Commentaire sur Les Nombres 8:8

ולקחו פר בן בקר AND LET THEM TAKE A YOUNG BULLOCK, — and this was to be a burnt offering, as it is said, (v. 12) “and thou shalt offer the one [as a sin offering] and the other as a burnt offering”, and it (a bullock) was the communal offering prescribed (Numbers 15:24) in case of idol worship committed by the community (here the firstborn are regarded as a community).

What does the Torah teach [by specifying] ‘a second’? Though it is written “and the second sheep…” (Bamidbar 28:4) regarding the Tamid offering, this was because it is [also] written “the first sheep.” However here it is not written “the first,” therefore the terminology of “a second” is not appropriate.

V. 8. פר בן בקר ,ולקחו וגו׳: es treten die Leviten in ihrer Gesamteinheit, in dem Bewusstsein ihrer künftigen Berufsarbeit, als פר, als Arbeiter im Dienste Gottes hin und geloben im חטאת: sich stets auf der sittlichen Höhe dieses Berufs zu halten, und im עולה samt dazu gehöriger מנחה: stets thatkräftig zu den Höhezielen ihres Berufes mit der ganzen Energie ihres Wesens emporzustreben, und nur von dem Standpunkte dieses Strebens aus alle von Gott ihnen werdende Nahrung und Begüterung zu würdigen. In mehrfacher Beziehung zeichnet sich aber die Anordnung dieser Levitenמלואים aus. Die Bestimmung des ersten פר ist nicht ausgesprochen, und nur aus V. 12 erkennen wir, dass er עולה sein soll. Während ferner bei Aharons מלואים (Wajikra 2, 9) auch in der Anordnung חטאת voransteht, steht hier dasselbe nach. Während ferner ein jedes sonstige חטאת, dessen Blut nur auf den מזבח החיצון kommt, den כהנים zum Genuss wird, wird dieses חטאת nach Horiot 5 b nicht gegessen, sondern verbrannt. Wir haben diese Eigentümlichkeiten bereits zu Kap. 6, 14 besprochen und deren Motiv in der geschichtlichen Tatsache gefunden, die der Erwählung der Leviten zu Grunde lag. Wir fügen hier nur noch hinzu, dass sich hierdurch auch der Wechsel der Personen ולקחו וגו׳ ופר שני וגו׳ תקח erklären dürfte. Es ist damit noch deutlicher gesagt, dass dieses הטאת nicht aus "ihnen", nicht aus einem Rückblick auf ihre Vergangenheit, sondern aus dem Hinblick auf die Zukunft hervorgehe, die jetzt durch Mosche an sie herangebracht wird, daher nicht ולקחו, sondern: תקח.

ולקחו פר בן בקר, “then let them take a young bullock, etc,” this was to serve as a consecration rite for the services they would perform henceforth. An alternate interpretation: they have to take a young bullock seeing that the firstborn whom they replaced had served the golden calf at the instruction of others, at that time. We derive this from the line in Exodus 32,4: אלה אלוהיך ישראל, “these are your gods, Israel.” In other words: someone, the mixed multitude seduced the Israelites. We find in Numbers 15,24: “then it shall be, if it be done in error by the congregation, it having been hidden from their eyes, that all the congregation shall offer one young bullock for a burnt offering, etc,” The subject there is the person who had inadvertently committed the sin of idolatry

ופר שני AND ANOTHER BULLOCK [THOU SHALT TAKE TO BE A SIN OFFERING] — What is the force of the word שני, the second? (There is no corresponding word אחד at the beginning of the sentence!). But it is used to suggest a comparison between the two sacrifices: How is it in the case of the burnt offering? It is not permitted to be eaten (for it is entirely burnt on the altar)! So, too, is this sin-offering not permitted to be eaten (in spite of being a חטאת חיצונה which as a rule may be eaten; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 9:11). And in this fact (that the חטאת prescribed was not eaten) there is some support in the statement of Torath Cohanim just quoted for his (R. Moses the Preacher’s) view (that the עולה which is paired with it was that enjoined for idolatry committed by the community) (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 3 4). — I, however, say that it (the fact that this חטאת was not to be eaten) was an occasional (exceptional) decision (הוראת שעה) (contrary to the rule of a חטאת חיצונה, and not because it was intended as a חטאת לע"ז as asserted by R. Moses), for if his view were correct they would have had to offer a goat (as prescribed in Numbers 15:24 not a bullock) as a sin offering to expiate for idolatry together with a bullock for a burnt offering mentioned here.

ופר שני, “and a second bullock, etc.;” in commenting on the word שני, second, Rashi points out that the sin offering when applicable, must precede the offering of a burnt offering. [How could a burnt offering be welcome before the Lord as long as the person guilty of bringing a sin offering for his atonement has not first done so? Ed.] The point of the Torah using this sequence therefore is to teach us that just as no parts of a burnt offering may be eaten by the donor or the priest, so in this instance, no part of the sin offering may be eaten either. Our author, in elaborating on that Rashi, adds that the Levites used this bullock as their consecration offering as is clear from Leviticus 9,11,where it is spelled out specifically, and it was a sin offering.

That it was a temporary ruling. Meaning that when Rashi explains “so the sin-offering was not eaten” even though other sin-offerings are eaten, this was a temporary ruling. And you should know that it was a temporary ruling, because they should have brought a goat as a sin-offering for idolatry along with the bullock burnt-offering, as is normal when the congregation performs idolatry. Why then did they bring a bullock for the sin-offering — it must have been a temporary ruling, therefore regarding this matter (eating the offering) it was also a temporary ruling. However even without this, we could still say that it was a temporary ruling. For external sin-offerings (those offered outside the Sanctuary) are eaten, but this one for the inauguration of the Levites, who were installed through it, was burned. One should not say that this sin-offering was offered inside the Sanctuary, given that it was burned and then say that “just as a burnt-offering is burned so too the sin-offering was burned,” that it is offered inside. R’em.

תקח לחטאת, “you shall take as a sin offering.” When it came to “taking,” i.e. sanctifying and setting the offering aside for its purpose, the Torah mentions the burnt offering first. The reason is that the more valuable one of these two bullocks was the one used for the burnt offering. Nonetheless, when it came to the sequence of which of these two animals would be offered on the altar first, the sin offering took precedence. The Torah paid the Levites a compliment, by not requiring them to offer a male goat as a sin offering, for if it had insisted on this, the impression could have been created that the Levites had to atone for the inadvertently committed sin of idolatry. They had not been guilty of that. (B’chor shor)