Commentaire sur Le Lévitique 1:2

אדם כי יקריב מכם IF A MAN OF YOU OFFER [AN OFFERING] — This means, when he offers: Scripture is speaking here of free — will offerings (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 4).

WHEN ANY MAN BRINGETH OF YOU AN OFFERING UNTO THE ETERNAL OF THE CATTLE. The meaning of this verse is as follows: “when any man of you brings from the cattle an offering to the Eternal, of the herd or of the flock you shall bring it.” The reason for this command is that since He commanded afterwards concerning fowl-offerings⁴⁷Further, Verses 14-17. and meal-offerings,⁴⁸Ibid., Chapter 2. He said here that when a man brings an offering of cattle, he must bring it of one of these two kinds [herd and flock], but not a wild beast nor any other cattle. Thus he who offers a beast [as an offering to G-d], violates a prohibition which is derived from a positive commandment [and carries the force of a positive commandment], just as the Rabbis have said in the third chapter of Tractate Zebachim:⁴⁹Zebachim 34a. “Rabbi Yochanan said: one who offers the limbs of a [kosher] beast [upon the altar of G-d] transgresses a positive commandment.”

אדם כי יקריב מכם, when he brings himself close to G’d by means of a confession of his sins and by humbling himself. The concept parallels the verse in Hoseah 14,3 ונשלמה פרים שפתינו, “we will pay with bulls after having done so first with our lips.” Psalms 51,19 warns זבחי אלוקים רוח נשברה, “an offering of sacrificial meat is such only if accompanied by a crushed spirit.” The psalmist means that G’d is not interested in the fools who offer sacrificial animals if they have not first humbled themselves. Our sages paraphrase this when pointing out that the Torah does not write here כולכם, your entire selves, but מכם, something emanating from you, i.e. “by excreting the spiritually unworthy parts of you.” (compare Rashi)

דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת, "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them, etc." The first difficulty is the repetitive: "דבר ואמרת," speak and say!" Besides, why did G'd not say אמור ואמרת, but changed the instructions in mid-stream from דבר, harsh-sounding instruction, to ואמרת, i.e. a softer approach? The answer is that in this communication G'd issued legislation concerning two different kinds of sacrificial offerings. The first kind of offering mentioned here is one which is prompted by man's goodwill towards G'd, his desire to donate a free-will offering, the עולה, the burnt-offering. The second legislation deals with a sin-offering, a mandatory offering, the result of the owner having committed an inadvertent sin which requires him to obtain atonement. The word דבר, the relatively harsh form of communication applied to the legislation about the sin-offering, whereas the word ואמרת was used when telling the people the rules about the burnt-offering. Alternatively, we can recognise in this differential two separate aspects of the sin-offering legislation. The sin-offering is referred to by the word אמירה seeing G'd has declared Himself ready to accept a sheep, or in the worst case, an ox, as atonement for man's sin; on the other hand, the harsher דבר is justified inasmuch as man should not have committed such a sin, even inadvertently. The basic penalty for the sin in question is the death of the sinner. It is a sobering thought that an animal had to die to atone for man's mistake.

כי יקריב, when he donates an animal as a sacrifice. The expression denotes that the person under discussion does not offer such a sacrifice in order to expiate for a sin he is guilty of.

מן הבהמה, “from a category of animals,” seeing that free-roaming beasts that have the distinguishing marks that make them fit for consumption by Jews are also referred to as בהמה on occasion, [although they are generally described as חיה, or חית השדה, Ed.] the Torah had to narrow down the description further, adding the words: מן הבקר ומן הצאן, from either the category of cattle (בקר), or flock, (צאן). The reason why G’d did not include the free-roaming beasts that are listed in chapter 11 as fit to eat, to also serve as potential sacrifices, was to save the Israelites the tiresome work of catching these animals without inflicting the kind of injury on them that would disqualify them on account of their being blemished. Alternatively, the reason why the Torah did not command us to bring sacrifices from the free-roaming types of animals is that during the period of creation these animals had not received a special blessing. If they had received such a special blessing the serpent would have been included. That animal certainly did not qualify for a blessing. [after the statement that G’d saw that what He had created on the sixth day before reporting the creation of man was good, the blessing which followed at the end of the creative activity on the fourth day is noticeably absent. Ed.] The practical result of this is that the חלב, certain fat parts covering the kidneys, etc., are not included in the prohibited parts of the free-roaming beasts, and may be eaten. [King Solomon served gazelles, roebucks, etc. as a part of what he served his guests on a regular basis. He and his guests did not need to remove this part of the gazelle. Ed.] (compare Kings I 5,3). Seeing that the blood of these animals could not be sprinkled on the altar, the Torah commanded that upon slaughtering them, their blood be covered with earth, a symbolic kind of funeral. (Leviticus 17,13)

דבר אל בני ישראל, “speak to the Children of Israel, etc.” He told him to tell the Israelites about the rules of the burnt-offering in general terms.
ואמרת אליהם, “and say to them, etc.” This refers to the details of this legislation. Moses was to inform the people of specific procedures in preparing the burnt-offering, such as removing the skin and cutting the animal into certain parts after slaughtering it and before burning it on the altar. He told them that the slaughtering had to take place north of the altar and the wood pile. He told them who was entitled to slaughter the animal and which kind of wood was permitted to be used to construct the pile keeping fire going around the clock on the altar. In all instances where the Torah uses the sequence דבר ואמרת, the meaning is that Moses was to tell the people the commandment in general terms followed by teaching them the details of the legislation. Examples are to be found in Numbers 15,38 where the Torah introduces the subject of the ציצית, fringes, and then proceeds to give some details about this commandment. The details, which are spelled out in the oral Torah include rules about the number of threads, the way they are to be attached, how many are to be of blue wool, etc., etc. All this is alluded to in the introductory words “and say to them.” Details of the commandments are hardly ever spelled out in the written Torah.

But the offerings themselves, the women do indeed bring them. The explanation is not that women may not, but rather that they are not obligated, as is explained in Chagiga 15b that women would indeed lay their hands on [Rambam 3:8 Laws of Offerings does not make this point explicit]. But as emissaries of their husbands they indeed would be prohibited, as will be explained in verse 4, on the phrase "he lays his hand", and see Tosafot on Mas. Rosh Hashana 33a. Similarly, the gemara exempts women from all of the various actions of the offering - the waving, approaching, kamitza, incense offering, slitting, blood-receing, and springkling - since for all of these the verse states "the sons of Israel/Aaron" and the sages extrapolate this to mean, "and not the daughters of Israel/Aaron." Tosafot question this, and ask why the sages needed to exclude women from all of these [based on these verses]; they should already be excluded based on the broad principle of "positive time-bound commandments", as these actions only take place during the day, as we learn in the verse at the end of Parshat Tzav. But I do not understand this; what did Tosafot see to ask such a question?! The essential act of bringing an offering itself only happens during the day, and yet once we have seen that the Torah empowers women to bring offerings like men, then clearly the Torah has obligated them in the mitzvah of offerings even though it is a time-bound mitzvah! And therefore, one in fact would've assumed that they are similarly obligated in all of the constituitive elements of the offering, and there would not have been a logical reason to exempt them from the details when they are obligated in the general action.... And as for the general principle that women are obligated in offerings like men: the source is in Torat Cohanim, Parshat Emor (22:18) - איש איש מבית ישראל ומן הגר בישראל אשר יקריב קרבנו לכל נדריהם וגו', בישראל לרבות נשים ועבדים - And similarly explains the Rambam in Hil. Korbanot, 3:2. "Men, women, and slaves all bring offerings." The Kessef Mishna writes by way of finding a source for the Rambam, "It is obvious that the Torah equates men and women for every rule of the Torah, and we've already said that women do not lay their hands, nor perform the wave-offerings, etc - only men do these things - this implies that women do, however, bring offerings, and every mitzvah that a women is obligated in, so too are slaves." Behold, according to the source in Torah Cohanim that we cited - it is shocking to see the lenghty description [of the Kessef Mishna], who is trying to find a source for the words of the Rambam based on talmudic inferences. But the source is plain, obvious, and well understood! He should have simply noted the citation in the Torat Cohanim, and nothing further.

Voluntary sacrifices. You might ask: Perhaps it is speaking about an obligatory burnt offering! Re”m answers: Perforce, the word כי means “if” and not “that.” [If it meant “that,”] it is as if it says: Because he shall bring an offering to Hashem, which means, “because I admonished you to bring an offering to Hashem, I am telling you to bring it from the cattle, etc.” However, this is not applicable unless the sacrifices were mentioned before elsewhere. Sacrifices, though, were not mentioned in anywhere before. Therefore, it is only possible to explain that כי means “if.” See Re”m’s explanation there, because he goes on at length. It seems to me that since it is written, “You should bring your offering,” in the plural form, “you” teaches that two [people] may volunteer a burnt-offering in partnership. Perforce, this is referring to a voluntary offering, for if it refers to an obligatory offering, how could two people bring such an offering in partnership, when each one is obligated to bring an offering? Rather, perforce, it refers to a voluntary offering (Nachalas Yaakov).

“Should any person from you bring forward to the Lord an offering” - It begins in singular and finishes in plural “you shall bring forward your offering.” Rashi’s interpretation that two people may donate an elevation offering in partnership does not satisfactorily address this verse and its neighbor, nor the beginning and the end, for we don’t know the limits of this idea [of partnership]. And it seems to me that the text wanted to warn all those bringing an offering to God not to stumble in the two ways that Cain and Abel stumbled, who were the first people to offer an offering. For Cain stumbled in that he brought from the lesser and tawdry crops though he planted grain. Those who err mortally needed to bring the life of an animal in exchange for their life. And for [cases of] distress, the Holy One Blessed be He allowed for a poor person to bring a grain offering lacking life and offer it as if that person was offering an animal, as Rashi explains on the verse, “Should a person bring forward a grain offering” (Leviticus 2:1). Abel, even though he brought an offering from the choicest of his sheep, nevertheless, he did not do well either for the offering did not emerge from himself and he did not move quickly to do this commandment on his own accord. Only after he saw Cain offer an offering did he become jealous of him and Abel from an offering as well to match him.

מן הבהמה, “from some species of domesticated mammals;” Torat Kohanim sees in the wording proof that G–d did not want to tire out the Israelites excessively by having to hunt free roaming “kosher” animals to be served up as sacrifices, and this is why only domesticated animals, בהמה, were declared suitable for that purpose.

אדם — Why is this term for “man” employed here? Since אדם also means Adam, its use suggests the following comparison: what was the characteristic of the first man (אדם הראשון)? He did not offer sacrifice of anything acquired by way of robbery, since everything was his! So you, too, shall not offer anything acquired by way of robbery (Leviticus Rabbah 2:7).

‘TAKRIVU’ (YE SHALL BRING). This teaches that two [or more] persons may bring a freewill burnt-offering in partnership. YOUR OFFERING. This teaches that a burnt-offering may be brought as a freewill offering of the [entire] public [not only of groups of individuals]. This refers to the burnt-offering of the altar’s summertime⁵⁰When there was a lack of private offerings [due to the long summer days], freewill burnt-offerings were supplied from the surplus of the half-shekels of the previous year. which was supplied from the surplus [of the half-shekels of the past year].” This is Rashi’s language.
The meaning of the Rabbi’s interpretation is thus to state that if many persons voluntarily offer to bring a burnt-offering, it thereby becomes a burnt-offering of partners, for what difference is there between two persons who combine to bring an offering, and ten or a thousand who associate to do so? But the burnt-offering for the altar’s summer-time which is supplied from the surplus [of the previous year’s half-shekels], is deemed a “burnt-offering of the public” because the authorities [of the Sanctuary who receive the donations for the offerings] do so with the implied condition [that they may spend them at their discretion, and the burnt-offering of the public is distinguished in certain respects from a burnt-offering of partners]. Thus according to Rashi all burnt-offerings that are brought by many persons — except those which come from the surplus of the half-shekels — have the law of burnt-offerings of partners, and they all require the laying of [their owners’] hands upon the offering,⁵¹See Verse 4. and the libations connected with them⁵²See Numbers 15:3-12. are taken from the owners [while “burnt-offerings of the public” need no laying of hands, and the libations are supplied by the Temple treasury]. Perhaps according to the opinion of Rashi it is permitted for the general public to offer [money] beforehand in order to bring a burnt-offering of fowls, which may be brought as a freewill offering by two [or more] persons but may [never] come as a freewill offering of the public, and similarly they [may combine to bring] a peace-offering, concerning which the Sages have said⁵³Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 6:6. that it may be brought by partners as a freewill offering but may not be brought by the public⁵⁴Peace-offerings of the public were only brought on the Festival of Shevuoth (see further, 23:19). — and in that case it is called “a burnt-offering of partners,” or “a peace-offering of partners.” They [i.e., the burnt-offering of fowls and the peace-offering], were only excluded in that they cannot be brought from the [money of the] baskets [containing the surplus of half-shekels which were already donated by the public for the general upkeep of the offerings, and not specifically donated for a burnt-offering or peace-offering].
We may possibly say that if the public wanted originally to set aside a fund for freewill offerings, and they collected it [for that purpose] as they collected the shekalim for the Daily [public] Offerings and the Additional Offerings [of Sabbaths and festivals], that there may then be a freewill public-offering of the cattle,⁵⁵In other words, the freewill public burnt-offering for the altar’s summertime need not be limited exclusively to that brought out of the surplus in the baskets containing the previous year’s shekels. Money may be collected originally from the public for the purpose of bringing a freewill offering, and the offering will have the status of a public-offering in the sense that [like a public burnt-offering] it will not need the laying of hands on it, which is required in the case of an individual offering. Thus Ramban differs from Rashi’s opinion above that even the combination of a large group of individuals does not alter the status of the offering, which remains an offering of individual partners. Or it may be that Ramban means that even according to Rashi, if the community agreed beforehand, and the money was not left to be donated individually, but collected in the same way that the shekalim were collected, it thereby gains the status of a public-offering. Hence Ramban’s expression: “We may possibly say”, i.e., in explanation of Rashi. and it will not require the laying of hands on it, being that it is included in this verse [as a public offering]. As long as it is the majority of Israel who donated money to that end, the offering is called “a freewill offering of the public.” [This rule applies only to the freewill burnt-offering of the cattle] but does not apply to the burnt-offering of fowls, nor to the peace-offering. But if a minority of the people donated towards the freewill burnt-offering, [even if they are a large group], they are deemed as individuals [who bring such an offering in partnership, which would thus require the laying on it of the owners’ hands, and the libations would have to be supplied by the owners]. This is the correct explanation.

מן הבהמה, if he chooses to offer a 4-legged mammal, it must only be from either the category of cattle or sheep and goats. Wild roaming, undomesticated beasts, are not permitted to be offered as sacrifices on the altar. This needed to be spelled out as we were taught in Deuteronomy 14,4-5 that the wild roaming beasts with the distinguishing features that make them “pure” animals are permitted for consumption by Israelites provided they have been slaughtered in the appropriate manner. The animals discussed in these portions as candidates for sacrifices are only the ones mentioned in our verse here, i.e. בקר or צאן. The Torah indicates that such voluntary offerings as are under discussion at this time may even be offered by gentiles and accepted on the altar of the Temple or Tabernacle. When Leviticus 22,25 proscribes offerings tendered by the בני נכר what are meant are not gentiles but Jews who have become estranged to their G’d, have renounced their religion and become meshumadim. These are far worse that gentiles born as such, and that is why G’d rejects their voluntary offerings on His altar. Included are Jews who publicly desecrate the Sabbath. [Eyruvin 69 states that desecrating the Sabbath publicly is equivalent to violating all of G’d’s commandments. Ed.] There are three categories of offerings which may sometimes be voluntary and other times mandatory. These comprise the burnt-offering, עולה, the peace-offering, שלמים, and the gift-offering (non-animal) מנחה. When they are offered by the poor i.e. bird offerings, only pigeons and turtle doves qualify among all the birds. Complementary offerings known as סולת-שמן-לבונה are also part of voluntary offerings on occasion. The sin offerings חטאת and אשם are invariably mandatory offerings. This helps to explain the offerings of Hevel and Kayin and why the offering of Kayin was not accepted by G’d. (Genesis 4,5) It consisted of material which G’d had not designated as fit to be offered as a gift to Him. The Torah did not simply state that G’d did not turn to Kayin, but that “He did not turn to Kayin and His gift.” In other words, the reason He did not accept Kayin’s offering was that it consisted of matter rejected by G’d as unfit to be an offering to Him. On the other hand, when Noach offered a sacrifice G’d responded not only by accepting it, without further ado, but He reacted to it as if it were the most pleasant smelling fragrance, ריח ניחוח, although burnt flesh and fat most certainly does not exude a pleasant fragrance. What the Torah meant to say there (Genesis 8,21) was that G’d accepted the parts of the offering which were fit to please Him as if it were sweet smelling fragrance. (as a result of that offering not only did G’d promise never to bring another deluge, but He permitted man to kill animals for food, something that had been forbidden since Adam’s sin or earlier). Interestingly, the Torah does not say that G’d accepted all of Noach’s offerings, presumably seeing that some pure animals that were of the free roaming category are not acceptable although these animals are fit to be eaten by Jews, and all the more so by gentiles such as Noach. (the author speaks about this in Genesis 8,21 claiming that prior to the giving of the Torah all of the species of “pure” animals were fit as sacrifices.) In connection with the sin offerings it is mandatory for the person trying to obtain forgiveness by means of such mandatory offerings to place his hands on the animal with all his weight, as if attacking it, and praying that it be accepted as a substitute of his own person. Each individual’s sin offering possesses an element of what we are familiar with from the legislation concerning the communal “scapegoat” upon which the High Priest placed his hands, symbolically transferring the many sins of the Jewish people to that animal. (Leviticus 16,21) By means of this symbolic act, the humility with which the owner of the sin offering is to approach G’d prior to gaining a chance of acceptance and forgiveness, has been demonstrated. As a result, ונרצה לו לכפר עליו, “G’d will be in a mood to forgive such a person.” Seeing that there are so many different kinds of sin, some of which are merely sinful thoughts, not involving sinful deeds, it is appropriate to ask G’d’s forgiveness also for such sinful thoughts. This is best accomplished as a by product of the voluntary burnt offering called עולה by the Torah, an offering of which the priests only receive the skin and hair of the animal. The burning of the fat parts of the animal or the parallel fistful of flour and oil of the gift offering מנחה, which is burnt on the altar, are the instruments that bring about this atonement for sinful thoughts. Obtaining forgiveness for sinful deeds (all of them committed inadvertently, of course) other parts of the bodies of the offerings presented as חטאת or אשם, “sin offering or guilt offering,” are required. Peace offerings, שלמים, on the other hand, are viewed (based on Tzefaniah 3,9) as if the owner joins, becomes a partner with the angels, he and they serving their Lord jointly.

מן הבקר, “from the cattle;” to exclude “treifah” animals, i.e. animals injured to the point where they are not expected to live for 12 months. The reason why a special word had to be written to exclude such animals, was in the event that at the time when said animal had been sanctified as a sacrifice it had been in completely good health we might have thought that the donor of the animal had discharged his duty when the animal he selected had been healthy at the time he dedicated it, The Torah teaches that what is forbidden for the Israelite to eat is likewise forbidden to tender to G’d as an offering (unless specially permitted.)

Why is this said? It should say איש. Above [before Rashi explains that the section speaks of voluntary sacrifices], however, it did not pose a difficulty, because I could say אדם comes to exclude an idolater, as we derive: “You are termed אדם but idolaters are not.” Now, though, that Rashi explains אדם כי יקריב speaks of a voluntary offering, and an idolater is permitted to bring a voluntary offering, as we derive from the extra words איש איש כי יקריב — [from which we learn that] idolaters are included in bringing voluntary offerings. [Therefore, now it is difficult:] Why does it say אדם? (Kitzur Mizrachi). However, this is not true, for if so, what shall you say it means in Parshas Tazria where it is written: “אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו”? Why does it not say איש? Furthermore, when we look at what Rashi quotes [in the first d.h.]: “אדם כי יקריב מכם,” this is apparently unnecessary. First, he should quote אדם and explain it, and afterwards quote כי יקריב מכם and then explain it. Rather, Rashi’s intention is to explain the double expression אדם מכם, for it would be sufficient to say just אדם כי יקריב or simply כי יקריב מכם. Since Rashi wishes to explain this problem, which is based on the phrase’s beginning and end, i.e., the double expression, he felt it was best to first explain כי יקריב which appears first — that it refers to a voluntary offering — before he explains the later word מכם, which is a repetition of אדם, for one of them is extra. Therefore, he explains first כי יקריב, which comes first in the verse, and afterwards אדם, since the problem is based on the word מכם, which comes later. One who wishes to make the difficulty presented by the word אדם dependent on the phrase כי יקריב is just making an unnecessary pilpul (Divrei Dovid).

The Torah addresses בני ישראל. According to Torat Kohanim this expression is to exclude the practice of סמיכה, the owner of the sacrificial animal placing his weight on the animal before it is slaughtered, when such an animal is offered by a non-Jewish owner (something which will be mentioned shortly in this legislation). The word בני, is to exclude בנות, females, from this requirement. The word ואמרת is supposed to restrict the procedure of סמיכה to peace-offerings. This is difficult to understand seeing the expression אמירה is perceived as something additional to דבר, i.e. as inclusive, not exclusive. Although the author of Korban Aharon claims that the word לאמור would have taught us the lesson it did even if the word דבר had not occurred at the beginning of this verse, I beg to differ. Without the words דבר אל בני ישראל at the beginning of this verse I could not have deduced what I did from the word לאמור in the previous verse. There would have been no exegetical value to the word דבר seeing it was needed for the basic message the Torah is trying to convey.

אדם, “anyone;” this ambiguous description is intended to convey that what follows applies not only also to converts to Judaism, but even to people who are gentiles, although in this paragraph only Israelites are addressed. The exclusive meaning of the word: אדם, here is made plain when the Torah adds the restrictive word: מכם, “from amongst you.” This means that what follows applies only to members of the Jewish people. However, seeing that we have a rule that “whenever the Torah writes two successive restrictive clauses, this is meant to include someone or something, not to exclude it,” the sages understood our verse as the Torah including even gentiles, as qualified to offer sacrifices to Hashem, i.e. using the facilities offered by the priests, but paying for the animals they authorize to be offered on their behalf. (Talmud, tractate Nazir, folio 62) This is based also on when the Torah writes: איש, איש, i.e. “any man,” including idolaters, who vow to offer a sacrifice to the G-d of the Israelites.

הבהמה [OF] THE BEASTS — One might think that wild beasts are also included! Scripture, however,’ goes on to state, “even of cattle or of sheep” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 6).

So should you not bring from stolen property. As it is written (Yeshayahu 61:8): “[For I am Hashem, Who loves justice,] hates robbery in a burnt offering.”

Perhaps the author of Torat Kohanim felt that seeing it is not clear which of the two words דבר ואמרת was to be used exegetically and which was needed for the basic message, it was in order to use either word exegetically. Alternatively, Torat Kohanim did not mean to focus on the word דבד at all but on the words בני ישראל. Seeing that the Torah could have written דבר אליהם instead of דבר אל בני ישראל, the extra words are available for exegetical purposes. It was quite obvious that Moses was to address the Israelites and not anyone else. By saying בני, the Torah excluded females as the Torah should have written דבר אל בית ישראל if it intended to include women in the requirement to perform סמיכה. The word ישראל excluded the סמיכה requirement from Gentiles offering sacrifices to G'd. Nonetheless, the alternative we offered earlier is more likely to be the correct one, seeing that somewhere in the commentary by Torat Kohanim it is argued that the words בני ישראל refer to the nation who had a Covenantal relationship with G'd, something which is related to its interpretation of the line אדם כי יקריב מכם, i.e. that the word אדם includes Gentiles.

כי יקריב, “who brings” (close); the word introduces the manner in which G-d wishes to be served now that He has taken up residence among His people.

מן הבהמה OF THE BEASTS — but not all of them: the phrase, “some of the beasts”) is used in order to exclude male and female animals with which sexual sin has been committed (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 7).

קרבן לה, “an offering to the Lord.” Whenever the expression קרבן לי-ה-ו-ה is written, the name of the Lord used is the Tetragrammaton to make certain we do not offer heathens an excuse to rebel against G’d and the word קרבן precedes the word לה' so as to preclude the idea that first one would offer a sacrifice to one of the attributes of G’d, i.e. the attribute of Mercy, in order to subsequently offer a second offering to the attribute of Justice believing it to be an independent power (compare Sifra Vayikra 2,5). Our sages in Sifra Vayikra 2,4 conclude from the wording of the Torah here that when a person sanctifies, i.e. donates an animal as a sacrifice, he is not to say לה' עולה, or לה' מנחה, “for the Lord a burnt-offering”, or “for the Lord a meal-offering,” but he is to use the formula עולה לה', or מנחה לה' “a burnt-offering for the Lord,” or “a meal-offering for the Lord,” as the case may be. Actually they arrived at this ruling using simple logic. If a person who is about to present G’d with an offering is warned not to utter the Lord’s name in vain [before specifying what it is all about, in the event he never gets to complete the sentence, Ed.] then how much more so must one be careful not to use the name of the Lord in vain or even frivolously when one does not do so in connection with sanctifying something for the Lord.

Perhaps even wild animals. [You might think this] because wild animals (חיה) are included in the term בהמה, as it is written (11:2): “These are the living things (החיה) that you may eat from among all the animals (הבהמה)” (Re”m). In Toras Kohanim [the following verse is used to support the assumption]: As it says (Devarim 14:4-5): “These are the animals (הבהמה) that you may eat: [ox, lamb,] and kid, gazelle, deer...” which is a verse in Parshas Re’eh, and this is the text cited in Zevachim 34a as well (Nachalas Yaakov).

אדם כי יקריב מכם, "when any man of you brings an offering, etc." Why did the Torah have to use the term אדם? Whereas Torat Kohanim here claims that the word includes offerings brought by proselytes as being acceptable, the author of Korban Aaharon asks what need there was for the Torah to specifically include proselytes seeing we have a ruling in Menachot 73 that even sacrifices from Gentiles are acceptable. This ruling is based on either exegesis or logic derived from Leviticus 22,18. The author of Korban Aharon suggests as an answer that we could have assumed that once the proselyte had converted he would become subject to the same restriction that the Israelites themselves are subject to as a result of the Torah writing בני ישראל….כי יקריב מכם, i.e. that not all the Israelites are entitled to offer such sacrifices. The word אדם then would confirm that sacrifices are accepted from all proselytes. I do not find this answer as grammatically tenable. Had the Torah not written the word אדם in our verse which included proselytes, the Talmud would not have been able to include Gentiles based on the wording איש איש in Leviticus 22,18, but would have included only proselytes as allowed to offer vows and gift-offerings. This is why the author of Torat Kohanim chose our verse as the basis for the ruling that offerings from proselytes are acceptable. This is the only reason that the formulation איש איש in Leviticus 22,18 may be interpreted as a directive to include Gentiles. Once we are clear about this there is no need to come up with forced explanations to justify the Torat Kohanim as does the author of Korban Aharon.

מכם, “from amongst you.” The prefix letter מ reminds us that not all of us are addressed here. On the one hand, even absolute gentile idolaters are welcome to present an offering to Hashem which will be burnt up on the altar in the Temple, as we do not wish to alienate gentiles that are seeking for a religion of truth. On the other hand, by the same token, Jewish renegades who wish to offer such sacrifices in the Temple are rebuffed by the Torah, as what they do would be akin to blasphemy, seeing they demonstrate by their daily conduct that they do not believe in the power of our G-d.

מן הבקר OF THE CATTLE — This serves to exclude an animal which has been worshipped as a god (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 9).

The verse teaches us: Cattle. I.e., why is it written: “Cattle or sheep,” since the word בהמה means cattle and sheep unless specified otherwise? Rather, it comes to exclude: Specifically cattle and sheep, but not wild animals.

One cannot object that seeing that according to Baba Metzia 114 only Israelites are called אדם and not Gentiles, that therefore the words איש איש in 22,18 must refer to proselytes seeing the beginning of that verse specifically addressed Israelites and that it would not have occurred to anyone to include Gentiles so that they needed to be excluded specifically. Once we use the verse to expand the group of people from whom sacrificial offerings are acceptable we do not include every category of person but we include the group of people most closely resembling natural-born Israelites, i.e. the proselytes. Only if we find another word in the text which suggests that some other group of people is to be included in this legislation do we use it to include Gentiles. As a result, the law is that the proselyte may bring any kind of sacrificial offering whereas the Torah permits the Gentile only certain types of offerings. Rabbi Akiva holds that the Gentile may only bring a burnt-offering, עולה, whereas Rabbi Yossi Haglili holds that Gentiles may also offer a gift-offering, מנחה (Menachot 73).

אדם כי יקריב מכם, the verse has been inverted, it’s meaning is as if it had read: אדם מכם כי יקריב, “when someone amongst you wishes to draw close to G-d;”

מן הצאן OF THE SHEEP — This serves to exclude an animal set aside for the purpose of being offered to an idol (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 11).

[A male animal] which was with a woman. You might ask: Why does it need to exclude these animals, since they are stoned to death? The answer is: [It is needed,] where [it was known only] by the testimony of one witness, or the owner admitted, in which case the animal is not stoned. Therefore, it is needed to exclude them. Similarly, we must say [regarding Rashi’s comment later] concerning the animal that was worshipped as an idol or the ox that killed a man.

Midrash Tanchuma item 8 on our portion asks why the Torah used the expression אדם in our verse in preference to the customary איש? The answer given is that the Torah wishes to establish a parallel with the first human being who had sinned, i.e. אדם. We may understand the verse as follows: כי יחטא אדם כמו אדם הראשון שהתחיל לחטא יקריב קרבן; "If someone sins as did Adam who was the first human being who sinned, he shall offer a sacrifice." It appears from the wording of the author of the Tanchuma that Adam's sin was inadvertent seeing sin-offerings are acceptable only for sins committed inadvertently. The Midrash corresponds to what I have written on Genesis 3,12 on the words: "she gave to me." The entire פרשה here teaches us that G'd applied a different yardstick to man after Adam had sinned initially. Whereas the penalty for Adam's sin had been death, i.e. mortality, and the fact that he offered a sin-offering did not absolve him of his guilt, such offerings will help the Israelites to atone for the sins they commit inadvertently. The Tanchuma supplied the reason why G'd did not accept Adam's sacrifice as sufficient atonement, i.e. he had been the first human to sin; the evil urge had not been an integral part of him so that it would have been difficult to resist the lure of that urge. All subsequent human beings have been afflicted in that evil has become part of their life-force, נפש. The אות הברית, the sign of the covenant between us and G'd, i.e. the need to remove the foreskin through the act of circumcision, is the proof of the cardinal difference between us and Adam who had been created minus the foreskin.

כי יקריב, same as כי יקדיש, “who wishes to sanctify.”

ומן הצאן AND OF THE SHEEP — The ו prefixed to the word is intended to exclude a goring ox that has killed a man. — When Scripture again says lower down in the section, (v. 3) מן הבקר, “of the cattle”, — which word מן it was unnecessary to use, (it would have sufficed to say: 'אם עולה קרבנו זכר וכו) — it is intentionally used to exclude a טרפה (an animal afflicted with a fatal organic disease) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 11).

Which was worshipped. Concerning the animal that was with a woman it says בהמה (20:15): “A man who lies [conjugally] with an animal (בבהמה),” whereas concerning the animal that was worshipped it is written (Tehillim 106:20): “They exchanged their glory for the likeness of an ox eating grass.” The verse here speaks of a living animal that was worshipped, which is permitted for secular use and is not forbidden as an animal that was worshipped as an idol or as an animal that was set aside as an offering to an idol, as it says in Temurah (28b).

I believe that this consideration helps to explain a verse in Job 33,29 according to which G'd gives man two or three chances before decreeing something final resulting in his death. Why was Adam not measured by that yardstick? In fact, when it comes to sins committed by a community of people, we know on the authority of Amos 2,1, that G'd will forgive Israel's sins three times and only on the fourth occasion will He no longer forgive. There is, however, a good reason why G'd did not apply the yardsticks mentioned in either Job or Amos to אדם הראשון, the first man. On the day G'd created Adam He made him of totally good components, so that no part of him was either mentally or physically worthless which would cause him to go astray. Once he sinned he became the prototype of a sinner and the evil his life-force, נפש had absorbed became a part of every subsequent Israelite's body and soul. Even man's body absorbed that vestige of sin and the reminder of that contamination is the foreskin with which males are born. Keeping in mind that we all suffer from a handicap Adam had not suffered from, G'd decided to allow man up to three repetitions of mortal sins before making a decree final. It is man's heritage from the moment he emerges from his mother's womb to be infected with this evil pollutant. This pollutant endeavours to make man sin intentionally. It also endeavours to make him sin through mere thoughtlessness. In this latter case, the sin-offering helps to secure penitent Man atonement for such thoughtlessness. Although it is true that Adam's sin was also due to thoughtlessness, G'd dealt fairly with him by not allowing him a second chance seeing he did not have to overcome a spiritual or physical pollutant which urged him to disobey his Maker.

'קרבן לה, a sacrifice in honour of the Lord. This is a heading, followed by specifics. מן הבהמה, מן הבקר ומן הצאן, “from a category of domestic beasts, it must be either from cattle or flocks.” These are the details. תקריבו את קרבנכם, “you may offer your sacrifice.” The generalization has been repeated once more, i.e. “your sacrifice.” It teaches us that as a rule the details spelled out after a general statement has been made, do not contain surprises, i.e. no matters that could not have been understood as included in the general statement already. In our case, we find that no free roaming beasts are included as potential sacrifices, even though such beasts may qualify to be eaten, such as deer, for instance. Our sages see in this another example of G-d’s “humility;” He does not ask us to do things which are too difficult, such as hunting deer in order to offer them as sacrifices, even though King Solomon had a stable of them and offered such delicacies as venison to his guests. He only asks for animals that are within the average person’s ability to obtain. This is what the prophet (Michah,6,3) referred to when he said, quoting G-d: עמי מה הלאיתיך ענה בי?, “in which way did I inconvenience you My people? Testify against me!”An alternate explanation: I only ask you to offer Me animals as sacrifices, not human beings!” The Canaanites were in the habit at that time to offer some of their own children as sacrifices to their deities. (Midrash Tanchuma on Bechukotai, 5; compare also Torah shleymah item 56 on our verse, (who points out that Yiftach could have saved the life of his daughter had he made such a stipulation).

תקריבו YE SHALL OFFER [YOUR OFFERING] — The plural תקריבו teaches us that two (or more) persons may bring a burnt offering as a free — will gift in partnership (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 3 1).

Set aside [as an offering to an idol]. Meaning: [An animal] set aside and separated for idolatry should not be brought as an offering. This refers to the case when they fed it fodder of idolatry, but with a statement alone [it would] not [be considered as set aside], as it says in Temurah 29a.

כי יקריב מכם, "when one of you brings an offering, etc." We need to analyse why the Torah had to write the word מכם, "from you." Besides, why is that word written after the Torah had already written the predicate of the verse, i.e. "who offers a sacrifice." Normally, the subject, i.e. the person who performs the act is mentioned before the act he performs. Our sages in Chulin 5 state that the word מכם is intended to exclude Jewish heretics whose offerings are not acceptable. They arrive at this conclusion by viewing the word מן הבהמה, as suggesting that sacrifices by a heretic are aceptable. How was such an exegesis arrived at? The word מכם excluded only a Jew who either practices idolatry, (seeing this sin is equivalent to violation of all the Torah's commandments), or the kind of heretic who rejects all of the Torah's commandments. The wording מן הבהמה, on the other hand, suggests another group of animal-like human beings, i.e. heretics who reject only one or several of the commandments. The Torah says that these sinners do qualify for offering of sacrifices. The translation of the verse would be: "a certain animal-like person amongst you who offers a sacrifice, etc." The exegesis offered in Chulin helps to explain why the word מכם in our verse appears after the predicate instead of before. If the Torah had written: אדם מכם, in that sequence, the word would have appeared to exclude something instead of including something, or vice-versa. The intention of the verse, however, was that inclusions should apply only to proselytes, whereas exclusions should apply only to certain members of the Jewish community. The Torah achieved this aim by positioning the words כי יקריב between the words אדם מכם. We may also justify the position of the word מכם through reference to a different exegetical approach on the same folio of the Talmud. There the Talmud quotes a Baraitha which understands the word מכם as excluding offerings by heretics, and another Baraitha which uses the words מעם הארץ, (Leviticus 4,27)i.e. "from certain types of עם הארץ not from all of them," as the basis for not accepting sacrifices from such individuals. Rabbi Shimon disagrees saying that the words אשר לא תעשינה ואשם at the end of that verse make it clear that only an unrepentant heretic is not allowed to offer sacrifices. [Seeing that it seems strange that according to the first view even a repentant heretic should be forbidden to offer a sacrifice, Ed.], the Talmud defines the difference between the two views as applying only when someone who remains guilty of eating forbidden fat has repented for eating blood, and offers a sin-offering to achieve atonement for that sin. According to the first view, such an offering would be acceptable, whereas according to the second view it would not as the sinner continues to practice his heresy by eating forbidden fat. The Talmud there adds that one of the verses (1,2) speaks of the acceptance of a burnt-offering from a heretic, whereas the other verse (in Leviticus 4,27) speaks of the acceptance of a sin-offering from a heretic and that we need the exegetically usable words or letters of both verses. Thus far the T almud.

קרבנכם YOUR OFFERING — This teaches us) that it (the עולה) may also be offered as a free-will gift of the community (not of individuals only). This was the burnt offering bearing the name of “the summer - fruit offering”) of the altar which had to be supplied from the surplus of the levy upon the people (cf. Shevuot 12a, Shevuot 12b).

To exclude a goring ox. Meaning: Specifically, an animal that killed a man, not that it killed another animal.

Our sages have said in Torat Kohanim that the words כי יקריב refer only to voluntary offerings. This makes sense in view of the word מכם appearing after the words כי יקריב. The offerings which are excluded are voluntary offerings such as fulfilments of vows, i.e. עולה. This is what the Talmud in Chulin 5 meant when it said one verse speaks of the burnt-offering. Logic might have persuaded us that the Torah is willing to accept a free-will offering from a sinner who has not repented a specific sin, whereas a sin-offering from such a sinner would be rejected. The Torah therefore had to tell us that no offering is acceptable until the sinner has repented all of his sins. At the same time we also need the exclusion implied in the words מעם הארץ in 4,27 where the Torah speaks of a need to bring a sin-offering. The exclusion in that chapter is quite different from that in chapter one in that the only person from whom we do not accept a burnt-offering is the heretic who rejects the whole Torah. In 4,27, however, the Torah excludes sin-offerings even from a Jew who habitually only violates a single one of the 613 commandments when such a Jew wishes to offer a sin-offering for a different commandment which he violated unintentionally. Maimonides rules similarly in chapter three of his treatise on Maaseh Hakorbanot.

[An animal] with a fatal defect. This refers to the case where the animal was fit at the time the owner consecrated it, and then it became fatally defective. If so, I might have thought it is permissible for one to sacrifice it on the altar since it was fit at the time he consecrated it. Thus, it is necessary to exclude it here.

If we wish to see a moral-ethical dimension in this verse we may pursue the following path. Seeing that the Jewish people had observed that G'd had brought Moses close to him, and called out only to him from amongst all the Israelites, the Torah goes on record to say that such distinctions are not restricted to Moses, but אדם כי יקריב, "anyone who wishes to come close to G'd, can do so provided מכם, is a member of the Jewish people." In fact, as we have already pointed out, G'd's call to Moses was only for the sake of the Israelites, for their benefit. Consider the fact that during 38 years of wandering in the desert when the Israelites were sullen [due to the decree that they would perish in the desert after adopting the majority report of the spies Ed.], and G'd kept His distance from them, G'd had not spoken even with Moses. This was clear evidence that when G'd had spoken to Moses out of the Tabernacle it had been for the benefit of the people and not for either G'd's or Moses' benefit.

That two [people] may volunteer. Otherwise, it should say: יקריב קרבנו [in the singular form instead of in the plural form]. This does not mean only two, but rather ten, a hundred, or a thousand [and it is still considered an individual’s offering and requires leaning] as long as the entire people of Israel are not partners in it [as we find, for example, with the burnt offerings of the “summer fruit” for the altar which comes from the surplus of the yearly half-shekels].

The Torah also wanted to give a hint to the elite amongst the people to influence the hearts of the Israelites so that they would worship G'd willingly. The reason that the offering or sacrifice is called קרבן, i.e. from the root קרב, "to come near," is that it is sin which separates man from his Father in Heaven. We know from Deuteronomy, 4,4 that "you who have cleaved to the Lord are all alive this day." The Israelites instead had become separated and distant from the presence of G'd, the שכינה, due to their support for the spies' report and their attempt to return to Egypt. G'd, on the other hand, is anxious to establish a close bond with Israel and commanded the elite to rebuke the sinner in order to bring his heart closer to the Lord his G'd. At the same time G'd punished those who ignored their duty in this regard. A proof that G'd indeed expects those who are the elite to take a leading role in influencing the hearts of the people, is found in the statement by our sages in Avot 5,21: "He who leads the multitude in righteousness shall have no sin come into his hand," seeing G'd will protect him against committing errors. These then are the messages contained in our verse.

“Summer fruit” for the altar. I.e., a “meal” for the altar that comes from the surplus, i.e., the surplus from the half-shekels given the previous year. From those surplus half-shekels they bought sheep as burnt offerings and sacrificed them on the altar when there were no individual offerings to bring, so that the altar would not be unused, without any sacrifices being offered.

The word אדם used by the Torah here refers to the spiritually most advanced members of society, the elite. Zohar Tazria interprets the sequence of the words כי יקריב מכם, as "whom does one try and bring close to G'd, the מכם, the ones who have not been close in the first place, i.e. the spiritually lower level of society who have sinned and asked G'd not to bother them with His demands so that they could withdraw from the close bond with G'd." These are the people for the elite to focus on, to try and bring them back closer to G'd. This is why the Torah adds the words קרבן לשם, to be close to G'd, so that they will become what G'd called in the words of Isaiah 60,21: "the shoot that I planned, My handiwork in which I glory." A person of that calibre, involved in bringing others closer to G'd does not have to bring either free-will offerings or sin-offerings. Having finished with describing the task of the elite of the Jewish people, the Torah continues: מן הבהמה תקריבו את קרבנכם, i.e. the ordinary people are to offer their various kinds of sacrifices; after all, not everyone is on the spiritual level of those described as אדם, i.e. able to restore harmonious relations between sinners and G'd.