Comentario sobre Levítico 9:17

וימלא כפו AND HE FILLED HIS HAND [THEREWITH] — this is what is elsewhere termed קמיצה (i. e. this is elsewhere expressed by the phrase … וקמץ מלא קמצו “he shall take a fistful”) (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 10; cf. Menachot 9b).

BESIDES THE BURNT-OFFERING OF THE MORNING. Scripture had to mention this here, in order to teach us that the burnt-offering of the people [which was a special offering for that day] did not exempt [them from bringing] the Daily burnt-offering, nor did it precede it [as nothing may ever be offered before the Daily burnt-offering of the morning]. But Scripture did not have to mention this about the seven days of consecration [namely that the offerings of those days were to be offered besides the burnt-offering of the morning], because those were offerings of individuals [i.e., Aaron and his sons] to consecrate them as priests, and it is self-understood that such offerings did not exempt [them from bringing] the Daily burnt-offering, nor did they precede it.
In the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis have taught:³²Torath Kohanim, beginning of Shemini 12. The meaning of this quote will be explained by Ramban further on in the text. “And the meal-offering was presented; and he filled his hand therefrom and burnt it on the altar, besides the burnt-offering of the morning. What does this come to teach us? Shall we say it teaches us that if he could not obtain the meal-offering [which was offered with every burnt-offering] that he should nevertheless bring the animal [as a burnt-offering]? [That could not be the case], for it has already been stated, And the burnt-offering was presented, and he offered it according to the ordinances.³³Verse 16. If so, why does it say, and he burnt it [i.e., the meal-offering] upon the altar, besides the burnt-offering of the morning? It is to teach us that there were two meal-offerings there, one for the [Daily] burnt-offering and one [brought] by itself” [for the burnt-offering of the people, which was a special offering of that eighth day].
The meaning of this text [of the Torath Kohanim] is as follows: Had Scripture stated, “And the burnt-offering was presented, and he offered it according to the ordinance, besides the burnt-offering of the morning,” the sense thereof would have been to teach that the Daily burnt-offering precedes [the other offerings], as He says in the section of the Additional Offerings, it shall be offered beside the continual burnt-offering, and the drink-offering thereof;³⁴Numbers 28:15. beside the continual burnt-offering.³⁵Ibid., Verse 31. But since He mentioned the meal-offering — stating, And the meal-offering was presented; and he filled his hand therefrom, and burnt it on the altar, besides the burnt-offering of the morning — it appears that [the phrase, besides the burnt-offering of the morning] is said with reference to the meal-offering. Therefore the Rabbis commented that if it comes to say that he offered this meal-offering alone, but did not offer the drink-offering of the Daily burnt-offering nor that of the people’s burnt-offering [of the eighth day], because he only found [ingredients] for this freewill meal-offering — [that could not be the case]. For [in the preceding verse] it has already been stated, And the burnt-offering was presented, and he offered it according to the ordinance,³⁶Verse 16. This shows that the drink-offering was brought together with the people’s burnt-offering of the eighth day, for otherwise it would not have been according to the ordinance. The question then re-appears: why is the phrase besides the burnt-offering of the morning mentioned in connection with the meal-offering? which means that it was offered according to its ordinance, with the drink-offering. [Thus we cannot derive from here a principle that the lack of the drink-offering does not prevent the bringing of the offering itself, if the meal-offering and the wine for the drink-offering are not obtainable.] If so, why does it say, And the meal-offering was presented etc. and he burnt it on the altar, besides the burnt-offering of the morning? It is to teach that he offered this meal-offering [of the people’s burnt-offering brought on the eighth day] “besides the burnt-offering of the morning and its meal-offering,” for this meal-offering was not the drink-offering [which is an obligatory part of the Daily burnt-offering], but was the freewill meal-offering of Israel [namely part of the burnt-offering of the people which they brought on that day].³⁷For one might have thought that since the burnt-offering of the people brought especially on this eighth day was also a public one, it should be exempted from the duty of bringing a meal-offering, as the meal-offering of the Daily Whole-offering had already been brought; hence Scripture stated that this meal-offering which came with the people’s burnt-offering, was offered “besides the burnt-offering of the morning and its meal-offering.” It should be pointed out that Ramban refers to this meal-offering as minchath-nedavah (“freewill — meal-offering”) not because of its voluntary nature, namely that it be optional for Israel to bring it or not. The name minchath-nedavah is only to distinguish it from the meal-offering which constantly accompanied the Daily Whole-offering of the people, while this one represented the willing spirit of the people on this day. See further my Hebrew commentary p. 45.

מלבד עולת הבקר, apart from the gift offering which accompanied the morning burnt offering.

ויקרב את המנחה, “he presented the minchah offering.” Although in the directives, he had first been told about offering a bull and a ram, followed by the gift offering mixed with oil, he offered the gift offering first, because Moses had told them all the meat offerings in one directive followed by the instruction about the gift offering. Aaron actually offered the gift offering in the proper order simultaneously with the meat offering.

Fistful. Otherwise, why would this meal-offering be different from the meal-offering of generations in Parshas Vayikro, more so than the burnt-offering? Could it be that the burnt-offering of [the specific] time was the same as the voluntary burnt-offering of generations, and yet the meal-offering of [the specific] time would not be the same as the mealoffering of generations?

ויקרב את המנחה, “he then brought forward the meal offering;” after that he slaughtered the ox and the ram as peace offerings. This sequence also deserves further study as the order is unusual. We would have expected the meal offering to be the least in that sequence. (Compare verse 4)

מלבד עולת הבקר, “except for the burnt offering in the morning.” This teaches that on this occasion two gift offerings were presented, one which was part of the daily burnt offering in the mornings, the other on its own. (Compare verse 4 in our chapter, and chapter 28 in the Book of Numbers).)

מלבד עלת הבקר BESIDE THE BURNT OFFERING OF THE MORNING — all these rites he carried out after the continual burnt offering.

מלבד עולת הבוקר, “in addition to the daily burnt offering which was presented each morning.” Nachmanides writes that the Torah had to record this additional detail (about the daily burnt offering in the morning) in order to teach us that an offering brought on behalf of the whole people, such as here- cannot replace the daily mandatory communal offering known as tamid. (Called here עולת הבוקר). Not only this, but the daily tamid is offered before any other offering, communal or private. Actually, if not for teaching us this aspect of the daily communal tamid, there was no need to make special mention of this during the days of the inaugural offerings, seeing those were not communal offerings but private offerings, which had been designed to serve as the introduction of the priests to their position as the people’s intermediary between themselves and G’d. Therefore, there had not been the slightest reason to assume that their offerings could replace the daily tamid. This may be the reason why in the Torat Kohanim the reference is understood as pertaining only to the libation offering, מנחת נסכים, which accompanied the daily tamid, and which was considered a private offering, the wording here teaches that both these libation offerings were presented.

After the [daily] burnt-offering. Meaning: In addition to the burnt-offering of the morning, for if it meant: all these he did without the burnt-offering of the morning, Scripture should write this at the end of the section after he brought the peace-offerings, because he offered the peace-offerings without the burnt-offering of the morning as well. Or, Scripture should write this at the beginning of the offering, and then it would reflect on the entire section. Why was it written specifically here? It is all right if we explain that all these he did after the morning burntoffering [as Rashi explains], then it is understandable why it is written specifically here: It comes to teach that these offerings were brought after the morning burnt-offering. But, if it was written at the end, it would imply that the peace-offerings as well were specifically after the morning burntoffering. This, however, is not so, because we can say there was no order for the peace-offerings in terms of which of them came first. Re’m explains: If so, it should say, “aside from the burnt-offering of the month,” as it says regarding the additional offerings of Shabbos, Rosh Chodesh, and Holidays.