Comentario sobre Levítico 4:10

כאשר יורם AS IT WAS TAKEN [FROM THE OX OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE PEACE OFFERINGS] — i. e. from those fat portions which are specified in the case of an ox brought as a sacrifice of peace-offerings. But what is specified in the case of a sacrifice of peace-offerings that is not specified here? Nothing at all! (Cf. Leviticus 3:3—4 with here.) What then is the force of the words כאשר יורם? But they are intended to declare it analogous to the peace-offerings: What is the case with שלמים? They must be burnt as such! So, too, must this be burnt as such!) And again what is the case with שלמים? They are intended to promote peace for the world! So, too, is this intended to promote peace for the world (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 4 2). In the Treatise on “the Slaughtering of Sacrifices” it (the passage 'כאשר יורם וכו‎) is stated to be necessary to deduce from it the rule that in the case of sacrifices we can derive no law from a law which is itself only derived from a text, and is not explicitly stated in Scripture. This is to be found in the chapter beginning with the words איזהו מקומן (Zevachim 49b).

But what was explained. Meaning: Just as it specifies all the fats with regard to the peace-offering, it also specifies them here regarding the bullock of the anointed kohein.

כאשר יורם, “as it is lifted off;” Rashi explains that the Torah had to spell out the “heaving” of the fat pieces of the High Priest’s sin offering in order that we learn from this that the same procedure also had to be performed in the case of the ox that was a peace offering. (Leviticus 3,310) Why did also the same procedure have to be spelled out again in verse 20 of our chapter instead of the Torah simply writing: “as in that instance?” What was different here from there? How could we make a legal comparison that had not been spelled out from a verse in which it had itself not been spelled out, i.e. seeing that in verse 20 the Torah only writes: “as he had done, etc.,” without saying what he had done in that other instance? According to our author rule number three out of 13 rules of how to interpret the written Torah, by Rabbi Yishmael, does not apply when the Torah deals with the subject of קדשים, offerings presented in the sacred precincts of the Temple.

על הכבד על הכליות. על ראשו ועל כרעיו — All these words (על) are an expression denoting an addition — they meat: as much as “besides”.

Just as peace-offerings [must be offered] for their own sake. As it is written (3:1): “If his offering is a peace-offering...” Perforce, the Merciful One [in the Torah] is particular that the offering must be offered for the sake of a peace-offering.

כאשר יורם משור זבח השלמים, “as it is taken off the ox of the sacrifice of peaceofferings;” the reason why the Torah used this example to compare this offering to, is to teach that it too is instrumental in restoring peace between Israel and G-d, as opposed to comparing it to peace offerings consisting of sheep, which are communal offerings, as in Leviticus 23,19.

Law from a law. Meaning: Since the bullock of the matter concealed from the community (v. 13) was needed to teach about the goats [brought as a sin-offering] for idolatry with regard to the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys, in that they are compared through a hekeish to one another regarding the burning of the inner parts, as it says in Zevachim (41a). However, Scripture does not write the lobe of the liver and the kidneys in the section of the bullock of the matter concealed from the community [itself]. Instead, [they are derived] through a hekeish from the bullock of the anointed kohein, where it is written (v. 20): “He shall do to the bullock [the same] as he did to the sin-offering bullock.” And [the Rabbis] taught [in a Baraisa]: “To the bullock” — this is the bullock of the matter concealed from the community; “To the sin-offering bullock” — this is the bullock of the anointed kohein: Just as the bullock of the anointed kohein has the two kidneys and the lobe included its inner parts [that are burnt on the altar], so too the bullock of the matter concealed from the community. And [since] we may not derive a law from a law [which itself was derived from Scripture], Scripture was therefore required to write the verse: “In the same manner as they were separated” regarding the bullock of the kohein, even though it is not needed for itself, to say: If it is not needed for itself, it should be applied to another matter — the bullock of the matter concealed from the community [and it will be considered as if it was written explicitly in the section of the bullock of the matter concealed from the community]. We learn from this that if it were not written clearly [by the bullock of the matter concealed from the community], the [law of the] goats [brought as a sin-offering] for idolatry could not be derived from the bullock of the matter concealed from the community, since a matter that was itself derived through a hekeish cannot go back and teach [about something else] through a hekeish.