Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Imamat 3:1

AND THOU SHALT SACRIFICE THE PASSOVER-OFFERING UNTO THE ETERNAL THY G-D THE FLOCK AND THE HERD. Its purport³¹⁸The difficulty in the verse is the fact that the Passover-offering is not brought from the herd. Ramban therefore proceeds to explain it in accordance with the law. by way of the plain meaning of Scripture is similar to the expressions: the ox, the sheep, and the goats³¹⁹Above, 14:4. [which means: “the ox, ‘and’ the sheep … “]; Reuben, Simeon, Levi³²⁰Exodus 1:2. [which means: “Reuben, ‘and’ Simeon, ‘and’ Levi”], And here it means: “and thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering unto the Eternal thy G-d, ‘and’ the flock and the herd [thou shalt bring for the Festal-offering,” as will be explained]. Therefore, [because the flock and the herd are not used for the Passover-offering], he does not say “and thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering unto the Eternal thy G-d, ‘of’ the flock and ‘of’ the herd,” as He says in all places: ye shall bring your offering ‘of’ the cattle, ‘of’ the herd, or ‘of’ the flock;³²¹Leviticus 1:2. and if his offering be ‘of’ the flock;³²²Ibid., Verse 10. if he offer ‘of’ the herd.³²³Ibid., 3:1. But here he commands concerning the Passover-offering, which is the sheep as He has previously mentioned;³²⁴Exodus 12:5. and sheep and herd, rams and goats and calves, to celebrate the Festal-offering on that day, just as he commanded concerning the Festivals of Weeks and Tabernacles, saying, And thou shalt keep the Festival of Weeks unto the Eternal thy G-d after the measure of the freewill offering of thy hand,³²⁵Further, Verse 10. meaning that he shall bring herd and sheep as peace-offerings in accordance with his means. So also he said with reference to Tabernacles, Seven days shalt thou keep a feast unto the Eternal thy G-d etc.,³²⁶Ibid., Verse 15. and at the end he included all three [festivals] together.³²⁷Ibid., Verse 16. Similar to this [where the connecting letter vav — “and” is missing] is the verse: In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the Passover; a feast of seven days, unleavened bread shall be eaten,³²⁸Ezekiel 45:21. which means “‘and’ a feast of seven days.” We find this also in the Passover celebrated by King Josiah where it says, of the flock, lambs, and kids, all of them for the Passover-offerings … and three thousand bullocks,³²⁹II Chronicles 35:7. and afterwards it says, And they roasted the Passover [-offering] with fire according to the ordinance, and the holy offerings they boiled in pots, and in cauldrons, and in pans, and carried them quickly to all the children of the people.³³⁰Ibid., Verse 13. Thus Scripture explained there that the lambs and kids were all for the Passover-offerings, not the goats themselves [that were older than a year] nor the herd, as it is written, Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year; ye shall take it from the sheep or from the goats.³³¹Exodus 12:5. And Scripture explains that the herd that he mentioned were three thousand, and they were holy offerings which were boiled in pots to be carried quickly to the people to eat their fill,³³²Isaiah 23:18. as our Rabbis have received by tradition concerning the Festal-offering.³³³Pesachim 70a. And Onkelos connected here [in the verse before us] the word flock with the Passover-offering [for he translated as follows: “and thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering from the young lambs, and holy offerings from the herd”]. But in that case the vav in the word u’bakar (“and” the herd) does not connect itself well [with the word tzon — “flock,” since the connecting letter, vav, indicates that the herd and the flock were used for the same offerings, while Onkelos says that the flock was for the Passover-offering and the herd was for other types of offerings.]³³⁴But according to Ramban, both the flock and the herd are intended for the Festal-offerings, hence the connecting vav in the word u’bakar (‘and’ the herd). Moreover, the flock is not valid for the Passover-offering, [but only males less than a year old, so it is not correct to explain as Onkelos did that the flock was used for the Passover-offering]. The correct explanation is what we have said.
Now he explained here many things. Thus he mentioned concerning the unleavened bread that it be bread of affliction,³³⁵Verse 3. teaching that he commanded to remember that they left [Egypt] in haste,³³⁵Verse 3. and this [bread of] affliction is a remembrance that they were living in Egypt with sparing bread and scant water.³³⁶Isaiah 30:20. Thus he alludes to two things [that they eat unleavened bread in order to remember that they went out in haste and there was no time for their dough to rise, and that they remember that they ate there “bread of affliction”]. And thus the Rabbis also said [in the Passover Hagadah]: “This is the bread of affliction that our fathers ate in the land of Egypt.” Or it may be that he is saying that the unleavened bread be made like bread of poverty [flour and water] and not like rich bread [kneaded with wine, oil or honey] as our Rabbis stated.³³⁷Pesachim 36a. And he also explained in the commandment pertaining to leaven that it shall not ‘be seen’ with thee in ‘all thy borders’ [seven days],³³⁸Verse 4. for at first He said, [seven days] shall there be no leaven “‘found’ in your houses. ”³³⁹Exodus 12:19. See ibid., 13:7 where it already states, Neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy borders! But Ramban’s point is that here it adds seven days to the earlier prohibition of leaven not being “seen” in all “the borders,” thus making it parallel to the prohibition of leaven not being “found” in “the houses” where, in Exodus, it states seven days. See my Hebrew commentary p. 415.

After the Torah has warned that the burnt offering, עולה, is of such a high rank of such sacred items, קדשי קדשיםthat only unblemished male animals may be used for such offerings, and that this requirement pertains only to cattle and sheep or goats, i.e. conditions which are not applicable to bird offerings, (compare Kidushin 16) it continues with ואיש כי יקריב 'זבח שלמים לה, to inform us that although this kind of meat offering is of a lower ranking sanctity, קדשים קלים and the Torah does not insist that such an animal must be male, in order to confer G’d’s goodwill on the donor, it must still be a perfect, unblemished animal of its species. We know from Leviticus 3,1 that such offerings are acceptable also if a female animal is offered. Verse 22 explains that it is simply not acceptable to offer a blemished animal to G’d as a sacrifice. An additional rule why blemished animals are not acceptable are the words ואשה לא תתנו מהם על המזבח לה'. The Torah informs us with these words that even if the blemish in the animal designated as the sacrifice originated only after it had been sanctified, the parts which are normally burnt on the altar, i.e. certain fat parts and membranes over the kidneys, because it simply is not acceptable that even if the parts designated for the altar are unblemished, anything which before getting to this stage had had a disqualifying blemish disqualifies the whole as it is looked upon with dismay by G’d.

Neither hast thou honoured me (זבחיך) with thy sacrifices, with thy peace-offerings.²⁴The word זבח is used in connection with שלמים to signify peace-offerings (Lev. 3:1), and as a complement of עולותיך, signifying all animal offerings except the holocaust (ib. 17:8), that is, peace and sin-offerings. The word occurring twice in <underline>this</underline> passage, is therefore explained to refer each time to a different kind of sacrifice. I. E. refers it first to peace-offerings, probably because of the expression neither hast thou honoured me; believing that sin-offerings can never be an honour to the Almighty; they can only be the symbol of a compensation or a satisfaction for wrongs done as it were against the Almighty; this is properly expressed by the verb הרויתני thou hast satisfied me, or thou hast filled me. I have not caused, etc. I have not asked thee to serve me with oblations.