레위기 6:2의 주석

צו את אהרן COMMAND AARON — The expression “Command …!” always implies urging on to carry out a command, implying too, that it comes into force at once, and is binding upon future generations (cf. Rashi on this passage in Kiddushin 29a). R. Simeon said: Especially must Scripture urge on the fulfilment of the commands in a case where monetary loss is involved (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 1; Kiddushin 29a).

TZAV’ (COMMAND) AARON. In the [preceding] section of Vayikra, Scripture stated, Speak unto the children of Israel,¹Above, 1:2. for there He gave the command about the bringing of the offerings, and it is upon the Israelites to bring them. But here He states, Command Aaron and his sons,²Thus the question arises: Why are these two sections addressed differently? for He now speaks of the rites of the offerings and these are performed by the priests.
Now Rashi wrote: “Command Aaron. The expression ‘command …’ always implies urging [to fulfill the command] at once, and also for future generations. Rabbi Shimon said: Scripture found it especially necessary to urge, in cases where fulfillment of a command involves monetary loss.”³Since Rashi understood Rabbi Shimon’s statement as referring to the burnt-offering, it must be understood as follows: In the case of all other offerings, the priest eats part of the meat and thus derives some personal benefit, therefore he does not have to be urged on to perform their rites. In the case of the burnt-offering, however, he derives no benefit, since it is completely burnt on the altar; hence Scripture [speaking here of the law of the burnt-offering], preceded it by the expression, ‘command’ Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt-offering, in order to urge them on to fulfill the commandment. — Ramban, however, argues that even from the burnt-offering the priests do derive a personal benefit, namely, the hide (further, 7:8). Accordingly he will interpret Rabbi Shimon’s statement as referring to another matter, as he explains further on. But the explanation of Rabbi Shimon was not [said] with reference to this command, for here there is no monetary loss involved to the priests to whom this command was given. Indeed, they gain profit and reward from all the offerings,⁴The meat of the sin-offering and the guilt-offering is eaten completely by the priests. They are also given a share of the peace-offering (further, 7:34). The residue of the meal-offering after the handful was burnt on the altar, was eaten by the priests (ibid., Verse 9). even the burnt-offering.⁵This is a reference to the hide of the animal which belongs to the priest (further, 7:8). — Rashi, however, considered this share of little value and hence he understood Rabbi Shimon’s statement as applying to the burnt-offering, and that this was why the expression “command …” is mentioned here, namely, because the priests incur a monetary loss, and hence they had to be urged on to fulfill the command. — Thus according to Rashi, Rabbi Shimon differs with the First Sage, (Tanna Kamma) [when a Mishnah or a Beraitha cites a number of different authorities, and the first authority is mentioned annonymously, that opinion generally is referred to that of the Tanna Kamma] who said that the expression “command …” is mentioned here because it is a commandment binding at once and also for future generations, while Rabbi Shimon holds that this is not the reason for its use; instead, the reason for the expression “command …” is because in attending to the burnt-offering the priests suffer a monetary loss, and hence they have to be urged on. Ramban, however, argues that even in the case of burnt-offerings the priests incur no monetary loss, since they keep the hides, hence Rabbi Shimon also agrees with the First Sage that the reason for the use of the expression “command …” in this context is because it is a command binding at once and for future generations. Ramban then continues by saying that Rabbi Shimon’s statement has no bearing on our subject of the burnt-offering, but its meaning is as will be explained further on. Rather, the intention of the First Sage [whom Rashi quoted] in saying, “the expression ‘command …’ always implies urging [to fulfill the command] at once and also for future generations,” was to say that in those sections of the Torah where Scripture wanted to urge fulfillment, saying that they should be fulfilled immediately and that they apply throughout the generations, it uses this expression of “command …” But in other sections it will say, “speak” to the children of Israel, or “say” unto them. With this [generalization] Rabbi Shimon differed, saying that sometimes⁶I.e., in other places. But here [in the case of the burnt-offering] Rabbi Shimon agrees with the reason stated by the First Sage. See Note 5 above. this expression [“command … “] occurs in a matter which is not to be fulfilled immediately and throughout the generations, but it is used because the command involves a monetary loss. Such [a use of the word] “command” is that found in the case of the oil of the lighting⁷Further, 24:2: Command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil beaten for the light … [where, according to Rabbi Shimon, the expression “command …” is used because it applies immediately and for all generations, as well as for the reason that it involves a monetary loss], and that which Scripture states, Command the children of Israel, that they give unto the Levites of the inheritance of their possession cities to dwell in,⁸Numbers 35:2. [which is a case where the use of the expression “command” can only be because monetary loss is involved, since it did not apply at once, but only after they had taken possession of the Land].
It is possible that we say that our command does involve a monetary loss to the priests, as a result of that which it says further on [in this section], This is the offering of Aaron and his sons,⁹Further, Verse 13. This is interpreted by the Sages to mean that the High Priest is to bring a meal-offering every day, half of it in the morning and half thereof in the evening. The ordinary priest brought such a meal-offering at his installation into the priestly office, and it was known as the “meal-offering of initiation.” Since the money for these meal-offerings does not come from the public treasury but from the priests themselves, there is thus a monetary loss incurred by them, and hence the expression “Command Aaron and his sons …” with which this section opens. If this is so, Rabbi Shimon’s statement does refer to this section and Rashi was therefore correct in citing his words here — as being an additional reason to that of the First Sage as to why the expression “command …” is mentioned here. However, etc. (see text). which is a continuation of this command. However, at the beginning of the Sifre,¹⁰“Sifre.” This is the version found in all texts of Ramban — but it should be “Sifra,” as it is found here in Torath Kohanim at the beginning of the Seder. See in Seder Vayikra Note 121. the opinions [of the First Sage and that of Rabbi Shimon] are taught in a manner indicating that they hold opposing views.¹¹Ramban’s intent is as follows: When in a Tannaitic text the opinion of a second Sage is mentioned in the words: “Rabbi … says,” it indicates that he differs with the opinion of the First Sage. Where, however, it states: “Said Rabbi …” it usually means that he agrees with the former opinion, but he makes an additional point to strengthen it further. Here, however, [in the text of the Sifra before Ramban] it states: “Rabbi Shimon says,” and hence indicates that he differs with the opinion of the First Sage. [It must be noted though that the Sifra text that we have has: “Said Rabbi Shimon,” which vindicates that there is no difference of opinion between the two Sages. Ramban’s Sifra text perforce must have had the reading: “Rabbi Shimon says …” A similar reading is found in the Sifre Naso 1: “Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says … “]

צו את אהרן זאת תורת העולה, after the Torah had informed us about most of the sacrifices and how they were to be offered, the Torah now refers to the specific “Torah” pertaining to each of these voluntary burnt offerings. We pointed out already that different people who feel the need to offer this sacrifice are motivated by quite different considerations. The variety of sacrificial offerings provided for by the Torah corresponds roughly to the variety of human personalities and the considerations motivating their actions. The Torah mentions as a salient feature of the burnt-offering, עולה, that the entire animal is offered on the altar for ריח ניחוח, “sweet smelling fragrance,” although only a small part of it is actually going up in flames. It is this small part which is truly the sacrifice called עולה. Further parts of that sacrifice (animal) [which burned to ash from the heat but did not go up in flames. Ed. ] are deposited אצל המזבח, next to the altar after having turned to ash. Those parts are referred to as דשן, containing a certain degree of moisture which gives the fire a chance to smolder within them. This is meant by the words אשר תאכל אותם האש את העולה, some of it, when completely turned to ash is removed outside the camp while the priest carrying same wears garments of a lower rank. Even though these ashes are just that, ash, the place they are being consigned to cannot be just any dump but must be a site described by the Torah as טהור, ritually pure. [A significant ingredient of this “Torah”, (call it symbolism if you will) of the Olah is the מוקד, the burning center of the altar. We do not find the expression in connection with the other sacrifices. Perhaps this is symbolic of the “rising” of the עולה heavenwards. Ed.]

צו את אהרון, "Command Aaron, etc." Torat Kohanim comments that the expression צו is always one which denotes a sense of urgency covering both the present and future generations. [I believe the meaning of "future generations" is that the commandment does not merely involve a one-time contribution such as the materials for the Tabernacle. Ed.]. Rabbi Shimon says that this expression is used especially when performance of the commandment involves personal expense. According to the first opinion quoted, the reason the expression צו is justified here more than elsewhere is because the legislation involving the burnt or total-offering involves also night-time activity, something which is not the case with any of the other offerings. The priests therefore had to be impressed with a special sense of urgency. We find a parallel passage in the Torah (Leviticus 24,2) where the expression צו is used in connection with the oil for the candlestick which was used primarily at night. That commandment also involved personal expense for the people contributing the oil. Aaron was commanded with those words, and the Torah reports in Numbers 8,3 that Aaron carried out the instructions to the letter. The word לדורות used by Torat Kohanim means that the rules laid down here after the word צו are not subject to change in the future. We encounter the following comment in Pessikta on our verse. "The need for the Torah to legislate with the word צו was based on the Israelites having said: 'in the past while we were wandering through the desert we used to offer daily communal burnt-offerings. Now that we have have stopped wandering, we will also discontinue the practice of these offerings.'" We see from the above that there was room for error as to the application of the daily תמידים offerings.

זאת תורת העולה, this portion now deals in greater detail with the variety of offerings which have been mentioned and discussed in some detail already in Parshat Vayikra.

זאת תורת העולה, “this is the law concerning the burnt offering.” Ibn Ezra explains the term עולה as justified, seeing the entire animal is burnt up on the altar and the smoke rises heavenwards. The priests do not share in any of the meat of this offering.

An expression of “urging.” Rashi explains in the Gemara (Kiddushin 29a) that [זירוז means] one should be quick and vigorous. You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain this above on the verse in Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 27:20)? The answer is: [There,] the urging is a result of the special expertise needed to harvest the olives from the olive tree’s top [branches] and to crush them in a mortar so there will be no sediment.

צו את אהרן, “command Aaron;” whenever the expression tzav is used, it is a commandment to be performed with alacrity, without delay, and is meant to apply indefinitely, not only for a limited period, i.e. one time. The reason we know that it is meant to encourage the person so commanded to fulfill the order without delay, is because the Torah wrote in Deuteronomy 1,16: “I will charge (command) your judges, etc.” In Numbers 5,2 the Torah wrote: (concerning the people afflicted with tzoraat, the dreaded skin disease, that such people must be removed forthwith from the camp of the Israelites. The Torah there adds, that this order was carried out without delay (Numbers 5,4). The fact that this is not a formulation used with commands valid only on a single occasion, is that in Numbers 15,23, the Torah writes concerning a number of commandments that they apply for all future generations for sins committed inadvertently. Seeing that such tasks were removing last night’s ash from the altar, or making sure that there was always an adequate supply of wood at hand on the altar, it is human nature not to relate to this with exceptional haste, the Torah, when legislating this command, employed a term implying haste, the need to perform that task without delay. Rashi, quoting Rabbi Shimon, is on record as saying that all commandments which involve expense to the person commanded to do so need reminders not to delay, as it is only human to seek to delay having to spend one’s money when it is not for making a profit from the transaction. What he means is that if the first person charged with doing something has not performed his task, then another person has to substitute for him, something called חסרון כיס, being out of pocket. In our age the correct term would be: “because time is money.”

‎ 'וגו‎‎ ‎זאת תורת העולה THIS IS THE LAW OF THE BURNT OFFERING: [SUCH BURNT OFFERING SHALL REMAIN ON THE FIRE-PLACE UPON THE ALTAR ALL NIGHT] — This paragraph (vv.1—2) is intended to teach, with reference to the burning of the fat-portions and limbs of sacrifices that it is permissible during the whole night (Megillah 21a); and to teach regarding disqualified sacrifices, which of them, if already brought up on the altar, must be taken down, and which, if brought up, need not be taken down. The latter case may happen, because the term, תורה wherever it occurs in Scripture as an introduction to a group of laws (cf. Leviticus 6:7, 18; 7:1,11 etc.) is intended as an all-inclusive term (to include all of the class mentioned); here it is intended to tell us: One law applies to all animals that may be brought up on the altar, even certain disqualified ones — that if these have once been brought up on the altar they shall not be taken down again (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 7; Zevachim 27b).

THIS IS ‘TORATH’ (THE LAW OF) THE BURNT-OFFERING. “This text is intended to teach us that the burning of the fats and limbs of offerings is valid [if performed anytime] during the whole night [following the day on which they were slaughtered]. It is also intended to teach us which of the disqualified offerings, although already brought up on to the altar, must be taken down, and which of them if already brought up need not be taken down. For all expressions of torath¹²In our Rashi text: torah. [introducing a group of laws] denote inclusion — one law for all offerings that are brought up on to the altar, including some disqualified ones, namely that if they are already brought up on to the altar, they need not be taken down.” This is Rashi’s language.
But this law does not [in fact] apply to everything that has already been brought up on to the altar, but only to all offerings proper, for if drink-offerings¹³See Numbers 15:3-12 for the command that burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings had to be accompanied by an offering of wine. are brought on to the altar [when they are not supposed to be] they must be taken down; and even if the libations are correctly offered up and the offering is disqualified, or the offering is correctly offered up and the libations disqualified, and definitely where both are disqualified — in all these cases, the offering itself is not to be taken down again, and the libations are to be taken down! For such is the sense of the inclusive term torath ha’olah (the law of the burnt-offering), teaching, “one law for all that goeth up [as the due of the altar-fires]” but not for the drink-offerings [since they are not poured on the fires, but into a silver bowl placed at the south-west corner of the altar],¹⁴Succah 48a. There were two such bowls there, one for the wine-libation and the other for the special water-libation on the Festival of Succoth (see in Seder Vayikra Note 219). “The bowl to the west was for water and that to the east was for wine” (ibid., 48 b). nor for the blood [which was sprinkled on the sides of the altar], in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yehoshua.¹⁵Zebachim 83 a.
Now this verse [also] teaches that we should not offer the burnt-offering at night, but if it was slaughtered and its blood sprinkled [on the altar] during the daytime, we may burn its limbs all night, the same law applying to the fats of the peace-offering. And the explanation of the expression ‘hi ha’olah’ is as if it said: ‘tiheyeh’ ha’olah (the burnt-offering “shall be”) on the firewood upon the altar all night. He uses the word hi [literally: “she”] in order to exclude¹⁶For just as the term torah (law) denotes inclusion (one law for all things), so does the word hi (“she” or “it”) denote exclusion, implying that the law under consideration does not apply to everything but is limited in its scope. It is the Sages who in their interpretation of the law determine in which cases it applies and in which it does not. those things which the Rabbis have specified in the interpretation thereof. Now according to the [Rabbinical] interpretation this verse does not teach us that we are to bring up the limbs [of the offerings] from the ground to the altar at night, for this [principle] they have already derived from another verse, Neither shall the fat of My feast remain all night until the morning,¹⁷Exodus 23:18. [which the Sages interpreted¹⁸Mechilta ibid. See also Ramban there. to mean, “Neither shall the fat of My feast remain on the stone pavement of the Court below, all night until the morning, but you should bring it up to the altar”]. For it is from that verse that the Rabbis have derived the law that [fats and limbs of the offerings] become disqualified [for the altar] if they remained upon the pavement [until the morning], but they may be brought up to the altar at any time during the night. Here Scripture speaks of those limbs which had already been brought up during daytime, [to teach] that the priest turns them over on the altar during the whole night until the morning. It is for this reason that He says hi ha’olah [using the definite article], meaning: “the one which has already come up” on the altar. It also teaches us that even those that are invalid, are not to be brought down again, [once they were taken up onto the altar], provided they became invalid in the Court of the Sanctuary [such as where they had remained overnight or had been unclean, etc.; but if they became invalid before reaching the Sanctuary Court, such as an animal that had been set apart for idolatry, or had been worshipped etc., these must be brought down].¹⁹See Zebachim 84a for full discussion of these cases. It also teaches that [invalid] drink-offerings¹³See Numbers 15:3-12 for the command that burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings had to be accompanied by an offering of wine. must come down [since they do not go upon the fires on the altar],¹⁴Succah 48a. There were two such bowls there, one for the wine-libation and the other for the special water-libation on the Festival of Succoth (see in Seder Vayikra Note 219). “The bowl to the west was for water and that to the east was for wine” (ibid., 48 b). and so also the blood [which had become invalidated], as I have written.

הוא העולה, that is burned up on the altar during the day, as is clear from 19,6 where reference is made to “the day on which on which you slaughtered,” or in 7,16 ביום הקריבו את זבחו, “on the day he offered his meat offering, etc.”

היא העולה על מוקדה על המזבח כל הלילה, “it is the burnt offering that stays on its firewood on the altar the whole night long, etc.” The Torah’s purpose in giving us this detail is to teach that this offering [as all others. Ed.] must not be slaughtered, etc., after nightfall. If it has been slaughtered, and its blood sprinkled on the altar as long as it was still daylight, the burning of the remains may take place during the whole night. Interestingly, the Torah refers to these parts of the burnt offerings a היא, i.e. “she.” in the feminine mode. There is a problem here for we have another verse from which we derive that the remains of the flesh of burnt offering are burnt up at night, seeing that the Torah writes: (Exodus 23,18) ולא ילין חלב חגי עד בוקר, “and the fat of My festive offering may not remain on the altar until morning.” This means that the fat must not remain below the altar until morning but must be burned up at night, but the pieces must be placed on the altar during the night. We must therefore conclude that our verse here speaks of אברים, remains left for being burned up, which though they had been placed on the altar still by day, had not been placed on the fire until after it had become night. Concerning such remainders of a burnt offering, [generally one offered on weekdays, not like the example in Exodus Ed.], the Torah writes the somewhat superfluous word היא. In other words, the Torah refers to something that had already been on the altar, but had not yet had the final procedure performed upon it. We must also consider that the Torah uses three (זאת, היא, העולה) expressions known as מיעוטין, words or letters that limit the applicability of something previously understood to apply generally. In this instance, the word היא forbids the throwing back onto the altar of any parts of the bones or flesh that had fallen off the altar while they were burning up.

And for generations. [Rashi knows this] from what is written (Devarim 3:28): “Command Yehoshua and strengthen him” — [the addition of the word “and strengthen him” shows that] this is an expression of “urging.” “And for generations” — it is written in Parshas Emor (24:2-3): “Command the children of Israel and let them take [pure olive] oil ... from evening until morning before Hashem, continually, as an everlasting statute throughout your generations,” this stipulates “for generations.” “Immediately” — it says in Parshas Behaloscha (Bamidbar 8:3): “Aharon did so; he lit the lamps toward the face of the menorah, as Hashem had commanded...” — this denotes “immediately.”

As far as the חסרון כיס, the personal expense cited by Rabbi Shimon as the reason for the use by the Torah of the word צו in this instance is concerned, there are many interpretations as to what the Rabbi had in mind. Some say that Rabbi Shimon did not restrict his comment to when a commandment involved personal expense, but that he also referred to any commandment the fulfilment of which involved pain, discomfort, etc. to the person performing it. Others say that he included commandments which robbed the performer of his regular night's sleep or the work he would otherwise perform during that night. Others say that all the Israelites considered themselves as losing money when they observed the sacrificial animal being burned up and no one enjoying any part of it. Still others believe that Rabbi Shimon referred to the financial loss to the priest who would have preferred to officiate over a different offering, one from which he would have been able to eat at least a part. In the case of the burnt-offering the priest's share was limited to the skin of the animal. I consider all these interpretations of what Rabbi Shimon had in mind with his statement as missing the mark by a wide margin.

את אהרן, up until now we read about the sons of Aaron having to perform certain chores, as for instance in chapter 1 verse 11, and verse 8. At this point, according to Vayikra rabbah, Moses turned to G-d and said: “how can a well which is in disgrace produce water that is welcome and pure? What he meant was that if Aaron was in disgrace because of the sin of the golden calf, how could his sons be fit to perform the duties in the Tabernacle? [I find this somewhat difficult to accept as the commands in our chapter were addressed to both Aaron, and his sons (6,2). Ed.] We have learned in Mishnah 3 of Tamid at the beginning of chapter 2, that all manner of wood is suitable as firewood for the sacrifices with the exception of olive wood and the wood of grape vines. The reason is that the wood of the olive tree is of a higher status as the oil of the lamps candlestick is made from the olives that grew on an olive tree, and the wine used in libations is used in Temple. The Mishnah immediately preceding that one reports the fact that none of the priests charged with removing the ash had ever been late in the performance of his duties. We see that the trunk of the olive tree was honoured on account of its fruit, so that the sons of Aaron should be honoured because of their father. When G-d heard Moses’ reasoning He immediately changed the wording of the commandment by including Aaron in it.

הוא העולה — is intended to exclude from the general law of עולה male and female cattle with which sexual sin had been committed and the like (i. e. that even if they were put on the altar they must be taken down again), because their disqualification did not occur in the Holy Place, since they were dis-qualified before they came into the forecourt (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 8).

כל הלילה, the remains are allowed to burn to ash.

ואש המזבח תוקד בו, “and the fire of the altar should be kept burning on it.” According to Nachmanides the Torah here issues a command that the fire on the altar be kept going all night long, seeing that it commands that a great deal of firewood be put on the pile by day so that there is no danger that all of this wood will be consumed by the fire during the daylight hours. As to the words ואש תמיד המזבח לא תכבה, “that the fire on the altar not go out,” (6,5 and 6,6) this means that it must be kept going on a year round basis, and it is the task of the priests to see to it that it is kept going. The Torah simply repeats, in order to underline what it had said in verse 5 ובער עליה הכהן עצים בבוקר בבוקר, “the priest shall kindle it every morning,” this is a reminder to see to it that enough firewood is always on hand on the large מערכת, woodpile, to ensure that the fire on the altar never goes out completely. Our sages derive from the impersonal styling of this command, i.e. the Torah warns of what should not happen, not only instructing the priest what to do, that if any person would extinguish a single coal of that fire it would be considered a violation of a negative commandment. [a Midrash even makes a calculation that this fire, started in the second year of the Israelites in the desert was kept going without interruption for 116 years. Ed.] The whole reason why there was a secondary smaller woodpile on the altar was to act as insurance in the event that due to some negligence by some priest, the primary woodpile had been allowed to become extinguished. The sages derive the negative commandment here from the words [not really needed. Ed] והאש על המזבח “and the fire on the altar.” Although they say that this results in the penalty of lashes when committed deliberately, I do not believe that there are separate lashes on account of each coal that was allowed to go out or was extinguished deliberately.

Monetary loss. I.e., [Rabbi Shimon is saying] it is specifically in a place where there is monetary loss that it needs to write צו for urging, but where there is no monetary loss it does not need to write צו, even if it is an expression of urging, immediately and for future generations. And [according to this] Rabbi Shimon disagrees [with the Tanna Kama]. [You might ask:] It says here צו even though there is [seemingly] no monetary loss! The answer is: Since the kohanim do not have any benefit from the burntoffering besides its skin, and that was only given to the kohein who brought the burnt-offering, therefore it is called a monetary loss as well. However, Re’m writes that Rabbi Shimon is not coming to argue on the words of the Tanna Kama. Rather, he is coming to add and say that the primary reason that Scripture uses the expression “command” is because there is monetary loss. However, when there is no monetary loss [although there is urging, immediately and for future generations,] the word צו is not applicable. The same applies when there is no urging, immediately and for future generations, although there is monetary loss, the expression צו is not applicable, etc. (see there, where Re’m dwells at length). [You might ask:] It is written regarding the apportioning of Eretz Yisroel (Bamidbar 34:2): “Command (צו) the children of Yisroel,” although there is no monetary loss! The answer is: Since the entire people of Yisroel were disparate with regard to the conquering of the Land, for one tribe took a larger portion than another, and some took a portion in the hills and some in the plains, it is also considered, in some aspect, a monetary loss. Re’m, however, explains the entire matter differently, examine it and choose for yourself. Meaning: Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say this, specifically here? All the offerings are applicable immediately and for future generations! He answers: All the offerings have a benefit for the kohanim in that they receive a portion of the sacrifice. Therefore, each kohein will hurry and not be indolent in the Divine service, so that he will not be preempted by someone else. This however, does not apply to a burnt-offering, which is entirely burnt, and the kohanim did not receive any of the meat. Therefore, I might think they would be indolent with it. This then would be a monetary loss for the kohein of that watch. Therefore, it says צו, an expression of urging (Divrei Dovid). Nachalas Yaakov explains that regarding other offerings they bring only the blood and the fats [to the altar] and the meat is eaten by the kohanim. Thus, their benefit is large and their effort is minimal. This is not so concerning the burnt-offering, for a lot of effort is involved [in bringing it to the altar] and its benefit is minimal — [they receive] only the hide — therefore, it requires urging. Rashi is answering the question: The laws of the burnt-offering were already set down in Parshas Vayikro! Rather, it comes to teach... (Gur Areyeh).

He may have referred to the pile of firewood which had to burn around the clock on the מזבח העולה, the altar for the burnt-offerings, as we know from Yuma 45. We are told there that the altar contained three separate piles of firewood, one of which was kept burning without any offerings being burned up on it. This was done in order to keep the fire going all night long. It seemed to the people that this was a waste of money. Hence the Torah used the word צו. Use of that word would preclude debate on that subject.

AND THE FIRE OF THE ALTAR SHALL BE BLAZING IN IT. Scripture is stating that it should burn on the altar during the whole night, it being a positive commandment that the priests should put on at daytime a lot of wood in order that it should not be burnt up completely and the fire [should not] become extinguished from it [during the night]. In my opinion, that which He said, Fire shall be kept burning upon the altar continually; it shall not go out,²⁰Further, Verse 6. Ramban thus explains the impersonal language [“shall be kept burning”] as a command addressed to the priests. is a commandment directed to the priests to keep fire burning continually upon the altar, just as He said, and the priest shall kindle wood upon it,²¹Ibid., 5. commanding them that they should be careful about this — to set fire in order and put enough wood on it to keep the fire burning continually, all day and all night. He gave an additional caution by means of a negative commandment, [it shall not go out],²⁰Further, Verse 6. Ramban thus explains the impersonal language [“shall be kept burning”] as a command addressed to the priests. meaning that it should never be allowed to become extinguished. Thus if the priests were careless and the fire became extinguished they would transgress this negative commandment.²²See further, Note 25 where Ramban differs with Rashi in interpreting the expression ‘lo thichbeh’ (it shall not go out) which appears both in Verse 5 and Verse 6. Consequently Ramban writes here “in my opinion,” alluding to the fact that this is not in consonance with Rashi’s interpretation. It is for this reason that our Rabbis have said²³Yoma 22 b. that [in addition to the large wood-stack burning on the altar] there was a second wood-stack solely for the purpose of keeping up the fire. And that which Scripture states, And the fire upon the altar shall be blazing in it; it shall not go out,²¹Ibid., 5. is a redundant verse, and is therefore interpreted by our Rabbis²⁴Torath Kohanim, Tzav 2:7. as having reference to all people, teaching that whoever extinguishes the fire, transgresses a negative commandment. Even if he extinguishes only one of the live coals of the wood-stack, he is liable to whipping, whether he put it out on top of the altar, or whether he extinguished it below [on the pavement of the Court] after he had taken it down. It appears to me that he violates only one negative commandment.²⁵Ramban’s intent is to allude to Rashi who wrote [in Verse 6]: “One who extinguishes the fire on the altar transgresses two negative commandments” [i.e., ‘lo thichbeh’ (it shall not go out) mentioned in Verse 5 and again in Verse 6]. According to Ramban, however, as explained above, the second lo thichbeh is a special prohibition to the priests who look after the altar not to be careless in permitting the fire to be extinguished. Hence there is only one verse [5] referring to any person who extinguishes the fire on the altar. Hence Ramban’s expression, “It appears to me that he violates only one negative commandment.”

זאת תורת העולה, “these are the instructions pertaining to offering any burnt offering;” up until now we had not known from which hour in the morning this communal daily sacrifice could be offered. Neither had we known at what hour its counterpart in the evening was to be presented. This is why this verse was preceded by the words: זאת תורת העולה, ”this is the instruction concerning the burnt offering,” i.e. this burnt offering is subject to special rules. The rules for any burnt offerings mentioned in the Book of Leviticus have been reiterated here.

ואש המזבח תוקד בו, both by day and by night.

Valid all night. Rashi knows this from the end of the verse, where it is written: “All night, until the morning.” It is [from there] he derives this.

There is another element which makes one think in terms of financial loss when one contemplates the procedures involving the burnt-offering. The Torah made a big fuss in connection with that offering. We read in verse 5 (after being told that the fire on the altar must not be allowed to go out): "and the priest shall kindle wood on it every morning and lay the burnt-offering on it." Torat Kohanim asks: "how do I know that no other offering could be offered up before the daily burnt-offering?" Answer: The Torah says עליה העולה, "the burnt-offering on [in addition to] it." We are told in the Tossephta Pessachim 4,2 that if any sacrifices were offered up prior to the daily burnt-offering of the morning they are automatically disqualified. This teaches that but for the burnt-offering all that precedes it is useless; this ruling has far-reaching consequences regarding the meaning of חסרון כיס, financial loss.

היא העולה, even though this burnt offering is burned up by day, (as opposed to most other offerings). This point is underlined once more when the Torah wrote in Leviticus 7,16: ביום הקריבו את זבחו, “on the day when he offered his meat offering, its fat parts and its limbs are permitted for consumption all night long.”

צו את אהרן ואת בניו לאמר, זאת תורת העולה, היא העולה על מוקדה על המזבח כל הלילה עד הבוקר ואש המזבח תוקד בו, “Command Aaron and his sons, saying: ‘this is the law of the burnt-offering: it is the burnt-offering that stays on the flame, on the Altar, all night until morning, and the fire of the Altar shall be kept aflame on it.’” According to the plain meaning of the text this paragraph dealing with the burnt-offering contains four elements. First of all it teaches that the burnt-offering is the most highly regarded of all the animal offerings and that its effect in obtaining forgiveness for its donor is very powerful indeed. The second lesson to be derived from this paragraph is that it is of the utmost importance for man to serve his Creator, and to do so visibly. The third lesson our paragraph teaches is that there occurred a great miracle on this Altar on a regular basis. The fourth lesson is the great punishment which the wicked will incur because they spurn the opportunity to obtain atonement from G’d for their sins. They will suffer afflictions in gehinom which do not come to an end. Our sages (Rosh Hashana 17) say that even though the institution of gehinom may be abolished at some time in the future, the afflictions to which the wicked have been subjected will not thereby terminate.
It is worth reflecting on the fact that there are a total of 13 different categories of offerings corresponding to the 13 attributes of His which G’d revealed to Moses. (Compare Maimonides Maaseh Hakorbanot 12,4). Five of these offerings consist of different combinations of meal-offerings מנחת סולת, מנחת מרחשת, מנחת מחבת, מנחת חלות, מנחת רקיקין. All of these are referred to by the term קרבן. The other eight categories of sacrifices are animal-offerings: The names of the offerings are: עולה, חטאת, אשם, תודה, שלמים, בכור, מעשר (בהמה), פסח. Some of the offerings (or part of them) may be eaten by the Priests, such as the חטאת, sin-offering; the אשם, guilt-offering, and the בכור, first-born male animal of the pure domesticated beasts. Other categories of offerings may be consumed by their owners (minus the parts reserved for the Priests and the Altar). Examples are: מעשר, the tenth animal of the new flock; the פסח, Passover (of which the Priest does not receive anything), and the תודה, thanksgiving offering. The latter offering is mandatory if a person has been saved from danger through an obvious miracle, for instance (Berachot 54). He also has to bring such an offering if he has been cured from a normally fatal disease. The Talmud Berachot writes that these people are to bring the offering in question and to tell praises of the Lord in a loud voice. When a person celebrates joyful events such as a wedding, it is also appropriate to offer such sacrifices to the Lord in acknowledgment of His kindness. This is based on Jeremiah 33,11. There are also some sacrifices of which no part may be eaten by either the Priest or the owner. This is first and foremost the sacrifice discussed here, the עולה, burnt-offering, concerning which the Torah stipulated that all of it is to be burnt up on the Altar. This is the meaning of the word כליל, (verse 15). This burnt-offering is the most highly regarded of all the offerings and that is why the Torah emphasises that היא העולה, “it is the upwards striving offering, etc.” Similarly, in Ezekiel 10,20 when the prophet describes היא החיה אשר ראיתי, “this is the chayah which I saw.” the extra word היא shows that of a variety of similar offerings or beings the one singled out with this extra word is considered the most elevated, the most highly regarded. The burnt-offering also possesses the quality of atoning for sinful thoughts as we know from Job, 1,5 where we are told that Job would offer such burnt-offerings after family gatherings during the various feasts in respect of each member of his family. [Had the offering been in respect of deeds committed, he would not have had to do this on behalf of everyone. Ed.] According to Ezekiel 20,32 this offering was in respect of sinful thoughts. Seeing man entertains these kinds of thoughts mostly at night the offering may remain on the altar all night long to counteract the thoughts of the person at night which are not carried out until daytime on whose behalf it had been brought. The prophet Michah 2,1 phrases it thus: “Ah, those who plan iniquity and design evil on their beds; when morning comes they do it, for they have the power.” This is why the Torah commanded that the atonement should occur at the time the iniquity is being committed. Seeing that in essence the sin was insubstantive, i.e. only in the mind, the offering is to dissolve entirely in the wind, the smoke rising into the air. The animal, so to speak, returns to the regions of the spirit it came from. No substantive part of the world, i.e. a body, is allowed to derive any benefit from this offering. This is one aspect of the burnt-offering.
The second aspect is the lesson of how important it is for the creature to serve his Creator. It is a well known fact that man has to relate to his G’d from a position of being submissive, humble. One needs to demonstrate this both while praying and while performing any of the other relatively easy commandments or even the difficult commandments. One needs to remain aware that performance of such commandments is not meant to be a “feather in our cap,” but is meant to enhance G’d’s glory. We need to remain constantly aware that our flesh is weak and that it is not capable of fulfilling the commandments in the manner they ought to be performed. We have to learn from Avraham who described himself as עפר ואפר, “dust and ashes,” though he had already offered his very life for Hashem (Genesis 18,27). King David expressed a similar sentiment when he said (Psalms 15,4) “man must be contemptible in his own eyes.” [He must feel that he has done less than a fraction of what is expected of him. Ed.]

If taken up, need not be taken down. This is because the altar sanctifies them. It is written afterwards: “It is the burnt-offering” — which comes to exclude, implying “it” and not another. [This implies that some of them, even if they were taken up must be taken down. When is this so?] Rashi explains [later]: “It is the burnt-offering, to exclude [a male animal] which was with a woman and [a female animal] which was with a man, and similar cases, whose disqualification [did not occur] in the Holiness [=the Temple].” Rashi is saying that these could have been disqualified before they were sanctified, [and therefore, even if they went up on the altar must be taken down,] but other invalid sacrifices, for instance, those that became impure, or other disqualifications that are inapplicable until after they had become sanctified, [if they were taken up they need not be taken down]. Toras Kohanim lists all these [examples], and Re’m cites them. Re’m writes: You might ask: Why do we need this exclusion: “It is the burnt-offering” — to exclude [a male animal] which was with a woman and [a female animal] which was with a man that if they went up on the altar they must be taken down? They were already excluded by Scripture in the verse (1:2): “From an animal” in Parshas Vayikro. Since they were excluded there, [to teach] that they are not sanctified, why do we need the exclusion here — that if they went up on the altar they must be taken down? It is obvious that since they are not sanctified, they are not sacred, and certainly they must be taken down from the altar. The Sages already answered this in the Gemara (Nidah 41a), that [two verses are needed, one for a non-sacred animal that he tries to sanctify — that it will not be sanctified, and] one verse for a sanctified animal, that although he sanctified it originally, if it went up on the altar it must come down, [since it was invalidated in a way that could have happened before it became sanctified].

Supposing some individual had brought a one year old male sheep to the Temple to offer it there as his burnt-offering. It happened to be early in the morning prior to the daily תמיד having been offered up. The individual is therefore told to wait for an hour until after the תמיד has been offered. We have a rule that when it comes to sacrificial offerings even hours make a difference. We derive this both from Zevachim 25 and Bechorot 39. [The male sheep used for the burnt-offering is not to be more than one year old. Normally, the day is considered a single unit, so that as long it was born on that date a year earlier it does not matter which part of the day. In this instance, if the sheep had been born on the same date the year before it had been offered up, but at an earlier hour than the time it was offered up, the extra hour would disqualify it as a potential burnt-offering. Ed.] The owner would suffer financial loss by not now being able to offer up his animal which had already been designated for a specific type of offering.

ואש המזבח, but the fire on the golden altar within the Sanctuary,

The same rule which results in financial loss to the owner of a private burnt-offering applies if someone burned up the gift-offering prematurely. More importantly, during periods when Jerusalem was under siege and there were not always any sheep at hand, the automatic result would be that no other category of offering, be it cattle, sin-offerings consisting of goats or birds, or even meal-offerings, could be offered up on the altar seeing the daily תמיד had not been offered up. When you consider all this you will understand a report in Baba Kama 82 according to which the besieged Jews of Jerusalem lowered baskets full of golden coins to their besiegers in order to secure one or two sheep for the daily burnt-offering. [during a civil war about who should be king. Ed.] This was certainly an extreme example of the legislation of the daily burnt-offering causing substantial financial sacrifice to the people. Had the rule that the תמיד had to be the first offering on any day not existed, it is doubtful that the priests would have gone to such extremes in order to secure a single sheep.

תוקד בו, “shall be fed and kept going all night long; you are to light it by taking fire from the copper altar,” (the altar on which the burnt offerings were offered and burned up. (compare Torat kohanim on our verse.)

לאמור, to say. It is not clear to whom Aaron's sons were supposed to relay this legislation. If they were meant to do this for the benefit of future generations, we have already heard about this as being implied in the expression צו. If they were meant to tell the other Israelites so that these would prepare the animals for the offering as well as all the necessary tools to be used in connection with this as well as the wood for kindling, this had already been included in the words "G'd spoke to Moses לאמור." Why would I need a second לאמור?

בו, “from it;” the letter ב here is substituting for the letter מ which we would have expected. We find something similar in Exodus 30,26: ומשחת בו את אהל מועד, “you are to anoint from it (from the oil of anointing) the Tent of Meeting.” You find this use of the word בו again in verse 13 of our chapter: where the words: ביום המשח אותו, mean “from the day he had anointed him.”Whence do we know that the fire for Aaron’s coalpan and the fire for kindling the candlestick in the Sanctuary were also taken from the altar for the animal sacrifices? This is simple logic. If the fire for the golden altar had to be provided from the fire on the altar in front of the Tabernacle, the same must be true for the fire of the priest’s coalpan (for incense) and for lighting the lamps on the candlestick. (Sifra)

Perhaps G'd had told Moses to tell Aaron various exegetical details alluded to in the text He had dictated to Moses, seeing that the verse as it stands appears like a book sealed with seven seals. If you do find that our sages have offered many ingenious interpretations of the words in this verse, this was only because they already knew the actual הלכות and did not have to arrive at them by studying the text.

Alternatively, seeing animals which ultimately could not be offered on the altar nonetheless were not removed from the altar once they had been placed on it --as pointed out expressly by Torat Kohanim,-- G'd had to inform Aaron that the priests must not allow animals unfit for sacrifice to be placed on the altar. The priests would have thought that the fact that such animals are not removed from the altar once they had been placed on it was proof that G'd did not really mind their being placed on the altar as long as they were not offered as a sacrifice. They would have reasoned that no special care had to be taken to prevent such animals from being placed on the altar. Therefore G'd commanded that only תורת עולה, an animal which corresponded in all details to the requirements of the עולה legislation was to be placed on the altar as such. This meant amongst other details that the animal could not have spent the previous night in the holy precincts, nor could it have been taken out of these precincts and been brought back there prior to slaughter.

זאת תורת העולה, This is the law of the burnt-offering; Rabbi Yehudah in Torat Kohanim sees three separate restrictive clauses in this verse, i.e. the word זאת, the word היא and the letter ה in the word העולה the second time that word occurs. He reasons that the first restrictive clause is to forbid a burnt-offering being slaughtered at night; the second restrictive clause disqualifies a burnt-offering if its blood has been spilled to the ground and the extra letter ה which really limits the word עולה, if the blood had escaped beyond the hangings of the courtyard of the Tabernacle. If an animal which has been disqualified by one of the three reasons just mentioned had nevertheless been placed on the altar it must be removed.

However, if the disqualification was merely due to the animal having spent the night within the Tabernacle without having been offered as a sacrifice, it need not be removed from the altar once it has been placed thereon. The same rule applies to sacrificial animals which had either become impure or had left the precincts of the Tabernacle after having been brought inside. Similarly, all other types of disqualifications do not result in the animal having to be removed from the altar once it has been placed on it, seeing that the word תורת is an inclusive one, it being unnecessary for the plain meaning of the text to be understood. The sequence זאת תורת העולה היא העולה means that once the animal has already become an עולה, i.e. placed on the altar, מוקדה, it is subject to the laws of the burnt-offering and cannot be disqualified unless the disqualification had occurred before it was placed on the altar. The altar "purifies" all the disqualified animals except for the three disqualifications mentioned at the beginning and derived from the exclusions in the text we mentioned. Unless it had wanted to teach us these additional הלכות we have pointed out, the Torah could have written merely תורת העולה על מוקדה.

On the words היא העולה, Rashi comments that it excludes an animal which had sexual relations with a human being because such an animal was already disqualified before it entered the precincts of the Tabernacle. I do not know why Rashi preferred to explain the verse in accordance with the view of Rabbi Shimon rather than in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehudah (whom we quoted in Torat Kohanim). [The author had not quoted Rabbi Shimon's view thus far though it appears in the same passage of Torat Kohanim as that of Rabbi Yehudah. Ed.]

Furthermore, it would seem that Rashi did not pay careful attention to the words or letters which constitute the exegetically restrictive material. He did not refer to the restrictions deriving from the word זאת, but assumed them to derive from the words היא העולה. If Rashi indeed followed the method of Rabbi Shimon he should have derived the exclusion from the word זאת. Unlike Rabbi Yehudah who needed to find three different restrictive expressions, Rabbi Shimon does not have to look for a number of restrictive words or letters in our text seeing that he argues that all these disqualified animals have to be removed from the altar even if they have been on it already. If Rabbi Shimon did not learn that most or all the disqualified animals have to be removed from the altar even when they had already been placed on it, he would have to find many more restrictive expresssions than Rabbi Yehudah. We must therefore conclude that he derives the law that the disqualified animals need to be removed from the altar from a single restrictive expression. He holds that any animal whose disqualification occurred before it was slaughtered is automatically rejected by the altar. Seeing that he does not need more than a single restrictive clause, the Baraitha in Zevachim 84 says that he used the word זאת as his restrictive clause.

The question is therefore, whence does Rashi conclude that the exegetical source is the expression היא העולה? In Horiyot 2, the Talmud discusses the expression נפש אחת in 4,27, concluding that such expressions are restrictive. [The subject is the culpability of an individual who transgressed a law of the Torah that the High Court has declared permitted. The individual in question had not been aware of the High Court's decision but had acted on his own. Ed.] The Talmud assumes that the Baraitha quoted there reflects the view of Rabbi Yehudah. The Talmud challenges this assumption by asking that perhaps the example quoted in that Baraitha reflects the view of Rabbi Shimon? In answer to this question the Talmud is adamant that only Rabbi Yehudah adopted the exegetical approach that our verse contains a number of restrictive clauses such as היא העולה. You will note therefore that we cannot accuse Rashi of adopting Rabbi Shimon's approach.

על מוקדה על המזבח כל הלילה, where it is burned up on the altar all night long, etc. These words are explained in Zevachim 85 as meaning that if these parts of a disqualified burnt-offering had been placed on the altar they are not to be removed from it, whereas if they had fallen off or been removed from it they are not to be placed upon the altar a second time. Ulla claims that this rule applies only to pieces of the disqualified burnt-offering which had not yet been "ruled" (thoroughly attacked) by the fire of the altar; if the pieces had been partially burned they may be put back on the altar. Although there is an opinion in the Talmud which holds that Ulla referred only to such items as bones, horns, and hooves which were still attached to the main body of the animal having fallen off the altar, the concensus of the Talmud is that Rabbi Chanina's dictum in the Mishnah which forms the background to Ulla's statement represented a disagreement only with the latter half of the Mishnah. He did not disagree with the opinion expressed in the earlier part of the Mishnah where it was stated that animals disqualified before they were even slaughtered are to be removed from the altar even if they had been placed on it by mistake and the fire had taken hold of them; [such animals had never qualified as food for the altar. Ed.]

The Torah therefore wrote the words על מוקדה to inform us that once the fire had taken hold the animal is considered as food for the altar and is not to be removed. The Torah goes on to write the words על המזבח, to teach that even animals which had not yet begun to be consumed by the fire are also not to be removed if they fitted certain criteria. The Torah wrote what appeared to be the same law twice, as it distinguished between different kinds of disqualifications which a potential burnt-offering may undergo. על מוקדה means that once the fire took hold of the animal parts it may be put back on the altar regardless. The additional words על המזבח teach that the permission to leave such animals on the altar applies only because they had already been on it;

this is why the Torah had to write the words על מוקדה first before the words על המזבח, although under normal circumstances the word "altar" should have been mentioned first seeing it is the general location and מוקדה describes only the specific location on the altar. Instead, the Torah decided to describe first the circumstances when something which had become unfit may be placed on the altar a second time. It comprises parts which had already been suitable as food for the altar in the first place. This is why they may be put back on even if they had been taken off the altar. Afterwards the Torah describes a second category of disqualification which applies because the disqualified animal is already on the altar though it was not originally suitable as an offering; it need not be removed; however, if it was removed, it must not be put back on the altar a second time.

We find a disagreement between Rabbi Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua in Torat Kohanim as to the implication of the words על המזבח. Rabbi Gamliel holds that if a potential sacrifice, even a drink-offering, had once been fit to be offered on the altar, it must not be removed from the altar under any circumstances, regardless of the kind of disqualification which occurred. Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the words על מוקדה teach that only such sacrifices as are intended to be burned up cannot be removed from the altar. Seeing that drink-offerings by definition are not burned up but poured out, the words על מוקדה do not refer to such offerings.

On a moral-ethical plane we may consider this whole paragraph as an allusion to our present and final exile. The paragraph is designed to console us about the depressing conditions we find ourselves in. Inasmuch as the soul of every Israelite refuses to be comforted seeing our exile appears to be interminable, we are certainly in need of some comfort. At the time of this writing the exile has already lasted far longer than our previous exiles combined, (Egypt=400 years, Babylonia=70 years, whereas already 1672 years have passed since the destruction of the Temple). How much longer do we have to wait for redemption?! Besides, we do not only suffer from mere exile but from persecution, seeing that every country which hosts Jews discriminates against them and treats them as inferior. Whenever revolutions do occur amongst the Gentile Kingdoms this does not bode the Jews any good as the gentile politicians never speak to us with sincerity and their promises are only lies. The Torah, i.e. G'd, who has foreseen all things used this paragraph to inform Moses to urge the Israelites, and foremost amongst them the Torah scholars, notably the priests whose task it is to instruct the people in morality and ethics, to inform the people for all future times of the message contained here.

זאת תורת העולה, the word זאת is an exclusion. The people are to be aware that there will not be an עולה=עליה an ascent comparable to the one mentioned in this paragraph. The Torah repeats who it is that will experience this ascent, i.e. הוא העולה, a reference to Song of Songs 3,6: מי זאת עולה מן המדבר, "who is this that ascends from the desert?" על מוקדה על המזבח "the ones who were burned up on the site for burning, on the altar;" The Torah refers to two details here; 1) that we are knowledgeable in Torah, i.e. זאת תורת העולה, something that does not exist amongst the Gentiles; 2) that we have endured many afflictions both by being in exile and by being impoverished. The word מוקדה is a reference to Torah, seeing Torah is often compared to fire; young Torah scholars are described in Taanit 4 as דרתח אוריתא, "we have to make allowances for the angry young Torah scholars as it is the fire of the Torah which causes their anger." When the Torah continues על המזבח, this is a reference to exile and all that is connected with it. The afflictions the Jewish people suffer in exile achieve for us what the sacrifices achieved on the altar, i.e. atonement for our sins. We find that the Talmud in Berachot 5 uses similar language to describe the purpose of יסורים, afflictions. The Torah therefore informs us here that there are two elements which will ensure our ascent to untold heights of good fortune, honour, etc.

The Torah also explains how long it will be until we will achieve this goal. We will achieve our goal in two stages, 1) כל הלילה, by means of enduring the whole night of exile; in Isaiah 21,11 the prophet already compared exile to night when he said: שומר מה מלילה שומר מה מליל. "Watchman what of the night, watchman what of the night?" as a reference to the duration of the exile. They also interpret Ruth 3,13: "stay the night until morning" in a similar vein. When "morning" arrives, G'd will pour over us His glory, etc. This time will arrive after the middle of the sixth millenium as we know from G'd's own words that 1000 years are equivalent to a "day" in His calendar (compare Bereshit Rabbah 8,2). Reason tells us that the first 500 years of that "day" are part of the "night" so that the time of the redemption will occur during the second five hundred years of that millenium. The words עד הבוקר in our verse make it plain that we cannot expect the ascent until some time during the latter 500 years of the present millenium. It was unclear from the time of the destruction of the Temple whether the "morning" referred to was the second half of the fifth millenium or the second half of the sixth millenium seeing that the Temple was destroyed in the latter half of the fourth millenium. G'd therefore revealed His secret by means of His prophets when Isaiah in chapter 33,3 spoke of "mornings." The verse reads: "Be their arm לבקרים, on mornings, also our deliverance in times of stress." Isaiah meant that if the deliverance does not occur on the first "morning," (i.e. the second half of the fifth millenium) it will surely occur during the second half of the sixth millenium. The word עד הבוקר is a reference to a "well known morning," i.e. the second one of these possible "mornings." Perhaps Isaiah even hinted in chapter 21,12 when he spoke about the morning having arrived and having been followed by another night, (without the redemption) that if Israel had been worthy it would have been redeemed already on the first of these two "mornings."

When our sages claimed that no more than one day of exile had been decreed on the Jewish people, we may have to understand this in terms of Psalms 20,2: "The Lord will answer you on the day of trouble;" the "day" the Psalmist refers to being the "day" In G'd's calendar, i.e. 1.000 years in our calendar. According to this calculation the most that we would have have had to wait since the destruction of the Temple until redemption should have been 672 years, i.e. 172 years which were left in the fourth millenium when the Temple was destroyed plus the 500 years which represent the "night" of the fifth millenium. Upon the arrival of the "morning" of that half of the millenium the ultimate redemption should have materialised. Alas, due to the fact that our people have not rehabilitated themselves that "day" passed without our being redeemed. This was Isaiah's lament when he said in Isaiah 33,2: "O Lord, be gracious to us! It is to You we have looked." The word קוינו, "we have looked," refers to our hope to experience redemption on the first "morning" which has been disappointed. At any rate, the prophet continues, היה זרועם לבקרים, "be their arm on mornings," i.e. on the second morning after two nights of exile have passed.

ואש המזבה תוקד בו, and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby. The Torah informs us that when the dawn of that morning (of redemption) finally looms, G'd's anger will burn and consume all those who have tortured us during the many years of our exile and especially the Western nations [the Christians and their inquisition who tortured Spanish Jewry Ed.]. The words "and the fire of the altar" are an allusion to the many afflictions we have endured at the hands of the merciless Gentiles who did not have pity on us seeing G'd had already punished us for so many years. The word also recalls the self-sacrifice exhibited by Isaac when he lay bound on the altar. The word "altar" always conjures up the attribute of Justice in our minds. The mystical dimension of all these concepts is contained in the word תוקד, [also related to עקד =he bound. Ed.]

ולבש הכהן מדו בד, and the priest will wear a linen garment; the Torah switches to allude to the attribute of Love and Mercy which has also been described by the word כהן. The Torah means that when that time arrives even such attributes as Love and Mercy will consent to G'd avenging the wrong done to the Jewish people by the nations of the world. (Compare my commentary on Exodus 6,2 on the words "He said to him: 'I am the eternal G'd.'") The words מדו בד may be understood in light of a comment by our sages that G'd makes a visible mark of the blood of any Jew who was killed because he was Jewish on His "garment." On the day when G'd goes out to exact retribution from our enemies He will wear that "garment" on His heart. The word מדו, recalls Bileam's statement that the Jewish nation עם לבדד ישכון, is "a nation which dwells in solitude" (Numbers 23,9); the root of that word is בד, i.e. that the very garments of the priest are a reminder of the Jewish people. The word is also a hint of the unity which was displayed by all the martyrs who died for the sake of Judaism, i.e. who refused to compromise G'd's unity by associating Him with any other religion.

The Torah goes on to speak of ומכנסי בד, linen trousers, the word מכנסי from the root כנס, to enter, to join. This is a reference to the pagans who killed the leading Jews because they tried to introduce the concept of belief in G'd and in His uniqueness into the hearts of their fellow Jews. These are the very people who are most beloved by G'd; nothing separates them from G'd at all. The word מכנסי בד means that "this is what grants entry to the domain of G'd's uniqueness and unity." The additional word על בשרו "next to his skin," is an allegorical expression of the absolute affinity which exists between the martyrs for the Jewish faith we have mentioned and G'd Himself. The Torah uses the word על בשרו in a sense similar to Jeremiah 13,11: כי כאשר ידבק האזור אל מתני האיש כן הדבקתי אלי את כל בית ישראל; "for as the loincloth clings close to the loins of a man, so I brought close to Me the whole House of Israel, etc." The Torah employs anthropomorphical expressions to describe G'd in order to train our ears to assimilate certain concepts which are familiar to us, not in order to create the impression that G'd has a "body." In view of what these nations have done to these righteous Jews, G'd has sealed the decree of destruction of these wicked nations.

The Torah alludes to this in the words והרים את הדשן, "He will elevate the ashes." To the extent that the Gentile nations have reduced us to "ashes" by means of torture and persecution, G'd in turn will elevate these very ashes to unheard of heights. If you will examine the matter you will find that the persecution we have suffered during this exile is much worse than what we experienced during our slavery in Egypt. When the Jewish people were enslaved in Egypt, the Egyptians fed and clothed them. You only need to study the comment of the Mechilta on Numbers 11,5: "we remember the fish we used to eat in Egypt for nought, the cucumbers, the melons, etc." Hail to the people who never had to experience exile under the (Arabs) Muslims. Not only did they enslave us and torture us but they did not pay wages for labour performed but they demanded that we hand over what little we owned. People would be kidnapped to obtain their freedom by ransom. The Muslims would demand that people give them what they did not even possess and persecuted them to the point of death. The Torah alludes to this kind of persecution when it writes: והרים את הדשן אשר תאכל האש; G'd will elevate the ashes; when the nations of the universe experience troubles they are compared to fire by our prophets. The Torah predicts that G'd will consume these nations as if by fire. Compare Ezekiel 10,2 "fill your hands with fire from amongst the cherubs and throw them upon the city." The word את העולה refers to the nation called עולה.

The words על המזבח may be understood as follows (continuing this allegorical approach): We find a disagreement between Maimonides and ראב׳ד in Hilchot Teshuvah chapter six about the nature of G'd's retribution against the nations who have abused the Jewish people. ראב׳ד holds that seeing these nations acted as free-willed human beings they will only be judged because they committed excessive cruelty when acting as G'd's agents and fulfilling His decree of exile for the Jewish people. Maimonides holds that they will also be judged for the fact that they exiled us in the first place. I have already written in my commentary on Genesis 15,14 that there is ample reason to punish all our adversaries for every act of hostility they have committed against us. What is written here only reinforces my argument. If the intention of our oppressors had only been to carry out G'd's retribution against the Jewish people they should have been exremely careful not to do anything over and beyond what G'd commanded. The fact that they indulged in excessive cruelty only proves that they were never motivated by acting as G'd's agents in the first place. When the Torah writes the unnecessary words על המזבח, it alludes to the unnecessary zeal and pleasure with which the Gentiles exploited their position of physical superiority. Whereas a certain measure of afflictions was decreed by G'd to serve as our atonement for sins committed, the decreed by G'd to serve as our atonement for sins committed, the extra words על המזבח indicate that what the Gentiles did to us was far more than was called for in order for us to achieve our atonement. ושמו אצל המזבח, and he will place it next to the altar. The altar is intended to serve as the instrument of atonement. Everything "beside" the altar is evidence of our enemies' hateful attitude, not their desire to help us achieve atonement for our sins. As a consequence of such an attitude amongst our enemies they will be punished not only for their excesses but for the part they would not have been culpable for had they perceived themselves as true agents of the Lord. An alternative meaning may be that though the days of our exile are not yet complete, G'd will count what has been done to us אצל המזבח, over and beyond the punishment decreed, and thereby hasten the final redemption. G'd will present the various afflictions the Jewish people have endured to the attribute of Justice which considers the concept "altar" as the instrument by means of which Israel receives its punishment and therefore atonement; By confronting the attribute of Justice with all the excesses perpetrated against us by our enemies, G'd will enlist its support for His plan to punish our enemies.

ופשט את בגדיו, and He will put off His garments, i.e. seeing G'd wore a certain set of "garments" when He was engaged in disciplining our enemies, He will now put on different "garments" in order to do good with us, to take us out of exile. He will not delay the arrival of the redemption to occur on the date set for it originally until all the evildoers have perished, but will gather us all in immediately and lead us to מקום טהור. a pure place. This is a reference to the Land of Israel which is always perceived of as a pure place compared to the lands owned by the Gentiles. Our sages in Shabbat 15 have decreed that not only the soil of foreign lands is treated as infected with ritual impurity but also the very air of lands outside ארץ ישראל. The expression מקום טהור is also a reference to G'd's domain, seeing He is called טהור, pure.

והאש על המזבח, and the fire on the altar, etc. Do not imagine that the only harm G'd will inflict upon our enemies will be that which occurs when He takes us out from amongst their midst. On the contrary; this "fire" of retribution לא תכבה will not go out. The priest (simile for G'd) will continue to stoke that fire with additional wood, i.e. more and more of the nations of the world who are perceived as dry wood ready for burning. עצים, trees, serve as a simile for man in Deut. 20,19 "for man is as the tree in the field;" in the introduction to Midrash Eychah Rabbah we read: "the trees are hyperbole for the exiles (i.e. for the people who have been exiled)."

בבקר בבקר, every morning; this is an allusion to the two "mornings," i.e. the two latter parts of the fifth and sixth millenium we described as possible dates for the redemption. The Torah tells us that actually the redemption should have occurred already on the first of these "mornings" in the fifth millenium. It was delayed by a thousand years, i.e. another day in G'd's calendar only on account of our sins. The Torah tells us that the nations of the world must not assume that they will be the beneficiaries of the sins of the Jewish people and that they would therefore escape their just punishment. When the time comes, the nations will receive the punishment due to them for what they did to us in both of these millenia, i.e. בבקר בבקר.

וערך עליה העולה, and He will arrange on it the burnt-offering, etc. We have to understand this in the sense of what we learned in Baba Kama 83: הכל לפי המביש והמתביש, "the amount of compensation payable to someone who has suffered 'loss of face' is determined by the relative social position of the party suffering the shame and the party who shamed him." One cannot compare an insult received by a socially highly placed person heaped upon a person who is also at the top end of the social ladder to someone at the bottom of the social ladder who insulted someone at the top of that ladder. We certainly cannot compare those situations to that of a slave insulting his master. When the Torah speaks of arranging the burnt-offering on it (the altar), the "burnt-offering" is a simile for the whole of the Jewish nation. והקטיר עליה חלבי השלמים, and He will burn up on it the fat parts of the peace-offering. G'd will also arrange on that altar the elite of this Jewish nation, חלבי השלמים whose lifestyle was equivalent to burning up sweet-smelling fragrances for G'd (compare Genesis 27,27: "look! the fragrance of my son is like the fragrance of the field which G'd has blessed"). Remember that we perceive of anyone who has committed a sin as exuding an unpleasant odour. The story is told that once the prophet Elijah passed by a wicked man and tried to avoid inhaling the evil smell which that person exuded and which was more pungent than the smell exuded by a carcass. On the other hand, the fragrance exuded by the righteous person is comparable to that which emanates from a rose-garden. The Torah therefore chose to describe the belovedness of the righteous before G'd in terms of a pleasant fragrance. The message of the verse is that G'd will match the punishment in detail to what the Gentiles have done to His righteous, the people who exuded fragrance such as the incense.

אש תמיד, a continuous and ongoing fire; even though G'd will inflict severe blows on the nations who have abused us, the fire (of punishment) on the altar will not go out; this is similar to the final message of the prophet Yoel (Yoel 4,21): "I will not treat their blood as having been avenged;" this will not occur until the earth has been cleansed of the spirit of impurity and "G'd rules as King over the whole earth" (Zachariah 14,9).