Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Bilangan 15:3

איש איש כי יהיה זב מבשרו זובו טמא הוא, “any man who will have a discharge from his flesh, his discharge is contaminated.” Rashi comments that the last two words, זובו טמא, refer to the drop of the discharge which confers impurity on the person whom it touches. The appearance of the discharge described here is similar to the colour of water from a dough made from barley flour; it is also similar in appearance to the white of an egg turned bad, i.e. mixed with the yolk. This is different from sperm which looks like the white of an egg which retained its consistency.
The Torah adds the words (verse 3) רר בשרו את זובו, “running with the discharge from his flesh;” to tell us that the discharge resembles the saliva which comes out of the mouth as a clear fluid. When the verse continues with או החתים בשרו מזובו, this describes a thicker opaque fluid which has a tendency to block the exit from the urinal canal.
The reason that the man afflicted with this disease has to bring only two birds as an offering after he has completed the purification rites is that seeing he had been smitten with a severe and infectious disease from which he has been healed by the grace of G’d, he has to offer the thanksgiving offerings anyone who has recovered from a serious disease is commanded to offer. The Torah does not belabor that point at this stage. The sin-offering legislated here is so that G’d will grant atonement for any sin which had caused the disease in the first place. The burnt-offering is an expression of gratitude for having been healed from the discharge.

‘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.

THIS IS ‘TORATH’ (THE LAW OF) THE BURNT-OFFERING. “This text is intended to teach us that the burning of the fats and limbs of offerings is valid [if performed anytime] during the whole night [following the day on which they were slaughtered]. It is also intended to teach us which of the disqualified offerings, although already brought up on to the altar, must be taken down, and which of them if already brought up need not be taken down. For all expressions of torath¹²In our Rashi text: torah. [introducing a group of laws] denote inclusion — one law for all offerings that are brought up on to the altar, including some disqualified ones, namely that if they are already brought up on to the altar, they need not be taken down.” This is Rashi’s language.
But this law does not [in fact] apply to everything that has already been brought up on to the altar, but only to all offerings proper, for if drink-offerings¹³See Numbers 15:3-12 for the command that burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings had to be accompanied by an offering of wine. are brought on to the altar [when they are not supposed to be] they must be taken down; and even if the libations are correctly offered up and the offering is disqualified, or the offering is correctly offered up and the libations disqualified, and definitely where both are disqualified — in all these cases, the offering itself is not to be taken down again, and the libations are to be taken down! For such is the sense of the inclusive term torath ha’olah (the law of the burnt-offering), teaching, “one law for all that goeth up [as the due of the altar-fires]” but not for the drink-offerings [since they are not poured on the fires, but into a silver bowl placed at the south-west corner of the altar],¹⁴Succah 48a. There were two such bowls there, one for the wine-libation and the other for the special water-libation on the Festival of Succoth (see in Seder Vayikra Note 219). “The bowl to the west was for water and that to the east was for wine” (ibid., 48 b). nor for the blood [which was sprinkled on the sides of the altar], in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yehoshua.¹⁵Zebachim 83 a.
Now this verse [also] teaches that we should not offer the burnt-offering at night, but if it was slaughtered and its blood sprinkled [on the altar] during the daytime, we may burn its limbs all night, the same law applying to the fats of the peace-offering. And the explanation of the expression ‘hi ha’olah’ is as if it said: ‘tiheyeh’ ha’olah (the burnt-offering “shall be”) on the firewood upon the altar all night. He uses the word hi [literally: “she”] in order to exclude¹⁶For just as the term torah (law) denotes inclusion (one law for all things), so does the word hi (“she” or “it”) denote exclusion, implying that the law under consideration does not apply to everything but is limited in its scope. It is the Sages who in their interpretation of the law determine in which cases it applies and in which it does not. those things which the Rabbis have specified in the interpretation thereof. Now according to the [Rabbinical] interpretation this verse does not teach us that we are to bring up the limbs [of the offerings] from the ground to the altar at night, for this [principle] they have already derived from another verse, Neither shall the fat of My feast remain all night until the morning,¹⁷Exodus 23:18. [which the Sages interpreted¹⁸Mechilta ibid. See also Ramban there. to mean, “Neither shall the fat of My feast remain on the stone pavement of the Court below, all night until the morning, but you should bring it up to the altar”]. For it is from that verse that the Rabbis have derived the law that [fats and limbs of the offerings] become disqualified [for the altar] if they remained upon the pavement [until the morning], but they may be brought up to the altar at any time during the night. Here Scripture speaks of those limbs which had already been brought up during daytime, [to teach] that the priest turns them over on the altar during the whole night until the morning. It is for this reason that He says hi ha’olah [using the definite article], meaning: “the one which has already come up” on the altar. It also teaches us that even those that are invalid, are not to be brought down again, [once they were taken up onto the altar], provided they became invalid in the Court of the Sanctuary [such as where they had remained overnight or had been unclean, etc.; but if they became invalid before reaching the Sanctuary Court, such as an animal that had been set apart for idolatry, or had been worshipped etc., these must be brought down].¹⁹See Zebachim 84a for full discussion of these cases. It also teaches that [invalid] drink-offerings¹³See Numbers 15:3-12 for the command that burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings had to be accompanied by an offering of wine. must come down [since they do not go upon the fires on the altar],¹⁴Succah 48a. There were two such bowls there, one for the wine-libation and the other for the special water-libation on the Festival of Succoth (see in Seder Vayikra Note 219). “The bowl to the west was for water and that to the east was for wine” (ibid., 48 b). and so also the blood [which had become invalidated], as I have written.