פירוש על ויקרא 1:10

ואם מן הצאן AND IF [HIS OFFERING BE] OF THE SHEEP — The ו (of אם) adds something to the former subject (i. e. shows that this is a continuation of it). Why, then, is there a break between the two paragraphs (i. e. why does the following form a separate paragraph)? In order to give Moses an interval between the one section and the next section to reflect upon what has already been said (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 5 1).

AND IF HIS OFFERING BE OF THE FLOCK. This section deals with the burnt-offering of the flock, and the law thereof is in every detail like that of the burnt-offering of the herd. That is why He shortened here the command, and did not mention “and he shall lay his hands” [upon the offering], nor “and it will be acceptable” [as mentioned above]. He said here in addition, however, that it be slaughtered on the side of the altar, northward before the Eternal,¹⁵⁷Verse 11. in order to explain that the expression before the Eternal¹⁵⁸Above, Verse 5, when speaking of the burnt-offering of the herd. mentioned in connection with the bullock means the side of the altar northward. The meaning of yerech [of the altar] is “the side” of the altar, and in the northerly direction. The verse thus teaches that the ramp of the altar was on the south side, where the front of the altar was, concerning which it is said, before the Eternal, in front of the altar.¹⁵⁹Further, 6:7. I have already explained the reason why the slaughtering was to be done on the north side.¹⁶⁰See Exodus 32:1. Scripture states without specification, round about the altar,¹⁶¹Verse 11. For in view of the fact that there were two altars [[illegible]] one in the outside Court at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and one within the Sanctuary — it therefore should have specified which one is intended here. But, Ramban answers, the reference is to the altar mentioned in the preceding section. for the reference is to the altar mentioned above, that is at the door of the Tent of Meeting.¹⁶²Verse 5. It does not state [in this section] and he shall flay it, since it has already been mentioned [in the preceding section].¹⁶³Verse 6. It states and the priest shall set them in order,¹⁶⁴Verse 12. to teach us that it is sufficient if one priest attends [to all the acts of the offering of the burnt-offering brought by an individual] as I have explained,¹⁶³Verse 6. for the sections on the offerings complement each other, the points not mentioned in one being explained in the other.

ואם מן הצאן קרבנו, If his offering consists of the category of sheep or goats, etc. Torat Kohanim remarks cryptically that the word ואם, in this verse [actually I think it would be better to say "the letter ו in the word ואם," Ed.] informs us of something additional to what we have learned about the עולה. What the author of Torat Kohanim means is that all the details mentioned in connection with a burnt-offering consisting of cattle and not repeated in this paragraph are nonetheless also applicable when the burnt-offering consists of צאן. Examples are the need to perform סמיכה, etc. This word ואם is also used to deduce that rules which are mentioned here for the first time, such as that the sheep used as burnt-offering is to be slaughtered on the northern side of the altar, apply equally to burnt-offerings consisting of cattle. The basic exegetical approach of Torat Kohanim is to use all those words which appear to be repeated unnecessarily for a halachic דרוש.

ואם מן הצאן , “and if from the category of flocks, etc.” Seeing that the halachic procedures when offering a member of the category known as “flocks,” is the same as that for offering bulls, the only thing emphasised here is that the slaughtering will take place on the northern side of the altar. The use of the singular mode וערך הכהן, as opposed to the normal plural mode וערכו הכהנים, indicates that from an halachic point of view a single priest is enough to perform all the procedures listed.

The word “and” adds. And one learns the previous section from the next section, and the next section from the previous one: Sheep require laying [of the hands], skinning, cutting into pieces, and all the things listed above.

ואם מן הצאן קרבנו, “and if the donor chose to offer an animal from his herd;” the following rules do not apply to animals stolen by the donor.

מן הצאן, מן הכבשים, מן העזים — You have here these three words of limitating force (the three — fold “מן”; cf. Note on v. 1); they serve respectively to exclude an old, a sick and a malodorous animal from those that may be sacrificed (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 5 2; Bekhorot 41a).

Why was there a break. You might ask: Rashi explains above: Perhaps even for the breaks there was a calling, etc. [to give Moshe a breathing space], therefore, even without the ו adding to the first matter [we have already learned this]? The answer is: Rashi is saying this only to strengthen the question, i.e., since it says ואם, which adds to the earlier matter and it is like one parshah — if so, so much more so — why is there a break in the matter? He answers: In order [to give Moshe a breathing space...] (Re”m).

Torat Kohanim concludes: "why did the Torah then interrupt the previous paragrah and write a new paragraph altogether [if we treat the letter ו as making a single paragraph out of the two for exegetical purposes. Ed]? Answer: "in order to give Moses a breather during which time he could assimilate all the information he had just been given." Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi questions that apparently Torat Kohanim would not have queried the fact that verses 10-13 are a new paragraph if the Torah had not introduced it with the letter ו in the word ואם. How is this possible, he asks, seeing that the same Torat Kohanim on verse 1 (3,1) which deals with the meaning of the word ויקרא wrote as follows: "I might have thought that a "call" preceded every communication to Moses even including the separate paragraphs, הפסקות? Therefore the Torah wrote וידבר, to teach us that "calls" preceded דבור but not every paragraph which was a brief interruption of the same communication. What were the reasons for these הפסקות, brief interruptions? To give Moses a chance to assimilate the information he had been taught in the previous paragraph. Thus far the Torat Kohanim." This proves that such הפסקות, short intervals between different parts of the same communication, served to give Moses a breather even when the Torah did not introduce them by an otherwise superfluous letter ו. Rabbi Mizrachi proceeds to answer the question he posed. His words do not appeal to me. [The author refers to the question of Rabbi Mizrachi; he does not even relate to his answer to a question he does not perceive to have any merit in the first place. Ed.]

מן הכבשים או מן העזים, “either from his sheep or his goats;” according to the Sifra this excludes animals born from crossbreeding.

Excluding old. For if [you say] it excludes [a male animal] which was with a woman or a [female animal] which was with a man, or the other unfit animals excluded above in the beginning of the section — [this cannot be, for] the verse already excludes them above, and the ו of ואם מן הצאן comes and adds to the earlier matter, to learn the next section from the previous one. We need not ask: Why are three exclusions [the three extra words מן] needed? Let us learn [them all] from one! The Sages already answered in the Gemara (Bechoros 41a): If we were to learn from a sick animal with a מה מצינו (by comparison), I might think that only a sick animal is unfit, because being sick is not inevitable, but an old animal, since it is inevitable [for animals get old] is not unfit. Therefore it lets me know [that even an old animal is unfit]. If [we were to learn] from a filthy animal, I might think that it is [unfit] because it is repulsive, but an old or sick animal [which are not repulsive] are not [unfit]. Therefore, Scripture needed the three exclusions.

I believe that when Torat Kohanim on verse 1 stated that unless the Torah had linked the paragraphs by an otherwise superfluous letter ו in our paragraph, I would have concluded that the reason for the הפסקה was not to enable Moses to assimilate the information G'd had given him but to warn Moses not to arrive at הלכות by a merely exegetical approach. The fact that the Torah introduced our paragraph with the word ואם, teaches that identical rules apply to a burnt-offering consisting of cattle and one consisting of sheep. What was mentioned in paragraph one applies to paragraph two, and what was recorded for the first time in paragraph two applies to what has not been recorded in paragraph one. Seeing that this is so, it is clear that the purpose of the pause must have been to give Moses a chance to assimilate all this information. [After Moses heard the second paragraph he had to apply the new information contained in that paragraph as additional to what G'd had revealed to him in the first paragraph. This obviously took some time. Ed.] The author of Torat Kohanim spoke about not just this particular paragraph commencing in verse ten, but about paragraphs and their purposes altogether.