레위기 6:15의 주석

המשיח תחתיו מבניו is the same as המשיח מבניו תחתיו THE PRIEST THAT IS ANOINTED FROM AMONGST HIS SONS IN HIS STEAD.

והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו, and one of his sons, the priest who will be anointed in his stead, etc. The sages in Menachot 51 explain that this verse teaches that if a High Priest has died and no successor has as yet been appointed, that one of his sons must offer the daily meal-offering which is mandatory for the High Priest. They derive this הלכה from the words מבניו תחתיו, "one of his sons in his stead." The same sages use the letter ם in the word מבניו for a different exegetical purpose. The Talmud on that folio quotes a Baraitha according to which the word בניו means that the High Priest's sons enjoy the status of ordinary priests; to the query that may be the Torah intended them to have the status of High Priests (pl)? The sages point to the words והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו as proof that only one of the sons may be anointed as High Priest in place of their father. It seems clear that this conclusion is derived from the word מבניו, i.e. from amongst his sons, not all his sons.

The one anointed of his sons in his stead. Rashi explains by changing [the order of] the verse because we could have explained המשיח תחתיו — the anointing shall be in his stead. Or, we could have explained it as: “the anointed in his stead of his sons, shall bring the offering,” i.e., the son should bring the offering. Therefore, Rashi explains by changing the verse so that “in his stead” will be connected to “of his sons” and not with “the one anointed”; “in his stead” connotes one person in succession to another (Minchas Yehudah). See Kitzur Mizrachi, Mahara’n, Gur Areyeh, and Divrei Dovid — each one has a unique approach in this. Meaning: According to the verse’s order it would seem that the anointed one in his stead who is one of his sons shall offer this meal-offering, to exclude an anointed one who is not one of his sons — that he should not offer. This cannot be. But now [that Rashi reverses it] it means the anointed of his sons in his stead shall offer it [always], to exclude any of his sons who is not anointed shall not offer it [always] (Kitzur Mizrachi).

כליל תקטר IT SHALL WHOLLY ASCEND IN FUMES — The קמץ (the altar's share) is not taken off from it so that there can be any remaining of it to be eaten by the priests, but the whole of it is burnt entire. Similarly the next verse points out that every free-will meal-offering of a priest (i. e. such offering in general) shall be wholly burnt (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 5 3).

All of it is completely [burnt]. This is to exclude that you should not explain “כליל (completely burnt)” refers to all the meal-offerings, and it means that the fistful of all the mealofferings should be burnt. [Therefore, Rashi explains that the word כליל refers only to this mealoffering,] and כליל means all of it is completely burnt. So too, every meal-offering of a kohein, of a voluntary offering. I.e., not that a kohein’s meal offering should be different than an anointed kohein’s meal offering — that is why Rashi adds: “so too, etc.” — that it is also completely burnt. Rashi adds, “of a voluntary offering,” because without this it would imply: So too the kohein’s obligatory meal offering [is completely burnt], just as the anointed kohein’s [meal offering that is obligatory], but not a voluntary one. Therefore, it lets us know that both of them are completely burnt.

On this subject the Talmud Horiot 11 adds that even a High Priest who is the son of a High priest needs to undergo anointing with the oil of anointing. They derive this from the words: והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו; if anointment of the son were not required all the Torah would have had to write was והכהן מתחתיו מבניו the extraneous word המשיח teaches that even if the High Priest's own son is his successor he has to be anointed. This seems difficult. The word המשיח is essential to teach us that the sons who up until then were only ordinary priests, as per We could answer this query by saying that we did not need the word המשיח to enable us to allow the sons to offer the meal-offering in the absence of a newly appointed High Priest, for why else would the Torah write two verses dealing with the ordinary priest offering a meal-offering. It is clear therefore that on the first occasion the Torah mentions the meal-offering brought by an ordinary priest that the regular priest is meant, whereas on the second occasion the Torah refers to an ordinary priest who happens to be the son of a High Priest. The word המשיח did not have to be mentioned unless the Torah wished us to derive an additional lesson from that word. The Talmud concluded therefore that the word teaches that even if a High Priest is succeeded by his son he needs to be anointed for his new office.

So too, every meal-offering of a kohein. Rashi’s proof is that it is written: “Every mealoffering of a kohein...”

There remains the problem why the Torah had to write תחתיו מבניו, an inverted way of saying מבניו תחתיו, "from amongst his sons as his replacement." Perhaps the Torah was especially interested in the word תחתיו appearing next to the person whom he replaced in order for the Talmud in Menachot to be able to arrive at the conclusion that one of the High Priest's sons must offer the meal-offering normally offered by the High Priest pending appointment of a new High Priest. The whole verse may then be understood as follows: והכהן המשיח תחתיו יעשה, "and the priest who will be anointed in his place will carry out (the functions of that Office);" however, if a replacement has not yet been appointed, מבניו יעשה, "one of his sons may carry it out." Had the Torah written הכהן המשיח מבניו תחתיו, the meaning would have been that only if the son had already been appointed in place of his father, i.e. had been appointed or was considered fit to be appointed, would he be obligated to offer the meal-offering his father used to offer; seeing that the Torah reversed the words מבניו תחתיו and wrote תחתיו מבניו יעשה, we derive the law that any of the High Priest's heirs may bring the meal-offering. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that as long as no replacement for the High Priest has been appointed the meal-offering in question has to be paid for by the public purse (instead of by the High Priest or his estate). The significance of the sequence of the words תחתיו מבניו then is that no one other than the son of the deceased High Priest is entitled to replace him. After having given this explanation I have found that Torat Kohanim already preceded me in explaining these Baraithot in the same spirit.