פירוש על ויקרא 1:18

ויקרא אל משה AND [THE LORD] CALLED UNTO MOSES — All oral communications of the Lord to Moses whether they are introduced by דבר or by אמר or by צו were preceded by a call (to prepare him for the forthcoming address) (cf Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 1 1-2). It is a way of expressing affection, the mode used by the ministering angels when addressing each other, as it is said (Isaiah 6:3) “And one called unto another [and said, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts]”. To the prophets of the nations of the world, however, God revealed himself in a manner which Scripture describes by an expression ordinarily used for denoting events of a casual character and of uncleanness, as it is said, (Numbers 23:4) “and God happened to meet (ויקר) Balaam” (the term ויקר, from the root ,קרה, is connected with מִקְרֶה which denotes “chance”, “occurrence”, and has also the meaning of “uncleanness”, by analogy with Deuteronomy 23:11: ‎לא יהיה טהור מקרה לילה) (cf. Bereishit Rabbah 52:5).

AND HE CALLED UNTO MOSES; AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE UNTO HIM. Scripture states [the fact that G-d called to Moses] here and not in other places, because Moses was not able to enter into the Tent of Meeting,³¹Exodus 40:35. and to draw near the place where G-d was,³²Ibid., 20:18. except through G-d calling him [to come into the Tent of Meeting]. For Moses had already been told, and I will speak with thee from above the ark-cover;³³Ibid., 25:22. where I will meet with thee.³⁴Ibid., 30:36. Since he knew that the Eternal that sitteth upon the cherubim³⁵I Chronicles 13:6. was there, Moses was afraid to come into the Tent at all until He called him, just as it was at Mount Sinai where it is said, and on the seventh day He called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.³⁶Exodus 24:16. See also Note 7 above. Or it may be that Moses did not know that the Glory of G-d was in the Tent and that the communication to him would be from there,³⁷For Moses thought that he would hear the Divine Voice speaking to him from above the ark-cover, but actually the Holy One, blessed be He, would be speaking from heaven (Abohab). See also Ramban on Exodus 40:2, Vol. II, p. 619. since the cloud did not cover the Tent of Meeting until the eighth day of the installation according to the opinion of our Rabbis;³⁸“And it came to pass, on the eighth day … (Further 9:1). This was the first of Nisan, and the day was distinguished in ten different ways … It was the day on which the Divine Glory dwelt for the first time among the Israelites …” (Torath Kohanim, ibid.). and after this call Moses came into the innermost part of the Tent [i.e., the Holy of Holies], just as the Rabbis have interpreted:³⁹Torath Kohanim at the beginning of Parshath Acharei, (further, 16:2): “Thy brother [Aaron] is under the command not to enter the holy place [except when it was his duty to officiate there], (further 16:2), but Moses is not included in this command.” “Aaron was not to enter [the Sanctuary except at the prescribed time], but Moses was not included in this command.” This is the plain meaning of this verse. I have explained it already above.⁴⁰Exodus 40:34.
But our Rabbis have said⁴¹Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 1:7. that “all communications [that came to Moses], whether they are introduced by the word dabeir (speak), or by emor (say), or tzav (command), were preceded by a call,” that is to say, G-d said to him, ‘Moses, Moses’ and he answered, ‘Here am I.’⁴²Exodus 3:4. This was a way of expressing affection and encouragement to Moses.⁴³Accordingly, the call to Moses that is mentioned at the beginning of this book was not for the purpose of giving him permission to come into the Tent of Meeting, but rather to express G-d’s affection for Moses and His inspiriting him for the communication. If so, it stands to reason, Ramban continues, that this kind of call [“Moses, Moses”] came to him on all occasions when he received a Divine communication. The reason why it is mentioned specifically here, etc. (see text). Now according to this opinion, Scripture mentioned the expression [And He called unto him …] here, because it was the first communication that came to Moses from the Tent of Meeting, thus teaching us concerning all the other communications that such was His procedure with him all the time and with the whole Torah. The expression out of the Tent of Meeting refers according to the Rabbis to the preceding words, [the interpretation of the verse thus being]: “and He called unto him out of the Tent of Meeting; and the Eternal spoke to him in the Tent,” for Moses was already there [in the Tent].⁴⁴For since the purpose of the call was not to give permission to Moses to enter, but rather to show him affection, the sense of the verse may then be explained as follows: “and G-d called him out of the Tent and He spoke to him in the Tent” where he already was. The explanation of the verse according to its plain meaning and sense is: “and the Eternal called unto Moses and spoke unto him, out of the Tent of Meeting.”
By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], this verse is like, And unto Moses He said: ‘Come up unto the Eternal.’⁴⁵Exodus 24:1. Its secret is known from the Revelation on Mount Sinai⁴⁶See Note 17 in Seder Yithro (Vol. II, p. 251). and the Ten Commandments. I have alluded to it already.⁴⁵Exodus 24:1.

ויקרא אל משה, always out of the cloud; similar to what was described already at Mount Sinai (Exodus 24,16) “He called to Moses on the seventh day out of the cloud.” Moses could never enter the Tabernacle without first having obtained permission to do so.

ויקרא אל משה, וידבר, He called out to Moses and spoke, etc. According to Torat Kohanim on this verse G'd always called to Moses before He addressed him from the Tent of Testimony. We have to explore why the Torah records such a call on three separate occasions instead of allowing us to conclude that if it was stated once it would form the basis of a Mah Matzinu type of exegesis, i.e. that just as G'd called to Moses on the occasion mentioned here, or elsewhere, so He did on every other occasion He spoke to him from the Tent of Testimony. The author of Torat Kohanim proceeds to explain why such an exegesis could not be applied: "There are only two other occasions when this "call" is recorded as having preceded the דבור, the speech. The first time it occurred when Moses had the vision at the burning bush; the second time was at Mount Sinai, and the third time is here. We cannot establish a common denominator between these three occurrences as at the burning bush Moses had never previously been addressed by G'd and there was a need to prepare him mentally for such an address. At Mount Sinai (Exodus 19,3) G'd wanted Moses to convey His message to the entire Jewish nation. Neither of these two instances could serve as a valid precedent for G'd addressing Moses out of the Tabernacle on earth after having issued a "call." The reason that even this latter occasion does not serve as a precedent for the other two occasions is that in both other instances G'd had manifested Himself out of fire as opposed to the present occasion.

ויקרא אל משה, in view of our being told at the end of the last portion that Moses could not enter the Tabernacle (Exodus 40,35), this is why now G’d called to Moses from the Tabernacle. As a result, the meaning of the verse here is “G’d called to Moses from the Tent and spoke to him.” The meaning of the verse is parallel to Exodus 19,3 ויקרא אליו ה' מן ההר, where the operative clause is the word מן ההר, “from the mountain.” It is important for us to know from where G’d’s voice originated. At that time it came out of the mountain, whereas now it came out of the Tabernacle. At that time it signaled that G’d had “descended” into the domain of earth, i.e. on top of Mount Sinai, whereas now it signaled that G’d had taken up residence in His home on earth, the Mishkan. At a later stage, after G’d had limited His presence to the Holy of Holies, we hear in Numbers 7,89 that His voice was heard originating from above the kapporet, the lid of the Holy Ark, between the two cherubs. At the earliest stage of G’d communicating with Moses His voice originated in the burning bush, the site of Mount Sinai, also, as we know from Exodus 3,4. לאמור, there is a repetition here, i.e. וידבר and לאמור although both address the same subject. We explained this phenomenon in Genesis 8,15 This phenomenon occurs again also with Aaron in Numbers 8,2. [the author may refer to these phenomena to draw attention to his differing with the commentary of Torat Kohanim quoted by Rashi. Ed.] [The author’s understanding of the meaning of לאמור is that it is a repetition, emphasisng the preceding words, such as ויצו, or ויקרא. Ed]

ויקרא אל משה, “He called to Moses, etc.” Nachmanides, explaining the sequence of the portions in the Torah, writes that after having concluded with the construction of the Tabernacle, a subject which dominated the last four portions with the exception of Parshat Ki Tissa, the Torah now turns its attention to the legislation governing the sacrificial offerings to be brought in the Tabernacle. This is the logical corollary after we have been told that G’d’s glory manifested itself and enveloped the Tabernacle. Part of the legislation about the offerings, are the laws governing who has access to the Tabernacle, and who, even if basically entitled to perform service in the Tabernacle, is temporarily forbidden to do so due to his being in a state of ritual impurity or due to his being drunk. Even the High Priest himself, without being drunk or impure, is forbidden to enter certain parts of the Tabernacle except for a specific purpose on a specific day. (Leviticus,16,2). The priests not only must not be ritually impure when entering the Tabernacle, but they must sanctify themselves prior to performing their service. This additional requirement is based on the presence of the “glory of G’d” in the Tabernacle. Most of the Book of Leviticus deals with sacrificial offerings, the kind of people who present these sacrifices, either voluntary or mandatory, as well as the precise location where these sacrifices are to be offered. There is also a relatively short list of commandments which in one way or another are directly linked to such sacrifices, i.e. which bring in their wake the need to present such sacrifices by the individuals concerned. For instance, the Book opens with voluntary offerings by individuals, and the laws pertaining to them, necessitating the recording of the prohibition for certain fat parts of the animals, as well as all blood, to be forbidden to be eaten. Afterwards, as a corollary of the sin offering, parts of which are consumed by the priests, this brings in its wake the need to inform us generally about which animals may and which may not be eaten. These animals, or even basically “kosher” animals, that have not been killed by ritual slaughter, bring in their wake ritual uncleanness, and confer such on people in contact with them. We read about certain diseases that have a religious background, and therefore are not subject to treatment by physicians, but require the offering of sacrifices upon their termination. Women who have given birth are required to offer certain sacrifices, and are subject to varying degrees of ritual uncleanness for a period of time after they have given birth. The subject of ritual purity is enlarged upon by the laws about incest, and forbidden sexual unions. Women who are menstruating become ritually unclean even to their husbands, until, in due course, they have purified themselves in a ritual bath. The majority of the portions of this Book address themselves specifically to the priests in one way or another. Parshat Kedoshim contains a number of laws applying to all Israelites equally, especially laws governing inter-personal relationships, laws designed to ensure a civilization that functions with minimum inequalities. If the Book commences with the words “Someone called to Moses,” instead of the customary “G’d called to Moses, or similar, this is to remind us that though we are dealing with a separate Book, the train of thought with which the Book of Exodus concluded, i.e. that the glory of Hashem filled and enveloped the Tabernacle is continued here without a break, the Torah now detailing the service to be performed in that Tabernacle. In other words, the subject of the word ויקרא is the כבוד ה' described in Exodus Nachmanides also writes that our sages derive from this introductory word ויקרא, that all conversations initiated by G’d were preceded by a call to prepare Moses that he was about to be addressed by the Shechinah. The word appears only here, as this was the first time Moses was being addressed by a dimension of Hashem in His terrestrial domain, the Tabernacle. Henceforth, this was the standard procedure all the time the Israelites remained in the desert. According to our sages’ understanding, the words מאהל מועד in our context actually have to be understood as if they had been written in an earlier part of our verse, i.e. ויקרא אליו מאהל מועד וידבר אליו באהל כי משה היה שם, “He called to him from the Tent of Meeting and spoke to him because Moses was there.” According to the plain meaning of the text, the meaning is slightly different. Seeing that the glory of G’d filled the Tabernacle, Moses was unable to enter it until he would be invited in, (Exodus 40,35) just as had happened at the revelation at Mount Sinai seven months earlier, when he had been invited to ascend the Mountain. Our verse then describes that on the seventh day of the inaugural rites, the day preceding the first of Nissan, G’d called to Moses out of the Tabernacle, the voice appearing to come out of the cloud. Some commentators believe that what is described here is the basis of the statement in the Talmud Chagigah 14 that every utterance of the Almighty creates an angel that (allegorically speaking) walks in front of Him, as would the page or standard bearer of a terrestrial king. After this angel had alerted Moses to the approach of G’d, He would commence to speak to him directly, or to anyone else whom G’d wished to speak to.

And all commands a calling preceded. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written ויקרא and וידבר, which is apparently redundant? Therefore, he explains: [For all “speakings” and all sayings and all commands a calling preceded] ... meaning: Hashem did not speak to Moshe abruptly, but first He greeted him with “Moshe, Moshe” and he would answer “Here I am,” and then He would speak with him.

And He called. The א of ויקרא is written as a small letter because Moshe wanted to write ויקר (and it happened), the way it is written regarding Bilaam, which implies God appeared to him only as a chance occurrence. God, however, told him to write the א which indicates His love, but Moshe made it small.

ויקרא אל משה, He (the Lord) called to Moses;” according to Tanchuma on this verse, G–d had to call out to Moses from inside the Hoy of Holies, (between the cherubs on the cover of the Holy Ark) as Moses at the time was standing outside the Tabernacle. He did so as He did not consider it fitting for Moses who had erected the Tabernacle to have to stand outside while His glory was inside. Moses had been afraid to enter as He had not been invited to do so, as long as the cloud was resting above the Tabernacle. Rashi adds that an additional reason for G–d calling to Moses first before speaking to him, was that this was also so when He completed speaking to him. The absence of any word indicating this, is that G–d, when having completed what He had to say, did not do so by anything indicating this. Furthermore the word לו, “to him,” which is really not necessary, was to teach that while Moses heard the call while standing outside, the people did not. In Numbers 7,89, at the end of the consecration of the Tabernacle, the Torah elaborates by writing that Moses heard the sound of G–d’s voice emanating from between the cherubs on the Holy Ark. The word אליו, “to him,” there makes it clear that only he heard that voice.

ויקרא אל משה, “He called out to Moses;” seeing that the Torah had concluded the end of the Book of Exodus with the words: ‘the glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle so that Moses was unable to enter the Sanctuary,” it was necessary to let us know now that He called out to him, i.e. gave him permission to enter the Sanctuary. In order to make this clear to the reader, the Torah, instead of writing: “the Lord called out to Moses,” omitted to tell us who it was that called out to him, so that the reader will know that this is not really a new paragraph but a continuation of what had been told us at the end of the Book of Exodus. In other words, we need to understand this opening line of the Book of Leviticus as follows: “the glory of the Lord which had been reported at the end of the Book of Exodus as filling the Tabernacle, now spoke to Moses.”This is also how the Jerusalem Targum translates this verse. (Compare Torah shleymah on our verse page 235, where the full text of the Jerusalem Targum appears, in Aramaic, of course) Once Moses had entered the Sanctuary, he heard G-d’s voice emanating from between the two cherubs on top of the lid of the Holy Ark as reported in Parshat Nasso, 7,89.

ויקרא אל משה AND HE CALLED UNTO MOSES — This implies that the Voice went on and reached his (Moses’s) ears only but all the other Israelites did not hear it). One might think that for the subsections there was also such a call! It, however, states, “[And the Lord called unto Moses] and spake (וידבר) [to him]”, thus intimating that a דבור, a complete section had (was preceded by) a call (e. g., in our text chapters 1—4), but not the subsections. And what purpose did these subsections serve (i. e., why are the larger sections broken up into smaller ones)? To give Moses an interval for reflection between one division and another and between one subject and another — something which is all the more necessary for an ordinary man receiving instruction from an ordinary man (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 1 9).

מאהל מועד, to warn Moses not to enter the Tent while G’d’s glory was still there. Our verse speaks of what occurred on the day when Moses had completed erecting the Tabernacle, for it was then that G’d’s glory descended to sanctify the site as well as the ones performing their sacred duties in and around it. All of this is the execution of G’d’s promise in Exodus 29, 43-44 ונועדתי שמה לבני ישראל ונקדש בכבודי, וקדשתי את אהל מועד ואת המזבח את אהרן ואת בניו, “and there I will meet with the Israelites and it shall be sanctified by My Presence. I will sanctify the Tent of Meeting, the Altar, Aaron and his sons.” The same procedure occurred when the Temple which Solomon had built, at the time it was being consecrated. We read in Kings I 8,11 “the priests could not enter and stand there preparatory to performing their sacred service for the glory of the Lord filled the entire House.” Filling the House with His glory was the manner in which the structure became sanctified, as was spelled out in the Book of Kings I 9,3. However, after this first day Moses could always enter the sanctuary outside of the Holy of Holies, i.e. up until the dividing curtain, פרכת. Numbers 7,89 elaborates on this describing that “when Moses entered the Tent of Meeting in order to speak with Him, he would hear the sound of G’d’s voice speaking to him from above the lid of the Holy Ark.”

אליו, “to him;” This apparently superfluous word is meant to alert us to the fact that G’d addressed Moses exclusively, and that Aaron was not included in this communication. Whenever, elsewhere, the Torah writes: “G’d spoke to Moses and Aaron,” the meaning is that Moses was to inform Aaron of what G’d had communicated to him at that time. Aaron was to be a go between, שליח, from that moment on, equal to Moses in carrying out G’d’s instructions.

A calling, an expression of love. [All the “speakings,” etc.] in the Tent of Meeting were preceded by a calling. That is to say, from here we learn through a בנין אב (by comparison) that whenever it says, וידבר, ויאמר, or צו, it was preceded by calling. This is so in the case of דיבור as explained here. אמירה: as it is written in Parshas Shemos (3:4): “Elohim called to him from the midst of the thorn-bush, and said (ויאמר).” ציווי: as it is written in Parshas Yisro (19:20): “And Adonoy called to Moshe to come up to the top of the mountain ... [Adonoy] said ... ‘Go down and warn the people...’ This is an expression of ציווי: Lest they break through toward Hashem to see. However, there remains a difficulty: Why did Rashi not give this explanation above in Parshas Shemos or Yisro; why did he leave it until now? (Minchas Yaakov and Nachalas Yaakov).

According to Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, the source for the Torat Kohanim saying that the call at Mount Sinai came out of the fire is either Exodus 24,16: "G'd called to Moses on the seventh day," or Exodus 19,20 where the Torah writes: "G'd called Moses to (come up to) the top of the Mountain." It cannot be Exodus 19,3 where the Torah writes: "G'd called to him from the Mountain, etc." This follows the explanation of Rabbenu Hillel according to whom this latter verse was not addressed to Moses out of the fire and the Torat Kohanim has stated that the reason the three occasions cannot serve as precedent for one another is that at Sinai and at the burning bush G'd called out of the fire. Thus far Rabbi Mizrachi. With all due respect to Rabbi Mizrachi, the Rabbi was not quite exact in his observation. The premise of the Torat Kohanim was that inasmuch as the word ויקרא is followed by the word דבור, we should have been able to deduce that what happened at the burning bush also happened at the Tabernacle seeing that we have a gezeyrah shaveh, the use by the Torah of similar wording. When we follow this principle the word ויקרא should have been dispensed with in at least one of the three situations. I believe the proof is precisely from Exodus 19,3. The verse in Exodus 24,16 does not contain a single superfluous word as it serves as G'd's call for Moses to come up to the Mountain and to spend there the next forty days. The word ויקרא in that verse is used instead of the word דבור not in addition to it. The only verses which were of interest to Torat Kohanim are the verses in which the word קריאה is used as a prelude to the word דבור. Even the verse in Exodus 24,16 does not really meet the criteria established by the author of Torat Kohanim as G'd had to issue a call to Moses to ascend the Mountain seeing he was down below. The word ויקרא is certainly not superfluous then. That particular קריאה, call, could only have served as a prelude to G'd speaking to Moses on the Mountain. Had it been omitted, we would have assumed that G'd spoke to Moses while the latter was at the base of the Mountain, something impossible as the Torah itself testifies that G'd spoke to Moses while the latter was on top of the Mountain.

אליו, “to him.” On this word Rashi explains that we might have thought that people outside had heard G-d’s voice speaking to Moses; in order to disabuse us of this, the Torah emphasized: אליו, “to him,” i.e. audible only to Moses. The point is made once more in the Book of Numbers 7,89, where the Torah writes that Moses heard the voice of the Lord talking to him, מדבר אליו, followed by וידבר אליו. Instead of writing מדבר לו, the word אליו stresses the exclusivity of that voice, i.e. audible only to Moses. Rashi stresses this also in his commentary on the Talmud in tractate Yuma folio 4.

אליו TO HIM — This is intended to exclude Aaron. Rabbi Judah said, “Thirteen communications in the Torah are stated, according to the wording of the text, to have been spoken to Moses and Aaron together; but corresponding to these there are thirteen which include expressions with a limitative force to teach you that they were spoken not to Aaron but to Moses only, with the view that he should communicate them to Aaron. The following are the thirteen limitations: (Numbers 7:89) “[And when Moses had come into the appointed tent] that He might speak with him, [then he heard the Voice] speaking unto him … [from between the two cherubim]: and he spoke unto him”; (Exodus 25:22) “and there I will be met by thee”; — all the thirteen instances you will find in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 1. — I might, however, think that they (Aaron and all Israel) heard at least the sound of the Divine utterance (הדבור), even though they could not distinguish the words! However, in the text, Numbers 7:89: וישמע את הקול מדבר אליו,where it might have said לו‎...‎ ה]קול], it says אליו‎‎… ‎ה]קול], “And he heard the voice (הקול) uttering itself (מדבר) right up to him (אליו)” — consequently Moses alone heard the utterance, and all Israel did not hear it) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 8).

A Midrashic approach (Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1,9): the words עקב ענוה יראת ה' mean that whereas wisdom is considered the crown, humility is considered the heel of one’s shoe. On the one hand, we are told by David (Psalms 111,10) ראשית חכמה יראת ה', normally translated as “the beginning of all wisdom is fear of the Lord,” on the other hand, Solomon (his son) told us that עקב ענוה יראת ה', that the fear of the Lord is a product of humility. The author wanted to teach us by using the word עקב in connection with humility that this virtue is greater than wisdom as it is the product of fear of the Lord. A product is the result of something more primitive preceding it, hence it is more advanced, superior to the ingredients which contributed to it.
It is well known that all virtues manifest themselves in opposite extremes. [If I understand the author correctly he means that one can be described as “the most humble,” or as “the least humble;” “the wisest” or “the one most lacking in wisdom,” etc. I suppose that the word “virtue” must then be divided between “positive” virtues and “negative” virtues. The correct translation of the word מדה used by the author then is not “virtue,” but “characteristic.” Ed.] However, in addition to possessing any such characteristic (virtue) in either of these extremes one may also possess it in a degree which is ממוצע, “average,” i.e. somewhere between the extremes we mentioned. The characteristic (virtue) of humility is such a virtue. The reason that this is so is that it is somewhere in between pride and self-abasement. As a general rule, man should strive to possess these characteristics which are at neither end of the extremes as everything that is extreme is usually something negative. (compare Maimonides Hilchot Deyot 2,2). Concerning this subject Solomon said (Proverbs 4,26) “survey the course your feet will take so that all your ways will be prosperous.” With this warning Solomon wanted to exhort man to pursue paths which lie between two extremes. The very word פלס which he used and which we translated as “survey” is derived from the noun peless, meaning “ balance,” as in the balance of a set of scales. It is in the centre. When keeping this advice in mind, a person will be able to plan his activities properly, giving due weight to all the pros and cons of a situation. Solomon made this crystal clear in the verse following where he said: “do not turn to the right or the left; remove your feet from evil.” The message is that he who veers neither to the right nor to the left of the true path will avoid evil.
The exception to all this is the manner in which the virtue of humility is to be practiced (compare Maimonides HiIchot Deyot 2,3). When training oneself to acquire this virtue one must endeavour to practice it to the greatest extreme possible. In fact, the extreme of the virtue ענוה is called שפלות, “a kind of debasement practiced relative to one’s posture in the presence of one’s king.” Any attempt to practice the virtue of humility by applying the yardstick of sticking to the middle of the road might give rise to people thinking that one is somewhat overbearing, arrogant. Seeing that arrogance is the very worst of all negative virtues it is clear that one has to make every effort to steer clear of that characteristic. People guilty of arrogance put their afterlife at risk . Concerning this whole subject our sages in Avot 4,4 said: “be exceedingly humble in spirit.” The reason they repeated the word מאד, i.e. “very much,” was to teach the people to practice this virtue in the extreme, as opposed to the other virtues. The reason is also that this is the greatest virtue and it is one which is evident to people with whom one comes into contact. This is why David described himself as possessing לב נשבר ונדכה, “a contrite and crushed heart” (Psalms 51,19), in spite of the fact that he was a powerful king as well as a prophet. He was also the head of the seventy elders who were the Supreme Court of his generation. (this is based on Samuel II 23,8: where our sages (Moed Katan 16) interpret the words יושב בשבת תחכמוני, to mean that when David took his seat amongst the sages he did not sit on a cushion but on the ground. G’d said to him: “seeing you have humbled yourself you are like Me,” a play on the second part of the word תח-כמוני). Moses also, although the most outstanding of the prophets who ever lived, is described by G’d as the “most humble person” (Numbers 12,3). [This editor has always felt that the virtue of humility is reserved for outstanding people as these have something to be proud of. If the likes of us appear humble it only reflects the fact that we have nothing to boast about. This is hardly a positive virtue.] When the Torah also used the adjective מאד to describe the level of Moses’ humility, this was to tell us that he deliberately tried to practice this virtue in the extreme. Anyone who contents himself with practicing the virtue of humility just as he practices other virtues, i.e. following the middle path between arrogance and total self abasement, may quality for the description ענו, but not for the description ענו מאד.
Seeing that Moses was so humble, he did not want to enter the Tabernacle until G’d had invited him to do so seeing the Tabernacle was still enveloped in a cloud housing G’d’s attribute כבוד. Even though Moses had been told by G’d that He would meet with him in that Tent and speak to him inside from above the kapporet, from “between the cherubs” (Exodus 25,22), he was afraid to enter; he was afraid to prophecy inside, to pray inside, or to offer sacrifices inside until G’d would give him express permission by calling him and inviting him inside. This invitation was tendered when the Torah writes: “He called to Moses and Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, to say.”

Happenstance and uncleanness. Meaning: ויקרא is related to the word קרי, as in nocturnal emission. [You might ask:] The word ויקר refers to Hashem! [The answer is:] It seemed to Hashem, as it were, as if He contracted repulsiveness and impurity in speaking to Bilaam, as one who contracts repulsiveness through nocturnal emission.

As far as Rabbi Mizrachi finding support for his theory in Exodus 24,16 where G'd called out to Moses on the seventh day out of the cloud before addressing him in the subsequent verses in 25,1-2 is concerned, the venerable Rabbi has forgotten that the verses 24,17-18 which do not involve G'd's addressing Moses make it impossible to consider 25,1-2 as a continuation of His call to Moses in 24,16. There is absolutely no evidence that what G'd said to Moses in 25,1-2 occurred prior to Moses' ascending the Mountain. G'd may have given Moses all the instructions concerning the donations for the Tabernacle after the latter had already been on the Mountain for a number of days.

לאמור, “saying” [in order to relay to the Israelites. Ed.] The author refers the reader to his commentary on Genesis 8,15 on the word: לאמור, where Rash’bam is given as the source of this interpretation of this word. A well known example of the meaning of this kind of repetition is found in verse 2 of our chapter: דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם, “speak to the Children of Israel and say to them;”

מאהל מועד FROM THE APPOINTED TENT — This teaches us that the Voice broke off and did not issue beyond the appointed tent. One might think that this was so because the Voice was a very low one! Scripture, however, states, (Numbers 7:89) “[when he entered the tent he heard] the Voice”. What does it mean by the Voice? It was the Voice that is so minutely described in Psalms, (29:4, 5) “The voice of the Lord is powerful; the voice of the Lord is full of majesty. The voice of the Lord breaketh the cedars. But if this be so (that it was a very powerful voice), why does Scripture state, “[and the Lord spoke to him] from the appointed tent” (מאהל מועד and does not state באהל מועד)? Because it intends to tell us that the Voice broke off and that it was heard only in the tent). A similar case we have in Ezekiel that a powerful sound uttered within the Temple was not heard outside: (Ezekiel 10:5) “And the sound of the cherubims’ wings was heard up to the outer court”. One might think then that the sound was a very low one! Scripture, however, continues “as the Voice of the Almighty God when He speaketh”! If this was so why, then, does Scripture state, “[it was heard] up to the outer court only”? Because when it (the sound) reached there it broke off (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 10-11).

And reaches his ears. This refers to the utterance “Moshe, Moshe,” as is, with the pronunciation of the letters. All of these are needed [i.e., the three exclusions that Rashi mentions: 1)This one, “And He called to Moshe,” which excludes all Israel, 2)“and Adonoy spoke to him,” to exclude Aharon, and 3)“the voice to him (אליו instead of לו),” Moshe heard but all Israel did not hear], for if only one of these was written we would have established it [as excluding] only Israel. And if it was only written: “And He called to Moshe and [Adonoy] spoke to him,” [without the exclusion 3)] I would have thought that Aharon and all of Israel heard the sound of Hashem’s utterance. If it was only written: “And He called to Moshe and he heard the sound,” [without exclusion 2)] I would have thought Aharon heard even the speech itself. If was written: “Adonoy spoke to him,” and also: “He heard the voice,” together, [without exclusion 1)], I would have thought Aharon heard even the speech itself and all of Israel heard the call, “Moshe, Moshe” (This is the essence of Re”m’s words).

Rabbi Mizrachi rejected the opinion of Rabbenu Hillel that seeing the call at the Tabernacle in our verse was in lieu of G'd manifesting Himself out of the "fire" (seeing the divine fire had not yet descended on the altar). Accordingly, the Torah had to record G'd's call here. We cannot accept this argument either. Rabbi Mizrachi apparently thought that Torat Kohanim presumed that the "call" at the burning bush and at Mount Sinai was accompanied by Heavenly fire. This is not true. The author of Torat Kohanim only meant that the particular appearances by G'd to Moses were also followed or preceded by G'd manifesting Himself through fire, something that most certainly was not the case when G'd called to Moses here at the Tabernacle. G'd manifesting Himself through fire is an additional dimension to the degree of His manifestation and did not take the place of His "call" alerting the recipient of such a vision that he would shortly be addressed by G'd. Seeing that no such fiery manifestation took place in the encounter between G'd and Moses at the Tabernacle, it was important to record that G'd drew Moses' attention to an impending message by means of this "call."

מאהל מועד לאמר [AND THE LORD … SPOKE UNTO HIM] OUT OF THE APPOINTED TENT, SAYING — One might think from this that the Lord spoke to him from the entire house (i.e. from any part of the appointed tent)! Scripture, however, states, (Numbers 6:89) “[and he heard the Voice speaking unto him] from off the covering”. From this, again, one might think that he heard the Voice coming from off the entire covering (from any part of it)! Scripture, however, continues, “from between the two cherubim”. Consequently the words מאהל מועד cannot denote the place from which the Lord spoke to Moses, but the area within which the Voice was heard (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 12).

Perhaps even for the breaks. I.e., in a place where there is a parshah-break but there is not [at the beginning of the next parshah an expression of] דבור, אמירה, or ציווי, for example, the breaks preceding (v. 10): “If his offering is from flocks of sheep,” (v. 14): “If his burnt-offering is of fowl,” and (2:1): “When a person brings,” and the like. You might ask: Why did Rashi not ask this “Perhaps even [for the breaks...]” after stating, “God happened upon Bilaam”? The answer is: Above, it was all right because I would have thought that everyone, including Israel, heard the voice of Hashem. If so, it did not indicate that Moshe was greater than the rest of Israel, for they also heard, as Moshe did. Thus, it was obvious there was a calling even for the breaks, for the fact he was called even for the breaks was the greatness of Moshe over the rest of Israel. But now that Rashi explains that Moshe alone heard the calling voice, one could be in doubt if he also had the greatness of being called for the breaks or not, because he was greater than the rest of Israel even without this, for the people of Israel did not even hear the calling voice. Thus, “the verse states

The author proceeds to insist that the principal proof that G'd always let the "call" precede His speaking to Moses is from Exodus 24,16. [I have abbreviated the polemics somewhat in the interests of brevity. Ed.]

לאמר SAYING — This implies “Go and speak to them words that will bring them to a subdued frame of mind):‘It is for your sake that He communicates with me’!” And indeed we find this was so; for all the thirty — eight years during which Israel in the wilderness were placed, as it were, under excommunication — from the time of the incident of the spies and onwards — there was no intimate conversation of God with Moses, for it is said, (Deuteronomy 2:16, 17) “So it came to pass, when were consumed all the men of war (i. e. the men who had waged war immediately after the return of the spies; cf. Numbers 14:40—45. It was they and their generation who wandered in the wilderness as though excommunicated) … that the Lord spake unto me, saying, …” — only then was a divine communication again made to me (Sifra). Another explanation of לאמר is that it means “to speak to God”: it implies, “Go and tell them My commands and bring Me back word whether they will accept them, as it is said, (Exodus 19:8) “And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 13).

The verse states, “He spoke.” [Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say: “And He called to (אל) Moshe”?] You might ask: In the entire Torah it is written, “Adonoy spoke to Moshe, saying...” Why did Rashi not ask this before? The answer is: Here, Hashem called, “Moshe, Moshe,” if so, [it should have said: “And He called Moshe,”] why is it written אל? Rather [it is saying:] “The voice proceeds...” However, Re”m explains that Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written אל משה, it should say simply למשה? To this Rashi comments: “The voice proceeds...” Rashi responds here more than from every other place it says אל in the Torah because in Toras Kohanim the Sages expounded that וידבר אליו comes to exclude Aharon from the actual words of the command. But how did they derive that? Perhaps it only comes to exclude Israel, but Aharon, who was appointed to speak, did hear! Rather, perforce we must say that there was a previous “exclusion,” which is the word אל משה that excludes all Israel, that they did not hear it, and they did not even hear the call “Moshe, Moshe.” This is because [the word אל] refers to the verb “He called.” So much more so [that Israel did not hear] the actual words of the One Who is commanding. Thus, the extra word אליו remains [available] to exclude Aharon from [hearing] the explicit words, and the drashah קול לו excludes all of them, even from the sound of the calling.

To give a breathing space. It is understandable if this was a new calling or prophecy — that is why there is a break. But if there was no calling, why is there a break? Rashi answers: “To give a breathing space...”

I find it difficult to understand the comment in Torat Kohanim that seeing that when G'd spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai this was something public, addressed to the whole nation, and that this is why He needed to introduce His address by a "call. After all, every commandment G'd revealed to Moses by speaking to him was intended for the whole nation. The author of Korban Aharon claims that when G'd addressed the whole of Israel He had to reduce the intensity of His voice seeing the people were not attuned to Him to the same degree as Moses. Accordingly, if the Torah uses the the word ויקרא here it is to tell us that G'd did not reduce the intensity of voice He used when He addressed the people at large instead of only Moses. If we follow this approach we would have to understand the author of Torat Kohanim as saying that when he speaks about לכל ישראל he did not consider this as a compliment to Israel. This is quite difficult to accept. I believe that the מעלה, compliment, expressed by the word ויקרא in Exodus 24,16 consisted in the fact that G'd included the whole of the people in what He was about to say instead of using Moses as His intermediary. The author of Torat Kohanim took the example of Exodus 24,16 as his cue to tell us that just as G'd employed the "call" as a compliment to the people at that time„ He continued to use this "call" forthwith as a compliment to Moses, even though He addressed Himself to the ears of Moses alone.

How much more so for an ordinary person. The main point is to teach us who learn from ordinary persons that we must allow for a break between one subject and another in order to reflect between one and the other.

To exclude. Meaning: the speaking was specifically to Moshe alone. Rashi is saying that to exclude Israel does not need an extra word, because it is [already] written אל, which excludes Israel. Rather, [the extra word] אליו comes to exclude Aharon.

The Torat Kohanim we have quoted above concludes by saying that this call not only preceded addresses by G'd to Moses which were followed by the relatively harsh דבור, but included every time G'd spoke to Moses from the Tabernacle even when employing the softer אמירה, or the word צו, "command." The proof lies in the repetition of the word וידבר in verse one, followed immediately by the word דבר at the beginning of verse two although no message had been delivered yet as a result of either the words ויקרא or the word וידבר. Seeing no such apparently superfluous verbiage occurred either during the Torah's report of the vision of the burning bush or when G'd communicated with Moses at Mount Sinai, all we could have deduced from those occasions is that a "call" always preceded a דבור. We needed this verse and its unusual construction to teach us that such a "call" preceded every communication Moses received from G'd at the Tabernacle. In the other two instances G'd's appearances in that location were restricted to a single communication such as at the burning bush or to a communication extending over a few days such as immediately before the revelation at Mount Sinai. "Calls" reported on those occasions could not have served as precedents for G'd "calling" Moses every time He spoke to him from the Tabernacle, something that became a frequent occurrence during the next 38 years. The first such occasion therefore had to be introduced by the words "from the Tent of Testimony," in order to demonstrate that this form of communication set a pattern for future communications by G'd to Moses which emanated from the Tabernacle. In this instance the previously mentioned method of exegesis מה מצינו, could be employed as there would not be new and different factors governing G'd's speaking to Moses in the future. The Torat Kohanim needed to address the problem of the nature of G'd's addresses, i.e. the various terms the Torah employs when reporting that G'd spoke to Moses. The author wanted to establish proof that when G'd commenced speaking to Moses and the Torah describes this as ויאמר השם, or ויצו, that such communications were also preceded by a "call" to Moses. Torat Kohanim repeats once more that in view of the repeated use of the word דבר or the very fact that the term דבר reflects a "stronger" speech, I would have thought that only that type of speech was preceded by a "call." Therefore, to ensure that we do not misread the Torah, the Torah wrote דבר ידבר, to include all kinds of addresses by G'd as having been preceded by a קריאה, a "call."

I have seen that Rabbi Abraham ben David, (ראב"ד) quotes a version of the Torat Kohanim according to which the proof is contained in the words "דבר, וידבר, לאמור" occurring consecutively in our verse. This version makes much more sense than the one I am quoting from which does not strictly conform to the text in the Torah. According to that version, Torat Kohanim used the word לאמור which was unnecessary seeing that the word דבר followed immediately. Actually, the word לאמור would not have been extraneous at all; the Torah is full of constructions such as וידבר…לאמור. What is extraneous is the repetition of the words וידבר…דבר. We must consider the text of the Torat Kohanim at the disposal of the ראב"ד as the authentic one.

Rabbi Yehudoh ben Beseiro says: Thirteen... It appears to me that there is no disagreement. It is only that Rabbi Yehudoh explains the words of the Tanna Kamma, so that you will not understand אליו comes here to exclude Aharon from the “speaking,” regarding the command: “If his offering is a burnt-offering.” This is because an extra word is not needed here to exclude him, since Aharon is not mentioned. Rather, it should be applied to the verses where Aharon is mentioned, which are the thirteen places. The text in Toras Kohanim follows this understanding as well: “Said Rabbi Yehudoh...” It seems to me Re”m wrote unnecessarily at length about this (Nachalas Yaakov).

I must add that as far as the Torat Kohanim proving that the word ויקרא in our verse is indispensable is concerned as we could not have assumed that such a call preceded G'd's communications to Moses from other instances such as the burning bush, etc., the fact is that the word is absolutely necessary regardless of the arguments advanced. How else would I have known that G'd's "call" preceded all other communications to Moses from the Tent of Testimony barring the first one were it not for that word?

Perhaps they heard. Many trouble themselves to explain why Rashi writes this matter here and not before the comment: אליו — to exclude Aharon. In my humble opinion the matters are straightforward: Rashi’s comments here are dependent on each other. The main reason to differentiate between “calling” and “speaking” is based on the thirteen exclusions, which are the thirteen “speakings” in which Moshe and Aharon are mentioned. These are specifically in regard to speaking and not to the “sound of calling.” Thus, we could have possibly thought the entire people of Israel actually heard the calling, for there is no exclusion concerning this by Aharon. If so, the entire people of Israel are equal to Aharon in this matter, and Aharon would have no advantage over Israel in this matter. This is because it is based on the extra word אליו, and Aharon is excluded together with the entire people of Israel. Therefore, we would have thought this applies only to “speaking,” but not in regard to “the sound of calling.” Thus, it says: [Instead of] “the voice to him (לו),” [it states] “the voice to him (אליו).” Meaning: In the verse at the end of Parshas Nosso it is written (Bamidbar 7:89): “When Moses would come into the Tent of Meeting [to speak with Him,] he would hear the voice speaking to him.” It would have been possible to say: קול מדבר לו, but it is written: מדבר אליו, for the sake of expounding this drashah: The entire people of Israel did not hear, thus, Aharon also did not hear, for they were already equated together, as we mentioned (Divrei Dovid).

We must, however, pay closer attention to the text of the Torat Kohanim. Why did that author not question the word ויקרא as being superfluous in either the appearance of G'd at the burning bush or at Mount Sinai in conjunction with a "call," so that we could have deduced that such a call had taken place by deducing this from what happened when G'd spoke to Moses from the Tabernacle? The problem that the Torat Kohanim posed by saying that a combination of the use by the Torah of the word ויקרא either at the burning bush and at Sinai, or at the Tent of Testimony and at Sinai would not have served as a precedent to teach us concerning the third ocurrence would then not have to be raised at all. Furthermore, seeing that Torat Kohanim used the extraneous words מאהל מועד to prove that all subsequent communications from the Tabernacle were preceded by "calls," what is to stop him from applying that למוד also to what happened at Sinai and at the burning bush, so that the word ויקרא in both of those instances would be superfluous?

“The voice to him (לו),” “the voice to him (אליו).” I.e., Scripture should have written: קול לו, why is it written קול אליו? It must be: “Moshe heard but all Israel did not hear.” I.e., it is obvious that Israel did not hear, for they did not even hear the calling, for their exclusion was expounded from the phrase: אל משה. So much more so that they did not hear the “speaking.” Rather, this teaches about Aharon, and refers back to the words of Rabbi Yehudoh ben Beseiro there, in which Aharon was excluded by expounding the extra word אליו, even in a place where it is written: “אל משה ואל אהרן.” Rashi raises a difficulty on this: Perhaps he heard the sound of the speaking, though not the exact letters? [Therefore, it says: (Instead of) “the voice to him (לו),” (it states) “the voice to him (אליו)” — even the sound of the speaking he did not hear] and it excludes even Aharon with the extra word אליו. So Re”m explains.

I have read the commentary of Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi who was very aware of all these problems, but I must confess that I do not feel that his answers put my mind at rest. The venerable Rabbi argues that the reason that G'd had to record the call as preceding His speaking to Moses at the Tent was that Moses was afraid to enter unless invited. (The Torah had described the Tent as filled with G'd's cloud of glory and Moses being unable to enter in Exodus 40,35.) In other words, the reason for the call there was that it could not serve as precedent for G'd's need to "call" either at the burning bush or at Sinai. Why would the author of Torat Kohanim have been afraid to point out something as simple as that? I believe that had the Torah omitted mention of the word קריאה either at the burning bush or at Sinai, I simply would have considered the קריאה here as something new which had not occurred previously instead of assuming it had occurred without the Torah having mentioned it. [At this point the author continues in his polemic against the conclusions offered by Rabbi Mizrachi. The interested reader is referred to the original for further study. Ed.]

And did not leave the tent. It is not written: “And He called to Moshe from the Tent of Meeting and [Adonoy] spoke to him.” It must be that the reason it is written: “[Spoke] to him from the Tent of Meeting,” i.e. [placing the phrase “from the Tent of Meeting” next to the words] “to him” must be [in order to convey that] the voice was heard by Moshe, because he was in the Tent of Meeting, but it was not heard outside of the Tent (Re”m). This does not appear to me to be correct. Rather, Rashi derives [that this verse is also speaking about the voice’s range] for if you would assume that it is only referring to the place from where the voice originated, it should say: “From between the two cherubim,” as the Toras Kohanim concludes. But since it is written, “From the Tent of Meeting,” perforce it also refers to the voice’s range (Nachalas Yaakov). However, this poses a difficulty: If so, why is the extra word אליו needed to exclude that Moshe heard and all of Israel did not hear? It is obvious that they did not hear, since the people of Israel were standing outside of the Tent! The Ra’avad answers that the exclusion is needed [for the period] before the Tabernacle was erected (Re”m).

For we find. The expression “for we find” is not meant to be precise, for the sending of the spies was only after Nissan of the second year and the Tabernacle’s establishment was on the first of Nissan of the second year from the Exodus of Israel from Egypt. Rather, perforce, we must say that the expression “for we find” only comes to give an example of what is meant by sobering words (Re”m). However, I say that this is what it means: Hashem commanded Moshe to tell them: “It is for your sake that He speaks to me.” These were the sobering words and no more. The authors of the Midrash that bring proofs for their statement that Hashem speaks to the prophets only for the sake of Israel: “For we find...” In the same way, the Mechilta dwells on this at length (Nachalas Yaakov).

And answer Me whether they will accept them. You might ask: How could it be that Hashem would not know whether or not they will accept them? The answer is: It is for this reason Rashi brings a proof: “As it is stated...” There, Rashi explains that it is the proper mode of conduct to speak in such a way, and Scripture only comes to teach you correct manners.

ויקרא אל משה. He called to Moses. Why did the Torah not identify the caller? While it is true that the Torah identifies the caller as being G'd when it goes on to say: "G'd spoke to him from the Tent of Testimony," the omission of G'd as the subject at the beginning of this verse is most remarkable.

Perhaps the Torah wanted to let us know the essence of G'd's "voice" which is such that even if it called extremely loudly it would be audible only to someone attuned to it and waiting to hear it. The words ויקרא אל משה, must mean that although G'd called out generally, only Moses heard it and not any other person standing in front of him [i.e. closer to the source of the voice. Ed.] Had the Torah written: "G'd called to Moses, etc.," I would have understood that G'd called out in a powerful voice but that by the time the sound-waves reached the ear of Moses they were considerably weaker than at their source. Moses would then have had to gauge by the volume of sound he heard from where that sound had emanated. He would also not have been surprised that people standing behind him had not heard that voice at all seeing those people were even further removed from the origin of that sound than he himself. At any rate, there would not have been any miraculous element in this call by G'd to Moses out of the Tabernacle. By writing ויקרא אל משה, the Torah draws our attention to the fact that Moses indeed heard a very powerful voice and that the super-natural element in this call was that he was the only one who heard it.

Another reason why the name of G'd was not recorded in the Torah as associated with this "call" was that G'd was more interested in having His name associated with the commandments He was about to give to Moses than merely to record that it was His voice which invited Moses to receive a communication from Him, or as a sign of G'd showing him respect, if we want to adopt the approach of Vayikra Rabbah 1,8. According to that Midrash, Aaron, his sons and the elders had been wondering who was most beloved in G'd's eyes; They decided amongst themselves that they would find out by observing to whom G'd would turn first after the Tabernacle [Aaron's domain Ed.] was erected. When G'd called to Moses they realised that G'd liked Moses best of all. There was no cause for the Torah to mention Moses by name as the test was the call itself.

By following the approach of the Midrash we can also understand why the Torah had to add the word אל משה instead of merely saying: אליו, "to him," seeing that Moses' name had appeared at the end of the last portion (Exodus 40,35). The Torah could have done the same as in Genesis 18,1 where we are told: "G'd appeared to him" (Abraham), without mentioning Abraham's name seeing he had been the subject of the last paragraph in Parshat Lech Lecha. In our situation G'd had to convince the sons of Aaron and the elders of His fondness for Moses.

וידבר ה׳ אליו מאהל מועד. G'd spoke to him out of the Tent of Testimony. The reason that the Torah had to emphasise that G'd spoke only to Moses, i.e. that only Moses heard His voice, was to prevent misunderstandings. While it was understandable that the ordinary people did not hear G'd's voice, we could have thought that any priest inside the Tabernacle who had business there at the time G'd wished to address Moses would be privy to hearing G'd's voice. The Torah therefore emphasised that only Moses was privy to this voice by writing אליו, "to him exclusively."

מאהל מועד, from the Tent of Testimony, etc. Why didn't the Torah first mention the site from which G'd's voice emanated before telling us who did the talking? Here the Torah reverses the norm completely by first telling us to whom the voice spoke, then telling us who did the speaking and only at the very end telling us from where G'd's voice emanated. When we consider the comments of Torat Kohanim which we quoted earlier, i.e. that all of G'd's communications from the Tent of Testimony were preceded by a call to Moses, it does make sense that this information was reserved for the end of the verse. Matters which will occur at a later stage deserve to be mentioned later than those which occur in the immediate future.

Torat Kohanim also deduces from the wording of this verse that G'd's voice was "cut off, and did not travel beyond the confines of the Tabernacle." How could this be deduced from our verse seeing Torat Kohanim had already deduced the nature of the "call" from the same wording? Furthermore, if indeed the voice of G'd did not travel beyond the confines of the Tabernacle, why did the Torah have to word things in such a way that we learn that the Israelites could not hear this voice? Of course they could not hear a voice which was confined to the Tabernacle! I have seen that Rabbi Mizrachi answers this problem saying that the exegesis is based on the Torah not writing: ויקרא אל משה מאהל מועד, but writing instead: אליו מאהל מועד. The meaning is that the voice travelled in a straight line from the Tabernacle to Moses and stopped there. Our second question is answered by the ראב"ד who says that the Torah had to tell us that the voice of G'd being audible only to Moses was something new; previously it was either audible to the people who were assembled at Mount Sinai, or in the case of the burning bush, it would have been audible had there been anyone else present beside Moses. It was only after G'd took up residence in the Tabernacle that His voice reached only Moses.

I must confess that I am not happy with either one of these two answers. As to the argument of Rabbi Mizrachi that the mention of the words מאהל מועד at the end of the verse after אליו indicates that the voice came directly to Moses and not to the people, how do we know where exactly Moses stood at that time? If Moses had stood in a spot adjoining the Tent of Testimony, the fact that no one else heard the voice does not prove they would not have heard it if he had stood some distance away. If Rabbi Mizrachi is correct, the voice should have been mentioned first followed by its objective, i.e. מאהל מועד אליו. The fact that the Torah writes the word אליו first makes it plain that it was not the Torah's intention to convey to us the exclusivity of G'd's voice by means of this wording. Why would the Torah reverse the normal syntax by telling us the end before the beginning? It is much easier to accept that the Torah imparts the information about G'd's voice being נפסק, cut off, from the sequence "מאהל מועד לאמור," instead of the sequence "וידבר ה׳ מאהל מועד אליו לאמור." If the Torah had not intended for us to deduce the various למודים, the rules of syntax would have required the Torah to first identify the place the speaker spoke from, followed by the identification of whom it spoke to. Now that the Torah did not do so, we have "room," i.e. a sufficient number of departures from the norm to allow for all the deductions we have been taught by Torat Kohanim. The additional words מאהל מועד teach that from that time onwards a "call" preceded every communication by G'd to Moses. The word לאמור may be used to include not only those communications by G'd which used the word דבר. The fact that the Torah did not write ויקרא מאהל מועד attests to the nature of G'd's voice, i.e. that only Moses was attuned to it. The sequence מאהל מועד לאמור teaches that the voice emanated from the Tabernacle, i.e. וידבר, and travelled only as as far as Moses and was not heard outside.

As to the ראב"ד's answer to our second question that the Torah had to exclude previous calls which emanated from G'd as not having been exclusively for Moses' ears, and that this is why the Torah had to write the words מאהל מועד where it did, his words are nothing short of astounding. Surely the Torah had provided us with the words אהל מועד both in Exodus 25,22 and in Numbers 7,89. In both these instances G'd's voice is reported as emanating from the Tabernacle or a certain spot within it. Why would the ראב"ד need the words מאהל מועד in our verse to teach us such an exclusion? It is therefore much more plausible to believe that what Torat Kohanim focused on was not that the voice was cut off inside the Tabernacle but that the communication, i.e. the speech, the דבור was audible only inside the Tabernacle. When G'd called, i.e. invited Moses, His voice was audible outside the Sanctuary. When He spoke to Moses (after the latter had entered the Sanctuary), His voice was audible only to Moses, i.e. it was נפסק.

Rabbi Mizrachi opines that the author of Torat Kohanim clearly holds that Moses was inside the Tabernacle at that time and that this was only possible because the cloud had withdrawn at that time. [It is assumed that the readers are familiar with a Tannaitic disagreement as to whether Moses was inside the Tabernacle when G'd spoke with him at this point or not. Please refer to Exodus 40,35 where the Torah told us that Moses could not enter the Tabernacle due to the cloud containing the glory of G'd filling the Tabernacle. Some opinions (Yuma 4) hold that G'd took hold of Moses and placed him inside the Tent. On the other hand we have Numbers 7,89 from which it is evident that G'd spoke to Moses while he was inside the Tabernacle. Rabbi Mizrachi, based on Rashi, holds that the solution to the apparent contradiction in the verses we quoted is in the words "because G'd's cloud rested upon it" (Exodus 40,35); once the cloud moved Moses was able to enter. Ed.] We also find that Moses was able to "enter the cloud" in Exodus 24,18. The same may be presumed to have occurred in connection with this "call" in our verse here. As far as I am concerned the matter is very simple as it is not reasonable to assume that Moses had to wait until the cloud removed itself fom the Tabernacle and that Moses heard the call only then. Upon examination you will find that Rabbi Mizrachi quoted the text of the first part of Torat Kohanim 1,9 (The Midrash refers to Exodus 25,22 where G'd told Moses He would henceforth communicate with him inside the Tent of Meeting, G'd's voice emanating from between the cherubs which were situated on the lid of the Holy Ark): "When G'd said: 'I will communicate with you there,' He meant to exclude the Israelites who had not been deemed fit to ascend Mount Sinai; He also meant to exclude everybody else including Aaron, barring the ministering angels. Moses could not enter the Tabernacle until he had been summoned. This proves that at the time G'd called to him (in our verse) Moses was standing outside. The Torah writes that the voice came אליו, to him, i.e. from the inside of the Tabernacle and was cut off." Thus far the quote from Torat Kohanim. It is clear that the author of that Midrash was convinced that Moses stood outside the Tabernacle at the time G'd's voice called him. You may ask "how did the author of that Midrash know that the call preceded the communication (i.e. the substance of what G'd wanted to say)?" Seeing that the "call" was needed to invite Moses into the Tabernacle as he was afraid to enter unless summoned, how can we derive any additional למוד, exegetical content, from this word? The answer is that if G'd had wanted to He could have removed Moses' fear and he would have entered the Tabernacle without a special "call." Seeing G'd did not do this, this is proof that the "call" was something that had to precede the communication proper as we have outlined previously, and that Moses remained afraid to enter without invitation. He stationed himself close to the Tabernacle so as to be mentally prepared as soon as he would receive G'd's "call" at which time he would enter the Tent. The sound of the call to Moses "left" (was audible beyond) the Tabernacle, whereas the sound of G'd's communication to Moses never left the confines of the Tabernacle and thus was not heard by anybody else. Not even an echo of it was audible [as had been during the last eight commandments at Mount Sinai. Ed.].

A moral-ethical approach to our verse sees in it a message to Moses to relate to the Israelites everything G'd would command him while he was still in the Tabernacle. This is the deeper reason why the text wrote the words מאהל מועד לאמור, "from the Tent of Testimony to say," in that order. There is a sound psychological reason for this. If the Israelites would hear G'd's commandments as emanating from the Tabernacle, it would inspire them to relate to them with far more reverence than if Moses were merely to tell them these commandments while assembling the people inside the camp. They would accept these commandments knowing that Moses would not have dared to add or omit a single word while he was communicating G'd's word at a place where the שכינה was present.

There is yet another message contained in the words אליו מאהל מועד. Moses merited being called by G'd and addressed by Him as a sign that G'd had forgiven the sin of the golden calf and had taken up residence within the Tabernacle to signify this forgiveness. G'd wanted Moses to communicate this message to Israel. This is why the Torah wrote: "from the Tent of Meeting to say." When you find that Torat Kohanim interprets the substance of the message hinted at in the word לאמור as being דברי כבושים בשבילכם, "words of rebuke for your sake G'd communicates to me, etc.," this refers to Deuteronomy 2,16 where Moses told the people that G'd had resumed speaking with him using the friendly term אמירה only after all the people who were 20 years and over when the spies returned from their ill-fated misssion had died. This was 38 years after the moment described in our portion. This comment is in line with what I have said. The only difference is that Torat Kohanim derives the entire exegesis from the word לאמור, without dissecting the verse as carefully as we have done. מTorat Kohanim states there that in the event we thought that G'd communicated with Moses because of His own concerns we should know לאמור, that it was only on account of the Israelites. The Midrash means that the word לאמור is to be understood as a מעוט, an exclusion. G'd made it clear that He would not have spoken to Moses on that occasion were it not for the fact that He did so for the benefit of the people, i.e. He wanted to speak to them. This teaches that the whole purpose of G'd speaking to Moses from the Tabernacle was in order for Moses to communicate sections of the Torah to the people. When we are told in Avot 1,1 that Moses received the Torah at Sinai and he delivered it to Joshua, etc., this means that Moses handed over the entire tradition; he neither omitted any part nor added something of his own. Every secret G'd had entrusted to Moses, Moses in turn faithfully communicated to the leader of the next generation. Israel are compared to Moses when it came to Torah knowledge, the only difference being that Moses had received the Torah directly from G'd.

אדם כי יקריב מכם IF A MAN OF YOU OFFER [AN OFFERING] — This means, when he offers: Scripture is speaking here of free — will offerings (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 4).

WHEN ANY MAN BRINGETH OF YOU AN OFFERING UNTO THE ETERNAL OF THE CATTLE. The meaning of this verse is as follows: “when any man of you brings from the cattle an offering to the Eternal, of the herd or of the flock you shall bring it.” The reason for this command is that since He commanded afterwards concerning fowl-offerings⁴⁷Further, Verses 14-17. and meal-offerings,⁴⁸Ibid., Chapter 2. He said here that when a man brings an offering of cattle, he must bring it of one of these two kinds [herd and flock], but not a wild beast nor any other cattle. Thus he who offers a beast [as an offering to G-d], violates a prohibition which is derived from a positive commandment [and carries the force of a positive commandment], just as the Rabbis have said in the third chapter of Tractate Zebachim:⁴⁹Zebachim 34a. “Rabbi Yochanan said: one who offers the limbs of a [kosher] beast [upon the altar of G-d] transgresses a positive commandment.”

אדם כי יקריב מכם, when he brings himself close to G’d by means of a confession of his sins and by humbling himself. The concept parallels the verse in Hoseah 14,3 ונשלמה פרים שפתינו, “we will pay with bulls after having done so first with our lips.” Psalms 51,19 warns זבחי אלוקים רוח נשברה, “an offering of sacrificial meat is such only if accompanied by a crushed spirit.” The psalmist means that G’d is not interested in the fools who offer sacrificial animals if they have not first humbled themselves. Our sages paraphrase this when pointing out that the Torah does not write here כולכם, your entire selves, but מכם, something emanating from you, i.e. “by excreting the spiritually unworthy parts of you.” (compare Rashi)

דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת, "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them, etc." The first difficulty is the repetitive: "דבר ואמרת," speak and say!" Besides, why did G'd not say אמור ואמרת, but changed the instructions in mid-stream from דבר, harsh-sounding instruction, to ואמרת, i.e. a softer approach? The answer is that in this communication G'd issued legislation concerning two different kinds of sacrificial offerings. The first kind of offering mentioned here is one which is prompted by man's goodwill towards G'd, his desire to donate a free-will offering, the עולה, the burnt-offering. The second legislation deals with a sin-offering, a mandatory offering, the result of the owner having committed an inadvertent sin which requires him to obtain atonement. The word דבר, the relatively harsh form of communication applied to the legislation about the sin-offering, whereas the word ואמרת was used when telling the people the rules about the burnt-offering. Alternatively, we can recognise in this differential two separate aspects of the sin-offering legislation. The sin-offering is referred to by the word אמירה seeing G'd has declared Himself ready to accept a sheep, or in the worst case, an ox, as atonement for man's sin; on the other hand, the harsher דבר is justified inasmuch as man should not have committed such a sin, even inadvertently. The basic penalty for the sin in question is the death of the sinner. It is a sobering thought that an animal had to die to atone for man's mistake.

כי יקריב, when he donates an animal as a sacrifice. The expression denotes that the person under discussion does not offer such a sacrifice in order to expiate for a sin he is guilty of.

מן הבהמה, “from a category of animals,” seeing that free-roaming beasts that have the distinguishing marks that make them fit for consumption by Jews are also referred to as בהמה on occasion, [although they are generally described as חיה, or חית השדה, Ed.] the Torah had to narrow down the description further, adding the words: מן הבקר ומן הצאן, from either the category of cattle (בקר), or flock, (צאן). The reason why G’d did not include the free-roaming beasts that are listed in chapter 11 as fit to eat, to also serve as potential sacrifices, was to save the Israelites the tiresome work of catching these animals without inflicting the kind of injury on them that would disqualify them on account of their being blemished. Alternatively, the reason why the Torah did not command us to bring sacrifices from the free-roaming types of animals is that during the period of creation these animals had not received a special blessing. If they had received such a special blessing the serpent would have been included. That animal certainly did not qualify for a blessing. [after the statement that G’d saw that what He had created on the sixth day before reporting the creation of man was good, the blessing which followed at the end of the creative activity on the fourth day is noticeably absent. Ed.] The practical result of this is that the חלב, certain fat parts covering the kidneys, etc., are not included in the prohibited parts of the free-roaming beasts, and may be eaten. [King Solomon served gazelles, roebucks, etc. as a part of what he served his guests on a regular basis. He and his guests did not need to remove this part of the gazelle. Ed.] (compare Kings I 5,3). Seeing that the blood of these animals could not be sprinkled on the altar, the Torah commanded that upon slaughtering them, their blood be covered with earth, a symbolic kind of funeral. (Leviticus 17,13)

דבר אל בני ישראל, “speak to the Children of Israel, etc.” He told him to tell the Israelites about the rules of the burnt-offering in general terms.
ואמרת אליהם, “and say to them, etc.” This refers to the details of this legislation. Moses was to inform the people of specific procedures in preparing the burnt-offering, such as removing the skin and cutting the animal into certain parts after slaughtering it and before burning it on the altar. He told them that the slaughtering had to take place north of the altar and the wood pile. He told them who was entitled to slaughter the animal and which kind of wood was permitted to be used to construct the pile keeping fire going around the clock on the altar. In all instances where the Torah uses the sequence דבר ואמרת, the meaning is that Moses was to tell the people the commandment in general terms followed by teaching them the details of the legislation. Examples are to be found in Numbers 15,38 where the Torah introduces the subject of the ציצית, fringes, and then proceeds to give some details about this commandment. The details, which are spelled out in the oral Torah include rules about the number of threads, the way they are to be attached, how many are to be of blue wool, etc., etc. All this is alluded to in the introductory words “and say to them.” Details of the commandments are hardly ever spelled out in the written Torah.

But the offerings themselves, the women do indeed bring them. The explanation is not that women may not, but rather that they are not obligated, as is explained in Chagiga 15b that women would indeed lay their hands on [Rambam 3:8 Laws of Offerings does not make this point explicit]. But as emissaries of their husbands they indeed would be prohibited, as will be explained in verse 4, on the phrase "he lays his hand", and see Tosafot on Mas. Rosh Hashana 33a. Similarly, the gemara exempts women from all of the various actions of the offering - the waving, approaching, kamitza, incense offering, slitting, blood-receing, and springkling - since for all of these the verse states "the sons of Israel/Aaron" and the sages extrapolate this to mean, "and not the daughters of Israel/Aaron." Tosafot question this, and ask why the sages needed to exclude women from all of these [based on these verses]; they should already be excluded based on the broad principle of "positive time-bound commandments", as these actions only take place during the day, as we learn in the verse at the end of Parshat Tzav. But I do not understand this; what did Tosafot see to ask such a question?! The essential act of bringing an offering itself only happens during the day, and yet once we have seen that the Torah empowers women to bring offerings like men, then clearly the Torah has obligated them in the mitzvah of offerings even though it is a time-bound mitzvah! And therefore, one in fact would've assumed that they are similarly obligated in all of the constituitive elements of the offering, and there would not have been a logical reason to exempt them from the details when they are obligated in the general action.... And as for the general principle that women are obligated in offerings like men: the source is in Torat Cohanim, Parshat Emor (22:18) - איש איש מבית ישראל ומן הגר בישראל אשר יקריב קרבנו לכל נדריהם וגו', בישראל לרבות נשים ועבדים - And similarly explains the Rambam in Hil. Korbanot, 3:2. "Men, women, and slaves all bring offerings." The Kessef Mishna writes by way of finding a source for the Rambam, "It is obvious that the Torah equates men and women for every rule of the Torah, and we've already said that women do not lay their hands, nor perform the wave-offerings, etc - only men do these things - this implies that women do, however, bring offerings, and every mitzvah that a women is obligated in, so too are slaves." Behold, according to the source in Torah Cohanim that we cited - it is shocking to see the lenghty description [of the Kessef Mishna], who is trying to find a source for the words of the Rambam based on talmudic inferences. But the source is plain, obvious, and well understood! He should have simply noted the citation in the Torat Cohanim, and nothing further.

Voluntary sacrifices. You might ask: Perhaps it is speaking about an obligatory burnt offering! Re”m answers: Perforce, the word כי means “if” and not “that.” [If it meant “that,”] it is as if it says: Because he shall bring an offering to Hashem, which means, “because I admonished you to bring an offering to Hashem, I am telling you to bring it from the cattle, etc.” However, this is not applicable unless the sacrifices were mentioned before elsewhere. Sacrifices, though, were not mentioned in anywhere before. Therefore, it is only possible to explain that כי means “if.” See Re”m’s explanation there, because he goes on at length. It seems to me that since it is written, “You should bring your offering,” in the plural form, “you” teaches that two [people] may volunteer a burnt-offering in partnership. Perforce, this is referring to a voluntary offering, for if it refers to an obligatory offering, how could two people bring such an offering in partnership, when each one is obligated to bring an offering? Rather, perforce, it refers to a voluntary offering (Nachalas Yaakov).

“Should any person from you bring forward to the Lord an offering” - It begins in singular and finishes in plural “you shall bring forward your offering.” Rashi’s interpretation that two people may donate an elevation offering in partnership does not satisfactorily address this verse and its neighbor, nor the beginning and the end, for we don’t know the limits of this idea [of partnership]. And it seems to me that the text wanted to warn all those bringing an offering to God not to stumble in the two ways that Cain and Abel stumbled, who were the first people to offer an offering. For Cain stumbled in that he brought from the lesser and tawdry crops though he planted grain. Those who err mortally needed to bring the life of an animal in exchange for their life. And for [cases of] distress, the Holy One Blessed be He allowed for a poor person to bring a grain offering lacking life and offer it as if that person was offering an animal, as Rashi explains on the verse, “Should a person bring forward a grain offering” (Leviticus 2:1). Abel, even though he brought an offering from the choicest of his sheep, nevertheless, he did not do well either for the offering did not emerge from himself and he did not move quickly to do this commandment on his own accord. Only after he saw Cain offer an offering did he become jealous of him and Abel from an offering as well to match him.

מן הבהמה, “from some species of domesticated mammals;” Torat Kohanim sees in the wording proof that G–d did not want to tire out the Israelites excessively by having to hunt free roaming “kosher” animals to be served up as sacrifices, and this is why only domesticated animals, בהמה, were declared suitable for that purpose.

אדם — Why is this term for “man” employed here? Since אדם also means Adam, its use suggests the following comparison: what was the characteristic of the first man (אדם הראשון)? He did not offer sacrifice of anything acquired by way of robbery, since everything was his! So you, too, shall not offer anything acquired by way of robbery (Leviticus Rabbah 2:7).

‘TAKRIVU’ (YE SHALL BRING). This teaches that two [or more] persons may bring a freewill burnt-offering in partnership. YOUR OFFERING. This teaches that a burnt-offering may be brought as a freewill offering of the [entire] public [not only of groups of individuals]. This refers to the burnt-offering of the altar’s summertime⁵⁰When there was a lack of private offerings [due to the long summer days], freewill burnt-offerings were supplied from the surplus of the half-shekels of the previous year. which was supplied from the surplus [of the half-shekels of the past year].” This is Rashi’s language.
The meaning of the Rabbi’s interpretation is thus to state that if many persons voluntarily offer to bring a burnt-offering, it thereby becomes a burnt-offering of partners, for what difference is there between two persons who combine to bring an offering, and ten or a thousand who associate to do so? But the burnt-offering for the altar’s summer-time which is supplied from the surplus [of the previous year’s half-shekels], is deemed a “burnt-offering of the public” because the authorities [of the Sanctuary who receive the donations for the offerings] do so with the implied condition [that they may spend them at their discretion, and the burnt-offering of the public is distinguished in certain respects from a burnt-offering of partners]. Thus according to Rashi all burnt-offerings that are brought by many persons — except those which come from the surplus of the half-shekels — have the law of burnt-offerings of partners, and they all require the laying of [their owners’] hands upon the offering,⁵¹See Verse 4. and the libations connected with them⁵²See Numbers 15:3-12. are taken from the owners [while “burnt-offerings of the public” need no laying of hands, and the libations are supplied by the Temple treasury]. Perhaps according to the opinion of Rashi it is permitted for the general public to offer [money] beforehand in order to bring a burnt-offering of fowls, which may be brought as a freewill offering by two [or more] persons but may [never] come as a freewill offering of the public, and similarly they [may combine to bring] a peace-offering, concerning which the Sages have said⁵³Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 6:6. that it may be brought by partners as a freewill offering but may not be brought by the public⁵⁴Peace-offerings of the public were only brought on the Festival of Shevuoth (see further, 23:19). — and in that case it is called “a burnt-offering of partners,” or “a peace-offering of partners.” They [i.e., the burnt-offering of fowls and the peace-offering], were only excluded in that they cannot be brought from the [money of the] baskets [containing the surplus of half-shekels which were already donated by the public for the general upkeep of the offerings, and not specifically donated for a burnt-offering or peace-offering].
We may possibly say that if the public wanted originally to set aside a fund for freewill offerings, and they collected it [for that purpose] as they collected the shekalim for the Daily [public] Offerings and the Additional Offerings [of Sabbaths and festivals], that there may then be a freewill public-offering of the cattle,⁵⁵In other words, the freewill public burnt-offering for the altar’s summertime need not be limited exclusively to that brought out of the surplus in the baskets containing the previous year’s shekels. Money may be collected originally from the public for the purpose of bringing a freewill offering, and the offering will have the status of a public-offering in the sense that [like a public burnt-offering] it will not need the laying of hands on it, which is required in the case of an individual offering. Thus Ramban differs from Rashi’s opinion above that even the combination of a large group of individuals does not alter the status of the offering, which remains an offering of individual partners. Or it may be that Ramban means that even according to Rashi, if the community agreed beforehand, and the money was not left to be donated individually, but collected in the same way that the shekalim were collected, it thereby gains the status of a public-offering. Hence Ramban’s expression: “We may possibly say”, i.e., in explanation of Rashi. and it will not require the laying of hands on it, being that it is included in this verse [as a public offering]. As long as it is the majority of Israel who donated money to that end, the offering is called “a freewill offering of the public.” [This rule applies only to the freewill burnt-offering of the cattle] but does not apply to the burnt-offering of fowls, nor to the peace-offering. But if a minority of the people donated towards the freewill burnt-offering, [even if they are a large group], they are deemed as individuals [who bring such an offering in partnership, which would thus require the laying on it of the owners’ hands, and the libations would have to be supplied by the owners]. This is the correct explanation.

מן הבהמה, if he chooses to offer a 4-legged mammal, it must only be from either the category of cattle or sheep and goats. Wild roaming, undomesticated beasts, are not permitted to be offered as sacrifices on the altar. This needed to be spelled out as we were taught in Deuteronomy 14,4-5 that the wild roaming beasts with the distinguishing features that make them “pure” animals are permitted for consumption by Israelites provided they have been slaughtered in the appropriate manner. The animals discussed in these portions as candidates for sacrifices are only the ones mentioned in our verse here, i.e. בקר or צאן. The Torah indicates that such voluntary offerings as are under discussion at this time may even be offered by gentiles and accepted on the altar of the Temple or Tabernacle. When Leviticus 22,25 proscribes offerings tendered by the בני נכר what are meant are not gentiles but Jews who have become estranged to their G’d, have renounced their religion and become meshumadim. These are far worse that gentiles born as such, and that is why G’d rejects their voluntary offerings on His altar. Included are Jews who publicly desecrate the Sabbath. [Eyruvin 69 states that desecrating the Sabbath publicly is equivalent to violating all of G’d’s commandments. Ed.] There are three categories of offerings which may sometimes be voluntary and other times mandatory. These comprise the burnt-offering, עולה, the peace-offering, שלמים, and the gift-offering (non-animal) מנחה. When they are offered by the poor i.e. bird offerings, only pigeons and turtle doves qualify among all the birds. Complementary offerings known as סולת-שמן-לבונה are also part of voluntary offerings on occasion. The sin offerings חטאת and אשם are invariably mandatory offerings. This helps to explain the offerings of Hevel and Kayin and why the offering of Kayin was not accepted by G’d. (Genesis 4,5) It consisted of material which G’d had not designated as fit to be offered as a gift to Him. The Torah did not simply state that G’d did not turn to Kayin, but that “He did not turn to Kayin and His gift.” In other words, the reason He did not accept Kayin’s offering was that it consisted of matter rejected by G’d as unfit to be an offering to Him. On the other hand, when Noach offered a sacrifice G’d responded not only by accepting it, without further ado, but He reacted to it as if it were the most pleasant smelling fragrance, ריח ניחוח, although burnt flesh and fat most certainly does not exude a pleasant fragrance. What the Torah meant to say there (Genesis 8,21) was that G’d accepted the parts of the offering which were fit to please Him as if it were sweet smelling fragrance. (as a result of that offering not only did G’d promise never to bring another deluge, but He permitted man to kill animals for food, something that had been forbidden since Adam’s sin or earlier). Interestingly, the Torah does not say that G’d accepted all of Noach’s offerings, presumably seeing that some pure animals that were of the free roaming category are not acceptable although these animals are fit to be eaten by Jews, and all the more so by gentiles such as Noach. (the author speaks about this in Genesis 8,21 claiming that prior to the giving of the Torah all of the species of “pure” animals were fit as sacrifices.) In connection with the sin offerings it is mandatory for the person trying to obtain forgiveness by means of such mandatory offerings to place his hands on the animal with all his weight, as if attacking it, and praying that it be accepted as a substitute of his own person. Each individual’s sin offering possesses an element of what we are familiar with from the legislation concerning the communal “scapegoat” upon which the High Priest placed his hands, symbolically transferring the many sins of the Jewish people to that animal. (Leviticus 16,21) By means of this symbolic act, the humility with which the owner of the sin offering is to approach G’d prior to gaining a chance of acceptance and forgiveness, has been demonstrated. As a result, ונרצה לו לכפר עליו, “G’d will be in a mood to forgive such a person.” Seeing that there are so many different kinds of sin, some of which are merely sinful thoughts, not involving sinful deeds, it is appropriate to ask G’d’s forgiveness also for such sinful thoughts. This is best accomplished as a by product of the voluntary burnt offering called עולה by the Torah, an offering of which the priests only receive the skin and hair of the animal. The burning of the fat parts of the animal or the parallel fistful of flour and oil of the gift offering מנחה, which is burnt on the altar, are the instruments that bring about this atonement for sinful thoughts. Obtaining forgiveness for sinful deeds (all of them committed inadvertently, of course) other parts of the bodies of the offerings presented as חטאת or אשם, “sin offering or guilt offering,” are required. Peace offerings, שלמים, on the other hand, are viewed (based on Tzefaniah 3,9) as if the owner joins, becomes a partner with the angels, he and they serving their Lord jointly.

מן הבקר, “from the cattle;” to exclude “treifah” animals, i.e. animals injured to the point where they are not expected to live for 12 months. The reason why a special word had to be written to exclude such animals, was in the event that at the time when said animal had been sanctified as a sacrifice it had been in completely good health we might have thought that the donor of the animal had discharged his duty when the animal he selected had been healthy at the time he dedicated it, The Torah teaches that what is forbidden for the Israelite to eat is likewise forbidden to tender to G’d as an offering (unless specially permitted.)

Why is this said? It should say איש. Above [before Rashi explains that the section speaks of voluntary sacrifices], however, it did not pose a difficulty, because I could say אדם comes to exclude an idolater, as we derive: “You are termed אדם but idolaters are not.” Now, though, that Rashi explains אדם כי יקריב speaks of a voluntary offering, and an idolater is permitted to bring a voluntary offering, as we derive from the extra words איש איש כי יקריב — [from which we learn that] idolaters are included in bringing voluntary offerings. [Therefore, now it is difficult:] Why does it say אדם? (Kitzur Mizrachi). However, this is not true, for if so, what shall you say it means in Parshas Tazria where it is written: “אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו”? Why does it not say איש? Furthermore, when we look at what Rashi quotes [in the first d.h.]: “אדם כי יקריב מכם,” this is apparently unnecessary. First, he should quote אדם and explain it, and afterwards quote כי יקריב מכם and then explain it. Rather, Rashi’s intention is to explain the double expression אדם מכם, for it would be sufficient to say just אדם כי יקריב or simply כי יקריב מכם. Since Rashi wishes to explain this problem, which is based on the phrase’s beginning and end, i.e., the double expression, he felt it was best to first explain כי יקריב which appears first — that it refers to a voluntary offering — before he explains the later word מכם, which is a repetition of אדם, for one of them is extra. Therefore, he explains first כי יקריב, which comes first in the verse, and afterwards אדם, since the problem is based on the word מכם, which comes later. One who wishes to make the difficulty presented by the word אדם dependent on the phrase כי יקריב is just making an unnecessary pilpul (Divrei Dovid).

The Torah addresses בני ישראל. According to Torat Kohanim this expression is to exclude the practice of סמיכה, the owner of the sacrificial animal placing his weight on the animal before it is slaughtered, when such an animal is offered by a non-Jewish owner (something which will be mentioned shortly in this legislation). The word בני, is to exclude בנות, females, from this requirement. The word ואמרת is supposed to restrict the procedure of סמיכה to peace-offerings. This is difficult to understand seeing the expression אמירה is perceived as something additional to דבר, i.e. as inclusive, not exclusive. Although the author of Korban Aharon claims that the word לאמור would have taught us the lesson it did even if the word דבר had not occurred at the beginning of this verse, I beg to differ. Without the words דבר אל בני ישראל at the beginning of this verse I could not have deduced what I did from the word לאמור in the previous verse. There would have been no exegetical value to the word דבר seeing it was needed for the basic message the Torah is trying to convey.

אדם, “anyone;” this ambiguous description is intended to convey that what follows applies not only also to converts to Judaism, but even to people who are gentiles, although in this paragraph only Israelites are addressed. The exclusive meaning of the word: אדם, here is made plain when the Torah adds the restrictive word: מכם, “from amongst you.” This means that what follows applies only to members of the Jewish people. However, seeing that we have a rule that “whenever the Torah writes two successive restrictive clauses, this is meant to include someone or something, not to exclude it,” the sages understood our verse as the Torah including even gentiles, as qualified to offer sacrifices to Hashem, i.e. using the facilities offered by the priests, but paying for the animals they authorize to be offered on their behalf. (Talmud, tractate Nazir, folio 62) This is based also on when the Torah writes: איש, איש, i.e. “any man,” including idolaters, who vow to offer a sacrifice to the G-d of the Israelites.

הבהמה [OF] THE BEASTS — One might think that wild beasts are also included! Scripture, however,’ goes on to state, “even of cattle or of sheep” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 6).

So should you not bring from stolen property. As it is written (Yeshayahu 61:8): “[For I am Hashem, Who loves justice,] hates robbery in a burnt offering.”

Perhaps the author of Torat Kohanim felt that seeing it is not clear which of the two words דבר ואמרת was to be used exegetically and which was needed for the basic message, it was in order to use either word exegetically. Alternatively, Torat Kohanim did not mean to focus on the word דבד at all but on the words בני ישראל. Seeing that the Torah could have written דבר אליהם instead of דבר אל בני ישראל, the extra words are available for exegetical purposes. It was quite obvious that Moses was to address the Israelites and not anyone else. By saying בני, the Torah excluded females as the Torah should have written דבר אל בית ישראל if it intended to include women in the requirement to perform סמיכה. The word ישראל excluded the סמיכה requirement from Gentiles offering sacrifices to G'd. Nonetheless, the alternative we offered earlier is more likely to be the correct one, seeing that somewhere in the commentary by Torat Kohanim it is argued that the words בני ישראל refer to the nation who had a Covenantal relationship with G'd, something which is related to its interpretation of the line אדם כי יקריב מכם, i.e. that the word אדם includes Gentiles.

כי יקריב, “who brings” (close); the word introduces the manner in which G-d wishes to be served now that He has taken up residence among His people.

מן הבהמה OF THE BEASTS — but not all of them: the phrase, “some of the beasts”) is used in order to exclude male and female animals with which sexual sin has been committed (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 7).

קרבן לה, “an offering to the Lord.” Whenever the expression קרבן לי-ה-ו-ה is written, the name of the Lord used is the Tetragrammaton to make certain we do not offer heathens an excuse to rebel against G’d and the word קרבן precedes the word לה' so as to preclude the idea that first one would offer a sacrifice to one of the attributes of G’d, i.e. the attribute of Mercy, in order to subsequently offer a second offering to the attribute of Justice believing it to be an independent power (compare Sifra Vayikra 2,5). Our sages in Sifra Vayikra 2,4 conclude from the wording of the Torah here that when a person sanctifies, i.e. donates an animal as a sacrifice, he is not to say לה' עולה, or לה' מנחה, “for the Lord a burnt-offering”, or “for the Lord a meal-offering,” but he is to use the formula עולה לה', or מנחה לה' “a burnt-offering for the Lord,” or “a meal-offering for the Lord,” as the case may be. Actually they arrived at this ruling using simple logic. If a person who is about to present G’d with an offering is warned not to utter the Lord’s name in vain [before specifying what it is all about, in the event he never gets to complete the sentence, Ed.] then how much more so must one be careful not to use the name of the Lord in vain or even frivolously when one does not do so in connection with sanctifying something for the Lord.

Perhaps even wild animals. [You might think this] because wild animals (חיה) are included in the term בהמה, as it is written (11:2): “These are the living things (החיה) that you may eat from among all the animals (הבהמה)” (Re”m). In Toras Kohanim [the following verse is used to support the assumption]: As it says (Devarim 14:4-5): “These are the animals (הבהמה) that you may eat: [ox, lamb,] and kid, gazelle, deer...” which is a verse in Parshas Re’eh, and this is the text cited in Zevachim 34a as well (Nachalas Yaakov).

אדם כי יקריב מכם, "when any man of you brings an offering, etc." Why did the Torah have to use the term אדם? Whereas Torat Kohanim here claims that the word includes offerings brought by proselytes as being acceptable, the author of Korban Aaharon asks what need there was for the Torah to specifically include proselytes seeing we have a ruling in Menachot 73 that even sacrifices from Gentiles are acceptable. This ruling is based on either exegesis or logic derived from Leviticus 22,18. The author of Korban Aharon suggests as an answer that we could have assumed that once the proselyte had converted he would become subject to the same restriction that the Israelites themselves are subject to as a result of the Torah writing בני ישראל….כי יקריב מכם, i.e. that not all the Israelites are entitled to offer such sacrifices. The word אדם then would confirm that sacrifices are accepted from all proselytes. I do not find this answer as grammatically tenable. Had the Torah not written the word אדם in our verse which included proselytes, the Talmud would not have been able to include Gentiles based on the wording איש איש in Leviticus 22,18, but would have included only proselytes as allowed to offer vows and gift-offerings. This is why the author of Torat Kohanim chose our verse as the basis for the ruling that offerings from proselytes are acceptable. This is the only reason that the formulation איש איש in Leviticus 22,18 may be interpreted as a directive to include Gentiles. Once we are clear about this there is no need to come up with forced explanations to justify the Torat Kohanim as does the author of Korban Aharon.

מכם, “from amongst you.” The prefix letter מ reminds us that not all of us are addressed here. On the one hand, even absolute gentile idolaters are welcome to present an offering to Hashem which will be burnt up on the altar in the Temple, as we do not wish to alienate gentiles that are seeking for a religion of truth. On the other hand, by the same token, Jewish renegades who wish to offer such sacrifices in the Temple are rebuffed by the Torah, as what they do would be akin to blasphemy, seeing they demonstrate by their daily conduct that they do not believe in the power of our G-d.

מן הבקר OF THE CATTLE — This serves to exclude an animal which has been worshipped as a god (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 9).

The verse teaches us: Cattle. I.e., why is it written: “Cattle or sheep,” since the word בהמה means cattle and sheep unless specified otherwise? Rather, it comes to exclude: Specifically cattle and sheep, but not wild animals.

One cannot object that seeing that according to Baba Metzia 114 only Israelites are called אדם and not Gentiles, that therefore the words איש איש in 22,18 must refer to proselytes seeing the beginning of that verse specifically addressed Israelites and that it would not have occurred to anyone to include Gentiles so that they needed to be excluded specifically. Once we use the verse to expand the group of people from whom sacrificial offerings are acceptable we do not include every category of person but we include the group of people most closely resembling natural-born Israelites, i.e. the proselytes. Only if we find another word in the text which suggests that some other group of people is to be included in this legislation do we use it to include Gentiles. As a result, the law is that the proselyte may bring any kind of sacrificial offering whereas the Torah permits the Gentile only certain types of offerings. Rabbi Akiva holds that the Gentile may only bring a burnt-offering, עולה, whereas Rabbi Yossi Haglili holds that Gentiles may also offer a gift-offering, מנחה (Menachot 73).

אדם כי יקריב מכם, the verse has been inverted, it’s meaning is as if it had read: אדם מכם כי יקריב, “when someone amongst you wishes to draw close to G-d;”

מן הצאן OF THE SHEEP — This serves to exclude an animal set aside for the purpose of being offered to an idol (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 11).

[A male animal] which was with a woman. You might ask: Why does it need to exclude these animals, since they are stoned to death? The answer is: [It is needed,] where [it was known only] by the testimony of one witness, or the owner admitted, in which case the animal is not stoned. Therefore, it is needed to exclude them. Similarly, we must say [regarding Rashi’s comment later] concerning the animal that was worshipped as an idol or the ox that killed a man.

Midrash Tanchuma item 8 on our portion asks why the Torah used the expression אדם in our verse in preference to the customary איש? The answer given is that the Torah wishes to establish a parallel with the first human being who had sinned, i.e. אדם. We may understand the verse as follows: כי יחטא אדם כמו אדם הראשון שהתחיל לחטא יקריב קרבן; "If someone sins as did Adam who was the first human being who sinned, he shall offer a sacrifice." It appears from the wording of the author of the Tanchuma that Adam's sin was inadvertent seeing sin-offerings are acceptable only for sins committed inadvertently. The Midrash corresponds to what I have written on Genesis 3,12 on the words: "she gave to me." The entire פרשה here teaches us that G'd applied a different yardstick to man after Adam had sinned initially. Whereas the penalty for Adam's sin had been death, i.e. mortality, and the fact that he offered a sin-offering did not absolve him of his guilt, such offerings will help the Israelites to atone for the sins they commit inadvertently. The Tanchuma supplied the reason why G'd did not accept Adam's sacrifice as sufficient atonement, i.e. he had been the first human to sin; the evil urge had not been an integral part of him so that it would have been difficult to resist the lure of that urge. All subsequent human beings have been afflicted in that evil has become part of their life-force, נפש. The אות הברית, the sign of the covenant between us and G'd, i.e. the need to remove the foreskin through the act of circumcision, is the proof of the cardinal difference between us and Adam who had been created minus the foreskin.

כי יקריב, same as כי יקדיש, “who wishes to sanctify.”

ומן הצאן AND OF THE SHEEP — The ו prefixed to the word is intended to exclude a goring ox that has killed a man. — When Scripture again says lower down in the section, (v. 3) מן הבקר, “of the cattle”, — which word מן it was unnecessary to use, (it would have sufficed to say: 'אם עולה קרבנו זכר וכו) — it is intentionally used to exclude a טרפה (an animal afflicted with a fatal organic disease) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 11).

Which was worshipped. Concerning the animal that was with a woman it says בהמה (20:15): “A man who lies [conjugally] with an animal (בבהמה),” whereas concerning the animal that was worshipped it is written (Tehillim 106:20): “They exchanged their glory for the likeness of an ox eating grass.” The verse here speaks of a living animal that was worshipped, which is permitted for secular use and is not forbidden as an animal that was worshipped as an idol or as an animal that was set aside as an offering to an idol, as it says in Temurah (28b).

I believe that this consideration helps to explain a verse in Job 33,29 according to which G'd gives man two or three chances before decreeing something final resulting in his death. Why was Adam not measured by that yardstick? In fact, when it comes to sins committed by a community of people, we know on the authority of Amos 2,1, that G'd will forgive Israel's sins three times and only on the fourth occasion will He no longer forgive. There is, however, a good reason why G'd did not apply the yardsticks mentioned in either Job or Amos to אדם הראשון, the first man. On the day G'd created Adam He made him of totally good components, so that no part of him was either mentally or physically worthless which would cause him to go astray. Once he sinned he became the prototype of a sinner and the evil his life-force, נפש had absorbed became a part of every subsequent Israelite's body and soul. Even man's body absorbed that vestige of sin and the reminder of that contamination is the foreskin with which males are born. Keeping in mind that we all suffer from a handicap Adam had not suffered from, G'd decided to allow man up to three repetitions of mortal sins before making a decree final. It is man's heritage from the moment he emerges from his mother's womb to be infected with this evil pollutant. This pollutant endeavours to make man sin intentionally. It also endeavours to make him sin through mere thoughtlessness. In this latter case, the sin-offering helps to secure penitent Man atonement for such thoughtlessness. Although it is true that Adam's sin was also due to thoughtlessness, G'd dealt fairly with him by not allowing him a second chance seeing he did not have to overcome a spiritual or physical pollutant which urged him to disobey his Maker.

'קרבן לה, a sacrifice in honour of the Lord. This is a heading, followed by specifics. מן הבהמה, מן הבקר ומן הצאן, “from a category of domestic beasts, it must be either from cattle or flocks.” These are the details. תקריבו את קרבנכם, “you may offer your sacrifice.” The generalization has been repeated once more, i.e. “your sacrifice.” It teaches us that as a rule the details spelled out after a general statement has been made, do not contain surprises, i.e. no matters that could not have been understood as included in the general statement already. In our case, we find that no free roaming beasts are included as potential sacrifices, even though such beasts may qualify to be eaten, such as deer, for instance. Our sages see in this another example of G-d’s “humility;” He does not ask us to do things which are too difficult, such as hunting deer in order to offer them as sacrifices, even though King Solomon had a stable of them and offered such delicacies as venison to his guests. He only asks for animals that are within the average person’s ability to obtain. This is what the prophet (Michah,6,3) referred to when he said, quoting G-d: עמי מה הלאיתיך ענה בי?, “in which way did I inconvenience you My people? Testify against me!”An alternate explanation: I only ask you to offer Me animals as sacrifices, not human beings!” The Canaanites were in the habit at that time to offer some of their own children as sacrifices to their deities. (Midrash Tanchuma on Bechukotai, 5; compare also Torah shleymah item 56 on our verse, (who points out that Yiftach could have saved the life of his daughter had he made such a stipulation).

תקריבו YE SHALL OFFER [YOUR OFFERING] — The plural תקריבו teaches us that two (or more) persons may bring a burnt offering as a free — will gift in partnership (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 3 1).

Set aside [as an offering to an idol]. Meaning: [An animal] set aside and separated for idolatry should not be brought as an offering. This refers to the case when they fed it fodder of idolatry, but with a statement alone [it would] not [be considered as set aside], as it says in Temurah 29a.

כי יקריב מכם, "when one of you brings an offering, etc." We need to analyse why the Torah had to write the word מכם, "from you." Besides, why is that word written after the Torah had already written the predicate of the verse, i.e. "who offers a sacrifice." Normally, the subject, i.e. the person who performs the act is mentioned before the act he performs. Our sages in Chulin 5 state that the word מכם is intended to exclude Jewish heretics whose offerings are not acceptable. They arrive at this conclusion by viewing the word מן הבהמה, as suggesting that sacrifices by a heretic are aceptable. How was such an exegesis arrived at? The word מכם excluded only a Jew who either practices idolatry, (seeing this sin is equivalent to violation of all the Torah's commandments), or the kind of heretic who rejects all of the Torah's commandments. The wording מן הבהמה, on the other hand, suggests another group of animal-like human beings, i.e. heretics who reject only one or several of the commandments. The Torah says that these sinners do qualify for offering of sacrifices. The translation of the verse would be: "a certain animal-like person amongst you who offers a sacrifice, etc." The exegesis offered in Chulin helps to explain why the word מכם in our verse appears after the predicate instead of before. If the Torah had written: אדם מכם, in that sequence, the word would have appeared to exclude something instead of including something, or vice-versa. The intention of the verse, however, was that inclusions should apply only to proselytes, whereas exclusions should apply only to certain members of the Jewish community. The Torah achieved this aim by positioning the words כי יקריב between the words אדם מכם. We may also justify the position of the word מכם through reference to a different exegetical approach on the same folio of the Talmud. There the Talmud quotes a Baraitha which understands the word מכם as excluding offerings by heretics, and another Baraitha which uses the words מעם הארץ, (Leviticus 4,27)i.e. "from certain types of עם הארץ not from all of them," as the basis for not accepting sacrifices from such individuals. Rabbi Shimon disagrees saying that the words אשר לא תעשינה ואשם at the end of that verse make it clear that only an unrepentant heretic is not allowed to offer sacrifices. [Seeing that it seems strange that according to the first view even a repentant heretic should be forbidden to offer a sacrifice, Ed.], the Talmud defines the difference between the two views as applying only when someone who remains guilty of eating forbidden fat has repented for eating blood, and offers a sin-offering to achieve atonement for that sin. According to the first view, such an offering would be acceptable, whereas according to the second view it would not as the sinner continues to practice his heresy by eating forbidden fat. The Talmud there adds that one of the verses (1,2) speaks of the acceptance of a burnt-offering from a heretic, whereas the other verse (in Leviticus 4,27) speaks of the acceptance of a sin-offering from a heretic and that we need the exegetically usable words or letters of both verses. Thus far the T almud.

קרבנכם YOUR OFFERING — This teaches us) that it (the עולה) may also be offered as a free-will gift of the community (not of individuals only). This was the burnt offering bearing the name of “the summer - fruit offering”) of the altar which had to be supplied from the surplus of the levy upon the people (cf. Shevuot 12a, Shevuot 12b).

To exclude a goring ox. Meaning: Specifically, an animal that killed a man, not that it killed another animal.

Our sages have said in Torat Kohanim that the words כי יקריב refer only to voluntary offerings. This makes sense in view of the word מכם appearing after the words כי יקריב. The offerings which are excluded are voluntary offerings such as fulfilments of vows, i.e. עולה. This is what the Talmud in Chulin 5 meant when it said one verse speaks of the burnt-offering. Logic might have persuaded us that the Torah is willing to accept a free-will offering from a sinner who has not repented a specific sin, whereas a sin-offering from such a sinner would be rejected. The Torah therefore had to tell us that no offering is acceptable until the sinner has repented all of his sins. At the same time we also need the exclusion implied in the words מעם הארץ in 4,27 where the Torah speaks of a need to bring a sin-offering. The exclusion in that chapter is quite different from that in chapter one in that the only person from whom we do not accept a burnt-offering is the heretic who rejects the whole Torah. In 4,27, however, the Torah excludes sin-offerings even from a Jew who habitually only violates a single one of the 613 commandments when such a Jew wishes to offer a sin-offering for a different commandment which he violated unintentionally. Maimonides rules similarly in chapter three of his treatise on Maaseh Hakorbanot.

[An animal] with a fatal defect. This refers to the case where the animal was fit at the time the owner consecrated it, and then it became fatally defective. If so, I might have thought it is permissible for one to sacrifice it on the altar since it was fit at the time he consecrated it. Thus, it is necessary to exclude it here.

If we wish to see a moral-ethical dimension in this verse we may pursue the following path. Seeing that the Jewish people had observed that G'd had brought Moses close to him, and called out only to him from amongst all the Israelites, the Torah goes on record to say that such distinctions are not restricted to Moses, but אדם כי יקריב, "anyone who wishes to come close to G'd, can do so provided מכם, is a member of the Jewish people." In fact, as we have already pointed out, G'd's call to Moses was only for the sake of the Israelites, for their benefit. Consider the fact that during 38 years of wandering in the desert when the Israelites were sullen [due to the decree that they would perish in the desert after adopting the majority report of the spies Ed.], and G'd kept His distance from them, G'd had not spoken even with Moses. This was clear evidence that when G'd had spoken to Moses out of the Tabernacle it had been for the benefit of the people and not for either G'd's or Moses' benefit.

That two [people] may volunteer. Otherwise, it should say: יקריב קרבנו [in the singular form instead of in the plural form]. This does not mean only two, but rather ten, a hundred, or a thousand [and it is still considered an individual’s offering and requires leaning] as long as the entire people of Israel are not partners in it [as we find, for example, with the burnt offerings of the “summer fruit” for the altar which comes from the surplus of the yearly half-shekels].

The Torah also wanted to give a hint to the elite amongst the people to influence the hearts of the Israelites so that they would worship G'd willingly. The reason that the offering or sacrifice is called קרבן, i.e. from the root קרב, "to come near," is that it is sin which separates man from his Father in Heaven. We know from Deuteronomy, 4,4 that "you who have cleaved to the Lord are all alive this day." The Israelites instead had become separated and distant from the presence of G'd, the שכינה, due to their support for the spies' report and their attempt to return to Egypt. G'd, on the other hand, is anxious to establish a close bond with Israel and commanded the elite to rebuke the sinner in order to bring his heart closer to the Lord his G'd. At the same time G'd punished those who ignored their duty in this regard. A proof that G'd indeed expects those who are the elite to take a leading role in influencing the hearts of the people, is found in the statement by our sages in Avot 5,21: "He who leads the multitude in righteousness shall have no sin come into his hand," seeing G'd will protect him against committing errors. These then are the messages contained in our verse.

“Summer fruit” for the altar. I.e., a “meal” for the altar that comes from the surplus, i.e., the surplus from the half-shekels given the previous year. From those surplus half-shekels they bought sheep as burnt offerings and sacrificed them on the altar when there were no individual offerings to bring, so that the altar would not be unused, without any sacrifices being offered.

The word אדם used by the Torah here refers to the spiritually most advanced members of society, the elite. Zohar Tazria interprets the sequence of the words כי יקריב מכם, as "whom does one try and bring close to G'd, the מכם, the ones who have not been close in the first place, i.e. the spiritually lower level of society who have sinned and asked G'd not to bother them with His demands so that they could withdraw from the close bond with G'd." These are the people for the elite to focus on, to try and bring them back closer to G'd. This is why the Torah adds the words קרבן לשם, to be close to G'd, so that they will become what G'd called in the words of Isaiah 60,21: "the shoot that I planned, My handiwork in which I glory." A person of that calibre, involved in bringing others closer to G'd does not have to bring either free-will offerings or sin-offerings. Having finished with describing the task of the elite of the Jewish people, the Torah continues: מן הבהמה תקריבו את קרבנכם, i.e. the ordinary people are to offer their various kinds of sacrifices; after all, not everyone is on the spiritual level of those described as אדם, i.e. able to restore harmonious relations between sinners and G'd.

זכר A MALE, but not a female. When Scripture mentions again lower down. (v. 10) that the sacrifice shall be זכר, a male, — which appears unnecessary to state, — it intends to say: a male, but not an animal whose sex is indeterminate or which is a hermaphrodite (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 3 9; Bekhorot 41b).

אם עולה קרבנו, if his offering consists of a burnt-offering, etc. Why is the wording of the Torah different here from the verses in which the burnt-offerings consisting of either sheep or fowl are described? In both those instances the Torah writes: ואם מן הצאן קרבנו, or ואם מן העוף קרבנו, whereas here the Torah writes: אם עולה קרבנו? If the Torah wanted to be consistent it should have written: אם מן הבקר עולה. We may understand this in conjunction with an idea mentioned in Torat Kohanim (3,20) in connection with the word את קרבנכם at the end of the last verse. We are told there that the Torah speaks of communal burnt-offerings. This would account for the plural ending in the word קרבנכם. In the other two instances we have mentioned the Torah uses the singular ending, i.e. קרבנו, making it plain that the Torah speaks of sacrifices offered by individuals. Moreover, the Torah uses the conditional אם, if, when introducing the burnt-offering to tell us that the only kind of communal burnt-offering acceptable is the one which consists of בקר, a male member of the cattle category. Peace-offerings may not be offered as communal offerings. [Peace-offerings are offerings which are eaten in the main by the owners, whereas the burnt-offering is completely consumed by the altar except for the skin and the hair. Ed.] Furthermore, the sequence קרבנכם אם עולה suggests that only burnt-offerings are acceptable as communal offerings and not peace-offerings as stated in Torat Kohanim.

אם עולה, if the wording of his vow included use of the term עולה, burnt-offering, as opposed to זבח שלמים “peace-offerings” of which the donour consumes most of the meat himself. (compare 3,1)

אל פתח אהל מועד, “to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” The Torah needs to tell us that the donor cannot ask the priest to come to his house and pick up the animal he designated as a sacrificial offering. The owner or his messenger has to bring it.

אם עולה קרבנו מן הבקר, “if his burnt-offering is from the cattle, etc.” The burnt-offering is the first of all the offerings mentioned and discussed in some detail. According to the plain meaning of the text this is logical as before one sins in deed one generally sins in thought. It was therefore appropriate to mention this burnt-offering which atones not for sins committed but for sins of omission such as positive commandments, i.e. sins committed only in one’s mind.
The order in which the Torah lists these animals commences with the bull, פר, followed by צאן, smaller animals such as sheep and goats, followed by birds. The bull is the animal which is appropriate for a wealthy man who seeks some kind of atonement seeing that it costs more. Wealthy people often rely on their wealth, itself a sin of arrogance. In order to counter the arrogance involved in relying on one’s material wealth the Torah expects the wealthy man to offer a costly animal. People of moderate means are expected to offer sheep or goats as burnt-offerings, whereas the poor is allowed to offer a pigeon, an inexpensive bird as a burnt-offering. In this way people of different means will each use something commensurate with their financial status as appropriate to atone for their sins of omission.

It comes only to say — a male. Rashi brings here the exclusion from “a male” (v. 10) — not [an animal] whose sex cannot be determined and the one which has both male and female characteristics — and not the rest of the exclusions later on [such as an old or sick animal], because he explains in the next comment: “תמים. Without a blemish.” [Rashi does this] so that you will not raise the objection: How does he know that תמים means without a blemish? Perhaps תמים means that it should be perfect in its quality, i.e., it should not be [an animal] whose sex cannot be determined or one which has both male and female characteristics? Therefore, Rashi brings [the drashah] from “a male” later on, where it excludes — “a male,” and not [an animal] whose sex cannot be determined or one which has both male and female characteristics. Thus, as a matter of course, תמים means “without blemish.”

אל פתח אהל מועד יקריב אותו, “he shall bring it to the entrance of the Tabernacle.” This line is necessary so that we understand that it is not good enough for someone wishing to offer an animal sacrifice to say to the priest: “here is the animal, take it and offer it on my behalf.” If he did so, it would not be considered good manners vis a vis Heaven. The owner of the beast in question had to bring it personally all the way to the entrance of the Tabernacle [beyond which he was not allowed to go. Ed.

אם עולה קרבנו, “if his offering consists of an animal to be burned up completely,” (the priests not eating any parts of it). What is meant is that the donor had stipulated this prior to handing the animal to the priest to slaughter on his behalf. The reason why the burnt offering is the first example of animal offerings mentioned in the Torah is that it is the type of offering most welcomed by Hashem.

תמים means WITHOUT BLEMISH,

לרצונו, if he chose a male, unblemished animal and brought it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, then it would be pleasing to the Lord. However, if the animal were to be diseased, or otherwise blemished, G’d would relate to it with disapproval as explained by Maleachi 1,8 הירצך או הישא פניך?, “Could you obtain the governor’s goodwill, or willingness to forgive your trespasses in return for such a gift?” The same considerations apply even to inexpensive offerings such as the מנחה as spelled out in verse 10 of the same chapter of Maleachi where the prophet has switched from the [parable to G’d Himself being the subject to Whom the gift is being offered.

A kabbalistic approach: The עולה type of offering is mentioned first as it corresponds to the emanation of בינה. The sequence of the types of offerings mentioned parallels the emanations in descending order, so that the peace-offering is immediately below the burnt-offering, followed by the offering when the High Priest has become guilty of a sin, i.e., a sin-offering. These three stages correspond to the first three attributes of the thirteen attributes in Parshat Ki Tissa. [At this point the author quotes a non-existent verse meant to support this idea. I cannot understand this. Ed.]

Without a blemish. Re”m writes: Even though it is written in another place (22:20): “Anything that has a blemish on it you shall not bring,” and if so, why does it say [here] תמים? The Sages already answered in Toras Kohanim: This word תמים comes for a hekeish (comparison). I.e., just as when the animal is blemished and not תמים it will not be accepted favorably, as it is written (ibid.): “Anything that has a blemish on it [you shall not bring, for it will not be accepted favorably for you],” so too, if it is not a male, but rather a female, one whose sex cannot be determined, or one which has both male and female characteristics, it will not be accepted favorably.

Furthermore, if the Torah had been consistent and written: אם מן הבקר עולה, we would have concluded that only animals which belong to the category of בקר, cattle, are acceptable as burnt-offerings and that sheep, etc., would be unacceptable as burnt-offerings. As a result of such considerations the Torah wrote the words אם עולה in that order to make it plain that there are other alternatives. Both cattle and sheep are acceptable as burnt-offerings, albeit communal burnt-offerings have to be of the בקר variety. Individual burnt-offerings on the other hand, may consist of either cattle or sheep. In order that we should not err concerning the acceptability of burnt-offerings consisting of certain kinds of fowl, the Torah added the word קרבנו once more (1,14) although this was not strictly necessary as pointed out in Torat Kohanim which understands the word as precluding communal burnt-offerings consisting of birds even when these communal offerings are in the nature of נדבה, voluntary offerings.

יקריבנו, “he will be able to offer it,” after the building of the Tabernacle has been completed; the owner must first sanctify it, i.e. add when handing over the sacrificial animal: “this I have vowed to offer as a burnt offering for the Lord.”

אל פתח אהל מועד [HE SHALL BRING IT NEAR] UNTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE APPOINTED TENT — He himself must attend to bringing it right up to the forecourt (where it is handed over to the priests). What is the force of Scripture using the term יקריב twice (יקריבנו and יקריב אתו; it might suffice to say:‎תמים זכר ‎'יקריבנו אל פתח אהל מועד לרצונו וכו‎)?! It is intended to intimate that even in case the burnt offering of Reuben has become mixed up with that of Simeon so that they cannot be identified, nevertheless each must bring one of the animals to the forecourt on behalf of him to whom it really belongs). Similarly if a burnt offering has been mixed up with non-consecrated animals, the non — consecrated ones must be sold for עולה purposes (they are sold to people who have voluntarily undertaken to offer an עולה), and thus all of them become burnt offerings and each is now brought on behalf of him to whom it belongs (cf. Mishna Zevachim 8:1). One might think that this must also be done if it (an animal intended to be a burnt offering) became mixed up with animals unfit for sacrifice (with those mentioned above as excluded from the category of sacrifices) or with a different kind of sacrifices (e.g., peace — offerings)! Scripture. however, states,יקריבנו, “he shall bring it) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 3 13).

Until the court. The word יקריבנו is from the root of קורבה, which means to bring close. Rashi’s proof is [that otherwise,] why does it say, “[He shall bring an unblemished male] to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”? It should write: “An unblemished male he shall bring to be accepted favorably before Hashem,” and no more.

The wording of the Torat Kohanim (3,21) is: "Why did the Torah have to repeat the word עולה, burnt-offering, once more?" Answer: "I could have concluded that all the exclusions we have learned from the previous verses apply only to burnt-offerings which are voluntary offerings but that in the case of mandatory offerings they do not apply; hence the Torah repeats the word אם עולה to teach that the restrictions which we have learned about do not distinguish between voluntary and mandatory burnt-offerings." This concludes our quote from Torat Kohanim. It appears that the author of the Torat Kohanim thought that the Torah should have written: אם קרבנו עולה, "if his sacrifice is a burnt-offering." They answered that if the Torah had written the words in that sequence we would have assumed that the Torah spoke of a voluntary offering, an עולת נדבה, seeing that the words כי יקריב, definitely imply that the owner of that animal has a choice in the matter. The words אם עולה then mean any kind of עולה, any kind of burnt-offering be it a mandatory one or a voluntary one. The ראב"ד argues that the word עולה here was superfluous as the Torah could have relied on the next appearance of that word in the next verse. I consider this very forced.

אל פתח אהל מועד, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting;” the Torah stresses this as the donor is not allowed to invite the officiating priest to come to his home and slaughter the beast in question in the donor’s or the priest’s yard, and perform the rituals connected with it. This would be disrespectful to Hashem . Imagine a donor of a gift to a mortal king inviting the King to come and pick it up at the donor’s home!”

יקריב אתו HE SHALL OFFER IT — This apparently superfluous word (אתו) teaches us that they (the בי"ד) must put pressure upon him to bring it if he is remiss in bringing the sacrifice he had promised. One might think that this means that they shall force him against his will! Scripture, however, states, לרצונו “[he must bring it] so that it shall be favourably accepted for him”. How is this possible? They press him until he says, “I wish to do it” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 3 15).

Even if [Reuvein’s burnt-offering] became mixed up [with Shimon’s]. Meaning: Scripture could have written: “He shall bring it ... to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting that it be favorably accepted from him before Adonoy.” [Why does it say “he shall bring it” a second time?] Without Rashi’s explanation that [the one who brings the sacrifice] takes care of it until [it is brought to] the [Temple] courts, I might have thought [that the first “he shall bring it” is needed for the plain meaning, to teach that he should not slaughter it outside the courtyard and] the extra “he shall bring it” teaches that he takes care of it even inside the court. However, now that Rashi explains that he is only obligated to take care of it until the entrance to the courtyard, why does it need [to repeat] “he shall bring it”?

קרבנו, his offering. Torat Kohanim views this word as including the above-mentioned restrictions as applicable also to peace-offerings. If not for the word קרבנו I would have understood that the peace-offering is not subject to the same restrictions as the burnt-offering. Therefore this word is meant to include peace-offerings in the restrictions applicable to the burnt-offerings. There was never any reason to assume that peace-offerings should be subject to such restrictions in the first place so that the Torah had to counter that impression. [The fact that female animals are acceptable as peace-offerings as opposed to burnt-offerings which are restricted to male animals, lends substance to that assumption. Ed.] The author of Torat Kohanim did not use the pronoun ending קרבנו instead of קרבן as the basis for its exegetical comment as he did so already in verse 10 when the Torah speaks about the burnt-offering consisting of sheep or goats.

לרצונו, “in order to find favour in His eyes.” The reason is that this is a voluntary offering, not a thanksgiving offering or a guilt or sin offering, all of which are mandatory offerings.

‎'לפני ה‎ וסמך [HE SHALL OFFER] IT …] BEFORE THE LORD (4) AND HE SHALL LAY [HIS HAND UPON THE HEAD OF THE SACRIFICE] - This implies that there is no "laying of hands" upon an animal sacrifice on a private "high place" (במה; at the time when sacrifice was permissible on such) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 1)

Unfit. Meaning: Such as [a male animal] which was with a woman or a [female] animal which was with a man, and the like.

'לפני ה, “in the presence of the Lord.” Even though the donor may not enter the sacred precincts of the Temple, his gift is described as “in the presence of the Lord,“ seeing it is not his personal fault that he could not enter these precincts. According to Sifra, after having placed his hands on the sacrificial animal outside those precincts, he is allowed to do this once more inside the sacred precincts.

Or of another kind. With a sin-offering, guilt-offering, first-born, animal tithes, Pesach offering, or peace offering.

That they force. This is not derived from the repetition of יקריב, because that is needed to include the law when a burnt-offering became mixed up with another burnt-offering, or a burnt-offering became mixed up with a common [animal]. Rather, this is derived from the extra word אותו.

Against his will? The verse comes only to say: לרצונו. I.e., you might think that if they forced him to buy [an animal] to bring as the sacrifice and he cries out the whole time that he does not want to do it — even so — he must do it against his will. Therefore, the verse comes to say: לרצונו, they force him until he says, “I want to.” Then, he brings it. We should not ask: What does this statement help, since he says it against his will? [The answer is:] We say that because he was forced he decided to agree with what he is saying out loud, because he wants to be rid of being forced. Even regarding monetary issues we say this (Baba Basra 47b): Rav Huna said: If they hung him up until he agreed to sell to him, the acquisition has been made, because due to his being forced he decided to transfer his ownership; so much more so here where it is a mitzvah (Divrei Dovid).

There is no laying [of the hands] at a private altar. The verse (4) [“and he shall lay his hand”] is interpreted in juxtaposition to the preceding section and to the section following: “Before God,” which refers to the Tent of Meeting, where the Ark and the Divine Presence are found.

על ראש העולה UPON THE HEAD OF THE BURNT OFFERING — This is intended to include an obligatory burnt offering also in the law of סמיכה (laying hands on the head of the sacrifice) as well as to include a sheep that is offered as a free — will burnt offering (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 3-5).

AND HE SHALL LAY HIS HAND. This means his two hands, for we find it stated: and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock;⁵⁶Exodus 29:10. and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands upon the head of the ram,⁵⁷Ibid., Verse 15. and the Rabbis interpreted it to mean: “the hands of each and every individual.”⁵⁸I.e., the word “hands” does not refer to “Aaron and his sons,” thus implying that each lay one hand, but to each individual laying his two hands on the offering. The source of this interpretation is unknown to me. Thus [it is clear that] both hands were required for it. In the case of the goat designed to be sent [to Azazel] it is expressly stated, And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat.⁵⁹Further, 16:21. If so, I do not know why Scripture wrote “his hand” [in the singular] in all other cases of the laying of hands. Perhaps it is for the purpose of deriving therefrom what the Rabbis have interpreted:⁶⁰Menachoth 93b. “His hand — and not the hand of his proxy.” For had it been written “his hands” [in the plural we would have interpreted it] to require the laying of both hands, and we would not have been able to exclude the proxy. But now that [we derive from other verses that] both hands must be laid upon the offering, [we must conclude that] He only wrote the singular [indicating the hands of only one person], to exclude a proxy, for although a man’s proxy is like the man himself⁶¹Kiddushin 41b. in all other places, we should not consider him so in the case of the laying of hands. In Torath Kohanim we find:⁶²Torath Kohanim, Acharei 4:4. “And Aaron shall lay both his hands.⁵⁹Further, 16:21. This teaches that the laying of hands upon the offering must be done with both hands, and forms the general rule for all cases of laying of hands, that they be done with both hands.”

וסמך ידו, “He shall lean his hand on it with all his strength.” Although the word ידו is spelled in the singular mode, the meaning is: “his hands.” We find elsewhere that the Torah spells this out, for instance in Leviticus The reason that here the word is spelled in the singular mode is to enable us to derive the halachah that the owner of the sacrificial animal personally must do this and not anyone whom he has deputized. This is an exception to the rule that normally שלוחו של אדם כמותו, “a person’s designated messenger has the same legal status as the person himself.”

וסמך ידו על ראש העולה, “he is to place his bodily weight on the head of the animal serving as the burnt-offering.” It is well known that this procedure has to be carried out with both hands as this is what Torat Kohanim says in connection with Leviticus 16,21: “and Aaron is to place both his hands on the head of the scape-goat.” This verse is used as applicable for all animal offerings requiring this procedure. Thus far Torat Kohanim.
When the Torah writes in this instance that וסמך ידו, “he shall place his hand (sing.),” this is meant to exclude the messenger, intermediary. Although we have a general rule that a person’s messenger enjoys the same legal status as the person on whose behalf he acts, this is an exception. The owner of the animal cannot delegate the requirement to place his own hands on the animal. The placing of the hands on the animal by the owner was performed only in the part of the Tabernacle called Azarah, the courtyard. It was immediately followed by the slaughter of the animal. It was mandatory to place one’s entire weight on the animal using both one’s hands; this is why the Torah wrote: “on the head of the animal,” i.e. not on its neck or any other part.

For laying (of hands). Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “[on the head of] the burnt-offering”? [It should say “on its head,”] because at the verse’s beginning it is written “burnt-offering” to which the verse is referring. Rather, it comes to include everything that is termed a burnt-offering for laying [of the hands], even an obligatory burnt-offering. And since it is written “the burnt-offering” with the indicative ה, this implies [only] the burnt-offering that was mentioned: “From cattle or from sheep,” and to exclude a bird [offered as a] burnt-offering from laying [of the hands]; and to include a sheep [brought as] a burnt-offering, i.e., also for laying [of hands].

לכפר עליו, “to make atonement for him.” When someone has eaten forbidden fats, inadvertently, he must bring an offering as atonement. If he is in doubt if he has eaten forbidden fat he must bring an offering known as asham taluy, an offering which suspends his status vis a vis G–d until the doubt has been removed. If it turns out that he had not eaten forbidden fat that is the end of the matter. If it turns out that he did eat forbidden fat, he must bring the additional sin offering. Sometimes it happens that a person was convinced that what he ate was permissible, whereas in fact it was not. In such an event, offering a burnt offering will achieve atonement on his behalf. This is the kind of burnt offering described in our verse.

וסמך ידו, according to the plain meaning of the text, [this is not a commandment but the Torah describes the norm when people offer such an animal. It describes a preparatory activity, Ed]

העלה THE BURNT OFFERING — This implies the exclusion of a bird offered as a burnt offering (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 7).

AND IT SHALL BE FAVORABLY ACCEPTED FOR HIM TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HIM. “For what kind of sins does [the freewill burnt-offering] effect atonement for the person that brings it? Should you say, for sins [where punishment if wilfully committed] is excision, or any of the [four] deaths imposed by the court, or death by the hands of Heaven, or stripes, the punishment for all these sins is already stated, [and atonement is affected by those punishments, and therefore not by this offering]! You must conclude that [the freewill burnt-offering] effects atonement only for transgression of a positive commandment,⁶³The Torah cites no punishment for failure to fulfill a positive commandment [with the two exceptions of not slaughtering the Passover-offering, and not being circumcised]. If a person thus failed to fulfill a positive commandment — such as dwelling in a booth on the Festival of Succoth — his bringing a freewill burnt-offering effects atonement for this sin. and for the violation of a negative commandment that is juxtaposed to a positive commandment.”⁶⁴A case in point is the prohibition against taking an entire bird’s nest, with the mother-bird and its young (Deuteronomy 22:6). If, however, he did infringe upon the law, he is obliged to observe a positive commandment that the Torah stated next to the prohibition — Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go (ibid., Verse 7). Hence the usual punishment of stripes is not incurred for infringing the negative commandment, since the positive commandment “remedies” the prohibition. Yet it needs atonement, and the bringing of the burnt-offering expiates for it. — It is important to note that during the laying of hands on the offering the owner, in case of sin-offerings, confessed the sin for which he brought the offering, and so also in the case of guilt-offerings. Similarly, on bringing a burnt-offering he confessed the transgression for a positive commandment etc. [as explained here in the text]. In the case of the peace-offering, he uttered words of praise to G-d (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ma’asei Korbanoth 3:14-15). This is Rashi’s language, and it is a Beraitha⁶⁵Beraitha (literally: “outside”) is a teaching or tradition of the Tannaim that had been excluded from the Mishnah and incorporated in other collections. The Tosephta, Mechilta, Sifra (Torath Kohanim), and Sifre contain these Beraithoth. in Torath Kohanim.⁶⁶Torath Kohanim Vayikra 4:5.
But I wonder! Where is “the punishment” for these sins already stated, since offerings only effect atonement for unwilful violations?⁶⁷“Punishments” [such as “excision etc.”] are incurred only for wilful violation of the negative commandments, while offerings for atonement are brought only for unwilful violations. So how could Rashi state, “Should you say [that the freewill burnt-offering is brought] for such sins that make one liable to excision etc., the punishment for those sins has already been stated”? Where are those “punishments” for unwilful violations mentioned? For unwilful violations no punishments are ever incurred! Now we could say that [the freewill burnt-offerings] atone for those unwilful sins which the penalty [if committed wilfully] is death by the hands of Heaven, or stripes, or any of the [four] deaths imposed by the court, in such cases that do not obligate one to bring a sin-offering,⁶⁸The general rule is that a sin-offering is brought only for such a sin unwilfully committed for which the penalty if committed wilfully would be excision. Ramban is thus suggesting: we could say that the freewill burnt-offering atones for those unwilful sins for which the penalty is death by the hands of Heaven etc., and for all those sins for which the penalty is death by the court and yet do not require the bringing of a sin-offering for unwilful violation. Examples follow in the text. such as smiting one’s father or mother, or cursing them,⁶⁹The reason why the sin-offering is not brought for the unwilful violation of these negative commandments is that the punishment of excision is not incurred in case of the wilful violation thereof. See Note 68 above. just as the sin-offering atones for the unwilful sins for which the penalty [if committed wilfully] is excision. But perhaps it appeared to the Sages that since Scripture expressly states the punishment for both the wilful and unwilful commission of sins punishable by death imposed by the hands of the court or by excision, [stating that if committed wilfully, the sinner is liable to one of the above punishments, and if committed unwilfully, he must bring a sin-offering], and it further set forth the punishment of those liable to death by the hands of Heaven or stripes for certain sins, if committed wilfully, but did not mention in these [last two categories] any punishment if the sins are committed unwilfully — therefore it appeared [to the Sages] that Scripture had completely set forth their case.⁷⁰Thus Scripture made it clear that in the case of those sins for which the penalty is death by the hands of Heaven or stripes if committed wilfully — no offering for expiation is needed when committed unintentionally. Rashi and the Torath Kohanim were thus correct in stating that the burnt-offering could not effect atonement for these unwilful sins, since “the punishments” have already been stated in Scripture both for wilful and unwilful sins, and therefore we could not say that the burnt-offering effects atonement for the above-mentioned sins if committed unwilfully. For why should Scripture have explained the punishment of some sins if committed either wilfully or unwilfully, and explained the punishment for other sins [only] if committed wilfully, but not if committed unwilfully, and did not say that he is obligated to bring a burnt-offering? Therefore the Sages concluded that in the case of those sins for which one is liable to death by the hands of Heaven or stripes, they are only punishable if committed wilfully, as explained in Scripture, but if committed unwilfully there is no burden of sin at all and they do not need any atonement. This is the meaning of the saying of the Rabbis [in the Torath Kohanim⁶⁶Torath Kohanim Vayikra 4:5. mentioned by Rashi]: “their punishment has already been stated,” meaning that Scripture had already stated the whole punishment that G-d desired to impose on them. But for the wilful transgression of a positive commandment⁶³The Torah cites no punishment for failure to fulfill a positive commandment [with the two exceptions of not slaughtering the Passover-offering, and not being circumcised]. If a person thus failed to fulfill a positive commandment — such as dwelling in a booth on the Festival of Succoth — his bringing a freewill burnt-offering effects atonement for this sin. and for the violation of a negative commandment that is juxtaposed to a positive commandment,⁶⁴A case in point is the prohibition against taking an entire bird’s nest, with the mother-bird and its young (Deuteronomy 22:6). If, however, he did infringe upon the law, he is obliged to observe a positive commandment that the Torah stated next to the prohibition — Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go (ibid., Verse 7). Hence the usual punishment of stripes is not incurred for infringing the negative commandment, since the positive commandment “remedies” the prohibition. Yet it needs atonement, and the bringing of the burnt-offering expiates for it. — It is important to note that during the laying of hands on the offering the owner, in case of sin-offerings, confessed the sin for which he brought the offering, and so also in the case of guilt-offerings. Similarly, on bringing a burnt-offering he confessed the transgression for a positive commandment etc. [as explained here in the text]. In the case of the peace-offering, he uttered words of praise to G-d (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ma’asei Korbanoth 3:14-15). where Scripture mentioned no punishment whatever, and it is impossible that no penalty should be inflicted for them at all, in these cases the sinner is atoned for by this burnt-offering, if he brought it of his own freewill.
It is possible to say that because He did not use in the case of the freewill offerings⁷¹Further, 5:18. the expression: “to make atonement for him concerning the error which he committed,” as He said with reference to the offerings brought for sins committed unwilfully,⁷¹Further, 5:18. and instead He said, and it shall be favorably accepted, it appeared to our Rabbis that the meaning thereof is that [the burnt-offering] effects atonement for those who wilfully commit certain sins, seeing that these persons are not [hitherto] favorably accepted by Him. For he who commits a sin unwilfully is yet, in spite of his sin, considered favorably accepted by G-d. If so, it is impossible that the burnt-offering effect atonement for wilful sinners except for those who transgress a positive commandment or a negative commandment that is juxtaposed to a positive commandment, in which cases no punishment has been mentioned in Scripture, but they are not pleasing to G-d because they violated His commandment. With what can these men become favorably accepted by their Master?⁷²See I Samuel 29:4. With this gift!
I have seen in the Agadah,⁷³The Agadah (homily) comprises all subjects in Rabbinical literature which do not aim directly at the exposition of the laws of the Torah, but which teach and edify on all subjects concerning the Torah. The Agadic literature is contained primarily in the Midrashim, as well as in the Talmud. It would appear that Ramban uses the term Agadah here in contradistinction to the Torath Kohanim previously mentioned, which is primarily a book of Halachah (law). There in the Torath Kohanim the purpose of the burnt-offering is as explained above; in the Agadah — in Vayikra Rabbah — it is assigned another purpose, as explained further on. in Vayikra Rabbah:⁷⁴Vayikra Rabbah 7:3. “Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai taught: The burnt-offering only comes to effect atonement for sinful thoughts of the heart. Said Rabbi Levi: It is a clear Biblical text: ‘V’ha’olah al ruchachem’⁷⁵The Hebrew term for the burnt-offering is olah [literally, “comes up”]. There is thus here a suggestion that the olah is for those sinful thoughts “which come into one’s mind.” (And that which cometh into your mind) shall not be at all⁷⁶Ezekiel 20:32. — the olah (burnt-offering) effects atonement for those things which come into your mind. Similarly it says of Job: and he offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, ‘It may be that my sons have sinned, and blasphemed G-d in their hearts.’⁷⁷Job 1:5. This proves that the burnt-offering only comes to effect atonement for sinful thoughts of the heart.” The reason why [the burnt-offering was singled out for this purpose] is because it is a sin that no one recognizes except G-d [Who knows our secret thoughts]; therefore it is wholly burnt to G-d.
The expression v’nirtzah lo⁷⁸Up to here we have followed Silberman’s translation of the phrase: “and it shall be favorably accepted for him.” Ramban now suggests three new interpretations: 1) “and he will be favorably accepted by Him.” 2) “and the sin will be completed to him” — never to be mentioned again. 3) “and it will be ‘agreeable’ to Him.” refers back to the Glorious Name mentioned [in the preceding verse: to the door of the Tent of Meeting he shall bring it for his acceptance before the Eternal], meaning that he should be favorably accepted by Him through this offering which effects atonement for him. This is similar in expression to these verses: for wherewith should this fellow ‘yithratzeh’ (reconcile himself) unto his lord?;⁷⁹I Samuel 29:4. and the light of Thy countenance because ‘r’tzitham’ (Thou wast favorable to them),⁸⁰Psalms 44:4. and many others. It is possible that v’nirtzah is a by-word for the sin, meaning that the sin is finished for him, so that he may now be forgiven, similar to these expressions: ‘ki nirtzah avonah’ (that her guilt is paid off);⁸¹Isaiah 40:2. until the land ‘rotz’thah’ (had been paid) her Sabbaths;⁸²II Chronicles 36:21. and they ‘yirtzu’ (shall be paid) the punishment of their iniquity⁸³Further, 26:43. — all these being expressions of completion. It is further possible to say in line with the first interpretation, that the sin will be as if it were “agreeable” [not objectionable before G-d], meaning that His anger will no longer be kindled against him.

ונרצה לו לכפר עליו, “and it shall become acceptable for him to afford him atonement.” Rashi already questions where the idea of the donor requiring “atonement” suddenly comes from. He argues that surely, if the guilt of the donor to be atoned for involves capital sins for which execution or death at the hands of heaven is in order, there should have been a warning somewhere spelling out which sin this donor had committed! Even if the sin had “only” been one warranting 39 lashes as penalty, it should have been spelled out somewhere. He concludes that the only sins such a sacrifice could atone for is omission to fulfill some positive commandment, or a negative commandment which is inextricably involved with a positive commandment so that non-observance is not punishable by lashes. Rashi is supported by a baraitha in Torat Kohanim. Nachmanides questions “whence do we know that the sacrifice atones for all inadvertently committed sins which when committed intentionally carry the penalty of 39 lashes or death at the hands of heavenly decree altogether?” Perhaps we may assume that this sacrifice atones for sins that are subject to premature death by heavenly decree when committed intentionally, but which have been committed inadvertently, and the Torah had not provided atonement in such a case by a sin offering or guilt offering. as a way of atonement. Striking father or mother are an example of such sins committed inadvertently for which the Torah did not provide explicit penalties when these sins were committed inadvertently. Nachmanides suggests as a possible solution to our query that seeing that in some cases the Torah lists penalties for deliberately committed capital crimes, as well as methods of atonement when these crimes were committed inadvertently, it is reasonable to suppose that where the Torah fails to be specific on that point, the burnt offering, עולה, may well be the vehicle through which such atonement can be secured. This would make the wording of Rashi’s commentary more intelligible. The absence of a procedure to secure atonement for such inadvertently committed sins in cases where the Torah failed to spell this out, might otherwise have led us to believe that there is no mechanism for such inadvertently committed sins to be forgiven. Rashi picked the two categories of sin by omission for which the Torah had failed to specify a specific path to atonement, i.e. failure to observe a positive commandment [when it is the type which we must look for opportunities to perform, such as the lulav on Sukkot, as opposed to the building of a protective railing on one’s roof, a commandment only applicable to people who own a house. Ed.] It is further possible that seeing that when the Torah lists specific voluntary offerings, without the wording specifying that such offering atones for a specific sin committed [וכפר על חטאתו אשר חטא, “it will atone for his sin which he had committed unintentionally (or similar as in Leviticus 42, and 5,2),” Ed.], it is clear that the “atonement” mentioned in our verse is for sins of omission (מצות עשה) committed inadvertently. The expression ונרצה, “it will be received with grace,” implies that the person offering this burnt offering had lacked grace in the eyes of the Lord prior to his presenting this offering. If our sages in Torat Kohanim interpreted the verse as the offering conferring atonement for intentionally committed sins when the sinner had repented, their reasoning is that anyone who committed inadvertent sins has not fallen out of grace with Hashem, so that he does not need to be reinstated in a state of grace, as is suggested by our verse. If that is so, the only deliberate sins that these burnt offerings could atone for are sins of omission, and sins of omission directly involving the transgression of a negative commandment, rather than sins of commission. [seeing, as Rashi pointed out, the Torah had spelled out the penalties for violating negative commandments deliberately]. Even though we have a principle according to which if someone commits a sin of omission or one involving a sin of omission involving also a negative commandment, that repentance achieves atonement immediately, without the offering, or the act of leaning on the animal to be sacrificed, (Yuma 86), whereas if he offers the sacrifice without repenting, his offering is rejected as זבח רשעים, the offering of a wicked individual, we need to say that the “forgiveness” mentioned in Yuma is not complete until the person concerned has also offered the burnt offering discussed in our verse.

A prohibition which is uprooted by a positive commandment. For instance (Devarim 22:6): “You shall not take the mother upon the young,” upon which it is written (Ibid. 7): “You shall send away the mother.” Similarly (Shemos 12:10): “You must not leave any of it over until morning. Any of it left over until morning must be burned in fire.” Also (Vayikro 19:13): “And you shall not rob,” upon which it is written (Ibid. 5:23): “He shall return the stolen property.” No punishment is mentioned with regard to these prohibitions, but the prohibitions mentioned by Rashi have their punishments specified, whether committed intentionally where there is execution ordered by a court or being whipped, or when committed unintentionally where there is a sin-offering.

ידו, this does not have to refer to a single hand, but the verse excludes a son or servant performing this procedure. The Torah does not allow the donor to delegate these acts.

‎ ונרצה לו AND PROPITIATION SHALL BE EFFECTED FOR HIM — For what kind of sins does it (the עולת נדבה) effect propitiation for him? Should you say, “for such as make him liable to excision, or to execution by the court, or to the death penalty through the Heavenly Judge, or to lashes, surely, you see that the punishment for those sins is expressly stated and it is that and not the sacrifice which effects propitiation! Consequently it can only propitiate for the neglect of a positive command and for the transgression of “a prohibition transformed into a positive command” (לאו הניתק לעשה, a prohibitive law the transgression of which can be repaired by a succeeding act) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 8).

ידו על ראש, “his hand on the head;” not one hand above the other, or placing his hands on any other part of the animal.

על ראש העולה, “on the head of the burnt offering;” Rashi understands this as referring to when this burnt offering is a mandatory as distinct from a voluntary burnt offering. He quotes Torat Kohanim in support of his interpretation. It is stated there that if a voluntary burnt offering requires the above procedure as introductory step, then it is obvious that a mandatory burnt offering does not require less. The fact that the Torah writes simply: עולה, without specifying which type of עולה, the voluntary one or the mandatory one, is taken as proof that this placing of the owner’s hands on the head of the animal refers to both types. It also means that regardless of whether the animal is a sheep, or a bull, the same rule applies. On the other hand, only burnt offerings belonging to an individual require this procedure, not animals representing a group of people. Animals belonging to women or to gentiles do not require this procedure either. All of them require an accompanying libation, however, even animals belonging to gentiles. We know this from a baraitah in Menachot 29, commencing with the words; “when a gentile has sent his burnt offering, etc.”

לכפר עליו, “to serve as his atonement.”

The use of the word: עליו in this sense is also found in Psalms 44,23, עליך, where it clearly means: “for your sake.” The same is true of Psalms 69,8.

הכהנים …‎ושחט …והקריבו AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER … AND THE PRIESTS SHALL OFFER [THE BLOOD] — All the rites from “receiving the blood in a vessel” (which is implied in והקריבו) and onwards are the duty of the priesthood. This teaches about the slaughtering that it is valid even if performed by a layman (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 2; Zevachim 32a).

AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER THE BULL BEFORE THE ETERNAL. AND THE PRIESTS, AARON’S SONS, SHALL OFFER THE BLOOD. “All acts from receiving [the blood in a vessel] onwards are the duty of the priests. This teaches that the slaughtering [of the offering] is valid if performed by a zar (non-priest). ‘V’hikrivu’ (and they shall offer …) — this refers to ‘receiving’ [the blood], and the sense thereof is the bringing [of the blood to the altar]. Thus we learn that both of them [receiving the blood and bringing it to the altar], are to be done by Aaron’s sons.” This is Rashi’s language.
But it is not correct.⁸⁴Ramban understood Rashi as saying that the word v’hikrivu has a primary meaning of “receiving” the blood in a vessel, which is the first process after the “slaughtering” mentioned immediately before in the verse, and a subsidiary meaning [from the root ‘karav’, to bring near] of “bringing” it to the altar. To this Ramban objects that ‘v’hikrivu’ is not derived from the root ‘karav’, implying bringing near, and hence cannot sustain the interpretation of “bringing it near” the altar even as a subsidiary meaning. Rather, it is associated with the word ‘korban’ (offering), and has only one meaning, that of “receiving” the blood, which is the first stage in offering. If so, whence do we know that bringing it near the altar may also be done only by priests [and is invalid if done by a non-priest]? To this Ramban replies that it is a logical deduction [“if receiving the blood may only be done by priests, it follows ‘all the more’ that bringing it to the altar, which is a later stage in its offering, has this requirement”]. A careful reading of Rashi and Ramban clearly indicates this interpretation. Instead, the Midrash of our Rabbis states:⁸⁵Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 4:4. “V’hikrivu — this is the receiving of the blood.” For the term v’hikrivu does not mean the bringing of the blood near to the altar, namely the holachah (carrying of it). Instead, v’hikrivu is an expression similar to the word korban (offering) and it signifies receiving [of the blood in a vessel] and sprinkling it upon the altar. Thus He mentioned bringing it [to the door of the Tent of Meeting], laying hands on it, and slaughtering it with reference to the owner of the offering, and after the slaughtering He immediately mentioned the sons of Aaron. It accordingly follows that receiving the blood is in itself a duty to be performed by the priests, and may only be done by a qualified priest and with vessels dedicated to the Temple Service; and [it follows] all the more that bringing it to the altar and sprinkling it [can be done only by a qualified priest]. Moreover, even carrying of the limbs to the ramp [leading to the altar] is invalid if done by a non-priest, for so the Rabbis interpreted:⁸⁶Zebachim 4a. “And the priest shall offer it all, and cause it to ascend in fumes upon the altar⁸⁷Further, Verse 13. — this refers to carrying of the limbs to the ramp.” If so, carrying the blood to the altar also may be done only by a priest with all the conditions of priesthood.

והקריבו, the term includes catching the blood after slaughtering the sacrifice, bringing it to the altar and performing the sprinkling of it on the appropriate parts of the altar. Our sages also explain the word והקריבו in this sense. (compare Zevachim 7)

ושחט את בן הבקר, “He will slaughter the young bull, etc.” the word בן means that the bull must not be over age. The word בן is used in a similar way when the Torah refers to בני אהרן in our verse, i.e. over aged priests are not fit to perform this service in the Tabernacle. Alternately, the meaning of the word בן here could be that seeing that Aaron personally, as opposed to his sons, had had some active part in the disastrous affair of the golden calf, he is not now charged personally with performing this sacrificial service, and it is reserved for his sons. This led to a prayer by Aaron asking for G’d’s mercy on him. This accounts for the fact that the next portion addresses G’d’s command specifically to Aaron himself, and instructs him as well as his sons to perform the rites involving the burnt offering (as well as others).

ושחט את בן הבקר, ”he will slaughter the bull, etc.” We have a tradition (Sifra Vayikra 4,2) that slaughtering the sacrificial animal by a non priest (layman) was in order. This is the reason the Torah wrote the word: “he will slaughter,” without being precise as to who will perform this procedure. In other words, “anyone.” Whenever the Torah defines procedures in the plural, such as “they will sprinkle,” “they will burn, etc.,” it invariably refers to priests who have been mentioned previously in that context. If such a plural is followed by a singular such as in verse 6, והפשיט את העולה, “he will skin the burnt-offering;” this means that whoever had performed the last procedure will continue with the present procedure. [The author has to show that the use of the singular does not always mean that a non priest could perform such a procedure. Ed]. The reason that the Torah uses the word בן בקר all of a sudden instead of the word פר used to describe a bull previously, is that the age of the animal, i.e. not over 2 years old is meant here. The term עגל, calf, is used for animals up to one year old, whereas the term פר indicates that the animal is in its third year. Whenever the Torah speaks of כבש or כבשים, one year old sheep (male) are meant, whereas the two year old male sheep are called איל.
Rabbi Meir (in Rosh Hashanah 10) claimed that when the Torah speaks of עגל without adding that it is one year old, what is meant is a one-year old calf. When the Torah speaks of בן בקר a two year old bull is meant. When the Torah speaks of פר without specifying further, a three year old bull is meant.
In Torat Kohanim (Sifra Vayikra 3,6) we are taught that the reason an עגל is a one year old calf is that the Torah speaks in Leviticus 9,3 of “a one year old calf and a one year old sheep.” The reason we know that the term בן בקר applies to a two year old bull is also because the Torah writes in 9,2 עגל בן בקר לחטאת ואיל לעולה תמימים, “a two year old male calf as sin-offering, and a ram as burnt-offering, they are to be flawless.” Just as the calf mentioned there is two years old so the ram is two years old. Just as both have to be flawless, so both have to be of the same age (approx.). Thus far Torat Kohanim. However, speaking of male goats, when it is referred to as שעיר without adjective it is under one year old. Once it is a year old it is referred to as שעיר עזים.

Valid by a non-kohein. Since it is written “he shall slaughter” without specifying who slaughters, and afterwards it is written: “The kohanim shall bring,” this implies that the slaughter is valid even when done by a nonkohein. The explanation is: If you would think that receiving [the blood] is permitted by a non-kohein, and it is a mitzvah of the Kohanim [only] from carrying and onwards, and accordingly, “they shall bring” means carrying, then it should mention receiving together with slaughtering before the phrase, “and the sons of Aharon will bring.” Since it did not mention it there, perforce that “they shall bring” means receiving (Nachalas Yaakov). This is the explanation: Certainly, this word “they shall bring” refers to receiving, since we cannot say it refers to carrying because carrying is not necessarily a Temple service, for if the animal was slaughtered close enough to the altar that no carrying would be needed, then surely no carrying need to be done. If so, we must say that “they shall bring” is receiving, which is an indispensable mitzvah. However, why does Scripture use the expression “they shall bring”? Rather, it implies carrying as well, and we [therefore] learn that both [receiving and carrying] require a kohein (Gur Aryeh).

ושחט, “he will slaughter, etc.” the Torah used the singular mode as ordinarily one person performs that act. On the other hand, when describing the steps following the act of slaughtering, the Torah uses the plural mode, as a number of priests are usually involved in that.

וסמך ושחט, “he will place his hands and slaughter;” up until this point the owners, not being priests, are basically permitted to perform these procedures, provided that they are ritually clean; from this point on the commandment applies only to the priests. The reason the two words are followed in both instances with the words: “in the presence of the Lord,” is that both procedures are carried out at the same location.

'‎לפני ה‎‎‎ means in the forecourt.

אשר פתח אהל מועד, not the golden altar which was inside the Tabernacle.

In the court. But not in the Tent of Meeting, for if [Scripture wants to specify a location that is even holier than the entrance to the Tent, or the Temple courts,] it should have written: “Before Hashem, in front of the Ark-cover,” or “Before Hashem, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.”

את בן הבקר, “the bullock;” the expression: בן הבקר implies that the animal is male and young, as it is forbidden to offer diseased or overage animals.(Compare Malachi 1,8 הקריבהו נא לפחתך, “just offer it to your governor!”) [The prophet reminds people that they would not dare offer a governor something less than first rate as he becomes aware of it immediately and will feel insulted. Ed.]

את בן הבקר, this term describes the animal as being in its youth, not diseased, in accordance with the maxim expressed in Maleachi 1,8: הקריבהו לפחתך, “would you offer such (diseased animal) to your Governor?”

והקריבו AND [THE PRIESTS] SHALL OFFER [THE BLOOD] — This must refer to “receiving the blood in a vessel”, since this is the first rite mentioned after the slaughtering of the animal, but really it implies the bringing of the blood to the altar; we thus learn that both of them (receiving of the blood and bringing it to the altar) as well as all the succeeding rites are priestly duties (cf. Zevachim 4a):

An expression of carrying. I.e., although [“they shall bring”] literally means carrying [the blood] to the altar, nevertheless, since the receiving of the blood [in a vessel] is the first act after slaughtering and precedes carrying, perforce, we must explain [“they shall bring”] as referring to the receiving. We learn carrying [requires a Kohein] as well through a kal vachomer [Re”m].

בני אהרן, the Torah does not mean that other priests are not qualified, but used the sons of Aaron as examples of priests in their prime. This corresponds to what the Talmud stated in tractate Chulin folio 24, according to which priests have to retire from active service when their hands and feet have become red as a sign of weakness.

'את בן הבקר לפני ה, “the bullock before the Lord;” the one who slaughters it should be doing so in the name of the Lord, even if he has a long knife and himself stands outside consecrated earth. Shimon the Yemenite, disagreeing and understanding the words “before the Lord,” has been quoted as saying: whence do I derive the rule that the hand of the slaughterer should be within the foreleg of the animal being slaughtered, i.e. while he is on consecrated ground? You must read the words: 'את בן הבקר לפני ה, as one phrase (without comma) [not supported by the cantillation marks. Ed.]

בני אהרן — One might think that these duties may be performed also by חללים (priests who have lost their priestly status for reasons connected with their birth or marriage)! Scripture, however, adds הכהנים, the priests (i.e. they must not only be descendants of Aaron but also “priests” — fit for priesthood, and חללים are excluded from priestly functions) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 6).

Perhaps those unfit? The verse says: You might ask: [If so,] let it not say “the sons of Aharon”? The Sages already answered in the Gemoro: Perhaps I should exclude those unfit and not those with a blemish? The verse says: “The sons of Aharon” — just as Aharon is valid because he is unblemished, so too, his sons are valid... However, [you might ask:] In Parshas Emor we include those with a blemish from the verse: “[the sons of Aharon]”? See Minchas Yaakov who answers. You might ask: Why do I need a verse to invalidate those with a blemish, you can derive it from what is written (21:18): “For any man who has a blemish [shall not approach]”? The answer is: There, it refers to the service on the altar, as it is written: (Ibid. 21): “Shall not approach to offer the fireofferings of Adonoy.” But here it includes receiving [the blood] and all the rest of the service. Alternatively, it informs that he transgresses on a positive commandment and a negative commandment, for this is what it implies: “The sons of Aharon” — just as Aharon is unblemished, so too every unblemished kohein is permitted to bring, [but a blemished kohein is not permitted to bring]. A negative commandment that is derived by implication from a positive commandment is considered a positive commandment. Thus, it informs us that he transgresses a negative commandment and a positive one (Gur Aryeh).

בני אהרן, “the sons of Aaron.” To exclude elderly priests whose hands might tremble. Our sages in the Talmud tractate Chulin, folio 24 stated that the age or appearance of age, when a priest becomes disqualified from slaughtering is when his hands begin to tremble.

את הדם …וזרקו את הדם [AND THE PRIESTS … SHALL OFFER] THE BLOOD AND SHALL SPRINKLE THE BLOOD — Why does Scripture use the word דם twice (instead of saying והקריבו את הדם וזרקוהו)? In order to include in the command of sprinkling also the blood of an עולה which has been commingled with blood of the same kind of sacrifice (i. e. with the blood of another burnt offering) or with that of a different kind (that of a peace — offering or a guilt — offering). One might think that this law applies also if it has been commingled with that of sacrifices unfit for sacrifice or with that of sin — offerings whose blood has to be sprinkled in the “Interior’ (the Holy Place) or with that of sin — offerings whose blood has to be sprinkled outside (in the court), although these (i. e., the blood of the (חטאות פנימיות וחיצוניות) has to be sprinkled above the red line (that marks the division between the upper and the lower halves of the altar) and it (the blood of the עולה) below! Scripture, however, states of an עולה in another place (v. 11) ‘‘[and he shall sprinkle] its blood (דמו)” (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 7-8; Zevachim 81).

Which was mixed with [other blood of its type or of another type]. “Of its type” means [for example that] the blood of Reuven’s burnt-offering [that was mixed] with the blood of Shimon’s burnt-offering. “Or of another type” [refers to] the blood of a burnt-offering [which was mixed] with the blood of an exchanged offering or with the blood of a guilt-offering or with the blood of any sacrifice whose blood is sprinkled below the red line, such as the blood of a burnt-offering. There is no problem since they are all sprinkled below the red line. [You might ask:] The blood of the burnt-offering requires two applications [of the blood by sprinkling] that are four [in direction], and some of the other [types of] blood require only one application? This is no problem, for he may place all the blood in one application. However, the opposite is not true, because some of the [types of] blood require only one application, and [by placing more than one application] he would transgress the negative commandment of “do not add [to the mitzvos].”

אהרן, who, age notwithstanding [he was 85 at this time, Ed.] was still without physical blemish.הכהנים, the priests, who had not forfeited their status due to having committed acts that would disqualify them, from Temple service.

וזרקו AND [THE PRIESTS] … SHALL DASH [THE BLOOD ROUND ABOUT] — He (the priest) stands below and dashes the blood from the vessel upon the altar wall below the red line over against the two diagonally opposite corners (the north — east and the south — west corners so that there is blood on the four sides). That is what Scripture means when it says, סביב, “round about” — that the blood shall be put upon all the four sides of the altar. Or I might think that it means he (the priest) shall place it (the blood) right round the altar as a line! Scripture, however, states, וזרקו, “and they shall dash [the blood]” (i. e. fling it; cf. Exodus 9:8; thus implying that he must be standing some distance away), and it is impossible to put it right round the altar by flinging it against it. — The explanation given above as to how it was actually done is arrived at by the following argument: If we go only by the meaning of the word וזרקו alone, one might have thought that it would suffice with one “flinging” only (that we need merely fling the blood against one side of the altar)! Scripture, however, adds סביב, “round about”! How then can this be done? He makes two flingings but in such a manner that they virtually constitute four, as stated above). (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 9)

“Inner” sin-offerings. Their blood is sprinkled on the inner Holy Curtain and on the inner altar.

אשר פתח אוהל מועד {AND THEY SHALL SPRINKLE THE BLOOD ROUND ABOUT THE ALTAR} THAT IS BY THE ENTRANCE OF THE APPOINTED TENT — but not at times when it (the appointed tent) had already been dismantled, even though the altar itself were still in position, for then it is not by the entrance of the appointed tent (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 14).

“Outer” sin-offerings. Their blood is sprinkled on the outer altar.

Where these, [the inner ones, require sprinkling] above. Meaning: Above the red line.

“Its blood.” Meaning: This excludes the case where its blood was mixed with the blood of an inner or outer sin-offering. What should he do if the blood was mixed? He should spill it into the amoh (the drainage ditch in the courtyard). Similarly, if blood that is sprinkled above the red line was mixed with blood that is sprinkled below he should spill it into the amoh as well.

Stands below. Meaning: on the ground and not on the ramp.

Two applications that are four. Meaning: The sprinkling is from the vessel in which the kohein received the blood, and he sprinkles on the altar’s wall opposite the edge of the altar’s northeastern corner. The blood spreads on the corner’s two directions like a Greek “Ô (gamma) which is like our ך that is inverted. Then, he goes to the southwestern corner, diagonally opposite, and sprinkles from the vessel towards the edge of the corner like a “Ã.” Thus, with these two applications, one on the northeastern corner and one on the southwestern corner, the sprinkled blood appears on four directions of the altar. This is what is meant by “all around.”

Not when it is taken apart. Otherwise, why does it say: “The entrance of the Tent of Meeting”? Above, it is already written: “The entrance of the Tent of Meeting”!

'‎והפשיט וגו‎ AND HE SHALL FLAY [THE BURNT OFFERING] — Why does it state “the burnt offering” (instead of merely saying, והפשיטה, “and he shall flay it”)? In order to include all burnt offerings (i. e. all עולות בהמה, whether they be free — will or obligatory, whether they are taken מן הבקר or מן הצאן, whether brought by a man or by a woman, by a free Israelite or by an Israelite עבד) in the law of flaying and dismembering (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 2; cf. Note 3 on העולה v. 4).

AND HE SHALL FLAY THE BURNT-OFFERING. He is commanded to flay it while it is whole and afterwards he sever it. The expression and he shall flay … and he shall sever refers to the owner of the offering [even if he is a non-priest], just as He said, and he shall lay his hand …⁸⁸Above, Verse 4. and he shall slaughter⁸⁹Verse 5. [which may also be done by a zar — a non-priest], for flaying and severing are not functions relating to the actual offering and are therefore valid if done by a zar. This is why [in the following verse] He says again, And the sons of Aaron [the priest shall put fire upon the altar].⁹⁰Verse 7. Similarly, it is valid that the washing of the inwards be done by a zar. Hence He says, But its inwards and its legs he shall wash in water,⁹¹Verse 9. that is, the owner of the offering, and afterwards, and the priest shall cause all to ascend in fumes.⁹¹Verse 9. He states it in the plural, and they shall put …⁹⁰Verse 7. and they shall set the pieces,⁹²Verse 8. because all duties performed by the priests are commanded in this form, since there are many priests gathered in the House of G-d to attend to the burnt-offerings, and in the multitude of the people is the King’s glory,⁹³Proverbs 14:28. but it is not indispensable, since further on He taught, and the priest shall set them in order⁹⁴Verse 12. [thus showing that even a single priest may perform all the acts].⁹⁵Ibn Ezra, however, states that they must be performed by a minimum of two priests. This he bases upon the plural expression in Verse 7: and they shall put fire. It is thus clear that Ramban’s intention here is to exclude Ibn Ezra’s opinion, since it is not the accepted law.

והפשיט את העולה, ”he is to skin the burnt offering.” The reason the Torah spelled this out is that other sacrificial offerings that are totally burned up on the altar, do not have their skin removed before their carcass is being burned. (Zevachim 5,2)

To include all the burnt-offerings. Meaning: The section is [already] referring to a burntoffering; Scripture should have said: He shall skin it... Rather: [To include all the burntofferings]; it makes no difference if it is a burnt offering of women, converts, or slaves. The ה of העולה excludes [the case] when it was slaughtered [with intention to eat it] beyond its [prescribed] time or [with intention to eat it] outside of its [prescribed] place (pigul), or any other invalid offerings, and it went up on the altar [without being skinned]; it should not be taken down [from the altar]. Instead, they burn it with its skin, and it does not need skinning.

והפשיט את העולה, “he shall flay the burnt offering;” this had to be spelled out here as we find in cases where animals which had been disqualified shortly before being slaughtered while already on the altar were burned whole including skin and entrails. Furthermore, we had to be told that the skin after being flayed was not burned, but became the property of the officiating priest.

והפשיט את העולה, “he shall flay the burnt offering;” seeing that in the case of rams and bulls that needed to be burnt completely, the skin had to be removed first at any rate as it would be given to the officiating priest. Afterwards. with their entrails and dung, the Torah had to state that the burnt offerings were to be flayed before being cut up into pieces. Afterwards.

אתה לנתחיה AND HE SHALL SEVER IT INTO ITS PIECES — he shall sever it etc. but not its pieces again into smaller pieces (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 7).

והפשיט ונתח, “after he skins it he cuts the carcass into its pieces.” This verse addresses itself to the owners of this offering, just as the verse speaking about the owner leaning on the animal prior to its being slaughtered is addressed to the owner, not to the priest. Seeing that this could cause some confusion, the Torah repeats in verse 7 that the functions described there are to be performed by the young priests.

But not its pieces... In the second chapter of Yoma the Gemara explains how the pieces were cut.

AND HE SHALL FLAY … AND HE SHALL SEVER … AND THE SONS OF AARON THE PRIEST SHALL PUT FIRE UPON THE ALTAR.⁹⁰Verse 7. This is not the correct order of these actions, for the right way is that the priests should first put fire upon the altar, and only then should they sever the limbs. Such indeed was the order of the arrangement of the Daily Offering.⁹⁶Yoma 33. Similarly, the verse stating, And the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall set the pieces, the head and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire,⁹²Verse 8. and afterwards, But its inwards and its legs he shall wash in water⁹¹Verse 9. — does not mean to command that it be done in that order, for “the setting” [mentioned in Verse 8] refers to “the burning” of the pieces which He commanded further on [in Verse 9]: and the priest shall cause all to ascend in fumes. If so, the correct order of performance cannot be that he should bring up the pieces, and the head and the fat, and set them upon the fire that is upon the altar, and only afterwards should he wash the inwards and the legs and burn them! Rather, he first severed it and washed it, and then he brought everything up and set them on the fire to be burnt. The reason [for the order] of the verses is thus as follows: First He mentioned the sprinkling of the blood⁸⁹Verse 5. in order to teach that this comes before everything else. Then He gave the commandment concerning the burning of the limbs, stating [in Verse 6 before us] that he should flay [the animal] and sever it in order to set the pieces upon the fire after washing the inwards and the legs, and then he should burn them all at one time, this being the sense of the expression and the priest shall cause ‘all’ to ascend in fumes.⁹¹Verse 9. The reason why Scripture repeated [the commandment] concerning the limbs, stating, and they shall set them…upon the fire,⁹²Verse 8. and the priest shall cause all to ascend in fumes,⁹⁷Verse 9. — That is to say, in view of the fact that the expression and they shall set the pieces in order … [Verse 8] means the burning thereof, as explained above, the question appears why in Verse 9 it repeats the command concerning the limbs, and they shall set them upon the fire? is in order to teach us that after he arranges them upon the fire, he should not depart until the fire has taken hold of them and consumed them so that the fumes thereof ascend. Similarly, the reason why He preceded to mention the flaying and severing to that of making the fire, is in order to teach us that in a freewill burnt-offering [discussed in this section], there is no obligation to set the fire upon the altar before [these activities] as is the case with the Daily Offering, concerning which we were commanded, and the priest shall kindle wood on it every morning,⁹⁸Further, 6:5. this being the first thing of all that was done in everything that pertaineth to the altar⁹⁹Numbers 18:7. Actually the removal of the ashes from the altar (see further, 6:3) preceded the kindling of the wood. But Ramban’s intent here is obviously to everything that pertaineth to the altar as far as the burning of the offering is concerned. as is explained in Tractate Yoma.⁹⁶Yoma 33.

אש … ‎ונתנו AND [THE SONS OF AARON …] SHALL PUT FIRE [ON THE ALTAR] — Although the fire descended from heaven, it was nevertheless a religious duty to bring also some fire of profane origin (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 10; Yoma 21b; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 10:2 and Note thereon).

ונתנו בני אהרן, ”the sons of Aaron are to place the blood, etc.” The reason why the Torah uses the plural mode, -as if one priest by himself could not perform this task- is that it is customary for the Torah when describing the functions performed by the priests in the Tabernacle, to use the plural mode. There used to be numerous priests milling around in the Temple precincts, seeing that there they would be in the proximity of the Shechinah. We have the principle of ברוב עם הדרת מלך, when the king is surrounded by a multitude of his subjects this reflects positively on the degree of his glory.” [Menachot 62 (et al) where a function is distributed amongst 3 priests although a single one could easily have performed it by himself. Ed.]

It is a mitzvoh to bring [some fire]. This does not mean that the fire descended every day, but rather the fire that descended in the days of Moshe did not depart from the altar until the Jewish people came to the Eternal House (First Temple). Then, a fire descended from Heaven in Shlomo [HaMelech]’s building, and it did not depart until the days of Menashe, as [the Sages] taught [in a Baraisa] at the end of the first chapter of Yoma.

עצים על האש, “wood (in order) on the fire.” The fire had to be placed there first.

בני אהרן הכהן THE SONS OF AARON THE PRIEST — They shall place the fire on the altar as sons of Aaron the priest: implying that Aaron should always minister in his priestly dignity (i. e. when attired in his priestly garments), consequently if he officiated in the garments of an ordinary priest his service is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 9; Zevachim 18a).

והפשיט ונתח ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן על האש, “after skinning it, the sons of Aaron are to cut it up and place fire on the altar.” Nachmanides points out that the Torah does not describe these procedures in their traditional sequence. The first step in the procedure was the arranging of the woodpile on the altar on which the remains of the animal would be burned. Only after this had been put in place, was the carcass of the burnt offering cut up into pieces. Similarly, when the Torah, in verse 8, describes the priests as arranging the pieces in the following order: the head, the fat parts, followed by (verse 9) the innards and the feet, after the latter two have first been washed. This is incorrect, seeing that as soon as the carcass has been cut up the parts that need to be washed are being washed. The sequence reported here is not one that is mandatory. Our verse (5) was only concerned with the sprinkling of the blood being the first step in the various procedures necessary to complete the offering. The final step was the burning up of the eyvarim, (Talmud Tamid 30). The Torah hints at this when it adds the words והקטיר הכהן את הכל, “the priest is to burn it all.” The reason why the Torah repeated the command to burn up the various pieces, having first mentioned some parts being placed on the fire, is to teach that after being placed on the fire the priest must not wait until the fire has consumed it all before placing the other parts on the fire to be burned up. When dealing with a burnt offering that is a voluntary offering, there was no need to first arrange the fire properly before proceeding with other steps of the procedure. On the other hand, the daily tamid burnt offering, a mandatory public offering both in the morning and evening, paid for by public funds as it represented the whole nation, had to follow the sequence outlined by the Torah in every detail. The woodpile for consuming that offering was arranged meticulously every morning. (Leviticus 6,5)

In his role as kohein godol. Otherwise, why does it say “the kohein”? Similarly, why does it say: “the sons of Aharon the Kohein”? If [you say] it comes to exclude the unfit kohanim, [that cannot be,] for the verse already excluded them from receiving the blood, which is the first step in sprinkling the blood, so much more so [they are excluded] from the rest of the service that follows! Rather, it tells you that the entire service of the kohein godol should be in the way of a kohein godol, and that [the entire service] of an ordinary kohein should be in the way of an ordinary kohein, i.e., the kohein godol wears eight garments and the ordinary kohein wears four garments.

בני אהרן הכהנים THE SONS OF AARON THE PRIESTS — i e. only as priests : when they are ministering in their priestly dignity; but if an ordinary priest officiates in the eight garments of the High Priest his service is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 9; Zevachim 18a).

V’ETH HAPADER.’ Onkelos translated it: tarba (fat), and this is also the concensus of opinion of all commentators, the word (pader) having no companion in the Hebrew language. In my opinion the word is not a generic term for all kinds of fat, but signifies specifically the thin layer of fat which spreads over and divides between the inwards, and the word pader is one of those terms whose letters are interchangeable, thus: pader — pared (division), [and is so called] since it divides between the upper and the lower inwards. That is why our Rabbis have said¹⁰⁰Yoma 26a. that [when the limbs are taken up to the altar] the pader is spread over the throat of the animal at the place where the act of slaughter was performed, for this is considered regard for Him Who is on high, since that fat is fit to be spread and serve as a cover. It is also customary among the nobility of nations to spread it over a roast. If, however, the word pader is indeed a generic term for all kinds of fat, [it is my opinion that] fat is so called because it is the greasy substance which is “separated” from the flesh, and such in fact is the term used as an equivalent for fat by students of nature, as I will mention.¹⁰¹Further, 3:9.

הפדר, fat.

ואת הפדר, “and the fats.” Nachmanides in commenting on Onkelos translating the word פדר as meaning ”fat,” writes that this is not a generic term for all the various fat parts of the animal, but refers only to a thin fatty membrane separating between different parts of the innards. The origin of the word פדר is that it is one of the words which appear in forward and backward spelling, i.e. פרד, the same root, spelled in a different order of the letters means “to separate.” The membrane in question separates upper from lower parts within the innards of the ruminants. This is why our sages have said that the priest is to spread out this membrane above the place where the knife made the incision when it slaughtered the animal. This is a way of showing respect for the animal that becomes the instrument of the donor’s achieving atonement for his sin. Dignitaries among the nations of the world were in the habit of spreading this membrane over the part of it that they roasted. If the name פדר were to apply to fatty parts of the animal in general, this would be because the fat parts separate the flesh from the bones, etc. Maimonides (Moreh, Nevuchim third part chapter 46) writes that the underlying reason of the legislation involving animal sacrifices is connected to the practices of the Egyptians and the Sumerians. (inhabitants of Mesopotamia, the competing civilization of that of the Egyptians.) Jews who had lived within either civilization observed these people actually deifying cattle and sheep, the Egyptians worshipping sheep, and the Chaldaeans male goats, (satyrs) whereas the Indians worship cows to this day, believing them to be their reincarnated ancestors. It is forbidden to slaughter cows in India, as it is considered equivalent to murdering a god. G’d, in order to instill in us an abhorrence of such forms of paganism, demanded from us to sacrifice these animals, in order to demonstrate that we had been weaned from such mistaken beliefs. By means of these animals being sacrificed as gifts to G’d, we are absolved from deviant philosophical and theological thoughts. False philosophies represent a disease of the soul and therefore the personality, and just like any other disease, can be cured only by applying a medicine that represents the opposite of the harmful substance that causes the disease. Nachmanides writes that Maimonides’ writing concerning this subject are worthless, believing that if we are to look for a rationale for animal sacrifice at all, it is better to accept the view that seeing that man’s deeds are the final result of the brain’s thought, the spoken intention to do certain things, and finally, the carrying out in practice of what had been planned and discussed, G’d commanded that in order to rid ourselves of all vestiges of sin we must reverse the process, by first sanctifying the sacrificial animal in our mind, then leaning on it and expressing our remorse with words, and finally, by utterly destroying the symbol of our sin through sprinkling its blood on the altar and burning up the physical remains by fire, we rid ourselves of our having been involved in the sin that led to this process of expiation. During the procedures involving these activities of the priest with the sacrificial animal, the owner is to reflect on all that he had done wrong, as well as on the mercy of the Lord Who accepts the animal’s blood instead of the sinner’s blood. The bodily remains of the animal are accepted by G’d in lieu of our own body, and the animal’s blood is accepted in lieu of our own contaminated soul. Burning of the innards and kidneys are symbolic of the seat of the thoughts of man (according to our tradition). The gifts to the priests performing these procedures are designed to inspire them to pray on our behalf so that the bulk of the Jewish people will be spared and not become enmeshed in sin.

את הנתחים ואת הראש, ”the various pieces including the head, etc.” The head had not been part of the animal which had been skinned as it had already been severed from the rest of the animal at the time of slaughter. This is why the Torah had to mention the head especially (Sifra 4, 6,3). In that case, why did the Torah have to mention the פדר, “fat-parts,” separately also? This was to tell us that the head together with the fat-parts were to be burned after the area where the head had been slaughtered had been covered with the fat-parts.
The expression פדר, which means “at-parts,”is a translation of the word פרד, i.e. the same letters in reverse order. This is an allusion to the fact that these fat-parts separate (פדר) between the lower and upper intestines. The whole procedure was to make it as dignified as possible seeing the area where the head had been severed had become bloody and dirty. Even nowadays, when people barbecue animals on the spit, they cover the head separately as mentioned by Nachmanides.

Since it was already cut off. Once the signs (windpipe and esophagus) were cut, Rashi calls the head “cut off,” because the animal’s life-force depends on them. As a result, it is considered as if it was placed in a basket. The head is not included in skinning, but rather is brought as is with the skin.

וערכו בני אהרן, “and Aaron’s sons shall arrange, etc.; when the same procedure is to be performed with offerings involving sheep or goats, (verse 12) the Torah uses the singular mode for the verb ערך, The reason is that cattle are so much heavier that more than one priest was required to handle all that.

וערכו בני אהרן, “and Aaron’s sons shall arrange” on the pieces of the burnt offering;” seeing that it is of the category of cattle, big animals, the Torah uses the plural mode whereas with sheep or goats the Torah uses the singular mode for this procedure. (compare verse12)

את הראש את הנתחים [AND THE PRIESTS … SHALL SET] THE PIECES, THE HEAD etc. [IN ORDER] — Since the head was not included in the law prescribing flaying (v. 6) as it was already as good as cut off by the act of slaughter, it therefore was necessary to enumerate it separately here since Scripture wishes every part of the animal to be put on the altar (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 3; Chullin 27a).

And covers. It is understandable for Scripture to mention “the head,” for it is needed to be included, because it had already been cut off and it was not included in the skinning. However, why is it necessary to say “the fat”?

ואת הפדר AND THE FAT — Why is this mentioned separately (is it not included in the word הנתחים)? In order to teach you that he must bring it up on the altar together with the head, and that with it he must cover the throat of the animal (בית השחיטה, lit., the place where the act of slaughter was performed). This (covering the cut in the throat) was done in way of regard for God on high (Chullin 27a).

Protrude. Meaning: They cut thick pieces of wood that will not protrude outside the pile, which is where they burnt the offerings’ limbs; it is one amoh (cubit) by one amoh. The cut pieces of wood were also one amoh long so they would not protrude outside the pile. This was so the wood would not interfere with the kohanim’s feet when they walked around the pile.

אשר על המזבח WHICH IS UPON THE ALTAR — upon the altar: this implies that the logs of wood must not project beyond the woodpile (מערכה) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 5).

עלה [AND THE PRIEST SHALL CAUSE ALL TO ASCEND IN FUMES ON THE ALTAR, TO BE] A BURNT OFFERING — i. e. only with the intention that it should be an עולה shall he burn it (and not that it should be an offering of another class. The words are to be translated: he shall burn it as an עולה) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 10).

A BURNT-OFFERING. “[He shall burn it] with the intention that it should be a burnt-offering [and not an offering of another category]. ‘ISHEIH’ (A FIRE-OFFERING). When he slaughters it he should slaughter it with the intention of [burning it by] fire, [as will be explained further on]. Wherever the word isheih occurs, it is an expression of fire. PLEASING — it is pleasing to Me that I have commanded and My will was done.” This is the language of Rashi.
Now the Rabbi did not explain what is meant by “the intention of [burning it by] fire.” In the Gemara¹⁰²Zebachim 46b. the Rabbis have said: “this is to exclude kabobo, which may not be done.” Now the commentators¹⁰³Rashi ibid. explained this to mean that he should slaughter it with the intention of placing it on flames burning the pile of wood upon the altar, and not of placing it upon dying coals which are in the process of being extinguished. To me it appears that the intention he needs to have is that the fire should burn it completely, and not that it should just be roasted there a little, the word kabobo being similar to the expression of the Rabbis in the chapter entitled “A stubborn and rebellious son: ”¹⁰⁴Sanhedrin 70a. “k’basar kiba (like partly-roasted meat) which thieves eat.” In Tractate Erubin we also find:¹⁰⁵Erubin 29b. “v’nichbeiv (let him roast it) and eat it.” Now some books have a reading in Tractate Zebachim:¹⁰²Zebachim 46b. “this is to exclude gabobo (straw), which may not be done.” Accordingly the meaning thereof is that he should have the intention to put it on a fire of wood, as it is written, on the wood that is on the fire,¹⁰⁶Verse 12. and he should not intend to put it upon a fire made of stubble and straw, similar to that which we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:¹⁰⁷Shabbath 36b. “If a double-stove had been heated with stubble and gabobo.”
Now this verse mentions a reason for the offerings, namely, that they are a fire-offering, of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal. The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim¹⁰⁸Guide of the Perplexed III, 46. that the reason for the offerings is because the Egyptians and the Chaldeans in whose lands the children of Israel were strangers and sojourners, used always to worship the herd and the flock, the Egyptians worshipping the sheep and the Chaldeans worshipping the demons whom they imagined as assuming the form of goats. To this day men of India never slaughter the herd. It was for this reason that He commanded [Israel] to slaughter these three species [of cattle: the herd, the flock, and the goats], to the Revered Name, so that it be known that the very act which the idol-worshippers considered to be the utmost sin [i.e., slaughtering the above species], that same act should be done as an offering before the Creator, and through it Israel’s sins would be forgiven. For such is the way to cure people of false beliefs, which are the diseasees of the human soul, for all diseases and sicknesses are healed by medicines which are antithetical to them. These are the words [the Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon], and he expounded them at great length.
But these words are mere expressions, healing casually a severe wound¹⁰⁹See Jeremiah 6:14. and a great difficulty, and making the table of the Eternal polluted,¹¹⁰Malachi 1:12. [as if the offerings were intended only] to remove false beliefs from the hearts of the wicked and fools of the world, when Scripture says that they are the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasing odor.¹¹¹Further, 3:16. Moreover, [if the offerings were meant to eliminate] the foolish [ideas] of the Egyptians, their disease would not thereby be cured. On the contrary, it would increase the cause of sorrow, for since the intention of the above-mentioned wicked ones was to worship the constellations of the sheep and the ox, which according to their opinion possess certain powers [over human affairs], and which is why they abstain from eating them in deference to their power and strength, then if these species are slaughtered to the Revered Name, it is a mark of respect and honor to [these constellations]. These worshippers themselves were in the habit of so doing, as He has said, And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs,¹¹²Ibid., 17:7. and those who made the [golden] calf sacrificed to it.¹¹³Exodus 32:8. — In other words, despite the Torah commanding that these three animal species, [the herd, the flock, and the goats] should be offered up to G-d, idol-worshippers, who had other forms of deities, could still consider these offerings to be marks of honor to their own particular foolishness, as is evidenced by the fact that they used to sacrifice herd and flock to the goats, or to the calf! Thus how could the offerings specified in the Torah be a cure against all idols? This is the gist of Ramban’s argument. It is more readily understood in the light of Ramban’s explanation on the development of idolatry in Exodus Chapter 20, Verse 3, which indicates that the early idolators believed in a Supreme G-d. See also further, Note 117. Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] mentions¹⁰⁸Guide of the Perplexed III, 46. that the idol-worshippers used to sacrifice to the moon on the days of new-moon, and to the sun when it rose in a particular constellation known to them from their books. The disease of idolatry would surely have been far better cured if we were to eat [these animal-deities] to our full, which would be considered by them forbidden and repugnant, and something they would never do!
Furthermore, when Noah came out of the ark with his three sons, there were as yet no Chaldeans or Egyptians in the world, yet he brought an offering, which was pleasing to G-d, as concerning it Scripture says, And the Eternal smelled the pleasing odor,¹¹⁴Genesis 8:21. and on account of it He said in His heart, ‘I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake.’¹¹⁴Genesis 8:21. Abel likewise brought of the first-born of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Eternal had regard unto Abel and to his offering.¹¹⁵Ibid., 4:4. Yet there was as yet not the slightest trace at all of idol-worship in the world! Balaam said, ‘I have prepared the seven altars, and I have offered up a bullock and a ram on every altar.’¹¹⁶Numbers 23:4. His intent¹¹⁷I.e., G-d’s intent. In other words, the fact that Balaam who was not commanded by the laws of the Torah, brought offerings of the herd and the flock, shows that G-d’s intent in commanding Israel that the offerings be brought from the three animal species was not to cure people of these evil idolatrous beliefs, as Balaam was not commanded therein. then was not to eradicate from [Balak’s mind] evil beliefs, nor was he commanded to bring the offerings. Instead, Balaam did so in order to approach G-d so that he would be reached by His communication. The Scriptural expression concerning the offerings is, My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire, for a pleasing odor unto Me.¹¹⁸Numbers 28:2. Far be it that they should have no other purpose and intention except the elimination of idolatrous opinions from the minds of fools!¹¹⁹This concludes Ramban’s array of arguments against Rambam’s rationale of the offerings. It is important to point out that many great authors came to Rambam’s defense, as there are many Scriptural and Rabbinical sources which seem to confirm his opinion, and the questions Ramban raised have been answered by them. A summary of them will be found in my Hebrew commentary, pp. 11-12. See there also for the unique approach of Rabbi Meir Simcha in harmonizing the theories of both Rambam and Ramban.
It is far more fitting to accept the reason for the offerings which scholars¹²⁰The reference is to Ibn Ezra. This is clearly apparent in Ramban’s language in his sermon called Torath Hashem Temimah, where he writes: “Now the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra on the matter of the offerings is that they are an atonement for the soul. The explanation of the matter on the basis of his opinion is that the offerings …” (Kithvei Haramban, Vol. I, p. 164). It is thus clear that what follows is Ramban’s interpretation of the way he understood Ibn Ezra’s thought. This explains why the following exposition is not found verbatim in Ibn Ezra’s writings. See my Hebrew commentary (beginning with the third edition, p. 532). say, namely that since man’s deeds are accomplished through thought, speech and action, therefore G-d commanded that when man sins and brings an offering, he should lay his hands upon it in contrast to the [evil] deed [committed]. He should confess his sin verbally in contrast to his [evil] speech, and he should burn the inwards and the kidneys [of the offering] in fire because they are the instruments of thought and desire in the human being. He should burn the legs [of the offering] since they correspond to the hands and feet of a person, which do all his work. He should sprinkle the blood upon the altar, which is analogous to the blood in his body. All these acts are performed in order that when they are done, a person should realize that he has sinned against his G-d with his body and his soul, and that “his” blood should really be spilled and “his” body burned, were it not for the loving-kindness of the Creator, Who took from him a substitute and a ransom, namely this offering, so that its blood should be in place of his blood, its life in place of his life, and that the chief limbs of the offering should be in place of the chief parts of his body. The portions [given from the sin-offering to the priests], are in order to support the teachers of the Torah, so that they pray on his behalf. The reason for the Daily public Offering is that it is impossible for the public [as a whole] to continually avoid sin. Now these are words which are worthy to be accepted, appealing to the heart as do words of Agadah.⁷³The Agadah (homily) comprises all subjects in Rabbinical literature which do not aim directly at the exposition of the laws of the Torah, but which teach and edify on all subjects concerning the Torah. The Agadic literature is contained primarily in the Midrashim, as well as in the Talmud. It would appear that Ramban uses the term Agadah here in contradistinction to the Torath Kohanim previously mentioned, which is primarily a book of Halachah (law). There in the Torath Kohanim the purpose of the burnt-offering is as explained above; in the Agadah — in Vayikra Rabbah — it is assigned another purpose, as explained further on.
By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], there is a hidden secret contained in the offerings. You may be introduced to it by that which our Rabbis have said in the Sifre¹²¹Sifre, Pinchas 143. — The Sifre is the Tannaitic Midrash on the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. It is equivalent to the Torath Kohanim [or Sifra] on the Book of Leviticus, and the Mechilta on the Book of Exodus. and at the end of Tractate Menachoth:¹²²Menachoth 110a. “Shimon ben Azai said: Come and see what is written in the section of the offerings! It does not say with reference to them E-il (G-d), nor Elokecha (thy G-d), nor Elokim (G-d), nor Sha-dai (Almighty), nor Tze-baoth (G-d of ‘Hosts’), but only, Yod Hei — the Proper name of G-d [the Tetragrammaton — ‘Eternal’] — in order not to give an opponent [i.e., a believer in plurality] an occasion for a point of attack.¹²³“They will bring proof from the fact that a deity with such-and-such a name commanded that the meal-offering be brought to him, and a deity of another name commanded that the bullocks [be offered to him], and a deity of a third name commanded that the ram [be offered to him]” (Rashi ibid.), — In his work on the Torah “Meshech Chochmah” (at the beginning of Seder Shoftim) Rabbi Meir Simchah explains the intent of Shimon ben Azai’s words in the following pertinent way: “It is known that the name Elokim means Master of all (natural) forces, or the Force of forces (see Ramban, Vol. I, p. 25). Hence if the name Elokim or E-il had been used in the section of the offerings it would have given an opportunity to the opponents [of the belief in the true Unity of G-d] that He is in need of food [i.e., in need of replenishing His powers]. Therefore only the Tetragrammaton is used in this whole section in order to indicate that His Existence is the only true Existence, and that everything exists only through His true Existence, for they are all in need of Him, but He is not in need of them nor of any of them.” Perhaps you might say that He is in need of food, Scripture therefore says, If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is Mine, and the fullness thereof.¹²⁴Psalms 50:12. I have only commanded you to bring the offerings in order that My Will should be said and fulfilled.” In the beginning of Torath Kohanim we also find:¹²⁵Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 2:5. “Rabbi Yosei says: Wherever an offering is mentioned by Scripture, the Tetragrammaton is used, in order not to give an opportunity for heretics to rebel” [by finding pluralistic allusions against the principle of Unity]. These are the words of the Rabbis of blessed memory.
Now it is true that in the section of the Torah where the offerings are commanded it does not say E-il or Elokim (G-d). But we do find [elsewhere in Scripture] verses as follows: and thou shalt offer burnt-offerings thereon unto the Eternal ‘Elokecha’ (thy G-d);¹²⁶Deuteronomy 27:6. the bread of ‘Elokeihem’ (their G-d), they do offer;¹²⁷Further, 21:6. thou shalt sanctify him [the priest], for he offereth the bread of ‘Elokecha’ (thy G-d).¹²⁸Ibid., Verse 8. In the psalm mentioned above it is written, Offer unto ‘Elokim’ (G-d) the offering of thanksgiving.¹²⁹Psalms 50:14. It is further written: For our fathers have acted treacherously, and done that which was evil in the sight of the Eternal our G-d, and have forsaken Him … Also they have closed the doors of the porch, and put out the lamps, and have not burned incense nor offered burnt-offerings in the holy place unto ‘Elokei’ (the G-d of) Israel.¹³⁰II Chronicles 29:6-7. Here too the Name Elokei Yisrael (the G-d of Israel) is used in connection with the burnt-offering, instead of the Proper Divine Name.
But the whole subject is explained in the Torah [itself], as it is said, My offering, My bread ‘l’ishai’ (for My fire-offerings),¹³¹Numbers 28:2. — The word l’ishai [vowelled with a patach] means, “for My ishim — fires,” as alluded to further on. See also my Hebrew commentary, p. 13. and it is said, the food of ‘isheh’ (the fire offering),¹³²Further, 3:11. meaning that the offerings are the food of isheh, and from it they are for the ishim — the word isheh being an expression for “fire.” Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that isheih is an adjectival noun, meaning “a fire-offering,” qualifying the word “all” [and the priest shall cause ‘all’ to ascend in fumes];¹³³The verse reads: and the priest shall cause ‘hakol’ (all) to ascend in fumes on the altar ‘olah’, (a burnt-offering) ‘isheih’ … Now the word isheih which is in the masculine, is the adjective to the word hakol which is also in the masculine, and not to the word olah which is in the feminine. and in the case of the meal-offering where it says, and the priest shall cause to ascend in fumes the memorial-portion of it upon the altar, ‘isheih’ (a fire-offering), of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal,¹³⁴Further, 2:2. [the word isheih] is adjectival to the word kometz [“handful” — mentioned in the first part of the verse]. But this is not so. Rather, the word isheih is a noun like eish (fire), and olah isheih [mentioned in Verse 9 before us] is like olath eish (a burnt-offering of fire), of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal, and so are all similar expressions, their meaning being like lechem isheh (the food of the fire-offering).¹³⁵Ibid., 3:11. In other words, although here in Verse 9 it is stated isheih, and so also in many other places, the word is yet to be understood as isheh, which is surely a noun and not an adjectival noun (as Ibn Ezra explained it). The reason, however, why He did not say eish but said isheih [comprised of the letters: alef, shin, hei] is [to allude to] the plain meaning thereof, as it hath been shown thee in the mount¹³⁶Exodus 27:8. — See here my Hebrew commentary, p. 13. at the Giving of the Torah, which refers to the offering in the attribute of justice. The slaughtering [of the offering] must be to the Name of the Eternal alone, meaning that [he who slaughters it] must have no intention to do so to anything else in the world, save unto the Name of the Eternal only, this being the meaning of the expression ‘olah hu … isheh hu’ (it is a burnt-offering … a fire-offering)…¹³⁷Further, 8:21. The word olah (burnt-offering) also means “ascending” — thus alluding to its ascension to the highest emanation. Hence the expression, it is an ‘olah’ unto the Eternal … That is why the verse says, For the ‘ishei’ (fire-offerings) of the Eternal, the bread of their G-d, they offer, and they shall be holy,¹³⁸Further, 21:6. for the offering of their G-d is unto the ‘ishei of the Eternal; and therefore the Rabbis have said¹²²Menachoth 110a. that in [the sections of the Torah giving] the commands for the offerings, it does not mention E-il or Elokim (G-d),¹³⁹These Names represent the attribute of justice. The Tetragrammaton [“the Eternal”] represents the attribute of mercy. but a fire-offering unto the Eternal,¹⁴⁰Further, 2:16, etc. a pleasing odor unto the Eternal,¹⁴¹Here in Verse 9, etc. for the intention must be unto the Eternal alone, and he who performs the acts of offering it up should have no other intent or thought save only to the Proper Name [i.e., the Tetragrammaton]. This is the sense of the saying of the Sages:¹⁴²Sanhedrin 60b. “Scripture has ordered all these Services to be devoted to the Proper Name.”
And in the Torath Kohanim¹⁴³Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 4:6 (end of chapter). it is said: “Unto the Eternal — unto Him Who created the world.” It is this which the psalm states: Offer unto G-d the offering of thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Most High;¹²⁹Psalms 50:14. For the Eternal is the Most High, Fearful, a Great King over all the earth.¹⁴⁴Psalms 47:3. The vow [to bring the offering] may also only be taken unto the Proper Name. It is this which the psalm states, G-d, thy G-d, am I. I will not reprove thee for thy offerings,¹⁴⁵Ibid., 50:7-8. Ramban is here suggesting that the first Name Elokim is here like the Proper Name — “the Eternal” (Ma’or V’shamesh). This is obvious from the following words of Ramban. just as He said, I am the Eternal thy G-d.¹⁴⁶Exodus 20:2. This is the sense of the whole psalm wherein it says, ‘E-il Elokim Hashem’ (G-d, G-d, the Eternal) hath spoken, and called the earth etc.,¹⁴⁷Psalms 50:1. using the full Divine Name¹⁴⁸G-d, the Eternal spoke. (On “the full Divine Name” see in Vol. I, p. 66). in reference to the world,¹⁴⁹The verse there continues: and He called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof. and mentioning therein the offerings. It is with reference to this too that it is said [speaking of the offerings], They shall come up with acceptance on Mine altar, and I will glorify My glorious house,¹⁵⁰Isaiah 60:7. meaning to say that the offerings shall be brought for acceptance, which is upon His altar, and He will then glorify His glorious house when they go up for a pleasing odor, the word nicho’ach (pleasing) being derived from the expressions: ‘nachah’ (there rests) the spirit of Elijah on Elisha;¹⁵¹II Kings 2:15. ‘vatanach’ (and there rested) the spirit upon them.¹⁵²Numbers 11:26. Likewise all terms of korban (offering) [from the root ‘karav’, near] are expressions of approaching, and unity. Therefore, it says, Nor did they offer burnt-offerings in the holy place unto the G-d of Israel,¹⁵³II Chronicles 29:7. See Note 130 above. for the burnt-offering in the holy place is to the G-d of Israel. The angel taught Manoah the concept of the offerings when he said, Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread,¹⁵⁴Judges 13:16. meaning that if Manoah were to make him food he would not accept it from him, as it would be unfit and an offering which is an abomination to G-d. But if thou wilt make ready a burnt-offering, unto G-d alone thou must offer it.¹⁵⁴Judges 13:16. Then will it be for acceptance as the fire-offerings of the Eternal, as indeed the angel of the Eternal ascended in the flame of the altar.¹⁵⁵Ibid., 20. Thus is the subject [of the offerings] explained and clarified. May the good Lord pardon!¹⁵⁶II Chronicles 30:18. See also Vol. I, p. 437, Note 275. — The idea suggested here by Ramban is that in order to disprove certain erroneous explanations about the offerings, he had to resort to discuss openly some of the mystic teachings of the Cabala. Hence his prayer for forgiveness.

את הכל. all of it. Torat Kohanim claims that the word הכל specifically includes the hooves and the horns of the animal. In view of this, we must ask why Abraham did not include the horns of the ram he offered in lieu of Isaac (Genesis 22,14), leaving the horns to be used as shofarot as described in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 31. Perhaps we have to assume that Abraham did indeed offer, i.e. put the entire ram on the altar, and that due to the heat the horns פקעו מעל המזבח, cracked and fell off the altar; we learned in Zevachim 86 that once parts of the burnt-offering fell off the altar they do not need to be put back on.

וכרעיו, its legs.

For the sake of a burnt-offering. Meaning: This excludes [burning it] for the sake of a peace offering.

וקרבו, “and its insides;” seeing that these parts are going to be presented at the “King’s” Table, extreme care had to be taken that everything was meticulously clean and no trace of blood was visible. On the other hand, when writing of animals which were not served up on the “King’s” Table but were burned outside sacred grounds, the Torah lumps together “its insides and its excrement,” (Leviticus 4,11) as it does in Leviticus 1,16, and 27 where flesh, skin, and excrement are all being burned at the same time and place.

And its innards and its legs shall be washed. "Washing" for the innards is only written for the burnt offering. This is since the sin-offering and the guilt-offering are eaten by priests, and the wellbeing-offering is eaten by its owners -- if one wants to wash it they may! But this, the burnt-offering, comes to the table of the King, and one needs to prepare it in a respectful manner. But they are burnt outside.

וקרבו וכרעיו ירחץ, “but its innards and its legs he shall wash;” seeing these parts are being served at the “King’s” table, they had to be prepared as if being served at the table of a mortal king. The animals that were going to be burned without having had their skin flayed were not treated in the same fashion as they represented reminders of the donor’s sins, not his desire to “donate” something to his G-d.

אשה AS A FIRE OFFERING — When he slaughters it he shall slaughter it with the intention of making a fire of it (i. e. having in mind the fact that it is to become a prey to the flames, not that it will become charred flesh) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 10). The word אשה wherever it occurs, is connected with אש, feuchère in O. F.

For the sake of the fire. Meaning: With the intent of burning it completely and not just to roast it there, like pieces of meat roasting on coals. He removes it afterwards, at the time of the removal of the ashes from the altar (Ramban).

Another possibility is that the horns were separated from the ram prior to sprinkling its blood on the altar. Horns, etc., are not included as fit to be burned on the altar unless they are still attached to the body of the animal in question. If they have been detached, they have to be removed from the altar even if they had been placed on it already as we know from Deut. 12,27: ועשית עלותיך הבשר והדם על מזבח השם. According to Rabbi Zeyrah who stated in Zevachim 86 that the parts which had fallen off the altar are permitted for private use if they had been detached from the body prior to the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, one may fashion handles for knives from such horns.

ירחץ במים, “he will wash with water;” the translation (in Aramaic) of washing of human beings is יסחי, as it always refers to the immersion of the whole body in a ritual bath. As for instance in Isaiah 25,11: כאשר יפרש השוחה לשחות, “as the swimmer who spreads out his hands in order to swim.” The “washing” of which the Torah speaks in connection with the sacrificial animals is rendered as יחליל, by the Targum. The meaning of that word is more the flushing out of excrements, etc.

Pleasing fragrance. This instructs us about the proper intention we should have when bringing an offering. Instead of focusing on the fact that the offering atones for our sin, we should consider it as only a pleasing fragrance of what we intend to do in the future. This is comparable to a good scent that travels a distance and indicates that the source of the scent is something good, in the same way, an offering proclaims that we will do good deeds in the future. A burnt-offering (עולה): To grow higher (לעלות) in our spiritual level and the importance of our deeds and character traits.

ניחוח (of the root נוח, “to repose”, “to draw satisfaction from …”) — an odour of ניחוח: one that causes satisfaction to Me by the knowledge that I gave commands and that My will was executed (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 10; Zevachim 46b).

Satisfaction before Me. I.e., it is not that Hashem is pleased by the fragrance of the sacrifice, for it is written (Tehillim 50:12): “If I were hungry I would not tell you...”

Another way of solving our question is that seeing the Torah had not been given as yet during Abraham's lifetime, the details recorded here did not obligate him. It is true that our sages in Yuma 28 held that Abraham carried out all the minutiae of the commandments. This included ערובי תבשילין, i.e. pre-cooking some food for the Sabbath following a festival on the eve of the festival in order to make preparation of food on the festival for the Sabbath permissible. I have already explained that Abraham did so voluntarily, in order to accumulate merits, not because he was under any obligation to do so. The same reasoning [that the Torah had not yet been given. Ed.] applied when Tamar married Yehudah her father-in-law, or when Jacob married two sisters while both were alive. The fact that the ram was stuck in the thicket by its horns was in itself a supernatural event; Abraham certainly did not have to burn up these very horns, a commandment applicable only in the future.

ירחץ במים, I might have thought that the quantity of water required is like in the case of a ritual bath, a minimum of 40 saah; therefore the Torah writes במים to indicate that it does not stipulate a minimum amount of water, i.e. any amount of water is sufficient if it accomplishes its purpose.

את הכל, “everything;” this includes bones sinews, horns, and hooves, wool of the head of the sheep and the beard of the goats, as long as they are still attached to their bodies.

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.

על ירך המזבח means ON THE SIDE OF THE ALTAR (cf. Rashi on Exodus 40:22).

On the side. The side is called “thigh” because the thigh is on the side; similarly (Shemos 26:22): “ולירכתי המשכן (For the end of the mishkon),” (Ibid. 27): “לירכתים ימה (of the western [back] wall)” — [means] the side.

'ושחט אותו וגו, “he is to slaughter it, etc.;” the word אותו implies that the animal which is a burnt offering is to be slaughtered on the northern side of the altar, whereas offerings such as peace offerings, or bird offerings or firstborn animals, tithed animals, and the Passover, cannot be slaughtered on the north side of the altar. (Menachot 56)

'צפנה לפני ה NORTHWARD BEFORE THE LORD — but the law of slaughtering northward is not necessarily applicable in the case of a “Bamah” (i. e. an animal offered on a “Bamah” as an עולה need not be slaughtered at its north side, for it states here: northward before the Lord, the last words being used only of the Tabernacle and the Temple; cf. Zevachim 119b and Rashi on 'לפני ה‎ וסמך, v. 3).

על ירך המזבח, near the side of the altar; the word: על is to be understood as in Exoduss 40,3: וסכות על הארון, “you will use it as a screen (next to it) for the Holy Ark.”

ירך המזבח צפונה, “the side of the altar must be to the north of it, in other words: the front of the altar is to the south of it. This teaches that the ramp leading up to the altar was on the south side of the Tabernacle. (Compare Zevachim 62)

'צפונה לפני ה, the northern side of the Tabernacle did not have any part of the altar facing it. This rule also applied to the burnt offering of the species of cattle, as the expression: 'לפני ה, is used there also. If the priest had slaughtered that animal on the south side of the altar, this could not properly be described as “facing the Lord,” as no part of the southern part the altar faced the Tabernacle. [only the ramp leading up to it. Ed.] Seeing that the northern part of the Tabernacle was not impeded by priests walking by there, it could be described as פנוי, “always exposed to view.” When slaughtering animals which required to be done on the north side of the altar, this part of the altar faced the Holy of Holies, or 'לפני ה. [The length of the ramp alone proceeding from the southern side of the Tabernacle, was 32 cubits before it reached the altar itself. Ed.] This is based on the Torah having written: במקום אשר תשחט העולה תשחט את החטאת, “ (Leviticus 6,18) It is also written: כי כחטאת האשם, “for the sin offering is treated like the guilt offering.” (Leviticus 14,13.) The principal purpose of these sacrifices was for the sake of heaven. On the other hand, sacrifices known under the heading of kodoshim kalim, sacred gifts of a lower level of holiness, the Torah did not specify the exact location where these had to be slaughtered. [These included thanksgiving offerings, the Passover lamb, the ram offered by a Nazarene at the conclusion of his term, peace offerings, firstling animals etc. The reason is that the greater part of the offering was consumed by the donor and the priests. Ed.]

ונתח אותו, “after it has been cut up;” This had to be stated explicitly in order that we do not think that only the large animals, i.e. bullocks, require to be cut up. No mention is made of these animals being flayed, as it was taken for granted by the Torah that the reader understands this.

והקריב הכהן את הכל והקטיר, "and the priest shall offer it all and burn it up, etc." We have been told the very same thing already in the first paragraph dealing with the burnt-offering consisting of cattle. Why then did the Torah have to write this line? We cannot say that inasmuch as sheep are covered with wool the Torah wanted to include the wool in the part of the animal to be burnt up and that we could not have deduced the wool on the head of the ram and the hair of the beard of the billy-goat without a special verse, and that all these details could not have been derived from the word הכל in verse nine. The fact is that Torat Kohanim (4,57) derives the inclusion of these various kinds of animal hair in what is to be burned up from the word הכל in verse nine! Therefore, according to what we have stated that any detail applicable to burnt-offerings involving cattle applies also to burnt-offerings involving sheep, there was no need for the Torah to write a special verse containing this information! Furthermore, in our verse here the word הכל appears only next to the expression הקרבה, not to the הקטרה, the burning up of all these parts on the altar; our sages here in Torat Kohanim claim that the position of the word הכל teaches that only a priest may perform this service (bringing the animal to be burnt onto the altar), something we could not have deduced from what was written in verse 9. This makes the argument that the words from והקטיר המזבחה onwards in our verse are superfluous even stronger.

והקריב הכהן את הכל, “the priest is to offer up the whole;” the phrase refers to the priest carrying all the various pieces to be burned up on the ramp to the altar.

I believe we can best explain the reason for these words here by reference to what Torat Kohanim wrote on the words והקטיר המזבחה in our verse. I quote: "he shall burn it up even though it may have become disqualified, even though it may have left the precincts of the Tabernacle (courtyard), even though the priest offering it may have had the wrong thoughts (פגול) already during the earlier stages of offering this sacrifice, and even if it had become ritually defiled. As a result of all these inclusions I might have concluded that the burning up ceremony should take place regardless of whether the disqualifying factors had occurred before the animal was on the altar or while it was still below the altar; therefore the Torah writes והקטיר המזבחה, he is to burn it up only if it had already been on top of the altar."

It is difficult to know what is the source for the author of Torat Kohanim to derive the ruling that even if the sacrifice was already disqualified the priest must still burn up its parts. The author of Korban Aharon, aware of this problem, wrote that the fact that the Torah did not write והקטירם, "and he is to burn them up" [seeing the Torah had already written "all" concerning the הקרבה Ed.] is the source of the ruling by Torat Kohanim. If this were correct the author of Korban Aharon should have reacted similarly to the word והקריב instead of והקריבם. According to Korban Aharon, Torat Kohanim should have ruled that the priest ought to proceed with the offering in spite of the animal having suffered the kinds of disqualifications which did not affect the need for its being burned up. Seeing he did not do so, he cannot derive any הלכות, religious rulings, from the missing letter ם in the word והקריב either. The correct answer is that the author of Torat Kohanim arrives at his conclusion based on the unnecessary repetition of the word והקטיר first in verse 9 and then again in verse 13. This brings us back to our original question why this whole line beginning with the word והקטיר in verse 13 had to be written at all. That line should have appeared either in verse 9 or in verse 13 but not in both verses. The very fact that the line is superfluous entitles Torat Kohanim to use it exegetically.

עולה הוא. it is a burnt-offering. Torat Kohanim interprets the extraneous word הוא as making the slaughtering of animals to be offered as a burnt-offering on the northern side of the altar mandatory, i.e. unless the animal had been slaughtered on that side of the altar it could not be offered as a total-offering. This is the reason the Torah wrote this extraneous word only in the paragraph in which the northern side of the altar has already been mentioned, i.e. in verse 11. Clearly, the exclusion implied in the word הוא is related only to what was stated in verse 11, and there was no need to write the word הוא in the paragraph discussing a burnt-offering consisting of cattle which also discussed the need for סמיכה, the placing of the owner's weight on the animal prior to it being slaughtered. Had the word הוא occurred in that paragraph, we would have had to conclude that the act of סמיכה was mandatory and that failure to perform it would have disqualified that animal from becoming a burnt-offering. Actually, we have used the occurrence of the equally extraneous word עולה in verse 9 to establish that the act of סמיכה, i.e. the owner of the sacrifice placing his entire weight on the animal prior to its being slaughtered is not mandatory. We noted that the text hinted at some of the exclusions and inclusions respectively in the first paragraph, whereas other inclusions and exclusions respectively are hinted at in the second paragraph. We had stipulated that they all apply equally to both burnt-offerings consisting of cattle and of sheep, etc.; nonetheless there is something different about this particular exclusion which invalidates the premise concerning these two details of the burnt-offering regulations which we adhered to thus far. The two words עולה הוא, both of which are extraneous, refer to two separate commandments, i.e. the need for סמיכה, and the need to slaughter the burnt-offering on the northern side of the altar. We are therefore faced with the dilemma which of the extraneous words should serve exegetically for which of these two commandments. When we are faced with such a dilemma it is no more than reasonable to apply the extraneous word which appears next to an exclusion in its context, and the other extraneous word which appears next to an inclusion in its context. The word הוא in verse 13 is used exegetically as defining the commandment of where the animal is to be slaughtered since it appears in the text close to that commandment, whereas the word עולה which first appears in the text close to the inclusion of the סמיכה requirement is used exegetically as defining that requirement.

Torat Kohanim supplies an additional reason for using the word עולה which is inclusive as applicable to the rules of סמיכה, and the word הוא which is restrictive to the rules about where the animal must be slaughtered. Seeing that the rule of סמיכה is not even an initial requirement for all kinds of burnt-offerings, -burnt-offerings brought on behalf of the public not requiring סמיכה at all,- it is reasonable to assume that even when required initially, such a regulation should not be so essential that its absence would invalidate the offering. The requirement to slaughter a burnt-offering on the northern side of the altar applies to all kinds of burnt-offerings, however. It is possible that Torat Kohanim was unduly expansive in its exegetical use of this detail; the reason we have stated was quite adequate already. Even though the two paragraphs in question deal with one basic subject, the fact that there was room for some doubt makes it justifiable to write something extraneous. You will find, for instance, that the words עולה הוא occur again in connection with a burnt-offering consisting of a bird (1,17); in that instance Torat Kohanim uses the word עולה inclusively; even if the blood had only been squeezed out of the bird's body and not out of its head, it is still acceptable as a burnt-offering in that condition. The word הוא is again interpreted as restrictive, i.e. if the blood of that bird had been sqeezed out of its head and not out of its body, it is not acceptable as a burnt-offering. Zevachim 66 asks on this interpretation מאי תלמודא? "what is the logic behind this kind of exegesis?" The Talmud's answer is that seeing most of the blood is in the body and not in the head, squeezing the blood out of the body is more important. We see from there that the Talmud too fell back on logic in order to resolve something that had been in doubt, i.e. where to apply the words עולה and הוא respectively as inclusive and where to apply them as restrictive.

מן העוף [AND IF A BURNT OFFERING … BE] OF FOWLS — of (i.e. of some of) but not of every description of fowls (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1.2 and Rashi on Leviticus 1:10). Since Scripture states, (Leviticus 22:19) “[Ye shall offer, to be accepted for you,] a male without blemish (תמים זכר) of the oxen, of the sheep and of the goats”, it is evident (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1.2 and Rashi on Leviticus 1:10) that unblemished condition and male sex in sacrifices are required only in the case of cattle, but unblemished condition and male sex are not required in the case of fowls. If, then, the condition of the fowl is immaterial one might think that a fowl may be brought as a sacrifice even if it lacks a limb! Scripture therefore states: “of fowls” — but not all fowls (Sifra, Emor, Section 7 2; Kiddushin 24b).

OF TURTLEDOVES OR OF YOUNG PIGEONS. Scripture chose these two species [of birds] because they are accessible and can be more easily caught than other [birds], just as our Rabbis have mentioned¹⁶⁵Vayikra Rabbah 27:6. with reference to any of the sheep, and any of the goats,¹⁶⁶Deuteronomy 14:4. that [Scripture chose these species so that] a person should be able to bring an offering from those animals that feed at his crib, and should not have to take his weapons, quiver and bow, to go out on the hunt to bring it.¹⁶⁷Genesis 27:5. See also ibid., Verse 3. He chose grown-up turtledoves¹⁶⁸Turtledoves may be offered only after their neck-feathers have turned bright yellow. Pigeons may be brought only when they are still so young that when their feathers are plucked blood is drawn (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Isurei Mizbeiach 3:2). because they abstain [from pairing with strangers] and attach themselves only to their mates, and once they lose their companions they never associate with others. So Israel cleave to the Eternal their G-d,¹⁶⁹See Deuteronomy 4:4. and never attach themselves to another deity, Pigeons, on the other hand, are very jealous and as a result of their jealousy they part [from their previous mates] and take on other mates. Therefore He chose them [as offerings] only when they are young, before their mating begins, for as long as the pigeon is young it is attached with greater love to the nest where it is reared than are all other fowls. Our Rabbis have mentioned¹⁷⁰Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1:5. that if a person touches the nest of all other fowls to take therefrom the young ones or the eggs, they leave it and never nest therein again, but the pigeon never abandons it under any condition. And so is [the people of] Israel. They will never exchange their Creator and His Torah, but “either Jews or nailed to the stake.” He did not choose cocks [as offerings although they are readily accessible] because of their inclination to lewdness.
Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim¹⁷¹Guide of the Perplexed III, 46. that the reason for choosing grown-up turtledoves and young pigeons as offerings is that these are the best of their species, since old pigeons are less tasty. But this is not true, for young pigeons are almost inedible as a result of their excessive moistness. If, however, we are to take into consideration their natural tendencies as far as eating them is concerned, it is possible that they were chosen for their special qualities; for turtledoves have a propensity to sharpening of the mind, and young pigeons have a propensity to benefit greatly those who are not fully-matured physically, such as youths in the intermediate stage between boyhood and maturity, and the like.

ואם מן העוף, and if it is from the category of birds, etc. The letter ו in the word ואם means that the rules mentioned previously as applicable to burnt-offerings of four-legged animals apply also to burnt-offerings consisting of birds unless they are specifically negated by what is written in this paragraph. Amongst the differences are: 1) a bird cannot serve as any offering other than a burnt-offering. We derive this from the word העוף עולה as distinct from the descriptions used for burnt-offerings of four-legged animals in the previous two paragraphs. Alternatively, the very word עולה is superfluous and comes to tell us that it is the only kind of offering that can be offered using birds. 2) We also use the word קרבנו restrictively, i.e. that only an individual can offer a burnt-offering consisting of a bird, not a community. 3) the rule that instead of slaughtering the bird it must have its head pinched off is applicable only to a priest, whereas the parallel act of slaughtering the four-legged animal designated as a burnt-offering may be performed also by a non-priest, an Israelite. In instances where in the previous two paragraphs some details have been repeated needlessly, this means that they applied only to the burnt-offering consisting of four-legged animals. The other details, each of which appears in only one of the previous two paragraphs, apply equally to burnt-offerings consisting of birds. Examples of exclusions which are derived from the respective paragaphs are: animals which have been mated with other species, animals set aside to serve as sacrifice for an idol; animals which had been used for idolatrous purposes, animals which are טרפה, have a terminal defect; diseased animals, over-age animals; stolen animals. All of the aforesaid are unfit to serve as burnt-offerings, or as any other offering. All of these examples are listed in the fourth chapter of Maimonides' treatise Issurey Hamizbeach.

מן התורים או מן היונים, “from the turtledoves or from young doves.” Nachmanides writes that the reason the Torah selected only these two birds as suitable for bird-offerings, out of a vast amount of biologically suitable birds, [there being only 24 categories of predatory birds which are disqualified by their inherent unsuitability, the Torah referring to them as “impure,” Ed.] is that they have a degree of domesticity in common with the three categories of ruminants which are suitable for sacrifice. Any of the species mentioned can be raised by man in his backyard quite easily, and he does not have to hunt for them when he is in need of offering them as a sacrifice. (Vayikra Rabbah 27,6) The reason why, apparently, G’d prefers the fully grown turtledoves as sacrificial birds, is that these have demonstrated a degree of chastity in their sex lives, and if one loses its mate, it is a well known fact that it does not mate again ever. In this example of undying loyalty to a life’s partner, they resemble the Jewish people, who, having chosen G’d as their “partner,” will never consider trading Him for another. On the other hand, the young doves, יונים, are very jealous by nature, as a result of which they frequently exchange mates, more so even than other species of birds. None of the members of this species are acceptable as sacrificial birds, except the very young, ones that have not yet had a chance to display their indiscriminate sexual habits. While very young, these doves display exceptional patience in staying in their nests, not feeling the urge to explore the world around them. Chickens, though also domesticated, as they cannot fly, are rejected as potential sacrifices due to their promiscuity.

But not all fowl. I.e., although a blemished bird is fit [as an offering], nevertheless, a bird lacking a limb is unfit [as an offering]. However, we do not say ואם מן העוף — the ו adds [to the previous section] and a bird would be unfit [as an offering] even if it is only blemished, and it needs to be a male. For if so, why does it say “an unblemished male” with regard to sheep? It could have derived the later section [sheep] from the previous section [cattle]. Rather, it comes to exclude [that only regarding cattle and sheep does Scripture require unblemished males, but not regarding birds] (Re”m).

ואם מן העוף, if the offering consists of a bird or birds; the word מן “from,” here means that parts of a bird are offered up. If the bird in question is missing one of its limbs it is not fit to be offered up as a sacrifice. (Sifra)

התרים TURTLEDOVES — Grown-up ones only may be offered but not young ones.

Large ones. Otherwise, Scripture should have written בני תורים as it writes בני יונה, which refers only to small ones. Rather, [it must mean the large ones]... We learn from the expression בני יונה that there is only one kind [of pigeons] that is fit — specifically small ones — since it is written, בני (the sons of) — so too, turtledoves, have only one kind that is fit. And we surely cannot say it refers to small ones, as I explained above. If so, it must mean the large ones.

קרבנו לשם, his offering to G'd. The reason the Torah adds these words here whereas they did not appear in the previous two paragraphs is that the Torah included birds which have certain physical defects as fit to serve as a sacrifice, something which is not the case with offerings consisting of four-legged animals. The source of this halachah is Kidushin 24: אין זכרות ותמות בעוף; "the requirement that sacrificial burnt-offerings be male and free from physical blemish does not apply to burnt-offerings consisting of birds." In view of this relaxation of certain rules when an offering consists of a bird, logic would have told us that any bird-offering is of an inferior nature, why else would the Torah permit a blemished bird to serve as an offering? The Torah therefore had to tell us that as far as G'd is concerned, קרבנו לשם the bird-offering is equally esteemed in the eyes of the Lord.

העוף עולה, a bird does not qualify as a peace offering, i.e. a creature which is partially consumed by the donor or the priest. (Sifra)

בני יונה YOUNG DOVES — Young doves only may be offered but not grown-up ones (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 8 4; Chullin 22a).

Excluding [birds whose feathers] are becoming bright. I.e., when the feathers start to redden.

We find support for our view from Isaiah 57,15 where the prophet describes G'd as especially close to the "contrite and lowly in spirit," and our sages in Sotah 5 interpret this as either: אני את דכא, "I descend from Heaven in order to be close to the contrite," or as אתי דכא, "I elevate the contrite to My domain." It is due to such considerations that the name of G'd is written next to the bird-offering and not next to the offerings consisting of four-legged animals. Anyone who offers a burnt-offering consisting of a bird is presumed to be in low spirits seeing he cannot afford to offer something of greater value to G'd. We find the same approach in Menachot 104 where the Talmud explains the reason for the wording נפש כי תקריב מנחה לשם, (2,1) as a hint that a poor person who cannot afford to offer more than a meal-offering is considered as offering his whole personality, נפש, to G'd by means of such a low cost offering.

העוף עולה קרבנו, the personal pronoun at the end of the word קרבנו, “his,” teaches that birds may only be offered by individuals, not by a group of individuals. (Sifra)

מן התרים או מן בני היונה OF TURTLEDOVES AND OF YOUNG DOVES — The word מן is intended to exclude birds in the first stage of their plumage becoming golden-coloured in the case of the one as of the other, for this stage makes the bird unfit for sacrifice, since such a bird is a grown-up one in the case of בני יונה and a young one in the case of תורים (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 8 5; Chullin 22b).

והקריב, “then he shall bring;” the connective letter ו at the beginning of this word indicates that the Torah speaks of two people having shared in paying for this offering. [Two partners are not considered a group which the Torah had stated as unable to share in the cost of one bird. Ed.]

מן התורים, “from the turtledoves;” even if these have already fully matured. The reason that the Torah uses the word התורים in the plural mode, is that when the mate of one of the turtledoves has died, the surviving dove is not suitable as a sacrifice anymore as it will not mate with another dove of the gender to the dead dove. (Talmud tractate Eyruvin, folio 100)

או מבני היונה, “or from immature pigeons.” Seeing that a fully mature pigeon is gullible, it does not have a “heart” so that if its mate dies it does not mind mating with another member of its species. Hence the Torah permits only very young pigeons to be offered as a sacrifice. Seeing that these two categories of birds are more persecuted than any other creature, G-d selected them to serve as sacrifices on behalf of man. (Compare Talmud tractate Baba Kamma, folio 93.)

והקריבו [AND THE PRIEST] SHALL OFFER IT — It — even a single bird he may offer (not necessarily more than one, as might be assumed from the plural תורים and בני יונה) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 1; Zevachim 65a).

AND THE PRIEST SHALL BRING IT UNTO THE ALTAR. This “bringing” means bringing it up onto the altar, signifying that the priest is to bring up the bird onto the altar and nip off its head there, as the nipping off may only be done on top of the altar.¹⁷²Zebachim 65a. It is for this reason that the Rabbis interpreted:¹⁷²Zebachim 65a. “And the priest shall bring it … Could you possibly think that a non-priest could come near the altar? If so, why does it say the priest … shall nip off? It is to teach us that the nipping off be done [not with an instrument but] only by the priest himself.” “And he shall nip off … and cause it to ascend in fumes … and the blood thereof shall be wrung out. Is it possible to say that after he has burnt it, he should squeeze the blood out? But [the order of the wording] is to teach us that just as the burning of the head is to be done separately [as is indicated here in the verse, and he shall nip off its head, and cause it to ascend in fumes], and that of the body is to be done separately [as is stated further on in Verse 17: and he shall cleave it … and cause it to ascend in fumes], so also the nipping off has to be done in this way, the head separately and the body separately. The plain meaning of the verse, however, is that the wording is to be inverted: and he shall nip off and cause it to ascend in fumes, and before the burning its blood shall have been wrung out.” This is Rashi’s language.
Now it is impossible to say [that the order of the verse can be explained to mean] that he should nip off its head and burn it, and afterwards wring the blood of the body on the wall of the altar and then burn the body, since no limbs of any offering may ever be burnt [on the altar] before the sprinkling of the blood, the principle for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life¹⁷³Further, 17:11. Ramban’s intention is to defend Rashi’s explanation. At first sight, one could suggest an alternative explanation, which would leave the words of the verse in the correct order, namely that the nipping off and burning mentioned in the verse refer to the head, and the wringing of the blood can nonetheless be done subsequently because it refers to the body’s blood. Rashi, however, was compelled to invert the word-order because this suggested explanation is impossible, as explained by Ramban. applying to all offerings. Therefore the Rabbis interpreted the verse [to mean] that Scripture intended only to liken the nipping off to the burning, so that in both cases the head should be treated by itself and the body by itself. The plain sense of the verse, however, is that “he should nip off its head in order to burn it on the altar,” thus teaching that the nipping off should be done in order to burn the head [separately, and not dispose of it otherwise], just as he will burn the body, concerning which He said, and the priest shall cause it to ascend in fumes,¹⁷⁴Verse 17. for such is Scriptures’ way of speaking about all offerings, as I have explained in connection with the severance into pieces of the burnt-offering.¹⁶³Verse 6. However, Scripture states here, and the priest shall cause it to ascend in fumes,¹⁷⁴Verse 17. and did not say “and he shall cause all to ascend” [as it said above in Verse 9, in the case of the burnt-offering of the herd], because [here in the case of the burnt-offering of the fowl] the burning thereof was done in two separate stages: first he burnt the head, and then he removed the crop [from the body], and cleft it by the wings, and then he burnt the body, as we have been taught in Tractate Zebachim.¹⁷²Zebachim 65a.

ומלק, our sages explain exactly how this was done. (compare Chulin 8) They base their exegesis on the wording of ומלק את ראשו instead of ומלק אותו, which would have been the parallel of the words ושחט אותו, which the Torah uses to describe the killing of the four-legged sacrificial animal. Dunash [Dunash ben Labrat, a tenth century grammarian born in Fez, disciple of Rabbi Saadyah Gaon. Ed.] explains that a further proof of the correctness of our sages’ exegesis is that they had been eye witnesses of the manner in which the birds’ throat and spine would be snipped with the fingernail of the priest, etc.

והקריבו הכהן אל המזבח, “ the priest will present it to the altar.” This “הקרבה” consists of the priest raising the bird onto the altar before nipping its head.

Even one pigeon. Otherwise, Scripture should have written: “The Kohein shall bring,” why is it written, “He shall bring it”? Rather, it teaches that if he comes to bring one pigeon he may do so. [You might ask:] It is written above, “He shall bring from turtledoves...” which implies two! [The answer is:] That [perhaps it means that this] is the best way to fulfill the mitzvah but not necessary after the fact. Alternatively, “from turtledoves” refers to the species of turtledoves, but [he may bring] even one.

ונמצה דמו על קיר המזבח, “and its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar.” Seeing we speak about a minute amount of blood, no special bowl had been used in first collecting it. Had it first been collected in a bowl there would not have been enough left over to sprinkle it, hence it was squeezed out against the side of the altar.

ומלק, “and he will pinch off;” the priest himself, i.e. with his own hands, on the top of the altar; he was not to use a tool such as a knife. This is in consonance with the commandment that in building the altar, no iron tool, sword, knife, was to be used, as the altar is designed to prolong man’s life, whereas the knife or sword is used to shorten man’s life. [What makes sense when building an altar makes even better sense in the procedures to be performed on the altar. Ed.] Just as the act of pinching mentioned in chapter5,8, was performed at the neck, so here too the Torah refers to the bird’s neck being pinched off. (Sifra there) The head is not to be completely severed, however.

הכהן … ומלק THE PRIEST SHALL … NIP OFF [ITS HEAD] — The nipping of the bird’s head must not be done with an instrument but by the priest’s very self:) he nips with his finger-nail close by the nape, cuts right through the neck-bone until he comes to the “organs” (the wind pipe and the gullet) and cuts them through too (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 3; Zevachim 65a).

ונמצה, this term is appropriate when speaking of something soft, as we know from Isaiah 51,17 את קובעת כוס התרעלה שתית מצית, “who have drunks the dregs of the cup,” or Psalms 75,9 אך שמריה ימצו, “Only its dregs will they drain.”

ומלק, “and he will nip,” והקטיר, “and cause it to go up in smoke,” ונמצה דמו, “and squeeze out its blood.” It is impossible to explain this verse in the sequence the procedures are described, i.e. to cause the head of the bird to go up in smoke and to squeeze out its blood after that, followed by the burning up of the rest of its body. We find no instance in which atonement is effected through burning up the body parts before the blood has been utilized in that process. Therefore, our sages (Zevachim 65) interpreted this verse as only drawing a conceptual link, הקש, between the performance of the nipping of the bird’s head and the procedure known as הקטרה, burning it up so that it goes up in smoke. Just as the burning up of the head of the bird and the rest of its body are two independent procedures, so the nipping of the head and the squeezing out of the blood from the rest of the body are two separate independent procedures. According to the plain meaning of the text, we have to understand that the nipping of the bird’s head and the burning up of it on the altar, precede one another, as the priest had already burned up the rest of the bird’s body. The reason why the Torah writes here: (verse 17) והקטיר אותו הכהן, [where the word הכהן appears completely redundant, Ed.] instead of writing והקטיר את הכל, as the Torah did when describing the parallel procedure for four legged beasts (verse 9), is because in this instance the parts that were to be burned up were in fact not all burned up at the same time. After having burned up the head, the priest proceeded to remove the bird’s crop with its feathers, for instance.

With the kohein’s own body. Otherwise, why does it say “the kohein”; [even without specifying a kohein,] the nipping must obviously be done by a kohein, for a non-kohein may not bring sacrifices upon the altar. If not for the verse, I might have thought that nipping must be done with a knife, [and I would have derived it] by means of a kal vachomer from slaughtering, which can be done by a non-kohein and yet it requires a knife, so much more so nipping, which is invalid for a non-kohein — is it not logical that it should require a knife? (Zevachim 65a).

ראשו והקטיר, just as find that the delivering the head to be burned on the altar was performed by the priest’s hands, no other instrument or container, and the bird’s body was placed on the altar by the priest’s hands, so the “slaughtering” of the two vital tubes that lead to the head was also performed by the priest’s hands. This had to be done in this way in order to prevent the head being accidentally severed from its body by a knife.

ונמצה דמו AND THE BLOOD THEREOF SHALL BE WRUNG OUT — The word ונמצה is connected in meaning with (Proverbs 30:33) “the pressing out (מיץ) of wrath”; (Isaiah 16:4) “for extortion (המץ) is at an end). — He presses the place where the neck has been cut (בית השחיטה) against the wall and the blood thus drains itself out) and runs down the wall (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 7; Zevachim 64b).

ונמצה דמו, “having pressed out its blood.” As opposed to the burnt offerings of the ruminants, no mention is made here of the blood from the area where the slaughtering had been performed being caught up in a special pan. The reason is that the quantity of blood involved was too miniscule to be usefully accumulated within such a pan. On the contrary, this blood would stick to the walls of the pan, and there would not be any blood left to sprinkle on the wall of the altar

Near the nape. This is derived from the turtledoves and young pigeons spoken about at the end of the parshah, where it is explicitly written (5:8): “opposite of its neck,” i.e., [the part of the neck] that looks upon the nape of the neck, [i.e., behind the throat], but not the nape itself, which is [the back of the head,] on the level of the face and behind it, as it says (Yirmeyahu 2:27): “For they turned to Me their nape and not their face.”

ונמצה דמו, “and its blood shall be drained;” all of its blood. How could this be accomplished? The priest would hold the bird’s body by it skin to ensure it would not be cut in half completely; in this way the blood would seep out from either side of where the priest held the skin in his hands. We have a tradition that anything that disqualifies a four legged animal from becoming an acceptable sacrifice, does so also if its counterpart on the bird is defective, i.e. improperly treated by the priest. On the other hand, anything that does not invalidate the sacrifice of a fourlegged animal, for instance the skin, does not invalidate the bird offering either if it had been treated incorrectly.

ומלק … והקטיר …ונמצה AND HE SHALL NIP OFF … AND CAUSE IT TO ASCEND IN FUMES … AND [THE BLOOD] SHALL BE WRUNG OUT — Is it possible to say so? Since he has burnt it can he squeeze the blood out?! But the wording is intended to suggest the following: How is it with the burning of the sacrifice? The head is separate and the body is separate (since it states here ומלק את ראשו והקטיר, and in v. 17 it is enjoined והקטיר אתו i. e. the body; vv. 16—17 speaking of the rites performed on the body)! So, too, the nipping has to be thus (i. e. has to have the effect of severing the head from the body so that it may be burnt apart from the body; the מליקה accordingly denotes here complete severance, whilst in 5:8 this is forbidden. The translation therefore is: and he shall nip off the head so that he may burn it on the altar) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 5; Zevachim 65a). According to the literal sense of the verse, however, the wording is inverted: he shall nip off [the head] and burn it, and before the burning the blood shall have been pressed out already (ונמצה has therefore a future-perfect meaning: “and its blood shall have been pressed out”).

After he burns it he squeezes the blood [out the blood]. Meaning: First, he must squeeze out the blood, for the limbs of an offering are brought to be burnt only after the blood is taken out. Thus, it should say “He nips, the blood is squeezed out,” and then, “he burns it.” Rather, the word “burns” is inserted between them [i.e., nipping and squeezing] to make a comparison to “nipping”: [Just as regarding burning, the head is by itself and the body is by itself, so too nipping, the head is by itself and the body is by itself, i.e., the head is completely severed by the nipping. What is the source that the burning of the head and body are separate?] Concerning the burning of its body it is written (17): “[The kohein] shall burnt it on the altar,” this speaks [of the burning] of the body. And it is [also] written (v. 15): “Its head and burn it.” [This refers to burning the head]. So too, in regard to nipping, the head is by itself and the body is by itself (Zevachim 65a).

ונמצה דמו על קיר המזבח, “and the blood thereof shall be drained out on the side of the altar.” Seeing that if this procedure would be performed by the priest holding a bowl, the amount of blood secured would be minimal, there would not be enough to pick it out of that bowl and to perform the sprinkling of the blood on the top of the altar, the Torah decreed the method described. (B’chor shor)

So too the nipping. Although it is still connected by the skin it is considered separated.

It is transposed. As if it is written: “He shall nip its head, [the blood] shall be squeezed out,” and then: “and he shall burn it.”

מראתו [AND HE SHALL REMOVE] ITS CROP — The word is connected in meaning with the word רעי in Rabbinical Hebrew (or the Biblical ראי; cf. Nahum 3:6); it thus denotes the place of the רעי, the digested food, i. e. the crop (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 9).

AND HE SHALL REMOVE ‘ETH MURATHO B’NOTZATHAH.’ “Muratho refers to the place of the digested food, namely ‘its crop.’ B’notzathah means ‘together with its entrails.’ The word notzah is a term for anything which is loathsome. Similarly: for ‘natzu’ (they are become loathsome) and are wandered away.¹⁷⁵Lamentations 4:15. That is what Onkelos intended in translating ‘b’notzathah’ as b’uchleih (with its digested food). This is also the interpretation of Aba Yosei ben Chanan who said¹⁷²Zebachim 65a. that he removes the stomach together with it [i.e., the crop]. But our Rabbis have said:¹⁷⁶Zebachim 65b. he cuts out with a knife an opening around the crop like a flap, and removes it together with the feathers [on the skin].” This is Rashi’s language.
But it is not correct. For the word notzah in all places only means actual feathers. Similarly, for ‘natzu’ and are wandered away¹⁷⁵Lamentations 4:15. means that they have acquired feathers [wings] to fly away from their places and go into exile, and there too they will [constantly] wander, not finding a resting-place. Similarly: for ‘natzoh’ (she must fly away) and get away.¹⁷⁷Jeremiah 48:9. Here too, the word natzoh is derived from the original root meaning “feathers” — hence: “she must fly away.” The Jerusalem Targum rendered [the above-mentioned verse: for ‘natzu’ and are wandered away]:¹⁷⁵Lamentations 4:15. “for they are ‘quarrelsome’ and have also wandered away.” The Targum thus derived the word natzu from the expression, when men ‘yinatzu’ (strive) together,¹⁷⁸Deuteronomy 25:11. and the verse is thus stating that “they strive with all the nations and wander away from them, and do not continue to live among them.” This is a correct interpretation. But the word notzah in the sense of “loathsome” as the Rabbi [Rashi] has it, is not found. The interpretation of Aba Yosei which made it incumbent upon the priest to take also the stomach with the crop, is [not because he considers the word b’notzathah to mean “the place of its entrails,” as Rashi understood him, but rather] because the crop and the gullet together with the stomach, comprising the organs for the digestion of food [in the bird], are all included in the term muratho, because in the stomach the food turns into r’ie (dung). Aba Yosei thus does not differ at all with the First Sage who says that he should take it with the “feathers,” for we have been taught in a Mishnah of the sixth chapter of Tractate Zebachim¹⁷⁹Zebachim 64b. [with reference to the order of the burnt-offering of the bird]: “He [i.e. the priest] came then to the body, and removed the crop and the feathers and the entrails that came forth with the crop, and cast them on the place of ashes.” This Mishnah is in accordance with the teaching of Aba Yosei¹⁸⁰For according to the Sages he removes only the crop but not the entrails. and yet it mentions “the feathers!”¹⁸¹This proves that Aba Yosei also interprets the word b’notzathah to mean with “its feathers,” and not, as Rashi explained it. that Aba Yosei interprets it to mean “the place of its digested food, namely the crop.”
Onkelos’ opinion [in translating b’notzathah as b’uchleih, is not because he considered this to be the Aramaic rendition of the word b’notzathah, so that you might think that he is of the opinion that the Hebrew word means “the place of its digested food,” as Rashi thought, but rather Onkelos’ opinion] is like that of the Sages, that he removed only the crop and its feathers together with the food therein which is the mur’ah [but he did not remove its entrails]. Since the priest takes hold of the crop and removes the food therein with it, therefore Onkelos rendered it: “and he shall remove yath zfokeih b’uchleih,” the expression being as if it had said: “and he shall remove uchleih bizfokeih,”¹⁸²Ramban is thus saying that Onkelos in translating the Hebrew phrase muratho b’notzathah as yath zfokeih b’uchleih, did not put it in the order of the wording of the Hebrew; instead, it is as if he had inverted it and rendered it yath uchleih bizfokeih, as the Aramaic uchleih is the equivalent of the Hebrew muratho, and the Aramaic bizfokeih is the equivalent of the Hebrew b’notzathah, as explained in the text. The reason for this change is, as explained by Ramban, because the food (muratho) is only removable by means of taking away the crop (zfokeih). Ramban then brings a number of proofs to illustrate that it is Onkelos’ habit to change the order of the Hebrew wording when it appears better to him to do so. for uchleih [according to Onkelos] is the Aramaic for the Hebrew muratho [as muratho is associated with the word r’ie — “dung,” and “food” turns into dung], whereas zfokeih is the translation for the Hebrew b’notzathah [as will be explained]. The verse [according to Onkelos] thus means as follows: he should remove the mur’ah, which is the food, with the plumage upon it, meaning that he takes the crop with its skin and the feathers upon it. In a similar way Onkelos translated [the Hebrew ‘ki sh’mi b’kirbo’ — for My Name is in him¹⁸³Exodus 23:21.]: arei bishmi meimreih (“for in My Name is his word”),¹⁸⁴I.e., he speaks in My Name. which, according to the Hebrew, he should have rendered into Aramaic as follows: arei sh’mi b’meimreih (for My Name is in his word). But Onkelos changed the order of the wording because of a certain reason known to him.¹⁸⁵See Ramban ibid., Verse 20 (towards the end — Vol. II, p. 413) where he explains Onkelos’ intent in that translation. So also he translated the verse: And the two ends of the two wreathen chains¹⁸⁶Ibid., 28:25. — “and the two wreathen chains of the two ends.” There are many other such cases.

מוראתו, the expression occurs both in Nachum 3,6 and in Tzefaniah 3,1, and in both of these instances it refers to a despicable spectacle. Here too, it refers primarily to the feces.

והסיר את מוראתו, “he shall remove its crop;” Rashi explained that seeing that this bird had consumed food which was basically stolen, [as opposed to the ruminants, which feed on grass owned by its owners or in areas which are ownerless, Ed.] this had to be removed prior to the bird being able to serve as a vehicle for its owner’s atonement. The reason why not the whole entrails had to be removed for the same reason, is that the food in it had already been digested and could not be identified as such.

The place of excrement; this is the crop. רעי means excrement, as in (Nachum 3:6): “ושמתיך כראי (and I will make you like dung).” In the language of the Sages רעי is with an ע, for the א and the ע are interchangeable.

אל מקום הדשן, “in the place for the ashes.” Chanina, son of Antignos, says (Sifra) that there were two such locations. The first one was situated east of the ramp leading to the altar, and the second one was situated east of the altar itself. The one that was located east of the ramp was used for the remainders of the bird offerings, as well as the ashes of the altar inside the Sanctuary, and the ashes from the candlestick, whereas the one east of the altar was used for ashes that originated from the burning of the remains of sacrificial animals that had become disqualified by a faulty procedure, or because the owners had not eaten all of their parts in the time allocated for it.

בנצתה means together with its entrails (not with its feathers which meaning the word נוצה usually has). The word נוצה is really an expression for anything that is loathsome. Similar is (Lamentations 4:15) “[depart, depart, touch not:] for they are become loathsome (נצו) and are fled away”.) That is also what Onkelos means when he translates באוכליה, “with the digested food” found in the entrails (excrement). This, too, is the interpretation of the verse given by Abba José ben Chanan who states: he removes the stomach (being the organ which contains digested food) together with it (the crop). But our Rabbis, of blessed memory, taking נוצה; in its usual sense of “feathers”, say: with a knife he cuts out around the crop an opening like a flap and removes it together with the feathers on the skin (of that spot) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 9; Zevachim 65a). — In the case of the burnt offering of the cattle which eats only from the crib of its owner it is stated, (v. 13) “But he shall lave the inwards and the legs with water: and [the priest] shall offer it”; in the case of a fowl, however, which feeds itself from what it picks up of other people’s property (lit., “of robbery”) it states, “he shall cast the entrails away”, because it (the bird) eats that which is stolen (Leviticus Rabbah 3 4).

בנוצתה, feathers with its crop.

East of the ramp. [Rashi knows that it is eastward of the ramp] because Scripture should have written (v. 16): “throw it to the place of the ashes,” and the place of ashes is explained in Parshas Tzav (6:3) that it is beside the altar. Rather, [it must be that] “beside” that is written here refers to the ramp, and “beside” means that the ramp was beside the altar. [This is because] the altar was thirty-two amoh by thirty-two amoh, the ramp’s width was on the altar’s southern side, and the ramp’s width was sixteen amoh and its length thirty-two amoh. The [corner formed by the] rest of the amos in width that remained on the altar’s southern side, where it intersected with the ramp’s eastern side, was where they placed the bird’s crop and the ashes that had been lifted [from the altar]. This is taught in the first chapter of Tamid (Mishnah 4).

אצל המזבח קדמה BESIDE THE ALTAR ON THE EAST — i. e. at the east of the כבש (the inclined ascent leading to the top of the altar which was on the south of the altar) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 9 3).

Were absorbed there. [Rashi knows this] because it should say “upon the ashes.” Rather, it must be that it comes to teach that the ashes were absorbed there, and only the place was there [and no ashes].

אל מקום הדשן BY THE PLACE OF THE ASHES — i. e. that place where they deposited the ashes removed from the altar (תרומת הדשן) each morning (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 6:3, 4) and the ashes removed from the inner altar and the candelabrum (Meilah 12a;Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 9 3). All these miraculously sunk there in their place (i. e. on the very spot where they were deposited) (Yoma 21a).

ושסע AND HE SHALL CLEAVE [IT] — The term שסע is used only for rending with the hands. Similarly it states in the story of Samson (Judges 14:6) “and he rent him (וישסעהו) as he would have rent a kid” (Zevachim 65b).

AND HE SHALL REND IT ‘BICHNAFAV’ — “together with its feathers. He need not pluck out the feathers of its plumage. Knafav means the actual feathers [not the wings].” This is the language of Rashi. But it is not correct, for if so, then Scripture does not mention from which place he is to rend [the bird], whether from its front or back. Rather, the meaning thereof is as follows: “he shall rend it at the place of its wings,” for the letter beth [in the word bichnafav] serves here as “the beth of apparatus,” [teaching that the rending is to be done from the back of the bird where “the wings” are, for knafav, as will be explained, means “its wings,” and not “its feathers” as Rashi explained]; similar to the expression, ba’aron, (in the ark), ba’bayith, (in the house), or ba’sadeh (in the field). Knafav does not mean “feathers” [as Rashi wrote], but is similar to all expressions of knafayim mentioned in Scripture [which mean wings]: every bird, whatever hath ‘kanaf’ (wings);¹⁸⁷Genesis 7:14. and he stretcheth ‘knafav’ (his wings) towards the south.¹⁸⁸Job 39:26. Similarly, ‘bichnaf’ (the skirt) of his robe.¹⁸⁹I Samuel 15:27. Literally: “the wing” of his skirt. Notzah is the down [the soft under-plumage] on the body of birds, something like that which is written, a great eagle with great wings and long pinions, full of ‘hanotzah’ (down).¹⁹⁰Ezekiel 17:3. Similarly we have learned [in the Mishnah]:¹⁹¹Taharoth 1:3. “Large feathers and down are both capable of contracting uncleanness and conveying uncleanness, and join together [with the flesh to make up the required size that is needed to convey uncleanness].” The Rabbis have also said:¹⁹²Sifra, Acharei 12:2. “excepting the beak and claws, the large feathers and the down.”

אשה ריח ניחוח לשם, a fire-offering whose fragrance is pleasing to G'd. Our sages in Menachot 110 comment that the fact that the Torah used this expression when describing the burnt-offering consisting of a four-legged animal, as well as when a bird-offering is being offered, as proof that G'd does not judge a person's offering by its monetary value but by the attitude it reflects. As long as the donor's motivation is G'd-oriented, both kinds of offerings are equally welcome in His eyes. The problem the sages wanted to overcome was that if the Torah had written the term אשה ריח ניחוח לשם only in connection with the bird-offering which is worth a few coins, it is obvious that a burnt-offering consisting of a four-legged animal should qualify for that description no less. Hence why did the Torah have to write the expression in connection with the offering of a four-legged animal? This is why they were careful to write: אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט, that there is no difference between the person who offers a valuable animal as a sacrifice and the one who offers something less valuable. We should not imagine that the fact that the Torah mentioned ריח ניחוח in connection with the bird-offering was just an act of graciousness on the part of G'd towards the poor, whereas the four-legged animal offered by the wealthy is dearer to Him. The Torah made the point that the bird-offering is not considered inferior for any reason at all by writing the otherwise unnecessary words ריח ניחוח לשם also in connection with the burnt-offering consisting of four-legged animals. This is why the Rabbi in the Talmud did not simply write הממעיט כמרבה, as this would not have conveyed his true meaning. It is a rule that when one says: "this is as good as that," that the "this" is inferior to the "that" seeing it is a derivative of it. The "this" to "that" relationship is akin to the student-teacher relationship. Even if the student has absorbed all of the teacher's knowledge, the teacher remains superior by dint of having taught the student what he knows. When the Rabbi phrased his comment: "one who does a lot is as one who does a little," he made sure the reader would not consider either of the two as superior or inferior to the second one. This consideration prompted the Torah to write the same wording once more in connection with the meal-offering in 2,2.

ושסע אותו בכנפיו, “he is to split it with its wings (feathers);” Rashi explains that the priest need not tear out the feathers from the wings, literally. Nachmanides writes that Rashi’s interpretation is not correct, for if it were, he did not give us an indication of where precisely the wings were to be torn off, whether at the front or at the back. Therefore, he claims that the correct interpretation of the words ושסע אותו is that the priest is to tear off the wings at the place where the feathers grow out of them. The word כנפים therefore is not another word describing the נוצה, the plume. The word means the same as every time we read about birds in the Torah when the Torah describes birds as צפור כנף, a winged bird, [one that is capable of flying. Ed.] The word נוצה describes the skin of the birds.

ושסע אותו בכנפיו , “he shall split it with its feathers.” The word בכנפיו, “with its feathers,” means that the priest does not have to pluck the feathers. The word בכנפיו means “literally with its feathers.” Although I could hardly have imagined something more revolting than to have to smell the feathers of burned wings, why then did the Torah legislate that the priest is to ‘bring near,’ i.e. to offer up such an evil-smelling offering? It was in order for the altar to be graced with the offering of a poor man and to make same look more substantial. [the bird offering was an accommodation to people who could not afford a more costly offering. Plucking the bird’s feathers would have made it look even less substantive. Ed.]

לא יבדיל, “he must not completely detach the wings;” the reason is that the bird is so small anyways; if he were to detach all of its parts, head and wings there would not be much left of it, if he were to offer it as a gift to a mortal king. Hence it is not appropriate to do so with a gift to the King of Kings.

בכנפיו means: he shall rend it together with its feathers he need not pluck out the feathers that form its plumage before doing so.

בכנפיו means actually the feathers (not the wings). But surely you will not find even a common sort of man who can smell the odour of burnt feathers without being disgusted with it! Why, then, does Scripture say that it shall be offered with the feathers? In order that the altar should appear full up, as it were, and adorned with the sacrifice of the poor (since the bird with its feathers makes a finer show than without them) (Leviticus Rabbah 3:5).

לא יבדיל BUT HE SHALL NOT SEPARATE IT — he must not break it entirely into two pieces, but only rends it from behind. — It is stated here of a bird-offering “a pleasing odour [to the Lord]” and it is stated (v. 13) of an animal-sacrifice “a pleasing odour [to the Lord]”, to tell you: whether one offers much or little it is equally pleasing to God provided that he directs his heart to Heaven (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 9 7; Menachot 110a).

That is that we were commanded to build a choice house for Divine service, in which there will be sacrifices and an eternal burning of fire; and to which there will be journeying and pilgrimage on the festivals, and gatherings every year. And that is His saying, "And let them make Me a sanctuary" (Exodus 25:8). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 67:1) is, "Three commandments were commanded to Israel upon their entrance to the land: To appoint a king over themselves; to build themselves a choice house; and to cut off the seed of Amalek." Behold it has been made clear to you that the building of the choice house is a separate commandment. And we have already explained (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 12) that this aggregate includes many parts, such as the menorah, the table, the altar and the rest of them - all of them are parts of the Temple. And all of it is called, Temple, even as each and every part has an individual command. However, His saying about the altar, "Make for Me an altar of earth" (Exodus 20:21), could have been thought of as a separate commandment, besides the commandment of the Temple. And the content of this is as I will tell you: True, the simple understanding of the verse is indeed clearly speaking about the time of the permissibility of altars - as at that time, it was permitted for us to build an earthen altar and sacrifice upon it. But [the Sages] have already said that the [actual] content in this is that He commanded us to to build an altar that is connected to the ground, and that it not be detached and moved, as it was in the desert [journey from Egypt]. And that is their saying in the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon bar Yochai 20:21) in explanation of this verse, "When you come to the land, make Me an altar that is attached to the ground." And since the matter is so, behold that this command is practiced for [all] generations; and it would be one of the parts of the Temple - meaning that specifically an altar of stones be built. And they said in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:22:1) in explanation of, "And if an altar of stones you make for Me" (Exodus 20:22), "Rabbi Yishmael says, 'Each and every, if, in the Torah [connotes] optionality, except for three.'" And one of the them is, "And if an altar of stones." They said, "'And if an altar of stones you make for Me.' This is obligatory. You say it is obligatory, but perhaps it is optional. [Hence] we learn to say, 'Of whole stones shall you build [the altar of the Lord]' (Devarim 27:6)." And the regulations of this commandment as a whole - meaning to say, the building of the Temple and its description and the building of the altar - have been explained in the tractate associated with it, and that is Tractate Middot. And likewise is the form of the menorah, the table and the golden altar; and the location of their placement in the chamber explained in the Gemara, Menachot and Yoma. (See Parashat Terumah; Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 1.)

That is that he commanded us to place the bread of display always in front of Him. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "And on the table shall you set the bread of display, to be before Me always" (Exodus 25:30). And you already know the language of the Torah about placing new bread every Shabbat, and that frankincense be with it and that the priests eat the bread made for the previous Shabbat (Leviticus 23:8,7,9). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 11 of Menachot. (See Parashat Terumah; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 2).

That is that He commanded us to burn a fire on the altar every day continuously. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "A continual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, not to go out" (Leviticus 6:6). And this is only possible with His having commanded to place fire continually on the wood in the morning and in the afternoon, as it is explained in the second chapter of Yoma and in Tractate Tamid. And in the explanation, they said that even though the fire descends from the heavens, it is a commandment to bring it from the commoners (humans). And the laws of this commandment - meaning the arrangement of the fire which they are to do every day on the altar - have already been explained in Yoma and in Tamid (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 2.)

That is that He commanded us with the process of the burnt-offering sacrifice. And that is that every burnt-offering sacrifice - whether it be the sacrifice of an individual or of the community - be according to this and that stipulation and according to this description. And that is His saying, "a man - when one of you offers [...]. If his sacrifice is a burnt-offering, etc." (Leviticus 1:2-3). (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 7.)