Commentaire sur Le Lévitique 3:12

AND IF HIS OFFERING BE A GOAT. He mentions here the species, thus meaning, “if of the species of goats is his offering,” [and thus includes male and female]. This is like the opinion of Onkelos who translated: “and if of the ‘bnei’ (species of) the goats is his offering.” Similarly, that which He said in connection with the burnt-offering, whether of the sheep, or of the goats,²⁹¹Above, 1:10. also means of their species [for since the male of the goats is called tayish, the verse there which speaks of a burnt-offering which can be only a male, must perforce mean “the species of the goats,” which automatically includes the males].
In my opinion²⁹²The above was the interpretation of Ibn Ezra. Hence Ramban now states, “in my opinion … ” the Sacred Language is not particular as to the names of animals, for the majority of them have the same name for both male and female, such as camel, ass, rock-badger, hare, and swine, and among the birds the young pigeon and the turtle-dove. Even among the species which do have different names for the male and female — such as shor and parah (ox and cow), kesev, kisbah (he-lamb, ewe-lamb), tayish and eiz (he-goat and she-goat) — Scripture is not particular, and will sometimes say seh and shor of the female, similar to that which is written, ‘V’shor o seh’ [literally: “and ox or lamb] ye shall not kill it and its young both in one day,²⁹³Further, 22:28. which applies only to the dam and the lamb [it being permissible to slaughter the male parent and its young in one day], in accordance with the opinion of the Sage who says²⁹⁴Chullin 78b. The name of the Sage is Rabbi Yehudah. that [in animals] one does not take into consideration the seed of the male parent. Similarly, of ‘ha’izim’ (the goats) for a burnt-offering, he shall offer it a male without blemish,²⁹¹Above, 1:10. means of the t’yashim (the he-goats). And if his offering be an ‘eiz’ (a goat)²⁹⁵Here in Verse 12. means a male or female [since a peace-offering, which is the subject of this verse, can be brought either from the male or the femals]. So also, And if his means suffice not for a ‘seh’ (lamb)²⁹⁶Further, 5:7. means a ewe-lamb or a she-goat [as is expressly stated there in the preceding verse].²⁹⁷Ibid., Verse 6. The section there deals with the offering of higher or lower value, Scripture first stating that where the offender can afford it he should bring as a sin-offering a ewe-lamb or a she-goat. Then follows the verse: And if his means suffice not for a ‘seh’ (lamb). The word seh in this case must perforce mean a ewe-lamb or she-goat. Thus it is proven that Scripture uses the term seh also for the female.

ואם עז קרבנו, If his offering consists of a she-goat, etc. According to Torat Kohanim, the reason why the Torah interrupted the presentation of its subject with the legislation about the goat-offering is to teach that the אליה, fat of the tail, did not have to be included in the part to be offered on the altar (compare 2,9). We must first understand what is meant by "interrupted the subject?" Korban Aharon writes that whereas the Torah should have written here ואם עז, it wrote אם עז. This is obviously erroneous, seeing the Torah does write ואם עז.

ואם עז קרבנו, ”and if his offering is a goat;” according to Nachmanides the word עז describes the species, and does not narrowly refer to the female of the species only. I do not believe that classical Hebrew, i.e. the Holy Tongue, distinguishes between the male and the female of the species of animals as the Torah, generally, lumps together the males and the females, such as when speaking of the גמל, a camel, or יחמור, שפן or ארנבת or חזיר. (Deut. 14) Even those categories in which the Torah does distinguish between the males and the females, such as תיש and עז, or כבש and כבשה, the distinction is even halachically hard to notice such as in the legislation not to slaughter the mother animal and its young on the same day. The Torah in Leviticus 22,25 uses the masculine mode, אותו ואת בנו “him and his son,” although clearly what is meant is “its mother and her young,” seeing that no one is certain about the paternity of the young, [there not having been any D.N.A. tests in those days. Ed.] Some of our sages (Rabbi Yehudah) hold that the Torah does not worry about the semen of the male that fathered the calf or lamb. (Chulin 75). [This depends on the context of the halachic problems involved. Ed.] When the Torah has to address the distinction, for instance in connection with the burnt offering in chapter one, it adds that the gender used for this offering must be the male, i.e. the תיש, in the event the donor chose the species of goats. When the Torah does not specify, either gender of the species referred to is acceptable.

ואם עז קרבנו, and if his offering is a female goat;” any paragraph that has appeared in the Torah and whose basic content has been repeated, was repeated in order to add an additional dimension to it. (Talmud tractate Sotah folio 3) Seeing that the subject of the fatty tail is not applicable to female goats, the Torah interrupted its sequential report in order to repeat the laws concerning offering a female goat.

The ריב"א (Rabbi Yitzchak ben Asher Halevi), writes in a Tossaphot on Pessachim 96 that although the procedure outlined by the Torah for the offering of a goat is identical to that of the category כבש in the preceding paragraph except for the offering of the אליה, the fact that it was accorded a separate paragraph must be viewed as an "interruption." As far as I am concerned what the author of Torat Kohanim had in mind is quite simple. When the Torah dealt with the procedures involving the עולה, the burnt-offering, the Torah wrote a paragraph commencing with the words: "if the burnt offering consists of the flock, either sheep or goats, etc. (1,10)," no separate paragraph is accorded to the goats serving as burnt-offering. If, nonetheless, the Torah wrote a special paragraph when the goats serve as peace-offerings, this must certainly be viewed as "an interruption." It indicates that this paragraph must contain a new הלכה.

The paragraph does not start with the word אם but with the word ואם, to teach that all the laws pertaining to the זבח שלמים, peace-offering sacrifices, outlined previously in the first paragraph of chapter three, apply to such offerings. The only reason that the Torah interrupted its outline of the peace-offerings was to iindicate that the אליה of a goat did not need to be offered on the altar. The reason we know this is that in the enumeration of the details of a peace-offering consisting of a goat (after having listed the details of such offerings when they consisted of sheep), the only detail not mentioned is the reference to the fat of its tail.

As to the absence of mention of an אליה when the Torah described the procedure of a peace-offering consisting of cattle, there was no need to write anything to exclude this as cattle do not possess a tail wich would fit the definition of אליה. Seeing that no one would have imagined that such a tail be offered on the altar even though it was mentioned in the paragraph dealing with sheep, there was no need to write anything which would serve to exclude the tail of the peace-offering consisting of cattle from being offered on the altar. The author of Torat Kohanim was perfectly justified then in writing that the rule about אליה does not apply to cattle, though there is no word in the Torah which excludes it. The rule we had established earlier that when a paragraph starts with the letter ו, the laws mentioned in the former paragraph and those mentioned in the subsequent paragraph are interchangeable, applies only when the anatomical facts enable us to apply these laws to animals mentioned in either paragraph. When such application is impossible due to the animal mentioned in the former paragraph not possessing the anatomical feature in question, we can ignore such considerations. In the case of an offering consisting of a goat, however, the anatomical conditions which apply to sheep also apply to goats. As a result the Torah needed to exclude the אליה of a goat specifically. Had the Torah lumped sheep and goats together as it did in its description of the rules applying to burnt-offerings, we would have assumed that the fat tail of the goat qualified for burning up on the altar. The Torah therefore wrote a special paragraph dealing with the peace-offerings consisting of goats.