פירוש על ויקרא 7:9

לכהן המקריב אתה וגו'‏‎‎‏‎‎ [AND EVERY MEAL OFFERING …] SHALL BE THE PRIEST’S THAT OFFERETH IT etc. — One might think it shall be his exclusively! Scripture, however, states (v. 10) לכל בני אהרן תהיה IT SHALL BELONG TO ALL THE SONS OF AARON; — one might think then, that it shall belong to all of them, which is, however, impossible, for Scripture states “[it shall be] the priest’s (that offereth it”! How then can these apparently contradictory passages be reconciled? By referring the text to the “family”) officiating on that day on which it (the מנחה) is offered (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 10 2).

AND EVERY MEAL-OFFERING THAT IS BAKED IN THE OVEN, [AND EVERYTHING MADE IN THE BOILING POT, AND IN THE PAN, SHALL BE THE PRIESTS THAT OFFERETH IT]. The simple explanation of this verse is apparent, namely that He is commanding here that if one vows to bring one of the three kinds of meal-offering — the one baked in the oven, or made in the boiling pot, or in the pan — that they should all be given exclusively to the priest who offered them. Then He states concerning all the other meal-offerings, — such as if a person vowed to bring a meal-offering without specification of which kind, in which case he brings it of fine flour, and the meal-offering of first-fruits,⁷⁹Above, 2:14-16. which are both mixed with oil; and the meal-offering of the sinner⁸⁰Ibid., 5:11-14. and of the suspected adulteress⁸¹Numbers 5:15. which are dry [without oil and without frankincense] — that they should be divided among all the sons of Aaron,⁸²Verse 10. that is to say, among all priests of their Father’s House.⁸³The priests were divided into twenty-four groups. Each group came by turn to the Sanctuary for one week’s service. These groups were in turn subdivided into Fathers’ Houses, each House ministering for one day out of the seven. On the festivals all the groups shared equally in the Service. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 46-47. The meaning of the expression, and every meal-offering, mingled with oil, or dry — is that a meal-offering which is of fine flour only, whether it be mixed with oil or dry, which is not one of these [three] mentioned above [the one baked in the oven, or made in the boiling pot, or in the pan — belongs to all priests who were ministering on that day, and not exclusively to the priests who offered them]. The reason for the difference between them is because [in the case of the three meal-offerings mentioned above] the priest took pains in baking them, and therefore he deserves to be given a greater reward. [All this is in accordance with the plain meaning of Scripture].
Our Rabbis, however, did not want to explain the verses in this way because Scripture said, and every meal-offering, mingled with oil or dry, which includes all possible meal-offerings, since they are all either mingled with oil or dry. Therefore the Rabbis understood the expression it shall be the priest’s that offereth it [mentioned here in Verse 9 in connection with the three meal-offerings: the one baked in the oven, etc.] as meaning that it shall belong to all pure priests who are present there. Similarly, when He said, And the priest that offereth any man’s burnt-offering,⁸⁴Verse 8 — stating that the skin of the burnt-offering belongs to the priest who offered it. and the priest that maketh atonement therewith, he shall have it,⁸⁵Verse 7 — stating that the meat of the sin-offering and guilt-offering belong to the priest that made the atonement. these verses are only intended to say that they do not belong to the owners who brought them, but that in reward for offering them they belong to the pure priests who are present there, for all of them are engaged in offering them, whether physically or by command, since any individual priest or two or three of them who offered up [the particular offering], did so with the permission of all of them and acting as their deputy, and all of them would stand by the offering. As is the share of him that goeth down to the battle, so shall be the share of him that tarrieth by the baggage; they shall share alike.⁸⁶I Samuel 30:24. After He had said [in general terms] that they shall belong to the priests as a reward for their service, He explained it again in detail: and every meal-offering, mingled with oil, or dry,⁸²Verse 10. which includes all meal-offerings, shall all the sons of Aaron have, meaning all the officiating priests mentioned [in the preceding verses], one as well as another, that is to say, all clean priests of the Father’s House,⁸³The priests were divided into twenty-four groups. Each group came by turn to the Sanctuary for one week’s service. These groups were in turn subdivided into Fathers’ Houses, each House ministering for one day out of the seven. On the festivals all the groups shared equally in the Service. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 46-47. as they are all the officiating priests mentioned previously. Thus Scripture [first] mentioned the meal-offerings by their individual names — the one baked in the oven, or made in the boiling pot, or in the pan — and then mentioned them all again in a general rule, saying [that they belong to all the priests], one as well as another, meaning that one priest should only have [of the kind of meal-offering] that the other priest has, [and they cannot give one priest his share of one kind of meal-offering, and the others a share of another kind]. Even if the meal-offering was of fine flour, each is to be given his share from that offering.⁸⁷The point here is as follows. In the case of the three meal-offerings which are baked [i.e., the one baked in the oven, made in the boiling pot, and in the pan], even if the priest receives only a small part thereof, he can eat it readily. But in the case of the meal-offering of fine flour, if the share is small he will not be benefitted much by it. One might therefore think that he can receive his share from another kind of meal-offering, hence the law states that the apportionment must be only in that one kind. Scripture thus states that this law applies to meal-offerings, and all the more so to the other offerings, which are of greater monetary value. It is tradition which decides [in favor of the Rabbis’ interpretation mentioned above],⁸⁸In other words, even though the literal interpretation of the verses indicates that the three baked meal-offerings should all belong exclusively to the priest who was actively engaged in offering them, yet it is tradition which is the deciding factor that the Rabbis’ analysis of the verses, as explained above, is correct. and it is furthermore for the benefit of [all] the priests and conducive to peace in the Sanctuary.
It is possible that the interpretation of the verses according to this opinion of the Rabbis is as follows: “And every meal-offering that is baked in the oven, and everything made in the boiling pot, and in the pan, shall be the priest’s that offereth it; and every meal-offering, mingled with oil, or dry shall [also] be so, and all the sons of Aaron shall have it, one as well as another.”⁸⁹This interpretation indicates clearly that all meal-offerings are mentioned alike in Scripture with respect to the share of all ministering priests on that day.

וכל מנחה אשר תאפה בתנור, and every meal-offering which is baked in the oven, etc. The Torah mentions five separate categories of meal-offerings to exclude five matters. 1) The sons of Aaron do not divide the meal-offering according to the formula employed when animal offerings are shared out, i.e. that portions of one offering may be traded off against portions of another offering; rather every priest of the group performing service on that day receives his share of each of the meal-offerings presented on that day. 2) Bird-offerings are not shared out in the same way as the meal-offerings. One could have argued that the bird-offerings and the meal-offerings were both offerings presented by the poor and the very poor respectively. This factor does not have a bearing on the method employed in sharing out the meat of the bird-offerings, however. 3) The distribution of the meat of bird-offerings did not parallel that of the offerings consisting of four-legged animals, even though in both cases their blood is sprinkled on the altar. 4) The criteria applicable to the distribution of the parts of one kind of meal-offering are not identical to those of the sharing out of another kind of meal-offering, even though they all consist of flour of some kind. 5) Meal-offerings consisting of baked goods baked in one kind of pan or another kind are not shared out according to the same criteria as other meal-offerings prepared in a similar manner when these meal-offerings served different purposes.

וכל מנחה אשר תאפה בתנור, “and any meal-offering that is baked in the oven, etc.” Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text it appears that our verse speaks of someone who had made a vow to bring one of three types of meal offerings, anyone of which is baked in an oven, תנור, a deep pan, מרחשת, or in a shallow pan, מחבת. Either of these meal offerings would belong totally and exclusively to the priest who performs the procedure. In order to avoid errors, the Torah continues with other types of meal-offerings saying that these are shared out equally among the roster, בית אב, of priests performing their duties on that day or during that week.

לכהן המקריב אותה, “to the Priest who offers it.” Seeing that I might have thought that this meal-offering is exclusively that of the Priest who has offered it, the Torah adds in verse 10 “it shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, every man alike.” What precisely is meant by these words? The words mean that the members of the roster for that day are all equally entitled to participate in the edible parts of that meal-offering. The arrangement of these rosters is already referred to in Kings II 11,9 “The chiefs did as Yehoyadah (High Priest) ordered, each took his men-those who were on duty that week and those who were off duty that week- etc.” Whatever accrued to the roster of the priests during the week they would share equally. This is what the Torah wrote in Deut. 18,8 חלק כחלק יאכלו, “portion for portion they shall eat it.”
The Torah here mentions each category of meal-offering separately by name first and afterwards added the words איש כאחיו, “each man alike,” to make sure that each Priest receives equal shares of each category of meal-offering, not that one Priest gets a share of the meal-offering baked in the oven whereas his colleague is compensated by getting his share from a meal-offering made in a deep pan. Even if the meal-offering consists of a mixture of fine flour and oil, מנחת הסולת, something not ready for immediate consumption as it is raw, the Priests also share in this alike. The reason the Torah teaches us this rule in connection with the most inexpensive type of offering, the meal-offering, is to make it clear that a similar rule applies to the sharing of the more expensive offerings, i.e. animal offerings. The compensation for performing the various duties in the Temple is the entitlement to the parts of the offering designated for the Priests. All Priests in a state of ritual purity belonging to the roster of the week (day) are entitled to share equally. [The week’s roster was divided into the six week days, each “roster” or משמר, being further divided into what are called בתי אבות, family groups, of which each performed the service on one of the weekdays, all participating on the Sabbath. Ed.] Although some Priests performed their part of the service individually whereas others did so in groups of two or three, each one qualified equally for the parts to be shared out. Even Priests whose duties did not require them to perform manual tasks were entitled (Taanit 26). The procedure followed was similar to the sharing of the spoils of war where the people of the “home-front” also shared equally with the soldiers who had gone into battle. (Based on Nachmanides interpreting Samuel I 30,24).

To the priestly family. Meaning: The kohanim were divided into twenty-four watches, and each watch had one week. Each watch was divided into six priestly families for the six weekdays, each day had one priestly family [assigned to it], and on the Shabbos day all six priestly families served together. Many raise the difficulty: It is written later (v. 10), “[It shall belong] to all the sons of Aharon,” with regard to the meal-offering mixed with oil or dry, and Rashi writes later: The verse which says: “to the kohein who offers,” is written concerning the meal-offering baked in an oven — why do we not say that there exists a difference between different types of mealofferings, that this one goes to the one who offers and this one is for all the sons of Aharon? It seems to me [that we can answer] in this way: When it says, “the kohein who offers,” it cannot mean strictly him, and that the members of the watch have no rights in it. This is because perforce the watch must be included, since “the one who offers” refers to anyone who was fit to offer, just as nearby (v. 7), “the kohein who will bring about atonement,” Rashi explains that “anyone who is fit to [accomplish] atonement has a share in it.” If so, it cannot be that only the kohein who offers shall have a share. Rather, perforce it means anyone who was fit [to offer] in that watch [has a share]. Then afterwards, concerning the meal-offering mixed with oil, when it says, “to all the sons of Aharon,” perforce it means to all the members of that watch as well, for certainly, it cannot be referring to all the kohanim in the world, since it would be impossible to share it with everyone. If so, Scripture poses a contradiction in the usage of language: First it uses a singular term to refer a watch [“the kohein who offers”], and afterwards a plural term, “to all the sons of Aharon.” Rather, we must say there is relevancy for the singular and plural terms. And that is that each watch had priestly families, for there were twenty-four watches, and each watch was divided into six priestly families; each priestly family had its day. Therefore, the singular term usage mentioned first is fine, because it excludes all the other [i.e., twenty-three] priestly families. And the verse, “to all the sons of Aharon” includes all those kohanim who were serving on that day, and not just the kohein who offers it (Divrei Dovid).

Although these five exclusions all concern different kinds of meal-offerings, the exegesis from which we derived these halachic differences is based on what is called אם אינו ענין, i.e. that if the Torah records certain information which is superfluous in its context, such information may be applied to supplement information lacking in a different context. I have seen that Maimonides in chapter 10, ruling 15 of his Ma-asseh Hakorbanot explains the exclusions in our two verses along different lines (other than Torat Kohanim which is similar to our author). He bases his exegesis on the fact that the Torah did not include the five kinds of meal-offerings mentioned here in the section dealing with מנחת סלת in 6,7-11 but records it in a different context. This is remarkable seeing that in the case of the meal-offerings which are baked as well as in the meal-offering consisting of fine flour mixed with oil and frankincense the Torah speaks of the offering belonging to the officiating priest. Maimonides reasons that we could have made a case for sharing out the meal-offering consisting of fine flour according to the same criteria as those applicable to some other meal-offering but we do not do so. It is clear from Maimonides' reasoning that he employs the words לכל בני אהרון "to all the priests" in 7,10 as the basis for his exegesis. This is not what we learned in the Baraitha (Torat Kohanim ).

Maimonides also stresses the fact that the laws of the meal-offering do not all appear in a single paragraph. This teaches that unless the Torah had separated the laws of one kind of meal-offering (the מנחת סלת) which was not baked from the five categories mentioned in our chapter all of which are baked, we could not have used these verses exegetically and we would not have arrived at the conclusions derived by Torat Kohanim. Perhaps Maimonides thought that the fact that the Torah artificially separated the legislation pertaining to the offering of the meal-offerings is proof that it did not want us to assume that the formula of trading off by the priest of parts of one meal-offering against parts of another type of meal-offering is acceptable. Having arrived at this principle, it is applied to all the meal-offerings. You may find proof in the fact that in the case of מנחת מרחשת and מנחת מחבת the Torah does not mention a word about all the priests sharing in it equally. All that is mentioned is that priests not officiating on that day are not entitled to share in it. [the Torah phrases it positively, saying: "it belongs to the priest who offers it which means to the group of priests officiating on that day. Ed.] Whence does Maimonides know then that a meal-offering offered in a pan may not be traded off against a meal-offering offered in a stewing-pan seeing not a word is said about how these meal-offerings are to be shared out? Actually, the five exclusions we cited earlier as the basis of our exegesis are only of the type known as אסמכתא, a "lean-to." This type of exegesis is not binding but serves as a reminder of halachot with which we are already familiar. The principal exegetical tool is the fact that the Torah saw fit not to record all six examples of meal-offerings in the same paragraph.

We are now left with the problem of why the Torah gave many details repeatedly when all it had to write was that "every meal-offering belongs to the officiating priest, and is to be shared by all the priests officiating on that day." Perhaps -in view of the fact that the Torah already entered into details of different kinds of baked meal-offerings- the Torah was afraid that we would apply totally different criteria to the מנחת סלת and others which were not baked. We find, for instance, in Menachot 63 that the Talmud explains the words וכל נעשה במרחשת ועל מחבת in 7,9 to mean that these meal-offerings and the rules pertaining to them are governed by the type of container they are offered up in and not so much by their composition. The practical significance of this becomes evident when a person vows to bring a meal-offering and he merely identifies the kind of meal-offering he undertakes to bring by naming the vessel it is to be brought in. For instance, he said: "I am obligated to a certain kind of baking pan" [one of the ones which existed in the Temple. Ed]. According to the school of Hillel such a vow is valid seeing the kind of pan he mentioned is a sacred vessel and can be used for the meal-offering and the Torah wrote: "anything prepared in either of these kinds of pans, etc." According to the school of Shammai it is doubtful what this person had in mind. His "offering" would need to remain untouched until the coming of Elijah the prpohet who would resolve our doubts about its validity. Rabbi Yossi the son of Rabbi Yehudah holds that all these meal-offerings are separate categories. Therefore, one may not bring less than a minimal quantity of a meal-offering על המחבת and add to it less than a minimal quantity of a meal-offering במרחשת in order to combine these quantities into a single meal-offering of minimal acceptable quantity. The words אשר תאפה תנור, teach that one cannot combine part of a meal-offering baked on a griddle with part of a meal-offering baked in an oven. The only extraneous words which have not yet been explained exegetically are the ones in verse 10 seeing what is written there is also a duplication.

Perhaps Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Yehudah who holds that the words מאפה תנור mean two types of meal-offerings derived his ruling from the fact that the Torah employed the word כל both in verse 9 and in verse 10. As a result we have a double duplication. First of all there was no need for the extra verse; secondly, if you already had the extra verse, the word כל did not need to appear in both verses. This is why Rabbi Yossi is careful to mention the source of his ruling, i.e. וכל מנחה,…וכל נעשה במרחשת, ובל מנחה בלולה. He adds: "Just as the word וכל in verse 10 clearly refers to two separate meal-offerings, i.e. one containing a great deal of oil and one a dry one, so the word וכל in the previous verse also refers to two different categories of meal-offering. It follows from the above that if the Torah had only written the words מנחה בלולה, or כל מנחה חרבה, I would not have had an exegetical tool with which to derive the various halachot we have derived from the repeated use by the Torah of the word וכל. In fact, one could have argued that if the Torah had written כל מנחה חרבה this would furnish proof that the word כל applied to a single kind of meal-offering, [in spite of the Torah using the word כל meaning each or every. Ed.] and that when the Torah spoke about this kind of meal-offering without using the word כל such as in Leviticus 2,4: מנחה מאפה תנור (Leviticus 2,4), it also referred to only a single category of offering. The Torah had to write all the verses which appear to contain some duplication in order to teach us the various halachot we just described.