Commento su Levitico 8:37

קח את אהרן TAKE AARON — This section was spoken seven days before the final erection of the Tabernacle and so should have been placed before Exodus XL., but a transposition of this kind is quite customary in the Bible, because there is no “earlier” or “later” (no chronological order) in the Torah.

TAKE AARON. “This section [concerning the seven days of consecration of the priests] was said seven days before the [final] erection of the Tabernacle [which took place on the first day of Nisan],¹⁶⁷During each of the seven days of consecration Moses set the Tabernacle up and then dismantled it. But on the eighth day [which was the first of Nisan] the final erection took place, and it was no longer dismantled until they journeyed from Mount Sinai. for there is no strict chronological order in the narrative of the Torah.”¹⁶⁸Since the final erection of the Tabernacle is already mentioned at the end of the Book of Exodus (40:17), and the section before us, according to Rashi, was said seven days before the final erection, we must perforce say that there is no strict chronological order in the narrative of the Torah. In other words, chronologically the proper place of this section here in the Book of Leviticus is before Exodus, Chapter 40! Ramban will strongly dissent to this interpretation of Rashi. Thus the language of Rashi. But why should we invert the words of the living G-d! Moreover, in the section of On the first day of the first month,¹⁶⁹Exodus 40:2. He commanded concerning the erection of the whole Tabernacle, the clothing of Aaron and his sons and the anointing of all of them, and there He narrated Moses’ deeds in the matter of the erection of the Tabernacle,¹⁷⁰Ibid., Verse 17-33. but did not mention anything concerning Aaron and his sons till here. And how could it be that He separated one subject into two sections, [as follows from Rashi], placing the later one [i.e., the final erection of the Tabernacle which took place on the first of Nisan, as recorded in the Book of Exodus], before the earlier one [i.e., the seven days of consecration that began on the twenty-third of Adar which He placed here in the Book of Leviticus]!
Rather, the correct interpretation is that we say that Moses was commanded about the erection of the Tabernacle on the twenty-third day of Adar, and he erected it [on that day]. As soon as the Tabernacle stood in its position G-d, blessed be He, Who sitteth upon the cherubim¹⁷¹I Samuel 4:4. called Moses and commanded him about the actions involved in the bringing of the offerings — all those sections from the beginning of the Book of Vayikra until here. [This was because] He wanted to teach him the actions and statutes of all the offerings before he offered up any of them, since among the initiation-offerings were the sin-offering, burnt-offering and peace-offering, and they could only know all their laws from these sections with which He preceded [to command him]. Afterwards He said to him, Take Aaron and his sons with him etc., to urge him on when the time came for performing what He had told him at first — And this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them to hallow them, to minister unto Me etc.,¹⁷²Exodus 29:1. adding here, And assemble thou all the congregation at the door of the Tent of Meeting,¹⁷³Verse 3 here. so that it should be done in the presence of all of them, that they should know that G-d, blessed be He, chose Aaron and his sons [to minister unto Him].
By way of the proper interpretation of Scripture, Moses was commanded about the building of the Tabernacle prior to the incident of the golden calf [as is the order of these chapters in the Book of Exodus],¹⁷⁴The commandment concerning the building of the Tabernacle is in Seder Terumah (Chapters 25-27), and the story of the golden calf is in Seder Ki Thisa (Chapter 32). — This is unlike Rashi’s statement (ibid., 31:18) that the incident of the golden calf happened a considerable time before the command regarding the work of the Tabernacle. Hence Ramban preceded this discussion with the expression, “by way of the proper interpretation …” in order to indicate that his view is different than that stated elsewhere in Rashi’s commentary. and when the Holy One, blessed be He, became reconciled to him and promised him that He would cause His Divine Glory to dwell among them, Moses understood of his own accord that the command concerning the Tabernacle remained valid as before, and he then commanded Israel regarding it, as I have explained in the section of Vayakheil.¹⁷⁵Ibid., 35:1. After they had completed the work, he was then told the section of On the first day of the first month shalt thou set up the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting,¹⁷⁶Ibid., 40:2. and he was then told, And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the Tent of Meeting etc.¹⁷⁷Ibid., Verse 12. Thus Moses knew that Aaron and his sons also remained in their esteemed and beloved position before G-d. Here He urged them again on the first day of the consecration, at the time of performing the command [And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons etc.]¹⁷⁷Ibid., Verse 12. Thus all the sections of the Torah are in chronological order, except that He placed before its sequence the verse, And the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting,¹⁷⁸Ibid., Verse 34. which in the opinion of our Rabbis¹⁷⁹Torath Kohanim, at the beginning of Seder Shemini. was on the eighth day of the initiation, in order to arrange in order the whole matter of the erection of the Tabernacle, it being the customary way of Scripture in all places to finish a subject that it has started to explain.¹⁸⁰See Vol. I, p. 431, for a similar instance.

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.

קח את אהרון, "take Aaron, etc." This paragraph was revealed to Moses before the Tabernacle was erected, and the reason it was not recorded up until now is to tell us that all the laws pertaining to the various sacrifices were revealed before the details of the consecration rites were revealed. Aaron and his sons had to become priests in order to perform any of the other services in the Tabernacle; this did not happen until Moses had taught him all the details about the various sacrifices and he had undertaken to perform every rite in accordance with what the Torah demanded. Only after he undertook to do this did G'd tell Moses to anoint him and his sons as priests. If this had not been the case, some Israelite might have decided to offer a sacrifice to G'd on the altar in front of the Tabernacle and he would not have known how to proceed.

קח את אהרן, “take Aaron, etc.” Rashi explains that the chapter introduced here was said by G’d to Moses seven days prior to the erection of the Tabernacle. Nachmanides takes issue with Rashi, asking why he takes such liberties with the Divine words of the Torah by editing their sequence. Furthermore, he (Rashi) claims that on that first day of Nissan G’d told Moses all about the erection of the Tabernacle, the inaugural consecration offerings, the garments of the priests and their having to be being clothed in them, etc., but reporting only about what Moses had done during the seven days following without mentioning anything about what Aaron and his sons had done until this moment. How would Rashi explain that in this instance an event has been reported in two entirely different contexts? When we encounter the Torah reporting matters not in chronological order, at least the same subject is not torn asunder by some parts being reported in one Book, in one context, and the other part in a different Book in another context? Therefore, the correct interpretation of what happened must be that Moses was indeed commanded concerning all of the foregoing on the occasion when he put up the Tabernacle for the first time, on the 23rd of Adar. After having succeeded in putting it up completely on that occasion, G’d called to him, and instructed him concerning all the various offerings which we have read about ever since the beginning of Parshat Vayikra, because He wanted Moses to be familiar with all of them before the time came to make this part of the daily routine and before he would offer up any of them during the days that he would act as High Priest pro temp. After all, the consecration offerings consisted of burnt offerings, sin-offerings, and peace offerings. The priests were not familiar with the laws governing all of the offerings until they had learned what has been written in the Torah from the beginning of Parshat Vayikra until here. After having made Moses familiar with these laws, G’d told Moses to take Aaron, (8,2) to “take Aaron, etc.,” and to exercise speed and dedication when performing these various procedures. G’d repeated, to a certain extent, what He had told Moses וזה אשר תעשה להם וגו', (Exodus 29,1) when he had been commanded about the inaugural consecration offerings of the priests. Moses conveyed these laws to the priests as and when their performance became imminent, after they had been informed that G’d had selected them to their new status as a status transmitted by heredity based on paternity. The only thing that has been added in our verse is that this consecration took place in full view of the entire congregation. (Verse 3) Thus far Nachmanides. We are able also to explain what Rashi has said by following the same approach. What Rashi meant when he referred to the seven days prior to the erection of the Tabernacle simply refers to the period before the Tabernacle had been erected permanently, i.e. was not taken apart again every evening. The “final” erection of the Tabernacle occurred only on the eighth day of the inaugural consecration rites, on the first day of Nissan. Days during which the Tabernacle was alternately put together and taken apart were not considered as “after the erecting of the Tabernacle.”

For there is no earlier. The erecting of the Mishkan was on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, and this was on the twenty-third of Adar. The explanation of (v. 35): “At the entrance of the Tent of Meeting you shall sit ... for seven days” is: In the place of the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, since for the entire seven days they would erect it and take it apart [and when it was taken apart there was no entrance’]. On Rosh Chodesh the Mishkan was erected and not taken apart, except during their travels.

קח את אהרן, “take Aaron, etc.” this paragraph was told to Moses on the twenty third day of Adar during the first year. (Compare Targum Yonatan on verse 4.)

קח את אהרן means win him over with fine words and draw him on (cf. Rashi on Exodus 14:6) (Sifra, Tzav, Mechilta d'Miluim 1 2)).

ואת כל העדה הקהל אל פתח אהל מועד, “and assemble the entire congregation to the entrance of the tent of Meeting!” Even though the Tabernacle had been erected on the first of Nissan, and this occurred on the 23rd of Adar prior to that, according to the opinion that during the first seven days of the Tabernacle it was erected and taken apart by Moses on a daily basis during those days, seeing that during these seven days the Tabernacle was in position during the day, it is quite appropriate for the Torah to refer to an entrance of the “Tent of Meeting.”

With words. This is not from an expression of לקיחה (taking); this has already been explained in Parshas Bereishis (20:15) and other places (Bereishis 43:15, and more).

ואת פר החטאת וגו'‏‎‎‎‎‎ AND THE BULLOCK FOR THE SIN OFFERING [AND THE TWO RAMS] etc. — These are the sacrifices mentioned in the section containing the command about the installation ceremony — in the Scriptural Reading beginning with the words, ואתה תצוה (see Exodus 29) and now, on the first day of the installation ceremony He again admonished him (Moses) regarding this when the time for performing the command arrived.

הקהל אל פתח אהל מועד AND ASSEMBLE THOU [THE WHOLE CONGREGATION), UNTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE TENT OF MEETING — This is one of the instances where the lesser comprised the greater (the small area accommodated the whole congregation) (Leviticus Rabbah 10 9).

ואת כל העדה הקהל “and assemble the whole congregation!” They were all to treat the priests as holy. (Sifra).

והקהל העדה, the community was assembled, etc. Perhaps when the people saw Moses taking Aaron, his sons, and the priestly garments, they assembled spontaneously. It is also possible that the verse tells us that G'd ordered the people to assemble around the entrance to the Tabernacle as explained by Vayikra Rabbah 10,9 on the word הקהל in verse 3 and that our verse reports that the people did so.

ותקהל העדה אל פתח אהל מועד, “and the assembly was gathered in the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” This required a miracle, of course This is one of several places in the Bible where a very small area was able to accommodate a very large number of people (compare Tanchuma Tzav 12.). When Moses was told to assemble all the people at the entrance of the Tabernacle, he turned to G’d saying: “how can six hundred thousand men and six hundred thousand youngsters fit into the entrance [an area of 50 by 100 cubits] of the Tabernacle? G’d replied: “is this what you are concerned about? Was not the heaven at one time no bigger than the eye of a needle and I managed to fit the entire earth through it?” G’d quoted Isaiah 40,22: “Who spread out the skies like gauze, stretched them out like a tent to dwell in?” At the revelation at Mount Sinai G’d appeared surrounded by 22,000 chariots filled with ministering angels as we know from Psalms 68,18: ‘G’d’s chariots, myriads upon myriads, thousands upon thousands, the Lord is among them as in Sinai in holiness.’ Each of these chariots was similar to the one Ezekiel saw in his vision. Seeing this was so, how could the mountain have supported all these chariots? Clearly, miracles happened which temporarily suspended the rules applying to terrestrial space. At the time G’d had told the mountain: “expand and accommodate all the loyal people.” When the Jewish people crossed the Jordan river 40 years later the entire Jewish people found space between the staves of the Holy Ark behind the Priests who marched ahead. This is based on Joshua 3,9: “Joshua said to the Children of Israel: ‘come close and listen to the words of the Lord. your G’d.’” In the future these miracles will be re-enacted when all the people ever since Adam who qualify for resurrection will have to be accommodated on earth. Aren’t they going to complain that they do not find room to stand? However, G’d promised that at that time “I will expand the size of Jerusalem” as prophesied by Isaiah 54,2 who quotes G’d as addressing Jerusalem saying to her: “enlarge the size of your tent, extend the size of your dwelling; do not stint!” Thus far the comments of the Midrash Tanchuma Tzav 12 on the subject.

זה הדבר THIS IS THE THING [WHICH THE LORD COMMANDED ME TO DO] — The things you will see me doing in your presence has the Holy One, blessed be He, bidden me do, and do not think I am doing them for my own glory and for my brother’s glory. — The whole of this matter treated in the present chapter I have already explained in the Scriptural Reading beginning with the words, ‎‏ ואתה תצוה ‏‎(Exodus ch. XXIX.).

ויאמר משה …זה הדבר, Moses said:…"this is the word, etc." Moses informed the people of what G'd had said so that they would not register a protest at a later date claiming he had made all these appointments of his own accord. Seeing that the Torah reported here that everything was done at the command of G'd, Korach had no basis for the claim that he had acted inadvertently when he challenged Aaron's position seeing he had been present at this time and had not challenged Moses when the latter presented these appointments as having been made at the direct command of G'd.

The things which you will see. [Rashi is answering the question:] Nothing was mentioned earlier that Moshe could be referring to when he said, “This is the edict”! Therefore, Rashi explains: “The things which you will see.”

God commanded me. [Rashi adds this] because in the verse it does not mention Who commanded. [Therefore,] it was necessary to explain: “[Hashem] commanded me...” Although Moshe knew that in the end the honor would come and the Shechinah would dwell in his sacrifices, then, everyone would know as a matter of course that everything was a command of Hashem, nevertheless, he wanted to remove himself from even momentary suspicion (Nachalas Yaakov).

It is also possible to explain this verse along the lines of Shemot Rabbah 2,6 and Zevachim 102 that Moses' position was equivalent to that of a king seeing the Torah wrote in Deut. 33,5: "He was king in Yeshurun." We have learned in Ketuvot 17 that even if a king is willing to waive the honour due him he is not allowed to do so. We observe that Moses did things (waived his claim to honour) which even a Jewish servant is not allowed to perform for his master, such as bathing him, etc. In our paragraph Moses is bidden to wash the entire body of Aaron and his sons. There is no more demeaning task that anyone can be asked to perform. This is why the Torah had to introduce this paragraph with the words: "G'd said to Moses to say." Moses explained to the people that if he was seen to perform such a demeaning task it was because G'd had told him to; it did not mean that by doing so he relinquished his claim to the position of king. This was the only demeaning task ever performed by Moses as all others were forbidden to him by his very status. Only G'd who was the One who had appointed Moses as king was in a position to ask him to perform a service not in keeping with a king's dignity.

Furthermore, we may understand what happened in terms of a comment by Torat Kohanim on verse 6: "he washed them in water." They say that the High Priest (and the ordinary priests when required) acquired the merit accompanied by ritual immersion and his washing his hands and feet before each act of service in the Temple on the Day of Atonement. The words זה הדבר אשר צוה ה׳ לעשות, "this is the thing which G'd has commanded to be done," means that these rites were to be performed also in the future, seeing performance of this command granted them the privilege of ritual immersion in the future. [According to ראב׳ד quoted by Malbim the ritual immersion referred to is the the ritual baths the High Priest underwent during the seven days he prepared himself for the Day of Atonement. Ed.]

AND HE WASHED THEM WITH WATER. It appears likely to me that Scripture tells that he [Moses] washed all of them, but nonetheless it was not done to all of them together. Rather, he washed Aaron and clothed him with his garments and anointed him, and afterwards he washed his sons and anointed them.

וירחץ אותם במים, “he immersed them in water.” Nachmanides writes that he believes that most likely Moses immersed all of them (Aaron and his four sons) in a ritual bath; however, he did not immerse them in such a bath simultaneously, but he first immersed Aaron and then dressed him in the appropriate priestly garments; anointing him. Following this, he performed the same procedure on each of Aaron’s sons.

AND HE PUT UPON HIM THE TUNIC AND HE GIRDED HIM WITH THE BELT. This was the order in which Moses did it. But in the section containing the command, He said, and thou shalt put upon Aaron the tunic, and the robe of the ephod¹⁸¹Exodus 29:5. [and mentioned the belt only later on in the section, and not right after the tunic, as here], because there He wanted to mention the belt for Aaron and his sons in one command, saying, And thou shalt gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons.¹⁸²Ibid., Verse 9. Thus the command for the belt, referring as it did to both Aaron as High Priest and his sons as common priests, is mentioned there once in connection with both, in order to save repeating it; but here where the actual fulfillment of the command is narrated, Scripture mentions all the garments that Aaron was clothed in together, separate from those of his sons. Thus Moses clothed Aaron with the tunic and the belt, and afterwards with the robe and the ephod, in the order mentioned there.¹⁸³Ibid., Verse 5. Here [when performing the command] he girded him with the skilfully-woven band of the ephod¹⁸⁴In Verse 7 before us. before he placed the breastplate upon him,¹⁸⁵Verse 8. [while in the section containing the command the breastplate is mentioned before the skilfully-woven band of the ephod], for Moses knew that the usual way of dressing is that immediately after putting on a garment, one girds it with the belt made for it. Therefore, he girded him with the belt immediately after the tunic, and with the skilfully-woven band [of the ephod] immediately after the ephod, it being improper that the putting on of the ephod should be done with intermissions. But there [in the section containing the command] it is said, and the ephod, and the breastplate, and gird him with the skilfully-woven band of the ephod,¹⁸³Ibid., Verse 5. because He dealt briefly there with the subject of the breastplate, and did not say that it be placed on the ephod, nor that he should put in it the Urim and the Thummim,¹⁸⁶Exodus 28:30. See Ramban there. since He had already commanded all this in explaining the work of the ephod and the breastplate.

ויתן עליו את הכתונת ויחגור אותו באבנט, “he placed the tunic on him and girdled him with the sash.” Nachmanides points out that when Moses was commanded to dress Aaron, the Torah writes:והלבשת את אהרן את הכתונת ואת מעיל האפוד, “you are to dress him in the tunic and the robe with the ephod,” whereas here no mention is made of the robe and the ephod. The reason may be that actually Moses followed the normal procedure. It is customary that after putting on the tunic that one girdles oneself with a belt. Seeing that the Torah had wanted to include all the garments in a single instruction, the belt had been mentioned last on that occasion, including both Aaron and his sons in the instruction to belt their garments. Nevertheless, the normal sequence was that reported here, i.e. donning a tunic followed by tightening it with the belt, followed by donning the robe. Moses was well aware of these procedures, but in this instance it was of importance that the ephod and the breastplate attached to it, also had to be somehow attached to the belt. The Torah, during its instructions concerning these garments, and the sequence in which they were to be donned, describes this in the second half of chapter 28 in Exodus, and makes these connections fairly plain. [I have abbreviated here, as without an illustration this is not easy to follow. Ed.]

ויתן עליו את הכתונת ויחגור אותו באבנט וגו, “He placed the tunic upon him and girdled him with the sash, etc.” The sequence in which the High Priest donned his priestly garments was as follows: the tunic, the girdle, the robe, the ephod, the breastplate, the turban, the Tzitz (golden headband worn on forehead). These are a total of seven in which Moses clothed Aaron. Together with the trousers which each Priest put on himself this makes eight garments worn by the High Priest when he performed the service. The order in which the seven garments were put on corresponded to the seven layers of heaven (שבעה רקיעים). The trousers which covered the Priest’s private parts corresponded to the lowest region in heaven in which the moon covers the “tent” comprising the lower world, the one described as בשגם הוא בשר, (Genesis 6,3) “while they are of flesh.” The tunic corresponded to the heaven which contained the planet כוכב, Mercury. The girdle corresponded to the heaven containing the planet נוגה, Venus. The robe corresponded to the heaven containing the planet חמה, Sun, whereas the ephod corresponded to the heaven containing the planet מאדים, Mars. The breastplate corresponded to the heaven containing the planet צדק, Jupiter. The name was an allusion to the Urim Vetumim worn inside the breastplate which helped the High Priest to establish צדק, righteousness, by consulting with G’d when he needed answers. The turban corresponded to the celestial region containing the planet שבתאי, Saturn. Seeing that Saturn is in the highest celestial region it was appropriate that the garment worn on top of the High Priest’s head should be a symbol of it. We have a verse in Job 22,12 describing Saturn as the highest planet. [I have mentioned on previous occasions that all these data and the authors of those periods finding it necessary to establish these co-relationships, are based on outdated astronomical data. Ed.].
The ציץ, which was inscribed with the words 'קודש לה, ‘holy for the Lord,” corresponded to G’d’s throne of glory which is above the seven celestial regions paraphrased by the words שבעה רקיעים, “seven layers of heaven.” The author also sees some allusion to the seven lower emanations in the seven garments listed here as worn by the High Priest. [These allusions are rather obscure. Ed.]

ויאפוד לו, “and he girded him;” the letter פ in this word has a dagesh, (dot.)

את האורים THE URIM — an inscription bearing the Proper Name of the Lord (cf. Rashi on Exodus XXV 3:30).

ויתן אל החשן את האורים ואת התומים, “he inserted in the breastplate the Urim and Tumim.” These “urim vetumim” were a parchment with the Ineffable Name written on it. We have explained all this in Exodus 28,30. This represented one of the various stages of the Holy Spirit. Access to G’d by means of the urim vetumim was on a lower level than that at the disposal of a prophet, but it represented a higher level of Holy Spirit than hearing a בת קול, “a heavenly echo.” You should appreciate that the difference between what is commonly known as “Holy Spirit” and “prophecy,” is that when a prophet receives a communication from G’d all his normal faculties are interrupted. At such a time he is as if deprived of all bodily functions, remaining temporarily as if a disembodied spiritual being. This phenomenon occurs while these prophets are awake (Maimonides, Yessodey Ha-Torah 5,2) and represented a special prophetic level of what is called the “eighth level.” On the other hand, the level known as רוח הקדש, “Holy Spirit,” does not involve that the recipient is deprived of his normal functions; he speaks like an ordinary individual but is imbued with a supra-natural ”antenna” which puts words in his mouths which he conveys in ordinary language. Such a person will reveal matters which will happen in the future seeing G’d put these words in his mouth. The third part of the Bible, known as Ketuvim was written under the influence of this kind of divine inspiration. The level of divine inspiration possessed by Moses was far superior to that of any of the aforementioned. His prophetic insights exceeded those of any other prophet. This is the reason why whenever our sages speak of the Bible they apply three separate names to it in the same order, i.e. תורה, נביאים, כתובים, “the Torah, the Books of the Prophets, Holy Scriptures.” Everything written in the Torah is of a superior degree of direct communication from G’d. Our sages have even stipulated that when such Books are bound separately, it is inadmissible to place the Book of the Prophets on top of the Torah, or the Book of the Holy Scriptures on top of the Book of Prophets for instance; all this to remind us of the different degrees of sanctity between these three parts of the Bible (compare Maimonides, Hilchot Sefer Torah 10,5). All of this in order for us to appreciate whence prophecy emanates.

וישם על המצנפת UPON THE MITRE … DID HE PUT [THE GOLDEN PLATE] — Threads of blue purple that were: fastened on the Plate he put over the mitre, consequently the Plate hung from the mitre mid would be “against his face” (upon his forehead) as stated here (cf. Rashi on Exodus 28:37).

On the turban. See above in Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 28:37).

AND MOSES TOOK THE ANOINTING OIL, AND ANOINTED THE TABERNACLE … AND HE POURED OF THE ANOINTING OIL UPON AARON’S HEAD. This too¹⁸⁷See Ramban on Verse 7. Moses did in the proper order, for so he was commanded [in the section on the making] of the oil of anointment: And thou shalt anoint therewith the Tent of Meeting etc., and thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons.¹⁸⁸Exodus 30:26 and 30. Therefore Moses did not want to anoint the Tabernacle until he had clothed Aaron, and then he anointed them together, so that the one who is to perform the Divine Service should be ready, as it were, to come at once into the Sanctuary to minister. It sufficed to do so in the case of Aaron, for he was the holy one of the Eternal,¹⁸⁹Psalms 106:16. — Hence Aaron was dressed first with the priestly garments after the Tabernacle had been erected and not yet anointed, so that the two could be anointed together. This was not the case with Aaron’s sons, who were dressed and anointed after the Tabernacle and Aaron had been anointed. although in the command regarding the erecting of the Tabernacle it is written, and thou shalt anoint the Tabernacle, and all that is therein,¹⁹⁰Exodus 40:9. and afterwards, and thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the Tent of Meeting, and shalt wash them with water. And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments,¹⁹¹Ibid., Verse 12-13. for there He arranged all that was done to Aaron and his sons in one verse.¹⁹²But in reality the anointing of the Tabernacle took place after Aaron had been dressed by Moses in his priestly garments, as is stated here [for the reason mentioned in the text].

וימשח את המשכן, He anointed the Tabernacle, etc. Why did the Torah interrupt the report of clothing Aaron in the priestly garments and his being anointed with the report of the Tabernacle being anointed? The reason is presumably that the Torah had reported that Moses was commanded to anoint the Tabernacle before it reported that he had been commanded to anoint Aaron (compare Exodus 40,9). You may argue that it would have been appropriate then for the Torah to report the anointing of the Tabernacle before reporting the dressing of the priests in their garments in order to conform with the order in which the Torah reported the commands as being issued by G'd. The reason Moses did not do so may be found in a detail in verse 2 where G'd had said to Moses: "take Aaron, his sons, the garments, and the oil of anointing." If the anointing of the Tabernacle had been intended to precede the sons of Aaron being dressed in their priestly garments, the Torah should have written as follows: "take the oil of anointing, etc." seeing the Torah wanted the first command to be carried out first. If the Torah had written verse 2 in that order we could not possibly have mistaken its intention. Seeing the Torah first mentioned Aaron, it is clear he was to be anointed first before he was to put on the priestly garments. It was not possible to misinterpret what G'd wanted because the Torah had already said in Exodus 28,41: "dress your brother Aaron and his sons in them and anoint them." It is clear therefore that the Torah intended to have the priests put on the priestly garments prior to anointing the Tabernacle with the oil of anointing. Why is it then that in פרשת פקודי the Torah reported the anointing of the Tabernacle before it reported Aaron being dressed in his priestly garments? We may answer that seeing the Torah did not want to interrupt between the act of Aaron's' getting dressed and being anointed, it wrote all the laws pertaining to Aaron consecutively; this did not mean however, that the anointing of the Tabernacle was to be preceded by anything but the anointment of Aaron himself. This is the point we learn from the sequence of the Torah's report in our chapter.

וימשח את המשכן ואת כל אשר בו, “He anointed the Tabernacle and all the furnishings therein.” Each vessel in the Tabernacle and each item of furnishing was anointed separately. But Aaron and his sons were anointed while wearing their priestly garments, as is written in Psalms 133,2:.כשמן הטוב היורד על הראש ירד על הזקן, זקן אהרן שיורד על פי מדותיו“like the fine oil on the head running down onto the beard, that comes down over the collar of his robes.” The word: מדותיו, is to be understood as in Leviticus 6,3: מדו בד.

ויז ממנו על המזבח AND HE SPRINKLED THEREOF UPON THE ALTAR — I do not know where he was given any command about these sprinklings (cf., however Nachmanides).

AND HE SPRINKLED THEREOF [i.e., of the anointing oil] UPON THE ALTAR. Rashi commented: “I do not know where Moses was commanded about these sprinklings.” It is possible that that which He said of the altar, and thou shalt sanctify the altar, and the altar shall be most holy,¹⁹³Ibid., Verse 10. means that he should add this sanctification to the altar through the sprinklings [of the anointing oil], and it could not be done merely by anointing the altar, for the expression and the altar shall be most holy, means that he should give it an additional sanctity above that of the other anointed things in the Tabernacle and all its vessels. Moses thus sanctified the altar in the same way that he was commanded to do to the ministering priests, concerning whom He said, and thou shalt sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments,¹⁹⁴Ibid., 29:21. since the altar, which is the vessel for the offerings, is not of a lesser degree of holiness than the garments of the ministering priests, and it is an inference from minor to major [that if the garments had to be sprinkled with the anointing oil, surely the altar, being more holy, had to be sprinkled]! And so also is it said with reference to the Day of Atonement, And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it [the altar] with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel.¹⁹⁵Further, 16:19. Thus [we see that] all sanctifications of the altar were done by sprinklings, and it follows all the more so that [when the altar was consecrated] at the very beginning that it had to be sanctified by sprinkling from uncleanness and “strangeness” [i.e., from that which is not holy].
Scripture did not mention here [in Verse 13] the anointing of Aaron’s sons, for it is self-evident that Moses did to them as he did to their father, in accordance with that which he was commanded, And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father,¹⁹⁶Exodus 40:15. and He included it here in saying with reference to the sons that everything was done as the Eternal commanded Moses.¹⁹⁷Verse 13.
It appears to me that the anointing of Aaron’s sons was not done by means of pouring the oil on their heads, for that is said only of Aaron, Then shalt thou take the anointing oil, and pour it upon his [Aaron’s] head, and anoint him,¹⁹⁸Exodus 29:7. but the anointing of the sons is not mentioned there at all, as it was not done by means of pouring the oil as in Aaron’s case. It is [also] possible that there was no anointing of the sons, except for the sprinklings which Moses sprinkled on Aaron’s sons and their garments from the oil of anointment. Thus you see in the section of And this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them to hallow them¹⁹⁹Ibid., Verse 1. that He commanded to anoint the father [i.e., Aaron], as it says, Then shalt thou take the anointing oil, and pour it upon his head,¹⁹⁸Exodus 29:7. but did not command to anoint the sons at all, either by pouring of the oil, or by anointing. However, in the section of the erection of the Tabernacle He says, And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father,¹⁹⁶Exodus 40:15. because He did not mention the sprinklings there at all, [hence He mentioned “anointing,” whilst referring really to sprinkling]. Similarly, in the section of the oil of anointment [the verse mentions anointing of Aaron and his sons¹⁸⁸Exodus 30:26 and 30. because it does not mention the sprinklings at all]. But both sprinkling and anointing are nowhere mentioned with reference to the sons of Aaron in one place. Therefore I say that he only did one of the two to them, namely, the sprinklings.

[This apparent error in the sequence (we already had reference to verse 12) is not an error on my part, but I am copying the sequence as printed in my version of the Tur, where this does not appear in the corrections at the end as an error. Ed.] ויז ממנו על המזבח, “he sprinkled from it on the altar, etc.” Rashi claims that he does not know whence Moses had been instructed to do this. Nachmanides feels that it is possible that this was included in the verse in which the altar had been sanctified, i.e. in the instructions commencing in Exodus According to verse 10 of that chapter, the altar was to be both anointed and sanctified, as a result of which it would become “holy of holies.” The implication of the wording is that the additional sanctification may have been achieved through the sprinkling of this blood on the altar seven times. The sanctity status of the altar exceeded that of the rest of the Tabernacle because the altar had not only been anointed with the special oil, but had also had sacrificial blood sprinkled on it. It is no more than logical that the “additional” sanctity achieved by the altar was the result of it having been treated like the people who actively presented the offerings in the Tabernacle, i.e. by being anointed also with the same oil.

I do not know... The Ramban [suggests that the source of this command is] because it says regarding the altar (Shemos 40:10): “[Sanctify the altar] so that the altar becomes holy of holies,” which indicates that additional sanctification and sprinkling was necessary, more than [the sanctification] for the other vessels. But it appears to me it is because the altar was not like the other vessels of the Mishkan, in that the hollow of the altar was filled with earth and the anointing was for the copper [exterior] alone. However, there was no anointing for the earth that filled its hollow space. Therefore, he sprinkled unto the altar in the place where they were bringing sacrifices after it was filled with earth. It needed anointing because it was no less than other vessels (Gur Aryeh).

וימשח … ‎‏ ויצק‎ AND HE POURED [THE ANOINTING OIL UPON AARON'S HEAD] AND ANOINTED |HIM| — First he poured some oil upon his head and afterwards he put a drop between his eyebrows, and he drew the oil with his finger from this place to that (this drawing the oil from one place to the other was the anointing here spoken of) (Keritot 5b; Horayot 12a; cf. also Rashi on Exodus 29:7).

ויצוק על ראש אהרן, “he then poured it on the head of Aaron, etc.” Nachmanides writes that in this instance too, Moses performed the procedures in the correct order, as he had been commanded to perform these steps in this order when first told about the oil of anointing (Exodus 30,26-30) This was the reason that Moses did not want to anoint the Tabernacle itself until he could immediately thereafter anoint Aaron and his sons and their garments. The entire procedure of anointing took place as a continuous sequence. This was all necessary to enable the party who offered the sacrifices to be invited into the Tabernacle to perform the duties that could be performed only inside the Sanctuary, such as lighting the Menorah, burning the incense, and sprinkling the blood of certain of the sin-offerings on the golden altar. In those verses Moses had been told to first anoint he Tabernacle followed by the command to anoint and thereby to sanctify Aaron and his sons. [No mention is made in the text of the sons of Aaron having been anointed with oil. Ed.] Aaron and his sons were also to be sprinkled with some of the blood from the altar of the inaugural consecration offerings that had been presented by Moses as the High Priest prior to Aaron’s induction. Normally, [i.e. when the occasion should arise again to anoint a Tabernacle or Temple, I presume, Ed.] this would not take place until after the priests had already donned the garments in which they would perform their service. Anyone perusing the text of Nachmanides as we have it nowadays will note that it is substantially different from that which had been at the disposal of the Tur. It is not my task as a translator to reconcile these versions, and if the reader on comparing texts, finds fault with my translation this may be due to my following the Tur’s quote of Nachmanides, as he had it. Ed.] Personally, I am nonplussed why the anointing of Aaron’s sons is mentioned here at all. [An alternate version adds the word “not” i.e. why the anointing of the sons of Aaron was not mentioned here at all. Ed.] Nachmanides writes [in our versions on verse 11. Ed.] that there was no need for mentioning the anointing of the sons of Aaron at all, as it is clear from the tenor of the text that the sons underwent the same procedures as their father. After all, the Torah wrote when detailing the instructions to Moses: ומשחת אותם, “you are to anoint them.” (Exodus 28,41) The fact that Moses had carried out these instructions is confirmed when the Torah writes that Moses carried out the instructions G’d had given him. (End of verse 13) It appears to me (Nachmanides writing) that the anointment of Aaron’s sons was not performed by pouring oil of anointment on their heads, seeing that this detail has not been mentioned except in connection with Aaron himself even in the instructions to Moses, (compare Exodus 29,7) whereas in that verse the Torah does not mention anointment of his sons at all. It is therefore possible that the sons were not anointed with oil at all, but that they were only sprinkled with some of the blood and the oil of the inaugural offering as described in Exodus 29,21 [a sprinkling which stained their garments, not their bodies. Ed.] In that paragraph no mention is made of either pouring oil on the sons of Aaron or of anointing their heads with it. However, in the paragraph dealing with the erection of the Tabernacle in Parshat Pekudey (40,15) the Torah does speak of Moses having to anoint Aaron’s sons with the words: “as you have done to their father.” On that occasion no mention is made of their being sprinkled at all. No mention is made of this anointing with oil of the sons of Aaron in the paragraph dealing with the oil of anointing and its subjects, either. This leads me to believe that the sons were only sprinkled with oil.

ויחבש — This is a term meaning binding.

ויגש את פר החטאת, “He led forward the bull for the sin offering;” now, when the Torah reports details, this bull is referred to as “the bull of the sin offering,” whereas previously in Exodus 29,10 this animal was simply referred to as: הפר, “the bull.”

ויחטא את המזבח AND HE PURIFIED THE ALTAR — He cleansed and purified it from anything “strange” (alien to the sacred purpose for which the altar was intended) that may have happened to it, so that it might enter into a state of holiness (cf. Rashi on Exodus 19:36).

AND HE PURIFIED THE ALTAR. “He cleansed it and purified it from anything ‘strange’ [not holy], so that it might enter into a state of holiness. AND HE SANCTIFIED IT by this rite. TO MAKE ATONEMENT UPON IT — from that time onward for all atonements of sin.” This is the language of Rashi.
If this is so, then Scripture is saying that by these means the altar was hallowed and made fit to effect atonement upon from that time onward. This is similar to that which is said in the Book of Ezekiel, Seven days shall they make atonement for the altar and cleanse it; so shall they consecrate it. And when they have accomplished the days, it shall be that upon the eighth day, and forward, the priests shall make your burnt-offerings upon the altar, and your peace-offerings, and I will accept you, saith the Eternal G-d.²⁰⁰Ezekiel 43:26-27. Here He teaches that this consecration is done with blood, but the burning of the fats is no hindrance to the consecration of the altar, for in succeeding generations too it is no hindrance to the atonement [if the fats of the offering were not burnt on the altar].
But in the Tosephta of the section of consecration²⁰¹Torath Kohanim, Tzav Milu’im 15. I have seen [the following text]: “I know not what is this atonement for the altar. [I must say that] from here²⁰²See my Hebrew commentary, p. 40, Note 74 that mikaan (from here) is the preferred text. Our books of the Torath Kohanim have the word minayin (from whence). you learn that this atonement was only necessary because Moses said: ‘When the call was issued to bring freewill donations for the Sanctuary, the people pressured each other, both men and women, and some donated without their complete will; let this be an atonement so that they should not donate to the Sanctuary anything which had been taken by force.’ And so it also says, For I the Eternal love justice, I hate robbery in a burnt-offering.”²⁰³Isaiah 61:8. “Although the burnt-offering is wholly Mine, I hate it yet if it is brought through robbery” (Rashi, Succah 30 a). Rashi has also mentioned this already in the section of V’atah Tetzaveh.²⁰⁴Exodus 29:36.

ויחטא את המזבח, “he enabled the altar to dispense atonement.” According to Rashi this was done by removing its former status as being profane, making it sacred.

Purified it from any strangeness. I.e., [Rashi is answering the question:] Who made the altar impure that it was necessary to purify it? On this he explains: “From any strangeness...”

ויקדשהו AND HE SANCTIFIED IT by this rite.

ויקדשהו, “he sanctified it;” by means of the service performed on it now, for the future also.

With this service. Otherwise, with what did he sanctify it?

לכפר עליו THAT ONE MIGHT MAKE EXPIATION UPON IT from that time onward with all atonement sacrifices (i. e. that all atonement sacrifices might henceforth be offered upon it; the meaning is not that he sanctified it so that he might now offer an atonement offering for it or upon it).

לכפר עליו, “to provide atonement on it.” For all subsequent generations. We learn from here that the fact that the meat of the inaugural offering which had not yet been consumed by the flames on the altar, did not hold up the altar’s ability to confer atonement on the people who had so far presented an offering on this altar. In a תוספתא discussing the subject of מלואים, it is stated that if someone donates anything against his better judgment (not from free volition) this gift may act as advance protection for him so that he will not become guilty of bringing stolen goods to the Temple, something of which G’d is on record as saying שונא גזל בעולה, “He hates it if the burnt offering had been obtained unlawfully.” (Compare Sukkah 30) [I do not know of a “Tossephta miluim, but I found something similar to this in the Sifra.קפ Ed.]

From now... As if it says: He sanctified it so that he could make atonement upon it from now on.

הכבד [AND THE LOBE OF] THE LIVER — i. e. he took it (the lobe) besides some of the liver — it means that he took a little of the liver with it (the lobe).

Aside from the liver. Here, the Torah does not say על הכבד, only Rashi writes it here. His proof is from what it says here יותרת הכבד (the lobe of the liver). If so, why does it mention in Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 29:13): “על הכבד (the lobe on the liver),” and not יותרת הכבד, as it says here? Rather, the word על mentioned above is to expound that he takes a small part of the liver (Divrei Dovid).

AND THE BULLOCK, ‘V’ETH ORO'(AND ITS SKIN), AND ITS FLESH, AND ITS DUNG, HE BURNT WITH FIRE. Included in the term “the bullock” are those parts which were burnt that are not included in “the flesh,” namely the bones, sinews, horns, and hoofs, besides its skin, its flesh, and its dung. Or perhaps the vav [in the word v’eth — v’eth oro (‘and’ its skin)] is one of those redundant letters [thus making the sense of the verse: “and the bullock — its skin, and its flesh, etc.”], it being similar to the verse, And the heifer shall be burnt in his sight; her skin, and her flesh, and her blood, with her dung, shall be burnt.²⁰⁵Numbers 19:5.

ואת הפר ואת עורו ואת בשרו ואת פרשו, “and the bull with it hide, flesh and its waste.” Even though the Torah had already mentioned the hide, the flesh and the waste separately, the Torah still wrote “and” the bull, thereby including bones, tendons horns and hooves that had not been spelled out. Alternately, the ו in the word ואת preceding the word עורו is extraneous, similar to Numbers 19,5 ושרף את הפרה לעיניו, את עורה ואת בשרה ואת דמה על פרשה ישרוף, “Someone shall burn the cow before his eyes, its hide, and its flesh, and its blood, with its dung, shall he burn.”

AND THE RAM WAS CUT INTO PIECES. This cutting into pieces was done only after flaying, but Scripture shortened its account here by omitting the flaying, since He had already commanded about it in the section of the burnt-offering.²⁰⁶Above, 1:6. He states [here in this verse], and Moses caused the head, and the pieces to burn [on the altar], which means “at the time of burning it,” namely, after he washed the inwards and the legs in water [mentioned in the following verse]. It is with reference to this that He states, and Moses burnt the whole ram upon the altar,²⁰⁷Verse 21. for after the washing he burnt everything at the same time. Scripture, however, separated them [stating here in Verse 20 that he burnt the head and the pieces, etc., and afterwards in Verse 21 that he washed the inwards and the legs], so as to teach us that the pieces do not need washing.

ויקטר משה את הראש ואת הנתחים ואת הפדר., “Moses burned up the head, the various parts, and the fat parts to go up in smoke.” The meaning is not that Moses burned up all these parts separately at different times, but it means that when the time for burning up these parts had arrived he proceeded to do so, as instructed.

איל המלאים — This means the same as איל השלמים, for the word מלואים is synonymous with the word שלמים; this term is used to describe the ram because by means of it they set the priest fully (ממלאין) and completely (משלימין) in their priestly office (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Mechilta d'Miluim 1 20).

AND HE PRESENTED THE OTHER RAM, THE RAM OF ‘HAMILU’IM’ (CONSECRATION). I have already explained²⁰⁸Exodus 28:41. that the meaning of “consecration” is that the priests should be fully empowered to perform the Divine Service, and that this term is applied to both the altar itself and to those who perform the Service. Thus all these offerings [the bullock of the sin-offering, the ram of the burnt-offering, etc.,] were brought for the purpose of consecrating the priests, as it is written, And this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them to hallow them, to minister unto Me in the priest’s office: take one young bullock and two rams without blemish.²⁰⁹Ibid., 29:1. The second ram, however, is here called specifically the ram of consecration, because it was the last of these offerings, and it was after it that their consecration was completed and they ministered before Him, blessed be He, for all these offerings were indispensable in the matter.
It is possible that the [purpose of the] sin-offering was to effect atonement for the altar and to sanctify it, for it is so written;²¹⁰See Ramban above, Verse 15. and that the burnt-offering was to expiate for the priests, like the atonement effected by all freewill burnt-offerings,²¹¹See Ramban above, 1:4. and the second ram which was the peace-offering, was a thanksgiving to G-d for having given them in His house and within His walls a monument and a memorial.²¹²See Isaiah 56:5. Thus it was only the peace-offering which was brought for the purpose of consecration, and therefore it alone is here called “the ram of milu’im” (consecration). It is called milu’im [in the plural, although the offering for that purpose was, according to this interpretation, only one], because the fats and the thigh as well as the heave-offering of the bread were all burnt.²¹³Verses 25-28.

את האיל השני איל המלואים, “the second ram, the ram representing the inauguration;” Nachmanides writes that all of these offerings were inaugural offerings; we know this already from Exodus 29,1 “and this is the matter that you shall do for them to sanctify them, etc.” Why then was the second ram only referred to here as the “ram of the inaugural offering?” The reason this expression “inaugural” was applied here to the second ram is because it was the last of the series of inaugural offerings. The same adjective would, of course, have been applicable to all of them. Each one of the offerings in the series is מעכב, indispensable, in order for the people concerned to become sanctified in their new role as priests. It is possible that the bull of the sin-offering here was meant to atone for any infringement of the laws concerning the altar, as a result of which atonement it could be sanctified, just as the purpose of the burnt offering was to gain grace in the eyes of Hashem. The shlamim, peace-offering on the other hand, was an expression of gratitude by the newly appointed priests that G’d had granted them such a distinction to have such unrestricted entrance to the holy precincts. In other words, the real “consecration” offering was only this peace offering; the other two offerings were preambles. Seeing that they were necessary preconditions, all of these three types of offerings are called מילואים, (plural mode

For they fulfill and complete. The word מלואים written here is not an expression of installation, but rather an expression of wholeness: For they fulfill and complete, etc.

וחלת לחם שמן AND A CAKE OF OILED BREAD — This was a scalded cake, and it is called “oiled bread” because he used a large quantity of oil for it, equal to that which he used for the cakes and wafers together. So is it explained in Treatise Menachot 78a (also Menachot 89a).

Use much oil. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written חלת מצה שמן in the earlier part of the verse [and שמן would then refer to everything mentioned in the verse], or at the end: ורקיק שמן, and would then refer to everything mentioned beforehand? He explains: [That is the scalded dough, in which he would use much oil].

ויקטר המזבחה [AND MOSES TOOK THEM FROM OFF THEIR HANDS] AND CAUSED THEM TO ASCEND IN FUMES AT THE ALTAR — Moses (though a non-priest) was officiating during the seven days of installation [in a white garment] (Avodah Zarah 34a).

על העולה, upon the burnt-offering. These words mean that nothing else intervened. Perhaps the meaning is that Moses did not wait with accepting the meal-offering from the hands of the priests until the burning up of the burnt-offering had been completed.

Moshe performed [the Temple service] all seven. Re’m writes: I do not know why Rashi explains this here and not on (v. 15): “and Moshe took the blood...” where it would imply all the services that followed afterward were performed by Moshe. Perhaps the answer is: Rashi waited until the end of Moshe’s service. Additionally, we can say: Rashi is answering the question: Why did they burn the thigh on the altar? We do not find any thigh of a peaceoffering that was burnt, as Rashi writes nearby. And Rashi answers: “Moshe performed...” Regarding the breast and the thigh it is written that it shall be to Aharon and his sons as a portion (7:33, 34). For this reason Moshe burnt the thigh on the altar and it was not given to him as a portion, and only the breast [was given to him] to distinguish between him and Aharon and his sons, for they were the kohanim, and he was a Levi. He served only during the seven days of installation. Hashem made this distinction between Moshe and the kohanim, the sons of Aharon. Rashi did not write this above because there it was not necessary to say that Moshe served the entire seven days of installation. Rather, [one could say that] he served only on the first day to teach Aharon the details of service. The rest of the days, however, if they wished, Moshe could bring [sacrifices] to be burnt, or someone else, as long as he knew how to bring them [upon the altar] to be burnt. However, it is written here (v. 25-28): “He took the fat and the fat tail... He put them all on Aharon’s palms and on the palms of his sons and he waved... Moshe took them from their palms and he burned them on the altar in addition to the burnt-offering,” and this raises a difficulty: Why did Moshe perform all these services alone? Rashi explained (7:30) that waving requires three kohanim because the glory of the king is with a multitude of people! Therefore, perforce, no one else was fit to serve besides Moshe. Thus, one must say that Moshe served the entire seven days of installation (Gur Aryeh).

על העולה, “with the burnt offering.”

על העלה [AND MOSES … CAUSED THEM TO ASCEND IN FUMES] על העלה — after the burnt offering (על is taken in the sense of besides, in addition to the burnt offering. Hence he burnt it after the burnt offering). We do not find in any passage, that the shoulder of peace-offerings was burnt except in the case of this alone (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:22).

After the burnt-offering. It does not literally mean על (upon), for he already burnt the burnt-offering before the slaughtering of this ram.

AND MOSES TOOK OF THE ANOINTING OIL, AND OF THE BLOOD WHICH WAS UPON THE ALTAR [AND SPRINKLED IT UPON AARON etc.]. I do not know whether he mixed [the oil with the blood] for these sprinklings, something like that which it says, and he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar.²¹⁴Further, 16:18. The accepted opinion in the Talmud (Yoma 57 b) is that he mixed the two together. Nor has it become clear to me why Moses performed these sprinklings after the burning of the ram of consecration, for in the section containing the command about the consecration Services He mentioned first the sprinklings,²¹⁵Exodus 29:21. and only afterwards He said, And thou shalt take of the ram the fat, and the fat tail.²¹⁶Ibid., Verse 22. Perhaps since He said there [in the same verse where He mentioned these sprinklings], and he [Aaron] and his garments shall be hallowed, and his sons and his sons’ garments with him,²¹⁵Exodus 29:21. Moses deduced that these sprinklings were the last things to be done to them, through which they would become completely holy, for in connection with anointing the priests He did not mention the term “hallowed,” nor in connection with the placing of the blood upon their thumbs.²¹⁷Ibid., Verse 20. [Therefore, since it is only stated in connection with the sprinklings of the oil and the blood that the priests are to become hallowed, Moses deduced that this was to be done after the burning of the ram of consecration.] And when it says here [immediately following Moses’ pouring the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head], and he anointed him, to sanctify him,²¹⁸Verse 12. it was not a complete sanctification until Moses had done the sprinklings, even as it says [in the verse before us, after he had done the sprinklings], and he sanctified Aaron, and his garments, and his sons. Thus he completed the sanctification of the father and sons together by means of these sprinklings. The Rabbis have also said so in the Torath Kohanim:²¹⁹Torath Kohanim, Tzav Milu’im 34. “And he sanctified Aaron. From here you learn that the sanctification of Aaron and his sons was completed only with the sprinkling of the blood.”

ויקח משה משמן המשחה ומן הדם אשר על המזבח, “Moses took from the oil of the anointing, and from the blood on the altar, etc.” Nachmanides writes that it is not clear to him why the procedure of sprinkling the oil and blood on Aaron and his sons was delayed until after the burning up of the מילואים offerings that required this. When you compare the directives Moses had received concerning these offerings, you will find that the sprinklings are mentioned prior to the burning up of the parts on the altar that required this. (Compare Exodus 29,21). Possibly, the reason is that during the directives the Torah speaks of the priests and their garments becoming sanctified as a result of this sprinkling. From this wording Moses might have concluded that the final stage in the sanctification of the priests and their garments would not be attained until then. It is a fact that during the directives in chapter 29 of Exodus no mention is made of sanctification. [I believe the author means that no procedure there is described as specifically designed to sanctify the priest, as for instance portions of the meat of the איל המילואים are specifically described as undergoing sanctification procedure (verse 27.] In connection with putting the blood from the sacrifice on Aaron’s right ear or big toe, we also do not encounter the word קדוש at all. When we read in verse 12 of our chapter וימשח אותו לקדשו, that Moses anointed him in order to sanctify him, we must assume that this was only a partial sanctification, and that the procedure would only be completed with ויקדש את אהרן את בגדיו ואת בגדי בניו אתו , “he sanctified Aaron, his garments, and his sons and their garments at the same time.” Sanctification of father and sons was described as being complete as a result of these sprinklings.

ויקח משה משמן המשחה, Moses took some of the anointing oil;” here the Torah speaks of after he had burned up the fat parts of the second ram and its fatty tail and the remainder of the kidneys and the right thigh, Moses took some of the anointing oil and sprinkled it on Aaron and his sons, whereas in the text describing that Moses was commanded what to do and how, this procedure in Exodus29,21, the procedure is described as in the reverse order. (Nachmanides raised the same point and attempted to answer the apparent contradiction)

כאשר ציויתי, "as I commanded, etc." Moses referred to the site where the meat was to be consumed, seeing he had already commanded the priests to consume the meat. If a priest would be unwilling to eat these parts of the offering this would invalidate it (retroactively). If he wanted to eat it in a place other than the one designated he would also invalidate it. The Torah added the word לאמור to indicate that Moses did not initiate this halachah but that he had received specific instructions concerning this from G'd.

AND THAT WHICH REMAINETH ‘BABASAR UBALACHEM.’ The letter beth in these two words [which means literally: “‘in’ the meat and ‘in’ the bread”] serves here as a mem the meaning thus being: “and that which remains ‘of’ the meat and ‘of’ the bread. ”²²⁰See Ramban above, 7:36. Similarly: ‘bayom ha’shemini’ (‘on’ the eighth day), and forward²²¹Ezekiel 43:27. [means miyom ha’shemini — “from” the eighth day on]; and they oppressed and crushed the children of Israel ‘bashanah hahi (‘in’ that year) eighteen years²²²Judges 10:8. [means mishanah hahi — from’ that year].
Scripture does not state: and that which remained “till the morning,” for they had already learned the law of the offerings and knew that these peace-offerings were to be regarded like the stricter offerings which are eaten for a day and a night,²²³This is unlike the ordinary peace-offering, which may be eaten for two days and the intervening night. See Note 55 above. [since they were accompanied by breads like a thanks-offering]. Or it may be that Scripture speaks briefly here because it is explained in the section containing the command of these offerings, And if aught of the flesh of the consecration, or of the bread, remain unto the morning, [then thou shalt burn the remainder].²²⁴Exodus 29:34.

והנותר בבשר ובלחם, “and any leftover of either the meat or the bread, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the letters ב in front of the words בשר and לחם have to be understood as if the Torah had written מבשר ומלחם, i.e. “leftovers from.” The meaning of the word נותר does not mean something left over until the morning, seeing this had already been written in Exodus

בבשר ובלחם, “of the flesh and of the bread;” the prefix letter in the word בבשר is to be understood as meaning “from,” i.e. מ.

כי שבעת ימים ימלא את ידכם, “for you shall be inaugurated for a period of seven days.” G’d had said something similar in Exodus 29,35 where the Torah wrote: ”for seven days you shall inaugurate them.”
A kabbalistic approach: the days of inauguration were seven as the people already realised the significance of the seven garments of the High Priest (the trousers not being a specific garment of the High Priest). We read in Isaiah 63,12: מוליך לימין משה זרוע תפארתו, “who made His glorious arm march at the right side of Moses.” This is a reference to Moses who trained Aaron and gave him some of his prophetic powers. According to the Zohar Tzav 34,2, this is why Moses had to anoint Aaron. During these seven days Moses performed the High Priest’s duties (dressed only in a white tunic) in order to confer all this sanctity upon Aaron. Rabbi Abba said that seeing that Moses was firmly rooted in the holy place whence all this power stemmed, he was able to transfer this sanctity to Aaron. This is why the Torah wrote earlier (30,12): “he poured from the oil of anointment on Aaron’s head, and he anointed him and sanctified him.” This is also the reason that these days of inauguration were described (in the Zohar) as “days of שלמות, “days of perfection, or perfecting.”

לא תצא שבעת ימים, “do not leave (the door) of the tent for seven days;” this is not to be understood as a house arrest, but means that Aaron and his sons are not to undertake any other activities and not go to another tent even. However, at night they were at liberty to perform what any normal person needs to do. We have another example of a similar construction in Deuteronomy 34,8 where the whole people of Israel is described as mourning Moses and weeping over his death for thirty days, and the meaning surely is not that they did not move from their tents during all this time even to use the sanitary facilities. The same construction is used in connection with the commandment to dwell in the huts on Sukkot for seven days, (Leviticus 23,42) as well as in Leviticus 21,12: “he (the High Priest when mourning his father or mother) must not leave the Tabernacle.” (Compare Ibn Ezra on our verse).

צוה ה' לעשת [AS HE HATH DONE THIS DAY, SO] THE LORD HATH COMMANDED TO DO all the seven days). But our Rabbis explained as follows: לעשת, “so hath the Lord commanded to do” — this refers to the “Red Heifer” (Numbers ch. XIX.); and לכפר, “to perform a cleansing ceremony” — this refers to Yom-Kippur. And thus these words, they say, are intended to intimate that the High Priest requires separating from his family during seven days before Yom-Kippur, and similarly the priest who burns the Red Heifer (Sifra, Tzav, Mechilta d'Miluim 1 37; Yoma 2a; Yoma 3b).

כאשר עשה ביום הזה צוה ה' לעשות לכפר עליכם, as he did on this day, the Lord commanded to be done to provide atonement for you.” Our sages in Yuma 2 interpreted these words to mean that the day referred to as ‘this day” was the eighth day of the consecration rites; G’d referred to the seven days the Priests had observed prior to that day. The lesson is that the procedure involving the red heifer which needs to be isolated for seven days before it is burned is derived from a similarity in the Torah’s expression (גזרה שוה) i.e. the word צוה used both here and in Numbers 19,2. [Such comparisons have halachic significance only when the word itself is not necessary in the context in which it appears. Ed.] Here the Torah (repeated) the words צוה ה', something which we knew already; in Numbers too it was clear without these words that G‘d had commanded the procedure. The additional words לכפר עליכם, “when arranging atonement for you,” refer to the Day of Atonement procedures prior to which the High Priest is to isolate himself as stated in Yuma 2. He leaves his private residence and takes up quarters in an office adjoining the Sanctuary just as he does for seven days prior to the burning of the red heifer (compare Parah 3,1 and quoted in Yuma 2). The meaning of our verse then is: “this day on which the High Priest is instrumental in obtaining atonement for the people has been preceded by seven days of isolation” (and spiritual preparation for that eighth day).

All seven days. Meaning: This is a truncated verse, and it should have said: “Just as he did on this day, Hashem commanded him to do all seven days.” This is because if the phrase, “Just as he did on this day” was meant to be connected with the verse above: “because for seven days your hands will be filled.” If so, the phrase, “Hashem commanded him to do” would remain by itself, without being understandable. However, our Rabbis expounded: “To do” — this refers to the ritual of the Red Heifer, “to bring about atonement,” — this [refers] to the ritual of Yom Kippur. If so, according to what they expounded, we must say that the phrase, “Just as you have done on this day” is connected with the previous phrase. And the statement, “Hashem commanded him to do” is a separate statement — that Hashem commanded to do the ritual of the Red Heifer; and [commands] the Kohein Godol “to bring about atonement for you” on Yom Kippur by the means of seclusion for seven days.

Seclusion seven days before Yom Kippur. [I.e.,] just as these laws are required here they are also required there.

ולא תמותו [THEREFORE SHALL YE ABIDE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE APPOINTED TENT DAY AND NIGHT. SEVEN DAYS] … THAT YE DIE NOT — Consequently if you will not do thus, you become liable to the death penalty.

AND AT THE DOOR OF THE TENT OF MEETING SHALL YE ABIDE DAY AND NIGHT SEVEN DAYS, AND KEEP THE CHARGE OF THE ETERNAL, THAT YE DIE NOT. In the opinion of the Beraitha of Torath Kohanim,²²⁵Torath Kohanim, Shemini Milu’im 42. See also Ramban further, 10:6, where he quotes again this Beraitha more fully. the meaning of this verse is that they shall not go out from the door of the Tent of Meeting²²⁶Verse 33. day and night at the time of the service, that is to say, until they finish all the work incumbent upon them at that time. This is a commandment which applies for all generations, that a priest may not leave the Sanctuary while he is ministering the Service,²²⁷See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 157-160. and he is liable to death [by the hand of Heaven, for the transgression thereof]. It is with reference to this that He said about the High Priest, Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary, nor profane [the Sanctuary of G-d].²²⁸Further, 21:12. The Rabbis have said about this:²²⁵Torath Kohanim, Shemini Milu’im 42. See also Ramban further, 10:6, where he quotes again this Beraitha more fully. “When is he not permitted to go out of the Sanctuary [and must stay there in order] not to profane it? One must say that this applies only when he is ministering.” And they have further interpreted:²²⁵Torath Kohanim, Shemini Milu’im 42. See also Ramban further, 10:6, where he quotes again this Beraitha more fully. “[And ye shall not go out from the door of the Tent of Meeting,] lest ye die.²²⁹Further, 10:7. From the negative you infer the positive [that if they do go out whilst ministering, they are liable to death by the hand of Heaven]. I would only know that Aaron and his sons, who were anointed with the oil of anointment, are liable to death [by the hand of Heaven] if they leave the Sanctuary while they are ministering. How do I know that the prohibition applies also to all priests at all times? Scripture therefore says, for the anointing oil of the Eternal is upon you.”²²⁹Further, 10:7. The meaning of that is as follows: since He did not say: “for you are anointed with the anointing oil of the Eternal,” but instead He said “upon you,” it is like the verse, and their anointing shall be to them for an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.²³⁰Exodus 40:15.

יומם ולילה, for the curtains (carpets) were never dismantled, as we explained in Exodus 40,18.

ופתח אהל מועד תשבו יומם ולילה שבעת ימים, “at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting shall you dwell day and night for seven days.” We are taught in Torat Kohanim that this is not a prohibition not to leave this spot during the entire seven days, but the meaning is that during the daylight hours when Temple service may be in progress, Aaron and his sons are not to leave that location. We derive the rule from this verse for all future generations that any priest who abandons his station during the hours that Temple service is ongoing is guilty of death

Thus, if you do not do so. Otherwise, if it were not written to infer from it, why is “and you will not die” written at all? Certainly, they will not die when they observe Hashem’s mitzvos! Rather, it must have been written for the sake of the inference.

Death. Meaning: From the negative statement you can infer the positive one. This is because Scripture here only intends to punish someone who will not do so, and not to say that if he will do so he will not die, since the main “cutting” is the death penalty, Rashi found it necessary to say here that from the negative statement you can infer the positive one, as if it says that if you do not do so you will die.

ויעש אהרן ובניו SO AARON AND HIS SONS DID [ALL THE THINGS] — This is stated to tell their praise — that they did not turn to the right nor to the left (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Mechilta d'Miluim 1 38).

AND AARON AND HIS SONS DID ALL THE THINGS WHICH THE ETERNAL COMMANDED BY THE HAND OF MOSES. Everywhere in this section it says ‘as’ the Eternal commanded Moses,²³¹Above, Verses 13, 17, 21, 29. The Hebrew text here reads: “as the Eternal commanded ‘by the hand of’ Moses.” But this expression I did not find in the Five Books of Moses, but in the Book of Joshua (14:2, etc.). And Ramban’s aim is clearly to distinguish everything that Moses did, which was exactly “as” G-d had commanded him, from that which the sons of Aaron did, as explained in the text. Hence it would seem to be correct that the reading in the text should be “as the Eternal commanded Moses.” It is so also in the Tur who quotes the language of Ramban. but here, since Aaron’s sons added to the command [by bringing strange fire which He had not commanded them],²³²Further, 10:1. He does not say it in this way, since they did not do as the Eternal commanded Moses. Rather, the verse states that they did all the things ‘which’ the Eternal commanded, and they further added to them “the strange fire” of which He said that He had not commanded them.²³²Further, 10:1.
Shemini

את כל הדברים אשר צוה ה' ביד משה, “all the matters which Hashem had commanded through Moses. Nachmanides writes that the reason the Torah does not use the customary wording of כאשר צוה ה' את משה, is because Aaron’s sons did not do exactly as G’d had commanded Moses, by adding strange fire, i.e. fire that did not originate in heaven. They had not been instructed to do this.

That they did not deviate. Otherwise, why does Scripture write, “[Aharon and his sons] fulfilled”? It is obvious! Would a righteous man such as he not do, Heaven forbid, as he was commanded by Hashem? Re’m writes: Similarly, the Sages expounded in the Mechilta, regarding (Shemos 14:2,4): “Speak to the Bnei Yisroel and have them turn back... They did just that.” And in Parshas Acharei Mos, regarding (16:34): “He did as Hashem commanded Moshe,” and in Parshas Bo, regarding (Shemos 12:28): “The Bnei Yisroel went and did...” and in Parshas Beha’aloscha, regarding (Bamidbar 8:22): “Just as Hashem had commanded Moshe.” However, in Parshas Beha’aloscha, regarding (ibid. 9:5): “So they made the Pesach offering ... [so did the Bnei Yisroel do],” the Sages did not expound. Perhaps this is because they relied on what was expounded concerning the [first] Pesach itself in Parshas Bo. It appears to me: The reason the Sages did not expound in Parshas Beha’aloscha, regarding (ibid.): “So they made the Pesach offering...” was because that entire section speaks of the Jewish people’s degradation, as Rashi explains: The entire forty years they were in the wilderness they made only this one Pesach offering, etc. For this reason the Sages did not expound concerning “So they made...” as they did elsewhere. Furthermore, Re’m writes: “However, in Parshas Korach (Bamidbar 17:26) regarding: ‘Moshe did so, [he did just as Hashem had commanded him],’ concerning the matter of the staffs, the Sages did not expound anything, and I do not know why.” It seems to me the answer is because it is not applicable to expound there: To tell you his praise, etc., since Moshe was the messenger of Hashem, and it is presumed that a messenger fulfills his assignment. It is no praise for a messenger when he does the assignment of the one who sent him. However, the Bnei Yisroel, and Aharon and his sons, did according to the words of Moshe. They made no changes from all that he commanded them, and they believed that Moshe was sent [by Hashem]. For this, it is apropos to expound: “To tell you their praise.” So it appears to me.