פירוש על ויקרא 1:3

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.

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.)