출애굽기 29:47의 주석

לקח This is the same as קח (the imperative, “Take thou” and must not be regarded as the infinitive). There are two forms of the root: one is קח and the other לקח, both having the same meaning.

וזה הרבר אשר תעשה, "And this is the thing you are to do for them, etc." I have explained in connection with 27,20 that Moses' part in the construction of the Tabernacle was merely that he should instruct the artisans who would perform the work, whereas he personally was not to weave, embroider, or perform any of the various activities required. This rule was broken in the paragraph commencing here, where Moses is instructed to personally perform sacrificial rites as part of conferring the priesthood on Aaron and his sons. This is why the Torah commences the chapter with the words: וזה הדבר, "and this is the thing, etc." He was to offer animal sacrifices for seven days in a row. The word וזה, "and this," is justified seeing Moses had already been commanded to clothe the priests and to anoint them, i.e. physical activities, not just verbal instructions. The Torah therefore says: "You are also to perform this additional task with your hands, etc." If the Torah had not written תעשה, i.e. "you will do it," but had only written: "take one young bullock, etc.," we would have been justified in assuming that Moses was merely to issue a directive to Aaron or his sons to do this. Seeing there was a chance that we would interpret the instruction for Moses to act as priest and offer sacrifices as something applicable only to the inaugural sacrifices recorded here and not to any of the regular public offerings to be offered on those days, the Torah repeats by saying וזה אשר תעשה…כבשים בני שנה in verse 38 of this chapter. The repetition of this phrase indicates that Moses would officiate as priest also for those sacrifices. The Torah repeated the phrase "and this is what you shall do on the altar" (verse 38), so that we should not assume that Moses would be allowed to offer the daily public offerings also after the expiry of the seven inaugural days.

וזה הדבר אשר תעשה להם, “This is the matter that you shall do for them:” Actually, we would have expected the Torah to write: זה אשר תעשה להם, just as the Torah wrote in verse 38: וזה אשר תעשה על המזבח, where the word הדבר does not appear. The reason the word הדבר has been added in our verse is that seeing this paragraph introduces the whole subject of sacrificial offerings and there will be times when such offerings cannot be brought due to the absence of the Temple, the substitute of prayer, i.e. “words” or דבר, is a hint of such future developments. This is what Hoseah 14,3 is all about when he said קחו עמכם דברים ועבדו את ה', “take with you words and serve the Lord.” Another verse conveying a similar message is ונשלמה פרים שפתינו, “and let us substitute with our lips for bulls.”

They are of two different גִזְרוֹת . . . I.e., two different word roots. One is קיחה and the other is לקיחה .

Kap. 29. V. 1. וזה הדבר. Wie דבר seiner Grundbedeutung zufolge das Aneinanderreihen einzelner Teile zu einem Ganzen, und daher Begriff. Wort, Rede bedeutet, so bedeutet es auch wie hier einen einheitlichen, aus mehreren einzelnen zusammengehörigen Handlungen bestehenden Vorgang.

'לקח פר אחד וגו, “take one young bullock, etc.” take one ram on its left side and one ram on its right side and place the bullock in the middle. Why was Moses commanded to take these three animals? They were to symbolise the three founding fathers of the Jewish nation. The bullock symbolised Avraham, who had been described as “running to the stables containing the cattle,” when he was about to prepare a meal for the three angels, one of whom predicted the birth of Yitzchok (Genesis18,7). The two rams represented Yitzchok and Yaakov. The unleavened breads in verse 23 accompanying these sacrifices symbolised Hagar and Sarah. Avraham had told Sarah to hurry and to prepare bread at the time. According to Rav Hunna son of Abba, one measure of wheat would be taken to be milled, and by the time the owner came home he found that he had one measure of fine flour and one measure of average quality of flour and one measure of coarse grain. He now brought only a little more than one measure of fine flour. The purpose of the libations accompanying the animal sacrifices was to ensure that the grape harvest would enjoy G–d’s blessing. The Talmud relates the following story. A certain Torah student left Jerusalem, and he was recognised as such by people whom he encountered (who apparently did not have a Torah scholar living in their town) They offered him three major gold coins in order for him to change his place of residence and to take up residence in their town. He declined the money and the offer accompanying it. He explained that he owned a vineyard that was more valuable than all the gold that they could offer him, as it yielded him more than six hundred barrels of wine annually which he could sell at a good price. He recounted that he had an orchard which was similarly generous in the yield of fruit it provided him with. He attributed his good fortune to his meticulously observing the commandment of bringing the first ripe fruit of each category to the Temple in Jerusalem each year, as an offering to G–d (via the priest) Another story is related about a certain Yonathan son of Elazar, who witnessed while sitting under his fig-tree when the dew descended on that tree as a result of which he harvested great amounts of honey so much so that that when the wind mixed it with earth a female goat materialised and gave an abundance of milk. This Yonathan told his students that he wanted to show them a phenomenon which reflected the world to come in miniature. The moment he had finished saying this to his students all the aforementioned examples of material wealth on this earth vanished, in accordance with the prophet Chagai 1,6 who had said: זרעתם הרבה והבא מעט, אכול ולא לשבעה, שתו ואין לשכרה, לבוש ולא לחום לו, “you have sown much and brought in little; you eat without being satisfied; you drink without getting your fill; you clothe yourselves without getting warm.” [Yonathan then realised that he had erred greatly when boasting about material blessings he had enjoyed, and using these as a reason why not moving to a town that did not have a resident Torah scholar. Ed.] We find a similar message in Jeremiah 8,13. These blessings were all denied the Jewish people when they saw in them rewards for fulfillment of certain commandments in the Torah. We are not to observe the Torah for such a reward, although fulfillment of the commandments is accompanied by a certain amount of material blessings encouraging us to continue to do so. Our author quotes more sayings of the prophets on this subject, (Chabakuk 3,17; Ezekiel 36,8;) Tanchuma 13 on our portion.

וזה הדבר אשר תעשה להם לקדש אותם, “and this is the thing you are to do for them in order to sanctify them;” after all the construction work on the Tabernacle had been completed as well as the vestments for the priests, the Torah now instructs the priests about their laws of ritual purity, and under what conditions they may partake of the sacrificial sacrifices, where and when these may be consumed, and by whom, in the case of household members of the priests. Rules about ritual baths in order to be ritually pure are also discussed.

פר אחד ONE BULLOCK — to atone for the incident of worshipping the golden calf which is of the bullock species (cf. Sifra on Leviticus 9:2).

לקח פר אחד בן-בקר ואילים שנים, “take one young bull and two rams, etc.” these three animals are symbolic of the three patriarchs of the world; Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov.
A Midrashic approach: The word פר refers to Aaron whereas the words “two rams” refer to his surviving sons Eleazar and Ittamar. The Torah here forecast in an oblique way that Nadav and Avihu would not perform priestly functions.

To atone for the act of the calf. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why is a bull taken, and not another type of animal? [Rashi answers as he does] because “bull” means the same as “calf” whenever it is not written “less than a year old” [for the calf. Question: How can a bull be used for this purpose?] An accuser cannot become a defender. Re”m answers: That rule applies only to service done inside [the ohel moed], not to service done outside [in its courtyard]. Later, in parshas Tzav, I will explain this further, God willing.

According to Yuma 4 the word הדבר in our verse may mean that everything connected with the instructions about the inaugural offerings is mandatory. According to the opinion offered there that only those details which are mandatory for the offerings which are offered throughout the generations are also mandatory for the inaugural offerings, the word הדבר tells us that the detail mentioned here is mandatory but not every other detail.

לקדש .לכהן — לקדש: sie für ihren einen Beruf bereitstellen, es schließt dies immer ein Absondern von Bisherigem und Anderartigem in sich. Es tritt dabei das Negative immer in den Vordergrund. לכהן spricht voll den Begriff des neuen Berufes aus. — פר אחד בן בקר. Aus ת׳׳כ zu Wajikra 4, 3 ist ersichtlich, dass sich jedoch Beifügung בן בקר die Jugend des Tieres bezeichnet. Es soll bereits פר sein, sich jedoch noch im ersten Stadium befinden, es soll noch an seinen Ursprung erinnern. Im ersten und zweiten Jahre heißt es: עגל, mit dem Eintritt des dritten heißt es פר, und heißt im dritten Jahre noch פר בן בקר (siehe zu Wajikra 4, 3 u. 9, 2; Rosch Haschana 10 a). איל heißt das Schaf, sobald es dreißig Tage im zweiten Jahre zurückgelegt hat. Am dreißigsten Tage heißt es פלגס, ein Mittelstand, in welchem es den Charakter כבש nicht mehr hat und den des איל noch nicht erlangt hat. Die beiden Widder haben verschiedene Bestimmung, der eine ist zum עולה, der andere zu שלמים bestimmt. Aaron und seine Söhne traten daher zusammen in einem Opfertier auf, zusammen als פר und zusammen als איל; es ergibt sich hieraus, dass ein jedes dieser Opfertiere sie nicht als Individuum, sondern als eine Gesamtheit, als Priesterstamm, als כהונה repräsentiert. Es wird aber hier das Priestertum in seiner doppelten Beziehung zum Bewusstsein gebracht: a. in seiner Gott dienenden Wirksamkeit, in seinem Amte, als פר: es ist Mitarbeiter in Bestellung des Gottesackers. Der jüdische Gottesacker ist aber nicht der Tod, sondern das Leben. So spricht der Prophet: לא נביא אנכי איש עבד ארמה אנכי כי אדם הקנני מנעורי (Secharja 13, 5), nicht ein Prophet bin ich, ein Besteller des Menschheitsbodens bin ich, denn dem Menschen hat er mich von meiner Jugend an zu eigen gegeben; b. als der Gesamtheit vorangehend, wegweisend, somit in seiner bevorzugten Stellung, in seiner Würde, als איל: es ist der in Kraft und Einfluss der Gottesherde voranschreitende Widder. (Siehe zu Bereschit 15, 9). Für das künftige Amt, al5 פר בן בקר, hat der כהן zuerst im חטאת den Ernst zu geloben, der sich jederzeit auf der Höhe seines Berufes hält, und sich vor leichtsinnigem Fehltritt hütet. (Siehe zu Kap. 27. 8). Die Würde, als איל, ist ihm in zwiefacher Beziehung zum Bewusstsein zu bringen: 1) in seinem voranleuchtenden Einfluss aufs Volk. In dieser Beziehung hat er im עולה zu geloben, mustergültig als איל zur immer größeren Vollkommenheit seines Wesens hinanzustreben und als Muster der Hingebung an die Verwirklichung alles Göttlichen auf Erden voranzuleuchten (siehe das.); 2) in den für diesen Einfluß ihm eingeräumten Vorzügen. Dieser Vorzüge soll er froh und teilhaftig werden, er soll sich als איל in שלמים zum Selbstgenuss kommen, allein unter den bei allen שלמים gelehrten Bedingungen, die bei diesem als איל מלואים spezifisch hervortreten, und die wir unten im Einzelnen näher betrachten. Wir merken für jetzt nur an: פר החטאת hat das Amt, איל העולה die Würde in ihrem Einfluss, איל מלואים die Würde in ihren Vorzügen im Auge.

תעשה להם, “you shall do for them;” in this instance the plural mode is used as these rules apply to Aaron and his sons. On this day of consecration they were all treated as if of the same rank.

לקח פר אחד בן בקר, "take one young bullock, etc." Perhaps the Torah implied that either Moses or Aaron could pay for the bullock in question; there was nothing mandatory about this aspect of the inaugural sacrifices.

ולחם מצות וחלת מצת ... ורקיקי מצות AND UNLEAVENED BREAD, AND PIERCED CAKES UNLEAVENED … AND WAFERS UNLEAVENED — Here you have these three kinds: “satured” with scalding water, and pierced cakes, and wafers. The לחם מצות, “unleavened bread” mentioned here is that which is termed further on in this section (v. 23) חלת לחם שמן, “pierced cake of oiled bread”, being so termed because they put unto the saturated dough as much oil as they put into the pieced cakes and wafers together (Menachot 89a). Of each of these kinds there were brought ten cakes (Menachot 76a).

ולחם מצות, is called לחם. This “bread,” though described as “unleavened,” contained oil as this is the same “bread” described as לחם שמן in Leviticus 8,26 where the inauguration rites are described. The meaning of the various other flour-based items mentioned here are described in detail in Menachot folios 74 and 75. There were a total of ten such flour-based products of each category listed here.

Is referred to later on. . . Rashi wishes to prove that the “unleavened bread” mentioned here is actually “scalded dough.” The term “bread” comprises all types, so Rashi explains that here, “bread” means “scalded dough.” His proof is from (Vayikra 6:13), “This is the offering of Aharon and his sons. . . on the day that he is anointed.” [This verse raises a question:] What does, “The day that he is anointed,” teach us regarding his sons? [The answer is:] The installation of an ordinary kohein into his service, in all generations, is being compared to the Kohein Gadol’s daily offering. This offering is called chavisin, and is of “scalded dough” — as it is written, “You shall bring it well scalded in boiling water” (ibid. v. 14). Therefore, on the day of installation of Aharon’s sons, who are ordinary kohanim, there is an offering is of “scalded dough.” [See Menachos 78a and Rashi there.] The “scalded dough” is bread whose dough is completely scalded in boiling water, then baked in an oven, and then fried in a pan. The “loaves” and “wafers” are only baked in an oven. The “loaves” are mixed with oil while still flour. The “wafers” are first baked and then anointed with oil in the shape of the Greek letter chi, and the rest of their oil is consumed by the kohanim. Some say that the wafers are repeatedly anointed until the whole log of oil is used up. (Re”m)

V. 2. Aus der Mischna (Menachot 78 a) erfahren wir, dass המילואים היו באין כמצה שבתודה חלות רקיקין ורבוכה, dass die hier genannten Brotarten den Wajikra 7. 12 beim Dankopfer vorgeschriebenen drei Arten ungesäuerten Brotes entsprechen. Es sind dies: חלות ,רבוכה undרבוכה ., hier לחם מצות, V. 23 und Wajikra 8, 26 חלת לחם שמן, genannt, war ein Kunstbrot. Alle drei Bereitungsarten: Kochen, (חליטה, eigentlich: Brühen mit siedendem Wasser), Backen (אפיה) und Braten (טיגון), wurden, nachdem es mit Öl angeknetet war, zu seiner Herstellung verwendet. Es kam auch doppelt so viel Öl dazu, als zu jeder der beiden anderen Arten: רביעית לוג לרבוכה שמינית לחלות שמינית לרקיקין. Die Bereitung war somit reicher und künstlicher. Sie war dieselbe wie die der täglichen חביתי כהן גדול. (Wajikra 6, 13 u.14). — Das בלולה בשמן ist daher wohl auch auf ולחם מצות zu beziehen. חלות מצות בלולת בשמן, das ככר לחם des V. 23, waren in der Bereitung und im Ölgehalt einfacher. Sie wurden mit dem halben Quantum Öl geknetet und einfach im Ofen gebacken. Noch einfacher waren רקיקין, es waren dünne Mazzot, die nach dem Backen mit Öl bestrichen wurden. Alle drei waren מצה, ungesäuert, trügen daher den Stempel der Unselbständigkeit, sie waren Dienstbrot, in Unterordnung unter Gott und in seinem Dienste von ihm gewährtes Brot. (Siehe zu Kap. 12, 18.) Wie aber im תודה, zum Ausdruck einer besonderen, Gott zu verdankenden Rettung und Beglückung, zu der geretteten und beglückten Persönlichkeit (קרבן) auch im Mazzaölbrot die materielle Wohlfahrt, Nahrung und Wohlstand der geretteten und beglückten Persönlichkeit als dasjenige Moment hinzutritt, in welchem sich die Rettung und Beglückung größtenteils manifestiert, oder welches doch die Fortdauer des beglückenden Zustandes wesentlich bedingt: so tritt auch hier zu dem im איל מלואים den mit der Kohanimwürde verbundenen Vorzügen zu gewährenden Ausdruck auch das Moment materieller Nahrung und Wohlstandes mit hinzu, in welchem diese Vorzüge ihre konkreteste Verwirklichung finden. Ist doch der Kohen hinsichtlich seiner Existenz ganz auf die mit seinem Amte verbundenen Einkünfte hingewiesen. Spricht doch Gott zu Aaron: "Am Lande der Nation sollst du kein Erbteil nehmen und keinen Anteil in ihrer Mitte haben, Ich bin dein Anteil und dein Erbe in Mitte der Söhne Israels" (Bamidbar 18, 20). Es war aber dieser Anspruch durchaus kein direkter. Außer den von den Opfern den ministrierenden Kohanim überwiesenen Teilen hatte kein Kohen ein bestimmtes Anrecht auf ein bestimmtes Einkommen. Die vom Volke und den Leviten zu beziehenden Spenden konnten von diesen jedem ihnen beliebigen Kohen zugewendet werden, ja, diese Spenden waren zum Teil, wie תרומה und חלה rein symbolischer Natur und konnten gesetzlich, מדאוריתא, mit einem Minimum erledigt werden. Es war somit die Existenz, geschweige der Wohlstand des Kohen ganz auf das Wohlwollen des Volkes hingewiesen und von dem Grade bedingt, in welchem durch die Persönlichkeit des Kohen das göttliche Wort zur leuchtenden Erscheinung ward, und in welchem dieses Göttliche überhaupt im Volke Anerkennung und Hochschätzung fand. Wir begreifen daher, wie der mit der Kohanimwürde verbundene Anteil an irdischen Gütern in verschiedener Abstufung, רקיקין ,חלות ,לחם שמן zum Ausdruck gelangen konnte, und meinen, dass eben durch diese drei verschiedenen Mazzaölbrote, vom ölreichen Kunstmazzabrote bis zur einfachen mit Öl bestrichenen Mazza, dem in Amt und Würde einzusetzenden Aaronsstamme die ernste Warnung zu beherzigen gegeben ward, die mit seiner Amtswürde verbundenen Rechte nicht als Mittel zu irgend einer Üppigkeit zu missbrauchen, vielmehr sich mit der רקיק מצה משוח בשמן ganz so als איל beglückt zu fühlen, wie mit dem reichen לחם שמן und sich mit dem letztern ebenso als מצה, als im Dienste Gottes und in Unterordnung unter den göttlichen Willen zu fühlen, wie mit dem einfachen, Dasein und Kraft versorgenden Brote, überhaupt mit seiner ganzen bürgerlichen Existenz und auf jeder Stufe derselben nicht den מצה-Begriff und מצה: Geist zu verlieren. —

ולחם מצות, “and unleavened bread;” Rashi explains this as a mixture of flour and oil. In the Talmud, tractate Menachot, folio 89, this is based on our verse speaking both of לחם מצות and immediately afterwards of “challot matzot, mixed with oil”.

בלולת בשמן [CAKES] MINGLED WITH OIL — whilst they were still meal they poured oil into them and mixed them up (Menachot 75a).

Brought of each kind. . . [The number ten] is learned from the number of loaves of the thanksgiving offering: just as there are ten loaves there, so too here. It is clear that the thanksgiving offering has ten loaves [of each kind of bread], because it is written about its bread: “From it, he shall bring one from each offering as terumah” (Vayikra 7:14). And the Gemora in Menachos 78b interprets as follows: It says terumah here, [regarding the bread of the thanksgiving offering,] and it says terumah there, [in Bamidbar 18:26,] regarding terumas ma’aser. Just as there, it is one from ten, so too here, one from ten [is brought as terumah. Thus we learn that the bread of the thanksgiving offering has ten loaves of each kind.]

משחים בשמן ANOINTED WITH OIL — after they were baked they anointed them in the form of a Greek Chi (X), which is formed like our נ (Menachot 74b and Rashi thereon; Menachot 75a).

While they were still flour, oil was poured into them. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture describe each differently, rather than saying “mixed” or “anointed” for all of them?

והקרבת אתם AND THOU SHALT OFFER THEM (lit., bring them near) to the court of the Tabernacle on the day when it will be first erected.

AND THOU SHALT BRING THEM IN THE BASKET. This is connected with the following verse [… unto the door of the Tent of Meeting],¹⁷⁴Verse 4. Ramban is thus taking the phrase, unto the door of the Tent of Meeting from Verse 4 and transposing it to Verse 3, thus meaning: “and thou shalt bring them in the basket — unto the door of the Tent of Meeting.” Under “the more correct interpretation” Ramban will explain that the phrase rightfully belongs in Verse 4, teaching that the washing of Aaron and his sons must be done in the Sanctuary Court. Scripture thus stating that he [Moses] shall bring the bread in the basket, the bullock, the rams, and Aaron and his sons, to the door of the Tent of Meeting. And thou shalt wash them with water¹⁷⁴Verse 4. Ramban is thus taking the phrase, unto the door of the Tent of Meeting from Verse 4 and transposing it to Verse 3, thus meaning: “and thou shalt bring them in the basket — unto the door of the Tent of Meeting.” Under “the more correct interpretation” Ramban will explain that the phrase rightfully belongs in Verse 4, teaching that the washing of Aaron and his sons must be done in the Sanctuary Court. — that is, Aaron and his sons. A more correct interpretation is that the expression and thou shalt bring them in the basket leaves the matter unspecified, for without further explanation it is known that he should bring them to the place where He commands the priests to come [it being sufficient if they come before the door of the court of the Tabernacle]. And the second verse speaks only of Aaron and his sons, and therefore He says [thou shalt bring unto the door of the Tent of Meeting] and thou shalt wash them with water.¹⁷⁴Verse 4. Ramban is thus taking the phrase, unto the door of the Tent of Meeting from Verse 4 and transposing it to Verse 3, thus meaning: “and thou shalt bring them in the basket — unto the door of the Tent of Meeting.” Under “the more correct interpretation” Ramban will explain that the phrase rightfully belongs in Verse 4, teaching that the washing of Aaron and his sons must be done in the Sanctuary Court.

והקרבת אותם בסל, you will bring them to the courtyard of the Tabernacle, עזרה, in a basket.

והקרבת אותם בסל, “you are to present them in the basket.” The loaves are dragged in front of the priest; the verse refers to what takes place in front of the entrance to the Sanctuary, something mentioned in the verse following. The whole procedure may be understood as follows: “you will present the breads in the basket assigned for this, followed by the bull, and the rams, all of which are brought to the entrance of the Sanctuary by Aaron and his sons.” An alternative explanation: the words והקרבת אותם בסל, are not defined more closely at this point, as it is understood that the location which had been designated for this is where the basket containing these breads is to be presented in accordance with instructions issued to the priests. The following verse speaks only about Aaron and his sons, hence Moses is instructed to ensure that they undergo ritual immersion in a ritual bath prior to donning their garments.

To the courtyard of the mishkon. . . But not to the altar. [Rashi knows this] because only one of every kind was actually offered up, as it is written below in vs. 23-25. Rashi adds, “On the day when it will be erected,” to say that it should be done then, and not beforehand. The mishkon was actually erected only on rosh chodesh Nissan, because during the [preceding] seven days of installation, Moshe built and dismantled it every day.

V. 3. על סל. Dieser Ausdruck lässt vermuten, daß es nicht ein Korb mit einer Vertiefung gewesen, in welchen, sondern eine Fläche, auf welche die Brote gelegt wurden. Der Begriff סל, von סלל, in die Höhe heben, enthält Vertiefung nicht als wesentliches Merkmal und kann ebenso eine Platte bedeuten, auf welcher etwas getragen wird.

ורחצת AND THOU SHALT WASH [THEM] — This signifies the immersion of the entire body (cf. Targum Jonathan).

This is immersing the entire body. And not sanctification of the hands and feet. [Rashi knows this] because it is written בַמים (the water), implying the water known from elsewhere. This is mikveh water, which contains forty se’ah. Consequently, it means immersing the body.

V.4. רחץ במים ,ורחצת אותם במים ohne Bezeichnung eines bestimmten Körperteils heißt in der Regel: baden. Es ist das völlige Untertauchen des ganzen Körpers in Wasser: טבילה, und zwar in ein dem Normalmaß des menschlichen Körpers: אמה על אמה ברום ג׳ אמות, d.1. 24 Kubikfuß, entsprechendes Quantum Wasser, das nicht in einem Gefäße, sondern in elementarer Bedeutung dem Erdboden angehörig, z. B. in einer Vertiefung des Bodens gesammelt sein muss. Unter-Wasser-sein war der elementare Zustand der irdischen Welt. Gleichzeitig ist Wasser im Gegensatz zum Kontinent derjenige Teil der Erde, auf welchem sich nicht das Gebiet der Menschenwelt erbaut. Die Wasserwelt ist daher endlich auch derjenige Kreis, dessen Angehörige von keinerlei טומאה erreicht werden. Kein gestorbenes Wassertier ist Quell der טומאה und kein aus dessen Stoffen bereitetes Gefäß ist מקבל טומאה (Kelim 17, 13. Nur als אוכלין sind Fische מקבלי׳ מומאה, Ukzin 3, 8). In das Wasserelement untertauchen, טבילה, spricht somit ein völliges Hinaustreten aus dem der טומאה unterliegenden Menschenbereiche und ein Zurücktreten in den Urzustand aus, löst also völlig aus dem bisherigen Zusammenhange und leitet eine ganz neue reine Zukunft ein. — ורחצת, Mosche die höchste Nationalrepräsentanz hebt mit dieser טבילה die als Priester zu Weihenden aus ihrem bisherigen Zusammenhange heraus, und geschieht ebenso die nun fernere Bekleidung usw. in gleichem Sinne durch Mosche. Ist es ja eben die Nation, die den jüdischen Priester weiht (siehe Kap. 28, V. 1 u.f).

ואפדת AND THOU SHALT FASTEN [THE EPHOD ON] — adorn and arrange the girdle and the apron around him.

V. 5. מכנסים sind nicht genannt. Siehe Kap. 26, 42. 42. Ebenso nicht bei der Ausführung Wajikra 8, 7. Bei ihnen leistete auch wohl Mosche nicht Assistenz. אבנט ist hier in Beziehung auf Aaron nicht besonders genannt. Allein V. 9 in Gemeinschaft mit den Söhnen. Siehe daselbst.

גזר הקדש THE DIADEM OF HOLINESS — This refers to the Plate.

V. 6. נזר הקדש wird wiederholt das ציץ genannt. נזר, Krone, von נזר, absondern, wovon verstärkt נצר, vor allem Fremdartigen und Schädlichen bewahren, drückt die aussondernde und absondernde Weihe des mit dem Kopfreif Umschlossenen aus. Das ציץ selbst bildete aber nur einen halben Reif, der durch תכלת-Faden, den Faden der göttlichen Bundespflicht, um den Kopf und an den Kopfbund gehalten war. Allein die Inschrift, die dieser Halbreif trug, machte ihn zu einem wahrhastigen נזר, indem sie mit goldreiner Entschiedenheit jedes die Gottheiligkeit des Heiligtums Trübende abweist. (Siehe 28, 36.) —

על המצנפת UPON THE MITRE, as I have explained above (Exodus 28:37) — by means of the middle string and the two strings at its (the Plate’s) ends which were, the three of them, tied together behind his neck he placed it upon the mitre as a kind of helmet.

ומשחת אתו AND THOU SHALT ANOINT HIM — This anointing also, was in the form of a X: he put a drop of oil on his head and another drop between his eyebrows and joined them with his finger into this shape (Keritot 5b).

THEN SHALT THOU TAKE THE ANOINTING OIL, AND POUR IT UPON HIS HEAD. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that this was before the setting of the mitre upon his head [mentioned in the preceding verse], for it is upon the head itself that Moses was to pour the oil. But this does not appear to me to be correct. For at the actual installation also, Scripture says, And he set the mitre upon his head etc.,¹⁷⁵Leviticus 8:9. and afterwards it says, And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the Tabernacle,¹⁷⁶Ibid., Verse 10. and subsequently it states, And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head.¹⁷⁷Ibid., Verse 12. But the correct interpretation is that he wound [the mitznepheth] around and around the head, but left the middle of the head uncovered, and it was on that place that he poured the oil. But if the anointing was upon the entire head as Rashi said,¹⁷⁸Rashi here in Verse 7: “This anointing was in the form of an X. He put a drop of oil on his head and another drop between his eyebrows and joined them with his finger.” In that case he could not have put the drop of oil on top of the head, for the mitre would then intervene between it and the drop of oil between his eyebrows. Ramban concludes that according to this comment of Rashi we must say, that the pouring of the oil etc. then [we must say] that the pouring of the oil was upon the place where the phylacteries lay, which was left uncovered, and from there he joined [the oil with his finger to the drop between his eyebrows] in the form of an X.

ויצקת על ראשו ומשחת אוהו, "and pour it upon his head and anoint him." The verse means that the oil had to be poured on his head. The same applied to the anointing of Aaron's sons. Aaron and his sons each required a separate pouring of oil upon their heads seeing that the verse referred to both of them in the same way as we know from 28,41. This is further reinforced by the wording in 40,15 where the Torah said: "you will anoint them just as you have anointed their father. Torat Kohanim on Parshat Tzav explains the meaning of that verse in the same spirit.

ולקחת את שמן המשחה ויצקת על ראשו, “you will take hold of the oil for anointing and pour it over his head.” Ibn Ezra wrote that this anointing took place before Aaron wore his turban, מצנפת, seeing the oil was poured directly on his head. Nachmanides disagrees, seeing that even when the Torah reports the carrying out of these instruction in Leviticus 8,9 the Torah writes (concerning Moses) וישם את המצנפת על ראשו, “he placed the turban on his (Aaron’s) head.” Immediately following this, the Torah writes וישם על המצנפת אל מול פניו את ציץ הזהב, נזר הקודש, “he placed on the turban toward his face, the golden headband, a crown as symbol of sanctity, etc.” Only after this description of the actual procedure, does he Torah go on in verse 12, to describe the pouring of the oil of anointing on the head of Aaron. We must assume that the turban did not cover the entire surface of Aaron’s head, but that this turban was constructed in such a manner that it left a substantial area of Aaron’s head uncovered, so that the oil of anointing could be poured on even while he was wearing the turban. This corresponds to Rashi’s understanding of the procedure. According to Rashi, the oil was poured on the area where the phylacteries are placed on the head. Naturally, that area of the head was left uncovered.

He puts oil on his head. . . I.e., a drop of oil.

V. 7. משה .המשחה: aus dem Wasser ziehen (מצה mit צ des Widerstandes: aussaugen), nמש: mit dem sich nicht mit Wasser vermischenden Stoffe, mit Öl, bestreichen, salben: allgemeines Symbol des Ausscheidens aus Gemeinem. Der oder das Gesalbte ist ferner nicht mit Gemeinem zu mischen. Kerithot 5 b lehrt, dass die Salbung des Hohepriesters in der Form eines כי יונית, eines griechischen Chi geschah. Die Stelle Kelim 20. 7:מחצלת שעשה לה קנים לארכה טהורה וחכמים אומרים עד שיעשה כמין כי spricht dafür, dass die in Raschi, Kerithot daselbst gegebene Figur Ω nicht die richtige sei, sondern es in der Tat zwei sich einander schneidende Linien waren, ganz der bekannten Form des griechischen Buchstabens X entsprechend. Es scheint damit die Allseitigkeit angedeutet zu sein, in welcher sich die Wirkung der Salbung nach allen Richtungen verbreiten soll. Auch das Bestreichen der Mazzot mit Öl, V. 2, geschah in dieser Form.

ויצקת על ראשו, “you will pour it unto his head; (the oil of anointing);” seeing that he was the High Priest, he was the only one to be anointed. [In verse 19 we will read that when performing sacrificial service the right earlobes and right thumb of Aaron’s sons were also anointed with this oil. Ed.]

והיתה להם AND SHALL BE UNTO THEM This “filling of hands” shall be for an everlasting priesthood.

AND THOU SHALT GIRD THEM WITH BELTS. This alludes to Aaron and his sons, and then Scripture reverts and explains, Aaron and his sons. This is similar to the expressions: let him bring it, the Eternal’s offering;¹⁷⁹Further, 35:5. The word it alludes already to the Eternal’s offering, but then Scripture itself reverts and explains it. The same principle applies in the next example. the kingdom which will not serve him, Nebuchadnezzar.¹⁸⁰Jeremiah 27:8. Such are the words of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra. But if so, [the following phrase in the verse before us,] and thou shalt bind ‘migba’oth’ on them refers only to some of them [mentioned before, namely, Aaron’s sons], for Aaron’s head-dress was not of the migba’oth, and besides, the mitznepheth is already on his head [as mentioned in Verse 6]. It is possible that the explanation of the verse is: “and thou shalt gird them with belts, and Aaron and his sons.” The verse is thus stating that he should gird Aaron’s sons mentioned with belts, and Aaron himself should be girded with his sons. For since the belt was alike for all of them [for Aaron and his sons], it was not mentioned above among the particular garments of Aaron; therefore it now became necessary to say that he should gird Aaron too with a belt like his sons. The breeches were not mentioned here as it was not necessary, as I have explained.¹⁸¹Above, 28:35. “For having declared there [above] the punishment for lacking them there was no more need to revert and mention them [here], as it is understood already that he would wear them.” And the reason why the breeches were singled out from the rest of the garments [by not being mentioned here] is that it was Moses who clothed them with all the garments, as G-d commanded, and thou shalt clothe them.¹⁸²Verse 8. But the breeches which were to cover the flesh of their nakedness,¹⁸³Above, 28:42. they themselves put on in privacy. Therefore He did not mention them here among the garments — and thou shalt take the garments, and clothe Aaron…¹⁸⁴Verse 5. and therefore He separated them [from the other garments] in command and in punishment, as I have mentioned above.¹⁸¹Above, 28:35. “For having declared there [above] the punishment for lacking them there was no more need to revert and mention them [here], as it is understood already that he would wear them.”

ומלאת יד אהרון ויד בניו, "and you will consecrate Aaron and his sons." This refers to the anointing of Aaron and his sons, similar to what the Torah wrote in 28,41. The only thing missing in this verse is the reference to the anointing. This is alluded to by the word ומלאת.

וחגרת אותם אבנט אהרן ובניו; concerning the sequence in which these garments were to be put on there is a disagreement in Yuma 5 seeing that the order mentioned here does not correspond to the order written in Leviticus 8,7-9. I believe, that the very fact that we find two versions as to the sequence is meant to tell us that the sequence in which these garment were put on did not matter.

וחגרת אותם אבנט אהרן ובניו, “you shall girdle them with a sash, Aaron as well as his sons.” At first glance, the word אותם appears to refer to Aaron and his sons, and the verse would make a “u–turn” explaining whom Aaron and his sons were to girdle with a sash each. Nachmanides writes that if that were the meaning of the verse then the words וחבשת להם מגבעות could not refer to Aaron and his sons, seeing that Aaron did not wear a garment called מגבעת. Moreover, seeing that he was already wearing his turban, how could Moses wrap a מגבעת on top of his head? It is possible to understand the word אותם at the beginning of our verse as referring only to Aaron’s sons, which, in turn would explain why the Torah would have to write once more “Aaron and his sons,” meaning that Moses was to girdle Aaron with a sash just as he had done to his sons. Seeing that both Aaron and his sons wore sashes made of the same material, Aaron’s name was not mentioned at the beginning of the verse. The simple meaning then is that Moses would girdle the sons of Aaron with their respective sashes just as he had done for their father Aaron. Moses was the one who dressed both his brother and his nephews in all the priestly garments on this initial occasion. However, the priests themselves put on their undergarments, the ones which covered their private parts.

This procedure of installation. . . Question: In Zevachim 17 and Sanhedrin 28 this verse is interpreted to mean that they acquire priesthood by wearing the garments, [and the wearing of garments is apparently not referring to the installation procedure]: when their garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them. And when their garments are not upon them, their priesthood is not upon them and they are like non-kohanim. [Why does Rashi explain it as referring to the installation procedure?] The answer is: We already learned from, “These garments must be worn by Aharon and his sons” (28:43), that if they lack one of the priestly garments [and perform the service,] they are liable for the death penalty [since they are like non-kohanim; see 28:35]. Therefore, Rashi holds that we must explain our verse here according to its plain meaning, not according to its Halachic exegesis [as it is interpreted in the Gemara]. Otherwise, the prohibition to serve without priestly garments would seem to be written twice.

V. 9. Nach Wajikra 8, 7 u. 13 wurde Aaron der Gürtel gleichzeitig mit den andern Gewändern angelegt, er somit erst vollständig bekleidet und dann die Bekleidung der Söhne vorgenommen. Wenn gleichwohl hier die Gürtelanlegung für Aaron in Gemeinschaft mit seinen Söhnen genannt wird, so soll damit nach Joma 6 a das bedeutsame Faktum konstatiert werden, dass, wie dies als Halacha rezipiert ist, אבנטו של כה׳׳ג gleich כהן הדיוט und כה׳׳ג dass hinsichtlich des Gürtels der ,זהו אבנטו של כהן הדיוט standen, auch der כהן הדיוט mit den hohepriesterlichen positiven Stoffen und Farben gegürtet, (ein Gürtel nicht bloß nur aus Byssus verfertigt war) und — fügen wir hinzu — auch des Hohepriesters Gürtel nur מעשה רוקם und nicht מעשה אורג war. Sie bringen somit beiden die gleiche, auf sittenreinem Grunde zu erstrebende sittliche Vollendung als Höheziel zum Bewusstsein und zugleich beiden dieses Ziel als ein noch erst mit Zusammenfassung aller Kraft zu erstrebendes Ziel. Siehe oben über אבנט. Wir haben dort schon die Parallele mit dem gleichen Tor- und Türvorhange des חצר's und משכן angemerkt, sowie auch des Verhältnisses des כהן הדיוט zum חצר und des כה׳׳ג zum משכן gedacht. Bedeutsam stehen hier auch die Gürtel mit den מגבעות der כהני הדיוט zusammen. Siehe oben: והיתה להם כהנה — .מגבעות damit ist der Kohencharakter an die Gewänder geknüpft (siehe zu Kap. 28, 42 u. 43). — לחקת עולם. Wir haben schon (Bereschit 47, 22) entwickelt, wie der Wurzel חקק wesentlich der Begriff des einer Sache oder einer Person Zukommenden, Entsprechenden, Gebührenden innewohne, wie selbst der Begriff חק als Gesetz am weitesten von dem Begriff einer Satzung unmotivierter Willkür fern sei, vielmehr das also Bezeichnete tief aus dem Wesen des davon getroffenen Gegenstandes und seiner Bestimmung fließe. Hier und in vielen ähnlichen Fällen heißt חקה geradezu das einem Verhältnisse oder einer Persönlichkeit kraft ihres Wesens und ihrer Bestimmung erteilte Recht. Vermöge dieser ersten im Namen der Nation vollzogenen Bekleidung Aarons und seiner Söhne wird ihnen und ihren Nachkommen das Recht erteilt, vermöge gleicher Bekleidung mit dem Amt und der Würde der כהונה bekleidet zu werden.

ומלאת AND THOU SHALT “FILL” by means of these following matters

By means of these things. I.e., by means of the things written afterward: “Bring. . . Slaughter . . .” [Rashi is explaining that] the installation procedure is not a separate matter from the things written afterward.

ומלאת יד und kraft dieser Bekleidung erteilt die Nationalrepräsentanz ihnen die "Vollmacht" zur Ausübung aller durch den כהן zu vollziehenden Aufgaben.

יד אהרן ויד בניו AARON’S HAND AND HIS SONS’ HANDS in the appointment and assigment to the priesthood.

Installation and the appointment to the priesthood. Since מילוי ידים always means installation, Rashi tells us to what they were installed.

AND THOU SHALT BRING THE BULLOCK BEFORE THE TENT OF MEETING; AND AARON AND HIS SONS SHALL LAY THEIR HANDS UPON THE HEAD OF THE BULLOCK. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented, that the meaning of it is that when you will bring the bullock before the Tent of Meeting, Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands upon it, for [the bringing of the bullock] has already been mentioned above.¹⁸⁵Verse 3. The correct interpretation appears to me to be as I have explained,¹⁸⁵Verse 3. that above He commanded to bring them but did not explain “to the Tent of Meeting,” but only that he bring them; the purport being that he bring them to the place of the priests so that they be ready [for sacrifice], thus it would be sufficient that they be before the door of the court of the Tabernacle. But now He required that they be brought before the Tent of Meeting, to the door of the Tent, as He will explain in connection with the slaughtering thereof,¹⁸⁶Verse 11. for it is there that the laying of hands will take place.

וסמך אהרון ובניו את ידיהם, "and Aaron and his sons will place their hands, etc." The reason that the Torah uses the singular וסמך instead of the plural form וסמכו, is that Aaron was to place his hands on the bullock and his sons were to repeat this action individually, one at a time. I have come across a Tossephta in chapter 10 of Menachot which states: "When five people jointly offer one sacrifice they all perform the rite of placing their hands with all their weight on the animal; they do not do this simultaneously but one after another." Maimonides rules similarly in chapter 3 of Maaseh Ha-korbanot. Accordingly, we can well understand why our verse describes the act of סמיכה in the singular, i.e. וסמך, instead of וסמכו, as they were not to do this simultaneously. We still have to clarify why the Torah had to give these instructions twice in connection with the ram in verse 19 and was not content with Leviticus 8,18 where it is reported that Aaron and his sons did perform סמיכה and the fact is reported in the plural. Perhaps the Torah felt that if it would not repeat the report we would think that seeing that the bullock was a sin-offering, only Aaron performed the rite of סמיכה because only he and not his sons had been involved in the sin of the golden calf. By telling us that the same procedure was followed in connection with the ram which was a total-offering, the Torah made plain that none of these offerings were connected with Aaron's share in the making of the golden calf. The method chosen by the Torah makes it clear that the performance of סמיכה was required for all meat-offerings other than birds. Now we can understand why there was no need to write the word ויסמכו in the singular in Leviticus 8,18, seeing the point had been made already in our verse here. [With all due respect to the author, why did the Torah repeat the point in Leviticus 8,14 where the Torah again uses the singular in connection with Aaron and his sons? Ed.]

והקרבת את הפר לפני אהל מועד, “you shall bring the bull close to Tent of Meeting.” Nachmanides, in referring to the commentary by Ibn Ezra, writes that according to Ibn Ezra both Aaron and his sons placed their hands firmly (סמיכה) on the bull at the time when he brought it in front of the entrance of the Sanctuary. Seeing that the actual presentation of the bull in front of the entrance of the Sanctuary in verse three (by implication) had already been mentioned, it would not be repeated without adding a new dimension to it, he writes that in his personal opinion all that happened at the entrance to the Sanctuary after the bull, etc., were presented there, was that they received the directive to offer these animals as sacrifices on the altar in the courtyard. The only reason the location is mentioned here again, is to ensure that the slaughtering, etc., would be performed in the areas designated for the priests to perform these procedures. There would have been no need to spell out the placing of their hands on the sacrificial animals, as this is always done immediately before the animal is slaughtered.

V. 10. סמיכה .וסמך ist kein bloßes Händeauflegen, sondern ein mit ganzer Kraft zu vollziehendes Aufstützen. Damit ist die Identifizierung der Person mit dem Opfer zum Ausdruck gebracht. Aaron und seine Söhne werden sich bewusst, dass sie hier im פר vor dem Heiligtum stehen. Die soeben mit dem Priestertum Bekleideten haben nun die Bedingungen und Anforderungen zu lernen, die dieses Amt und diese Würde ihnen bringen. Zuerst das Amt: dass sie sich als פר, als dienende Mitarbeiter an dem großen Gotteswerke begreifen, und zwar nicht als פרים, sondern als פר, nicht als vereinzelte viele, sondern als eine Einheit, deren jegliche Glieder zur Lösung der einen gemeinsamen Aufgabe zusammen zu wirken haben. Und sie stehen noch vor dem Heiligtum. Um ins Heiligtum einzugehen, müssen erst Bedingungen gelöst werden:

פתח אהל מועד BY THE ENTRANCE OF THE APPOINTED TENT — i. e. in the court of the Tabernacle which was in front of the entrance.

In the courtyard of the mishkon. . . As stated in parshas Tzav. It does not mean literally in the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, since sin offerings were slaughtered north of the altar, [while the Tent’s entrance was to the west]. The verse rather means “opposite the entrance.”

V. 11. ושחטה. Die erste heißt שחיטה: wer פר sein will, muss aufhören, sich selber zu leben. "Sich aufgeben vor Gott vor der geöffneten Heiligtumspforte", das ist für jedes קרבן die erste Anforderung, sie ist es in doppelter Potenz für den zum פר Berufenen.

על קרנות UPON THE HORNS — on top of the horns actually (the blood was not to be sprinkled from below so as to reach the horns but was to be placed by the finger actually upon the horns) (Zevachim 53a).

At the top, actually on the “horns.” Explanation: He may not do as with the burnt offering and all the other sacrifices, standing below [on the ground] and casting the blood onto the lower half of the altar’s wall below the horns [which protruded from its upper corners].

V. 12. Aber es ist dies Sichaufgeben keine passive Vernichtung. Zum neuen, "dem Heiligtum angehörenden Leben" ersteht im "Blute" das hingegebene "Wesen", und nun vor allem hier das "דם הפר", und erhält von dem "Finger des Heiligtums" die Weisung, sich jederzeit ,"auf den Höhen des zu Gott emporstrebenden irdischen Lebens zu halten", und für ein solches Höheziel, sein ganzes Wesen in dem Boden des Gesetzesheiligtums wurzeln zu lassen", auf dessen Grund allein die Erhebung der Erde zu Gott ihre Basis hat.

ואת כל הדם AND ALL THE BLOOD i. e. all the remainder of the blood (that which is left after some of it had been placed upon the horns of the altar as just stated).

The remaining blood. [Rashi knows this] because he puts blood also on the horns. If so, how does it say, “Pour all the blood”? Perforce, it conveys: “All the remaining blood.”

אל יסוד המזבח AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ALTAR — A kind of projection that formed a receptacle was made right round it after it had risen to a height of one cubit from the ground (Sukkah 45a).

החלב המכסה את הקרב THE FAT THAT COVERETH THE INWARDS — this is the membrane upon the maw (Tosefta Chullin 9:3) which is called tele in old French

AND THOU SHALT TAKE ALL THE FAT THAT COVERETH THE INWARDS. “This is the membrane upon the maw which is called tele [in old French].” This is Rashi’s language. In my opinion, the expression the fat that covereth the inwards is indeed a reference to the membrane [upon the maw]. But when it says [as it does here], ‘all’ the fat that covereth the inwards, it alludes to two kinds of fat which are there: to the fat of that membrane, and to the heavy fat which is upon the inwards, as it is said in Seder Vayikra: the fat that covereth the inwards, and the fat that is upon the inwards.¹⁸⁷Leviticus 3:3. Thus it is clear that there are two kinds of fat upon the inwards — at times Scripture mentions them both, and at other times it includes them as one under the term “all” [as it says here]. Thus by saying here, all the fat that covereth the inwards, He already included the fat that is upon the inwards. Similarly in the actual fulfillment of this command He says, And he took all the fat that was upon the inwards, and the lobe of the liver,¹⁸⁸Ibid., 8:16. thus including [the two kinds of fat upon the inwards] in the phrase, ‘all’ the fat that was upon the inwards. But further in this section He says, And thou shalt take of the ram the fat, and the fat tail, and the fat that covereth the inwards.¹⁸⁹Further, Verse 22. Here the first “fat” mentioned without explanation, means the fat upon the inwards.

ולקחת את כל החלב המכסה את הקרב, “you will take all the fat membranes which are attached to the innards of the animal, etc.” According to Rashi this refers only to a membrane above the animal’s abdomen. Nachmanides agrees that there certainly is such a membrane there that is part of the חלב mentioned in our verse. However, seeing that the Torah speaks of כל החלב, “all the fat,” this must mean at least two distinct kinds of חלב, i.e. also the fat described in Leviticus 3,3 ואת כל החלב אשר על הקרב. When the Torah reports about these directives having been carried out, no mention is made of the fat usually known as על יותרת הכבד, “the diaphragm with the liver.” (compare verse 22). This also belonged to “all the fat, etc.” It is clear from the mention of יותרת הכבד in verse 22, that the fat membranes mentioned earlier without more precise locations, are those that cover the abdomen. This poses the problem for Nachmanides that in the respective chapter in Leviticus 8,15 both כל החלב אשר על הקרב as well as יותרת הכבד are mentioned separately.

Also take some of the liver. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written in Vayikra 9:10: “The lobe from the liver,” implying he should take a bit of the liver along with the lobe. In our verse, על הכבד means עם הכבד i.e., with the liver.

V. 13. Die unmittelbarste Konsequenz dieser "Hingebung des Blutes" soll die "Dahingebung" aller von der vegetativen sinnlichen Natur des Menschen erstrebten "Güter" (חלב), der für diese Erstrebung die Lebenstätigkeit in Bewegung setzenden "Hebel" (יותרת על הכבד) und der allem diesen zu Grunde liegenden sinnlichen "Reize" selber (שתי הכליות) als "zu Gott emporsteigende Nahrung des Gesetzesfeuers" (הקטרה המזבחה), somit die "positive Umwandlung der sinnlichsten Seiten des Menschen in sittlich freie Gottestaten" sein. — המזבחה. Wir glauben, daß diese bei הקטרה fast konstante Form auf der Bestimmung beruhe, dass מה דם בזריקה אף בשר בזריקה (Sebachim 62 b), dass die dem Feuer zu übergebenden Opferteile nicht hingelegt, sondern, wie die Bluthingebung beim עולה, hingeworfen wurden, weshalb ja auch zwischen dem כבש und dem מזבח ein kleiner Zwischenraum, לול קטן war, um diese im Wurf zu geschehende Hingebung auch räumlich zu veranschaulichen. Wir setzen dabei voraus, dass in dieser Beziehung אימורים den איברים gleich standen.

ואת היתרת This is the lobe of the liver which is called abris in old French

על הכבד — Take with it (with the lobe) some of the liver also (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 14 8).

תשרף באש SHALT THOU BURN WITH FIRE — We do not find that any “outside” sin offering was to be burnt except this (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 9:11).

THOU SHALT BURN WITH FIRE WITHOUT THE CAMP; IT IS A SIN-OFFERING. “We do not find any outside¹⁹⁰An inner sin-offering was one the blood of which was sprinkled within the Sanctuary — upon the veil in front of the Holy of Holies and the golden altar; that kind of a sin-offering was burnt completely outside the camp (Leviticus 6:23). Such a sacrifice, for example, was the sin-offering of the High Priest (ibid., 4:3-12). An outside sin-offering was one the blood of which was sprinkled upon the outer altar that stood in the court of the Tabernacle [or Sanctuary]. Of such a sin-offering only certain fats were burnt on the altar, and the meat eaten by the priests. Since the sin-offering mentioned here was an outside sacrifice, and yet it was to the burnt wholly outside of the camp, it must have been a temporary, special legislation. sin-offering that was to be burnt except this.” Thus is Rashi’s language. It was a temporary, special legislation, according to the words of our Rabbis.¹⁹¹See Rashi to Leviticus 9:11. The reason for this is, that everything being foreseen by Him, this sin-offering was to effect forgiveness for the making of the golden calf, and it was the sacrifice of the anointed priest;¹⁹²A reference to Aaron’s role in that affair (see further 32:35) (Ricanti). and there [in the Book of Leviticus] He was to command that the blood of the sin-offering [of the High Priest] be brought within [the Tent of Meeting and sprinkled in front of] the veil,¹⁹³Leviticus 4:6. [and the sacrifice be burnt outside the camp¹⁹⁴Ibid., Verse 12. Hence He commanded here — in advance — that that sin-offering was to be burnt.]. At present, however, He did not wish to mention that [the blood be brought] within the Tent, for there [in the Book of Leviticus] He says in discernment, [that he sprinkle the blood] in front of the holy veil,¹⁹³Leviticus 4:6. and at this point [the Tabernacle] had not yet been sanctified, and the Divine Glory did not yet dwell upon it, that it be called “the holy veil.” Thus the outside sin-offering [mentioned here] was like the inner one [of the anointed priest]. The laying of hands was [also] by Aaron’s sons, [although if it was deemed to be Aaron’s sin-offering the laying of hands should have been done only by Aaron], because He was angry with Aaron to have destroyed him,¹⁹⁵Deuteronomy 9:20. which means the extermination of his children, therefore they too needed atonement by this sin-offering. The reason for burning [such a sin-offering outside the camp] is the same as the reason for burning the Red Heifer there,¹⁹⁶Numbers 19:3, 5. and the secret thereof is known from [the text concerning] the goat sent to Azazel.¹⁹⁷Leviticus 16:10. See Ramban there on Verse 8.

תשרף באש, “you are to burn by fire.” Rashi writes that nowhere else do we find that a sin offering offered on the altar in the Temple’s courtyard, was completely burned up without a portion of the meat being consumed by the priests. This was so only because of the exceptional circumstances surrounding this event. Nachmanides suggests a specific reason for the departure from the normal procedure when a sin offering is presented on the altar. He claims that this bull was meant to atone for the sin of the golden calf; the offering in question, i.e. a bull as a sin offering, is that assigned to the High Priest if he has committed an inadvertent sin, which if it had been deliberate would result in the karet penalty. Aaron atoned for his share in the sin of the golden calf by means of this offering. This particular sin offering (its blood) is brought to the Sanctuary, seeing that in the legislation dealing with this kind of sin offering the Torah stipulates that its blood is to be presented to the front of the curtain dividing the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies. The element known as הוראת שעהemergency legislation, involved on this occasion, was that Aaron had not yet completed his consecration as High Priest, so that he really had no business to be in the Sanctuary as yet. On the other hand, the Presence of the Shechinah had not yet manifested itself until the eighth day of the מלואים, so that he did not commit a capital crime by doing so in his present state. The dividing curtain therefore had not yet qualified for its very name, i.e. a fence before the Holy of Holies. Nonetheless, the legal status of the Sanctuary was similar to that of the Holy of Holies, so that both he and his sons required a degree of atonement for what they did, but this was not connected to the sin of the golden calf that had occurred many months earlier.

ואת בשר הפר, ”and the flesh of the bull, etc.” The sin-offering of a bull was meant to atone for the sin of the golden calf. When the Torah writes: “you shall burn its flesh by fire,” this expression is very similar to the one used for the red heifer’s flesh (Numbers 18,7). The mystical dimension of these procedures is known already from the scapegoat in Leviticus 16. The reason for assuming that this bull was to atone for the sin of the golden calf is that the High Priest when guilty of a sin involving idolatry has to offer a bull as sin-offering as described in Leviticus 4,3. The reason Aaron’s sons also had to place their hands on that bull prior to it being slaughtered (verse 10) was that seeing that G’d had been angry at Aaron for his part in the sin of the golden calf (Deut. 9,20), and He meant to kill him and his sons, it was critical that they become part of the atonement process. The word להשמידו which Moses used in that verse in Deut. 9,20 meant that Aaron’s sons would be killed also.

We find no other “outside” sin-offering. . . Question: Is there not another “outside” sinoffering that was burnt, namely, the calf sinoffering of Vayikra 9:11? The answer is: Rashi means that there is no other besides those of the installation procedure. The calf sin-offering was also part of the installation procedure, as it was the beginning of Aharon’s installation as Kohein Gadol. [It was the first sacrifice that Aharon himself offered.] Thus, “No other. . . besides this one” is not to be taken literally. It means: “no other besides this one and those similar to it.”

V. 14. חתאט הוא. Wir glauben, dass חטאת von der Pielbedeutung der Wurzel חטא gebildet ist, und daher nicht notwendig "als Sündopfer" eine vorangegangene Sünde voraussetzt, sondern als "Entsündigung" das künftige Freibleiben von Verirrungen zum Vorsatz bringen soll. Ist doch auch dieser Vorsatz zunächst das, was vergangene Verirrungen sühnt. חטאת הוא heißt es hier, um damit das Verbrennen des פר außerhalb des Lagers zu motivieren. Stünde er im בשלמים-Charakter wie der איל מלואים, so käme der Muskelleib usw. nachdem das lebendige Wesen und die sinnliche Natur in דם und אימורים ihre Weihebestimmung erhalten, der im Opfer repräsentierten Persönlichkeit, den בעלים, zum heiteren Selbstgenuss zurück. Als חטאת jedoch gehört der Genuss des Opfertieres selber mit zur symbolischen, כפרה gestaltenden עבודה. Es ist die im Opfer repräsentierte Persönlichkeit erst zu lehren, wie nicht nur נפש und כליות, sondern auch die Verwendung der ganzen diesen zu Gebote stehenden Leiblichkeit dein vom כהן repräsentierten Ideale des Gesetzesheiligtums zugute kommen soll. בשר חטאת ist daher nur vom כהן zu genießen, und selbst wo der כהן sein eigenes הטאת bringt, hat er es nicht als בעלים, sondern als כהן zu genießen. Es soll nur im engeren Umkreise des Heiligtums, in der עזרה (— nach 10,3 מ׳׳למ מעשה הקרבנות sogar nur dem Eingang zum Heiligtum gegenüber, wie שחיטת קרשי׳, wogegen jedoch das סמי מכאן אכילה Sebachim 56 a spricht —), im Priestergewande (Joma 68 a), vielleicht sogar nur stehend (מ׳׳ל a. a. O.) genossen werden. Hier aber fehlte noch der כהן, sie sollten erst כהנים werden, und wurde daher der ganze פר — ähnlich wie aus ähnlichen Gründen פרים ושעירים הנשרפין — außerhalb des Lagers verbrannt, zum Ausdruck, dass im Kreise der Nation keiner, oder hier: noch keiner vorhanden war, der des Genusses würdig wäre.

ואת בשר הפר, “and the flesh of the bull;” the Torah mentions the flesh separately seeing that the skin of the entire bull had already been removed before the animal was cut up. Afterwards Aaron took all of it outside the camp as it was a sin offering. This is how our sages in the Sifra, interpret the verse in Leviticus 4,12, where the sin offering of the High Priest is discussed, when he has been guilty of sin, of course, not like here.

תשרוף באש, “you shall burn in fire;” Rashi explains that this is the only externally offered sin offering that needs to be burned outside. (Instead of the priests consuming part of its meat) We do find that the calf Aaron offered up (Leviticus 9,11) as well as the second bull of the Levites (Ezra 6,17) and the bull of which Ezekiel speaks concerning the future in Ezekiel 45,22 which were all external sin offerings and whose flesh, and entrails were burned or will be burned outside the sacred compounds. Some commentators try and explain the reason why these sin offerings’ flesh had to be burned outside the sacred compound as due to the fact that they were Aaron’s personal offerings, and just as Aaron’s personal minchah offerings must be burned up completely, (Leviticus 6,15) the same applies to his other personal offerings. The purpose of these offerings was to sanctify the altar. Compare verse 36 in our chapter. This procedure could be completed only by means of blood. It appears that at the time of the consecration rites of the Tabernacle and the slaughtering of these animals there was not yet a functioning altar, so that these parts all had to be burned outside the camp.

Take the first ram. The more perfect of the two.

V. 15. Sodann haben sie ihre künftige Stellung als Würde und sich als איל, und zwar zuerst in dem als solchen von ihnen zu erwartenden Einfluss sich zu vergegenwärtigen, "an die Spitze der Gottesherde" gestellt zu sein und erleuchtend und leitend voranzuschreiten.

וסמכו אהרן ובניו את ידיהם, “and Aaron and his sons are to lay their hands, etc.: according to our author’s version of the Torah, the name of Aaron is spelled here with the letter ו which never occurs elsewhere. (Minchas shay) [The fact is that in our versions of the Torah it is spelled in the usual way, without that letter. Ed.] Our author raises another question concerning the word וסמכו, i.e. a plural mode, whereas in verse 10 it is spelled in the singular mode as we expected. [In both instances only one animal is being sacrificed, so why would Aaron and his sons all place their hands on that one ram? Ed.] Also in verse 19 the Torah again reverts to using the singular mode for that word although the subjects are both Aaron and his sons. It appears that according to the Midrash on verse 15 the word Aaron has also been spelled with the additional letter ו; according to Rashi, commenting on a similar anomaly of the spelling of the word לטוטפות once with the plural letter ו and once without, (Exodus 13,16, Deuteronomy 6,7 and 11,18 respectively). [In our editions it is not spelled with the letter ו on the last two occasions. The versions quoted and discussed in the Talmud are not binding for us nowadays. There is therefore no point in translating the speculations of our author on the subject. A comment by the author of minchass shy a well known exegete of the 17th century is not relevant as our author lived about 4-500 years earlier. Ed.]

וזרקת AND THOU SHALT SPRINKLE IT with a vessel: he held the basin and cast blood from it towards the horn in such a manner that it (the blood) showed on both sides of it. No offering except the sin-offering alone required that its blood should be smeared with the finger, but other sacrifices required neither “horn” nor “finger” (did not require that the blood should be placed on the horn of the altar by the fingers), for the sprinkling of their blood had to be upon the lower half of the altar, and he (the priest) therefore did not mount the ascent leading to the top of the altar but he stood on the ground and sprinkled the blood (Zevachim 53b).

With a vessel. He holds the basin. . . [Rashi knows this because] if we think it means [to put the blood] with his finger, we should note that it says וזרקת [literally: “You shall throw”]. How is this done? Perforce, “He holds the basin. . .”

V. 16. Auch hier ist wieder die Selbstaufgebung, die Entkleidung jedes Fürsichseins die erste Bedingung, dann aber das für den voranstehenden und voranschreitenden איל doppelt nötige Bewusstsein, noch fern ab zu sein von der Höhe, ja von dem Aufgang zur Höhe, auf welcher die jüdische Vollendung winkt. Das persönliche Wesen des zum Voranschreiten bestimmten איל erhält, vom Heiligtum aufgenommen, erst fernab vom Altare seinen Standpunkt und wird von dort erst energievoll "hinangeworfen" an den "unteren" Teil des "Gottesberges", dem עולה entsprechend, כ׳ מתנות שהן ארבע :סביב בקרן מזרחית צפונית ומערבית דרומית, auf dieser unteren Vorstufe die Gesamtaufgabe ל in die beiden Energien zusammenfassend: in der Richtung auf das göttliche Gesetz alles materiell Sinnliche durch die von Gott gewiesenen Zwecke sittlich zu heiligen ("ON") und aus der Verwirklichung des göttlichen Gesetzes die Erleuchtung des Geistes zu schöpfen ("WS") (siehe oben siehe oben Kap. 27, 8), somit ihren voranleuchtenden Einfluss in dem Muster eines unablässigen Strebens nach praktischer und geistiger Vollendung zu betätigen.

סביב ROUND ABOUT — This is how it is explained in the Treatise on Slaughtering the Sacrifices (Zevachim 53b): that סביב, “round about” signifies nothing more than that there were to be two sprinklings so made that they should constitute four — one on this corner and one at that which was diagonally opposite it, and so that each sprinkling showed on both sides of the corner, on this and on that side; it followed therefore that the blood was placed on the four sides round about, and for this reason it is here termed סביב.

But other korbonos... Including this one.

על נתחיו [AND PUT THEM] TO ITS PIECES — i. e. together with (על) its pieces — added to the other pieces.

With its cut up pieces. . . [Rashi says, “In addition to the other pieces,”] rather than, “In addition to the pieces,” because the intestines and legs are among its pieces. That which Rashi said before — “With its cut up pieces” — seemingly implied that the intestines and legs are not among its pieces. Therefore Rashi writes [in clarification], “In addition to the other pieces.” We need not ask: How does Rashi know that על means “with”? Perhaps it means literally [“on”]. For the answer is: It is written על נתחיו ועל ראשו . This raises a question: if the intestines and legs are “on” the pieces, how can they be “on” the head? And if they are “on” the head, how can they be “on” the pieces? Therefore Rashi explains, “With its cut up pieces.”

V. 17. Dieses Streben hat aber kein inneres und kein einseitiges zu bleiben. Mit seinem ganzen "sinnenden" und "tätigen" Menschen (ראש und נתחים), ja selbst mit seiner sich nährenden und nahrungsuchenden Tätigkeit (קרבו וכרעי) hat der Kohen איל zu sein, voranzugehen. Es wird ihm seine ganze Persönlichkeit in ihrer ganzen organischen Gliederung ( — לנתחיו in der natürlichen, organisch gegebenen Teilung Chulin 11 a —) vorgelegt (siehe Jeschurun XI. Jahrg., S. 374 ff.).

ריח נחוח AS A PLEASING ODOUR — as a gratification of spirit before Me — that I commanded and My will was carried out (Zevachim 46b).

“It is pleasing to Me. . . Not that the fragrance itself is pleasing to Him. [Rashi knows this] because it is written (Tehillim 50:12): “If I was hungry I would not tell you [to feed me], for Mine is the world and its fullness.” [Alternatively], Rashi is answering the question: Does not the burning of meat and bones produce a terrible odor? Therefore he explains, “It is pleasing to Me. . .” (Devek Tov)

V. 18. Und es ist die "ganze" איל-Persönlichkeit energievoll dem "auf dem Gipfel des Gottesberges löwenmächtig seine Nahrung fordenden Gesetzesfeuer" (siehe Kap. 27, 8) hinzugeben, עולה הוא לד׳ der ganze איל wird ein "im Emporsteigen zu Gott aufgehendes" Opfer — beide Bedeutungen liegen in עלה. Siehe zu Bereschit 22, 2 — ריה ניהוה siehe zu Bereschit 8, 21 — אשה לד׳ הוא. Der ganze איל ist eine Hingebung an das Gesetzesfeuer und dadurch eine Hingebung an Gott. Die Hingebung an Gott betätigt sich in der Hingebung an sein Gesetz. Gott kennt keine andere Hingebung als die Hingebung an seinen geoffenbarten Willen.

אשה AN OFFERING MADE BY FIRE a term connected with the word אש, fire: it denotes the burning of the parts which had been placed on the fire (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1:9).

From the word אש . . . אשה is an adjective describing עולה . It is so described because all the limbs of the עולה are put in fire.

V. 19. Noch einmal haben sich die werdenden Kohanim in ihrer איל-Würde zu begreifen, und zwar nunmehr im Genusse dieser Würde.

תנוך — This is the inner cartilage which is within the ear, which they call tendrons in old French (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 14:14).

[ בהן means:] “the thumb” — and on the middle joint. [Rashi knows it is the middle joint] because it is similar to the תנוך , which is in the middle of the ear.

V. 20. Wiederum ist die Selbstaufgebung, das Aufgeben des Fürsichseins, die erste Bedingung; aber bevor dies Hinanstreben zur Altarhöhe im Bluthinwurf wie beim עולה (Vers 16) zum Ausdruck kommt, wird von dem, vom Heiligtum aufgenommenen Blute an Ohr, Hand und Fuß der ihrer Würde bewusst werden sollenden Priester gegeben. Ihr vernehmender Geist, ihre vollbringende Hand, ihr strebender Fuß, somit das, worin sich vor allem die mit der Würde eines der Gesamtheit voranschreitenden איל bekleidete Persönlichkeit zu bewähren hat, der Geist, die Tat und der strebende Schritt muss in dem דם שחוט ומקובל, in dem profan aufgegebenen und heilig aufgenommenen, profan gestorbenen und heilig auferstandenen Blute aufgegeben und aufgenommen, gestorben und auferstanden sein, es muss das איל-Opfer keine äußerliche Begehung geblieben sein, es muss die symbolische סמיכה-Identifizierung auch in der konkreten Wiedergeburt des konkreten Ohres, der konkreten Hand und des konkreten Fußes konkret und wirklich geworden sein, und tatsächlich in der Hingebung an den Altar die נפש, die Persönlichkeit des werdenden Priesters, ihre Hingebung beginnen, wenn dieser Persönlichkeit wirklich die Würde innewohnen und sie sich der mit dieser Würde verbundenen Vorzüge bewusstvoll soll freuen können. — בהן (siehe Bereschit 14, 18). — תנוך scheint lautverwandt mit דנג, Wachs, und bezeichnet den weichen, biegsamen Knorpelrand der Ohrmuschel. —

בהן ידם — i. e. the thumb; and the blood was placed on the middle joint (Chullin 11a).

V. 21. Erst durch die Selbsthingebung der Person, vereint mit der von Gott und der Nation erteilten Weihe, erhält der Priester und auch das Kleid des Priesters seine Heiligkeit. Dieser, die ganze mit ihrer Würde bekleidete Persönlichkeit heiligende Akt, war nach Wajikra 8, 30 die Schlusshandlung des Ganzen. Sie steht hier unmittelbar nach der Bluthingabe an Ohr, Hand und Fuß, weil sie der Idee nach die damit begonnene Heiligung der Persönlichkeit zum Abschluss bringt.

ולקחת מן הדם, “you are to take from the blood;” it is not clear if seeing that the blood of that animal had already been sprinkled on the altar as reported in verse 20, he had to take from the same blood and sprinkle it on Aaron and his sons’ garments.

ולקחת מן הדם אשר על המזבח, “you will take from the blood which is on the altar;” we do not find another example of this kind of sprinkling blood when the blood had to be gathered up after first having been deliberately sprinkled, except during these consecration rites for Aaron and his sons when he and his sons were symbolically being united to the altar through each being sprinkled with some of the blood of each of these sacrifices.

החלב THE FAT — This means the fat of the gut, or, (according to the opinion of Rabbi Ishmael,) of the maw (Chullin 49b; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 3:3).

כי איל מלואים הוא, this was the reason that the right thigh was burned on the altar. This practice did not apply to any of the other animal sacrifices. [with the exception of burnt-offerings which were burned up completely. Ed.] The Torah views the right thigh of the animal as equivalent to the right hand of a human being. Wherever in the Torah the word אצבע appears in the same context as the priesthood, the reference is to the finger of the right hand. (Menachot 10).

This refers to the fat of the small intestines. R. Akiva and R. Yishmael disagree over this: one says it is the fat of the small intestines, and one says it is the fat of the stomach.

V. 22 — 25. Bei jedem שלמים, dem Opfer, das den frohen Selbstgenuss einer von Gott beglückten Persönlichkeit (שלום ,שָלֵם) zum Ausdruck bringt, findet zuvor תנופה und תרומה mit den אימורים der sinnlichen Reize und Ziele und mit חזה ושוק statt. חזה: die Brust, alles Sinnen und Wollen des Menschen umschließend. שוק: Schenkel und Bein, das Stehen und Gehen, die Manneskraft und das Mannesstreben in ihrer Selbständigkeit vergegenwärtigend (vergl. die Zusammenstellung גבורת הסוס und שוקי האיש Ps. 147, 10). תנופה ist eine horizontale Bewegung von sich und zu sich nach allen vier Seiten תרומה .מוליך ומביא ein Heben und Senken מעלה ומוריד. Beides bezeichnet sprachlich eine dem allgemeinen und Gott zugewendete Spende, und sind daher diese Bewegungen auch symbolisch Ausdrücke desselben Begriffes. Die allseitige horizontale Bewegung תנופה "wendet" den Gegenstand der Gesamtheit zu und gelobt die eigene Verwendung nur im Sinne der Gesamtheit; die hebende und senkende weiht sie dem Himmel und für den Himmel der Erde. Bei dem das sich selbst genießende Glück heiligenden Opfer geht dem Genusse erst Wendung und Hebung der אימורים, der Brust und des Schenkels voran und erklärt damit nur das Glück des frohen Selbstgenusses würdig, das, aller Selbstsucht entkleidet, seine Sinnlichkeit, sein Sinnen und Wollen, seine Kraft und sein Streben Gott und der Gesamtheit zugute kommen lässt. Nur das Individuum darf sich seines Glückes freuen, mit dessen Glück auch Gott und die Gesamtheit sich freut. Obgleich beide Bewegungen mit beiden, mit חזה und שוק vorgenommen werden, wird doch in eigentümlich konstanter Weise תנופה vorzugsweise auf חזה bezogen und תרומה auf שוק. Es heißt immer חזה התנופה und שוק התרומה. Es scheint, als ob das Sinnen und Wollen des Menschen sich leichter mit dem Gedanken an Golt als mit dem an und für die Gesamtheit befreundet, und die Kraft sich natürlicher einem Gesamtziele, als einem Göttlichen zuwendet, die Mahnung daher für jedes die entgegengesetzte Richtung besonders hervorhebt. Beides, חזה ושוק von שלמים, bekommt sodann der כהן als Repräsentant des Gesetzesheiligtums, dem das Sinnen und Wollen und die selbständige Kraft des Glücklichen zugute kommen soll.

ואת שוק הימין, “and the right thigh,” we do not again find an example of burning up the right thigh together with the entrails on any other occasion. The thigh of the ram of the consecration rights being treated in such a manner occurred only on the first day of the seven days of these rites. On the remaining six days not a single thigh was burned up on the altar. This is what Rashi explains when he writes in this connection that the right thigh was intended to be a portion for the officiating priest to eat, (during the other six days of these consecration rights) the offering being understood as a “peaceoffering” [the very word שלמים being understood as “perfection, according to Rashi. Ed.] ”

והאליה AND THE FAT TAIL — This is the portion of the animal from the kidneys and lower down, as is explained in Leviticus, (3:9) because it is said, “[the whole fat tail], he shall take it off hard by the back bone (עָצָה)” i. e. by the place where the kidneys give counsel (עָצָה) (Chullin 11a). In the case of the fat portions of the bullock the “fat tail” is not mentioned, for the “fat tail” was offered only in the case of a male or female lamb and a ram, but an ox and a goat do not require the “fat tail” to be offered.

With the other parts to be burnt. Nor do we find anywhere that the terumah separated from the bread of a שלמים sacrifice is burnt, like this one is burnt. The terumah is always given to the kohanim. Here however, it was a temporary injunction.

Hier, wo im איל מלאים ein ganzes Leben Gott und der Gesamtheit geweiht, und persönliche Rechte und Vorzüge nur in Folge dieser Weihe und für diese Weihe erteilt werden sollen, tritt diese תנופה und תרומה, insbesondere aber die תנופה in ganz besonderer Bedeutsamkeit auf. Der Gedanke an Gott ist schon durch den einfachen Begriff der zu erteilenden Würde, sowie durch die Beziehungen aller bisherigen Weihehandlungen nahe gelegt. Allein dass der Priester nur im Namen des Volkes und für das Volk und durch das Volk Priester ist, dass der der Gesamtheit vorangehende "איל" nur vom זכות der Gesamtheit getragen ist, und er seine bevorzugte Würde nur für die Gesamtheit hat, das war allerdings dem werdenden Kohenstamme ganz besonders zum Bewusstsein zu bringen. So sehen wir denn hier ausschließlich תנופה gedacht, obgleich, wie aus V. 27. ersichtlich, auch תרומה vorgenommen worden. So sehen wir hier ferner zu den Gott zu opfernden אימורים der sinnlichen Strebungen und Ziele zu gleichem Zweck auch den Schenkel der Macht (— bedeutsam heißt es dabei: ists ja ein Widder der Bevollmächtigung כי איל מלואים הוא! —) und je eine von den drei die mehr und minder Wohlstand gewährenden Einkünfte repräsentierenden Mazzot, in die Hände der werdenden Priester gelegt und sie mit allen die תנופה vor Gott, und sie zu dem עולה ihres voranleuchtenden Wandels auf den Altar hinzugeben gelehrt. Denn auch darin, wie der Priester die mit seiner Würde verbundene materielle Macht und Gütergenüsse nur zum Heile und im Sinne der Gesamtheit verwendet, soll er voranleuchtendes Muster werden. Oben beim עולה (V. 18) heißt es: ריח ניחוח אשה לד׳ הוא, der ganze איל ist ein Ausdruck der Willfahrung Gottes und daher eine Nahrung seines Gesetzesfeuers. Hier heißt es: אשה הוא לד׳, nur diese Teile vom איל sind אשה לד׳, das Übrige kommt den zu Priestern zu Weihenden als בעלים zum Selbstgenusse zu. Es heißt ferner, was nie wieder vorkommt: לריח ניחוח לפני ד׳, sonst immer לד׳. Es ist hier auch שוק dem Altarfeuer übergeben, mit welchem sonst nur תנופה לפני ד׳ vorgenommen wird, und damit gesagt, dass auch das Priesterleben, das nicht direkt zu Gott, sondern vor Gott gelebt wird, ניחוח לד׳ sein solle.

כי איל מלואים הוא, “for this is a ram of ordination or consecration.” Through its being presented on the altar, these men, Aaron and his sons, became consecrated as priests.

ואת שוק הימין AND THE RIGHT SHOULDER — We do not find that burning if prescribed for the right shoulder together with the fat parts except in the case of this alone.

It is “perfect” in every way. Scripture thereby teaches. . . Explanation: The מלואים written here is the same as שלמים written elsewhere. It is called מלואים because anything that is מלא (full and complete) is שלם (perfect). That is why שלמים is called as it is. שלמים means complete in every way. Here the verse uses the term מלואים , rather than the usual שלמים , because “Scripture thereby teaches that the completion-offerings were שלמים sacrifices.” In other words, [it teaches that שלמים ] are completed and filled in every way: “They bring about peace to the altar, and to the one who performs the service and to the ‘owners’.”

כי איל מלאים הוא FOR IT IS A RAM OF מלאים — of שלמים (usually translated peace-offerings): מלואים has the meaning of “perfection” (מלא meaning “full”, so that מלואים is synonymous with שלמים) — something that is perfect in all respects. Scripture informs us that the מלואים (consecration sacrifices) are to be regarded as שלמים-sacrifices, in that they, like the שלמים, promote peace (שלום) between the altar and him who carries out the sacrifical rite (the priest) and the owner of the animal (the worshipper who brings the sacrifice”). Therefore, says God, in this case I make it a condition that the breast shall belong as a portion to him who performs the sacrificial rite, viz., Moses, who officiated at the installation into office (cf. v. 26). — The remainder, Aaron and his sons ate because they were the “owners”, as is expressly set forth in this section (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 16 2; Midrash Tanchuma, Tzav 4).

וככר לחם AND ONE LOAF OF BREAD — of the cakes (mentioned in Exodus 29:2) (Menachot 78a).

From the scalded kind. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “Loaf of oiled bread,” indicating that much oil is put in it. This is the “scalded dough,” for its amount of oil equals that of the loaves and wafers together.

וחלת לחם שמן AND ONE PIERCED CAKE OF OILED BREAD — of the “saturated" kind.

ורקיק AND ONE WAFER — of the wafers there mentioned: i. e. one out of the ten which were comprised in each of these different kinds of bread (Menachot 76a; cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:2). We do not find that any heave-offering of bread brought with a sacrifice was burnt except this alone, for the heave-offering of the bread brought with the thanksgiving offering and with the ram of the Nazarite was given to the priest (and therefore not burnt) together with the breast and the shoulder, whilst of this the breast alone was given as a portion to Moses, as the officiating priest.

על כפי אהרן … והנפת [AND THOU SHALT PUT ALL] IN THE HANDS OF AARON … AND THOU SHALT WAVE THEM — The rule is that both of them take part in the waving ceremony, the “owner” and the priest. How is this done? The priest places his hand beneath the “owner’s” hand, and thus does the waving (Menachot 61b) — and in case of this offering Aaron and his sons were the “owners” and Moses the priest, and therefore Scripture enacts as stated here.

והנפת, this “waving” applies to the part of the sacrificial animal that the priests are given to eat. The main reason is that the priest should remain aware that he eats from שלחן גבוה, “from G’d’s table,” so to speak, i.e. that his portions are a “kick back,” totally voluntary gift from G’d, and that he does not eat by “rights,” i.e. that this is what the owner of the sacrificial animal designated for him. In this instance, also the part of the animal which would normally be his to eat wound up on the altar instead of being consumed by the priests, it being an introductory symbolic procedure. [perhaps similar to the concept of ראשית, the “first” part of crops which need to be consecrated to G’d of produce originating from the earth. Ed.]

Both participated in the waving. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “Place all these things upon the hands of Aharon. . . and you shall wave them.” If they are on Aharon’s hands, how could Moshe wave them? Yet it is written, “You shall wave them.” Perforce, they both waved.

ושמת הכול על כפי אהרן ועל כפי בניו, “you are to place all of it on the palms of Aaron and the palms of his sons.” You, Moses, will then accept it from them, like a person who accepts a gift and says: “this I offer as a sacrifice before the king,” whereupon the king’s servant (the altar) accepts it on the king’s behalf.

תנופה A WAVE OFFERING — He moved it about horizontally in all directions to the glory of Him to Whom belong the four quarters of the world. This waving was symbolical of preventing and making of none effect misfortune and destructive winds. Then he moved it upwards and downward to the glory of Him to Whom belong heaven and earth and this was symbolical of keeping away injurious dews (Menachot 62a).

He brings it back and forth. . . [Rashi knows this] because תנופה means waving. Whereas bringing it up and down is learned from ואשר הורם (v. 27), since הרמה is upwards. And one cannot bring up without lowering [afterward, thus we learn bringing it down as well].

על העלה BESIDES THE BURNT OFFERING — besides the first ram which you had already offered up as a burnt offering.

After the earlier ram. Rashi is saying that the burning of the parts to be burnt from the שלמים sacrifice came after the placing of the burnt offering on the altar. I.e., we should not think that על העולה means to place the parts to be burnt from the שלמים sacrifice, with its shoulder and loaves, on top of the burnt offering and burn them all together.

לריח ניחוח AS A PLEASING ODOUR — as a gratification of spirit to Him Who gave the command and found that His will was carried out (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 10).

אשה AN OFFERING MADE BY FIRE given over to the fire.

לה׳ TO THE LORD — to the Name of the Omnipresent.

OF THE RAM OF CONSECRATION WHICH IS AARON’S. He did not mention here Aaron’s sons, although the ram was for the consecration of all of them. The reason for this is that Scripture commanded [in the first part of the verse before us], And thou [i.e., Moses] shalt take the breast of the wave-offering of the ram of consecration because it is Aaron’s, since the breast of the offering is by right not Aaron’s, for it does not belong to the owner of the animal [but to the priest,¹⁹⁸Ibid., 7:31. and since on this occasion Aaron and his sons were the owners of the ram of consecration, and Moses the officiating priest, the breast in this instance belonged to Moses]. Now having stated the reason why it does not belong of right to Aaron, there was no need any more to declare that it does not belong to his sons, for they follow him in their rights [and where it does not belong to him, it likewise does not belong to them]. Further, however, He does say, And thou shalt sanctify the breast of the wave-offering… of the ram of consecration, even of that which is Aaron’s, and of that which is his sons’,¹⁹⁹Verse 27. for the intent is to state: “just as he [Moses] takes of the offering which belongs to them all, the breast and the shoulder,²⁰⁰“And the shoulder,” is merely an expression, for it is clearly stated in Verse 22 that the shoulder was also burnt on the altar, and Rashi also so states it clearly. so shall they — the father and the sons [High Priest and common priests] — take of the future [peace-] offerings which they [the children of Israel] will offer up.”

מאיל המלואים אשר לאהרן, “from the bull of the consecration rites concerning the appointment of Aaron to the priesthood.” Even though this same ram served as a consecration rite ram also for his sons, they are not mentioned here, seeing that Aaron was considered the owner offering these sacrifices. Moses acts as Aaron’s and his sons’ priest at this stage, performing the rites the priest generally performs for the owner of the sacrificial animal as his appointed emissary. Once this point had been made, we need not wonder that in the next verse Aaron’s sons are mentioned as also partaking of the meat of these animals. Father and sons will partake in the portions normally assigned to the priests of such offerings which are not burned up on the altar.

V. 26. Beim איל המלאים, durch welchen den werdenden Priestern insbesondere die richtige Würdigung der mit ihrer Würde verknüpften Rechte und Vorzüge nahe gelegt werden sollte, war שוק הימין, das Symbol der voranschreitenden Machtstellung, zu den zu opfernden אימורים gelegt worden. Die חזה, die Brust des Priesters, sein geistiges Sinnen und Wollen, blieb zurück für die gewöhnliche תנופה-שלמים und ward, wie sonst dem כהן, so hier Mosche zum Anteil, dem die werdenden Priester ihr geistiges Sinnen und Wollen verdankten, und dessen Lehre sie es geweiht halten sollten.

אשר לאהרן, “which was Aaron’s;” at this point Aaron’s sons are not mentioned, as he was the principal figure. The expressions: תנופה and תרומה, are basically the same but the breast is called תנופה, elevation, which had been heaved, and subsequently eaten by Aaron, whereas the thigh was burned up on the altar. In subsequent generations both would be eaten by the priests.

וקדשת את חזה התנופה ואת שוק התרומה וגו׳ AND THOU SHALT SANCTIFY THE BREAST OF THE WAVE OFFERING AND THE SHOULDER OF THE HEAVE OFFERING etc. — Declare these portions of the animal to have a sacred character for future generations in that the heaving of them and the waving of them shall be practised in respect of the breast and the shoulder of all peace-offerings, but the similarity between the שלמים and the מלואים shall not extend to burning the shoulder as was done in the case of the מלואים but (v. 28) “it shall be for Aaron and his sons” to be eaten.

מאשר לאהרון ומאשר לבניו. "of that which is Aaron's and of that which is his sons'". Why was this phrase needed at all? Perhaps the Torah meant to inform us that Moses was allowed to eat these parts only in this instance. He would not be permitted to eat of the breast or thigh of any other sacrificial offerings in the future, they would be exclusively Aaron's and his sons.

וקדשת את חזה התנופה ואת שוק התרומה; both the word וקדשת and the word תנופה indicate that the object is to be set aside, treated as something apart. When speaking of the chest the Torah uses the term תנופה, seeing only it was “waved” as part of the procedure; it was consumed by the priests. The thigh was burned up on the altar. However, on future occasions of sacrificial offerings of which the priests were allocated parts of the sacrificial meat, both were to be consumed by the priests.

And the waving of the breast and shoulder. . . [Rashi is explaining that] it does not mean to sanctify the actual breast and shoulder spoken of here. [Rashi knows this because] they were already waved and uplifted. Then the shoulder was burnt and the breast was given to Moshe as a portion, and they have no further level of sanctity. Perforce, [“Sanctify the breast. . . and the shoulder. . .”] was written for generations, as Rashi explains: “That there will continue to be practiced the uplifting and the waving of the breast and shoulder of the שלמים offerings. However, not insofar as burning them is concerned, but instead: ‘They shall be Aharon’s. . .’”

VV. 27 u. 28. Mit dieser חזה ושוק-Wendung und Hebung der in den Genuss ihrer Würde eintretenden Priester ward für alle Zukunft den חזה ושוק aller im Selbstgenusse der שלמים ihres von Gott gespendeten Glückes sich froh Bewusstwerdenden, voran leuchtend die bedeutsame Bestimmung erteilt, deren Begriff wir bereits oben zu VV.22. bis 25 erläutert. Der sing. masc. והיה ,הוא bezieht sich wohl auf חזה und שוק, jedes im Besonderen. תרומתם לד׳: indem sie sie dem כהן geben, sprechen sie damit ihre Beziehung zu Gott aus, dessen Wort und Lehre ihnen der כהן vertritt.

הונף WHICH IS WAVED — an expression for moving to and fro in a horizontal direction; venteler in old French

הורם WHICH WAS HEAVED — an expression for moving up and down.

לחק עולם מאת בני ישראל AS AN ASSIGNED PORTION FROM THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — because peace-offerings belong to the “owner”, and the breast and the shoulder shall they give to the priest.

כי תרומה הוא FOR IT IS A HEAVE OFFERING — i.e. the breast and the shoulder form a heave-offering.

לבניו אחריו [SHALL BE] FOR HIS SONS AFTER HIM — for him who comes after him in this high office.

L’MOSHCHAH BAHEM’ (TO BE ANOINTED IN THEM). “L’moshchah means to be raised to dignity by means of them, for the term m’shichah (anointing) is sometimes used in the sense of ‘authority,’ just as in these expressions: unto thee have I given them ‘l’moshchah’ (as a distinction);²⁰¹Numbers 18:8. touch not ‘bimshichai’ (My noble ones).”²⁰²Psalms 105:15. This is Rashi’s language. Perhaps it is so. For because authority in Israel belonged to those who were anointed — the king and the High Priest — they used the term [“anointing”] metaphorically for all kinds of authority. Similarly, when it says, thou shalt anoint Hazael to be king over Aram… and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy stead,²⁰³I Kings 19:15-16. [the term “anoint” is used metaphorically — “appoint” or “designate”]. Here, however, the correct interpretation of l’moshchah bahem is to anoint with the garments the High Priests above their sons, and to consecrate them to offer the sacrifices. Likewise, unto thee have I given them ‘l’moshchah’²⁰¹Numbers 18:8. means that I have given them [i.e., the priestly gifts] because I have anointed you to minister unto Me.²⁰⁴Above, Verse 1. Similarly, touch not ‘bimshichai’²⁰²Psalms 105:15. means that he who touches them touches the anointed ones of G-d [i.e., the kings] who are destined to come from them, as He said, and kings shall come out from thy loins;²⁰⁵Genesis 35:11. kings of peoples shall be of her.²⁰⁶Ibid., 17:16.
It is even possible that we say that the expression thou shalt anoint Hazael to be king over Aram,²⁰³I Kings 19:15-16. means that he [i.e., Elijah] is to send him oil to be anointed as king, in order to inform him that this was the command of G-d; and Elisha [his disciple] did so in accordance with the charge of his master when he told Hazael that he will rule as king.²⁰⁷II Kings 8:13. Now even though it is not written there, [he yet actually anointed him as king], and [so did Elijah] anoint Elisha as a prophet [in accordance with G-d’s command to him]. Perhaps they²⁰⁸The prophets who lived in the time of Cyrus. also did so to Cyrus [king of Persia] whom they anointed like the kings of Israel, in order that he would know that it was a prophet in Israel who prophesied that he would reign, and [generations before his birth] he even called forth his name, for [the glory of] G-d. Therefore [Isaiah] said, to His anointed, to Cyrus,²⁰⁹Isaiah 45:1. upon which our Rabbis have commented:²¹⁰Megillah 12a. “And was Cyrus the anointed one? etc.”²¹¹“Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the Messiah: “I complain to you about Cyrus. I said he will build My house and gather My exiles, but he said, Whosoever there is among you of all His people… let him go up.” (Ezra 1:3) — From this text it would appear that the Rabbis understood the verse to mean that Cyrus was really anointed [for otherwise there would have been no place at all for their question], except that he later became impaired in character. Thus all these verses speak of real anointing. However, the verse stating, The spirit of the Eternal G-d is upon me; because the Eternal ‘mashach’ me to bring good tidings unto the humble,²¹²Isaiah 61:1. is by way of metaphor, comparing the holy spirit which came to rest upon the prophet with precious oil, similar to that which is said, A good name is better than precious oil.²¹³Ecclesiastes 7:1.

ולמלא בם את ידיהם, “with which to become inaugurated.” Subsequent generations of the priests did not need to undergo these procedures seeing they had been born as priests, their status being hereditary, as opposed to Aaron and his sons.

למשחה בהם, the fact that they would be anointed with oil was equivalent to their receiving medals in the secular part of the world. The importance of this anointing is best illustrated by David when he says in Psalms 105,14 אל תגעו במשיחי, “do not dare touch those who have been anointed by Me!”

Whoever follows him in his exalted position. I.e., to be Kohein Gadol in his place, for an ordinary kohein is forbidden to wear the Kohein Gadol’s eight garments.

V. 29. בגדי הקדש וגו׳, d. h.: So wie Aaron durch Bekleidung mit den acht Gewändern des Heiligtums mit der Würde und dem Amt des hohen Priestertums bekleidet worden, so soll auch bei seinen Nachkommen die Bekleidung mit dem Hohepriesteramte durch Bekleidung und Salbung vollzogen werden.

למשחה means to be raised to dignity by means of them. For sometimes the word משח is used in the sense of “dignity”, as in (Numbers 18:8), “to thee I have given them as a dignity (למשחה)”, and (I Chronicles 16:22) “Touch ye not my nobles (משיחי)” (cf. Rashi on Exodus 30:29).

To be put in a high position by them. . . [Rashi knows this] because משיחה [in its usual sense of “anointing”] does not apply to garments. Anointing is not done with garments [but with oil].

ולמלא בם את ידם AND TO BE CONSECRATED BY THEM — through these garments he is to be invested with the high-priesthood (cf. Rashi on Yoma 73a).

By means of the garments. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written (v. 9): “Gird them. . . and bind turban-like hats for them and then the priesthood shall be for them an everlasting statute.” But if their garments are not upon them, they are like non-kohanim.

שבעת ימים SEVEN DAYS in succession, on such a High Priest’s installation,

ילבשם הכהן, the newly appointed High Priest is to wear them prior to his being inaugurated.

[They must be] consecutive. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why does it say “seven days”? A Kohein Gadol must wear these garments every time he serves, after which he removes them [until the next time]. Perforce, it refers to his seven days of installation — which are consecutive.

V. 30. תחתיו מבניו ein dazu qualifizierter, ממלא מקומו, Sohn des Hohepriesters hat das Vorrecht zur Nachfolge vor jedem andern. Vielleicht erklärt dies die ungewöhnliche Form: ילבשָם, statt ילבשֵם. Es ist ein Futurum mit Suffixum des Präteritum, und sagt vielleicht, dass die einstige Bekleidung des Vaters auch insofern für ihn mitgeschehen, dass er dadurch das Vorrecht erhalten, in seiner Nachfolge mit den Gewändern bekleidet zu werden.

ילבשם הכהן THE PRIEST SHALL PUT THEM ON — i. e. he who, from among his sons, will rise up in his stead in the high-priesthood at the time when they will appoint him to be High Priest.

One of his sons who will rise up in his place. . . Rashi is telling us that [ תחתיו מבניו ] should be understood in reverse order, as מבניו תחתיו , thus meaning: “He who serves — one of his sons — who will rise up in his place to the high priesthood.”

שבעת ימים, wie die Weihe und Einführung des ersten כה׳׳ג sieben Tage wiederholt wurde, so war auch jeder künftige כה׳׳ג sieben Tage in sein Amt und seine Würde einzuführen. Nichts spricht also für den symbolischen-Charakter und die tiefe Bedeutsamkeit der hohepriesterlichen Kleidung, sowie der ganzen מלאים-Handlung der ersten Priesterweihe, von der gewiss wir nur eine schwache Idee zu schöpfen imstande waren, als diese siebentägige Wiederholung. Sie sollten sich sieben Tage und siebenmal wiederholt mit der ganzen Gedankenfülle und Tiefe dieser Handlungen durchdringen.

אשר יבא אל אהל מועד WHO WILL COME INTO THE APPOINTED TENT — These words qualify the word הכהן so that it refers to that priest who is designated to enter into the innermost part (the words לפני ולפנים in the Rashi text correspond to בקדש in the Biblical text) of the Sanctuary on the Day of Atonement — and this must mean the High Priest, since the sacrificial service on the Day of Atonement was not valid unless performed by him (Yoma 73a).

Prepared to enter the innermost part. . . See Yoma 73a. Perforce, it means “the innermost part.” This is because the “Tent of Meeting” mentioned here cannot refer to the mishkon, like it does everywhere else in the Torah, since every kohein is fit to enter the mishkon. So Scripture would not identify [a specific kohein] by saying one who is fit to enter the Tent of Meeting. Perforce, “Tent of Meeting” refers to “the innermost part.” Re”m [who did not understand why Rashi said this,] overlooked the above Gemora. (Nachalas Yaakov)

אשר יבא אל אהל מועד לשרת בקדש, diese Befugnis bezeichnet eben den כה׳׳ג Es ist dies die עבודת י׳׳כ, der einzigen normalen קרבנות צבור, die ausschließlich dem כה׳׳ג zustehen.

תחתיו מבניו IN HIS STEAD FROM AMONG HIS SONS — This informs us that if the High Priest has a son who can fill his place they shall appoint him High Priest in his stead (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 8 5; cf. Rashi on Yoma 72b).

Who can fill his position. . . [Rashi knows this] because in Vayikra 16:32 it is written ואשר ימלא את ידו , which teaches: when he can fill ( ממלא ) his father’s place, [he should be appointed].

In Ermangelung des Salböls konnte übrigens die Weihe des כה׳׳ג auch durch die Bekleidung allein vollgültig vollzogen werden, ein solcher heißt: מרובה בגדים.

[הכהן תחתיו מבניו — From here (from this phraseology) we have a proof that the word הכהן is everywhere a participle — meaning “he who is actually acting as the officiant”; therefore the tonic accent תביר on the word הכהן connects it with the word following it.].

A participle — the one actually doing service. . . This is because the term הכהן must be connected to תחתיו מבניו . For if it is connected to ילבשם , and means, “The priest shall wear them,” then תחתיו would be without meaning. i.e., it would not be referring to anything. But since הכהן and תחתיו are connected, this shows that [regarding Aharon and his sons,] the term כהן is “a participle — the one actually doing service.” For if the term כהן mentioned here means someone with a prominent position, as in the following verses — מדין כהן (2:16), כהן און (Bereishis 41:45), בני דוד כהנים (Shmuel II 8:18) — תחתיו would not follow it. It is not idiomatic to say המלך תחתיו , or השר תחתיו , but rather המלך אשר יהיה תחתיו , or ימלוך תחתיו . Therefore, [if הכהן meant someone with the prominent position of “priest,”] the verse would be elliptic. [However, if הכהן means “the one actually doing service,” and it is as if it said המשרת , then הכהן connects smoothly with [the next word,] תחתיו . Therefore Rashi says: “It is for this reason that the mark of the intonation is a תביר , which connects it to the next word,” and not to the preceding word ילבשם . This is because a תביר does not [necessarily] connect to [the preceding mark of] דרגא . See Kitzur Mizrachi.

במקום קדש IN A HOLY PLACE in the court of the tent of meeting because these peace-offerings were holy in the highest degree (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 6:9).

AND THOU SHALT SEETHE ITS FLESH IN A HOLY PLACE. We do not know whether this was a temporary, special legislation that the flesh of [the ram of] consecration be seethed only by a priest, [who in this case was Moses] or — as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has it — that the expression and thou shalt seethe means by commanding [another person to do it], it being similar in usage to these verses: and thy rod wherewith thou smotest the river;²¹⁴Above, 17:5. Since it was Aaron who smote the river (ibid., 7:19), the verse must mean: “thy rod wherewith thou smotest the river — by commanding Aaron.” and Solomon built the house²¹⁵I Kings 6:14. [by commanding the builders to build it].
The seething had to be done in a holy place, since they²¹⁶I.e., the seven rams of consecration, one brought on each of the seven days of consecration. were like the peace-offerings of the congregation which were to be eaten within the hangings of the court, the same day and evening until midnight.²¹⁷Zebachim 54b.

In the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written in Vayikra 6:9, “In a sacred place; in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting.”

VV. 31.-—33. Nachdem durch die הקטרת ,תנופת ותרומת אימורים ושוק ,עבודת הדם אימורים ושוק ,תנופת ותרומת החזה ונתינתה למשה alle die Bedingungen erfüllt sind, die den reinen frohen Selbstgenuss der Würde bedingen, kommt der איל המלואים, sowie die מצות in ihrer dreifachen Abstufung den in die Würde Eingetretenen zum Selbstgenuss.

These shlomim were Holy of Holies. [Rashi knows they were not like regular shlomim] because otherwise, why does it say, “A non-kohein may not eat thereof” (v. 33)? Sacrifices of lesser holiness, such as [regular] shlomim, may be eaten by all!

ואכלו אותם אשר כפר בהם וגו׳. Da כפר ב־ sich nie auf die Person und den Gegenstand, für welche, sondern immer auf das Mittel, mit welchem כפרה vollzogen wird, bezieht, so kann auch das בהם hier sich nur auf den איל und das לחם beziehen. Obgleich nun der איל המלואים und das לחם überwiegend שלמים-Charakter haben und als solche der Begriff כפרה im eigentlichen Sinne nicht auf sie angewandt werden kann, so heben doch schon die Bestimmungen: וזר לא יאכל כי קדש הם ,ואכל וגו׳ פתה אהל מועד, ובשלת וגו׳ במקום קדש, dass Bereitung und Genuss nur in der חצר( עזרה) geschehen und jeder Nichtkohen nicht davon genießen durfte, sie somit zu den קדשי קדשים gehörten, sie über die gewöhnlichen שלמים, und können alle die mit אימורים ,דם und שוק vorgenommenen Handlungen vom Standpunkte des מלואים-Zweckes allerdings in weiterem Sinne als כפרה, als Abschluss einer minder geheiligten und gehobenen Vergangenheit, als Eröffnung einer heiligeren, höheren Zukunft begriffen werden. Es ist dies ja buchstäblich das: כפר בהם למלא את ידם לקדש אותם. Indem aber hier der Genuss des Opferfleisches in Beziehung zur vollzogenen כפרה gesetzt wird, ist der Genuss selbst als Fortsetzung und Abschluss der כפרה zu begreifen. Der Genuss des בשר מלואים und des dazu gehörigen להם erhält zugleich einen symbolischen Charakter wie אכילת בשר חטאת, es wird von ihnen als בעלים und כהנים zugleich genossen — ist es doch der Genuss der Kohenwürde — und es knüpft sich hieran der allgemeine Satz für כהנים אוכלין ובעלים מתכפרין :אכילת בשר הטאת ואשם (Peßachim 59 b u.f. ) Siehe oben zu V. 14.

פתח אהל מועד BY THE ENTRANCE OF THE APPOINTED TENT — the whole court is thus named (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:11).

The entire courtyard is referred to in this way. [Rashi knows] it does not mean literally at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting because why should these offerings be different from all other korbonos that are Holy of Holies, which are eaten [anywhere] in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting?

ואכלו אתם AND THEY SHALL EAT THOSE THINGS i. e. Aaron and his sons because they are the “owners” of them (cf. Pesachim 59b).

ואכלו אותם אשר כפר בהם, "and they will eat them with which atonement was made." They will eat those parts of the animal in their capacity as owners and not in their capacity as priests. The meaning of the words אשר כפר בהם is that the consumption of meat of the peace-offerings by their owners confers atonement upon them. Even Moses was forbidden to eat of any of these parts of the animal, though he was permitted to eat the breast and the thigh.

Through which atonement was achieved. . . “strange” and objectionable. I.e., everything strange and objectionable that Aharon and his sons did was atoned for them through this ram of the completion-offering and this bread. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, [if כֻפַר referred to Aharon and his sons, and not to everything “strange and objectionable”,] it should say אשר כֻפְרו בהם (plural).

אשר כופר בהם, “wherewith atonement was made for them;” this verse has at least one word missing, and its meaning is as if the Torah had written: אשר כופר להם בהם, “by means of which the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven them.”

אשד כפר בהם THROUGH WHOM THERE WAS EXPIATED everything that was strange and objectionable.

By means of the ram and these breads. [Rashi is explaining that] Aharon and his sons became established into the priesthood by means of properly performing the ram and bread offerings, not by the previously mentioned eating of them.

למלא את ידם TO INITIATE THEM INTO OFFICE by means of this ram and bread.

By means of these מלואים -offerings. . . Rashi is explaining that לקדש אותם [should be understood as if it] is missing a ו , [and means ולקדש אותם ]. Otherwise, it would convey that their installation is what sanctifies them for the priesthood, but this is not so. Rather, performing the מילואים -offerings causes both their installation in the service and their sanctification for the priesthood.

לקדש אתם TO SANCTIFY THEM — for by means of this initiation-sacrifice they were installed and sanctified to the priesthood.

Holy of Holies. . . I.e., [a non-kohein is forbidden to eat] from every kind of offering that is classified as Holy of Holies, not only from these offerings. [Rashi knows this] because Scripture gave a reason for the prohibition of “A stranger may not eat thereof,” [saying: “For they are sacred.”] This implies that the prohibition applies to all [offerings with similar sanctity].

כי קדש הם BECAUSE THEY ARE HOLY — i. e. holy in the highest degree. From this we derive the prohibition against a “stranger” (a non-priest) eating anything that is holy in the highest degree (Makkot 18b), since Scripture assigns a reason for the matter (why a stranger may not eat of these), viz., because they are holy in the highest degree (cf. Pesachim 24a).

כי קדש הוא, for it is sacred. This is the reason it had to be burned.

V. 34. Über נותר siehe zu Kap. 11, 10. Auch diese Bestimmung tritt bei einem איל מלואים in erhöhter Bedeutsamkeit hervor. Ein Genießen desselben außer Zusammenhang mit der Opferung gäbe dem Genusse priesterlicher Würden und Vorzüge ohne die sie bedingende persönliche Läuterung und Weihe Raum. Beim איל מלואים ist daher der Anschluss an den Tag der Opferung noch enger gezogen, als bei gewöhnlichen שלמים, die שני ימים ולילה אחד gegessen werden dürfen, während dem Genusse des איל מלואים nur יום ולילה eingeräumt ist. Auch diese größere Beschränkung scheint wohl das כי קדש הם motivieren zu sollen. Sie sind קדשי קדשים und stehen auch in dieser Beziehung auf der חטאת-Stufe. Es heißt übrigens hier nicht: ולא יותירו מהם עד בקר, da voraussichtlich ein ganzer איל und siebenundzwanzig Mazzabrote von Aaron und seinen vier Söhnen nicht in einem Tage zu verzehren sind.

ועשית לאהרן ולבניו ככה AND THUS SHALT (i. e. must) THOU DO TO AARON AND HIS SONS — Scripture recites a second time in this general statement all that has been already commanded in order to impede the validity of the rites; i. e. that if they do not do this and a single thing is omitted of all that is prescribed in this section their initiation to be priests must be regarded as not having taken place and their act of sacrifice is consequently invalid (Yoma 5a).

שבעת ימים תמלא ידם, during the seven days preceding the eight’s day when Aaron would commence to officiate as High Priest assisted by his sons, Moses would erect the Tabernacle every single day, and he himself would offer sacrificial offerings. Each evening he would dissemble the Tabernacle. On the eighth day, the first day of the month of Nissan, the Tabernacle would be assembled completely as described in Exodus 40,2. and 40,17. That was the date which marked the beginning of Aaron’s holding the office of High Priest.

Scripture now repeats. . . critical. . . Explanation: from what was written before would lead us to say that these things are a mitzvah to do, but failing to do everything stated would not invalidate them as kohanim and their service would be valid. Therefore Scripture repeats, to teach that [each thing] is critical.

V. 35. ככה: "so", mit hervorgehobener Prägnanz, macht die ganze hier vorgeschriebene Prozedur in allen ihren Details, auch z. B. תנופה ,סמיכה, deren Unterlassung sonst die Wirkung des Opfers nicht aufhebt, zur unumgänglich die Weihe bedingenden Vorschrift, מילואים כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן מאי טעמא אמר קרא וכו׳ ככה ככה עיכובא היא (Joma 5 a). אתכה, dich, deiner Eigenschaft als höchste Repräsentanz der Nation. שבעת ימים siehe oben zu V. 30.

אתכה is the same as (another form of): אוֹתָך “thee”.

With these korbanos every single day. Rashi says this so we will not think it is sufficient to do it once, and we should divide it into seven parts, every day doing one part of these actions which sanctify them. Rather, on each of the seven days we must do all the actions and korbonos which are stated regarding this.

שבעת ימים תמלא ידם SEVEN DAYS SHALT THOU CONSECRATE THEM in this manner and by means of these sacrifices on each day.

על הכפרים means for the purpose of expiation — to expiate for the altar for all that is “strange” (not holy) and objectionable that may happened to it. Now since it is said. (v. 35) “Seven days shalt thou consecrate them” after having stated that if a single thing is omitted the ceremony is invalid, I can infer nothing more than that this alludes to a thing that is offered on account of them personally as, for example, the rams and the bread, but as regards anything that is offered on account of the altar as, for example, the bullock, which is intended to serve as expiation for the altar, we cannot infer from that verse that if this is omitted the ceremony of initiation is invalid; consequently this verse is necessary to inform us of this. An explanation in Torath Cohanim (the Sifra) states: atonement for the altar was necessary because perhaps a man had donated for work in connection with the construction of the Tabernacle or the altar something which he had stolen (Sifra, Tzav, Mechilta d'Miluim 1 15).

AND EVERY DAY SHALT THOU OFFER THE BULLOCK OF SIN-OFFERING ‘AL HAKIPURIM’ — “for atonement, to atone for the altar for anything strange [i.e., unholy] and abominable [that may happen to be brought upon it]. And in the Midrash of Torath Kohanim²¹⁸Sifra Tzav, Milu’im 1:15. it says: ‘atonement for the altar was necessary in case a person had donated for work in connection with the construction of the Tabernacle and [the sacrifices brought upon] the altar something he had acquired by robbery’” [or other unlawful means]. This is the language of Rashi. The correct interpretation of al hakipurim is, however, [that he is to bring the bullock of sin-offering] in addition to the two rams²¹⁹One was a burnt-offering (Verses 16-18) and the other — the ram of consecration — was a peace-offering, as explained by Ramban above in Verse 31. which were an atonement for Aaron and his sons, as He said here, And they shall eat those things wherewith atonement was made,²²⁰Verse 33. and surely the [bullock] sin-offering was for the purpose of atonement. And it is further written, As hath been done this day, so the Eternal hath commanded to do, to make atonement for you.²²¹Leviticus 8:34. This verse shows that all three sacrifices [the bullock sin-offering, the ram burnt-offering, and the ram peace-offering] brought on each of the seven days of consecration were for the purpose of making atonement. Thus it is seen that there was atonement in all the three sacrifices. Such are the words of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra.

ופר חטאת תעשה ליום על הכפורים, “and one bull shall you make as a sin offering on each of these days of the consecration rites.” The atonement was required in respect of non-consecrated people having performed service on the altar. (or according to the Midrash anyone whose donation to the materials of the Tabernacle having donated materials not legally his.) Nachmanides considers these words as referring back to the words אשר כופר בהם, in verse 33, in case during eating any of the parts of these sacrifices an inadvertent halachic error had been committed by either Aaron or one of his sons. Although a sin offering is always the catalyst of atonement, in this instance, there was an innovation in that even the rams also conferred atonement of their owners.

I would know only something that is offered for their sake. . . Otherwise, why does it say: “Offer a bull for a sin-offering each day”? It is already written (v. 35), “Seven days shall you install them,” and [the korbonos of] their installation consists of the bull for a sin-offering and the two rams.

V. 36. Der oben V. 1, 10 f. vorgeschriebene פר, der ebenso wie die אילים und Brote während der sieben Tage täglich zu wiederholen war, wird hier besonders hervorgehoben, um ihm noch eine besondere Beziehung zum Altare zuzuerkennen, der, indem auf ihm כפרה für die werdenden Priester vollzogen wird, selber an dieser כפרה teilnimmt und seine Weihe erhält. על הכפרים: außer den durch die אילים zu vollziehenden עולה .כפורים ist ja מכפר על עשה, und inwiefern auch von dem eigentlich im שלמים- Charakter stehenden כפרה איל מלואים zu prädizieren ist, haben wir zu V. 33 bemerkt. Die eigentliche כפרה wohnt aber dem הטאת inne, das, indem es künftigen Ernst auf der ganzen Höhe des Berufes gelobt, jeden Leichtsinn und Irrtum der Vergangenheit sühnt. Wir haben schon oben bei der den בגדי כהונה innewohnenden כפרה die Anschauung zu entwickeln versucht, die eine כפרה nicht nur für die irregegangene Person, sondern auch für das Gesetzesheiligtum kennt, dessen Sittlichkeitsideal durch das konkrete Leben der Nation, die es errichtet und in deren Mitte es sich befindet, getrübt werden könnte und insofern der כפרה, d. h. des Schutzes vor den Folgen der Sünden der Nation bedarf. Dieser Begriff tritt sofort hier in Beziehung auf den Altar, somit auf die Stätte, in welche sich die Sittlichkeitsidee des Heiligtums konzentriert, bei dessen Einweihung bedeutsam hervor. Es haben Menschen, immerhin ja sittlich unvollkommene Menschen, es hat eine Volksgesamtheit ihn errichtet, die ja sittliche Unvollkommenheiten in allen Abstufungen einschließt; es kann, statt des im Allerheiligsten ruhenden Gottesideales, diese Wirklichkeit mit allen ihren Mängeln als das Höheziel erscheinen, dem der Altar errichtet wäre. Ja, es können, wie in der im ת׳׳כ aufbewahrten בריתא דמלואים dieses Entsündigungsbedürfnis des Altars treffend erläutert wird, es können bei der Errichtung des Heiligtums und des Altares selbst sittliche Schwächen und Vergehungen mitgewirkt haben, es kann bei dem einen und andern die Spende zu Heiligtum und Altar nicht aus ganz reiner freiwilliger Opferfreudigkeit hervorgegangen, es kann sogar unrechtmäßiger Besitz dazu gespendet worden sein. Alles dies machte einen Akt notwendig, durch welchen vorgebeugt werde, dass nicht die sittliche Mangelhaftigkeit der Erbauer von vornherein auf die durch Heiligtum und Altar zu vergegenwärtigende sittliche Idee übertragen werde, und dieser Akt — sehen wir hier — war die für die zu weihenden Priester und Hohepriester auf dem Altar zu erwirkende כפרה selbst. Treten selbst die Erwähltesten der Nation in dem Augenblick ihrer Erwählung als כפרה bedürftig zum Altar; ist das erste Opfer, das auf den Altar gebracht wird, ein Entsündigungsopfer für den Hohepriester und seine Söhne; muss dieses Entsündigungsopfer erst siebenmal, sieben Tage täglich, gebracht sein; muss sich der erste künftige Hohepriester und die ersten künftigen Priester erst siebenmal, sieben Tage täglich, durch סמיכה auf פר החטאת als כפרה-bedürftig erkannt und bekannt haben, bevor sie selber als Priester zum Altare hintreten durften: so ist damit vollkommen ausgesprochen und möglichst offen proklamiert, dass nicht die Vergangenheit des Volkes und seiner Priester, sondern das Heiligtumsideal ihrer Zukunft den Maßstab für das Höheziel bietet, für welches Heiligtum und Altar errichtet stehen, das heißt: וחטאת על המזבח בכפרך עליו, und nur in Voraussetzung dieser "Entsündigung des Altars" soll er durch Salbung seiner Bestimmung geheiligt werden.

על הכפרים, “in addition to the other offerings for atonement;” the two rams that were offered for atonement.”

וחטאת — The Targum translates this by ותדכי AND THOU SHALT PURIFY [THE ALTAR]; the expression for placing upon the altar the blood that is placed there with the finger is called חַטַּא (hence it is followed by the preposition על “upon”).

Atonement for the altar was necessary. . . Rashi is saying that [according to the Midrash,] it does not mean atonement from acts that are “strange and objectionable,” as with the atonement of Aharon and his sons (v. 33) — for that meaning does not fit here.

ומשחת אתו AND THOU SHALT ANOINT IT with the oil of anointing: every anointing was done in the form of a Greek Chi (X).

All anointings are in the form of כי . כ"י stands for כ"ף יונית (a Greek chaf). It has the shape of our נ .

והיה המזבח קדש AND THE ALTAR SHALL BE [MOST] HOLY — and in what consists its holiness? In this: כל הנגע במזבח יקדש that WHATSOEVER TOUCHETH THE ALTAR SHALL BECOME HOLY — that even a sacrifice which is really invalid that has been brought upon it — even that does the altar sanctify making it a valid sacrifice in so far that it must not be taken down from the altar. Now since it is said, “Anything that toucheth the altar shall become holy”, I might infer that this applies to a thing whether it was fitting to be an offering at the time when it was brought into the Sanctuary or whether it was not so fitting as, for example, in the latter case, something the disqualification of which did not happen within the Sanctuary itself but had happened before it was brought there, such as, an animal, male or female, with which sexual sin had been committed, or an animal which had been set aside as a sacrifice to an idol, or one which had been worshipped as a god, or one which showed signs of incapacity to live owing to certain diseases (technically termed טרפה) and animals similar to these (with similar disqualifications); consequently it states, “Now this is that which thou shalt offer [upon the altar]”, which follows immediately after this (in v. 38). Now how is it in the case of the burnt-offering which is mentioned in the next verse as something commanded to be brought upon the altar? It must be fitted to be brought upon the altar! So, also, the preceding statement, “Whatever [touches the altar shall become holy]”, refers only to whatever was fitting, i. e. what was already fitting to be brought upon the altar and became disqualified only after it had been brought into the fore-court of the Sanctuary, as, for example, that which had been left over night (the blood or fat of a sacrifice which had been left until the morning without having been placed upon the altar), or that which, before it had been placed upon the altar, had been taken (lit., had gone forth) outside the forecourt, or that which had become unclean, or an animal which had been slaughtered with the intention to sprinkle the blood or to burn the fat or to eat the flesh outside the prescribed period or outside the prescribed place, and animals similar to these (Zevachim 83b).

כל הנוגע, anyone touching or approaching the altar too closely would become sanctified by this, i.e. he had to see to it that he was in a state of ritual purity prior to approaching the altar.

כל הנוגע במזבח יקדש, whatever touches the altar becomes sanctified.” The wording of this statement suggests that regardless of whether something is suitable for the altar or not, mere contact with it makes it holy. In order to prevent us from arriving at such a conclusion, the Torah wrote in the next verse: וזה אשר תעשה על המזבח כבשים בני שנה, “and this is what you shall prepare on the altar: sheep within their first year, etc.” Just as year-old sheep are suitable as sacrifices on the altar, so everything else which is suitable as a sacrifice on the altar will become sanctified by contact with it. Another law to be derived from the wording of our verse is that any priest who arrives first in order to offer the sacrifice will have some priority, i.e. he has been sanctified in respect of priests arriving later. Seeing he has been on the altar in order to perform sacrificial service he is not to be replaced in favour of someone else without having had a chance to perform his task.

Such as an animal used for bestiality. . . All these were disqualified before being brought into the courtyard, and are unfit [for the altar].

V. 37. קדש קדשים .והיה המזבח קדש קדשים כל הנוגע וגו׳: Wir bezweifeln, dass diese Zusammenstellung einfach als Superlativ zu begreifen sei. עבד עבדים ist ein Knecht von Knechten, מלך מלכים ein König über Könige (vergl. (הלא שרי יחדיו מלכים, שמי השמים ein höherer Himmelsraum, dem gegenüber unser sichtbarer Himmel zu einem solchen Minimum verschwindet, wie unsere Erde sich zu unserem Himmel verhält, also der Himmel unseres Himmels usw. So heißt auch wohl קדש קדשים ein Heiligtum, von welchem andere Heiligtümer ihre Heiligung erhalten.

כל הנוגע, “anything which touches, etc;” according to Rashi the word כל here, if taken at face value, means: that even if an animal that was not fit as a sacrificial animal under any circumstances and had by mistake come into contact with the altar, it would have been disqualified for any further use, that it must not be removed from the altar. [Sanctification is used here in the negative sense of the word, out of bounds for anyone else. Ed.]. In order to forestall our getting the wrong impression, the verse following spelling out an example of an animal qualified as a sacrifice, teaches that was meant in verse 37 were only animals basically qualified as sacrifices, which had incurred a disqualification after being on the sacred grounds of the Temple. It is worth examining why in this verse the burnt offering has not been mentioned by name. Presumably, the Torah thought that the reader would understand that the verse speaks of a burnt offering, the name “burnt offering” having been spelled out in verse 44 of our chapter. Our author feels that this is a somewhat forced answer and that there is no need for such a forced answer. He suggests instead that seeing that our verse speaks of an offering tendered twice on each day, that the reader surely knows that this could only refer to a burnt offering. The details about this offering have been spelled out in Numbers 28,3. Our author raises a question involving a commentary by Rashi on the portion dealing with the daily burnt offerings. (Numbers 28,4) On the words: את הכבש האחד תעשה בבוקר, “you shall present the one sheep in the morning,” he writes: that this has been repeated there although it has already been recorded here, as here it referred to a one time event, the consecration of Aaron and his sons as priests, [subsequent priests being born as such to their respective fathers and not needing consecration; Ed.] The paragraph in Numbers refers to legislation that is permanent, and remained in force as long as a Temple functioned. [This editor refers the reader to an interesting comment by K’lee yakar on why in the one verse the Torah speaks about אחד, “one,” whereas in the other portion dealing with the basically same sacrifice the Torah used the prefix ה, i.e. האחד, “the one.”] Our author feels that there was another occasion when the priests had to be consecrated in the time of Ezra when the second Temple had been consecrated and the claim of someone being a priest had to be documented anew due to the seventy years of exile the Jews had endured when not all could prove their ancestry beyond doubt. It will again become necessary to do so when the messiah will come, hopefully soon in our time. Our author feels that this is why Rashi in referring to the consecration rites never mentions a word about these being unique in Jewish history.

קדש קדשים, “most holy.” Actually, the correct translation would be: “holy just like the other holy things.”

For example. . . overnight . . . taken out . . . ritually unclean. . . All these were disqualified only after being brought to the courtyard. “Overnight” means the blood was left overnight, rather than being cast on the altar on the day the animal was slaughtered. The same is true if its flesh or parts to be burnt were left overnight. “Taken out” means the blood, flesh or parts to be burnt belonging to a burnt offering, sin offering or guilt offering that were taken outside the curtains [that enclose the mishkon’s courtyard]. “Slaughtered. . . outside the time” means that when slaughtering the sacrifice, the kohein had in mind to do one of the following things on a day when this is forbidden: 1. burn the parts to be burnt 2. burn its limbs 3. eat its flesh. “Outside the place allotted for it” means that when slaughtering the sacrifice, the kohein had in mind to eat its flesh outside its allotted place, i.e., outside the curtains [that enclose the mishkon’s courtyard] or outside the wall [that encloses the Beis Hamikdosh].

Vergleichen wir das Verhältnis der Stätte der Bundeslade, die קדש הקדשים heißt, zum היכל, der Stätte der מנורה und des שולחן, die קדש genannt wird, mit dem Verhältnis derjenigen Opfer, die, wie עולה חטאת אשם als קדשי קדשים zu בכור מעשר פסח שלמים stehen, welche קדשים קלים genannt werden, so haben חטאת ,עולה ,דביר, אשם, das Gemeinsame, dass sie sich direkt auf die Tat des Menschen, auf das Gesetz und des Menschen Verhalten zu ihm beziehen, während der היכל mit שולחן und מנורה, פסח ,מעשר ,בכור ,שלמים, die Güter des Menschen, sein aus Gottes Händen hinzunehmendes Geschick zum direkten Gegenstande haben. Es ergäbe dieses den Satz: dass die Heiligung der Tat, d.i. die Bereitstellung des tätigen Menschen für die Erfüllung des göttlichen Gesetzes, diejenige Bestimmung ist, welche die allererste, wesentlichste Grundbestimmung, die Basis des Heiligtums bildet, auf welcher die Heiligung aller anderen Beziehungen beruht, aus welcher die Heiligung aller anderen Beziehungen emaniert, sie ist das קדש הקדשים, die Basis und Quelle der Heiligung aller anderen Heiligtümer. Die Heiligung der passiven Seite des Menschen, des von Gott empfangenden Menschen, hat nur Wert, wenn er sich von vornherein mit allem von Gott zu Empfangenden der Erfüllung des göttlichen Gesetzes bereit stellt. So sind alle Opfer zwischen die beiden עולות תמיד einzuschalten, עולה, die immer vorwärts und aufwärts zu immer größerer Vollendung strebende Tatenweihe hat die Basis und das Ziel aller Opfer zu bilden, nach der ganzen Tiefe des Satzes: וערך עליה העולה והקטיר עליה חלבי השלמים: עליה השלם כל הקרבנות כולן (Joma 33 a). (Sind diese Annahmen wahr, so wäre dies für den Begriff der מנחות folgereich, die auch zu den קדש קדשים gehören, Wajikra 2, 3. Bedeutsam werden gerade die שירי מנחה also genannt, deren Genuss von den זכרי כהונה in der עזרה eben den Genuss gottgewährter Güter als Rüstung zu einem priesterlichen Leben in den Kreis gottdienender Pflichttat erhebt).

כל הנוגע במזבח, “whatsoever touches the altar;” anyone wishing to touch the altar must first undergo purification rites. This is also what is written in Exodus 30,20: או בגשתם אל המזבח וגו', “or when they approach the altar, etc.” This is similar to Exodus 19,22: וגם הכהנים הנגשים יתקדשו, “and also the priests who come near have to sanctify themselves;”

Nun steht nichts mehr im Dienste der Heiligung des tätigen Menschen als der Altar. Er steht unmittelbar vor dem Eingang zum Heiligtum, der Gesetzeslade im Allerheiligsten gegenüber. Er ist das sichtbare Resultat des unsichtbar im Allerheiligsten ruhenden Gesetzes. Er bildet den eigentlichen Kern des Vor- und Umraums zum Heiligtum, und vergegenwärtigt durch das auf seiner Anhöhe flammende Gesetzesfeuer die Hingebung an das Gottesgesetz als die Bedingung des Eingehens in das Heiligtum. Er heißt darum ja מזבח העולה, und steht ganz auf dem Boden der Tatenweihe, er ist קדש קדשים.

כל הנגע במזבח יקדש erscheint als unmittelbare Folge des: והיה המזבח קדש קדשים. Die konkrete Wirkung des קדש קדשים-Charakters des Altares ist, dass כל הנגע במזבח יקדש. Ganz ebenso heißt es von den כלי שרת (Kap. 30, 29): וקדשת אתם והיו קדש קדשים כל הנגע בהם יקדש. Es entspricht dies ganz der oben geäußerten Auffassung des Ausdrucks קדש קדשים, es ist dasjenige, wodurch anderes קדש, d. h. in das Bereich der תורה-Weihe gehoben wird. (Noch zweimal heißt es in ähnlicher Weise von חטאת und מנחה in Zusammenstellung mit ihrem בקדש קדשים Charakter ,כל אשר יגע בבשרה יקדש תכל אשר יגע בהם יקדש Wajikra 6, 11 u. 20.. Dort beruht es aber auf einer konkreten Mitteilung: בליעה, siehe daselbst). Aller jüdische Heiligtumsbegriff ist ein Heiligungsbegriff, es wird nichts geheiligt, damit in ihm sich die Heiligkeit konzentriere und das andere der Nichtheiligkeit verfallen bleibe. Alles wird heilig, damit es heilige.

Diese Wirkung der Altarhöhe als אריאל, alles sie Berührende für das Gesetzesfeuer mit "Löwenmacht" zu ergreifen und festzuhalten, wird durch das folgende: וזה אשר תעשה על המזבח, sowie durch eine ähnliche Beschränkung Wajikra 6, 2: זאת תורת העולה היא העולה על מוקדה (siehe das.) dahin modifiziert, dass nur הראוי לו, nur das bereits dem Altar Zugewiesene, שהוברר לחלקו, vom Altar ergriffen und festgehalten wird: המזבח מקדש הראוי לו, selbst wenn es inzwischen zur Opferung untauglich geworden, und zwar ist nach ר׳ יהושע der Begriff speziell auf das Feuer und nicht auf den Altar zu beziehen: nicht כל הראוי למזבח, was auch דם ונסכים umschlösse, sondern nur כל הראוי לאשים אם עלה לא ירד (Sebachim 83 a). Aber auch der Begriff des zur Feuerhingebung Untauglichen, das, einmal auf den Altar gebracht, für das Feuer ergriffen und festgehalten bleibt, אם עלה לא ירד, ist ein beschränkter. So heißt es: אלו אם עלו לא ירדו הלן והיוצא והטמא ושנשחט חוץ לזמנו וחוץ למקומו ושקבלו פסולין וזרקו את דמו, dagegen: הרובע והנרבע והמוקצה והנעבד והאתנן והמחיר והכלאים והטרפה והיוצא דופן אם עלו ירדו. Als Kanon gilt der Satz: כל שפסולו בקודש הקודש מקבלו לא היה פסולו בקודש אין הקודש מקבלו. Allein die Bedeutung dieses Kanons ist nicht ganz sicher. Nach רש׳׳י heißt es: שבאה בעזרה בהכשרה ונפסלה d. h. nur dann לא ירד wenn der פסול erst in der עזרה entstanden. Allein רובע ונרבע und טרפה können auch in der עזרה entstehen, weshalb תוספו׳ die Auffassung gibt: פסולו בקודש heiße: שאירע פסול משנשחטה ונתקדשה קדושת כלי, dass der פסול erst nach der שחיטה entstanden, oder nachdem es durch כלי שרת , z. B. קומץ, bereits קדושה erhalten hat. Für diese Erklärung spricht sowohl der Begriff שהוברר לחלקו :הראוי לו, als auch der Ausdruck des Gegensatzes: לא היה פסולו בקודש, d.h. ja: es war noch nicht von der קדושת מזבח erfasst, als es פסול geworden. Weniger lässt sich dieser Ausdruck nach der anderen Auffassung erklären, die auch תוספו׳ das. Sebachim 68 b gibt: כל שפסולו כשר בעלמא nicht absolut, sondern nur relativ untauglich macht, in gewissen פסול d. h. dessen בקודש Fällen, wie z. 8. טמא בצבור, die Opferung nicht hindert, somit nicht im absoluten Gegensatz zum קודש steht. Oder nach der in תוספו׳ Nidda 41a gegebenen Auffassung: שאין פסולן יכל להיות עד אחר שהקדש, dessen פסול eben nur eine Folge der קדשה ist, nur eintreten kann, nachdem es dem קודש angehörig geworden. Siehe daselbst und קרבן אהרן zu ת׳׳כ Wajikra 6, 2 — Der Begriff פסולו בקודש bietet endlich nach ר׳ יהודה noch die Einschränkung, dass: שנשחט בלילה ונשפך דמה ויצא דמה doch אם עלתה תרד (Sebachim 84.a).

Etwas, was ראוי למזבח, oder spezieller ראוי לאשים ist, dem Altarfeuer entziehen, spräche den verderblichen Wahn aus: als sei die durch das betreffende Organ repräsentierte Seite des Menschenwesens nicht der Feuerweihe des göttlichen Gesetzes hinzugeben, als gäbe es somit eine Beziehung des Menschenwesens, die nicht der Läuterung und Heiligung des göttlichen Gesetzes angehöre, und es hat doch ausnahmslos das ganze Menschenwesen in allen seinen Beziehungen die Bestimmung: לחם אשה ריח ניחוח לד׳ zu werden. Von anderer Seite drücken die Momente, die einen פסול, die eine Untauglichkeit zur Opferung bewirken, ja Beziehungen aus, die in größerem oder geringerem Maße den durch das Heiligtum zu vergegenwärtigenden Ideen entgegenstehen, deren Opferung somit eine Trübung dieser Ideen bewirken würde. In einem Objekt, das einerseits einmal הוברר לחלקו ,ראוי למזבח geworden, somit aus dem Kreis konkreter Objekte in den Kreis symbolischer Heiligtumsobjekte erhoben worden, andererseits durch einen Umstand פסול geworden, stehen somit sich zwei Momente entgegen, hinsichtlich deren der Kanon פסולו בקודש die Entscheidung gibt. Wir begreifen, dass da, wo die קדושה, d0s בירור לחלק מזבח durch שחיטה oder קדושת כלי dem פסול vorangegangen, oder der nicht absolut aus dem Bereiche des Heiligtums verwiesen, oder der Art ist, dass פסול der פסול selbst die קדושה vergegenwärtigt, indem er sie voraussetzt, dass, nach allen diesen verschiedenen Auffassungen, das Moment des קודש an dem Objekte in den Vordergrund tritt, und die Rücksicht überwiegt, dass nicht etwas, das als symbolischer Ausdruck einer Seite des Menschenwesens in Beziehung zum Altarfeuer getreten, und nun einmal dem Altar übergeben worden, demselben wieder entzogen werde, אם עלה לא ירד; dass aber dem entgegen פסולים wie רובע ונרבע מוקצה ונעבד וכו׳ den פסול-Charakter in den Vordergrund tragen und באם עלו ירדו

וזה אשר תעשה על המזבח, “and this is what you are to do on the altar, etc.” the word עשייה here refers to the arranging of the various parts of the animal on the altar and the pile of wood which occurred at sunrise. The actual slaughtering of the daily burnt-offering had taken place earlier as soon as the eastern sky had begun to become light. Six priests participated in that sacrifice (Yuma 24). One would carry the legs and the head, the other the two forelegs; the third the rear end and hind leg, the fourth the chest and the stomach; the fifth would carry the rib-cage, and the sixth would carry the entrails.

V. 38. Mit dem vorangehenden Verse waren die Vorschriften über die Herstellung und Einweihung des Heiligtums und der Priester vollendet. Allein nicht die Herstellung und Einweihung des Tempels und der Priester erwirkt an sich das in dem Satze ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם (Kap. 25, 8) verheißene Ziel der Gottesgegenwart im Volke (siehe das.), erst die im Heiligtum durch die Priester zum Ausdruck zu bringende, immer zu wiederholende, tägliche Hingebung des Volkes an das durch das Heiligtum vergegenwärtigte Ideal der jüdischen Bestimmung erreicht dieses Ziel, macht das und dies ist der Inhalt der VV. 38.—46 ausgesprochenen ,שכינה zur Stätte der מקדש Verwirklichung des mit dem ganzen Heiligtumsbau zu erreichenden Zweckes. Dieser Zweck ist mit der Herstellung des Tempels nicht ein für allemal erreicht, sondern nur ermöglicht. Erreicht wird er nur, wenn das Heiligtum durch die steten Hingebungshandlungen des Volkes, gleichsam die nationalen Atemzüge, Leben gewinnt und wirksam wird. Diese den Zweck des Heiligtums bedingende ewige Hingebung des Volkes an das Ideal des göttlichen Gesetzes, dem das Heiligtum erbaut ist, ist die Bedeutung des Tamidopfers. Darum hat es hier seine Stelle im unmittelbaren Zusammenhange mit den מלואים-Opfern und im engen Anschluss an dieselben.

וזה אשי תעשה, “and this is what you shall do:” Moses will observe seven days of consecration followed by Aaron and his sons observing their own days of consecration. (Ibn Ezra) This is a pattern for all future generations. [I confess not to understand this, as once priests were born to the priesthood, what purpose would consecration serve, and which ritual do we call consecration of seven days nowadays? Ed.]

כבשים בני שנה, in der Stunde seiner nationalen Geburt stellte Israel sich Gott als "Schaf seiner Herde" dar, ja es erlangte sein nationales Dasein nur, indem es sich also Gott als seinem Hirten für immer anheimgab. Was es aber in der ernstgroßen Stunde seiner Geburt gelobte, das soll es durch die ganze Dauer seines Daseins verwirklichen, es soll nie sich dieser Führung seines Hirten entwachsen glauben, es soll ewig jung bleiben, ewig Gott gegenüber im ersten Jahre seines Daseins stehen, ewig zu Ihm als "einjähriges Schaf seiner Weide" hintreten (siehe zu Kap. 12, 5). Wenn es aber in der Stunde seiner geschichtlichen Geburt zunächst in Beziehung auf sein von Gott zu gestaltendes Geschick diese Hingebung an seine Führung zu betätigen hatte und daher sein Peßachopfer im שלמים-Charakter steht, hat es im weiteren Verlaufe seines Wandels unter Gottes Führung diese Hingebung nicht sowohl im passiven Hinnehmen seines von Gott gestalteten Geschickes, als vielmehr im tätigen Hinanstreben zur Verwirklichung seiner von Gott gewiesenen Aufgabe zu lösen, und sein Tamidopfer ist nicht שלמים, sondern עולה.

שנים ליום. Es heißt nicht einfach: כבש אחד תעשה בבקר וכבש אחד תעשה בין הערבים es heißt auch nicht: שני כבשים בני שנה ליום sondern bevor im folgenden Verse die Darbringung der beiden Tiere verteilt wird, werden sie zuerst zusammengefasst, und zwar wird das שנים, die Zahl, in enge Verbindung zu dem Tage, somit als Beziehungen des Tages entsprechend und aus ihnen resultierend dargestellt. Alles dieses findet seine Erläuterung in der (Joma 62 b) erläuterten Halacha: תניא שנים ליום כנגר היום אתה אומר כנגד היום או אינו אלא חובת היום כשהוא אומר את הכבש האחד וגו׳ הרי חובת היום אמור ומה אני מקים שנים ליום כנגד היום כיצד תמיד של שחר היה נשחט על קרן צפונית מערבית וכו׳ וכו׳ ע׳׳ש. Es ist die Zweiheit in der Tageserscheinung, die die Zweiheit des Tagesopfers bedingt. Der Tag, יום (verwandt mit קום) die Zeit der aufrechten Selbständigkeit, ist von Nacht und Nacht umgrenzt; sie steigt von Nacht zur Mittagshöhe und sinkt aus Mittag zur Nacht. In dieser steigenden und sinkenden Tendenz bewegt sich die ganze physische Welt des Menschen und somit sein eigenes physisches Dasein und alles, dessen er für sein Wirken und Schaffen auf Erden als irdischer Grundlage bedarf. Allein der steigende und sinkende Tag, das steigende und sinkende Geschick, das steigende und sinkende irdische Dasein ist nur Eine Ordnung Gottes, des einen Einzigen, steht unter der Obhut des einen einzigen Lebenshirten, und darum ruft der sinkende wie der steigende Strahl zu einer und derselben Lebensaufgabe, zu einem und demselben Lebensglück. Hoch über dem Wechsel der Zeiten steht, unter dem einen Gott, einheitlich das jüdische Leben. Als dasselbe "Schaf der göttlichen Weide" mit demselben Gott huldigenden Zeichen der "Nahrung, des Wohlstandes und der Freude"; zeigt sich Israel dem steigenden wie dem sinkenden Strahle, und bekennt die Einheit seines Gottes durch die Einheit seines Lebensberufes und seiner Lebensfreude (siehe V. 41). Darum wird sein Morgenopfer auf der nordwestlichen Seite vollzogen, damit der Morgenstrahl aus Osten, und sein Abendopfer im Nordosten, damit der Abendstrahl aus Westen darauf falle, und dem sinkenden wie dem steigenden Strahle Israel sich in demselben unveränderlichen Charakter zeige. Tamid 4, 1 steht die Bestimmung: לא היו כופתין את הטלה אלא מעקידין אותו מי שזכו באברין אוחזין בו., nach Auffassung des רמב׳׳ם (הלי תמידין ומוספין) : man band das Lamm des Tamidopfers nicht, sondern hielt nur mit den Händen die Vorder- und Hinterfüße. Zu dieser Bestimmung der Mischna gibt eine Auffassung der Gemara (31 b) das merkwürdige Motiv: משום דמהלך בחוק העמים, weil er durch das Binden in heidnischen Weisen verfahren würde. ראב׳׳ד und auch רמב׳׳ם daselbst scheinen die Lesart אפיקורסין statt עמים gehabt zu haben; (im Mischnakommentar jedoch heißt es auch שלא יחקו לאומות). Welcher heidnischen oder unjüdischen Weise und Anschauung hiermit begegnet werden sollte, ist unerörtert. Wir haben schon oben zu Kap. 12, 5 bemerkt, in welchem Gegensatz das "Lamm" der jüdischen Symbolik zu dem "Lamm" einer anderen nichtjüdischen Anschauung stehe, wie es das fröhlich heitere, männliche, unverstümmelte in ewiger Jugendfrische sei, das eben in seiner Hingebung an die Führung seines Hirten diese ungeschwächte, ewig heitere Lebensfülle findet, im Gegensatz zu jener Anschauung, welche im "Lamm" ein Symbol widerstandslosen Leidens und Duldens und in diesem hinsterbenden Dulden das Ideal der Lebensbestimmung erblickt. Wir sind sehr geneigt, in dieser unjüdischen Auffassung des Lammessymbols diejenige Anschauung zu finden, welcher die in Rede stehende Bestimmung entgegen wirken soll. Nicht das geknebelte Lamm, das freie lebendige Wesen ist es, als welches Israel sich frei der Führung und Leitung seines Hirten hingibt und in dieser Hingebung erst wahrhaft zur Freiheit und zum Leben ersteht.

את הכבש האחד תעשה בבקר, "you will offer the one lamb in the morning, etc." The Torah emphasises the definitive article הכבש, so that there can be no doubt that the one mentioned in verse 41 is not an additional one. The emphasis on the word האחד is to tell us that even if at the time when the daily morning sacrifice was offered there was not yet a second lamb at hand for the daily evening sacrifice, this fact did not disqualify the first lamb from being offered up in the morning. Although we have learned in Menachot 44 that when inaugurating the altar the two lambs' presence was mandatory, this means only that the evening sacrifice must not be offered unless the one for the morning is at hand. A morning sacrifice may be offered even in the absence of a lamb for the offering to be brought the same evening.

ועשרן סלת A TENTH DEAL OF FLOUR — i. e. a tenth part of an ephah: a capacity of forty three and a fifth eggs (cf. Rashi on Exodus 16:36).

ונסך רביעית ההין יין לכבש האחד, “and a drink-offering of one quarter hin wine for the one sheep.” Rabbeinu Chananel writes that as soon as the priest had bowed down in order to offer the libation the deputy High Priest would wave the flag-like cloth to signal to the Levites to begin to chant their hymns. A the time of the Mishnah, a certain ben Arza would then strike the cymbal as a further signal and the Levites would commence reciting their hymns. All the assembled people would bow down and after every section the tekiah blast of the shofar would be blown and the trumpets would be blown until the end of the offering of the burnt-offering. At the end of that procedure the King and all those present with him would prostrate themselves (Chronicles II 29,28-40; compare also Tamid 7,3). The Levites would follow this procedure every day, varying the hymn they would sing.
On Sundays they would recite Psalm 24,1 as that psalm dealt with aspects of the creation of the universe, recalling that everything had been void and empty before. The psalm concludes with the words ויבא מלך הכבוד to commemorate the directive “let there be light.” The attribute כבוד also known as Shechinah is a great light. On Mondays the Levites chanted psalm 48. In verse 4 of that psalm the separation between different levels of holiness is alluded to. In the Holy Temple there were different levels of sanctity such as the Azarah, the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies. On the second day of creation the Torah speaks of separation between upper and lower waters (Genesis 1,6). These various levels of sanctity are referred to in verse 4 of our psalm by the word ארמנותיה, “its various citadels, palaces.” On Tuesdays the Levites would chant psalm 82 which features a verse (3) speaking about judging the poor etc. This corresponds to the directive that all the waters in the terrestrial world were to concentrate in one area so that the dry land could become visible (Genesis 1,9). This was an allusion for the judges to congregate when they sat in judgment and to pronounce judgment for each individual supplicant. On that day the Torah (G’d) also directed that the earth should produce trees, etc., each according to its own kind (Genesis 1,12), an allusion to the individuality which is to be preserved on earth. When we read in that psalm that alas, man had to die, unlike the angels, the reference is to the sin committed in that garden in which all these beautiful trees had grown. This is why the psalm recited by the Levites on the fourth day i.e. psalm 94, which commences with the reminder that G’d does take revenge on those who hate Him, is appropriate for Wednesday, the day the sun and moon were placed in orbit. The psalmist refers to the people worshipping sun and moon. On Thursdays the Levites used to chant psalm 81 which amongst other matters deals with the Exodus from Egypt. Pharaoh was compared to a sea-monster, תנין, and on that day the great sea-monsters had been created (Genesis 1,21). On Fridays the Levites chanted psalm 93 describing how even G’d robed Himself in splendor. It was the day that man, the most perfect of the creatures was created, a creature combining within himself some divine attributes (created in the image of G’d). He had been assigned dominion over the animals and even nature, i.e. was liable to similarly regard himself as sovereign in his domain on earth. Chanting that psalm then was in keeping with the significance of the day. On the Sabbath the Levites chanted psalm 92, a hymn in which the righteous are described as firmly planted in the House of the Lord, a reference to the Holy Temple. It is entirely possible that there are still more allusions in these various psalms chanted by the Levites on the different days of the week. Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel.

Forty-three and one-fifth eggs. [Rashi knows that it is of an eipha] because it states in Bamidbar 28:5: “And a tenth of an eipha of fine flour as a meal-offering.” An eipha is three se’ah, and a se’ah is six kav, and a kav is four log, and a log is six eggs. Thus an eipha is 432 eggs, a tenth of which is 43.2 eggs.

נסך רביעית ההין יין לכבש האחד. As soon as the priest had bowed down in order to offer the libation, the deputy High Priest would wave the flag cloth to signal to the Levites to begin to chant their hymns. At the time of the Mishnah, a certain ben Arza would then strike the cymbal as a further signal and the Levites would commence reciting their hymns. All the people assembled would bow down, and after each section the tekiah blast of the shofar would be blown and the trumpets would be blown until the end of the offering of the olah, the burnt offering.
At the end of that procedure the King and all those present with him would prostrate themselves (Chronicles II 29,28-40; compare also Tamid, 7,3.) The Levites would follow this procedure every day, varying the hymn they would sing.
On Sundays they would recite Psalm 24,1, seeing that this psalm deals with aspects of the creation of the universe. It recalls that everything had been void and empty before that “day.” The psalm concludes with the words ויבא מלך הכבוד, to commemorate the directive: “let there be light.” The attribute כבוד also known as Shechinah, is a great light.
On Mondays the Levites chanted psalm 48. In verse four of that psalm the separation between different levels of sanctity is alluded to. In the Holy Temple there were different levels of sanctity such as the עזרה, vestibule, the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies. On the second day of creation the Torah describes the separation between the “upper” and “lower” waters. (Genesis 1,6). These various levels of sanctity are referred to in verse four of our psalm by the word ארמנותיה, “its various citadels, palaces.”
On Tuesdays the Levites would chant psalm 82 which features a verse (3) speaking about judging the poor, etc. This corresponds to the directive that all the waters in the terrestrial world were to concentrate in one area so that the dry land could become visible. (Genesis 1,9) This was an allusion for the judges to congregate when they would sit in judgment and to pronounce judgment for each individual supplicant. On that day the Torah also directed that the earth should produce trees, etc., each according to its own kind (Genesis 1,12), an allusion to the individuality, which is to be preserved on earth. When we read in that psalm that alas, man had to die, unlike the angels, the reference is to the sin committed in that garden in which all these beautiful trees had grown. This is why the psalm recited by the Levites on the fourth day, i.e. psalm 94 which commences with the reminder that G’d does take revenge on those who hate Him, is appropriate for Wednesday, the day the sun and the moon were placed in orbit. The psalmist refers to people worshipping sun and moon.
On Thursdays the Levites used to chant psalm 81, which, amongst other matters, deals with the Exodus from Egypt. Pharaoh was compared to a sea monster, תנין, and on that day the great sea-monsters had been created (Genesis 1,21)
; On Fridays the Levites chanted psalm 93 describing how even G’d robed Himself in splendour. It was the day that man, the most accomplished of all the creatures was created, a creature combining within himself some divine attributes (created in the image of G’d). He had been assigned dominion over the animals and even over nature, i.e. he was liable to similarly regard himself as sovereign in his domain on earth. Chanting that psalm then was in keeping with the significance of the day.
On the Sabbath the Levites chanted psalm 92, a hymn in which the righteous are described as firmly planted in the House of the Lord, a reference to the Holy Temple. It is entirely possible that there are still more allusions in these various psalms chanted by the Levites on different days of the week.

V. 40. איפה 1/10 עשרון entspricht dem עומר לגלגלת, dem Maße des für den Tagesbedarf eines Menschen gespendeten Manna (Kap. 16, 36, siehe daselbst), und ward daher überhaupt zum Ausdruck der von Gott gespendeten Menschennahrung. — סלת בלול בשמן: siehe oben zu V. 2. Das עולה und שלמים begleitende מנחת נסכים bestand immer nur aus סלת, aus ungebackenem Mehle, trug dadurch noch mehr den Charakter der noch nicht durch Menschenhand veränderten Gottesspende. — בשמן כתית, siehe zu Kap. 27. 21. Nach Menachot 68 a war diese reinste Sorte Öl nur zur Leuchte unumgänglich und wird hier nur als auch zu מנחות zulässig erklärt. — רבע ההין, die männliche Form רבע für ein Viertel kommt in der תורה nie wieder, und überhaupt nur noch einmal im Munde des Dieners Sauls vor (Sam. I. 9, 8): הנה נמצא בידי רבע שקל כסף. Sonst, wie ja auch unmittelbar folgend: רביעת ההין. Menachot 90.a lehrt die Mischna: מדות הלח בירוציהן קדש, bei Flüssigkeitsmaßen wird auch das Überlaufende, das die Außenwände des Gefäßes berührt, heilig. Ebendaselbst 87 b u. 88 a wird eine Meinungsdifferenz zwischen ר׳׳י und ר׳׳מ dahin erläutert, dass nach בירוצי :ר׳׳י המדות נתקדשו, nach לא נתקדשו :ר׳׳מ und ist in תוספו׳'s Auffassung dieser Differenz nach der Erläuterung des מ׳׳למ zu הל׳ מעשה קרבנות II,9 diese Differenz unabhängig von jenem allgemeinen Mischnasatz 90 a und zwar also, dass nach ר׳׳י's Ansicht die בירוצי רביעית מגזרת הכתוב mit in dem für מנחות gesetzlich bestimmten רביעית eingeschlossen sind und wesentlich zum מנחה gehören. Wir glauben, dass diesem nach die ungewöhnliche Form רבע ihre Erklärung finden könne. Es steht nämlich hier, wo zum erstenmale dies Flüssigkeitsviertel bei Opfern erwähnt wird, die starke, männliche Form, statt der gewöhnlichen weiblichen schwachen, um eben zu sagen, dass darunter immer ein starkes Viertel, die בירוצים mit inbegriffen, verstanden sei. (ברץ scheint mit פרץ verwandt.) — Psalm 104. 15:ויין ישמח לבב אנוש ,להצהיל פנים משמן ,ולחם לבב אנוש יסעד ergibt die Bedeutung der drei נסכים-Stoffe, Mehl: Nahrung, Öl: Wohlbefinden, Wein: Freude. Indem Israel sich mit seinem ganzen Wesen dem Hinanstreben zu der Höhe der ihm von seinem "Hirten" gegebenen Bestimmung im עולה hingibt, bringt es zugleich die Zeichen der Bedingungen seines physischen Daseins, Wohlseins und Lebensglücks demselben Gotte seiner Lebensbestimmung als Huldigungstribut, מנחה, dar, und erneut mit dem immer frischen Bekenntnis, dass der Gesetzgeber seines Lebens zugleich der Spender, Erhalter und Beglücker seines Lebens sei, die ewige Basis seines Gehorsams.

בשמן כתית [MINGLED] WITH OIL, BEATEN — Not to make this obligatory is it stated “beaten” but to make it lawful if such oil be at all used. Since it is stated, (Exodus 27:20) “beaten for the light” and the implication is that for the light it must be beaten and not for the meal-offerings, one might think that this is expressly stated in order to declare it unfitting for the meal-offerings; therefore it states here “beaten”, meaning that for the meal-offerings beaten oil may be used if one so wishes. And it is stated “beaten for the light”, only to exclude the meal-offerings from the command: that beaten oil is not obligatory for them — that oil obtained from olives ground in a mill is also permissible for them (Menachot 86b).

For the bowls. . . ספלים means bowls, as in (Shoftim 5:25): “In a majestic bowl ( ספל ).”

רבע ההין THE FOURTH PART OF A HIN — three logs.

From there it runs down into the crevices. . . the altar. . .. The שיתין are orifices in the altar’s foundation, as in (Tehillim 22:3): “When the foundations ( השתות ) are destroyed.”

ונסך AND A LIBATION — for the bowls, as we learn in Treatise Sukkah 48a: there were two silver bowls above the altar pierced with holes, as it were like two slender nostrils. He poured the wine into these and it ran through and gushed forth by way of this “nostril”, falling upon the top of the altar. Thence it ran down into the subterranean channels in the case of the altar in the Temple, but in the case of the copper altar in the Tabernacle it ran down from the altar to the ground.

לריח ניחח FOR A PLEASING ODOUR — This is said in reference to the meal-offering just mentioned and not only to the lamb mentioned in the first half of the verse, for also the meal-offering brought with the libation was all of it entirely burnt, unlike other meal-offerings. The order when offering them was: first the limbs of the animal and afterwards the meal-offering, since it is said (Leviticus 23:27) “burnt-offering and meal-offering”.

כמנחת הבוקר וכנסכה תעשה לה, “like the meal-offering of the morning and its libation shall you prepare it.” In Numbers 28,8 where the Torah speaks about the same offering the wording is כמנחת הבוקר וכנסכו תעשה אשה ריח ניחוח לה'. Why is the masculine pronoun used there in connection with this offering? Answer: in Numbers the reference is to the word בוקר, morning, whereas in our verse here the reference is to the word מנחה, i.e. the nature of the sacrifice mentioned here being a מנחה, gift-offering though it was totally consumed on the altar. The word לה in this connection is quite unique; we do not find this formulation elsewhere. It is possible that it refers to the tenth emanation which this offering was aimed at. [The word would not then be understood as the ordinary “for it,” but as directed at what the last letter ה in the tetragrammaton represents (based on Torat Chayim)]

This refers to the minchah. . . I.e., we should not think that this minchah is like other menachos, which are not entirely consumed on the altar. For then [we would mistakenly conclude that] “For a pleasing fragrance” — which conveys that the whole offering ascends to God — refers only to the sheep of the burnt offering and not to the minchah.

V.41. Siehe zu V. 38. סלת und שמן ist das eigentliche מנחה, es wird damit die Existenz und Fortexistenz in Gottes Hand gelegt und darauf das Gelöbnis des Gehorsams gegründet. נסך ist das Bekenntnis der Glückseligkeit, die man eben in dem Gefühle dieser Abhängigkeit und Unterordnung findet. Dieses Bewusstsein und diese Freude sind beim sinkenden Strahl dieselben wie beim steigenden. Es heißt daher hier nicht נסכו, sondern נסכה, auf מנחה sich beziehend. Das מנחת ערב ist von demselben נסך begleitet, wie das מנתת הבקר. Schwierig ist das: לָהּ , da offenbar כבש das Terminativobjekt des Satzes ist. Es scheint in dem Gedankengange das מנחת ערב suppliert zu sein: wie bei der Huldigungsgabe des Morgens und wie deren Gußopfer vollziehst du bei der Huldigungsgabe des Abends.

תמיד A CONTINUAL [BURNT-OFFERING] i.e. from day to day: there shall not be an interval of a day between them (between two successive morning or afternoon offerings; cf. Rashi on Exodus 27:20).

That is where I will set it. . . I.e., the two phrases “Meet with you” and “Speak to you” are not two separate matters. Therefore Rashi skips the word שמה , [which seemingly separates it into two matters], so that the word שם at the end of the verse will suffice [to convey the meaning].

V.42. Siehe zu V. 38. פתח אהל מועד לפני ד׳: nur in der Bereitschaft für sein Gesetz stehen wir vor Gott. שמה, dorthin, wo das Zeugnis seines Gesetzes seine Stätte hat, bestimmt Gott sich uns zur Zusammenkunft, dort wartet er unser, dort haben wir uns daher mit unserem Emporopfer zum Zeichen der ewigen Hingebung an Ihn und sein Gesetz einzufinden, wenn wir erwarten wollen, dass Gott zu uns komme. — שם אליך אשר אועד לכם שמה לדבר: nicht Mosche Individualität, sondern die Hingebung der Nation erwirkt die Gottesnähe, und es ist die Nation, zu welcher Gott kommt, wenn er mit Mosche spricht. —

עולת תמיד לדורותיכם, a daily recurring communal burnt offering throughout your generations.” This offering would be instituted daily after the Israelites had crossed the Jordan. Even though this has not been spelled out clearly, reason dictates that it was not an offering presented only in the desert or even only at the bottom of Mount Sinai. If it had been a one time offering, how would we understand the line: עולת תמיד העשויה בהר סיני, “the continual burnt offering offered at Mount Sinai?”We also have the statement by the prophet Amos in Amos 5,25: הזבחים ומנחה הגשתם לי במדבר ארבעים שנה בית ישראל, “the meat offerings and gift offering that you offered for Me for the forty years in the desert, house of Israel?” Where would the Israelites in the desert have taken the wine, oil, finely ground wheat flour, and all the four legged animals from while they had been in the desert, until the fortieth year completely apart from the people surrounding them? There were so many communal offerings on the Sabbaths, New Moons, festivals, in addition to the daily offerings! If you were to point to Moses telling Pharaoh that the Israelites were going to take all their livestock with them on their going to the desert for three days to offer sacrifices to their G-d (Exodus10,9) or when they complained about their livestock being thirsty, this was in the fortieth year after they had conquered the lands of Sichon and Og, and had captured a huge amount of livestock, which prompted Gad and Reuven to request to settle in hat region permanently. Where would they have taken all these beasts from during the preceding 38 years? There certainly was no grass in the desert to have fed them!

אשר אועד לכם WHERE I SHALL BE MET BY YOU — when I shall appoint a place of meeting to speak unto you I shall appoint it there (at the entrance of the tent of meeting) as the spot to which to come. Some of our Rabbis learn from this that it was from above the copper altar that the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke with Moses after the Tabernacle was erected, for this was at the entrance; but some say that He spoke from above the cover of the Ark (the כפרת), as it is said, (Exodus 25:22) “And I will speak to thee from above the cover”, and that the words “where I shall be met by you” which are said here are not used in reference to the altar which was at the entrance of the tent of meeting, but in reference to the tent of meeting itself which is mentioned in this verse (so that the meaning is: “at the entrance of the tent of meeting where, viz., in the tent of meeting, I shall be met by you”; cf. ברייתא דמלאכת המשכן at the end).

ונעדתי שמה AND I WILL BE MET THERE — I will come together with them in a conversation as a king who appoints a place of meeting where he will speak with his subjects.

ונעדתי שמה לבני ישראל, "And there I shall meet with the children of Israel, etc." What precisely is the message of this verse? I believe the verse provides the rationale for the words ונקדש בכבודי, "and it will be sanctified by My Glory." Our sages said in Zevachim 115 that this is why the Torah mentioned in Leviticus 10,3: "I will become sanctified by those who are close to Me." The Torah first had to tell us that G'd's presence would be in the Tabernacle so that people would keep a respectful distance and not become victims by entering areas that were out of bounds to them. G'd hinted that the only reason He warned the ordinary Israelites i.e. לבני ישראל, about such trespass on their part was for their sake. As far as Moses or the priests were concerned, the Tabernacle was not out of bounds to them.

ונקדש בכבודי, I will manifest Myself to the people of Israel when the Tabernacle will be erected and the celestial fire will descend and consume the meat offerings on the copper altar in the area between the vestibule and the sanctuary. Leviticus 9,4 testifies that this did indeed occur, the verse concluding with “the glory of the Lord became manifest before the whole people,” followed by “fire originated from the presence of the Lord and

I will meet with them by speaking, as a king. . . Rashi explains “By speaking” because the verse does not mention in what way Hashem will meet with them. Rashi then answers the question: [If so,] why is it not written, “I will speak”? He answers: “As a king who sets a meeting place where he will speak with his servants.” In other words, it is customary for a king to set a place to speak. Therefore the verse says simply, “I will meet,” without [needing to specify,] “I will speak.”

VV. 43 u. 44. Alle vorangegangenen Weihungen und Heiligungen sind nur symbolische Vorgänge. heilig wird das Heiligtum nur durch die Gegenwart der Gottesherrlichkeit, durch welche Gott eben dem Menschenwerk und dem Menschenwirken das Siegel Seines Wohlgefallens aufdrückt.

ונקדש בכבודי, “and it will be sanctified by My Presence.” This is what Moses had said to the people in Leviticus 9,6: “and the glory of the Lord will appear to you!”

ונקדש AND IT — the Tabernacle — SHALL BE SANCTIFIED,

The mishkon. I.e., the mishkon will be sanctified by My Shechinah resting in it. Rashi is saying this even according to those Sages who hold that “Where I will meet with you” (v. 42) refers to a special place in the mikdosh, namely, the copper altar. All agree that [in our verse,] “it will be sanctified” applies to the whole Tent of Meeting, i.e., the Shechinah will rest there.

בכבדי BY MY GLORY — for my Shechina shall rest there. A Midrashic comment is: Read not here בִּכְבוֹדִי “by My Glory”, but בִּכְבוּדַי, “through My honoured ones”. Here He gave him some slight intimation of the death of Aaron’s sons on the day when it (the Tabernacle) would be erected. This is the meaning of what Moses then said, (Leviticus 10:3) “That is what the Lord said, Through those that draw near to Me will I be sanctified”. But where had he said this? Here, in the words, “and it shall be sanctified through My honoured ones” (Zevachim 115b).

ושכנתי בתוך בני ישראל. There to receive their service with goodwill and in order to listen to their prayers.

V.45. Und diese Anwesenheit der Gottesherrlichkeit im Tempel ist selbst nur Dokumentierung seiner Gegenwart in der Nation, welcher Er Gott, d. h. Bestimmer ihres Geschickes und Leiter ihrer Handlungen, sein will.

ושכנתי בתוך בני ישראל, “I shall dwell among the Children of Israel.” The reference is to the time when the flags would be erected, they being equivalent to a dividing fence between the camps of the Levites as such, and the ones performing duties in the compound of the Tabernacle.

והייתי להם לאלוקים, and I will supervise their affairs without resorting to an intermediary. They will have no reason to be afraid of what astrology portends, seeing that they (the Jewish people) are far more honoured by Me than are the celestial planets, etc. The very fact that I guide others’ fate only by means of agents, intermediaries, testifies to the eternal existence of the Jewish people.

לשכני בתכם means under the condition that I may dwell in the midst of them.

L’SHOCHNI B’THOCHAM’²²²Literally: “to dwell among them.” — “on condition that I dwell in the midst of them.” This is Rashi’s language. But the usage of the letter lamed [l’shochni] for a condition of this kind is not found [elsewhere in Scripture]! It is possible that He is stating: “and they shall know ‘when’ I dwell among them that I am the Eternal their G-d that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, for they will [then] know My Glory and believe that I brought them forth from the land of Egypt.” It is similar in usage to the verses: And David had great success ‘l’chol drachav’²²³I Samuel 18:14. Literally: “to all his ways.” [which is like b’chol drachav — “in all his ways”]; that thou hast chosen ‘l’ben Yishai’²²⁴Ibid., 20:30. Literally: “to the son of Jesse.” [which means b’ben Yishai — “the son of Jesse”]; because ye rebelled against My word ‘l’mei Meribah’²²⁵Numbers 20:24. Literally: “to the waters of Meribah.” [which means b’mei Meribah — “in (or ‘at’) the waters of Meribah”], and similar cases.
But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained [the verse to mean that] the purpose of My bringing them forth from the land of Egypt was only that I might dwell in their midst, and that this was the fulfilment of [the promise to Moses], you shall serve G-d upon this mountain.²²⁶Above, 3:12. He explained it well, and if it is so, there is in this matter a great secret. For in the plain sense of things it would appear that [the dwelling of] the Divine Glory in Israel was to fulfill a want below, but it is not so. It fulfilled a want above, being rather similar in thought to that which Scripture states, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.²²⁷Isaiah 49:3. And Joshua said, [For when the Canaanites… hear of it… and cut off our name from the earth,] and what wilt Thou do for Thy Great Name?²²⁸Joshua 7:9. There are many verses which express this thought: He hath desired it [i.e., Zion] for His habitation;²²⁹Psalms 132:13. Here I dwell; for I have desired it.²³⁰Ibid., Verse 14. And it is further written, and I will remember the land.²³¹Leviticus 26:42. “That is to say, the land is remembered in mercy. And I will remember is of the root The Eternal hath been mindful of us” (Psalms 115:12) (Ricanti).

אני ה׳ אלוקיהם, "I am the Lord their G'd." The reason the Torah repeats this after having said almost the same thing in verse 45 may be to remind us that even at a time when G'd's שכינה is not manifest amongst us, He still remains our G'd. Alternatively, G'd's being truly our G'd depends on our being aware of and recognising this fact. We are only worthy of bearing His name while we recognise Him as our G'd as mentioned at the beginning of this verse. Failing this, the result will be that the people will shake off the burden of the Torah, in which event they would "belong" to other gods.

הוצאתי אותם מארץ מצרים, in order to take up residence among them.

לשכני בתוכם, “for Me to dwell in their midst.” According to Rashi the meaning of the word לשכני is “in order for Me to reside.” Nachmanides understands the prefix ל in the word לשכני as similar to the prefix ב, i.e. “for I have taken up residence” (among them). The reason I did so is that they shall forever be aware that it was I Who has taken them out of Egypt.

V.46. Und diese besondere Gottesgegenwart in der Nation wird kein bloßer ideeller Gedanke bleiben, sondern erfahren werden sie diese besondere Gottesnähe, die ganze Gestaltung ihres inneren und äußeren Lebens wird ihnen diese Gottesnähe bezeugen, wie Gott es ausgesprochen, dass überall, wo Er seinem Namen ein Gedächtnis stiften wolle, d. h. überall, wo Er will, dass man erkennen und bekennen solle: ד׳ שמה, dass Gott da sei, da werde er zu uns kommen und uns segnen. In dem Segen unseres irdischen Daseins soll uns die Gottesgegenwart zum Bewusstsein kommen, בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי אבוא אליך וברכתיך (Kap. 20, 21, siehe daselbst).

'וידעו כי אני' ה, “and they will know that I am the Lord.” They will know that the reason I have taken them out of Egypt was for this, that they construct a residence for Me on earth. This was what G-d had meant when he told Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3,12) תעבדון את האלוקים על ההר הזה, “you will serve G-d on this Mountain.”

That is that He commanded the priests to eat the meat of consecrated animals - meaning the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, which are the most consecrated of the consecrated (kodshei kedoshim). And that is His saying, "And they shall eat those with which they atoned" (Exodus 29:33). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2:4) is, "From where [do we know] that the eating of offerings is atonement? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and it, has He given to you to forgive the sin of the congregation' (Leviticus 10:17). How is this? Priests eat and the owners are atoned for." And from the stipulations of this commandment - and that is the eating that is the commandment - is, however, that it be for the day and the night, until midnight. And afterwards, the eating of that sin-offering or guilt-offering is forbidden. Indeed, the commandment of eating is for a limited time. And women are not obligated in it, since women do not eat the most consecrated of the consecrated, about which the verse appears. However the other consecrated foods, meaning the less consecrated of the consecrated (kodshim kalim), are eaten for two days and a night - except for the thanksgiving-offering and the ram of the nazarite, which are for one day and the night until midnight, even though they are of the less consecrated of the consecrated. And women also eat from the less consecrated of the consecrated. And its eating is also an extension of the commandment; likewise is the eating of the priestly tithe an extension of the commandment. However the eating of the less consecrated of the consecrated and of priestly tithes is not like the eating of the meat of the sin-offering and the guilt-offering. For the atonement of the penitent is completed with the eating of this meat from the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, as we explained; and the language of the command is about their eating, which is not the case with the less consecrated of the consecrated and priestly tithes. And therefore it is [only] an extension of the commandment; but one who eats them does a commandment. And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 116:2) is "'I give you your priesthood as a service of gift' (Numbers 18:7) - to make the eating of consecrated items in the [outer] limits like the Temple service in the Temple: Just like for the service of the Temple, he washes his hands and then eats; so too does he wash his hands and then eat the consecrated items [outside the Temple]. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Zevachim. (See Parashat Tetzaveh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 10.)