Commento su Levitico 14:10

וכבשה אחת AND ONE EWE-LAMB for a sin-offering.

AND ON THE EIGHTH DAY HE SHALL TAKE TWO HE-LAMBS WITHOUT BLEMISH, AND ONE EWE-LAMB. Scripture has not explained what is to be done with the two he-lambs and the one ewe-lamb. However, it mentioned concerning one of the he-lambs that the priest offer it as a guilt-offering,⁶⁸Verse 12. and further mentioned that he should offer up the sin-offering,⁶⁹Verse 19. and afterward he shall slaughter the burnt-offering.⁶⁹Verse 19. This is because He has already mentioned in the section of Vayikra that the sin-offering should be a female,⁷⁰Above 4:28; 32. and that every burnt-offering should be a male.⁷¹Ibid., 1:3; 10. Therefore there was no need here to speak at length, it being known that [since the first he-lamb was a guilt-offering], the second he-lamb would be the burnt-offering, and the ewe-lamb would be the sin-offering.

יקח שני כבשים תמימים וכבשה אחת, “he is to take two unblemished sheep and one ewe;” Nachmanides points out that the Torah did not state what is to be done with these three animals except to say that one of the male sheep mentioned is to serve as a guilt-offering, the priest having heaved it before Hashem. In verse 19 the Torah does state that the metzura is to offer his sin offering and his burnt offering, without referring to a specific animal. Seeing that we had learned in Parshat Vayikra that every sin offering, if consisting of the species sheep, consists of a feminine species, it is clear that the ewe is to serve as the sin-offering and the remaining male sheep as the burnt offering. (Ibn Ezra)

For a sin-offering. One lamb came for a guilt-offering, as it is written (v. 12): “The kohein shall take one lamb and bring it as a guilt-offering.” It did not specify anything, however, regarding the other lamb and the one ewe; it only states without specifying that one is for a burnt-offering and one is a sin-offering. However, the second lamb must be for the burnt-offering, because a female is not brought for a burnt offering, as it is written in Parshas Vayikra (1:3). Therefore, the ewe must be for the sin-offering (Re’m).

. שני כבשים, “two male sheep;” one is to be a burnt offering, i.e. the priests do not get to eat any of it, and neither does the owner,

ושלשה עשרנים AND THREE TENTH DEALS [OF FLOUR] — as the drink-offerings of these three he-lambs (Menachot 91a) — because the sin-offering and the guilt-offering of the leper require drink-offerings (although they are not required with other sin- and guilt-offerings).

Require drinkofferings. I.e., [you might ask:] the other sinofferings and guilt-offerings do not require drink-offerings, as we derive (Menachos 91b) from Scripture: “For an expressed vow or for a voluntary offering” (Bamidbar 15:3) — that which comes as a vow or voluntary offering requires drink-offerings, but that which does not come as a vow or voluntary offering does not require drink-offerings. If so, I might think that these three tenths here are referring to a meal-offering that comes by itself, and not the meal-offerings of drink-offerings. [This cannot be,] for if so, it would require only one tenth for the burnt-offering. Therefore, Rashi needs to explain that they come for these three sheep.

וכבשה אחת, “and one female sheep;” this is to be a sin offering, to be treated like any regular sin offering.

ולג אחד שמן AND ONE LOG OF OIL — to sprinkle on his behalf before the Lord seven times (cf. v. 17), and to put of it upon the tip of his ear and for putting it upon his thumbs (v. 25).

And for placing on his thumbs. Rashi wants to give a reason for this log: Why is it not mentioned in any one of the drink-offerings of animals? On this he explains: “To sprinkle...” (Re’m). It appears that we can explain that Rashi is coming to explain so that we should not err to say that [this log] is for the oil of the meal-offering of drink-offerings. Concerning the difficulty raised by Re’m: How could we err to say [that this log is the oil that was mixed with the fine flour when it already says beforehand, “a meal-offering mixed with oil”?], etc. The answer is: This is what the verse says: “A meal-offering mixed with oil” — and how much oil does one [need to] mix with the meal-offering? — One log of oil. Therefore, Rashi needs to explain [what he does with the leftover oil]: “To sprinkle...”

This sacrifice will be accompanied by a libation consisting of three tenths parts of an eyphah of fine flour for a meal offering mixed with oil and one log of oil;

That is that He commanded us that someone with tsaraat offer a sacrifice when he is healed from it. And that is three animals - a burnt-offering, a sin-offering and a guilt-offering - and a log of oil. But if he was poor, he should offer a lamb for a guilt-offering and two turtledoves or two young pigeons. And this is the fourth of those lacking [full] atonement - and that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "On the eighth day he shall take two flawless male lambs, one one-year old ewe lamb, etc." (Leviticus 14:10). And one will perhaps say, "Why don't you count the sacrifice of those lacking [full] atonement as one commandment, since they all have one thing that brings them all together - and that is their lack of atonement, such that this would be a certain type of purification. And it would have been appropriate for you to say, 'It is x commandment that He commanded us that the purity of some impure ones not be complete until they offer a sacrifice - and that is the zav; the zavah; the woman after childbirth; and one with tsaraat.' Just like you count purification in a mikveh as one commandment - whatever the specific impurity might be - and you don't concern yourself with the type of impurity with which they became impure; so too, would it have been appropriate for you to count the sacrifice of those lacking atonement as one commandment, and we would not be concerned about their [specific] impurities!" God knows that this would no doubt have been appropriate if the sacrifice of each one of these four that lack atonement were the same and did not differ; just like purification in the mikveh is a specific type of purification for every impure one. However as a result of the variation of their sacrifices - as you can see - it is perforce required to count each sacrifice individually. For the thing with which one [of them] completes purification is different from the thing with which the other one completes it. This is like waters of purification (mixed with ashes of a red heifer), the waters of a mikveh and the four species for the one with tsaraat are three commandments, even while they are all to purify the impure - as I will explain. And the regulations of these four that lack atonement and the regulations of their sacrifices have already been explained - in general and in detail - in the eighth chapter of Nazir, at the end of Negaim, in Tractate Kinnim and in scattered places in the Talmud. But most of them and their principles are in the places we named. (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement 4.)