Commentaire sur Le Lévitique 7:16

ואם נדר או נדבה BUT IF [THE SACRIFICE OF HIS OFFERING BE] A VOW OR A FREE WILL OFFERING — i. e., that he does not bring it as an acknowledgement of some miraculous deliverance (cf. Rashi v. 12), then it does ‘not require the offering of bread and may be eaten during two days as is set forth in the section.

AND ON THE MORROW ‘V’HANOTHAR’ (AND THAT WHICH REMAINETH) OF IT SHALL BE EATEN. “The letter vav [in the word v’hanothar — ‘and’ that which remaineth] is redundant [thus the meaning of the verse is: “and on the morrow, that which remaineth of it shall be eaten”]. There are many examples of this in Scripture, such as: and these are the children of Zibeon: ‘v’ayah’ (and Ajah) and Anah.¹²⁵Genesis 36:24. The vav in v’ayah (“and” Ajah) is redundant. See in Vol. I, p. 440. So also: to give ‘v’kodesh’ (‘and’ the Sanctuary) and the host to be trampled upon.”¹²⁶Daniel 8:13. The vav in v’kodesh (“and” the Sanctuary) is here redundant. This is Rashi’s language, and so did Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra interpret the verse.
In my opinion the meaning of the verse is as follows: Since He said, it shall be eaten on the day that he offereth his offering, and on the morrow, this might imply that it is a commandment that it [the peace-offering] be eaten in two days, [namely] that he should eat part of it on the first day, and should leave part of it to be eaten on the morrow. Therefore He explained again, ‘and’ that which remaineth is to be eaten on the first day and also on the morrow [if by chance it was not all eaten on the first day]. But he is not to leave some over intentionally, nor is he permitted to leave it all over to be eaten on the second day. Rather, it is a commandment that he should eat it on the first day, and that which is left over by chance, should be eaten on the morrow previously mentioned.
This matter we have learned from the words of our Rabbis, who have said in the Torath Kohanim:¹²⁷Torath Kohanim, Tzav 12:11-12. “On the day that he offereth it, shall it be eaten. It is a commandment that it be eaten thereof during the first day. I might think that he is commanded to eat the whole of it; Scripture therefore says, and on the morrow. I might then think that it is a commandment to eat it in two days; Scripture therefore states, and that which remaineth — if it remains, it remains [i.e., it may still be eaten]. If [we are to go by the expression] and that which remaineth, I might think that if he left it all over for the second day it is invalid [since that does not come under the term “remaineth” which indicates only a part thereof]; Scripture therefore says [that which remaineth of it] shall be eaten, even all of it.” And even if you hold the vav in v’hanothar (and that which remaineth) to be redundant, [as Rashi explained], the verse can also be explained to mean: “and on the morrow that which remained of it [from the first day] may be eaten,” but not that he is to leave it over intentionally.
But I do not know why Rashi held the vav of the verse, to give ‘v’kodesh’ (‘and’ the Sanctuary) and the host to be trampled upon¹²⁶Daniel 8:13. The vav in v’kodesh (“and” the Sanctuary) is here redundant. to be redundant, since the meaning of the verse is that [the angel] is asking: “How long shall the transgression give appalment, and how long shall the Sanctuary and the host be trampled underfoot?”¹²⁸The vav in v’kodesh thus stands for the repetition of the phrase ad mathai (how long), and is therefore not redundant.

ואם נדר או נדבה, if the formula used in uttering the vow included the word שלמים, an expression which refers to making payment for favours received, as I explained on 2,1, etc. In other words the expression תודה did not feature in the wording of the vow.

ויאכל, וממחרת, והנותר ממנו יאכל, “it shall be consumed, and on the day following; any leftovers may be consumed;” Rashi writes that the letter ו in the word והנותר is superfluous. Nachmanides, on the other hand, writes that he understands as follows: Seeing that the Torah had written that the thanksgiving offering may (or must) be eaten on the same day or the day following, I might have thought that it is a mitzvah to spread the eating of this sacrifice over two days, i.e. the donor eats some of it on each of these days. This is why the Torah refers to the נותר, to any part that had not yet been eaten as a “leftover,” so that we understand that permission to eat the leftover on the second day has been given, but it is certainly not mandatory to keep some of that meat for the second day. At the end of the second day, if there is still some leftover it must be burned.

Thanksgiving for a miracle. Meaning: That which is written: “If either a vow or voluntary offering,” does not mean that what is written above it is not referring to voluntary offerings, because above it does refer to a voluntary offering! Therefore, Rashi explains: “Which he did not bring as thanksgiving...” however, until now it refers to one who brings an offering for thanksgiving for a miracle.

ואם נדר, “but if the sacrifice is fulfillment of a vow by the donor, etc.;” the donor had made the vow while he had been in distress.(Ibn Ezra)

וממחרת והנותר ממנו AND ON THE MORROW ALSO THE REMAINDER OF IT — i. e. what remained on the first day, יאכל MAY BE EATEN; — this ו (that of והנותר) is redundant (the text being equivalent to וממחרת הנותר ממנו יאכל); there are many similar examples in Scripture: (Genesis 36:24) “And these are the sons of Zibean: And Ajah (ואיה) and Anah”; (Daniel 8:13): “to give and the Sanctuary (וקדש) and the host to be trampled under foot”.

ביום הקריבו, on the day of his having sacrificed it, it may be eaten already, as soon as the necessary procedures have been completed.

May be eaten. It may be eaten on the second day. You should not explain that it may be eaten on the first day, and on the next day it may also be eaten, and the remnant of it, i.e., of the second day, may be eaten on the third day. Rather, this is what it means: And on the next day the remnant from the first day may be eaten, meaning: what remained from the first day may be eaten on the second. According to this, the ו of והנותר is superfluous. Rashi’s proof is that it is written nearby (v. 18): “If it will be eaten ... on the third day...” [You might ask:] Why does Rashi not interpret this ו like the ו of (6:8): “ומשמנה (and some of its oil),” where he explains [that the ו of ומשמנה is a ו of explanation, meaning as if it is written:] And from where does he take the fistful? — ומשמנה — where the oil is plentiful. So too, here, let it be explained: And when is it permitted to eat on the next day? When the remnant is from the first day. However, the preferred way to fulfill the mitzvah is [to eat it] on the first day alone. This, indeed, is as Re’m wishes to explain. [The answer is:] Because if so, Scripture should write: “יאכל והנותר ממנו ממחרת (the remnant of it shall be eaten on the next day),” [and not: “And on the next day, the remnant of it may be eaten”], so that we would not err to explain that it is referring to the remnant from the second day, which is to what it seems to refer, rather than explaining that it refers to the first day. Thus, the ו is certainly superfluous. Above (6:8), however, there is no reason to err. Here, though, without the ו there is no reason to err, therefore, Rashi explains that the ו is superfluous. This answers the difficulty which Re’m raised on Rashi who did not explain this ו like the ו of ומשמנה.

ביום הקריבו את זבחו יאכל, “his meat offering must be eaten on the day that he offered it and the day following;” immediately after the priest had completed his ritual.