La Bible Hébreu
La Bible Hébreu

Commentaire sur Le Lévitique 6:16

Rashi on Leviticus

כליל (connected with כל, all) means, all of it belongs alike to the Most High God (i. e. no part of it is given to the priests).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Tur HaArokh

וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה, “and every meal offering offered by a priest must be complete, (not just the three fingers full) none of it may be consumed by the priests. Maimonides (Moreh Nevuchim, 3,46) explains that the reason for the above is simple, i.e. that the priest cannot consume his own offering. Were he allowed to partake of it, the impression would be created that he had in fact not brought an offering to G’d at all. After all, the altar receives only three fingers full of any meal offering, pus a small amount of frankincense. By legislating that the entire meal/oil mixture is to be burned, the priest will be seen to have brought an offering of his own. The treatment by the Torah of the meal offering differently from the sin offering, for instance, is that in the case of the latter, substantial parts of the sacrificial animal are burned up on the altar in addition to the parts that the priests may consume.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Rabbeinu Bahya

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Siftei Chakhamim

Equally, to the Most High. I.e., since it says “shall be completely,” but it did not say whether for the sake of the Most High [burnt on the altar] or for an ordinary person [completely eaten], for this reason Rashi explains it is entirely for the Most High, i.e., it is burnt.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Daat Zkenim on Leviticus

'וכל מנחת כהן וגו, “and every meal offering by a priest shall be a whole offering, not to be consumed (by man.)” The reason may well be that the Torah was afraid that if the priest were allowed to eat a part of it, he would reason that it was not worthwhile for him to do so, as even whole it is only a small quantity of food. It would, of course be quite inappropriate for him to think that way; but to forestall such a thought the Torah decreed that none of it may be eaten. The above is not the case when an ordinary Israelite offers a meal offering. The portion that is not burned up is eaten by the priests, seeing that only a partial fistful, קומץ, has been burned up.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Chizkuni

כליל תהיה, “it shall be offered whole.” Seeing that no one will eat part of it, how miserly would it be if he only offered part of a fistful, קומץ to the Lord, as is done with the minchah offering of the ordinary Israelites, of which only this partial fistful will be burnt up symbolically, the remainder being eaten by the priests in their capacity of servants of Hashem? It can also not be compared to sin offerings or guilt offerings offered by the priests (on their own behalf). Seeing that they themselves are the servants of the Lord, the whole offering had become a gift to Hashem. What do the priests lose by offering the entire minchah offering to Hashem? We can also not make a comparison with the sin offerings and guilt offerings of the priests for their own sins or guilt, as in wither event at least the entrails are burned up on the altar, and the skin is distributed among the priests of that particular watch. Logic also dictates that the whole minchah be burned up as it is the priest who has presented it, and it would not make sense that he present part of his offering to Hashem to other priests. We find an example of this reasoning being practiced in the bulls offered by the priests during the consecration rites, which are burned up completely. (Leviticus 8,17)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaMitzvot

That is that He commanded the priests to eat the remainders of the grain offerings. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "What is left of it shall be eaten by Aharon and his sons; it shall be eaten as matzot" (Leviticus 6:9). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Tzav, Section 9:1-2) is, "'It shall be eaten' - is a commandment. Similar to this, 'her levirate husband shall come to her' (Deuteronomy 25:5) - is a commandment." This means to say that eating the remainders of the grain offerings is like the sexual intercourse of the levirate husband, which is a positive commandment and not just a permitted matter. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Menachot. And the language of the Torah about this commandment is specific to males - and that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "Every male among the Children of Aharon may eat it" (Leviticus 6:11). (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 10.)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Verset précédentChapitre completVerset suivant