Comentario sobre Levítico 10:14
וְאֵת֩ חֲזֵ֨ה הַתְּנוּפָ֜ה וְאֵ֣ת ׀ שׁ֣וֹק הַתְּרוּמָ֗ה תֹּֽאכְלוּ֙ בְּמָק֣וֹם טָה֔וֹר אַתָּ֕ה וּבָנֶ֥יךָ וּבְנֹתֶ֖יךָ אִתָּ֑ךְ כִּֽי־חָקְךָ֤ וְחָק־בָּנֶ֙יךָ֙ נִתְּנ֔וּ מִזִּבְחֵ֥י שַׁלְמֵ֖י בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
Comeréis asimismo en lugar limpio, tú y tus hijos y tus hijas contigo, el pecho de la mecida, y la espaldilla elevada, porque por fuero para ti, y fuero para tus hijos, son dados de los sacrificios de las paces de los hijos de Israel.
Rashi on Leviticus
ואת חזה התנופה AND THE WAVE BREAST of the communal) peace-offerings,
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rabbeinu Bahya
תאכלו במקום טהור אתה ובניך ובנותיך אתך, “you shall eat it in a ritually pure place, you, your sons, and your daughters with you.” The reason the Torah did not write that these parts of the offerings have to be consumed in a “sacred” place is that women are also entitled to eat them and they were not allowed to enter the courtyard of the Tabernacle, (compare Kidushin 52). [The Talmud there speaks of the עזרה adjacent to the Temple, an area similar in its degree of sanctity to the courtyard of the Tabernacle. Ed.]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Siftei Chakhamim
Of the communal peace-offerings. Re’m writes: I do not know why Rashi does not include here the breast of Nachshon’s peaceofferings that was brought on that day, as he included Nachshon’s meal offering with the communal meal-offering of the eighth day, etc. (see Rashi v. 12). [The answer is:] Regarding the meal-offering, concerning which the verse comes to permit [to be eaten although they are] אוננים, Rashi found it necessary to include Nachshon’s meal-offering, so that you would not say that the verse only means to permit a communal meal-offering about which it revealed the law explicitly; Nachshon’s meal-offering, however, which was not revealed in the verse, was not permitted and is prohibited to be eaten by אוננים. [Therefore, Rashi lets us know otherwise in v. 12]. However, concerning the breast of the wave-offering, about which we have not been taught any novel law that is not included in other peace-offerings, why would Rashi need to include Nachshon’s peace-offerings, for what difference would there be between Nachshon’s peace offerings and these peace-offerings? (Gur Aryeh).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Chizkuni
ואת חזה התנופה, “and the breast of waving,” this refers to the waving of the basket.” Compare 8,2.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rashi on Leviticus
תאכלו במקום טהור YE SHALL EAT IN A CLEAN PLACE —But had they eaten those that preceded this (the sin-offering and the meal-offering) in an unclean place? But he said this because the preceding ones being holy in the highest degree the eating of them had necessarily to take place in a holy spot (in the court of the Tabernacle), but these,however, were not required to be eaten “within the hangings” (i. e. in the court which was enclosed by hangings), but they were, however, required to be eaten in the camp of Israel (and not beyond the confines of that camp), that being a clean place in so far as lepers were precluded from entering it. From this we infer that sacrifices holy in a lower degree, being similar to the peace-offerings mentioned here, may be eaten anywhere within the city of Jerusalem, this area corresponding to “the camp of Israel” in the wilderness (see Rashi on 4:12; Zevachim 55a).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Siftei Chakhamim
Within the camp of Israel. Meaning: Even though those impure from contact with the dead and the other types of impure persons are found there. Rashi’s proof is from the fact Scripture did not write: “In a sacred place,” perforce it means a place that is partially pure. And since it says above regarding the meal-offering (v. 13): “You shall eat it in a sacred place,” [this implies:] It, and not another. [Thus, the place of eating the breast] is removed from the place of the Shechinoh and established to be in the camp of the Levites. Furthermore, since it is written afterwards: “In a pure place,” this implies a further leniency, and it may be eaten in the Israelite’s camp, for it is obvious that they may not eat it in an impure place.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Chizkuni
ואת שוק, “and the thigh” mentioned in our verse;
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rashi on Leviticus
אתה ובניך ובנתיך THOU AND THY SONS AND THY DAUGHTERS — You and your sons have a claim to a portion, but your daughters have no claim to a portion; if, however, you give them part of these sacrifices as a gift they are permitted to eat of the breast and the shoulder. Or perhaps this is not the meaning, but if means that the daughters have also a claim to a portion? It, however, states immediately afterwards: “for as thy due and thy sons’ due are they given” there is a due to sons but there is no due to daughters (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 10).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Chizkuni
התרומה, the קרבן תודה described as תרומה in Leviticus 7,1314.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Chizkuni
תאכלו במקום טהור, “you are to eat in a spiritually pure place.” Rashi asks the rhetorical question if the Torah meant to tell us that the offerings mentioned earlier were eaten in ritually contaminated places? Surely not! He therefore understands our verse as referring to the parts of the minchah offering (except half a fistful) which was not burned up on the altar. These “remains” could be eaten anywhere inside the camp, also outside the consecrated area around the Tabernacle, as the soil of the camp was ritually pure, any person afflicted with tzoraat having been banished from it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Chizkuni
מזבחי שלמי בני ישראל, “out of the sacrifices of the peace offerings of the Children of Israel.” This line is meant to include those offered already on the day this law was introduced, as mentioned in chapter 9.4. (See Sifra on that verse.)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy