Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Imamat 1:4

ואת פר החטאת ואת שני האילים, the bull as a sin offering is mentioned first, in accordance with the statement of our sages that whenever both a sin offering and a burnt offering have to be brought the sin offering is brought first. (Pessachim 59) The reason is simple; how could the person offering the burnt offering expect it to be welcome in the eyes of G’d if he still required atonement for a sin in order to be in G’d’s good graces? David paraphrases this in Psalms 40,7 עולה וחטאת לא שאלת, “You do not ask for burnt offerings and sin offerings.” This bull became a “sin offering” after having been anointed, a procedure similar to the anointing of the High Priest for his office. However, in this instance the blood of this sin offering was not brought into the sanctuary, seeing that the sin of Aaron and his sons had not been of such a severity as would require this additional procedure. Severe errors by the High Priest are the ones listed in Leviticus 4,3 or 4,13 by the Supreme Court. Such errors require that the blood of their sin offerings be brought into the sanctuary itself. We explained all this at the appropriate place in chapter 16. The reason why the Torah first deals with the burnt-offering before dealing with the consecration offerings, is that there was an element of sin, i.e. need for forgiveness in connection with the burnt offering, as is evident from the Torah’s concluding remark ונרצה לו לכפר עליו, “and it shall become acceptable for him to atone for him.” (1,4). The reason why the Torah first deals with the burnt-offering before dealing with the consecration offerings, is that there was an element of sin, i.e. need for forgiveness in connection with the burnt offering, as is evident from the Torah’s concluding remark ונרצה לו לכפר עליו, “and it shall become acceptable for him to atone for him.” (1,4) whereas in all other שלמים offerings the priest receives the right thigh, in the case of the mandatory שלמים offering of the Nazir at the end of his term, the priest received both the right thigh and the foreleg, זרוע. As to the ram of the consecration offering שלמים, even the thigh is offered on the altar. When a non priest offers a שלמים, generally speaking, he will donate the thigh together with the lower leg, to the priest who enters inside the holy domain out of bounds to the owner of the sacrifice. The Nazir donates also the יד, i.e. the foreleg, symbolically handing the priest the work of his hands, which until the termination of the period of his vow as Nazir had all been dedicated to G’d. On the other hand, the rites of the consecration offerings required that the offering itself was a preparatory offering enabling the priest henceforth to enter the holy domains of the Temple. To symbolise this the thigh was presented on the altar.

Yose ben Yoezer says that [on a festival] the laying of the hands [on the head of a sacrifice] may not be performed. Yosef ben Johanan says that it may be performed.
Joshua ben Perahia says that it may not be performed. Nittai the Arbelite says that it may be performed.
Judah ben Tabai says that it may not be performed. Shimon ben Shetah says that it may be performed.
Shamayah says that it may be performed. Avtalyon says that it may not be performed.
Hillel and Menahem did not dispute. Menahem went out, Shammai entered.
Shammai says that it may not be performed. Hillel says that it may be performed.
The former [of each] pair were patriarchs and the latter were heads of the court.
Our mishnah is possibly the most unique mishnah in the entire Mishnah. It contains a debate about whether or not a person can lay their hands on a sacrifice on Yom Tov, the first and last days of a festival. According to Leviticus 1:4 and other parallel verses, when a person brings a sacrifice he lays his hands, or leans, on the sacrifice before it is slaughtered. On Yom Tov it is forbidden to use an animal and leaning on an animal is considered to be use of an animal. Therefore, the question could be asked, can one lean on the sacrificial animal on Yom Tov or must he do so the day before?
What is unique about our mishnah is that there are five pairs (zugot) of sages, each from a different generation, who debated this issue. The sages here are early sages who lived during the Second Temple period, from the beginning of the Hasmonean period until close to the beginning of the millennium. They might even be called proto-sages, or proto-rabbis. With one exception, all of these sages are found in Avot 1:4-10, where each transmits a moral exhortation. The final clause of the mishnah determines that of each pair the first was the patriarch and the second was the head of the court. As far as I know, there are no other mishnayot that have this structure in which the same debate being repeated generation after generation.
The fact that they debate specifically this issue is significant. We know that ancient Jews argued a lot about the laws of Yom Tov and Shabbat and that the Pharisees tended to be more lenient than the other two main sects, the Essenes and the Sadducees. This seems to be the trend in this mishnah as well Hillel allows one to lean on the animal, whereas Shammai does not.
Section four: Note that the mishnah switches order here. In all three previous pairs, the first said that it may not be performed, whereas the second said that it should be performed. It seems that there may have been some historical switch at this period, where the position of the patriarch changed.
Section five: Little is known about Menahem from rabbinic literature, except that he seems to have separated from the fold. Josephus, Antiquities 15:10, 5 relates a story about a certain Menahem who was an Essene. This Menahem receives a divine revelation that Herod will become king and he relates it to him. According to some scholars this is the same Menahem referred to in our mishnah. In any case, it is interesting that he is replaced by Shammai. It is as if the mishnah is letting us know that Shammai is not like Menahem. While Shammai’s opinions are usually not the accepted halakhah, he is still legitimate.

It is the burnt-offering [Hebrew: ‘olah] so called because all of it ascends [Hebrew: ‘ olah] up to the Altar. This verse implies that one should not sacrifice the burnt-offering at night, because it must burn on the pyre all night. The word the pyre ends in an extra heh (or perhaps Hebrew contains both a masculine and a feminine form of the word).