement (an unclean person who has bathed but has to await the next day to bring the sacrifice requisite for his complete restoration to cleanness), and one who is in the state of mourning during the period between the death and the burial of a near relative (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 9 1).

Excluding a טבול יום (one who has entered a mikveh, but who has to wait for sunset to become ritually pure). Meaning: the sunset has not yet come.

עור העלה אשר הקריב לכהן לו יהיה [AND THE PRIEST THAT OFFERETH ANY MAN’S BURNT OFFERING] EVEN THE PRIEST SHALL HAVE TO HIMSELF THE SKIN OF THE BURNT OFFERING WHICH HE HATH OFFERED — thus excluding the טבול יום, the מחוסר כפורים and the אונן (cf. Rashi on v. 7) — that these have no share in the skins of burnt offerings (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 9 5; Zevachim 103b).

AND THE PRIEST THAT OFFERETH ANY MAN’S BURNT-OFFERING, EVEN THE PRIEST SHALL HAVE TO HIMSELF THE SKIN OF THE BURNT-OFFERING. This law applies to all offerings, and although Scripture mentions only the burnt-offering, it holds good of the sin-offering and guilt-offering mentioned above.⁷⁴Above, Verse 1 (the guilt-offering) and 6:18 (the sin-offering). Such is not the case, however, in reference to the peace-offerings [the skin of which belongs to the owner]; therefore Scripture mentioned the law of the priests’ due in the middle of the offerings, before it speaks of the peace-offerings [further on in Verses 11-21].
The interpretation of the Rabbis as found in the Torath Kohanim is as follows:⁷⁵Torath Kohanim, Tzav 9:2. “[From the verse here] I know only that the skin of the burnt-offering [belongs to the priest]. Whence do I know that the same law applies to the skins of [the other] most holy offerings? Scripture therefore says, that offereth. Or perhaps I might think that I am to include [also] the skins of the offerings which are holy to a lesser degree [such as the peace-offering etc.]; Scripture therefore says, burnt-offering, thus teaching that just as the burnt-offering is distinguished by being of the most holy degree of offerings, [so also this law holds good of all most holy offerings], thus excluding those which are holy in a minor degree.”
By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, it was not necessary to state this law [that the skin of the animal belongs to the priest] in connection with the sin-offering and guilt-offering, since they are part of the gifts given to the priests,⁷⁶Numbers 18:9. and the priests thus are entitled to the meat and also the skin, but in the case of the burnt-offering [where the priests do not receive any of the meat, since it is wholly burnt on the altar], it was necessary for Scripture to say that they do acquire the skin. This is the interpretation of Rabbi [Yehuda Hanasi] who says,⁷⁷Zebachim 103 b. “Essentially we need this verse only for the skin of the burnt-offering [to teach that it belongs to the priest], since the skin always follows the meat”⁷⁸“The bullocks which are burnt and the he-goats which are burnt [outside the camp], their skins are burnt with them, as it is said, and they shall burn in fire their skins, and their flesh (further, 16:27) (Torath Kohanim, Tzav 9:5). Hence the Torah had to explain that the burnt-offering is different; but in the case of the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, it was not necessary to mention that the skin belongs to the priest, for since he acquired the right to the meat, the skin naturally came with it. [and here Scripture tells us that it is not to be burnt with the meat]. So also is it explained in the Torath Kohanim.⁷⁸“The bullocks which are burnt and the he-goats which are burnt [outside the camp], their skins are burnt with them, as it is said, and they shall burn in fire their skins, and their flesh (further, 16:27) (Torath Kohanim, Tzav 9:5). Hence the Torah had to explain that the burnt-offering is different; but in the case of the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, it was not necessary to mention that the skin belongs to the priest, for since he acquired the right to the meat, the skin naturally came with it.

עור העולה אשר הקריב, לכהן לו יהיה, “the skin of the burnt offering which he presented shall belong to the priest who performed this procedure.” Although this legislation is spelled out only in connection with the burnt offering, the same rule applies to the skins of sin-offerings or guilt-offerings. However, the skin of peace-offerings,זבחי שלמים, belong to the respective owners of the sacrificial animals, not to the priest. Some sages claim that there had been no need for the Torah to spell out that the skins of sin and guilt offerings also belong to the officiating priest, seeing that even a substantial part of the meat of these offerings belongs to the priests. It is natural that the skin, something secondary, always belongs to the party to whom the flesh belongs. Seeing that no meat of the burnt offering belongs to the priest, the Torah had to specifically state that at least the skin does belong to the officiating priest.

והכהן המקריב את עולת איש, “and the Priest who offers a person’s burnt-offering, etc.” the word: “the Priest” does not apply exclusively to one individual Priest, suggesting that his colleagues on duty on that day do not have a share in that hide. The word has to be understood in the same vein as the word המחטא in 6,19 where we already explained that the Priest in question is not the only one eating of that sacrifice. The words הכהן המקריב apply to any Priest who is in a fit state to perform the service at that time, i.e. the Priests of that roster. [There were a total of 24 rosters of Priests who performed the Temple Service in rotation. Ed.] Anyone of that roster who was ritually impure at the time was excluded from participating even in receiving part of the hide. The reason that the Torah adds the words אשר הקריב, “which he had offered,” words which appear superfluous, is that the entitlement to the hide does not begin until after the procedures of offering the animal have been completed, not at the time when the hide was removed from the carcass. If, for argument’s sake, it was discovered after the animal in question was slaughtered that it was diseased and not fit for burning up on the altar, the Priest has no claim to the hide. The same holds true if other errors occurred in the procedure such as the blood being spilled, etc. (compare Zevachim 103).
Our sages say that all the animals underwent a physical examination prior to being slaughtered in order to minimize the chance of blemishes being found later. Even minor blemishes in the eye of animal were minutely examined at that time [to determine if this was a temporary or permanent blemish. Ed.] This is alluded to in the words “which he had offered,” meaning that after the examination the Priest had thought himself as entitled to that hide (Compare Maimonides’ comments on Erchin 2,5).

A מחוסר כפורים. Meaning: Sometimes there is an impure person [that has entered the mikveh] who needs to bring a sacrifice the next day.

והכהן המקריב, “and the priest who offers, etc.” The singular mode used here for “the priest,” is misleading, as it includes all the priests belonging to this particular watch, i.e.doing service on that day. All of them are described by the Torah as כהן. (Karney Or)

Who do not share. Excluding a טבול יום. Even though Scripture excluded them from a share in the meat, as stated above (v. 7), I might think that specifically with regard to the meat, which is eaten, and these kohanim are not fit to eat now — therefore, Scripture excludes them. Regarding the skins, however, since they are not fit to be eaten, I might think that although these kohanim are not fit for performing service, nonetheless they share in the skins. Therefore, it lets us know ... [that since they are not fit for performing service or eating,] they are excluded from sharing in the skins.

לכהן המקריב אתה וגו'‏‎‎‏‎‎ [AND EVERY MEAL OFFERING …] SHALL BE THE PRIEST’S THAT OFFERETH IT etc. — One might think it shall be his exclusively! Scripture, however, states (v. 10) לכל בני אהרן תהיה IT SHALL BELONG TO ALL THE SONS OF AARON; — one might think then, that it shall belong to all of them, which is, however, impossible, for Scripture states “[it shall be] the priest’s (that offereth it”! How then can these apparently contradictory passages be reconciled? By referring the text to the “family”) officiating on that day on which it (the מנחה) is offered (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 10 2).

AND EVERY MEAL-OFFERING THAT IS BAKED IN THE OVEN, [AND EVERYTHING MADE IN THE BOILING POT, AND IN THE PAN, SHALL BE THE PRIESTS THAT OFFERETH IT]. The simple explanation of this verse is apparent, namely that He is commanding here that if one vows to bring one of the three kinds of meal-offering — the one baked in the oven, or made in the boiling pot, or in the pan — that they should all be given exclusively to the priest who offered them. Then He states concerning all the other meal-offerings, — such as if a person vowed to bring a meal-offering without specification of which kind, in which case he brings it of fine flour, and the meal-offering of first-fruits,⁷⁹Above, 2:14-16. which are both mixed with oil; and the meal-offering of the sinner⁸⁰Ibid., 5:11-14. and of the suspected adulteress⁸¹Numbers 5:15. which are dry [without oil and without frankincense] — that they should be divided among all the sons of Aaron,⁸²Verse 10. that is to say, among all priests of their Father’s House.⁸³The priests were divided into twenty-four groups. Each group came by turn to the Sanctuary for one week’s service. These groups were in turn subdivided into Fathers’ Houses, each House ministering for one day out of the seven. On the festivals all the groups shared equally in the Service. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 46-47. The meaning of the expression, and every meal-offering, mingled with oil, or dry — is that a meal-offering which is of fine flour only, whether it be mixed with oil or dry, which is not one of these [three] mentioned above [the one baked in the oven, or made in the boiling pot, or in the pan — belongs to all priests who were ministering on that day, and not exclusively to the priests who offered them]. The reason for the difference between them is because [in the case of the three meal-offerings mentioned above] the priest took pains in baking them, and therefore he deserves to be given a greater reward. [All this is in accordance with the plain meaning of Scripture].
Our Rabbis, however, did not want to explain the verses in this way because Scripture said, and every meal-offering, mingled with oil or dry, which includes all possible meal-offerings, since they are all either mingled with oil or dry. Therefore the Rabbis understood the expression it shall be the priest’s that offereth it [mentioned here in Verse 9 in connection with the three meal-offerings: the one baked in the oven, etc.] as meaning that it shall belong to all pure priests who are present there. Similarly, when He said, And the priest that offereth any man’s burnt-offering,⁸⁴Verse 8 — stating that the skin of the burnt-offering belongs to the priest who offered it. and the priest that maketh atonement therewith, he shall have it,⁸⁵Verse 7 — stating that the meat of the sin-offering and guilt-offering belong to the priest that made the atonement. these verses are only intended to say that they do not belong to the owners who brought them, but that in reward for offering them they belong to the pure priests who are present there, for all of them are engaged in offering them, whether physically or by command, since any individual priest or two or three of them who offered up [the particular offering], did so with the permission of all of them and acting as their deputy, and all of them would stand by the offering. As is the share of him that goeth down to the battle, so shall be the share of him that tarrieth by the baggage; they shall share alike.⁸⁶I Samuel 30:24. After He had said [in general terms] that they shall belong to the priests as a reward for their service, He explained it again in detail: and every meal-offering, mingled with oil, or dry,⁸²Verse 10. which includes all meal-offerings, shall all the sons of Aaron have, meaning all the officiating priests mentioned [in the preceding verses], one as well as another, that is to say, all clean priests of the Father’s House,⁸³The priests were divided into twenty-four groups. Each group came by turn to the Sanctuary for one week’s service. These groups were in turn subdivided into Fathers’ Houses, each House ministering for one day out of the seven. On the festivals all the groups shared equally in the Service. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 46-47. as they are all the officiating priests mentioned previously. Thus Scripture [first] mentioned the meal-offerings by their individual names — the one baked in the oven, or made in the boiling pot, or in the pan — and then mentioned them all again in a general rule, saying [that they belong to all the priests], one as well as another, meaning that one priest should only have [of the kind of meal-offering] that the other priest has, [and they cannot give one priest his share of one kind of meal-offering, and the others a share of another kind]. Even if the meal-offering was of fine flour, each is to be given his share from that offering.⁸⁷The point here is as follows. In the case of the three meal-offerings which are baked [i.e., the one baked in the oven, made in the boiling pot, and in the pan], even if the priest receives only a small part thereof, he can eat it readily. But in the case of the meal-offering of fine flour, if the share is small he will not be benefitted much by it. One might therefore think that he can receive his share from another kind of meal-offering, hence the law states that the apportionment must be only in that one kind. Scripture thus states that this law applies to meal-offerings, and all the more so to the other offerings, which are of greater monetary value. It is tradition which decides [in favor of the Rabbis’ interpretation mentioned above],⁸⁸In other words, even though the literal interpretation of the verses indicates that the three baked meal-offerings should all belong exclusively to the priest who was actively engaged in offering them, yet it is tradition which is the deciding factor that the Rabbis’ analysis of the verses, as explained above, is correct. and it is furthermore for the benefit of [all] the priests and conducive to peace in the Sanctuary.
It is possible that the interpretation of the verses according to this opinion of the Rabbis is as follows: “And every meal-offering that is baked in the oven, and everything made in the boiling pot, and in the pan, shall be the priest’s that offereth it; and every meal-offering, mingled with oil, or dry shall [also] be so, and all the sons of Aaron shall have it, one as well as another.”⁸⁹This interpretation indicates clearly that all meal-offerings are mentioned alike in Scripture with respect to the share of all ministering priests on that day.

וכל מנחה אשר תאפה בתנור, and every meal-offering which is baked in the oven, etc. The Torah mentions five separate categories of meal-offerings to exclude five matters. 1) The sons of Aaron do not divide the meal-offering according to the formula employed when animal offerings are shared out, i.e. that portions of one offering may be traded off against portions of another offering; rather every priest of the group performing service on that day receives his share of each of the meal-offerings presented on that day. 2) Bird-offerings are not shared out in the same way as the meal-offerings. One could have argued that the bird-offerings and the meal-offerings were both offerings presented by the poor and the very poor respectively. This factor does not have a bearing on the method employed in sharing out the meat of the bird-offerings, however. 3) The distribution of the meat of bird-offerings did not parallel that of the offerings consisting of four-legged animals, even though in both cases their blood is sprinkled on the altar. 4) The criteria applicable to the distribution of the parts of one kind of meal-offering are not identical to those of the sharing out of another kind of meal-offering, even though they all consist of flour of some kind. 5) Meal-offerings consisting of baked goods baked in one kind of pan or another kind are not shared out according to the same criteria as other meal-offerings prepared in a similar manner when these meal-offerings served different purposes.

וכל מנחה אשר תאפה בתנור, “and any meal-offering that is baked in the oven, etc.” Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text it appears that our verse speaks of someone who had made a vow to bring one of three types of meal offerings, anyone of which is baked in an oven, תנור, a deep pan, מרחשת, or in a shallow pan, מחבת. Either of these meal offerings would belong totally and exclusively to the priest who performs the procedure. In order to avoid errors, the Torah continues with other types of meal-offerings saying that these are shared out equally among the roster, בית אב, of priests performing their duties on that day or during that week.

לכהן המקריב אותה, “to the Priest who offers it.” Seeing that I might have thought that this meal-offering is exclusively that of the Priest who has offered it, the Torah adds in verse 10 “it shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, every man alike.” What precisely is meant by these words? The words mean that the members of the roster for that day are all equally entitled to participate in the edible parts of that meal-offering. The arrangement of these rosters is already referred to in Kings II 11,9 “The chiefs did as Yehoyadah (High Priest) ordered, each took his men-those who were on duty that week and those who were off duty that week- etc.” Whatever accrued to the roster of the priests during the week they would share equally. This is what the Torah wrote in Deut. 18,8 חלק כחלק יאכלו, “portion for portion they shall eat it.”
The Torah here mentions each category of meal-offering separately by name first and afterwards added the words איש כאחיו, “each man alike,” to make sure that each Priest receives equal shares of each category of meal-offering, not that one Priest gets a share of the meal-offering baked in the oven whereas his colleague is compensated by getting his share from a meal-offering made in a deep pan. Even if the meal-offering consists of a mixture of fine flour and oil, מנחת הסולת, something not ready for immediate consumption as it is raw, the Priests also share in this alike. The reason the Torah teaches us this rule in connection with the most inexpensive type of offering, the meal-offering, is to make it clear that a similar rule applies to the sharing of the more expensive offerings, i.e. animal offerings. The compensation for performing the various duties in the Temple is the entitlement to the parts of the offering designated for the Priests. All Priests in a state of ritual purity belonging to the roster of the week (day) are entitled to share equally. [The week’s roster was divided into the six week days, each “roster” or משמר, being further divided into what are called בתי אבות, family groups, of which each performed the service on one of the weekdays, all participating on the Sabbath. Ed.] Although some Priests performed their part of the service individually whereas others did so in groups of two or three, each one qualified equally for the parts to be shared out. Even Priests whose duties did not require them to perform manual tasks were entitled (Taanit 26). The procedure followed was similar to the sharing of the spoils of war where the people of the “home-front” also shared equally with the soldiers who had gone into battle. (Based on Nachmanides interpreting Samuel I 30,24).

To the priestly family. Meaning: The kohanim were divided into twenty-four watches, and each watch had one week. Each watch was divided into six priestly families for the six weekdays, each day had one priestly family [assigned to it], and on the Shabbos day all six priestly families served together. Many raise the difficulty: It is written later (v. 10), “[It shall belong] to all the sons of Aharon,” with regard to the meal-offering mixed with oil or dry, and Rashi writes later: The verse which says: “to the kohein who offers,” is written concerning the meal-offering baked in an oven — why do we not say that there exists a difference between different types of mealofferings, that this one goes to the one who offers and this one is for all the sons of Aharon? It seems to me [that we can answer] in this way: When it says, “the kohein who offers,” it cannot mean strictly him, and that the members of the watch have no rights in it. This is because perforce the watch must be included, since “the one who offers” refers to anyone who was fit to offer, just as nearby (v. 7), “the kohein who will bring about atonement,” Rashi explains that “anyone who is fit to [accomplish] atonement has a share in it.” If so, it cannot be that only the kohein who offers shall have a share. Rather, perforce it means anyone who was fit [to offer] in that watch [has a share]. Then afterwards, concerning the meal-offering mixed with oil, when it says, “to all the sons of Aharon,” perforce it means to all the members of that watch as well, for certainly, it cannot be referring to all the kohanim in the world, since it would be impossible to share it with everyone. If so, Scripture poses a contradiction in the usage of language: First it uses a singular term to refer a watch [“the kohein who offers”], and afterwards a plural term, “to all the sons of Aharon.” Rather, we must say there is relevancy for the singular and plural terms. And that is that each watch had priestly families, for there were twenty-four watches, and each watch was divided into six priestly families; each priestly family had its day. Therefore, the singular term usage mentioned first is fine, because it excludes all the other [i.e., twenty-three] priestly families. And the verse, “to all the sons of Aharon” includes all those kohanim who were serving on that day, and not just the kohein who offers it (Divrei Dovid).

Although these five exclusions all concern different kinds of meal-offerings, the exegesis from which we derived these halachic differences is based on what is called אם אינו ענין, i.e. that if the Torah records certain information which is superfluous in its context, such information may be applied to supplement information lacking in a different context. I have seen that Maimonides in chapter 10, ruling 15 of his Ma-asseh Hakorbanot explains the exclusions in our two verses along different lines (other than Torat Kohanim which is similar to our author). He bases his exegesis on the fact that the Torah did not include the five kinds of meal-offerings mentioned here in the section dealing with מנחת סלת in 6,7-11 but records it in a different context. This is remarkable seeing that in the case of the meal-offerings which are baked as well as in the meal-offering consisting of fine flour mixed with oil and frankincense the Torah speaks of the offering belonging to the officiating priest. Maimonides reasons that we could have made a case for sharing out the meal-offering consisting of fine flour according to the same criteria as those applicable to some other meal-offering but we do not do so. It is clear from Maimonides' reasoning that he employs the words לכל בני אהרון "to all the priests" in 7,10 as the basis for his exegesis. This is not what we learned in the Baraitha (Torat Kohanim ).

Maimonides also stresses the fact that the laws of the meal-offering do not all appear in a single paragraph. This teaches that unless the Torah had separated the laws of one kind of meal-offering (the מנחת סלת) which was not baked from the five categories mentioned in our chapter all of which are baked, we could not have used these verses exegetically and we would not have arrived at the conclusions derived by Torat Kohanim. Perhaps Maimonides thought that the fact that the Torah artificially separated the legislation pertaining to the offering of the meal-offerings is proof that it did not want us to assume that the formula of trading off by the priest of parts of one meal-offering against parts of another type of meal-offering is acceptable. Having arrived at this principle, it is applied to all the meal-offerings. You may find proof in the fact that in the case of מנחת מרחשת and מנחת מחבת the Torah does not mention a word about all the priests sharing in it equally. All that is mentioned is that priests not officiating on that day are not entitled to share in it. [the Torah phrases it positively, saying: "it belongs to the priest who offers it which means to the group of priests officiating on that day. Ed.] Whence does Maimonides know then that a meal-offering offered in a pan may not be traded off against a meal-offering offered in a stewing-pan seeing not a word is said about how these meal-offerings are to be shared out? Actually, the five exclusions we cited earlier as the basis of our exegesis are only of the type known as אסמכתא, a "lean-to." This type of exegesis is not binding but serves as a reminder of halachot with which we are already familiar. The principal exegetical tool is the fact that the Torah saw fit not to record all six examples of meal-offerings in the same paragraph.

We are now left with the problem of why the Torah gave many details repeatedly when all it had to write was that "every meal-offering belongs to the officiating priest, and is to be shared by all the priests officiating on that day." Perhaps -in view of the fact that the Torah already entered into details of different kinds of baked meal-offerings- the Torah was afraid that we would apply totally different criteria to the מנחת סלת and others which were not baked. We find, for instance, in Menachot 63 that the Talmud explains the words וכל נעשה במרחשת ועל מחבת in 7,9 to mean that these meal-offerings and the rules pertaining to them are governed by the type of container they are offered up in and not so much by their composition. The practical significance of this becomes evident when a person vows to bring a meal-offering and he merely identifies the kind of meal-offering he undertakes to bring by naming the vessel it is to be brought in. For instance, he said: "I am obligated to a certain kind of baking pan" [one of the ones which existed in the Temple. Ed]. According to the school of Hillel such a vow is valid seeing the kind of pan he mentioned is a sacred vessel and can be used for the meal-offering and the Torah wrote: "anything prepared in either of these kinds of pans, etc." According to the school of Shammai it is doubtful what this person had in mind. His "offering" would need to remain untouched until the coming of Elijah the prpohet who would resolve our doubts about its validity. Rabbi Yossi the son of Rabbi Yehudah holds that all these meal-offerings are separate categories. Therefore, one may not bring less than a minimal quantity of a meal-offering על המחבת and add to it less than a minimal quantity of a meal-offering במרחשת in order to combine these quantities into a single meal-offering of minimal acceptable quantity. The words אשר תאפה תנור, teach that one cannot combine part of a meal-offering baked on a griddle with part of a meal-offering baked in an oven. The only extraneous words which have not yet been explained exegetically are the ones in verse 10 seeing what is written there is also a duplication.

Perhaps Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Yehudah who holds that the words מאפה תנור mean two types of meal-offerings derived his ruling from the fact that the Torah employed the word כל both in verse 9 and in verse 10. As a result we have a double duplication. First of all there was no need for the extra verse; secondly, if you already had the extra verse, the word כל did not need to appear in both verses. This is why Rabbi Yossi is careful to mention the source of his ruling, i.e. וכל מנחה,…וכל נעשה במרחשת, ובל מנחה בלולה. He adds: "Just as the word וכל in verse 10 clearly refers to two separate meal-offerings, i.e. one containing a great deal of oil and one a dry one, so the word וכל in the previous verse also refers to two different categories of meal-offering. It follows from the above that if the Torah had only written the words מנחה בלולה, or כל מנחה חרבה, I would not have had an exegetical tool with which to derive the various halachot we have derived from the repeated use by the Torah of the word וכל. In fact, one could have argued that if the Torah had written כל מנחה חרבה this would furnish proof that the word כל applied to a single kind of meal-offering, [in spite of the Torah using the word כל meaning each or every. Ed.] and that when the Torah spoke about this kind of meal-offering without using the word כל such as in Leviticus 2,4: מנחה מאפה תנור (Leviticus 2,4), it also referred to only a single category of offering. The Torah had to write all the verses which appear to contain some duplication in order to teach us the various halachot we just described.

בלולה בשמן [AND EVERY MEAL OFFERING] MINGLED WITH OIL — This is the free-will meal-offering (Leviticus 2:1, 4, 5, 7);

וחרבה, the minchah of a sinner and that of the woman suspected of marital infidelity, Sotah. [the term minchah does not always mean “gift,” but may define the ingredients of the offering brought by a person in poor economic circumstances. Ed.]

וכל מנחה בלולה בשמן וחריבה, “and any meal-offering that is mixed with oil, or that is dry, etc.” this refers to a meal offering consisting only of fine flour mixed with oil, or even a totally dry meal offering, one that does not fit into any of the three categories mentioned in the earlier verse. The reason why the three categories of meal offering mentioned in verse nine belong exclusively to the officiating priest is that the preparation of such baked goods requires a great deal more work on the part of the priest, and the Torah rewards him for that work. However, our sages do not accept this kind of reasoning, as they interpret the statement וכל מנחה בלולה בשמן, וחריבה as including every possible category of meal offering baked or not, seeing that every meal offering is either mixed with oil or is dry, and the Torah writes that all the male priests may share in it equally. They therefore understand the words לכהן המקריב אותה לו יהיה to mean that any priests who are qualified to present such an offering, i.e. they are not in a state of ritual impurity are called מקריבים, as they always act as the appointees of the owners, the ones who themselves, personally, are prevented from performing this service due to their not being priests. What is written here concerning who participates in the consuming of the meal offerings, applies equally to the priests who may partake of the meat offerings, i.e. the members of the roster of priests on duty on that day.

A voluntary mealoffering. Meaning: This is the voluntary fine flour meal-offering mentioned in Parshas Vayikro (2:1), for the other types have already been listed, as it is written: “Every meal-offering that shall be baked in an oven and every one made in a deep pot or frying pan...” If so, “Every meal-offering mixed with oil” must be identified as the fine flour meal-offering.

וחרבה OR DRY — this is the meal-offering of the sinner (Leviticus 5:11) and the “meal-offering of jealousy” (Numbers 5:15) in which there was no oil.

וזאת תורת זבח השלמים, here we are told that although the common denominator between these offerings is that they share the heading sh’lamim inasmuch as these offerings are categorized in the Talmud as קדשים קלים, ”holy things of a minor degree of sanctity,” there are differences, nuances between one type of such קדשים קלים and other types. For instance, if they involve thanksgiving the animals offerings are accompanied by breads, some of which are leavened. Granted that the underlying reason for the need to offer thanks is what our sages call the שאור שבעיסה, “the element of ego in the ‘dough,’” the aspiring human personality, by consisting predominantly of unleavened loaves this element becomes subordinate. [it must be remembered that basically, no other offering consisting of baked goods is allowed to be leavened. The author feels that if a person finds himself in an unexpectedly dangerous situation requiring a miracle to save him, this indicates that had his conduct been beyond reproach he would not first have become exposed to that danger. On a national rather than an individual level, the Purim story is an illustration of what the author means. Ed.] One of the reasons the Torah requires so many individual loaves of bread as part of the Todah sacrifice, is to enable as many people as possible to become aware of someone having been miraculously saved. The period during which these breads can be eaten is the same as the period holy things of the higher order may be eaten, i.e. only one day and one night, not like ordinary sh’lamim which may be eaten two days and one night.

וזאת תורת זבח השלמים, “and this is the law of the peace-offerings, etc.” There were two types of peace-offerings, the one called תודה and the one simply referred to as שלמים. The תודה offering was accompanied by both unleavened bread and leavened bread. There were a total of 40 loaves, of which ten were leavened. The technical names for each group of ten loaves were: Matzah, Chametz, Rekikim, and Revuchim. This is all spelled out in verse 12, i.e. that these loaves be mixed with oil, unleavened wafers smeared with oil and scalded fine flour mixed with oil. The Torah there continues with verse 13: “With loaves of leavened bread shall he bring his offering, with his feast thanksgiving-offering.” In verse 14 we are told that -one of each of these types of loaves be offered “as a portion to the Lord; it shall belong to the Priest.” In other words, the Priest’s function here is to receive a tithe from the offering, 10%. It is very similar to the gift called תרומת מעשר which the Priest receives from the Levites in respect of the tithes the Levites had received from the Israelite farmers.
Our sages (Menachot 77) explain that the total weight of the ten loaves of leavened bread was equivalent to the total weight of the other 30 leaves consisting of three types of unleavened wafers, etc., so that in effect there was an equal amount of leavened bread and unleavened bread which constituted the meal-offering part of the תודה. This can be deduced from the syntax of our verses seeing that the 30 loaves of unleavened wafers, etc., are all mentioned in a single verse, whereas the Torah devotes a separate verse to the ten loaves of leavened breads. This suggests that the quantity of what is mentioned in verse 12 is equal to the quantity (weight) of material mentioned in verse 13.
The offering called שלמים without the word תודה, is not occasioned by the need to express one’s gratitude to Hashem for His having rescued one from danger of one kind or another, but is a free-willed offering called either נדבה or נדר, depending on the wording of one’s vow to donate such an offering. This is why the Torah introduces the legislation pertaining to such an offering with the words: “if his feast-offering (peace-offering) is for a vow or donation, etc.” (verse 16). Anyone bringing this kind of שלמים does not have to add the loaves of leavened and unleavened bread associated with the thanksgiving offering, תודה. [Seeing that it was mandatory to bring such an offering in Jerusalem on the three festivals requiring every male Jew to make this pilgrimage, the translation “feast-offering” as an alternative for “peace-offering” is quite appropriate. Ed.].
There appears to be a contradiction here in the regulations concerning the תודה offering and the fact that it was made up partially of leavened loaves, seeing the Torah had stated elsewhere (Leviticus 2,11) that “no manner of leavened material or honey is to be offered up on the Altar.” The fact is that these loaves of the תודה offering were not put on the Altar at all. Hence there is no contradiction with what the Torah wrote in Leviticus 2,11. The loaves were only “waved” above the Altar not deposited or burned up on it.

זבח השלמים, “the sacrifice of the peace-offering;” why is it called thus? It is meant to restore peace between us down here and G–d our Father in heaven. This is also described in these terms in Psalms 50 23, when the psalmist says: זובח תודה יכבדנני, “he who sacrifices a thank offering honours Me; the reason the word יכבדנני is spelled with the letter נ repeated, is to hint that G–d will feel honoured both in our world down here and in the heavenly regions.

אם על תורה יקריבנו IF HE OFFER IT FOR A THANKSGIVING — i.e., if he brings it on account of (על) a matter that requires thanksgiving (תודה): on account of a miraculous deliverance that was wrought for him, as being, for instance, one of those who have made a sea-voyage. or travelled in the wilderness, or had been kept in prison, or if he had been sick and was now healed, all of whom are bound to offer thanks-giving, since it is written with reference to them, (Psalms 107:8, 15, 21, 31) “Let them offer thanksgiving to the Lord for His goodness, and for His wonderful works to the children of men!” (cf. Rashi on those vv. and on vv. 4, 10, 17 and 23 of that chapter; see also Berakhot 54b) — if it is on account of one of these things that he vowed those peace offerings, they are “peace offerings for acknowledgement” and require the offering of bread that is mentioned in the section, and may not be eaten beyond a period of one day and one night as it is here set forth (v. 15) [whilst other שלמים may be eaten at any time during two days and the intervening night].

THEN HE SHALL OFFER ‘AL’ THE OFFERING OF THANKSGIVING. The commentators⁹⁰So explained by Ibn Ezra. have explained the word al as meaning “with” — with the offering of thanksgiving. Similarly, ‘al’ the cakes of leavened bread⁹¹Verse 13. means “with them.” The correct interpretation appears to me that the word al is here to be understood in its ordinary sense [i.e., “upon”], meaning that he should add bread “upon” the offering. Similarly, ‘al’ the cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering,⁹¹Verse 13. means that he is to bring cakes of leavened bread, and adding “upon” them he is to bring his offering, which is the unleavened bread mentioned [in Verse 12 before us] — all these breads [thirty unleavened cakes and ten leavened ones] he is to bring upon the offering [of thanksgiving]. Scripture thus made the leavened bread the chief part of the offering, “adding” upon it the rest of the bread [i.e., the unleavened bread, by stating “upon the cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering,” which means “his unleavened bread”], because the unleavened breads are more than all the other kinds.⁹²Flour comprising twenty tenths of an ephah (see Note 95) was divided equally for the baking of the unleavened and leavened breads. The unleavened breads were of three kinds [cakes, wafers, and cakes of flour saturated with oil — as mentioned in Verse 12] each consisting of ten, thus making thirty unleavened breads. The leavened breads were ten. Thus while fewer in number, the leavened breads were yet larger, since the same amount of flour was used for the total amount of unleavened breads — thirty — as for the ten leavened breads. Of these four kinds of breads, one of each was given to the priest and the rest were eaten by the owner of the offering and his family. Scripture changed the expression, stating, [he shall present his offering] of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving⁹¹Verse 13. [while here in Verse 12 it merely says, the offering of thanksgiving], in order to allude to the Rabbis’ interpretation regarding it, namely that the bread does not become holy in itself [in the sense that it cannot be redeemed, or that it becomes invalid if carried outside the wall of the city, etc.] until the offering is slaughtered, and [also] that it should be slaughtered “upon” it [the bread], that is to say, with the intention that the bread should become holy with it [the offering].
Now Rashi wrote: “Then he shall bring with the offering of thanksgiving four sorts of bread: cakes, wafers, and cakes mingled with oil — these three kinds being of unleavened bread. And it further states, with cakes of leavened bread,⁹¹Verse 13. [thus making four kinds], and each kind consisted of ten cakes. Thus it is explained in Tractate Menachoth.⁹³Menachoth 77 a. And their total measure was five Jerusalem seahs, which are six measures according to the Wilderness measure,⁹⁴The Jerusalem measure was one sixth larger than that of the wilderness. Hence six seahs of Wilderness measure made five seahs of Jerusalem measure. or twenty tenths [of the ephah].”⁹⁵An ephah is three seahs. Six seahs thus make two ephahs. Since in each ephah there are ten tenths [of the ephah], the two ephahs [comprising the six seahs] make twenty tenths of the ephah. Now the Rabbi [Rashi] did not mention in connection with these twenty tenths [of flour] that ten of them were for the leavened cakes, a tenth for each one, and the other ten tenths for the unleavened ones, thus making three unleavened cakes to each tenth of flour.⁹⁶There were three kinds of unleavened cake, each consisting of ten cakes, thus totaling thirty. Thus since thirty cakes were made out of the total of ten tenths of an ephah, it follows that three cakes were made out of each tenth. The Rabbis interpreted that this is so on the basis of the verse, ‘al’ cakes of leavened bread,⁹¹Verse 13. [which they explained⁹³Menachoth 77 a. as meaning]: “‘Corresponding to’ [the amount of flour used in the preparation of the ten] leavened cakes, use the same amount to bring therefrom [the thirty] unleavened cakes. Thus there were twenty tenths [of an ephah of flour], ten for the leavened cakes and ten for the unleavened. Ten tenths were used for the leavened ones, thus making one tenth of flour for each of [the ten] leavened cakes, and ten tenths for the unleavened ones, thus making three cakes to one tenth of flour. Thus there were forty cakes altogether.”

אם על תודה, if a person had made a vow using the expression תודה instead of using the expression שלמים to describe what he vowed to bring. The most common occasion when people make such a vow is when they have been saved from imminent danger. The sages in Berachot 54 described the four types of dangers which qualify for the party who has been saved to offer such a “thanksgiving” offering, תודה. The total number of challot which this offering consists of are 40. Here we are told all the details.

והקריב על זבח התודה, “he shall offer with the meat part of the thanksgiving offering, etc.” The thanksgiving offering consists of several parts, a peace offering described as זבח השלמים, breads, both unleavened and leavened. He will bring it all to the (side of) the altar and the leavened loaves will be considered the major component [although they are 10 loaves out of a total of forty loaves. Ed.] The reason that the Torah uses the word עליו, “in addition to it,” stressing that the leavened loaves are the principal component, is because the unleavened loaves outnumber the leavened loaves and we would otherwise have thought that they outrank the leavened loaves in that offering. Nachmanides writes that he is amazed that the Torah did not exclude the thanksgiving offering as one to which the prohibition of bringing it to the altar is applied, just as it did state this in connection with bringing of the בכורים, the first fruit offerings. [I suppose the references are to Leviticus 2,12 where no mention of exceptions are made at all, and Leviticus 23,17 where the Torah specifically exempts this offering by writing it is to consist of leavened loaves. I have not yet found where Nachmanides writes what our author attributes to him. Maybe Nachmanides’ comment on verse 14 is meant. Ed.] Nachmanides poses a problem that is no problem at all, seeing that in the prohibition of leavened products for the altar, the Torah stresses that bringing leavened products to the altar is prohibited. Seeing that the loaves of these offerings mentioned here are not presented on the altar, they are in a different category and cannot be lumped together with the firstling offerings mentioned elsewhere. The loaves of the thanksgiving offering are only heaved by the priest, but not deposited on the altar. Seeing they are all being consumed, what would be the point in depositing them on the altar where things are deposited for burning up? Nachmanides also suggests that seeing that the ריח ניחוח, pleasant fragrance, enjoyed by G’d, is not an issue in these offerings, the donor not having to restore himself in G’d’s grace, there was no need at all to refer to the admissibility or not of leavened products. Perhaps there was not even any cause for the Torah to mention any of this dispensation of the restriction on offering leavened products on the altar, seeing that this offering was accompanied by animal sacrifices which achieved the ריח ניחוח status through the parts of it which were burned up on the altar. At any rate, -Nachmanides- speaking, I have already pointed out earlier that the need for ריח ניחוח is not an issue in voluntary offerings at all, as the people presenting those had not fallen out of grace with G’d, and would not regain their grace except by presenting something described as ריח ניחוח.

So it is set forth in Menochos. It says here (v. 14): “תרומה ליי (separated portion to Hashem),” and it says with regard toתרומת מעשר (the tithe of the tithe): “תרומה ליי” (Bamidbar 18:26), just as later on it means one tenth, here, too, it means one tenth. Thus, we learn that each type [of bread] should be ten loaves. This is because if they were less than ten or more than ten, then the tenth of each type would be a piece of a loaf or half a loaf. The Torah however says, (v. 14): “one from each offering,” which means one whole loaf from each type; he should not take a piece.

אם על תודה יקריבנו, “If he offers this offering as a thanksgiving offering;” it does require placing his weight on it with his hands before slaughtering, and elevating it, i.e. swinging it, after the slaughtering; (Sifra)

והקריב על זבח התודה [IF HE OFFER IT FOR AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT] THEN HE SHALL OFFER WITH THE SACRIFICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT four sorts of bread: cakes, wafers and cakes of flour saturated with oil — these being three kinds of unleavened bread; it further states (v. 13), “together with cakes of leavened bread [he shall offer his offering etc.]”, thus making four. Each kind consisted of ten cakes; thus is it explained in Treatise Menachoth 77a. And their total measure was five Seahs according to the Jerusalem standard, these being equal to six Seahs of the “wilderness” standard (i.e. in force at the period when the Israelites were in the wilderness) comprising 20 tenths of an ephah) (Menachot 76b).

Twenty esronos (tenths). This is because it is written here (v. 13): “לחם חמץ (leavened bread),” and with regard to the loaves of Atzeres (Shavuos) is written: “לחם תנופה שתים שני עשרונים (two bread wave-offerings; of two tenths)” (23:17). If so, we derive [from a gezeiroh shovoh] “לחם לחם” — just as each bread mentioned concerning Atzeres was one ‘tenth,’ [so too, here, each leavened bread was one ‘tenth’]. Here, there were ten loaves of leaven, since each type had ten loaves. If so, the amount of bread was ten ‘tenths.’ The total of the rest of the three types [of matzoh] was only ten ‘tenths,’ [thus, the total of all the four types was twenty ‘tenths’]. [You might ask:] How does Rashi know this? Perhaps each type [even of matzoh] was ten ‘tenths’! [The answer is:] If so, Scripture should have written, “And leavened bread...” why does it say: “With loaves — [leavened] bread [he shall bring]...”? It had already specified above the three types of leaves! Rather, it comes to tell you that the loaves should resemble the [leavened] bread, i.e., all the loaves [of matzoh] should only be ten ‘tenths’ as was the [leavened] bread by itself.

והקריב על זבח, “he will offer with the meat offering, etc;” the word על meaning “with” also in על חלת לחם, is also to be understood as meaning: “with”; we have an example of this in Leviticus 25, 31 על שדה הארץ, “it will be considered as belonging with the field of the earth.”

מרבכת — bread scalded with oil, as much as is needed to saturate it.

Scalded in boiling water as much as needed. Rashi does not intend to say that they were scalded in boiling water but not baked afterwards in an oven. Rather, they are required to be baked after the scalding, as it is written clearly regarding the meal-offering (6:14): “תופיני (well-baked).” Then, we derive from the words “מורבכת מורבכת (saturated, saturated)” for a gezeiroh shovoh.

וסלת מורכבת, “and fine flour mixed in well soaked oil.” This teaches that the cakes the Torah speaks of must be soaked well in oil.

חלות בלולות בשמן, wafers mixed with oil. Here we have one addition followed by another addition, (חלות and רקיקות) something unusual. It suggests that actually it is meant to be a limitation, i.e. that this is not to be treated like other gift offerings in which a whole log of oil is used, whereas here only half a log of oil is used. (Compare Rashi on Menachot 89)

יקריב קרבנו על זבח [WITH THE CAKES OF LEAVENED BREAD] HE SHALL OFFER HIS OFFERING WITH THE SACRIFICE — The word קרבנו is redundant (it would have sufficed to say על חלת לחם חמץ יקריבנו), it intimates that the bread is not holy as such (קדוש קדושת הגוף), that it should become invalid by being carried forth from the forecourt, or by the touch of טבול יום (see v. 7) and so as to become incapable of going forth from its holy status to that of non-holy (ordinary) food (as is the case with a sacrifice that is קדוש קדושת הגוף), before the sacrifice is slaughtered (Menachot 78b)

That the bread is not holy. Otherwise, why does it need to say: “He shall bring his offering, along with his peaceoffering of thanksgiving”? It is written above (v. 12): “He shall bring along with his thanksgiving offering matzoh loaves...”! Perforce this verse comes for to be elucidated: “[This tells us] that the bread is not holy, etc.” Accordingly, the phrase, “Loaves of leavened bread,” is expounded with the preceding verse and the phrase following: With the preceding — “matzoh loaves mixed with oil ... and loaves of saturated fine flour mixed with oil, with loaves of leavened bread, etc.” and with the phrase following — “With loaves of leavened bread he shall bring his offering, along with his peace-offering of thanksgiving.”

אחד מכל קרבן [AND OF IT SHALL HE OFFER] ONE OUT OF EACH OFFERING [FOR A HEAVE OFFERING UNTO THE LORD] — one bread (piece) of each of these different kinds shall he take as a heave offering for the priest who performs the rite connected with it (the קרבן), and the rest may be eaten by the owner (Menachot 77b). The flesh of the sacrifice also belongs to the owner with the exception of the breast and the shoulder of it, just as the waving of the breast and the shoulder is expressly prescribed later on, (Leviticus 7:31 Leviticus 7:32) in the case of the “peace offerings”, thus making them become the portion of the priests (cf. Leviticus 7:31 Leviticus 7:32), and the sacrifice of acknowledgement comes under the term שלמים (Zevachim 4a).

AND OF IT HE SHALL PRESENT ONE OUT OF EACH OFFERING — one whole cake [for a heave-offering unto the Eternal]. Thus he takes as a heave-offering four cakes [and gives them to the priest].
But I wonder! When Scripture excluded [first-fruits] from the prohibition against burning leaven [on the altar],⁹⁷Above, 2:11. by stating, as an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them⁹⁸Ibid., 12. [which means that “the two loaves” of the Festival of Shevuoth were to be brought of leavened dough, as clearly mentioned further on in Scripture],⁹⁹Further, 23:17. why did it not say that [the ten leavened cakes of] the thanks-offering [are also an exception]? But this is not really a question. For Scripture states, and unto the altar they [i.e., leaven and honey] shall not come up for a sweet savor,⁹⁸Ibid., 12. and of the [forty] breads of the thanks-offering, none came up on the altar at all, for they require only waving.¹⁰⁰The Tur refutes this argument by pointing to the fact that nothing of “the two loaves” of the Festival of Shevuoth came up on the altar either; yet Scripture found it necessary to call attention to their being an exception to the prohibition against burning leaven on the altar, because of the offerings that came with the two loaves (see ibid., Verse 18), and such is the case also with the thanks-offering. So the question recurs: Why did Scripture not call attention to the exception of the breads of the thanks-offering? The Tur answers that Scripture called attention only to an obligatory offering, such being the case of “the two loaves” on the Festival of Shevuoth, but not to a thanks-offering, which is a freewill offering. See further my Hebrew commentary pp. 33-34. Even though in the case of the showbread¹⁰¹Twelve loaves were put on the golden table in the Sanctuary every Sabbath, with two spoons of frankincense beside them. On the following Sabbath the frankincense was burnt on the altar and the loaves were divided among the priests. None of the bread was offered on the altar. He did say that one commits a transgression if one brought it in a leaven state¹⁰²“ ‘Kol’ (any) meal-offering, which ye shall bring unto the Eternal, shall not be made with leaven (above, 2:11), the word kol includes the showbread, that it too must not be leavened” (Menachoth 57 a). [although there too none of the loaves are burnt on the altar], that is because of the frankincense that was on it which was to the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the Eternal.¹⁰³Further, 24:7. But of the bread of the thanks-offering, nothing at all came up on the altar [hence the Torah permitted the ten loaves to be leavened]. Perhaps Scripture only had to mention that exception [as an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them]⁹⁸Ibid., 12. because of the honey,¹⁰⁴And not because of the leaven, as we have understood it till now. since it was not clearly stated concerning the first-fruits [which were brought of “the seven kinds”]¹⁰⁵I.e., the seven kinds of products for which the Land of Israel was famed: wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olive-oil, and [date] honey. See my translation of “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 133-134. that they may be brought from honey [and it therefore had to be explicitly stated in that verse], and thus He also included leaven with it, saying of both of them, as an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them.⁹⁸Ibid., 12. With reference to leaven, however, since it is clearly explained in its correct place [that the “two loaves” of the Festival of Shevuoth constitute an exception to the usual negative commandment], there was no need any more to mention it as an exception [when mentioning the general negative commandment], just as Scripture has not specified the exception to the rule about the Sabbath, when stating every one that profaneth it shall be put to death,¹⁰⁶Exodus 31:14. [by saying] “except for the Service of the offerings” [which may be done on the Sabbath], or in the case of thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife,¹⁰⁷Further, 18:16. [by saying] “except for a brother’s childless wife” [whom he is to marry].¹⁰⁸Deuteronomy 25:5. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 217, that the duty of marrying the wife of a deceased brother who left no offspring comes before the duty of chalitzah. For various reasons the practice now established is to grant the widow chalitzah, and she is then free to marry.

One bread of each type. Rashi is answering the question: There was only one קרבן (offering) — the peaceoffering of thanksgiving! [How, then, can the verse say, “one from each קרבן”?] Therefore, he explains: “One bread of each type, etc.” because each type is called a קרבן.

'תרומה לה, “as a gift to the Lord;” (author questions rhetorically why no measurements are given) I do not know the measurements of this gift; the Sifra writes that we might derive it from a similar verse in Numbers 18 where the תרומת מעשר is described as being one tenth of the regular tithe, i.e. slightly less that 1% of the total.

לכהן הזורק את דם השלמים לו יהיה, “it shall belong to the priest who sprinkles the blood of it.” The remainder may be eaten by the owners.

ובשר זבח תורת שלמיו AND THE FLESH OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE PEACE OFFERING FOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT [SHALL BE EATEN THE SAME DAY] — There are here many apparently redundant words (רבויין); they are intended to include in this law the sin-offering, the guilt-offering, the Nazarite’s ram and the חגיגה (the festive offering of the pilgrims) brought on the fourteenth of Nisan — that these should be eaten only during one day (the day of slaughtering) and the following night, just as the תודה, and not two days and the intervening night as is the period assigned for שלמים - Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 12 1; Zevachim 36a)

AND THE FLESH OF THE OFFERING OF HIS PEACE-OFFERINGS FOR THANKSGIVING SHALL BE EATEN ON THE DAY OF HIS OFFERING. “There are here many terms of amplification [all the seemingly redundant words thus being intended to widen the scope of the law]. Thus they include in this law the sin-offering and guilt-offering, the Nazirite’s ram,¹⁰⁹Numbers 6:14. The Nazirite’s ram was a peace-offering (ibid.) and a peace-offering may be eaten for two days and the one intervening night. Yet Scripture establishes here that the Nazirite’s ram is an exception, and may be eaten as a thanks-offering which is only for a day and night. and the Festal-offering of the fourteenth day of Nisan,¹¹⁰In order that the Passover-offering be eaten after one has satisfied one’s hunger, a Festal-offering was slaughtered on the fourteenth day of Nisan which was eaten on the night of the fifteenth [i.e., the first night of Passover], before the Passover-offering was eaten. Now this Festal-offering was really a peace-offering, and hence it ought to be eaten for two days and the one intervening night. But according to Rashi it is here included in the law of the thanks-offering, to be eaten only for one day and a night. Ramban further on will differ with this opinion of Rashi, and hold that it has the usual law of peace-offerings. that they may all be eaten for a day and a night.” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct, for the Festal-offering of the fourteenth day of Nisan may be eaten for two days and the one intervening night, like the rest of the peace-offerings. So also we have been taught in Tractate Pesachim:¹¹¹Pesachim 71 b. “Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou offerest on the first day at even, remain all night until the morning.¹¹²Deuteronomy 16:4. Scripture speaks here of the Festal-offering of the fourteenth day of Nisan, teaching that it may be eaten for two days and the one intervening night,¹¹³The explanation of the verse (Rashi ibid.) is thus as follows: “Neither shall any of the flesh which thou offerest at even [i.e., towards eventide on the fourteenth of Nisan] remain on the first day [of the festival, i.e., the fifteenth day of Nisan] all night until the morning of the sixteenth,” but it may be eaten only on the fourteenth and fifteenth days and the one intervening night. and when Scripture states on the first day … until the morning, it means the second morning.”¹¹⁴For since the expression “on the first day” means that it may be eaten the whole of the first day of the festival, the term laboker (until the morning) must perforce refer to the morning of the second day. Rashi himself wrote this in the Seder R’eih Anochi.¹¹²Deuteronomy 16:4. Here, however, the Rabbi [Rashi] follows the words of Ben Teima,¹¹¹Pesachim 71 b. who says that the Festal-offering of the fourteenth of Nisan which comes with the Passover-offering,¹¹⁰In order that the Passover-offering be eaten after one has satisfied one’s hunger, a Festal-offering was slaughtered on the fourteenth day of Nisan which was eaten on the night of the fifteenth [i.e., the first night of Passover], before the Passover-offering was eaten. Now this Festal-offering was really a peace-offering, and hence it ought to be eaten for two days and the one intervening night. But according to Rashi it is here included in the law of the thanks-offering, to be eaten only for one day and a night. Ramban further on will differ with this opinion of Rashi, and hold that it has the usual law of peace-offerings. is like the Passover-offering, and may be eaten [only] on that day [the fourteenth of Nisan] and the following night, and may be eaten only roasted and until midnight, [like the Passover-offering] which is eaten only at night [but not on the fourteenth day]. But according to Ben Teima, these amplifications [referred to by Rashi] only come to indicate that it [the Festal-offering accompanying the Passover-offering] is like the Passover-offering in every respect, coming only from the sheep, a male of the first year,¹¹⁵Exodus 12:5. A peace-offering, on the other hand, can be brought of the cattle, male or female, regardless of the age (above, 3:1). since it is written, Neither shall the offering of the feast of the Passover be left unto the morning,¹¹⁶Exodus 34:25. [which Ben Teima interpreted to mean: “the offering of the feast, namely the Festal-offering; of the Passover, namely the Passover-offering,” the same law thus applying to both], as it is stated there.¹¹⁷Pesachim 70 a. Ben Teima thus interprets the verse to refer to two separate offerings, and derives the law that they are both to be eaten within the same time not from the amplification of Verse 15 before us, but from the explicit statement in Exodus 34:25: neither shall … be left unto the morning.
But that which the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote here [namely, that the terms of amplification of the verse teach that the Festal-offering is to be eaten only for a day and a night] is on the basis of a Beraitha¹¹⁸See in Seder Vayikra Note 65. taught in the Torath Kohanim,¹¹⁹Torath Kohanim, Tzav 12:1. which states as follows: “And the flesh of the offering of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving, shall be eaten on the day of his offering. This verse comes to teach that those offerings which Scripture states are to be eaten for one day [and the following night] may only be eaten during that time [and not for two days and the intervening night, as is the period assigned for the peace-offering]. I would only know that such is the law for the thanks-offering [i.e., the offering itself, which is mentioned explicitly in the verse]. Whence do I know to include the breads thereof? Scripture therefore says, his offering. Whence do I know to include the offspring of the thanks-offering and animals substituted for it in the same law? Scripture therefore says, ‘and’ the flesh. Whence do I know to include the sin-offerings and guilt-offering [that they, too, may be eaten only during the day and the ensuing night]? Scripture therefore says, the offering. Whence do I know to include the Nazirite’s peace-offering,¹⁰⁹Numbers 6:14. The Nazirite’s ram was a peace-offering (ibid.) and a peace-offering may be eaten for two days and the one intervening night. Yet Scripture establishes here that the Nazirite’s ram is an exception, and may be eaten as a thanks-offering which is only for a day and night. and the peace-offerings which come on account of the Passover-offering? Scripture therefore says, his peace-offerings.”
This is the Beraitha¹¹⁸See in Seder Vayikra Note 65. [taught in the Torath Kohanim]. Now the Rabbi [Rashi] explained¹²⁰In Zebachim 36 a. the phrase “the peace-offerings which come on account of the Passover-offering” as referring to the Festal-offering of the fourteenth day of Nisan, which comes together with the Passover-offering, [thus providing the authority for his comment here that the Festal-offering of the fourteenth of Nisan may be eaten only during the day and ensuing night.] Thus also I have found in Tractate Pesachim, in the Chapter Mi Shehayah (If any man shall be unclean),¹²¹Pesachim 96 b. that Rashi gave two explanations of this phrase — “the peace-offerings which come on account of the Passover-offering” — and wrote [after explaining the first interpretation]: “Another explanation is that it means the Festal-offering of the fourteenth. This explanation I have heard.” Here then [in his commentary on the Torah] the Rabbi relied on the interpretation he had heard [and consequently he wrote that the Festal-offering of the fourteenth may be eaten only for one day and the following night].
But the matter is not so. [The correct explanation of the phrase] “peace-offerings which come on account of the Passover-offering,” is that it refers to [those animals] which remain over from the Passover-offering,¹²²The term “remain over from the Passover-offering” includes besides the two cases mentioned in the text also the case if he set aside a certain sum of money for the buying of a Passover-offering, and not all the money was used up for that purpose, he must bring a peace-offering from the balance (Pesachim 70 b; Mishneh Torah Hilchoth Korban Pesach 4:10). such as where the owners substituted another one for it, or where the owners of a Passover-offering fulfilled their duty¹²³The Hebrew reads: “shenithkapru (that they were forgiven)” — a term borrowed from a sin-offering. But in the case of the Passover-offering the sense is that the owners had fulfilled their duty through another offering. by bringing another offering. [In these cases they are to be eaten only for one day and the ensuing night], as since they were at the beginning only meant to be eaten for one day and the ensuing night, [namely the night following the day on which they were slaughtered, as is the law of all Passover-offerings], so also in the end [i.e., when they are offered up as peace-offerings they are to be eaten only for one day and the ensuing night]. But the Festal-offering of the fourteenth [since it is not originally brought as a Passover-offering], is eaten for two days [and the intervening night] in accordance with the words of the Sages. So also we have been taught in that very same Beraitha¹¹⁹Torath Kohanim, Tzav 12:1. at the end thereof: “And on the morrow.¹²⁴Verse 16 here, referring to the peace-offering, which may be eaten on the day it was offered and the ensuing night, and also on the morrow. This verse comes to teach that those offerings which [Scripture states] are to be eaten for two days [and the intervening night] may only be eaten during that time. I know only that this applies to the peace-offering [which is clearly mentioned in the verse]. Whence do I know to include the Festal-offering which comes at its proper time [i.e., the regular Festal-offering of the fifteenth day of Nisan]? etc. Now I know to include the Festal-offering which comes at its regular time. Whence do I know to include the Festal-offering which comes with the Passover-offering [that it may be eaten only for two days and the intervening night]? etc.” [Thus it is clearly stated that the Festal-offering of the fourteenth may be eaten for only two days and the intervening night, and not as Rashi wrote that it may be eaten only for one day and the following night].

I just explained that ordinary sh’lamim may be eaten for two days and a night.

The festal offering of the fourteenth. [You might ask:] On the verse in Parshas Re’eh (Devarim 16:4): “Neither shall any of the flesh remain all night until the morning,” Rashi explains: “Scripture is referring to the festal offering brought on the fourteenth of Nissan [and not to the Pesach offering], and it teaches with reference to it that it may be eaten for two days and [the intervening] night”! [Yet here he writes that it may be eaten for one day and a night]. [The answer is:] Rashi’s explanation here is according to the view of Ben Teima, who said that a festal offering that comes with a Pesach offering is eaten one day and a night, like the Pesach offering. And what Rashi says [in Parshas Re’eh that it is eaten] for two days, etc. is according to the Rabbis who disagree with Ben Teima. They hold the view that a peace-offering that comes because of the Pesach offering is eaten for only one day and a night, solely when it is a specific case of a peace-offering that comes from the surplus of a Pesach offering. For instance, someone separated money for his Pesach offering and he bought a Pesach offering, but there was a surplus of money. From that money he should bring a peace-offering. But since it originates from the Pesach offering, its laws are as that of the Pesach offering, to be eaten for one day and a night. Do not question why Rashi explains here according to the view of Ben Teima and later on according to the view of the Rabbis, since this is Rashi’s approach in a number of places in his commentary on the Chumash.

ביום קרבנו יאכל [AND THE FLESH …] SHALL BE EATEN ON THE DAY THAT HIS OFFERING IS EATEN — and as the period prescribed for eating its flesh is the period during which its bread may be eaten (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 12 1).

The time limit of its bread. As it is written: “On the day of its sacrifice,” and it is not written: “On its day it may be eaten.” Rather, this is to tell you that [the laws pertaining to] the loaves should be like the sacrifice itself with [the laws pertaining to] eating, because the loaves are also called a קרבן (sacrifice), as it is written (v. 14): “והקריב אחד מכל קרבן (he shall bring one from each offering).”

לא יניח ממנו עד בקר HE SHALL NOT LEAVE ANY OF IT TILL THE MORNING, but during the whole night he may eat of it. But if this be so why have they (the Rabbis) said, (Zevachim 55a) “The sacrifice of acknowledgement etc. … may only be eaten during the day and the following night till midnight”? As a precaution to keep people far from the possibility of sinning (cf. Berakhot 2a).

Until midnight. Rashi is answering the question: Why did the Rabbis say that he may eat it only until midnight and not later?

ואם נדר או נדבה BUT IF [THE SACRIFICE OF HIS OFFERING BE] A VOW OR A FREE WILL OFFERING — i. e., that he does not bring it as an acknowledgement of some miraculous deliverance (cf. Rashi v. 12), then it does ‘not require the offering of bread and may be eaten during two days as is set forth in the section.

AND ON THE MORROW ‘V’HANOTHAR’ (AND THAT WHICH REMAINETH) OF IT SHALL BE EATEN. “The letter vav [in the word v’hanothar — ‘and’ that which remaineth] is redundant [thus the meaning of the verse is: “and on the morrow, that which remaineth of it shall be eaten”]. There are many examples of this in Scripture, such as: and these are the children of Zibeon: ‘v’ayah’ (and Ajah) and Anah.¹²⁵Genesis 36:24. The vav in v’ayah (“and” Ajah) is redundant. See in Vol. I, p. 440. So also: to give ‘v’kodesh’ (‘and’ the Sanctuary) and the host to be trampled upon.”¹²⁶Daniel 8:13. The vav in v’kodesh (“and” the Sanctuary) is here redundant. This is Rashi’s language, and so did Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra interpret the verse.
In my opinion the meaning of the verse is as follows: Since He said, it shall be eaten on the day that he offereth his offering, and on the morrow, this might imply that it is a commandment that it [the peace-offering] be eaten in two days, [namely] that he should eat part of it on the first day, and should leave part of it to be eaten on the morrow. Therefore He explained again, ‘and’ that which remaineth is to be eaten on the first day and also on the morrow [if by chance it was not all eaten on the first day]. But he is not to leave some over intentionally, nor is he permitted to leave it all over to be eaten on the second day. Rather, it is a commandment that he should eat it on the first day, and that which is left over by chance, should be eaten on the morrow previously mentioned.
This matter we have learned from the words of our Rabbis, who have said in the Torath Kohanim:¹²⁷Torath Kohanim, Tzav 12:11-12. “On the day that he offereth it, shall it be eaten. It is a commandment that it be eaten thereof during the first day. I might think that he is commanded to eat the whole of it; Scripture therefore says, and on the morrow. I might then think that it is a commandment to eat it in two days; Scripture therefore states, and that which remaineth — if it remains, it remains [i.e., it may still be eaten]. If [we are to go by the expression] and that which remaineth, I might think that if he left it all over for the second day it is invalid [since that does not come under the term “remaineth” which indicates only a part thereof]; Scripture therefore says [that which remaineth of it] shall be eaten, even all of it.” And even if you hold the vav in v’hanothar (and that which remaineth) to be redundant, [as Rashi explained], the verse can also be explained to mean: “and on the morrow that which remained of it [from the first day] may be eaten,” but not that he is to leave it over intentionally.
But I do not know why Rashi held the vav of the verse, to give ‘v’kodesh’ (‘and’ the Sanctuary) and the host to be trampled upon¹²⁶Daniel 8:13. The vav in v’kodesh (“and” the Sanctuary) is here redundant. to be redundant, since the meaning of the verse is that [the angel] is asking: “How long shall the transgression give appalment, and how long shall the Sanctuary and the host be trampled underfoot?”¹²⁸The vav in v’kodesh thus stands for the repetition of the phrase ad mathai (how long), and is therefore not redundant.

ואם נדר או נדבה, if the formula used in uttering the vow included the word שלמים, an expression which refers to making payment for favours received, as I explained on 2,1, etc. In other words the expression תודה did not feature in the wording of the vow.

ויאכל, וממחרת, והנותר ממנו יאכל, “it shall be consumed, and on the day following; any leftovers may be consumed;” Rashi writes that the letter ו in the word והנותר is superfluous. Nachmanides, on the other hand, writes that he understands as follows: Seeing that the Torah had written that the thanksgiving offering may (or must) be eaten on the same day or the day following, I might have thought that it is a mitzvah to spread the eating of this sacrifice over two days, i.e. the donor eats some of it on each of these days. This is why the Torah refers to the נותר, to any part that had not yet been eaten as a “leftover,” so that we understand that permission to eat the leftover on the second day has been given, but it is certainly not mandatory to keep some of that meat for the second day. At the end of the second day, if there is still some leftover it must be burned.

Thanksgiving for a miracle. Meaning: That which is written: “If either a vow or voluntary offering,” does not mean that what is written above it is not referring to voluntary offerings, because above it does refer to a voluntary offering! Therefore, Rashi explains: “Which he did not bring as thanksgiving...” however, until now it refers to one who brings an offering for thanksgiving for a miracle.

ואם נדר, “but if the sacrifice is fulfillment of a vow by the donor, etc.;” the donor had made the vow while he had been in distress.(Ibn Ezra)

וממחרת והנותר ממנו AND ON THE MORROW ALSO THE REMAINDER OF IT — i. e. what remained on the first day, יאכל MAY BE EATEN; — this ו (that of והנותר) is redundant (the text being equivalent to וממחרת הנותר ממנו יאכל); there are many similar examples in Scripture: (Genesis 36:24) “And these are the sons of Zibean: And Ajah (ואיה) and Anah”; (Daniel 8:13): “to give and the Sanctuary (וקדש) and the host to be trampled under foot”.

ביום הקריבו, on the day of his having sacrificed it, it may be eaten already, as soon as the necessary procedures have been completed.

May be eaten. It may be eaten on the second day. You should not explain that it may be eaten on the first day, and on the next day it may also be eaten, and the remnant of it, i.e., of the second day, may be eaten on the third day. Rather, this is what it means: And on the next day the remnant from the first day may be eaten, meaning: what remained from the first day may be eaten on the second. According to this, the ו of והנותר is superfluous. Rashi’s proof is that it is written nearby (v. 18): “If it will be eaten ... on the third day...” [You might ask:] Why does Rashi not interpret this ו like the ו of (6:8): “ומשמנה (and some of its oil),” where he explains [that the ו of ומשמנה is a ו of explanation, meaning as if it is written:] And from where does he take the fistful? — ומשמנה — where the oil is plentiful. So too, here, let it be explained: And when is it permitted to eat on the next day? When the remnant is from the first day. However, the preferred way to fulfill the mitzvah is [to eat it] on the first day alone. This, indeed, is as Re’m wishes to explain. [The answer is:] Because if so, Scripture should write: “יאכל והנותר ממנו ממחרת (the remnant of it shall be eaten on the next day),” [and not: “And on the next day, the remnant of it may be eaten”], so that we would not err to explain that it is referring to the remnant from the second day, which is to what it seems to refer, rather than explaining that it refers to the first day. Thus, the ו is certainly superfluous. Above (6:8), however, there is no reason to err. Here, though, without the ו there is no reason to err, therefore, Rashi explains that the ו is superfluous. This answers the difficulty which Re’m raised on Rashi who did not explain this ו like the ו of ומשמנה.

ביום הקריבו את זבחו יאכל, “his meat offering must be eaten on the day that he offered it and the day following;” immediately after the priest had completed his ritual.

AND THAT WHICH REMAINETH OF THE FLESH OF THE OFFERING ON THE THIRD DAY SHALL BE BURNT WITH FIRE. The verse does not mean to say that that which is left over on the third day must be burnt, but it may be eaten during the preceding night, for our Rabbis have already derived from the verse in the section of Kedoshim Tih’yu — and if aught remain until the third day, it shall be burnt with fire,¹²⁹Further, 19:6. that whatever remains after any part of the two days, must be burnt [and thus may not be eaten on the night preceding the third day]. But the expression, on the third day, is not connected with that which remaineth, but with shall be burnt with fire [the sense of the verse thus being as follows: “and that which remaineth of the flesh of the offering, shall be burnt with fire on the third day”]. The verse thus states that that which was left over of the flesh of the offering which was not eaten on the day when it was offered nor on the morrow, shall be burnt with fire on the third day in the morning. It is this which the Rabbis intended when saying [of the peace-offerings]¹³⁰Zebachim 55 a. that “they are eaten for two days and the one intervening night,” for on the second night [preceding the third day] they are neither eaten nor burnt, for Scripture required that the burning of invalidated hallowed offerings should be at daytime, just as the offering of the valid ones can only be at daytime.

והנותר מבשר הזבח ביום השלישי באש ישרף. “And what is left over of the meat of the sacrifice on the third day must be burned.” This does not mean that this meat is permitted to be eaten during the night between the second and the third day, seeing that the Torah had already said that it must be eaten during the day on which it was slaughtered or the day following. (verse 16) The meaning of the directive is simply that any sacrificial meat from that offering which has not been consumed during the permitted time must be burned on the third day. The reason the Torah had to be so specific is to teach us that the burning of sacred meats that have not been consumed must only take place by day, not by night. This is so, in spite of the fact, that those remains no longer are fit to be eaten.

ביום השלישי באש ישרף, “anything remaining of it on the morning of the third day must be burned.” Our sages derive from the apparently superfluous words: “it (the leftover) has to be burned on the third day,” that any leftovers of any sacrificial meat must be burned by day after it may no longer be eaten. (Sifra).

אם האכל יאכל וגו' ‏ AND IF ANY [OF THE FLESH] SHOULD BE EATEN AT ALL [ON THE THIRD DAY) — Scripture is speaking of one who has the intention whilst slaughtering thė sacrifice to eat it (the flesh) on the third day. One might think that what the text really means is, that if one has eaten of it on the third day it becomes disqualified retrospectively (i. e., that it is regarded as having been invalid from the moment that it was offered)! Scripture, however, states, “As for him that offereth it, there shall be no מחשבה to him” implying that at the time when it is offered it can become disqualified, and that it cannot become disqualified on the third day (Sifra, Tzav, Section 8 1). And the following is its meaning (that of the text): At the time when it is offered, this shall not enter the mind of any priest performing a rite with it, to eat of it on the third day, and if he does harbour such a thought, it becomes פגול, an abominable thing,

ואם האכול יאכל, our sages ignored the plain meaning of this verse, interpreting it as referring to the owner planning to eat of the sacrificial meat on the third day [not provided for in the Torah. Ed.] or planning not to perform any of the 4 basic procedures during the time frame designated by the Torah. (Zevachim 29)

One who intends during the slaughtering. Meaning: If he had an invalid intention about it at the time the kohein sprinkles its blood, that is, to eat it on the third day, which is beyond its permitted time, then it is invalid. But after it was sacrificed, and all of its service was properly performed, no intention or action can invalidate it.

והנפש האכלת ממנו AND THE SOUL THAT EATETH OF IT even within this period (of three days), עונה תשא SHALL BEAR ITS INIQUITY.

Should become invalid retroactively. We should not raise the difficulty: Since the sacrifice was done properly, how could he make it invalid afterwards by the manner in which he eats it? The Sages already answered in Toras Kohanim: Just as we find concerning a zov and a zovoh, and one who counts a day against a day, who were in the presumption of being pure, yet when they see [a discharge] the day is removed from its presumption of purity, so too, here.

This should not enter the mind. Meaning: This is why the verse uses the term: “לא יחשב” to tell you that it is with thought (מחשבה) that it becomes invalid. And this is what it means: “The one who brings it,” that is, at the time of bringing the sacrifice, “לא יחשב לו,” meaning: He should not have the aforementioned thought: “it will be eaten ... on the third day.”

And if he thought of it, “it will be an abomination.” Meaning: If he transgressed and thought. Rashi rectifies a number of matters in his paraphrase of this verse. He explains “המקריב אותו” as referring to the time of bringing the sacrifice, as aforementioned, and not as referring to the kohein who brings it, as implied by the plain understanding. Also, he explains “לא יחשב לו” as a prohibition on thought, and not as a matter of [not] being credited. Additionally, he added the word זאת to teach that the thought about which he is cautioned against having is this thought: “it will be eaten ... on the third day,” which is the thought of eating beyond the prescribed time. However, a thought [of eating] outside of the prescribed place is derived from the verse, “if it should be eaten ... on the third day” in Parshas Kedoshim (19:7), as Rashi explains there: “If this does not refer to [the prohibition of eating it] beyond its [proper] time, etc.” Also, he adds the words “if he thought” before the words, “it will be an abomination,” because otherwise it would be understood from the verse that when the kohein does not think that he will eat it beyond its time it will be an abomination.

During the time limit. During the [prescribed] time it is also an abomination since its invalidity is in thought at the time of slaughtering or sprinkling. Therefore, Rashi emends: “[even] during the time limit.”

והבשר AND THE FLESH of the sacred animals constituting peace-offerings (not that of פגול mentioned in v. 18, for this may not be eaten even though it does not touch an unclean thing), אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל THAT TOUCHETH ANY UNCLEAN THING SHALL NOT BE EATEN.

כל טהור יאכל בשר, a person who is ritually pure.

Even though these offerings are of a subordinate level of sanctity, if the meat comes into contact with ritual impurity it is to be burned, and anyone eating thereof is guilty of the same karet penalty as if he had eaten from sacrificial meat of a higher level of sanctity that had become ritually defiled.

Peace-offerings. This excludes the just mentioned פיגול, which is not eaten even without touching impurity.

כל טהור יאכל בשר, “everyone that is ritually clean may eat of the meat.” The verse refers, of course, to meat of sacrificial offerings, as ordinary meat may be eaten also by ritually unclean people.

והבשר — The word והבשר the second time it occurs in this verse is redundant (it should have stated: כל טהור יאכל בשר) but it is intended to include in the law mentioned here, the limb of a sacrifice that went forth (was brought out) in part from the place where it had to be eaten (in the case of שלמים, from Jerusalem, in that of קדשי קדשים, from the forecourt) — that the part that remained inside is permitted to be eaten (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Section 9 6).

A limb, part of which went out. Meaning: It went out of the courtyard, or, [with regard to] holy things of lesser holiness — outside the walls of Yerushalayim. The meat of an offering that goes outside [of its prescribed limits] is prohibited to be eaten because (Shemos 22:30): “You must not eat flesh that was torn off in the field.” The part that remains within [its prescribed limits] is permitted even though it touches the part that went out [its prescribed limits, and we do not say [that just as] something that touches the impure becomes impure, [i.e., if part of it becomes impure the entire thing becomes impure,] so too, [if part of the meat of an offering becomes] invalid [because it went outside, the entire meat should be considered invalid]. [This is] because the second word והבשר comes to include, since it should say, “כל טהור יאכל בשר (every pure person may eat the meat),” and no more, why does it say והבשר? Rather, it comes to include that this [i.e., the part of the meat that remains within its prescribed limits] is permitted.

כל טהור יאכל בשר ALL THAT ARE CLEAN MAY EAT FLESH — Why is this stated? Why should it not be assumed that a clean person may eat of the sacrifices? But, since it is stated, (Deuteronomy 12:27) “and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured upon the altar …, but the flesh thou mayest eat”, I might have thought, that as it speaks of thy sacrifices and states “thou mayest eat”, only the owner of the sacrifices may eat the peace-offerings! For this reason it is stated here: “all that are clean may eat flesh” (Sifra, Tzav, Section 9 7).

Therefore. [Re’m poses the difficulty:] You might ask: Why does the verse need to teach me this? It can be derived from the fact Scripture needs to write concerning the Pesach offering that it may only be eaten by its “subscribers” (the members of the group that purchased it), who are the owners. This implies that peace-offerings, which are eaten for two days and a night, may be eaten by any person. Because if you were to assume that peace-offerings are eaten only by the owners, why does the Torah single out the Pesach offering, about which the Merciful One wrote that it is eaten only by the owners? According to this assumption, we could learn from peaceofferings, which are lenient, in that they may be eaten for two days and in any [form of] food [preparation], yet even so they may be eaten only by the owners; the Pesach offering, which is more severe, in that it may be eaten only one day and night, and it is eaten only roasted, is it not so much more so [that it may be eaten only by the owners]? The answer is: Were it not for this verse, I might think that the rest of the peace-offerings may be eaten only by the owners, and yet the verse concerning the Pesach offering is needed for itself, [to teach] that they are considered owners only if they “subscribed” to it before it was slaughtered, but after slaughtering they may not subscribe. This is not the case by other peace-offerings — even if some people became partners after slaughtering they are permitted to eat from it. However, if they do not join as partners they may not. For this reason, the verse is needed to teach this, so it appears to me (Minchas Yehudah). Re’m answers: Were it not for the verse: “Every pure person [may eat the meat...],” the verses would contradict each other: It is written concerning the Pesach offering (Shemos 12:4): “You shall make your count regarding the lamb,” which teaches that the Pesach offering is eaten only by the owners. This implies that peace-offerings may be eaten even by those who are not the owners, for if only the owners [may eat peace-offerings], Pesach should be derived from a kal vachomer from peaceofferings, as previously mentioned. [On the other hand,] it is written (Devarim 12:27): “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured ... and you shall eat the flesh.” This implies that peace-offerings may be eaten only by the owners. For this reason the Merciful One wrote the verse: “Every pure person...” to teach that the verse [in Devarim] “and [you shall eat] the flesh” is not meant to be interpreted precisely as referring only to the owners. Rather, any pure person [may eat] even if he is not an owner.

[והבשר כל טהור יאכל בשר ‎AND AS FOR THE FLESH ALL THAT ARE CLEAN MAY EAT FLESH — This is as much as to say: all that I have told thee (some editions read: שאסרתי לך, — “that I have forbidden thee”), is only in the case of the sin-offering and a guilt-offering: that if these went forth (were carried forth) without the hangings of the forecourt they are forbidden (נפסלים ביוצא), as it is said, (Leviticus 6:19) “in the enclosure of the tent of meeting”) shall they eat it”; but with regard to this flesh (that of שלמים) I tell thee, “all that are clean may eat flesh” even amidst all the people (some editions read: בכל העיר, “in the whole city”, which is what “amidst all the people” is intended to mean)].

וטמאתו עליו [BUT THE SOUL THAT EATETH OF THE FLESH OF THE SACRIFICES …] HAVING ITS (or HIS) UNCLEANNESS UPON IT (or HIM) — Scripture is speaking here of the uncleanness of the person (i.e., the words mean: And the soul (person) that eateth of the flesh of the שלמים whilst his uncleanness is upon him; it does not mean: the person who eateth the flesh whilst its uncleanness is upon it) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 14 3; Zevachim 43b; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 22:3). But a clean person who eats unclean sacrificial flesh is not punished with excision, as is the case here, but only for transgressing the prohibition in v. 19:“And the flesh, that toucheth any unclean thing [shall not be eaten]”, for which the punishment is lashes. The prohibition referring to the case of “an unclean person who eats holy things” for which our text states the punishment is not expressly mentioned in the Torah but the Sages derived it by means of a verbal analogy (ג"ש) (Makkot 14b). — Three times is the punishment of excision stated in the Torah with reference to people eating holy sacrifices in a state of bodily uncleanness, (here, in v. 21 and in Leviticus 22:3), and our Rabbis explained them in Treatise Shevuot 7a as follows: one is intended as a general statement, the other as referring to a particular case and the third is intended to teach about the קרבן עולה ויורד (the sacrifice of higher or lesser value according to monetary circumstances of him who offers it; Leviticus 5:2, 3), that it is prescribed only as an atonement for communicating uncleanness to the Temple or sacred food by entering the former or eating the latter in a state of uncleanness (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 22:3 and Note thereon).

ונפש אשר תאכל בשר וטומאתו עליו, And a person who eats of sacrificial meat….while he is ritually unclean, etc. Both this and the following verse are interpreted by Torat Kohanim as speaking of personal ritual impurity [as opposed to the meat having become impure, as suggested by the masculine pronoun עליו which does not fit the subject נפש which is feminine. Ed.]. Zevachim 43 states that any verse which has not been interpreted by Rabbi Yitzchak son of Avdimi in this fashion cannot be interpreted in this way. Rabbi Yitzchak son of Avdimi had stated that only if a verse commences with a subject which is feminine and concludes with a subject which is feminine and in between we encounter a masculine pronoun may we interpret that the masculine pronoun refers to the original subject and not to the object which is masculine. Rashi explains that seeing that the verse following displays the same pattern and it is clear in that verse that the person who is the subject of the word ואכל, "and he eats," is a human being, verse 20 must be understood in the same sense. Rashi's words help us understand why the word וטומאתו "while he is impure," do not have to refer to the word בשר, which is the only masculine noun in that verse seeing that we thought that the laws about the meat being impure had already been concluded as Rashi explained in his commentary in Zevachim 43 where the verse is examined.

Bodily uncleanness. We derive a gezeiroh shovoh from the words טומאתו טומאתו: It is written here: “וטומאתו עליו, (while his uncleanness is yet on him),” and it is written there in Parshas Parah (Bamidbar 19:13): “עוד טומאתו בו (and his uncleanness remains upon him).” Just as there it refers clearly to impurity of the person (ibid.): “Whoever touches a corpse,” so too, here, it refers to impurity of the person. Rashi explains the later phrase: “וטומאתו עליו,” before he explains the preliminary [point]: “The warning for an unclean person who ate clean [sacrificial meat], etc.” because at first I might think that “וטומאתו עליו” refers to impure meat, and if so, it has a warning from the strength of the verse (19): “The flesh [of offerings] that will touch [any unclean thing may not be eaten],” and the punishment from the strength of this verse: “while his uncleanness is yet on him, [that person’s soul] shall be cut off.” [It is a generally accepted rule in regard to prohibitions and punishments in Vayikro that every punishment must be accompanied by a warning in another verse]. However, now that he explains that “וטומאתו עליו” refers to bodily uncleanness, it only speaks here of a warning for the meat’s uncleanness and the punishment for bodily uncleanness. The warning [for bodily uncleanness], though, is from the strength of the gezeiroh shovoh. That is: here it is written טומאתו, and [it also says טומאתו] by an impure person who enters the Beis HaMikdash, concerning which it states a warning and punishment. Thus, here, too, it has a warning. Afterwards, Rashi raises the difficulty: If so, why does it need to mention כרת again regarding bodily uncleanness? [He answers:] There are three כריתות (Divrei Dovid). אתו here has a warning.

וטומאתו עליו, “while he is still ritually unclean;” Rashi explains here that we did not find a specific warning that ritually unclean people must not eat sacrificial meat, (although the penalty has been spelled out, something most unusual) but that it can be derived from a גזרה שוה, when two laws contain similar expressions to clarify each other. In this instance we find three times that the Torah decrees the karet penalty for people eating sacrificial things while in a state of physical ritual impurity. (Compare Talmud tractate Shavuot, folio 7 where the three verses are spelled out) [Our author devotes a whole page to this complicated manner of deriving such laws by linking it to the written Torah. Since, unfortunately, the subject is not applicable until we will have a Temple again I have decided to delete these details. Ed.]

Not explicitly mentioned. Rashi is answering what you might ask: There is no punishment [for a prohibition] unless there is a warning [in the Torah]! Therefore, he explains: “[The warning...] is not explicitly [mentioned in the Torah].”

Torat Kohanim also cites a gezeyrah shavah comparing the word טומאתו, mentioned here with the word טומאתו mentioned in Numbers 19,13. However, I have decided to concentrate on the reason the Torah saw fit to contravene the rules of grammar in our two verses. If the Torah had simply written the word וטומאתה in verse 20 instead of writing וטומאתו, we would not have had to resort to the exegetical use of the gezeyrah shavah in Numbers 19,13 at all. Also, why did the Torah not write verse 21 in a more straighforward manner?

I believe that when the Torah wrote וטומאתו עליו in verse 20, it wanted to teach us something different altogether. The words refer to someone who had already undergone the purification process of seven days for someone who has become impure through contact with the dead, but had not yet experienced sunset on his seventh day; alternatively, it may refer to a person impure through contact with some kind of four-legged creeping animal who has not yet undergone ritual immersion. It is important to appreciate that such residual impurity as we have just mentioned is not so serious that it affects the soul of the person concerned. It is more like a veil of impurity which envelops only the outside of the body of a person. This is the reason why ritual immersion is sufficient to remove the last vestiges of such impurity although for the previous seven days such a ritual immersion would have been quite ineffective seeing the impurity had penetrated also the inside of the body. When the Torah wrote והנפש אשר תאכל…וטומאתו עליו, it informed us that not only is someone guilty of the Karet penalty when the impurity he is suffering from is עליה, envelops his soul, but even if the impurity has already been reduced to a state where it is only עליו on the outside of his body, the same penalty still applies if he eats sacrificial meat before having become totally pure. Similar considerations apply to someone who has not yet shed the relatively lighter impurity absorbed through his having contacted a dead creeping animal.

Three כריתות. One in Parshas Emor (22:3): “any person of your offspring who will draw near to the holy things ... [while his impurity is on him, that soul shall be cut off].” The Gemara says in Zevachim Chapter 4 that when it says “who will draw near” it refers to eating: What does it mean, “who will draw near”? It is said concerning something that is fit to be brought near [the altar]. And how is that so? Because it had already been consecrated in a holy vessel. The other two כריתות are mentioned in Parshas Tzav (v. 20): “The person who eats of the flesh of the peace-offering,” and the next verse (v. 21) reads: “A person who touches anything unclean.” Concerning both of these it says: “[that person’s soul] shall be cut off.” [Rashi explains:] “One is [to teach] a general rule” — meaning: The one [in Parshas Emor]: “to the holy things,” which includes everything. One from the two mentioned in Parshas Tzav [teaches the rule regarding] a particular case. This is a rule [handed down at Sinai as a method of expounding the Torah] explained in Toras Kohanim, in the beginning of the sefer: Something that was included in a general rule, and [then] was singled out from that rule to teach, was not singled out to teach only about itself, but rather to teach about that entire general rule. How is that so? [Peace-offerings need not have been mentioned separately:] “The person who eats of the flesh of the peace-offering, etc.” since peace-offerings were included in the general category of “to the holy things.” Why then, did they depart [as a separate category here]? To compare to them — just as peace-offerings are special in that they are brought to the altar, so too, anything else that is brought to the altar [is included in the punishment of כרת]. This excludes animals dedicated to the Temple upkeep that one is not liable to the punishment of כרת [if he eats their flesh] while in a state of impurity.

Why then does the Torah use the masculine form ואכל in the middle of verse 21, when the correct term would have been ואכלה seeing that I could not have mistaken its meaning and it would have been so much simpler to have a uniform text in both of these verses? I believe that the reason the Torah chose to write נפש כי תגע, a feminine way of describing the contact instead of writing איש כי יגע the parallel masculine form, is to inform us that such contact with the source of impurity had to be intentional not merely accidental in order for the person to become culpable of the penalty mentioned. The word נפש alludes to such an intentional act. This is also the reason why the Torah chose the word נפש instead of איש in verse 20. The word איש would not have conveyed the fact that the act was committed intentionally. Keeping in mind the thought that the word נפש alludes to the awareness of the sinner of what he is doing will help us understand the recurrent use of the word נפש in chapter four and five which deals with inadvertently committed sins. This word explains the need for the sinner to offer sin-offerings or guilt-offerings in those situations. Had the sinner been totally unaware of committing a wrong the Torah would not have required these offerings from him so that he could atone for his mistakes. We may summarise that the word נפש indicates that the person who committed the trespass cannot claim unawareness of doing something wrong. In our two verses here the word נפש implies that the guilty party was aware of touching something he should not have touched (verse21) or he was aware that he ate something he should not have eaten (verse 20). We cannot therefore question why the Torah used a masculine term in the middle of both verses as there was no need to depart from the norm in describing the perpetrator of the sin as being a male. The reason the Torah wrote ונכרתה הנפש ההיא, "this soul will be exterminated," is to teach us that G'd will not only punish the body of the sinner by premature death or something like it, but that He will also punish his soul by death.

And one to teach regarding a sliding-scale sacrifice. As it is written in Parshas Vayikro (5:2): “and this [impurity] was concealed from him, he is impure and incurs guilt.” We would not know why he incurs guilt. Could it be that because he was impure he should incur guilt and bring a sliding-scale sacrifice? Therefore, this [third] כרת was made available to teach that [the sliding-scale sacrifice] comes to atone for this כרת, referring to [a person in the state of impurity who ate] sacrificial meat. [However,] if this does not refer to sacrificial meat [eaten by a person] in [the state of] impurity [then it should be used to teach something else]. [It is not needed] because it is [already] derived from a gezeiroh shovoh: Regarding the sliding-scale sacrifice it is written (ibid.): “or the carcass of an impure animal of pasture,” and it says concerning one who eats sacrificial meat in the state of bodily uncleanness in Parshas Tzav (v. 21): A person who touches [anything unclean] ... or an impure animal ... and then eats some flesh [of the peace-offering].” Just as later on [in Parshas Tzav] it refers to sacrificial meat in impurity, so too, here, [regarding the sliding-scale sacrifice] it refers to sacrificial meat in impurity. Thus, [since it is not needed for this], it should be used to teach about one who enters the Temple in impurity.

In addition to the approach of our sages in the Talmud, we may find still another reason to justify the repetition of our verses by referring to the Mishnah in Zevachim 106. We learn there that a person who is ritually impure and eats sacrfificial meat is guilty regardless of whether that meat had already been defiled or not. Rabbi Yossi Haglili disagrees saying that if said meat had already been defiled, the person who ate it is not guilty. In discussing this problem on folio 108, the Talmud concludes that if the person became defiled before the meat became defiled there is a concensus that the person who ate from that meat is guilty. The disagreement between the majority opinion and Rabbi Yossi Haglili concerns only a situation when the meat became defiled before the person eating it became impure. This is why the Torah had to write two verses The first verse i.e. והנפש אשר תאכל describes a situation in which a person who is ritually unclean ate sacrificial meat of a peace-offering which was ritually pure; the second verse which writes ואכל מבשר זבח השלמים, speaks of a ritually impure person who ate sacrificial meat which had already become defiled. Perhaps the reason the Torah described the meat in the first verse as תאכל בשר מזבח שלמים, meat of a peace-offering, is that the meat in question had not yet become defiled; in the following verse the Torah changed this description by writing מבשר זבח שלמים, meaning the meat was of a category which qualifies as a meat-offering, but it had been defiled in the meantime and does no longer qualify for being eaten. It is no longer בשר שלמים. The letter מ in the word מבשר indicates that it is no longer wholly a meat-offering, זבח שלמים. The letter מ is therefore not exegetically available for some other למוד, halachah, to be derived from it.

OR AN UNCLEAN BEAST. Scripture speaks here briefly, mentioning only some of the unclean objects. But the same law applies to all [sources of uncleanness], for even if he touched the carcass of a clean animal and then ate holy food, he is liable to this [punishment of] excision. The nature of this excision I will explain in the section of forbidden marriages,¹³¹Further, 18:29. with the help of G-d.

כל חלב שור, “any of the fat parts above the kidneys and liver of the four legged animals fit for sacrifices on the altar, are forbidden to be eaten.” Contrary to verse 20, where we encountered the penalty for eating while in a state of ritual impurity, though we had not heard about the warning not to do so, here we hear the warning, but must search for where the penalty has been spelled out. We find it in verse 25. The reason why the law has been repeated is to teach us that the law forbidding to eat these fat parts from animals which the Torah has forbidden us to eat, anyway does not apply. [In practice this means that when someone eats an animal that is forbidden to be eaten, he is not penalised additionally for eating those parts of the animal. Ed.] (Sifra)

יעשה לכל מלאכה [AND THE FAT OF CARRION AND THE FAT OF THAT WHICH IS TORN] MAY BE USED IN ANY WORK — Scripture comes and teaches you with regard to חלב (the forbidden fat) of carrion that it does not acquire the “uncleanness of carrion” (‎‏טומאת נבלות), i.e. that whilst the flesh is unclean (cf. Leviticus 11:39) the fat (חלב) does not acquire this uncleanness (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Section 10 5; Pesachim 23a, b).

[Fat ...] does not acquire uncleanness. Meaning: If [the verse came] to permit deriving benefit, [it would be unnecessary] since one is permitted to derive benefit from a נבלה (the carcass of an animal which has been slaughtered improperly), as it is written (Devarim 14:21): “To the stranger that is in your gates...” thus, the fat is also included. Perforce, it comes [to teach] that the fat does not cause impurity of נבלה and may even be used for oiling the hides of animals dedicated to the Temple upkeep. For this reason it is written, “may be used for any purpose.”

תאכלוה ‎לא ‎‏ ואכל[AND THE FAT OF CARRION … MAY BE USED IN ANY WORK] BUT YE SHALL IN NO WISE EAT OF IT — By these words it is not intended to forbid the eating of the חלב of a נבלה and טרפה because it is חלב for this has already been forbidden in Leviticus 3:17, but the Torah in effect says here: The prohibition of eating נבלה or טרפה shall come and fall upon (shall form an additional prohibition to) that of חלב — that if one eats it (the חלב of נבלה or of טרפה) he becomes liable to the punishment for transgressing the prohibition of נבלה also, (or of טרפה also), and you should not say: No prohibition can be super-imposed upon another prohibition already existing (Zevachim 70a).

And fall on the prohibition of חלב. [Although Rashi writes, “he will be liable for the prohibition of נבלה”] the same applies to the prohibition of טריפה (an animal which died of natural causes, or would have died of such causes had it not been slaughtered). Rashi needs to mention both of these examples: the fat of a נבלה and the fat of a טריפה, for if it let us know only נבלה, I would say that regarding נבלה a prohibition falls on another prohibition because it acquires a severe impurity, but regarding טריפה it does not. And if it let me know only concerning טריפה, [I would say that regarding טריפה] a prohibition falls on another prohibition because it is a prohibited while still alive, but regarding נבלה it is not. For this reason, both are necessary.

FOR WHOSOEVER EATETH THE FAT OF THE BEAST, OF WHICH MAN PRESENTS AN OFFERING … SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE. It is impossible that the explanation of the phrase: of the beast [of which man presents an offering], is that this beast is itself an offering, so that an unconsecrated animal be excluded from this prohibition, since in the section of Vayikra, Scripture has already prohibited all fat in an unqualified manner,¹³²Above, 3:17. without any condition or exception. Here too it prohibited at first all fat of ox, or sheep, or goat,¹³³Verse 23. and it further decreed against eating the fat of that which dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of beasts,¹³⁴Verse 24. and these cannot be brought as offerings to G-d. Besides, He said there [in the section of Vayikra], It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings,¹³⁵Above, 3:17. and the expression in all your dwellings is never found in any matter connected with offerings. In speaking of the gifts of the priests He says many times, a statute forever,¹³⁶Ibid., 6:11, etc. but does not mention “in all your dwellings,” because the offerings are not “a statute forever in all your dwellings,” as they only apply in the Tabernacle and in the place which the Eternal shall choose.¹³⁷Deuteronomy 12:14. A reference to the Sanctuary in Shiloh and to its final location in Jerusalem.
Let not the eyes of him who is mistaken¹³⁸The allusion is to Ibn Ezra who in Verse 20 wrote that the phrase in all your dwellings refers also to the offerings (see the verse mentioned in the text with reference to the new produce, and also the following note). be blinded by the verse, And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this selfsame day, until ye have brought the offering of your G-d; it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.¹³⁹Further, 23:14. On the basis of this verse Ibn Ezra argued that in all your dwellings applies also to the offerings, since the verse refers to the omer (a measure of new barley brought as a meal-offering on the second day of Passover). But Ramban answers that the phrase refers not to the omer, but to the new crop which, through the offering of the omer, was henceforth permitted to be eaten (see “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 186-188). It is to this prohibition of eating of the new crop before the bringing of the omer [or before the end of the sixteenth day of Nisan], that the phrase in all your dwellings refers. Hence the phrase in all your dwellings which is stated in connection with the prohibitions against eating fat and blood (above, 3:17) must perforce mean that they are applicable everywhere, independent of the existence of the Sanctuary and its offerings. For it is eating of the new crop that is forbidden by law of the Torah in all places, and Scripture is saying that we are not to eat bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears forever in all our dwelling places, until that same day on which we bring the offering of the new barley in the Sanctuary. If the offering is not brought [as when the Sanctuary is destroyed], it does not become forbidden henceforth to eat of the new crop [i.e., after the end of the sixteenth day of Nisan], for He did not say, “ye shall not eat until ye have brought the offering of your G-d,” but instead the prohibition extends until this selfsame day only. Rather, the meaning of until this selfsame day is the one on which you bring the offering when you are in a position to do so, the reason being that the offering should be a new meal-offering [but when you are not able to bring the offering, as when the Sanctuary is destroyed, the prohibition is only until this selfsame day]. It is possible that the word hayom (the day) is connected also with [the latter part of the verse:] “until this selfsame day, until the day ye have brought the offering of your G-d,” [thus clearly indicating that the prohibition depends on the day the offering is brought, and not on the actual bringing thereof].
The complete proof that the explanation of the phrase [in the verse before us] the beast of which man presents an offering, is “of the kind of beast from which man presents an offering,” [and not “of the beast which is itself an actual offering,” so that the unconsecrated beast would be excluded from the prohibition against eating of the fat thereof,] is that it says also in the section on valuations, And if it be a beast, whereof men bring an offering unto the Eternal, all that any man giveth of such unto the Eternal shall be holy,¹⁴⁰Further, 27:9. and it explains that this means the kind of beast whereof men bring an offering to G-d. And so also, And if it be any unclean beast, of which they may not bring an offering unto the Eternal,¹⁴¹Ibid., Verse 11. here clearly stating, “any unclean beast of the kind from which offerings are not brought.” There is no difference whatever between stating it in the plural — whereof men bring,¹⁴⁰Further, 27:9. of which they may not bring¹⁴¹Ibid., Verse 11. — or saying it in the singular [as in the verse before us], of which man presents, for the meaning is “the kind of beast of which man presents an offering.” Similarly He said, And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die,¹⁴²Further, 11:39. which means the kind of beast of which ye may eat, but not that the particular beast may be eaten [since it is expressly prohibited as meat, as it died without being slaughtered properly].
Now since He prohibited all fat of a beast whereof an offering is brought, but not of the kind of which offerings are not brought, it might enter one’s mind to say that a beast which died of itself or was torn [by other beasts] is regarded as a kind from which offerings may not be brought [and therefore their fats may be eaten]; therefore it was necessary to mention [in Verse 24] that [the fats of these animals] are forbidden, and it is this which He said, and ye shall in no wise eat of it,¹³⁴Verse 24. meaning that he who eats it is liable to excision as with all other fats, as He forbade the fat of the entire class of beasts from which offerings are brought, even of those animals which died of themselves or were torn by [wild] beasts. He states, they may be used for any other service,¹³⁴Verse 24. meaning to say that [the fat of a clean animal which died of itself or was torn by beasts] has no law of uncleanness of carrion [but is like ordinary food which has become unclean],¹⁴³Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Aboth Hatum’oth, 1:5. for since He said, and their carcasses ye shall not touch,¹⁴⁴Further, 11:8. He states concerning the fat thereof that one may touch it and use it for any other service. Now if the prohibition of eating fat would apply only to that of actual offerings, why was it necessary to say there in the section of Vayikra, Ye shall not eat any fat,¹³²Above, 3:17. when He had already commanded [in the preceding verse] that it be brought up on the altar as a sweet savor, and how could we eat of the fire-offering of G-d? Why did He not also prohibit the eating of the lobe above the liver and the two kidneys, which are removed from the offerings [and burnt on the altar — yet these may be eaten in the case of ordinary clean animals because they do not come under the term cheilev (fat)].¹⁴⁵See Ramban above, 3:9. Ramban is here arguing that if the prohibition against eating fats is restricted to those offered on the altar, why do we find no prohibition in connection with the other parts offered on the altar. Moreover, why was it necessary to mention here, Ye shall eat no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat,¹³³Verse 23. when it is known that offerings can be brought only from them [it thus being obvious that the prohibition of cheilev applies to all clean animals — hallowed or unhallowed]! The reason why Scripture said concerning dedicated offerings that became invalidated [because of a blemish they received, in which case they are redeemed and may then be slaughtered and eaten as ordinary food], Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof,¹⁴⁶Deuteronomy 15:23. Ramban’s explanation of this subject is found there in 12:22. and did not mention anything concerning the fat, I shall explain when G-d helps me to reach there.

מן הבהמה, from the beast, etc. This apparently superfluous word is interpreted by Torat Kohanim as including the fat of animals each one of which would have been suitable as a sacrifice, and which have been crossbred, such as the product of a billy-goat mating with a ewe or vice versa; the fat of animals which are the product of such crossbreeding is unfit to eat on pain of the Karet penalty. The apparently extraneous word כל in the sequence כל חלב refers to an animal called כוי which is the product of a male goat mating with a gazelle. In my book פרי תואר in which I have commented on the טור יורה דעה טז you will find more about this subject.

מן הבהמה אשר יקריב, from the category of animal one may bring a sacrifice, even if in this instance the animal remained secular, had not been designated as a sacrifice.

כי כל אוכל חלב מן הבהמה אשר יקריב ממנה קרבן לה', “for any one who eats of the fat parts of the animal which he offers to Hashem as a sacrifice, etc.” The verse does not refer to the actual animal that has been offered as a sacrifice, so that it would exclude animals that have not been sanctified as offerings from this prohibition, but to the categories of animals which may potentially be offered as sacrifices on the altar. The fact that the fat of an animal that has already been offered as a sacrifice is forbidden on pain of the karet penalty when it is done deliberately, certainly does not need to be mentioned here. Even in Parshat Vayikra (3,17) the verse כל חלב... לא תאכלו would not have been necessary seeing that the Torah had already commanded that it be burned up on the altar. The principal reason for our verse here is to indicate that the fat parts of free roaming animals such as gazelles, deer, etc., which basically are allowed to be eaten, although capturing them unblemished may be difficult, are excluded from the prohibition. We might have thought that the categories of animals referred to as חיה that is a sub category of the ruminants described by the Torah as בהמה are included in this prohibition. By ”repeating” something we knew already, the Torah by emphasizing the words בהמה and יקריב, makes clear that free-roaming ruminants that do not qualify for יקריב are also not subject to the restriction of חלב. In order for us not to think that the חלב of an animal that died of causes other than ritual slaughter, i.e. a נבלה or an animal that died from some disease or injury, i.e. טרפה, is excluded from the legislation mentioned here, the Torah writes that although these carcasses may be used, they must not be eaten. (verse 24) The complete meaning of our verse is: the חלב of any category of animal from which a sacrifice on the altar may be presented to Hashem, including those which have become disqualified before reaching the altar, must not be eaten on pain of the severe penalty known as karet.

מן הבהמה אשר יקריב ממנה, “who eats (fat) from the beast which people use to present as offerings;” from that species of beast, although it had never been sanctified as a potential sacrifice. This teaches that fat parts not used exclusively for the altar may be eaten.

כל אוכל חלב, anyone eating such fat, etc. The word כל is interpreted by Torat Kohanim as including the fat of animals which are not intended to become sacrificial offerings. We should not err and conclude from the words אשר יקריב ממנו אשה לה׳ that only חלב of such sacrificial animals is prohibited; therefore the Torah adds the word כל אוכל חלב. Seeing this inclusive word is not required to warn those who would eat it, it may be applied to the parts of the animal subject to being eaten.

It seems rather difficult to understand why I would have made such an error and would have thought that without the word כל the Torah's injunction would have applied only to בשר קדשים, sacrificial animals. After all, the Torah mentioned specifically that the fat of a נבלה an animal which died by causes other than ritual slaughter may be used for the performance of all kinds of work but may not be eaten (24)? Besides, since when are the remnants of sacrificial animals permitted for use by non-priests? Does the Talmud not state specifically in Pessachim 82 that if an animal intended as a sacrifice was found to be treyfah after it has been slaughtered, such an animal has to be removed to a place called בית השרפה, to be burned there? We derive this from Leviticus 6,23 בקדש באש תשרף. This teaches that all sacrificial animals which have become unfit for the altar have to be destroyed. In view of this the words וחלב נבלה וחלב טרפה in verse 24 must refer to animals not intended as sacrificial offerings. Why then did the Torah have to write the words כל אוכל חלב to prevent me from making an error as to the prohibition of חלב applying to ordinary animals? We believe the main point Torat Kohanim wanted to make with its למוד from the words כל אוכל חלב is that the penalty of Karet applies both to someone who partakes of fat from sacrificial animals and to someone who partakes from the fat of ordinary animals. If not for the words כל חלב, I would have assumed that the prohibition is an ordinary negative commandment punishable by 39 מלקות lashes.

כל חלב שור וכשב ועז לא תאכלו "You shall not eat any fat of ox, sheep or goat. Torat Kohanim on this verse comments that the list of these animals is intended to exclude the prohibition of חלב from animals not suitable for consumption by Jews, בהמות טמאות, as well as free-roaming animals and fowl. In Chulin 116 Rabbi Mori is reported as having asked Rabbi Zvid if the fat-tail אליה of the sheep was considered חלב and therefore prohibited. Rabbi Zvid answered: "because of people who ask questions such as you have just asked the Torah wrote the verse כל חלב שור וכשב ועז לא תאכלו, to make clear that the term חלב applies only to the kind of fat which these three categories of animals have in common." How could Rabbi Zvid give such an answer seeing we have already used the animals mentioned in that verse for a different למוד, namely to exclude three other categories of animals? If the Torah had not written verse 23 to exclude the three categories of animals mentioned by Torat Kohanim, we would have learned a קל וחומר, i.e. used logic to arrive at the opposite conclusion as explained by Torat Kohanim on that verse. Perhaps we could have derived the exclusion of those three categories of animals from the words אשר יקריב ממנה אשה לשם. These words would already have excluded both fowl (of which only two species may be used as an offering) and impure animals which are totally unfit as offerings, as well as free-roaming animals which are not suitable as offerings for different considerations although they may be consumed by Jews if ritually slaughtered, etc. Alternatively, once the Torah had specifically excluded impure animals and free-roaming beasts, the Torah made it plain that the קל וחומר which was based on the comparison with the prohibition to eat blood which applies to all of the three categories of animals alike although certain other disqualifications do not apply to it, is not to be applied here. You will find that Rashi's commentary on the Mishnah in Chulin 117 follows a similar path. It is important to take a good look at the next verse.

מן הבהמה, from the beasts; Torat Kohanim derives from this expression also that animals not intended to serve as sacrifices due to a physical blemish are nevertheless included in the legislation forbidding the consumption of their חלב, the fat parts offered on the altar, if they had been used as sacrifices. Although the Torah had already specifically prohibited the חלב of animals which have not been slaughtered ritually or of animals which were found defective after slaughtering (although these animals too were unfit for the altar and I could have used that fact to apply the legislation to said חולין בעלי מומין), this would not have been conclusive. According to Maimonides there is no biblical prohibition against a treyfah animal being offered on the altar (Issurey Mizbeach chapter 2). This prohibition is based only on Maleachi 1,8 that "G'd would reject an offering which does not reflect our high regard for Him seeing we would not dare offer something inferior to our governor." Accordingly, a special verse was needed to include treyfah animals. It is true that Torat Kohanim on the same two words in Leviticus 1,2 mentions the exclusion of treyfah animals; however, this is only an אסמכתא a "lean to;" it is not the kind of exegesis which is binding as has been explained in that connection by the author of Kesef Mishneh. At any rate, seeing that a נבלה is prohibited as an offering by a biblical injunction because the Torah wrote the word ושחט, "he must slaughter the animal," in connection with every sacrifice, why was there a need to use the words מן הבהמה to include the categories mentioned by Torat Kohanim? We have to answer again that what Torat Kohanim had in mind was that the same penalty Karet which applies to someone who partakes of the fat of the sacrificial animal also applies to someone eating the fat parts of an ordinary animal which had become unfit as a sacrifice.

אשר יקריב ממנה אשה לשם, from which he will offer a sacrifice to the Lord; Torat Kohanim, which zeroes in on the apparently extraneous words אשר יקריב, concludes that the Torah refers to the type of חלב which is suitable for burning up on the altar; it excludes the kind of חלב of the walls of the animal's cavities and fat on the ribs which is not suitable for the altar. According to this reasoning which uses the words כל חלב שור וכשב ועז to exclude application of the prohibition to eat the fat of impure animals and the like, the words אשר יקריב were not needed, and they were therefore available to exclude such fats as is on the ribs of the animal from the application of the prohibition to eat חלב.

From where does Rabbi Zvid who used the words שור וכשב ועז to permit eating of the fat on the אליה, the fat part of the tail of the sheep, derive permission to eat also from the fat on the ribs, etc.? At the same time we may ask where the sage who derives permission to eat the fat of the אליה from the words שור וכשב ועז, finds a source for permitting consumption of such fat as that on the ribs, etc.? We may have to conclude that Rabbi Zvid holds that the words אשר יקריב exclude not only such animals as impure beasts, free-roaming animals and fowl from the prohibition of חלב, but also exempt fat on such parts of the animal as the ribs from the application of this law. The reasoning is simply that not only any animal but any part of an animal not burned up on the altar is excluded from this injunction. The author of Torat Kohanim also arrives at the same exclusion using the words שור וכשב ועז as excluding also the אליה from this injunction. If the verse had wanted to exclude only impure animals, birds and wild-roaming animals, it would have had to mention only שור וכשב. As soon as we would exempt even a single type of animal from the prohibition of eating חלב though the prohibition of eating of its blood still applied to it, the whole basis for the קל וחומר which Torat Kohanim wanted to refute by the Torah's use of the extraneous words מן הבהמה had already disappeared. We would have excluded such animals as חיה ועוף automatically. If the Torah nonetheless wrote extra words, such words may be used exegetically, i.e. to exclude the fat on the ribs. The three words שור כשב and עז would between them have excluded only the fat of the אליה from the prohibition of eating חלב.

Why then did Rabbi Zvid disagree with the author of Torat Kohanim who derived the exclusion of the fat of impure animals, free-roaming animals, and birds from the words שור וכשב ועז? The author concludes that the principal exclusion of such animals as the impure, the free-roaming ones, and the birds is derived from the words שור וכשב ועז. He does not therefore accept the view of Rashi on the Mishnah in Chulin 117 which he quoted earlier.

בכל מושבתיכם [YE SHALL EAT NO BLOOD …] IN ALL YOUR HABITATIONS — Since this is a personal duty (חובת הגוף) and not a duty depending upon Palestinian soil it applies wherever Israelites are settled). In Treatise Kiddushin, first chapter, (Kiddushin 37b) it is explained why it is necessary to use this term (i. e. to add ‎בכל משבתיכם).

בכל מושבותיכם, even though, seeing the Torah speaks of areas other than Jerusalem, these animals are most certainly secular;

Excluding the blood of fish and grasshoppers. Otherwise, why does it say, “be it of fowl or beast”? However, we should not say it excludes the blood of wild beasts (חיה). This cannot be, because חיה is included in the word בהמה. It not only excludes [the blood of] fish and grasshoppers, but also human blood. This is because this verse follows the rule [of Torah interpretation handed down at Sinai] of a general rule that is followed by a specific rule (כלל ופרט) — that the general rule includes only what is specified in the specific detail — fowl or בהמה. Other blood, however, that is not the blood of fowl or בהמה, is not included.

וכל דם לא תאכלו, “but you must not eat any kind of blood. We have heard the warning here, now we have to search for the penalty if this law is contravened. It is found in verse 27 in this chapter: כל נפש אשר תאכל כל דם ונכרתה הנפש ההיא, “the soul of any person eating any blood will be cut off (from his people).”

לעוף ולבהמה ‎Excluded [from this prohibition is] the blood of fish and locusts.

It applies in all habitations. You might ask: Why does Rashi reverse the order and not explain according to the order of the verse? The answer is: Without this [that Rashi first explains “be it of fowl or beast”], I might say that “in all your dwelling places” comes to include that everything in your dwelling places would be prohibited, even [the blood of] fish and grasshoppers. Now, however, that it is written, “be it of fowl or beast,” which excludes [the blood of] fish and grasshoppers, if so, it raises a difficulty: Why do I need, “in all your dwelling places”? Rather, it must be coming to teach us that it applies even outside of Eretz Yisroel since it is an obligation of the individual. You might ask: It is obvious that since it is an obligation of the individual that it applies whether in Eretz Yisroel, etc. [so why do we need the inclusionary phrase?] Therefore, Rashi explains: And in Maseches Kiddushin [it is explained why it was necessary to state this]. It is explained there: If Scripture did not write, “in all your dwelling places,” I might assume that since it is included within the general discussion of sacrifices, when the sacrifices are extant [i.e., when the Beis HaMikdash is standing] the fat and blood are prohibited, but when there are no sacrifices, they are not prohibited. Therefore, it teaches us [that these prohibitions apply to all times]. Divrei Dovid answers why Rashi reverses the order and first explains “be it fowl or beast” and then “in all your dwelling places,” which appears earlier in the verse. This is because Scripture says (v. 25): “Anyone who eats fat [of an animal from] which is offered a fire-offering to Hashem...” Meaning: There is a prohibition of fat and blood specifically from an animal that is fit for sacrifices, however, there is no prohibition from what is not fit for sacrifices. Accordingly, the verse, “be it fowl or beast,” refers to “fowl” such as turtledoves and young pigeons; and “beast” refers to the type that is pure [for sacrifices], in particular. According to this, I would explain that when the verse says, “in all your dwelling places,” it comes to prohibit all types of blood, even [from animals] not fit for sacrifices. But now that the verse, “be it fowl or beast” excludes the blood of fish and grasshoppers, by the strength of a כלל ופרט (that the general rule includes only what is specified in the specific detail), and [thus] the general rule that is mentioned does not prohibit all the types, if so, there is a difficulty: Why do I need “in all your dwelling places”? Even without it, we know that it does not depend on whether or not it is fit for a sacrifice. Rather, the blood of every fowl and beast is prohibited. Therefore, Rashi cites the Gemara in Maseches Kiddushin which answers this.

בכל מושבותיכם, “in all your dwellings;” even though any animal outside of the Holy Land is by definition only secular.

המקריב את זבח שלמיו, “he who offers his sacrifice of peaceofferings.” These types of offerings require to be accompanied by libations, need that the weight of the donor be placed on their head with his hands, and they need תנופה, physically being lifted up, the right thigh and breast being given to the officiating priest.

'ידיו תביאינה וגו‎ HIS OWN HANDS NAMELY SHALL BRING [THE FIRE OFFERINGS OF THE LORD] — This means that the owner’s hand shall be above and the fat and the breasts shall be lying in it, and the priest’s hand shall be beneath (i. e. beneath the hand of the owner) — and thus does he wave them (Menachot 61b).

THE FAT UPON THE BREAST. It appears from this verse according to its plain meaning that the breast was waved with the fat, but not the thigh. Thus the verse which states, And the breasts and the right thigh Aaron waved for a wave-offering,¹⁴⁷Further, 9:21. means that afterwards [after he had waved the fats with the breasts], he waved them [i.e., the breasts and the thigh] by themselves. But our Rabbis have said¹⁴⁸Menachoth 61 b. that the priest placed the fats upon the hand of the owner of the offering, with the breast and thigh above them, [and waved them]. According to their opinion, the reason why waving is mentioned only in connection with the breast, is in order to serve the basis for the interpretation which they have said: “If [the parts which are to be waved] became unclean, but one of them was left [which remained clean], whence do we know that it needs waving? Scripture therefore says, that the breast may be waved.”¹⁴⁹In Verse 30 before us.

'ידיו תביאנה את אישי ה, seeing that the remainder of the animal belongs to the owners who had brought the offering, the owner together with the priest officiating on his behalf, presents this “waving” to G’d, this symbolic action indicating that basically the entire offering is G’d’s even if only the fat on the chest is offered on the altar, the chest itself belonging to the priest. The main reason for the “waving” is on account of that chest, to signal that actually it too belongs to G’d. There was no need to wave the fat, seeing we all know that the fat of every sacrificial animal always belongs to G’d via the altar on which it is burned up.

The kohein’s hand beneath. Since it is written (Devarim 26:4): “And the kohein will take the basket from your hand,” just as there [it refers to] the hand of the kohein, so too, here, it refers to the hand of the kohein. And yet it is written: “His hands shall bring it,” which refers to the [hands of the] owner. How [do we resolve the apparent contradiction]? “The owner’s hands should be [on top ... with the kohein’s hand beneath].”

ידיו תביאנה, “he shall bring it with his own hands;” Rashi adds that this means that he (the priest) is to carry it by supporting the hand of the donor while transporting it from the hall in which it is slaughtered. This is why Rashi adds that three priests are needed to do all this.

‎'את אשי ה‎ THE FIRE OFFERINGS OF THE LORD — and what are these fire-offerings that he shall bring?

That three kohanim. Although it would be sufficient with one, this is because “the glory of the king is when there is a multitude of people.”

את החלב על החזה, “the fat with the breast.”

‎החזה יביאנו‎ ‎‏ את החלב על‏THE FAT UPON THE BREAST SHALL HE BRING — When he (the first priest; see below) brings it from the slaughtering-place he places the fat upon the breast, and when he afterwards transfers it into the hand of the priest who is to do the waving it follows that the breast is on top and the fat beneath; — that is what Scripture states in another passage, (Leviticus 10:15) “The heave shoulder and the wave breasts shall they bring upon (על) the fire-offerings of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering etc.” (i. e. during the waving the חזה ושוק shall be on top). After the waving he (that priest) transfers it to the priest who is to burn it on the altar, when consequently the breast is again beneath; — that is what Scripture states, (Leviticus 9:20) “And they put the fat upon the breasts, and he burnt the fat at the altar”. Thus we learn that three priests are required for it (for the rite of waving). Thus is it explained in Treatise Menachot 62a.

Since it is said. Meaning: Since it is written: “את החלב על החזה יביאנו (he shall bring the fat on the breast)” it did not need to additionally write: “את החזה (and the breast).” Therefore Rashi explains that the second phrase “את החזה” refers to the phrase “להניף אותו (to wave it),” as if it says: The only reason he brings the breast together with the fat is to wave with it. Were it not for this, I would think that the aforementioned phrase “the fire-offerings of Hashem” includes [both] the fat and the breast that appear in the verse after it. You might ask: It is clearly written in the next verse: “The kohein shall burn the fat on the altar and the breast shall belong to Aharon and to his sons.” How, then, could we have assumed that the breast would also be [burnt] with the fire offerings? The answer is: Were it not for the verse: “And the breast to wave,” I would think that the verse (31), “The kohein shall burn the fat on the altar and the breast shall belong to Aharon and to his sons” comes to teach that you should not say that even the breast is a fire offering, [which you might say] because it is written, “the fat on the breast.” However, it (v. 31) does not teach that the meat is not eaten as long as the fats are below the altar (see Rashi there). Now that it is written, “and the breast to wave,” which teaches us that the breast is not one of the fire offerings, the verse, “and the breast shall belong to Aharon and to his sons” remains available to teach that the meat is not eaten while the fats are below the altar (Re’m). Were it not for the verse, “and the breast to wave,” I might think that part of the breast is for a fire offering and part is for Aharon, as we say (3:4) regarding the liver. (Gur Aryeh) Gur Aryeh’s answer poses a difficulty: The liver is different, because it is written (ibid.): “יותרת על הכבד (the lobe on the liver)”; the expression על הכבד is extra. Therefore, the Sages derived that he should take a small part [of the liver with the lobe]. This is not so, here, regarding the breast, where the fat is placed upon it, and there is no extra expression. Thus, it appears to me that I might assume this is what it means: “His hands shall bring the fire-offerings of Hashem” refers to the fat and the breast, since both of them are relevant as fire offerings of Hashem. However, the Merciful One gave [the breast to] Aharon and his sons from the table of the Most High, and it would not be the property of the owner with which he could betroth a woman. Therefore, it teaches us know that the breast is not of the fire offerings of Hashem at all, and it is the property of the owner. With this, the language of the later verse is understandable as well (v. 34): “Because the breast wave-offering... I have taken from Bnei Yisroel ... and I have given them to Aharon the kohein.” This verse poses a difficulty: What new information does Scripture give here? According to what I mentioned it goes well: Scripture teaches us that they were taken from the Bnei Yisroel and not from the table of the Most High. Thus, what Hashem has given to them is the property of the owner (Divrei Dovid).

את החלב על החזה יביאנה THE BREAST WITH THE FAT, IT SHALL HE BRING — And to what end does he bring the breast? This is stated in the words that follow: “[As for the breast], להניף אותו for the purpose of waving it” shall he bring it, and not that it, too, should become part of the fire offerings. But because it states את אשי ה' את החלב על החזה "‎the fire-offerings of the Lord — the fat with the breast”, I might think that the breast also belongs to the fire-offerings, Scripture therefore continues: 'את החזה להניף וגו, “he brings the breast to wave it, etc.”

והקטיר הכהן את החלב AND THE PRIEST SHALL CAUSE THE FAT TO ASCEND IN FUMES [AT THE ALTAR] and only afterwards, והיה החזה לאהרן SHALL THE BREAST BE AARON’S [AND HIS SONS] — This teaches us that the flesh of the sacrifices may not be eaten so long as the fat portions are below the altar (have not yet been placed upon it and burnt) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 16 4; Pesachim 59b).

שוק is that limb of the right rear-leg extending from the knee-joint, the bone and blesh of which are usually sold as offal together with the head, unto the middle joint which is what is known as the סובך of the leg (the סובד is the small bone between that middle joint and the thigh-bone; consequently the שוק spoken of in connection with שלמים is the middle one of the three limbs that form an animal’s leg) (Chullin 134b).

ואת שוק הימין תתנו תרומה לכהן, from the part which belongs to the owners; we may view the priest in this instance as similar to the King’s minister who, when someone who comes to offer a gift to the king, accepts a smaller gift meant for the king’s servant in order to secure an audience with the king by the person bearing the larger gift.

‎'וגו‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‏‎ השלמים ‎ ‏‏‎דם‎ ‎את ‎‎המקריב‎ [HE AMONG THE SONS OF AARON] THAT OFFERETH THE BLOOD OF THE PEACE-OFFERINGS [AND THE FAT SHALL HAVE THE SHOULDER OF THE RIGHT SIDE FOR HIS PART] — “He that offereth the blood” means: he who is fitted to perform the sprinkling of it and to burn the fat portions, — thus excluding a priest who was unclean at the time when the blood was sprinkled, or the fat portions were burnt — that he does not share in the flesh (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 16 8; Zevachim 98b).

Or at the time of burning. Although above, regarding the sin-offering, Rashi writes only (6:19): “Excluding the one who is impure at the time of sprinkling the blood,” this is because Scripture writes here: “And the fat,” which implies that he needs to be pure at the time of burning the fat [as well] (Gur Aryeh).

תנופה … .תרומה WAVE [BREAD AND] HEAVE [SHOULDER] — This implies that he (the priest) moved them to and fro in a horizontally direction (תנופה) and moves them up and down (תרומה) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 16 3; cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:27 and Note thereon).

He moves them. [Rashi knows this] because it is written (Shemos 29:27): “[Sanctify the breast of the wave-offering and the shoulder of the terumoh-offering] which were [the] waved and uplifted [parts].” The meaning of תנופה is waving to and fro, and תרומה is an expression denoting lifting up, and as a matter of course lowering.

ואת משחת אהרן ומשחת בניו, the reward for being anointed; they receive the hide of the burnt offerings, the meat of the ordinary sin offerings and guilt offerings. They receive the breads of the תודה offerings as well as the thigh and chest of the שלמים offerings as well as the part of the minchah not destined for the altar.

זאת משחת אהרן, “this is the consecrated portion of Aaron, etc.” They have been consecrated as reward for performing these tasks. Another interpretation of the word: משחה: “to be anointed with that oil is a mark of distinction for them.” (compare Exodus 29,29 למשחה בהם)

WHICH THE ETERNAL COMMANDED TO BE GIVEN THEM IN THE DAY THAT THEY WERE ANOINTED. The order of the verse is as follows:¹⁵⁰As the verse reads, it might appear that G-d only commanded that the priests be given these gifts of the peace-offerings, on the day they were anointed as priests, but not throughout the generations. Therefore Ramban explains the purport of the verse to be as explained in the text. “Which the Eternal commanded, on the day that they were anointed, to be given them from the children of Israel, by a statute forever.” And the explanation of the phrase in the day that they were anointed, is “at the time of the anointment.” Similarly, in the day when they were presented to minister¹⁵¹Verse 35. means: “at that time when He separated them” [to minister as priests]. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that “‘b’yom’ (in the day) that they were anointed means mi’yom (from the day) that they were anointed.¹⁵²The letter beth in the word b’yom (in the day) thus serves as a mem (mi’yom — from the day). Ibn Ezra thus solves the difficulty in the verse (see Note 150) by interpreting it as a command for the future. Similarly, and that which remaineth ‘babasar ubalachem’ [literally: “in the meat and in the bread”]¹⁵³Further, 8:32 — shall ye burn with fire. means mibasar umilechem (“of the meat and of the bread”).

אשר צוה ה' לתת להם ביום משחו אותם, “which Hashem has commanded to give to them on the day of His having anointed them, etc.” The meaning of the words is: “which on the day He ordered them to be anointed, He made their appointment permanent, hereditary, throughout the ages.” Ibn Ezra understands the words ביום משחו as if the Torah had written מיום משחו, “from the day He had anointed them onwards.”

ביום משחו אותם, “on the day that they were anointed.” The prefix letter ב has been used here instead of the more common prefix מ the meaning being: “from the day they were anointed. From this day on, these portions of the sacrificial animals were perpetually given to the priests.

ולמלואים AND FOR THE CONSECRATION OFFERING that was offered on the day that they were installed in the priestly office (cf. Exodus 28:41).

זאת התורה לעולה למנחה ולחטאח, This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering and of the sin-offering. It is not clear what this verse wants to tell us. In Torat Kohanim we read that just as the details of the consecration rites of the Tabernacle which are discussed in the next chapter have all been handed down at Mount Sinai, so the details of permanent offerings have also been handed down at Mount Sinai. Seeing that the consecration rites consisted of public offerings, how do we know that the legislation concerning private offerings was also handed down from Sinai in all its details? Answer: This is why the Torah included the guilt-offering in our verse, an offering which is always a private offering. I have already said repeatedly such as at the beginning of Parshat Mishpatim what I have to contribute on the subject (compare page 689). Torat Kohanim as well as Zevachim 97 also derive from this verse that all the meat-offerings need to be slaughtered with a knife, same as the burnt-offering. It also teaches that all public peace-offerings are to be consumed by the male priests just like the meal-offerings. A more homiletical message contained in this verse may be the thought expressed by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in Menachot 110 that anyone studying the laws of the burnt-offering is as if he had actually offered such a sacrifice. I plan to follow the same approach.

For the day of installation of the kehunoh. Every place where the expression “מלוי יד” (literally, filling the hand) appears, it means the installation, as above in Parshas Tetzaveh.

זאת התורה לעולה, “this is the law for the burnt offering;” this is a reference to the skin of the burnt offering which has not been burned up;”

Let me first preface my remarks by recalling that numerous Kabbalists who have engaged in a study of these matters have said that the principal purpose of Torah and its study is to recapture sparks of sanctity which have "fallen" and as a result are being held captive. We are dealing with two separate aspects of fallen sparks of sanctity here. One refers to the sparks of sanctity which descended into the world of chaos for reasons which are well known. The term "sparks" of sanctity is enough for these students of Kabbalah to know what we are talking about. The second aspect of that term is that it refers to souls which are being oppressed by cruel humans ever since the time Adam sinned in גן עדן. At that time Adam provided the negative elements in our world with a great deal of spiritual loot. The only way such souls can be rescued from the clutches of the spiritually negative forces which hold them captive is the study of Torah in such a way that Torah becomes the mainstay of our lives. Torah is the only effective antidote to the forces of Samael (the evil urge) as we know from Kidushin 30: "If Samael attacks you drag him to the hall of Torah study. If he had been as hard as stone before you dragged him to the house of Torah study you will find that he melts; if he had been as tough as iron he will explode."

ולמנחה, “and for the gift offering;” this is a reference to the part of this offering that has not been consumed. ולחטאת ולאשם, “and for the sin offering, and for the guilt offering; the meat of which is to be consumed by the priests.

In our verse the Torah has revealed the marvellous properties of our Torah. When the Torah writes: "This is the Torah," this is an introduction to the description of its powers. The Torah continues: לעולה, to tell us that by means of Torah study the Jewish people can elevate themselves to be the vehicle of G'd's Presence. The Torah goes on to say למנחה. This word may be translated in several ways all of which are correct. The word reflects the concept of מנוחה, rest; it reflects the concept נחת, calm, tranquillity; it also reflects the concept of הנחה, deposit, repose. This latter meaning is most likely the principal meaning of the word מנחה. In Chulin 91 the stones upon which Jacob placed his head when he went to sleep after having been surprised by an early sunset, are described as having merged in order that the righteous Jacob should be able to use all of them as his pillow, for his repose. In his commentary on Genesis 2,2 Rashi writes בא שבת בא מנוחה, "the arrival of the Sabbath brings with it a sense of repose." This is because the righteous, the foundation of the world, uses the Sabbath as his pillow (allegorically speaking). This is also the mystical dimension of Song of Songs 2,6: שמאלו תחת לראשי וימינו תחבקני. "His left hand is under my head and His right arm embraces me."

ולמלואים, and for the consecration offerings which we learned about earlier in Exodus chapter 29.

ולתטאת ולאשם, and for the sin-offering and the guilt-offering. These words clarify two separate aspects of the descent of the sparks of sanctity into the nether regions which we referred to earlier. The sparks of sanctity which descended at the time the world was still in chaos, Tohu Vavohu [before the period which commenced with G'd creating light at the beginning of the Torah's report in Genesis 1,3 Ed.], are here referred to as לחטאת, i.e. "the Torah of the sin-offering," whereas the sparks of sanctity which descended into the realm of Satan after Adam sinned are referred to as לאשם, i.e. "the Torah of the guilt-offering." The Torah had to inform us of this division in order for us to appreciate that not only can it help us locate and isolate i.e. identify these sparks of sanctity in an environment inherently hostile to sanctity, but Torah can also be the instrument of rescuing these sparks of sanctity from their exile. The Torah alludes to this when it writes: ולמלואים, i.e. "to make them fill their original places." The word למלואים refers to the original place assigned to the sparks of sanctity which descended into chaos before G'd created order in the physical universe. The words ולזבח השלמים refer to the sparks of sanctity which descended into the clutches of the spiritually negative forces rampant in our world after Adam's sin. The expression זבח in this connection reminds us of Psalms 50,23: זובח תודה יכבדני אראנו בישע אלוקים, "he who offers a thank-offering honours Me….and I will show him salvation." Sanhedrin 43 comments on this verse that the person the Psalmist refers to sacrifices his evil urge. Slaughtering, זובח, means vanquishing that which one slaughters. By vanquishing one's evil urge one can again isolate the realm of good which had been inextricably fused with the forces of evil while that soul had been in the clutches of Satan, i.e. of the evil urge. This is a tremendous spiritual accomplishment as commented upon by David in Psalms 109,22 who viewed himself as לבי חלל בקרבי, "my heart was slain inside of me." David refered to having killed the evil urge within him. This is a very great spiritual accomplishment but it cannot be achieved except through Torah as we mentioned when we quoted the Talmud in Kidushin 30. The Talmud there also quotes G'd as saying: "whereas I have created the evil urge within you I have also given you a remedy to overcome it, i.e. the Torah."

ולזבח השלמים, and for the sacrifice known as peaceofferings. This is a reference to the breast, right thigh, and the parts given to the priests of the mandatory thanksgiving offerings.

Another homiletical message is contained in the words ולזבח השלמים which tell us that the whole purpose of identifying and isolating these lost sparks of sanctity is to do so by means of the זבח, the sacrifice; Isaiah 34,6 speaks of כי זבח לה׳ בבצרה, "for the Lord holds a sacrifice in Bozrah;" our sages comment on these words that in the future G'd will slaughter Satan. The meaning of the word "slaughter" [when applied to a spiritual being such as Satan. Ed.] is that G'd will deprive Satan of the component which enables it to live, i.e. the spark of sanctity. This then will be the peace-offering שלמים alluded to in our verse which is a reference to the "happy ending" of human history. Our verse tells us that even the slaughtering of Satan will be accomplished by means of preoccupation with the Torah. Torah. It is the merit acquired by the righteous through preoccupation with Torah which will bring all this about. Our sages in Sukkah 52 alluded to this when they described the slaughter of Samael as being carried out jointly by G'd and the righteous, each one holding the knife from one end. This is meant to teach us that it is within the power of the righteous to contribute their share in the elimination of Samael-Satan. We have already stated that the words זאת התורה are to remind the reader of all the marvellous things which can be accomplished by means of the Torah. לעולה למנחה; these words allude to the elevation of the שכינה and its unification with the essence of G'd. The words לחטאת ולאשם allude to the respective identification and isolation of the sparks of sanctity which are the essential part of the living universe. The words ולמלואים ולזבח השלמים describe the unification of the sparks of sanctity which had gone astray with their erstwhile source, and the slaughtering of the evil source which enabled such a going astray of sanctity to have occurred in the first place. This will also deny that source the basis for any future existence. The word שלמים, perfection, completion, alludes to the fact that when that stage will have been reached all the challenges life on earth presents will have been met successfully. This is the time when G'd will be proclaimed king in this world for ever more and He and His name will be One.

אשר צוה ה׳ את משה, which G'd commanded Moses, etc.; the Torah here reverts to the cause for all this, i.e. the Torah, as had been mentioned by the words וזאת התורה. It is as if the Torah had written in verse 37: "This is the Torah which G'd commanded Moses, etc." ביום צוותו את בני ישראל, on the day He commanded the children of Israel, etc. This ordinance was commanded to them at Mount Sinai seeing G'd said: "in the desert of Sinai." The Torah added: להקריב את קרבניהם, "to offer up their sacrifices." This is an allusion to what I have written previously that all particles of sanctity which exist are an integral part of Israel and that Israel will be able to reunite all these various "sparks" of sanctity by means of the Torah.

WHICH THE ETERNAL COMMANDED MOSES IN MOUNT SINAI. According to our Rabbis¹⁵⁴Sotah 37 b. all the commandments were expressly told to Moses on Mount Sinai, in their general rules, their specific regulations and their minute details, and some of them were repeated in the Tent of Meeting. Thus [all] the commandments in the Book of Vayikra (Leviticus) [which is prefaced by the verse stating it was made known in the Tent of Meeting], are repetitions [of those said on Sinai, which is the sense of the verse before us]. By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, the meaning of the verse is:¹⁵⁵The verse reads: Which the Eternal commanded Moses in Mount Sinai, in the day that he commanded the children of Israel to present their offerings unto the Eternal, in the wilderness of Sinai. Now according to the interpretation of the Rabbis mentioned above, the sense of the verse is that the laws of the offerings were commanded to Moses “in Mount Sinai,” and were repeated to him in the Tent of Meeting “in the wilderness of Sinai.” Ramban will now explain that according to the plain meaning of Scripture this verse speaks of two separate occasions: the offerings of the seven-day consecration of the priests were commanded to Moses “in Mount Sinai,” whilst the laws of the other offerings were given to Moses “in the wilderness of Sinai,” that is, in the Tabernacle. “Which the Eternal commanded Moses in Mount Sinai, and in the day that he commanded the children of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai to present their offerings unto the Eternal,” for He gave the commandment about the consecration-offerings [of the priests] in Mount Sinai, as also in the case of the burnt-offering and sin-offering [which were part of the consecration], and He commanded concerning the meal-offering, guilt-offering, and peace-offerings, in the wilderness of Sinai, in the Tent of Meeting.
It is possible that the expression in Mount Sinai means “in this place in front of Mount Sinai,” which is in the Tent of Meeting. Similarly, It is a continual burnt-offering, which was offered in Mount Sinai,¹⁵⁶Numbers 28:6. does not mean on the mountain itself, for the continual burnt-offering [i.e., the Daily Whole-offering brought for all Israel] began only in the Tent of Meeting, as it is written, Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar: two lambs of the first year day by day continually.¹⁵⁷Exodus 29:38. So also: And they set forward from the Mount of the Eternal¹⁵⁸Numbers 10:33. [which means “from before the Mount of the Eternal”]; ye have dwelt long enough in this mountain¹⁵⁹Deuteronomy 1:6. [which means “in front of this mountain”]. The sense of all these verses is that Israel had encamped before Mount Sinai nearby, as it is written, and there Israel encamped before the Mount.¹⁶⁰Exodus 19:2. There [in the wilderness of Sinai] they stayed until they journeyed from there to the wilderness of Paran.¹⁶¹Numbers 10:12: And the children of Israel set forward by their stages out of the wilderness of Sinai, and the cloud abode in the wilderness of Paran. Thus they made the Tent of Meeting and erected it before the Mount on its east side, and it was there that they began offering the Daily Whole-offering. In the second year [after the exodus] they were commanded concerning the standards,¹⁶²Ibid., 1:1; 2:1-31. and they set the Tent of Meeting in the midst of the camps¹⁶³Ibid., 2:17. when they journeyed. It is for this reason that Scripture says here that this is the law of the burnt-offering¹⁶⁴Verse 37 here. and of all the offerings which G-d commanded [Moses] in Mount Sinai, in the day that he commanded [the children of Israel] … in the wilderness of Sinai.¹⁶⁵Verse 38 here. Scripture thus states that it was in Mount Sinai and in the desert of Sinai, in order to inform us that it was not on the mountain itself, in the place of the Glory where G-d told to Moses the Ten Commandments, nor in the desert of Sinai after they had journeyed from before the Mount. Rather, it was in the wilderness of Sinai, in front of the mountain within its environs and nearby, and there was the Tent of Meeting, as He said at the beginning of the subject of the offerings, And He called unto Moses, and the Eternal spoke unto him out of the Tent of Meeting,¹⁶⁶Above, 1:1. and now He informed us of the place of the Tent of Meeting.

אשר צוה את משה בהר סיני, “that He had commanded Moses at Mount Sinai.” Nachmanides writes that this is to be understood in accordance with the view of our sages that all commandments had been commanded to Moses at Mount Sinai, but that some of them had been repeated to him when G’d spoke to him from above the Holy Ark in the Tent of Testimony. It is possible that the reason why the Torah emphasized “at Mount Sinai,” especially in this instance, is that on this occasion, when the Israelites were still camped around the mountain, speaking to Moses in the Tent of Testimony was basically equivalent to speaking to him from Mount Sinai. This is not the only time when the Torah uses the expression בהר סיני when it does not literally man that the command was (only) issued while Moses was on the mountain. In Numbers 28,6 we find the line עולת תמיד העשויה בהר סיני, “the permanent, (daily) burnt offering presented at Mount Sinai.” [This verse follows the appointment of Eleazar as his father Aaron’s successor as high Priest and a report of his having performed his duties for the first time. well into the 40th year of the Israelites in the desert. Ed.] Performance of this offering could not have commenced at the time Moses received the Torah at Mount Sinai, as it was offered in the Tent of Testimony only close to eleven months after the revelation. The Tent of Testimony had not begun operating until the month of Nissan in the second year. The reason why this slightly misleading wording was chosen, was that at the time when this offering was first introduced as a daily offering the Israelites were still encamped around Mount Sinai [until the 20th of the month following. Ed.] The people were commanded to divide their encampments according to the “flags” of the various army groups of three tribes each in the second year, and only then was the Tabernacle, Tent of Meeting, moved from a location close to where they had encamped ever since the time they arrived near the Mountain, between 3 and 6 days before the revelation. In order to make this distinction even clearer, the Torah writes: (7,37) זאת התורה לעולה, למנחה, ולחטאת ולאשם ולמלואים ולזבח השלמים אשר צוה ה' את משה בהר סיני ביום צוותו את בני ישראל להקריב את קרבניהם לה' במדבר סיני. “This is the law of the burnt offerings, the meal offerings, the sin offering, and the guilt offering, and the inauguration offerings, and the peace offerings on festivals, which Hashem commanded Moses on Mount Sinai, on the day He commanded the Children of Israel to bring their offerings to Hashem, in the wilderness of Sinai.” The Torah makes the point that the location of the Children of Israel at the time was the desert of Sinai, after they had moved away some distance from Mount Sinai. The tent of Meeting therefore was located in “the desert of Sinai,” not next to Mount Sinai. When the Book of Leviticus had commenced with the words: “the Lord spoke to Moses from the Tent of Testimony,” the meaning is that this conversation took place not at Mount Sinai but in the desert not far from Mount Sinai. We had not known the precise location of the Tabernacle at that time until we came to this verse

להקריב את קרבניהם לה׳ במדבר סיני, “to present their offerings to the Lord in the desert of Sinai. The reason why this line is necessary, although most of us would have understood the chapter without it being repeated, is because until the Israelites had made camp at Mount Sinai they had not offered a single offering (Exodus 24,5) The altar which Moses had built after the battle with Amalek was located at Mount Sinai. (Exodus 17,15) “Mount Chorev” and “Mount Sinai” are two names describing the same Mountain or group of peaks. The Israelites encamped around there for a period of 10 days less than a year from the first day of Sivan (in the first year) to the twentieth day of iyar of the second year. (Numbers 10,11) During the remainder of their journeys, for almost 39 years they did not offer any sacrifices as stated by the prophet Amos 5,25: הזבחים ומנחה הגשתם לי בני ישראל במדבר, “did you offer to Me any sacrifices or oblations in the forty years in the desert?” Even the Passover offering was presented only in Egypt and in the following year, before the Israelites had broken camp.” According to our author, offerings were brought on the Day of Atonement of the second year, but we do not know his source for this.

That is that He commanded us with the process of the guilt-offering sacrifice - according to the description that is mentioned - with His saying, "And this is the law of the guilt-offering" (Leviticus 7:1). And Scripture explained how it is offered, what is burnt from it and what is to be eaten. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 9.)

That is that He commanded us that anyone who erred in a sin and is an individual offer a sin-offering sacrifice. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "And if a person sins in error." And that is a fixed sin-offering - meaning that is always an animal sin-offering. And we have already explained that sins for which we are liable for a sin-offering when inadvertent, we are liable for excision when volitional - and that is on condition that they are negative commandments and that they involve an action, as it is explained at the beginning of Keritot (Keritot 2). And the regulations of this commandment are explained in Tractate Menachot and Keritot, and in Tractate Shabbat, Shevuot and Zevachim. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions 1.)

That is that He commanded to burn consecrated items that have become impure. And that is His saying, "Meat that touches anything impure [... shall be burned in fire]" (Leviticus 7:19). And in the Gemara Shabbat (Shabbat 25a), it comes to explain the reason for that which it is forbidden to kindle priestly tithes of oil that have become impure on a holiday - and they said about this, "'Shabbaton' (Leviticus 23:24) [indicates] it is a positive commandment, such that [rest from work on] the holiday is a positive commandment and a negative commandment. And a positive commandment does not push off a negative commandment and a positive commandment." And the content of this statement is that the doing of work on a holiday is forbidden: And one who does it transgresses a positive commandment, since [work] is the negation of a positive commandment. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying about the holiday, "it shall be a Shabbaton for you." And he [also] transgresses a negative commandement, since he is doing what has been forbidden to him. And that is His saying, "no work shall be done on them" (Exodus 12:16) - meaning on the holidays. Whereas the burning of consecrated items is a positive commandment. Hence it is not permitted to burn it on a holiday, on account of the principle that it mentioned: "A positive commandment does not push off a negative commandment and a positive commandment." And there, they also said, "Just like it is a commandment to burn consecrated items that have become impure, so too is it a commandment to burn priestly tithes of oil that have become impure." And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Pesachim and at the end of Termurah. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar.)

That is that He commanded to burn leftovers (notar). And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "What is left over of the meat of the sacrifice shall be burned" (Leviticus 7:17). And in explanation of His [also] saying about the Pesach lamb, "You shall not leave over from it" (Exodus 12:10), they said in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 12:10), "It comes to give a positive commandment and a negative commandment." And in many places in Pesachim and Makkot and other places besides them, it says in explanation, that it is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment; and therefore we do not receive lashes for it. And the positive commandment is that which we mentioned, "What is left over from it, you shall burn" (Exodus 12:10). And the law of leftovers and improper (pigul) [sacrifices] is the same, as I will explain in the Negative Commandments (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 132). For the improper has already been referred to by the expression, "leftovers." And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Pesachim and at the end of Temurah. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar.)