레위기 6:24의 주석

צו את אהרן ואת בניו לאמר, “command Aaron and his sons to say”. Nachmanides writes that whereas in Parshat Vayikra Moses had been directed to issue laws to the Children of Israel, here the directives are addressed to the priests. The reason is that in Vayikra the subject is the offering of sacrifices, which are brought on behalf of the Israelites at large. Here the people who act as the Israelites’ executives in this matter, i.e. the priests, are addressed. In the Midrash we find Moses being quoted as saying to G’d: “where do we ever find that when the well, i.e. the source of the water is despised and hated that the water it produces is beloved?” Moses had referred to the fact that in all the sacrifices mentioned thus far the sons of Aaron were addressed and not Aaron himself. When G’d heard this, He immediately changed the format of the directives and included Aaron personally in them so as no to leave the impression that Aaron himself was less beloved by G’d. Rashi, quoting the words of Rabbi Shimon says that whenever fulfilling one of G’d’s commandments involves expense to the party fulfilling it, the Torah must use language which is designed to spur on the party concerned to fulfill the directive. Nachmanides writes that this Rashi has been printed in the wrong place seeing that here no expense is involved for the addressees, the sons of Aaron. On the contrary, the sons of Aaron benefit from all the sacrifices, including even that of the burnt offering where the priests share in the skin of the animal that is offered up on the altar. The reason why Rabbi Shimon is quoted by Rashi at this point, must be in order to draw attention to the difference of opinion between him and the opinion expressed in the Talmud (Kidushin 29) before that, that the wording is intended to teach that the directive is effective immediately and in subsequent generations. Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the principle that the wording used here generally means that the directive becomes effective immediately and remains if force throughout the generations; he only claims that in some instances this is not the reason why the Torah employed this wording, and then the reason has to do with the expense involved in carrying out G’d’s directive. One such example is the oil to be provided for lighting the Menorah. (Exodus 27,20) a directive that could not be fulfilled until at least 8 or nine months later after the Tabernacle had been constructed and inaugurated. Similarly, in Numbers 35,2 where the Israelites are instructed to cede to the Levites certain cities including a strip of land around these cities. Seeing that the directives of the Torah were issued before the Israelites had even crossed the Jordan, and they had certainly not yet taken possession of their own lands, the directive could not have been intended to be carried out immediately. Alternatively, it is possible to argue that even carrying out the present directive involved expense to the priests, seeing that immediately following this, we hear about the offerings that Aaron and his sons had to bring on their own behalf, paying out of their own pockets. (compare 12-15) Still another approach to the meaning of the wording of our verse is that seeing Aaron and his sons would experience considerable personal inconvenience in carrying out the instructions following, this is considered as if they had been asked to spend their own funds in performing this commandment.

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).

מדו בד HIS LINEN ROBE — this is what is elsewhere termed the כתונת, the undercoat; and why then is it here called מדו? To intimate that it (the כתונת) must be made to his measure (מדו from מדד to “measure”) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 2 1; Yoma 23b).

AND THE PRIEST SHALL PUT ON ‘MIDO’ (HIS GARMENT OF) LINEN. “This is a reference to the k’toneth (tunic). Why then does Scripture here call it mido [which means ‘his measure’]? It is to indicate that the tunic is to be made to his measure. AND HIS LINEN BREECHES SHALL HE PUT UPON HIS FLESH — that there should be nothing interposing between them.” This is Rashi’s language.
Now the [daily] removal of the ashes [from the altar, which is the subject-matter of this verse], must be done with the priest wearing the [four] garments of priesthood,²⁶The ordinary priest ministered in four garments: the tunic, breeches, turban, and the belt. To these the High Priest added four more pieces of raiment: the breastplate, the ephod, the robe and the frontlet. — The question then appears: since removing the ashes from the altar had to be done by a priest, why does Scripture here single out only two of the garments, the tunic and the breeches? — The taking up of the ashes was the very first act in the day’s Service in the Sanctuary. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 38-39. as no Service can be performed with only two of the [four] garments! However, He mentioned only these two garments because of new points that are added here to them, namely, that the tunic must be made to the priest’s measure. This means to say that if it was raised [above his feet], being so short that it did not reach his feet, and he performed therein one of the acts of offering, his Service is invalid. It further teaches that there must be nothing intervening between the breeches and his flesh. But the law requires equally that the priest who removes the ashes from the altar should wear all [four] priestly garments, for since Scripture mentioned that the removing of the ashes must be done with priestly garments, we know [automatically] that it requires four for the common priest and eight for the High Priest.²⁶The ordinary priest ministered in four garments: the tunic, breeches, turban, and the belt. To these the High Priest added four more pieces of raiment: the breastplate, the ephod, the robe and the frontlet. — The question then appears: since removing the ashes from the altar had to be done by a priest, why does Scripture here single out only two of the garments, the tunic and the breeches? — The taking up of the ashes was the very first act in the day’s Service in the Sanctuary. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 38-39. So also is it explained in the second chapter of Tractate Yoma²⁷Yoma 23b. and in Torath Kohanim:²⁸Torath Kohanim, Tzav 2:1. “Why does Scripture repeat the term yilbash [‘he shall put on’ — ‘V’lavash hakohein’ (and the priest shall put on) his linen garment, and his linen breeches ‘yilbash’ (he shall put) upon his flesh]? It is to include the turban and the belt” [which the priest is also to put on for the removing of the ashes].
Now Onkelos translated the word mido as levushin [“garments” — as opposed to Rashi’s interpretation, according to which it refers only to one garment, the tunic]. It would appear then that according to Onkelos, the word mido is a term which includes all of the priest’s garments, as if the verse were stating, “and the priest shall put on linen garments.” Similarly we are to understand the expressions: ‘madav’ (his clothes) rent;²⁹I Samuel 4:12. that cometh down upon the collar ‘midothav’,³⁰Psalms 133:2. which means upon the edge of his garments; girded with ‘mido’ (his apparel) of war,³¹II Samuel 20:8. which means his garments. This then will be in accordance with the opinion of the Sage who says³²Rabbi Dosa (Yoma 12 b). See Ramban in Seder Pekudei (Exodus 39:28, Vol. II, p. 614). that the belt of the common priest was unlike the belt of the High Priest.³³The belt of the High Priest was made of blue, purple, scarlet [all wool] and twined linen. This is expressly stated in the Torah. The question appears as to how the belt for the common priests was made. Rabbi Dosa is of the opinion that it was made only of linen; Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi differs, holding that it was like that of the High Priest. Now since Onkelos, as explained by Ramban, explains the word mido as an inclusive term for “all” the priest’s garments, and the verse states, and the priest shall put on ‘mido’ (his ‘garments’ of) linen, Onkelos accordingly must agree with Rabbi Dosa that the belt of the common priest was unlike that of the High Priest, as the belt of the common priest was only of linen. Hence it states that the common priest shall put on all his garments of linen which includes the belt.

מדו, as in Numbers 23,18 בנו צפור, [in both instances the letter ו at the end is something extraneous. Ed.] It again occurs in that mode in Numbers 24,3. Basically the word מד refers to some kind of garment, especially work oriented or vocation oriented, as in Samuel I 4,12 where the expression ומדיו קרועים, refer to a “torn uniform.”

ולבש הכהן מדו בד ומכנסי בד, “the priest is to don his linen tunic and his linen trousers.” The Torah mentions the tunic and trousers in connection with the procedure of removing the ashes, although according to Nachmanides, [alluded to here by the author not by name but uncharacteristically as “ה'הג” הרב הגאון, Ed.] needs to wear all four of his priestly garments as there is no kind of Temple service that may be performed with fewer than four garments. The reason why only two of these garments were mentioned here is, that they both have a feature we did not hear about previously. The Torah, by writing מדו, indicates that these garments were not of standard measure but were fitted according to the size of the individual priest who would wear them, both the tunic and the trousers. It was important that nothing should separate the garments from the skin of the wearer. Nachmanides refers to Onkelos who translates מדו, as לבישין, writes: it appears that he understood the word as the name of a comprehensive garment, something we would refer to nowadays as the “uniform” worn by liveried people, for instance. The expression מדיו, in Samuel I 17,28 where Saul gave David his uniform also refers to a uniform tailored for him especially, [which because David was much shorter would have been a hindrance rather than a help to David in his fight against Goliath. Ed.] In Samuel I 4,12 we read about ומדיו קרועים ואדמה על ראשו, “the torn uniform and the earth on his head described the state of mourning of its wearer who brought news of the capture of the Holy Ark by the Philistines”, not to mention the thirty thousand men who had fallen in that battle.

Linen garment. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written: “The kohein shall dress in his linen garment (מדו בד),” [using the unusual expression מדו for garment instead of בגד]? Above (Shemos 28, 39-40), it does not use such an expression concerning the garments of Aharon. Rashi answers: This is the kutones (undershirt) mentioned with regard to the garments of the kohanim that is worn close to his skin. The phrase, “On his skin” refers to both, for if it referred only to the linen pants, it should write: “The kohein shall dress in his linen garment, and linen pants on his [body] skin.” Why does it say, “he shall wear”? Rather, [it must be that] it refers to מדו as well, which is the kutones (Re’m).

מדו בד, “in a garment made of linen;” the letter ו at the end of the word: מדו is superfluous, just as the second letter ו in וחיתו ארץ in Genesis 1,24, and the letter ו in Numbers 24 in the word: .בנו

על בשרו [AND LINEN DRAWERS HE SHALL PUT] UPON HIS FLESH — This implies that nothing should interpose between them (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 2 3; Zevachim 19a).

והרים את הדשן, the procedure known as תרומת הדשן, the cleaning out of the ash, a procedure which could be performed all day long. It was mandatory to do this before the offering of the daily morning burnt offering. However, the removal from the camp of the ash could be taken care of any time during the day and not daily. When the top of the altar was too full it would be removed. (verse 4)

According to his size. Meaning: It should not be longer or shorter than his body, because I might think that since it is on his skin and he is wearing other garments on top of it, if it was shorter than his body it is of no concern. Therefore, Scripture teaches us [that it must be according to his size]. Otherwise, why does Scripture not call it a kutones as in the other places?

מדו בד, these are the cap, tunic, and belt worn by the ordinary priest, all of which are made of linen. The reason that they are all mentioned in the singular mode, is that whenever worn by the priest, all of them are worn simultaneously. The reason why the pants are mentioned separately, as we find already in Exodus 28,42, after the garments worn by the High Priest and the ordinary priests have been listed. The pants are mentioned separately, as both the High Priest and the ordinary priest wear the same kind of pants. According to Torat Kohanim, (Sifra on our verse) this is hinted at in the apparently extraneous word: ילבש, the four letters hinting that the ordinary priests wore four garments when on duty. The repetition both here and Exodus 28 that the pants must be worn on his skin, על בשרו, suggest that these pants must always be also the first garment the priest dons in order to cover his private parts. The plural mode מכנסים is similar to the English language where “pants” or “trousers” are in the plural mode because they refer to a single garment covering both legs.

והרים את הדשן AND HE SHALL TAKE UP THE ASHES — He raked a full pan of ashes from the innermost consumed mass of ashes and deposited them at the east side of the כבש (the inclined plane leading up to the altar) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 4 Yoma 20a; cf. Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 2:1).

Consumed ashes. Since it is written, “He shall separate the ashes,” which is an expression of separation — that he separates from the ashes. If he were to rake up all of it there would not be any separation.

In his linen garment. The Midrash interprets the verse: “It is the burntoffering (עולה) on its pyre” — anyone who is arrogant (= עולה) is judged with fire. That the עולה atones for arrogance is hinted in the verse (Yechezkel 20:32): “והעלה על רוחכם (lit. that which goes up upon your spirit).”

על בשרו, a delicate description of the priest’s private parts.

העולה‎ את ‎‏ אשר תאכל האש‎הדשן ‎ [HE SHALL TAKE OUT] THOSE ASHES INTO WHICH THE FIRE HATH CONSUMED THE BURNT OFFERING — and thus has made it into ashes; from those ashes he shall take out a תרומה, a portion, ושמו אצל המזבח AND PUT IT BESIDE THE ALTAR.

The innermost.. Because it is reasonable [to assume] that what was lying in the middle of the fire was extremely burnt up, they would take the innermost ashes.

The Torah mentions ashes in this context because the rectification for arrogance is ashes, i.e., one should say, “I am dust and ashes,” like Avraham. This causes that he will be elevated to great heights, for anyone who lowers himself is lifted up by Hashem. Thus, the kohein making the atonement wears these two garments: The linen garment, according to his size, and not too big — to hint that one should not behave in a manner beyond his level. Secondly, the linen pants, which atone for the transgression of illicit relations, which he needs if he was arrogant, as Chazal said (Sotah 4b): Anyone who is arrogant is considered as if he transgressed all the illicit relations. The ashes are placed next to the altar, which represents humility.

והרים את הדשן, “he shall lift up the ashes;” the plain meaning of the verse is that in order to remove the ashes the priest must first put on the garments described here. He is not allowed to wear street clothes even for performing this procedure.

[על המזבח [THE BURNT OFFERING] ON THE ALTAR — This implies that if he (the priest) finds any limbs of the burnt offering that were not yet consumed he shall put them back on the altar after having raked the coals hither and thither and having taken from the innermost ashes, because it states, העולה על המזבח ‎את ‎which implies: the burnt offering (i.e.so long as it can be called an עולה and not דשן) must be ‎on the altar] (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 5; Yoma 45b; cf. Rashi there s. v. ‎אשר תאכל ‎ את העולה‎).

On the east of it. This is because it is written “next to the altar,” and the ramp was next to the altar. How do we know that it was the eastern side of the ramp? This is proven from what it is written in Parshas Vayikro (1:16): “Beside the altar, eastward, [to the place of the ashes].” There, too, it implies next to the ramp, and it is clearly written “eastward.” Perforce the place of the ashes was at the eastern side of the ramp, and that is what is meant by “eastward.”

את הדשן, “at least a fistful of ashes.”

And makes them ashes. Rashi is rectifying with this [the problem we might have] because the plain meaning of the verse implies that the ashes consume the fire. Therefore, he explains: “And makes them ashes,” i.e., the word “fire” refers to the phrase “[which consumes] the burnt offering.” Furthermore, Rashi explains that he separates from that ash, so that you will not think [he takes] all the ashes which [the fire] makes of the burnt-offering. Re’m explains: Otherwise, [it is problematic that] the verse begins with the ashes and concludes with the consumption of the burnt-offering. It should be understood as if it says, “And he shall separate the ashes” — and which ashes are these? — those “that are as a result of the fire that consumes [the burnt-offering” and makes it ashes].

‎ ופשט את בגדיו ‎ AND HE SHALL PUT OFF HIS GARMENTS — This is not compulsory (cf., however, Nachmanides) but it is a matter of decency so that he should not, through removing the ashes, soil the garments in which he has regularly to minister at the altar; in the clothes he wore when he boiled the pot for his master (a menial task) he should not pour out a glass of wine for him (an honourable office). On this account it states: And he shall put on other garments — inferior to those in which he ministers at the altar (Yoma 23b; Shabbat 114a).

AND HE SHALL PUT OFF HIS GARMENTS, [AND PUT ON OTHER GARMENTS, AND CARRY FORTH THE ASHES WITHOUT THE CAMP UNTO A CLEAN PLACE].³⁴The subject-matter of this verse [4] should be clearly distinguished from that of the preceding verse. In Verse 3 the Torah commanded the priests to remove the ashes daily from the altar. This involved the priest’s taking a silver pan and going up to the top of the altar, and afterwards “he cleared away the cinders on either side and he scooped up the ashes in the center. He then descended, and when he reached the pavement he turned his face to the north and went along the east side of the ascent for about ten cubits, and then made a heap of the cinders on the pavement three handbreadths away from the ascent” (Tamid 28 b). This process of course did not remove all the ashes from upon the altar. This was done from time to time when there was a need for it, when so much accumulated that there was no more room on the woodpile. Then it was removed to a place outside the camp or Jerusalem. It is this latter subject which is the theme of the present verse. “This was not compulsory for him to do so, but it would be a matter of propriety, so that he should not soil the garments in which he regularly ministers at the altar, by the removal of the ashes to a place without the camp. Garments worn when boiling the pot for one’s master, one should not wear when pouring out a glass of wine for him. That is why He said, and he shall put on other garments — of [a quality] inferior [to those in which he ministers at the altar].” This is Rashi’s language. Now the intent of our Rabbis in this remark was to state that the taking of the ashes [to a place outside the camp] must be done with the priests wearing the priestly garments, and thus the other garments [mentioned in the verse] are not ordinary clothes. Thus I do not know the source for that which the Rabbi [Rashi] said, that “it was not compulsory” [that he remove the garments in which he performs the regular Divine Service, and put on other garments when taking out the ashes to a place outside the camp]. For it would appear that it is a positive commandment to the priest, that the garments in which he performs the acts of offering, including the [daily] lifting up of the ashes, be clean ones, and that he must not perform the regular Divine Service with those garments in which he takes the ashes [outside the camp]. This commandment [of the changing of the garments] is of the nature of a servant’s etiquette towards his master. Therefore the priests should have more expensive garments for performing the acts of offering, and ones of inferior quality for removing the ashes [to a place outside the camp or city of Jerusalem].
All this is in accordance with this reasoning which the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote [i.e., that the removal of the ashes must be done in priestly garments]. But there are some of our Rabbis mentioned there in Tractate Yoma³⁵Yoma 23 b. See my Hebrew commentary p. 29, that the Sage holding this opinion is Rabbi Eliezer. who say that the taking out of the ashes did not have to be done in priestly garments. Thus the verse stating, and he shall put on other garments means “ordinary clothes,” and this is also the plain meaning of the verse, commanding the priest that he should not soil the linen garments, which are the holy garments,³⁶Further, 16:32. with the taking out of the ashes; instead he is to put on ordinary clothes.

ופשט את בגדיו ולבש בגדים אחרים, “the priest will divest himself of his clothes and shall don other garments.” Rashi writes that this language does not make this procedure obligatory. (although it is good manners to do so, so as not to soil the special garments he wears during performing other duties) Nachmanides writes that he does not know of any reason that would indicate that what is written here is not obligatory. Surely it is a duty for the priest not to wear the regular priestly garments while engaged in a task that would soil those garments, such as when he removes the ashes. Even when engaged in just הרמת הדשן, the removal of the ash, or incompletely consumed incense, from the golden altar in the Sanctuary itself, an activity that is rated as part of the Temple service, priestly garments must be worn, though they may be of an inferior quality. There is an opinion according to which the word אחרים that we understood as “alternate, others,” but sacred garments, does not refer to inferior priestly garments, but to ordinary garments such as the ones worn by non-priests. The carrying of the ashes outside the Temple precincts was simply not considered as part of the Temple service.

Clothes in which he cooked. If Scripture had written: “He shall [then] remove his garments and dress in others,” I would understand that it is an obligation: If he wore [until] now priestly garments, he should now wear non-sacred garments, or vice versa. However, now that it is written, “He shall [then] remove his garments and dress in other garments,” this implies garments like the first ones, i.e., if the first ones were non-sacred, he should now wear non-sacred ones as well. If so, what is the difference between the first ones and the second ones? Therefore, Rashi explains that the other garments are of lesser worth than these, but both are sacred garments. If so, why does he need to remove them? Perforce [it is because of] good manners: “This is not [obligatory,] but good manners.”

והוציא, same as להוציא, “in order to remove the ashes.” The absence of the word “the priest,” here is an indication that even a priest who is disqualified from performing other procedures in the Temple due to physical blemishes, may perform this procedure.

והוציא את הדשן AND HE SHALL BRING OUT THE ASHES that were heaped upon the ash-heap (not the ashes mentioned in v. 3). When it accumulated and there was no more room on the wood-pile (מערכה) he carried it out; this was not compulsory every day, whilst the תרומת הדשן (the taking out of the pan of ashes commanded in v. 3) was a daily duty (Yoma 20a).

Which are gathered. Rashi is answering the question: Above, it is written, “and he shall separate,” and here it is written, “he shall take out”! Furthermore, here it is written: “beyond the encampment,” and there it is written, “next to the altar.” Upon this Rashi explains: “[He shall take out the ashes] which are gathered in the heap.” This, then, is the difference between [the mitzvah of] “and he shall separate” and [the mitzvah of] “he shall take out” — [the terumoh was obligatory every day and the removal was only when there was a great deal of ash. Also, the terumoh was from the innermost ashes and the removal was from the ashes gathered in the heap] (Re’m).

אל מקום טהור,”a ritually pure location” seeing that these ashes had originated in sacred precincts. This is distinct from the stones of a house whose stones were afflicted with tzoraat, which have to be removed to a ritually unclean location, a location which people carrying objects that require ritual purity may not be brought to. (Leviticus 14,41)

והאש על המזבח תוקד בו AND THE FIRE ON THE ALTAR SHALL BE BLAZING IN IT — Scripture uses here (in this section) many expressions from the root יקד “to ignite”: (Leviticus 6:2) “on the fire-place (מוקדה); (Leviticus 6:2) “and the fire upon the altar shall be blazing (תוקד) on it”; (Leviticus 6:5) “and the fire upon the altar shall be blazing (תוקד) on it”; (Leviticus 6:6) “a continual fire shall be blazing (תוקד) upon the altar” — all these passages have been expounded in Treatise Yoma 45b where our Rabbis state their different opinions as to the number of מערכות (wood-piles — fire-places) that were there (on the altar).

Our Rabbis differed on the number. The largest number of all [these views was that] each day there were four woodpiles: One was the large woodpile upon which they arranged the burntofferings [and all the sacrifices burnt that day]. Afterwards he placed two wooden logs upon that large woodpile; this was the woodpile for the sake of maintaining the fire, because if the [fire of the] large woodpile did not prevail over [the sacrifices], then this additional woodpile of two wooden logs would maintain the fire and prevail. Afterwards, he arranged another woodpile on the altar to burn the limbs that had not been consumed [whether because they had not been placed on the large woodpile or because they had not yet been consumed — thus, three woodpiles were placed one after another in the surrounding area of the large woodpile]. Before the placement of the two wooden logs they would arrange a second woodpile for the incense alongside the large woodpile, on the southwest corner, at a distance of four amos north of the corner. It was called “[the woodpile] of incense” because the kohein would rake the coals from there to bring to the inner altar in the morning and evening for the purpose of burning the incense upon these coals.

והאש על המזבח, “and the fire on the altar, etc.;” the Torah reverts now to a statement made by Rabbi Yehudah in the Talmud Yuma folio 45 according to which the wood used for kindling may be burned only on the top part of the altar, i.e. על המזבח. This was used to kindle the major stack of wood that burned around the clock on the altar. (This is the way Rashi explains the word .(אליתא

וערך עליה העלה AND HE SHALL SET THE BURNT OFFERING IN ORDER UPON IT — The morning continual burnt offering had to come first (Menachot 49a; cf. also Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 2 10 and Rashi on Leviticus 3:5).

If [a peace offering] is brought. Rashi is answering the question: It is understandable [for Scripture to mention] a burnt-offering [since] every day there was a continual burntoffering, but perhaps there was no peace offering! Therefore he explains: If a peaceoffering is brought there, they should burn it after the morning’s continual offering.

וערך עליה, to the question where on the altar all the parts of the burnt offering are to burned up, the Torah answers with the word: עליה; to the question where the relevant parts of the sin offerings and peace offerings are to be burned up, the Torah adds the words: חלבי השלמים, “the best parts of the peace offerings.” [fat parts listed previously, mainly above the kidneys and liver of the animal. Ed.] To the question where the fistful of meal offerings and frankincense, and libations etc. are to be burned up, the Torah answers with the word: והקטיר. To make sure that we do not get the impression that the incense is also to be burned up on the large altar in front of the Temple, the Torah adds: ובער עליה וערך את העצים, “that the priest is to set a special fire on the golden altar where the incense will be burned up.”

‎‎‏ השלמים‎חלבי [AND HE SHALL CAUSE TO ASCEND IN FUMES THERÈON] THE FAT OF THE PEACE OFFERINGS — if people are bringing peace offerings there that day (this is no command that peace offerings must be placed on the altar after the daily burnt offering; if, however, any are being sacrificed on a particular day, it must be done at this point of the day’s work). — Our Rabbis, however, derived from here the following Halacha, taking the word השלמים in the sense of השלם “to complete”, “to finish”: עליה upon it — upon the continual burnt offering of the morning — complete the offering of all sacrifices; it follows therefore that no thing should be offered later than the continual burnt offering brought in the afternoon (Yoma 33a; Pesachim 58).

Learned from here. Our Sages were answering the question: If so, it should say חלבי שלמים, why does it say השלמים with the ה? Therefore, they removed it from its plain meaning and explained it as referring to the matter of “completing” [all the sacrifices].

אש תמיד — The redundant word תמיד (because it could have written לא תכבה המזבח ‎אש תוקד על‎ ; for this, too, would imply that it must be continually burning since it states that it must never go out) intimates: The fire about the use of which the expression תמיד is used, viz., that by which the lamps of the Candelabrum were kindled, with reference to which it is said, (Exodus 27:20) “to light the lamps continually (תמיד), this, too) should be ignited from the fire on the outer altar Yoma 45b).

That too is kindled from the outer altar. You might ask: Above, Rashi explains: “[The Torah] here includes many kindlings and all of them are expounded in Maseches Yoma,” and he brings the verse “a continual fire” there as well! [Why, then, is it available for a drashah here?] The answer is: This is what Rashi means above: [The Torah] here includes many kindlings, but why are they needed? It is understandable [that the Torah mentions] “a continual fire” — I need to expound from it “a fire of which it is said, ‘continual,’ [etc.]” However, why do I need the rest? With regard to this Rashi explains: “All of them are expounded [in Maseches Yomo].”

אש תמיד, “a perpetual fire;” it will be kept burning even on the Sabbath, even if for some reason it became ritually impure.

‎‎תכבה‏ ‎לא‎ IT SHALL NEVER GO OUT — One who extinguishes the fire on the altar transgresses two negative commands (this and that contained in v. 5).

Two prohibitions. Because it is written twice, “It shall not go out.”

לא תכבה, “where it will not go out.” Even while the Israelites were journeying through the desert, G-d’s honour demanded that precautions be taken that this flame be kept going. According to Rabbi Yehudah in the Sifra. they used a kind of metal dome fixed above it to insure that it was kept going. [Seeing that the clouds of glory kept the people protected from rain, sandstorms and other inclemency of weather, this does not sound so exceptional. Ed.]

וזאת תורת המנחה AND THIS IS THE LAW OF THE MEAL OFFERING — one law for all meal-offerings (cf. Rashi on v. 2) — making requisite for them “oil” and “frankincense” which are prescribed in the previous section (Leviticus 2:1). This had to be intimated in some way here because I might think that there I have the law that meal offerings require oil and frankincense only if they belong to an ordinary Israelite since it is that alone of which a fistful (קומץ) had to be taken, (for the command to take the קומץ is preceded by the words ויצק עליה שמן ונתן עליה לבונה cf. Leviticus 2:1 and 2)! Whence can I know that the same applies to the meal-offering of priests which was entirely burnt (and of which therefore no קומץ was taken; cf. Rashi on v. 15)? Because Scripture states, תורת — “this is the general law of the meal-offering” (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 3).

AND THIS IS THE LAW OF THE MEAL-OFFERING. This section, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, adds [to Chapter 2 above where the law of the meal-offering was discussed] four commandments about the meal-offering: that [the residue be] eaten unleavened, that it be eaten in the Court of the Tent of Meeting,³⁷Verse 9. that every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it,³⁸Verse 11. and that whatever touches it becomes holy.³⁹“So that it becomes exactly like the meal-offering — that if it had become disqualified to be eaten, the food which touched it is also disqualified. And if the meal-offering was fit to be eaten, the other food must also be eaten under the same stringency as the meal-offering” (Rashi, Verse 11).
Now according to the Rabbinical interpretation thereof, there are many new teachings added [in this section, among them being the following]: that even of a meal-offering brought by priests the handful is taken out [and burnt on the altar, in the same way as the residue which must be burnt on the altar];⁴⁰If a meal-offering is brought by a non-priest, a handful of it is taken off by a priest and burnt on the altar, while the residue is eaten by the priests. Now the Torah specifies, however, that if the meal-offering is brought by a priest, it is to be wholly burnt (further, Verse 16). The question appears: is it necessary that a handful thereof be taken by a priest and be burnt separately on the altar, or that the whole meal-offering should be burnt at the same time as a unit? According to the text in Ramban before us, the answer is clearly in the affirmative. Scholars, however, have pointed to the Talmud (in Menachoth 72 b) where the conclusion is contrary to this text. The suggestion has therefore been made that the text here is faulty, and should be emended to read: “that even a meal-offering of priests requires ‘oil and frankincense’” (mentioned in Verse 8). See my Hebrew commentary, p. 29. that the priest must bring it near before the Eternal⁴¹In Verse 7 before us. which means to the western corner [of the altar, since the Tent of Meeting where the ark of the covenant stood, was to the west of the altar, and therefore nearest to it], and in front of the altar⁴¹In Verse 7 before us. which means to the southern corner [since the ramp of the altar which is its “front,” was on the south side thereof]. Thus you find that it had to be “presented” [i.e., brought near] to the southwestern corner of the altar. [And this section further teaches:] And he shall take up from it⁴²Verse 8. a handful — “from it” as one joined mass, meaning that he is not to bring one tenth of an ephah of flour [which is the amount brought for a meal-offering] in two receptacles [but it must be a full tenth of an ephah in one receptacle], nor is he to make a fixed measure that holds as much as his handful [to remove the amount of flour for the altar, but he must do it with his hand]. He also states, It shall not be baked as anything leavened.⁴³Verse 10. This is to liken all the stages of work [in the preparation of the meal-offering] to baking, thus teaching that one is also liable for kneading and rolling it if it be leavened, and that for each and every such act he transgresses a negative commandment and is liable to whipping on each count.

לפני המזבח, now the Torah explains the “Torah” of the gift-offering, מנחה, explaining that all of it is to be brought לפני המזבח “in front of the altar” as opposed to the Olah which was brought on the מוקד of the altar. All sacrifices are brought directly and exclusively to G’d. The parts allocated to the priests are not allocated by the owners of the sacrifice, but are to be viewed as G’d inviting the priests to be guests at His table, in Talmudic parlance as משלחן גבוה קא זכו, “they are benefiting from a table in the celestial regions.” The gift offering by a priest ends up on the altar completely as opposed to that of ordinary Israelites’ gift offering of which only a fistful gets to the altar, the balance being eaten by the priests.

וזאת תורת המנחה, “and this is the law of the meal-offering.” Actually this had already been mentioned in Leviticus 2,1 where the Torah wrote: “if a person wishes to offer a meal-offering, etc.” It is mentioned here again on account of four additional commandments listed in this paragraph. 1) It has to be eaten as unleavened bread; 2) It has to be consumed inside the courtyard of the Tabernacle (Temple) as the Torah writes: “in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it” (6,9). 3) It may be eaten only by male priests (verse 11). 4) It confers sanctity on anything which touches it. This means that such matters will henceforth be subject to the stringent regulations governing holy things. Even when things which are already “holy,” such as parts of offerings which have the status of קדשים קלים, “sacred matters of a relatively mild level of sanctity,” touch the meal-offering, they will be upgraded in their sanctity, i.e. be subject to the more stringent regulations of קדשי קדשים, “most holy things.”

To require oil. Meaning: Every time the word תורה is written in Scripture it comes to include, as Rashi explains above (v. 2).

אל פני המזבח, “In front of the altar.” There was no need to present it on the altar, as explained already on Leviticus 2,1. (Compare also B’chor shor)

הקרב אתה [AARON AND HIS SONS SHALL] BRING IT — This means bringing near (not offering, i. e. burning, for this is mentioned later in v. 8) to the south-west corner of the altar.

That is bringing near. And not burning as the plain meaning implies, for the kohein would burn only the fistful and not the entire [meal-offering], as it is written: “He shall separate from it, when he takes his fistful ... and he shall burn on the altar...”

לפני ה׳ BEFORE THE LORD — This is the west side of the altar which faced the direction of the “tent of meeting” in which the Lord revealed himself.

To the southwest corner. As Rashi himself explains: It is written “before Hashem,” which is the west... “To the front of the altar” — that is the south...

אל פני המזבח — This again implies the south side of the altar, because that was the ‎‎‎ אל פני המזבח, the front of the altar, since the ascent leading up to it was situated on that side (the combination therefore of both locations:'לפני ה and אל פני המזבח describes the south-west corner of the altar, as stated above) (Sotah 14b; Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 4).

והרים ממנו‎ AND HE SHALL TAKE UP FROM IT [IN HIS GRASP] — From it — from it as a united mass) — that there should be a full tenth part of an ephah at the same time in the vessel when he takes the fistful (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 5; Menachot 24a).

That he should not take [the fistful] by measure. Meaning: He should not make a utensil that holds a fistful and use it to measure. Rashi’s proof is because it is written בקמצו and it is not written מלא קמצו (the full fistful) [as in 2:2 above].

והרים ממנו, “he will remove some of it,” (the gift offering) it has been written in the masculine mode (although the word מנחה is feminine) We find a similar grammatically incorrect construction in Leviticus 27,9: כל אשר יתן ממנו לה' יהיה קודש, where according to the grammar the Torah could have been expected to write ממנה instead of ממנו. There are numerous such incongruous constructions in different parts of the Torah.

בקמצו WITH HIS GRASP — This implies that he shall not make a measure for the קומץ (he must not use a measure that holds as much as his fist and in that remove the flour) (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 5; Yoma 47a).

In which the oil is plentiful. Otherwise, why does it say, “and from its oil”? It already is written in Parshas Vayikro (2:1) that all the fine flour is mixed with oil, and since the fistful [was taken] from the fine flour, it surely must have included oil. Accordingly, the ו of ומשמנה is a ו of explanation, meaning as if it says: And from which place does he take the fistful? — ומשמנה — where the oil is plentiful.

ומשמנה‎ מסלת המנחה‎ OF THE FLOUR OF THE MEAL OFFERING AND OF THE OIL THEREOF — From here we may derive that he takes the “fistful” (קומץ) from that spot where there is plenty of oil in it (Sotah 14b).

And burns it. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “He shall separate from it, when he takes his fistful,” and afterwards it is written: “and all the frankincense.” This implies that the frankincense is not included in the taking of the fistful.

המנחה THE MEAL-OFFERING — This implies that it shall not be mixed up with another meal-offering (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 5).

‎‏‎‎‏ הלבנה אשר על המנחה והקטיר‎ואת כל AND ALL THE FRANKINCENSE WHICH IS UPON THE MEAL OFFERING HE SHALL CAUSE TO ASCEND IN FUMES — This means that the picks the frankincense off the meal-offering after the fistful has been taken from the latter and burns it (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 2:1). And because Scripture has stated this specifically only in the case of one of the meal offerings mentioned in ויקרא (Leviticus 2:2; viz., in the case of מנחת סולת, and it might therefore be applied to that special case only), it was compelled to state this paragraph here in order to include in a general rule all kinds of meal offerings as to all the regulations applicable to them.

‏ ‏‏ קדוש‎במקום‏ [AS UNLEAVENED BREAD SHALL IT BE EATEN) IN A HOLY PLACE. — And which is this? בחצר אהל מועד IN THE ENCLOSURE OF THE TENT OF MEETING (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 12).

בחצר אהל מועד, only in the holy precincts but not in all of Jerusalem.

In the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. You might ask: Why does it say, “In a sacred place”? The answer is: It comes to include the chambers built in a non-sacred place that have an opening into the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting, in which it is permissible to eat meal-offerings, as we find in the first Chapter of Keilim and in Zevachim 56a.

It must be eaten as matzoh. Hashem has given the kohein a portion from His fire-offerings. Consequently, he must eat it in the Courtyard which contains the altar, where Hashem’s portion is consumed. This teaches that atonement is achieved through the kohein’s eating of the offering just as it is achieved through its being burnt on the altar.

והנותרת ממנה, “and what is left of it;” the Torah here repeats itself seeing that it had written in Leviticus 2,3: that the leftover from the minchah offering was to be given to Aaron and his sons. If the Torah had not stated this at this point, we might have thought that the entire left over was to be given to be burnt. The word: ממנה from it, makes it clear that this is not so.

The kohein’s portion of the meal-offering is always matzoh, which has an aspect of holiness since it is devoid of leaven. Therefore it says, “It must be eaten as matzoh in a sacred place,” which emphasizes that since it is matzoh it must be in a holy place. The Torah compares the meal-offering to the sin-offering and guilt-offering and calls them “holy of holies” (v. 10), as they atone for sin. This is because a completely righteous man who never sinned is called holy, but a baal teshuvah who sinned and returned is called holy of holies, as Chazal said: “A completely righteous person cannot stand in the place where baalei teshuvah stand.” This is why matzoh needs to be eaten in a sacred place, because it is also holy of holies in that it lacks leaven, the symbol of the evil inclination that profanes a human being’s holiness.

מצות תאכל, “it must be consumed as unleavened cakes;” seeing that up until now, i.e. before it had been sanctified it was permissible to be eaten either leavened or unleavened,the Torah had to make clear that though it is “leftovers,” it did not revert to its original status. We find something similar in the legislation of the levirate marriage. (Deuteronomy 25,5) The Torah writes that after certain rituals had been observed the brotherinlaw of his widowed brother can marry his widow, period. In order to teach us that this is not quite so, the Torah there adds the word: ויבמה, “he performs the levirate marriage ceremony on her.” [This explanation is not found in all versions of the Sifra.]

לא תאפה חמץ חלקם IT SHALL NOT BE BAKEN AS ANYTHING LEAVENED FOR THEIR PORTION — The remains of the meal-offering which become the portion of the priests, are also forbidden to be baked in the form of leavened (Menachot 55a).

I HAVE GIVEN IT AS THEIR PORTION OF MY OFFERINGS. Even to apportion it [i.e., the residue of the meal-offering which the priests are to eat] they are not permitted to do until after the parts given to the fire [i.e., the handful] have gone up on the altar. It is from here that we learn that the same law applies to all hallowed offerings, as it is written, I have given it as their portion of My offerings; it is most holy.⁴⁴The verse thus says that the reason, why the priests are not permitted even to apportion the residue of the meal-offering amongst themselves until the altar’s share has gone up as a fire offering, is because the meal-offering is most holy, therefore it follows that the same principle applies to all offerings, since they are all holy.
It shall not be baked as anything leavened. Their portion …⁴⁵The Hebrew text reads: lo thei’apheh chametz chelkam … The juxtaposition of the word chelkam (their portion) to the word chametz (leavened) is the reason for the Rabbis’ interpretation that the portion the priests receive from the meal-offering, neither may be baked with leaven. — even the residue [which the priests receive as their share of the meal-offering] may not be baked with leaven. As the sin-offering, and as the guilt-offering — this teaches that just as the sin-offering must come from ordinary money,⁴⁶One who is required to bring a sin-offering because of a transgression committed, cannot use sacred money [such as money of the Second Tithe, and the like]; but he must take some of his ordinary money and buy the offering with it. This principle is derived from the verse, And Aaron shall offer the bull of the sin-offering ‘which is his’ (further, 16:6), that is, from the money which belongs to him. Sacred money, on the other hand, is not completely his to dispose of as he wishes. and can be offered only at daytime, and the priest performs all its acts with his right arm — so also this meal-offering must come from ordinary money, and be brought at daytime, and its acts must be performed with the priest’s right hand. Every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it³⁸Verse 11. — it may be apportioned even amongst those priests who have a bodily blemish [such as are mentioned further in Chapter 21:16-21 as disqualifying them from performing the acts of offering, but they may eat the residue of the meal-offering].
Now with regards to the meal-offering of the priests He added [this command]: And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten.⁴⁷Verse 16. On this the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim⁴⁸Guide of the Perplexed III, 46. that the reason [for the meal-offering of the priest being entirely burnt] is because every priest offered up his own meal-offering himself, and if he were to offer it and eat the residue of it himself, it would appear as if he had brought no offering. For nothing was offered of an ordinary individual’s meal-offering⁴⁹The meal-offerings which accompanied the Daily and Additional Offerings brought in the name of all Israel, were wholly burnt on the altar (Menachoth 73 b). Hence Rambam speaks of the minchath yachid (the meal-offering of the individual). except the frankincense and the handful of the flour. If then, in addition to the fact that the whole offering was small, he who offered it were to eat it himself, he would imagine⁵⁰“V’yidmeh (and he will imagine).” Such is the text in Al Charizi’s translation of the Moreh Nebuchim, which Ramban follows. The intent would seem to be that the priest who is offering his own meal-offering will imagine that he has performed no Divine Service, and therefore he might violate the laws regarding the eating of the residue. Hence the Torah prohibited him from eating it. In Ibn Tibbon’s translation, however, the reading is: “V’lo yeira’eh (and it will not appear),” that is, to others, that a Service has been performed, and therefore they will hold the priest in disregard for eating it. That is why the Torah commanded that it be wholly burnt. that he had brought no offering at all. Therefore [the Torah required] that it be entirely burnt.

חלקם נתתי אותה מאשי, “I have presented it as their share from My fire-offerings.” The meaning of the entire verse, which on the face of it contains nothing new, is that none of the remains becomes the property of the priests until all the parts of the sacrifice slated for burning up have done so. From this verse we derive the rule that what applies to the three fingers full of the minchah offering applies to all the offerings, seeing that the Torah adds the words קודש קדשים היא כחטאת וכאשם, i.e. the meal offering is just as holy of holies to G’d as are the sin and guilt offerings.

Even the left-over portions. So much more so that what is burnt on the altar [is prohibited when chometz], as it is clearly written in Parshas Vayikro (2:11). Rashi’s proof [that even the left-over portions are prohibited] is that the word חלקם (their portion) is juxtaposed to “It should not be baked as leavened.”

חלקם נתתי אותה מאשי, “I have given it as their share of My offerings by fire;” The Torah explains here why it must not be baked with leavening, having first been part of the offerings brought to Hashem. Of these offerings we had been told in Leviticus 2,11: 'כל שאור וכל דבש לא תקטירו ממנו אשה לה, “you are not to burn up as a fire offering to Hashem anything leavened or anything containing honey.”

כחטאת וכאשם [IT IS MOST HOLY] AS THE SIN OFFERING OR THE GUILT OFFERING — the meal-offering of the sinner (v. 11) is as the sin-offering, therefore if he (the priest) takes the fistful out of it not as such (not having in mind that offering) it is invalid as is the sin-offering under such circumstances (cf. Rashi on 5:12); a free-will meal-offering (i.e. any of the other meal-offerings mentioned in ויקרא), however, is as the guilt-offering, therefore if he takes the fistful out of it not doing it as such, it is still valid (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 3 3; Zevachim 11a).

Like a sin-offering. As it is written (4:24): “It is a sin-offering,” it should remain as it is, [i.e.,] it must be slaughtered for the sake of a sin-offering. However, regarding a guilt offering it says “it is a guilt-offering” only after its fats have been burnt [on the altar], but [the guilt-offering] itself even though its fats have not been burnt is valid (as Rashi explains on 7:5).

קדש קדשים היא, “it is most holy;” it is of the same status as all holy things.

כחטאת, “just as the sin offering;” just as the sin offering originally had been secular, i.e. the person presenting it used money to purchase the animal without first sanctifying that money. This had to done by day and with the right hand.

כל זכר ALL THE MALES [AMONG THE CHILDREN OF AARON SHALL EAT OF IT] — all the males: even one with a bodily blemish. But why is this stated at all? If you say: for the purpose of permitting the eating of the meal-offering to such a priest, then it is redundant, for you see, this has already been stated, (Leviticus 21:22) “He (the priest with a blemish) may eat of the bread of his God, both of the most holy [and of the holy]”! But it is intended to include the priests with bodily blemishes in the right of apportionment alluded to in the preceding verse: I have given it to them as their portion (i.e. that they may not only eat holy food if such is given to them by their fellow priests, but they are entitled to participate in the apportionment) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 3 5; Zevachim 102a).

יקדש. Assuming that the substance (or the person) had been ritually pure prior to touching these parts of the sacrifice it now becomes sanctified, i.e. out of bounds, forbidden. Compare author’s comment on parallel verses as Exodus 29,37 as well as Leviticus 11,8.

To include [kohanim] who have a physical defect. Meaning, they receive a portion of the meal-offering together with the unblemished kohanim, portion for portion. I might have thought they are included only for eating the sacrifices, as it is written (21:22): “The bread of his God which is of the most holy ... he may eat,” but they may not take a share together with the unblemished kohanim, since they are not allowed to bring the sacrifices. Thus, it lets us know...

כל זכר, “every male; the content of this paragraph had already been written Leviticus 2,10. It was repeated here for three reasons. 1) Unleavened bread. 2) had to be eaten on sacred ground. 3) Any male priest could eat it.

כל אשר ‎'יגע וגו‎‎‏ WHATEVER TOUCHETH THEM — i. e. sacrifices holy in a minor degree or non-consecrated flesh (חולין) which touch it (the meal-offering) and absorb anything of it (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 3 6; Zevachim 97b),

And absorb from it. It is written, “Whatever shall touch,” why then does it say, “them”? Rather, [the extra word them] teaches that it touches and enters into them, [i.e.,] it is absorbed within.

Anyone or anything coming into contact with it would become out of bounds unless such a person had first ritually purified himself.

יקדש SHALL BECOME HOLY so as to be exactly like it (the מנחה) — that if it (the meal-offering) has become disqualified (as when e. g. it was not offered as such, לשמה), they (the holy things touching it) shall also become similarly disqualified, and if it is fit for eating they must be eaten only under the same stringency as the meal-offering (i.e., they must be eaten in a holy place (v. 9) and by males only; v. 11, etc.) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 3 6; Zevachim 97b).

If it is invalid, they become invalid. I.e., the place where it touches, but not all of it.

Under the stringent rule [of eating] the meal-offering. That is, it must be eaten within the Temple courtyard, and for but one day and night, until midnight.

זה קרבן אהרון ובניו THIS IS THE OFFERING OF AARON AND HIS SONS — The ordinary priests, too, offer a tenth part of an ephah of flour on the day they are installed into the priestly service; the High Priest, however, offers one every day, as it is said, “a continual meal-offering, [half of it in the morning, and half thereof in the evening] etc. And the priest amongst his sons that is anointed in his stead (i. e. every high priest) [shall offer it]; it is a statute for ever” (Sifra, Tzav, Section 3 1-4; Menachot 51b).

זה קרבן אהרן ובניו. According to the plain meaning of the verse the persons meant are Aaron and his successors, other High Priests subsequent to him. Our sages (Menachot 51) interpret the verse to refer to all ordinary priests as well. In other words, any newly inducted priest is required to bring a gift offering as his first service in the Temple.

זה קרבן אהרן ובניו, “this is the offering of Aaron and his sons.” Our sages have told us that there were four matters which Moses found difficult to comprehend, and that the offering Aaron was to bring on the day he was anointed was one of them. The four are easy to remember when one thinks of the first letters of them forming the word מקש'ה, i.e. “he has trouble under-standing.” [they are the laws of the מנורה, קרבן, שקלים, החדש, (laws about the lampstand, the sacrifice (of Aaron), the coin called shekel hakodesh, and the legislation of the new moon).The mystical dimension of our verse is this: the word זה in the sequence זה קרבן אהרן ובניו אשר יקריבו לה', refers to an attribute Aaron and his sons are to offer. They are to present G’d with a certain character-virtue represented by this offering about which the Torah now gives the measurements and components. When the prophet Ezekiel 44,27 speaks about the inauguration sacrifices of the third Temple, he also lists the size and composition of that sacrifice as consisting of עשירית האפה סולת, calling it “a sin-offering.”(although Ezekiel did not spell out what this sin-offering consisted of the Talmud Moed Katan 15-16 states that it was the same as that mentioned in our verse here). Since no specific sin was being atoned for, the meaning is that this offering symbolised a spiritual cleansing of the priest prior to his commencing his sacred vocation.

Even ordinary kohanim. [Rashi knows this] because why does the Torah say, “and his sons”? Indeed, kohanim gedolim are mentioned when it says (v. 15): “The kohein who is anointed...”

ביום המשח אותו, “on the day when he is anointed;” the prefix letter ב in the word ביום was used here instead of the prefix letter מ, “from.” From that day on the high Priest has to present this daily offering. We find another example of the use of the letter ב in the same sense as here, in chapter 7, verse 36: ביום משחו אותם, “from the day they were anointed.” (Ibn Ezra) Also in chapter 8, verse 32, והנותר בבשר ובלחם, the correct translation is: “and that which is left over from the meat and the bread.”

Who is anointed in his stead. Meaning: The phrase, “as a mealoffering, always” is connected with “the kohein who is anointed” (v. 15), and not with “and his sons” (v. 13). If so, their meal-offering is not continual. It is [brought] only on the day of their inauguration, like the day the kohein gadol is anointed, which is the inauguration for the kohein gadol. It is written: “ביום המשח (on the day that he is anointed)” and not מיום המשח (from the day he is anointed), in order to include the inauguration of the ordinary kohanim as well. Otherwise, it should say, “from the day,” because from that day onward the kohein gadol continually offers [the meal-offering].

מחציתם בבקר ומחציתם בערב, “half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening.” How is the High Priest to perform the procedure? He brings a whole tenth of an eyfah in the morning, and proceeds to divide that quantity in half, proceeding to offer the first half in the morning and the remaining half in the evening. If, in the interval, the half reserved for offering in the evening has becoming ritually contaminated, or has somehow been lost, the priest will bring the full eyfah in the evening to compensate for what was lost or has been contaminated. He will do so by dividing it into two halves, but only offering one of the two halves, so that a whole eyfah will have been offered and a whole eyfah will have been lost. (Sifra)

מרבכת means, scalded with hot oil to saturation (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 4 6).

מרבכת, softened with oil according to the requirements of the individual sacrifice. Seeing this had to be baked in an oven, it needed to be softened with oil.

In an oven and thereupon fries it. [Rashi knows this] because it is written תופני which comprises the words תפי נא (baked raw), implying that it is uncooked. This teaches that it should be uncooked when he bakes it and not fried. Therefore, Rashi explains that it is baked originally and afterwards fried.

תעשה מרבכת, “it will be presented after having been prepared with oil on a griddle.” The only time in the Torah that we hear about such a procedure, is here and in connection with the קרבן תודה, mandatory thanksgiving offering, and during the consecration rites of the priests when the Tabernacle was consecrated. (Menachot 78)

תפיני means, many times baken: after it has been scalded he bakes it in the oven and then again fries it in a pan (cf. Menachot 50b).

תפיני, an expression denoting baking of some kind. The letter א is somehow absent in this word. This missing letter א is not unusual, for instance it occurs in Isaiah 13.20 לא יהל ערבי instead of לא יאהל ערבי, “no Arab shall pitch his tent.” In Exodus 10,21 וימש חשך we would have expected ויאמש חשך, [from the word אמש, last night, i.e. darkness which normally lasts only a single night will last much longer. See author’s comment on that verse. Ed.]

Breaking. Although [breaking] is explicitly mentioned, Rashi comes to exclude from Rabbi Shimon’s view that the meal-offering of kohanim and the meal-offering of the anointed kohein do not require breaking, i.e., he should not fold each piece into two and then into fours, etc. since there is no taking of the fistful from these meal-offerings. It is written here only “פתים (broken pieces)” but not “פתות אותו פתים (break it into pieces),” as it does regarding the meal-offering of a Yisroel (2:6).

תפיני, “in broken pieces;” the expression means that it has not been baked thoroughly, and is neither raw nor cooked.

מנחת פתים THE BROKEN PIECES — This teaches that it requires breaking into pieces (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 4 6; Menachot 75b).

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.

כליל (connected with כל, all) means, all of it belongs alike to the Most High God (i. e. no part of it is given to the priests).

וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה, “and every meal offering offered by a priest must be complete, (not just the three fingers full) none of it may be consumed by the priests. Maimonides (Moreh Nevuchim, 3,46) explains that the reason for the above is simple, i.e. that the priest cannot consume his own offering. Were he allowed to partake of it, the impression would be created that he had in fact not brought an offering to G’d at all. After all, the altar receives only three fingers full of any meal offering, pus a small amount of frankincense. By legislating that the entire meal/oil mixture is to be burned, the priest will be seen to have brought an offering of his own. The treatment by the Torah of the meal offering differently from the sin offering, for instance, is that in the case of the latter, substantial parts of the sacrificial animal are burned up on the altar in addition to the parts that the priests may consume.

Equally, to the Most High. I.e., since it says “shall be completely,” but it did not say whether for the sake of the Most High [burnt on the altar] or for an ordinary person [completely eaten], for this reason Rashi explains it is entirely for the Most High, i.e., it is burnt.

'וכל מנחת כהן וגו, “and every meal offering by a priest shall be a whole offering, not to be consumed (by man.)” The reason may well be that the Torah was afraid that if the priest were allowed to eat a part of it, he would reason that it was not worthwhile for him to do so, as even whole it is only a small quantity of food. It would, of course be quite inappropriate for him to think that way; but to forestall such a thought the Torah decreed that none of it may be eaten. The above is not the case when an ordinary Israelite offers a meal offering. The portion that is not burned up is eaten by the priests, seeing that only a partial fistful, קומץ, has been burned up.

כליל תהיה, “it shall be offered whole.” Seeing that no one will eat part of it, how miserly would it be if he only offered part of a fistful, קומץ to the Lord, as is done with the minchah offering of the ordinary Israelites, of which only this partial fistful will be burnt up symbolically, the remainder being eaten by the priests in their capacity of servants of Hashem? It can also not be compared to sin offerings or guilt offerings offered by the priests (on their own behalf). Seeing that they themselves are the servants of the Lord, the whole offering had become a gift to Hashem. What do the priests lose by offering the entire minchah offering to Hashem? We can also not make a comparison with the sin offerings and guilt offerings of the priests for their own sins or guilt, as in wither event at least the entrails are burned up on the altar, and the skin is distributed among the priests of that particular watch. Logic also dictates that the whole minchah be burned up as it is the priest who has presented it, and it would not make sense that he present part of his offering to Hashem to other priests. We find an example of this reasoning being practiced in the bulls offered by the priests during the consecration rites, which are burned up completely. (Leviticus 8,17)

THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SIN-OFFERING. In Seder Vayikra He commanded concerning [the offerings in the following order]: the burnt-offering, the meal-offering, the peace-offerings, the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, [the reason for this order being] that at first He spoke about the freewill offerings [namely the burnt-offering, the meal-offering and the peace-offerings], and afterwards He mentioned those offerings which are obligatory upon the sinner. Here, however, [in Seder Tzav] the explanation is given first in connection with the burnt-offering and meal-offering, and only then about the sin-offering and guilt-offering, because He wished to explain the laws of the most holy offerings [in one group], since there is one law for them all, as He said [above in Verse 10] with reference to the meal-offering, it is most holy, as the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, and only afterwards He explains the law of those offerings which are less holy [namely, the peace-offerings].
Now in this section [dealing with the sin-offering] He added many new laws. [The verse] This is the law of the sin-offering teaches that there is one law for all sin-offerings,⁵¹See Note 16 above, that the term torah or torath (“law” or “law of”) at the beginning of a section, denotes inclusion, while hi denotes exclusion. So also the word zoth (this), as it says here in this case, zoth torath … (this is the law of …), means exclusion. meaning that even the blood of “the inner sin-offerings”⁵²Sin-offerings were of two kinds: (a) those whose blood was sprinkled on the outer altar, and are therefore referred to as the “outer sin-offerings.” These included most of the sin-offerings. After the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats, the meat was eaten by the priests, (b) The second group was called “the inner sin offerings,” because their blood was taken into the interior of the Sanctuary to be sprinkled in front of the Veil overhanging the Holy of Holies, as well as on the golden altar (see above, 4:6-7; 17-18), and on the Day of Atonement also in front of the ark (further, 16:14-15). These sin-offerings were wholly burnt outside the camp [and later, after the Sanctuary was built, they were burnt outside the city of Jerusalem]. — Now here in Verse 20 Scripture states the law regarding “the outer sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [zoth] ‘torath’ hachatath (this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering), and the word torath denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering. [if sprinkled upon a garment] must be washed off [in a holy place]. I might think that this applies also to a sin-offering brought from a bird, Scripture therefore says zoth [‘zoth’ torath hachatath (‘this’ is the law of the sin-offering) — and the word zoth denotes exclusion]. He also states here [in the verse before us], in the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered shall the sin-offering be slaughtered before the Eternal, thus indicating that all sin-offerings must be slaughtered only on the northern side of the altar, since in the section of Vayikra this was stated only with reference to the sin-offering of the prince⁵³Above, 4:24. and of the individual;⁵⁴Ibid., Verses 29, 33. therefore here [in this section] they are all included — the sin-offerings of the public and “the inner sin-offerings.”⁵²Sin-offerings were of two kinds: (a) those whose blood was sprinkled on the outer altar, and are therefore referred to as the “outer sin-offerings.” These included most of the sin-offerings. After the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats, the meat was eaten by the priests, (b) The second group was called “the inner sin offerings,” because their blood was taken into the interior of the Sanctuary to be sprinkled in front of the Veil overhanging the Holy of Holies, as well as on the golden altar (see above, 4:6-7; 17-18), and on the Day of Atonement also in front of the ark (further, 16:14-15). These sin-offerings were wholly burnt outside the camp [and later, after the Sanctuary was built, they were burnt outside the city of Jerusalem]. — Now here in Verse 20 Scripture states the law regarding “the outer sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [zoth] ‘torath’ hachatath (this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering), and the word torath denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering.
The Rabbis have further interpreted: Most holy, this comes to include the peace-offerings of the public,⁵⁵Peace-offerings could be brought only by an individual, and they were considered of a lesser degree of holiness. Only once a year, namely, on the Festival of Shevuoth, were peace-offerings brought by the public (see further, 23:19). These were considered among “the most holy offerings.” Offerings which were most holy were slaughtered on the north side of the altar, and could be eaten only by male priests, within the Court of the Sanctuary, during the same day and night; those that were holy to a lesser degree were slaughtered in any part of the Court, and could be eaten by any person, within the enclosed city of Jerusalem, for two days and the intervening night. The thanks-offering and the Nazirite’s ram, though holy to a lesser degree, could be eaten only the same day and the ensuing night. teaching that they may only be slaughtered on the northern side of the altar, as all offerings of the most holy degree are required to be slaughtered on the northern side. Hi (this) — ‘this’ is the law of the sin-offering, comes to exclude the thanks-offering⁵⁶Further, 7:12. The thanks-offering is a form of peace-offering, and is therefore holy to a lesser degree. and the ram of the Nazirite⁵⁷Numbers 6:14. The ram of the Nazirite is a peace-offering (ibid.). [thus teaching that they may be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple Court, as their holiness is of a lesser degree]. He further commanded here to give the meat of the sin-offerings to the sons of Aaron⁵⁸Verse 22. — that is, to the males and not the daughters of Aaron — and commanded them to eat it within the Court of the Tent of Meeting.⁵⁹Verse 19. In addition He mentioned [in this section] many new laws concerning absorption [of the taste of] the sin-offerings [by the vessels in which they are boiled].⁶⁰Verse 21.

now the “Torah” of the sin offering, חטאת, is mentioned. If the sin offering is meant to atone for a serious sin, its blood has to offered in side the sanctuary, and none of the offering is allocated to the priests to eat. The parts normally eaten by the priests will also be burned.

וזאת תורת החטאת, “and this is the law of the sin offering.” Nachmanides points out that in Parshat Vayikra the order in which the various sacrifices are listed is: עולה-מנחה-זבח שלמים חטאת, אשם, the reason being that the Torah first wanted to deal with all the voluntary offerings, followed by the list of mandatory sacrifices, offered in order to expiate various types of sins, transgressions. In our Parshah the Torah first lists all the sacrifices described as קדשי קדשים, holy of holies, before listing sacrifices known in the Talmud as קדשים קלים, “sacred things of a lower level of holiness.” Many additional rules have been revealed in this Parshah, so that we do not only deal with the same list of sacrifices presented in a different sequence. I have not set myself the task of explaining the rationales behind the various sacrifices; I only attempt to explain what is behind the order in which these various verses have been recorded in the written Torah.

זאת תורת החטאת, “this is the law of the sin-offering.” The Torah refers to this offering as קדש קדשים, “it is most holy,” the same description applied to the meal-offering. Similarly, the status of the guilt-offering אשם is also that of “the most holy” (7,1). The sequence of subjects dealt with in the various paragraphs is as follows: the paragraph dealing with the burnt-offering, followed by the meal-offering; this is followed by the paragraph dealing with the sin-offering, which in turn is followed by the guilt-offering. All of the foregoing are described as “the most holy,” At the conclusion of all these paragraphs the Torah states once more: “this is the law for the burnt-offering, the meal-offering, the sin-offering and the guilt-offering.” The reason that these sacrifices and their laws are all lumped together is that the Torah wanted to explain the rules pertaining to offerings called “most holy.” Following the sacrifices referred to as “most holy,” the Torah discusses the rules pertaining to the offerings known as קדשים קלים, “sacred matters of a milder degree of sanctity.” Examples of the latter are the peace-offerings, and the thanksgiving-offerings.

במקום אשר תשחט העולה, “at the site where the burnt offering will be slaughtered;” the reason why the Torah repeats this is because when it wrote about it the first time (4,24) we did not know that the rule applies to all sin offerings to be slaughtered at the same site as the burnt offering.

במקום אשר תשחט העולה תשחט החטאת, “The sin offering is to be slaughtered in the same place as the burnt-offering.” The burnt-offering must be slaughtered in the northern part of the courtyard (עזרה). It is offered to atone for sinful thoughts as has been mentioned earlier at the beginning of this portion. Seeing that the Torah did not want to embarrass the sinner offering a sin- offering, we are told that his offering has been assigned the same site for slaughter as the burnt-offering which is totally burned up on the Altar, i.e. an offering very dear to the Lord. Seeing that this is so, an outsider will not know whether the person offering this particular offering was guilty of an actual trespass or whether he was guilty only of sinful thoughts.

המחטא אתה means the priest who performs those rites connected with it (i. e. those connected with the sprinkling of the blood), he is called the מחטא because it is through him that it becomes a sin-offering.

הכהן המחטא אותה יאכלנה, “the Priest who is instrumental in conferring atonement through it, he shall consume it.” The meaning of these words is not that the Priest who sprinkles the blood on the Altar and burns up the fat parts is to be the only one to consume the meat of this offering, and that the other Priests are not to receive any part thereof. If this were so it would lead to friction amongst the Priests as each one would say that he wants to perform the service of the sin-offering. Rather, the meaning of the word המחטא, refers to all the Priests theoretically suitable to perform this procedure, so that only the temporarily ritually impure Priests are excluded by these words. Even Priests who suffer from a brief ritual impurity such as the emission of semen, something that can be purified by sunset, are excluded from eating any part of the sin-offering or guilt-offering offered on the day of their impurity. Neither could they share in the eating of the meal-offerings or be recipients of the chest and upper thigh of peace-offerings which the owners have to give to the Priests.
We know that this rule applies in the case of the sin-offering as the Torah writes הכהן המחטא אותה יאכלנה; the Torah writes in connection with the guilt-offering: הכהן אשר יכפר בו לו יהיה, “it will belong to the Priest who performs the atonement rites on it” (7,7). In connection with the peace-offering the Torah writes (7,14) “the Priest who sprinkles its blood, it shall be his.” In connection with the meal-offering the Torah writes (7,9) “every meal-offering baked in an oven....it shall be the Priest’s who offers it up.” Seeing that all the aforementioned sacrifices are of the category which the Torah described as “most holy,” and may be consumed only on the day they are being offered, anyone who was not ritually pure at that time is automatically excluded from eating part of such an offering seeing it cannot be saved up for the following day.

One fit [to perform] the Temple service. Rashi did not explain the verse according to its plain meaning — “[The kohein] who offers it as a sin-offering, shall eat it” — because it is written (v. 22): “Every male among the kohanim may eat it.” We need not ask: Perhaps the one fit for the avodah shall eat it — to exclude a kohein who has a physical blemish, who is not fit. [The answer is:] It is written: “Every male” — to include a kohein with a blemish. Perforce, it comes to exclude an impure kohein who immersed in a mikveh that day [and could eat it at night] — that he has no share. We should not say: Say the opposite! The one who immersed in the mikveh that day may eat at night, but the kohein with a blemish may never eat. [We do not say this because] it is logical that the kohein with a blemish should partake since he is allowed to eat immediately, and to exclude the one who immersed that day who may not eat until the evening. Meaning: It is impossible to say that it means [only the one who offers] should actually eat it, and the one who was impure at the time of the sprinkling [of the blood], who was not fit for the avodah, will be forbidden afterwards from partaking [in the meat of the offering] at all. Because if so, a minor as well, who was not fit for avodah at the time of sprinkling would be forbidden afterwards to eat. And if you would claim that this is so — [it cannot be, for] we include from “Every male” — even a minor — “may eat it.” Rather, here we only exclude that he [i.e., the impure kohein] may not have a share in the meat (Divrei Dovid).

המחטא אתה יאכלנה THE PRIEST THAT OFFERETH IT MAY EAT IT — i. e., the priest who is fitted to carry out the rite (so that the words denote: Any priest who may offer it as a sin-offering may eat of it; they do not refer to that priest alone who offered it). Thus there is excluded a priest who is unclean (and therefore unfitted) when the blood is sprinkled — that he has no share in the flesh. One cannot say that Scripture here forbids the eating of it to ANY priests (i. e. even to clean priests) except him who sprinkles the blood, because, you see, it is stated later on (v. 22), “All the males among the priests may eat thereof” (cf. Zevachim 99a).

כל אשר יגע בבשרה WHATSOEVER SHALL TOUCH THE FLESH THEREOF [SHALL BECOME HOLY] — any article of food that shall touch it and absorb anything of it (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Section 4 5; Zevachim 97a and Rashi on v. 11),

THOU SHALT WASH IT IN A HOLY PLACE. Scripture laid down a strict law in connection with the blood [of a sin-offering] which became absorbed by a garment, giving it the law it [the blood] had before it was sprinkled [on the garment, namely] that it may not be taken outside the curtains⁶¹The Court of the Tabernacle was enclosed by curtains (see Exodus 27:9-16). In the Sanctuary at Jerusalem it was surrounded by a wall. The sense of the expression is thus identical in both cases, namely, the Temple Court. [and therefore it must be washed within the Court]. He states, and the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken.⁶⁰Verse 21. This too is to be broken in the holy place [i.e., within the Court], and the pieces of pottery are swallowed up in the place [where they are broken],⁶²Yoma 21 a. This was one of the regular miracles which occurred in the Sanctuary. and there does not have to be any scouring and rinsing at all [as required if it was boiled in a copper pot]. Similarly, the scouring and rinsing required if [the meat of the sin-offering] was boiled in a copper pot⁶⁰Verse 21. have to be done in a holy place, for all the verses [i.e., Verses 20-21] are connected with “the holy place” mentioned [above in Verse 19: in ‘a holy place’ shall it be eaten, in the Court of the Tent of Meeting].

תכבס, so that it [garment Ed.] will not become forbidden as past the time allowed, when it would have to be burned. [any part of the offering even blood which was never permitted to be eaten, will have to be burned if it had not been disposed of in time. In this instance the priest’s garment would have to be burned in order to get rid of the blood, unless it had been washed out in time, before the deadline. Ed.]

תכבס במקום קדוש, “you shall wash in a holy place.” We have already learned from the previous verse that the reference is to the courtyard of the Tabernacle, as it has been spelled out with the words: “it shall be eaten as unleavened bread in a holy place, the courtyard of the Tabernacle.” This courtyard corresponded to what was called עזרה during the period of the Temple.

Which touches and absorbs. In Toras Kohanim: You might think that even if it did not absorb, therefore, the Torah says: “In its flesh” — until it absorbs, etc. This Baraisa is brought in Zevachim (97a) (Nachalas Yaakov).

אשר יזה עליה תכבס, “the one (part) which he has splashed upon you shall wash;” only that part has to be washed, not the whole garment.

יקדש SHALL BE HOLY, so as to become exactly like itself: if it (the sin-offering) has become invalid, it (the food touching it) also becomes disqualified, and if that be fit for eating this may be eaten only under the same stringency applying to it (the sin-offering).

Bloodspot on the garment. The verse implies that one is required to sprinkle on the entire garment, but this cannot be. Therefore, Rashi explains: “If...” And the meaning of “ואשר” is: [If] it will have been sprinkled, as Rashi explains nearby. In Toras Kohanim: You might think that the entire garment requires washing, therefore, the Torah says: “Whatever it is sprinkled upon, you shall wash” — the bloodspot requires washing but the entire garment does not require washing.

תכבס, this is necessary as the blood of this offering is destined to be splattered within the Sanctuary; if the officiating priest would leave the holy precincts with these bloodstains on his garments, the offering would have become disqualified retroactively.

ואשר יזה מדמה על הבגד means, and if there is splashed of the blood thereof on a garment, that blood-stained spot in the garment whereon it was splashed shalt thou wash in the forecourt (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 6 3).

In the court. As it is written (v. 9): “In a sacred place, in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting.” Perforce, the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting is the “sacred place.”

במקום קדוש, “in the sacred precinct.” This includes (in Solomon’s temple) the offices adjoining the Sanctuary all of which were directly attached to it. (Sifra) [There were none such in the Tabernacle. Ed.]

אשר יזה means, shall be splashed. It is the same as the verb in (Job. 15:29) “and their substance shall not be spread (יטה) on earth” (cf. Rashi on that verse).

ישבר [BUT AN EARTHEN VESSEL WHEREIN IT IS SODDEN] SHALL BE BROKEN — because the substance absorbed in it becomes what is known as נותר (the technical term for any portion of a sacrifice not eaten by the time prescribed for this) (cf. Avodah Zarah 76a). That, too, is the regulation applicable to all sacrifices (i. e. that an earthen vessel wherein they have been cooked must be broken).

חרס אשר תבושל בו ישבר, “and an earthenware vessel which it has been cooked in must be broken.” This means that the boiling of the meat must also take place in the sacred precincts, just as the washing had to take place in sacred precincts.

Becomes נותר(meat left overnight that is invalid and must be burnt). After the day and the night that follows it. You might ask: Leave it until after daybreak on the morrow when it [the taste absorbed in the vessel’s wall] will give a bad taste (נותן טעם לפגם) and it will not require breaking or scouring! The answer is: Since at daybreak on the morrow the obligation to break or scour is immediate, it does not lapse afterwards (Re’m). With regard to Re’m’s question I stood trembling and astonished. Why is he raising such a difficulty? It is only with respect to [the prohibition of] eating, which depends on the taste of the forbidden food, that it is permitted when it gives a bad taste, since [in this case] he does not benefit. This is not so concerning נותר, which has to be burnt — the main mitzvah of burning is even after its taste has gone bad and it was left longer than its time period. As long as it is in the world he is required to burn it. How would the fact that the taste has gone bad help in this case? Therefore, the Torah commands to break the earthenware vessels and scour and rinse copper vessels so that they will not come to the circumstance of having a bad taste and of being נותר at the time of daybreak. This is because it is prohibited to bring something to the condition of becoming נותר so that it will have to be burnt. How would having a bad taste help to nullify the mitzvah of burning the נותר? It was not that the Torah said the earthenware vessel needs to be broken because it will discharge [the taste of נותר] into the food that is cooked in it afterwards, for certainly, even if he wants to leave it and not cook anything in it afterwards it does not help. Rather, he would be transgressing by causing נותר and he blemishes that which is holy. Therefore, he needs to break the earthenware pot since it is not possible to burn the absorptions of נותר in it (Divrei Dovid).

וכל כלי חרש תשבר, “Just as the washing (ritual cleansing) of garments when required had to take place inside the sacred precincts, so the breaking of earthen vessels (which had become ritually contaminated because the blood had been washed in it) had to take place inside the sacred precincts, if that vessel had to be broken (made useless).”

ומרק — of the same root and meaning as the noun in (Esther 2:12) “the things for purifying (תמרוקי) women”; escourement in old French; English, scouring.

An earthenware vessel … must be broken. The means of purifying vessels parallels the way of repentance. Earthenware vessels which have absorbed a lot of prohibited food cannot be purified through water and must be broken, but metal vessels that absorbed only a little can be purified with water. In the same way, some people have become habitual in transgressing and can be purified only by breaking their heart. Others, however, transgressed only a little and need only a slight rectification. Today, when we have no Beis HaMikdash, the way for the unlearned masses to achieve rectification is through breaking their heart, the vessel in which they ‘cooked up’ the sin. For the Torah scholar, though, rectification for any sin can be achieved through Torah study.

בכלי נחושת, “if, however such garment as we discussed was washed in a copper vessel, (or any metal vessel),

ומרק ושטף [AND IF IT BE SODDEN IN A COPPER POT] IT SHALL BE BOTH SCOURED AND RINSED [IN WATER] — in order that it should give out what it has absorbed: but as far as an earthen vessel is concerned Scripture teaches you that it can never get rid of its taint (lit., can never leave the grasp which its taint has on it) (Avodah Zarah 34a; Pesachim 30b).

Thus, the Torah specified the laws of purifying vessels here concerning the sin-offering to teach that today, when there are no sacrifices, repentance parallels the purification of vessels.

ומרק ושוטף, ”it requires scouring and rinsing out with water (only).” The condition is that this scouring takes place during the period that the remains of that sacrifice were allowed to be eaten by the priests. Otherwise, it would be subject to the laws of נותר, sacrificial meat left uneaten, and it would have to be destroyed by fire. (Sifra) The “washing” i.e. ritual cleansing did not have to be done in a ritual bath containing a minimum of 40 seah of water (approx 530000 ccm). The Torah added the word: במים, to tell us that the quantity of water was immaterial.

כל זכר בכהנים יאכלנה ALL MALES AMONG THE PRIESTS SHALL EAT THEREOF — Thus you learn that the statement “[the priest] that offers it for a sin-offering [shall eat it]” made above (v. 19) is not intended to exclude other priests (i. e. such as did not actually perform the rites of that sacrifice), but only to exclude from eating it those priests who were at that time unfit to bring it as a sin-offering (cf. Rashi on v. 19).

‎'וכל חטאת וגו‎ AND NO SIN OFFERING [WHEREOF ANY OF THE BLOOD IS BROUGHT INTO THE TENT OF MEETING SHALL BE EATEN] — This means, that if the priest brought any of the blood of an “external” sin-offering (one the blood of which has to be sprinkled on the outer altar) into the Interior it becomes invalid and must be burnt.

AND EVERY SIN-OFFERING, WHEREOF ANY OF THE BLOOD IS BROUGHT INTO THE TENT OF MEETING etc. “This means that if the priest brought any of the blood of ‘an outer sin-offering’⁵²Sin-offerings were of two kinds: (a) those whose blood was sprinkled on the outer altar, and are therefore referred to as the “outer sin-offerings.” These included most of the sin-offerings. After the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats, the meat was eaten by the priests, (b) The second group was called “the inner sin offerings,” because their blood was taken into the interior of the Sanctuary to be sprinkled in front of the Veil overhanging the Holy of Holies, as well as on the golden altar (see above, 4:6-7; 17-18), and on the Day of Atonement also in front of the ark (further, 16:14-15). These sin-offerings were wholly burnt outside the camp [and later, after the Sanctuary was built, they were burnt outside the city of Jerusalem]. — Now here in Verse 20 Scripture states the law regarding “the outer sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [zoth] ‘torath’ hachatath (this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering), and the word torath denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering. into the interior of the Sanctuary it becomes invalidated, [and the offering may not be eaten, and must be burnt].” Thus the language of Rashi. According to this opinion, the phrase to atone in the holy place which Scripture says [in continuation], is not to be understood in its simple sense, since this blood does not [in fact] bring atonement, for it became invalidated as soon as it was brought into the Sanctuary, and it is on account of that very invalidation that it is to be burnt. Rather, the expression to atone means [according to Rashi] that if he brought it into the interior “with the intent to atone,” [namely] to sprinkle there of its blood as is done with the blood of “the inner sin-offerings,”⁵²Sin-offerings were of two kinds: (a) those whose blood was sprinkled on the outer altar, and are therefore referred to as the “outer sin-offerings.” These included most of the sin-offerings. After the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats, the meat was eaten by the priests, (b) The second group was called “the inner sin offerings,” because their blood was taken into the interior of the Sanctuary to be sprinkled in front of the Veil overhanging the Holy of Holies, as well as on the golden altar (see above, 4:6-7; 17-18), and on the Day of Atonement also in front of the ark (further, 16:14-15). These sin-offerings were wholly burnt outside the camp [and later, after the Sanctuary was built, they were burnt outside the city of Jerusalem]. — Now here in Verse 20 Scripture states the law regarding “the outer sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [zoth] ‘torath’ hachatath (this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering), and the word torath denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering. even though he has not [in fact] atoned with it, meaning that he has not sprinkled any of its blood, it is nonetheless invalidated from the moment of entry, and [the offering] is to be burnt. It is possible according to this that if he brought it in with the intent of not sprinkling thereof at all [in the Sanctuary], that the offering remains valid. According to the words of Rabbi Shimon,⁶³Zebachim 83 a. it only becomes invalidated if he “atoned” with the blood, meaning that he actually sprinkled thereof in the same manner as is done in the case of “the inner sin-offerings” [i.e., in front of the Veil and on the comers of the golden altar].⁶⁴See above, 4:6-7. It is for this reason that Scripture states to atone — not [meaning] that he actually effected atonement, but that he brought of its blood to atone with it, and, according to his thinking, effected atonement. The meaning of the term “into the interior” [which Rashi mentioned above] is “into the Sanctuary.” The same [is also the meaning of the phrase] “if he brought into the ‘interior of the interior’ [i.e., the Holy of Holies]” of the bullock of the anointed priest,⁶⁵Ibid., Verses 4-7. or that of “forgetting a matter of law,”⁶⁶Ibid., Verses 13-18. or of the goats brought for worshipping the idols,⁶⁷Numbers 15:24. namely that if he brought their blood into a more interior place than that designated for them, [since in these cases of sin-offering the blood is to be brought into the Sanctuary proper to effect atonement], then the offerings become invalidated. Scripture states ‘of’ the blood in order to indicate that even bringing in part of the blood invalidates the offering. Thus if the priest received the blood in two cups, and brought only one of them into the interior, the offering is invalidated.
By way of the plain meaning of Scripture,⁶⁸Thus far we have followed the interpretation of Rashi which is based upon sources in the Talmud, which was as follows: “and every outer sin-offering whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the holy place, according to the priest’s intent which was not, however, in accordance with the law — since the blood of an outer sin-offering is to be sprinkled upon the outer altar — that offering shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire.” Ramban is now to suggest a totally different interpretation, namely, that the verse is not speaking of outer sin-offerings wrongly brought in, but establishes the principle that all “inner sin-offerings” [as enumerated in the text: “the bullock of the anointed priest etc.”] the blood of which is regularly brought into the interior, are not to be eaten by the priests, unlike that of “the outer sin-offerings,” whose meat is eaten by the priests (see Note 52 above). Ramban will conclude by saying that this is the interpretation of one of the Sages in the Torath Kohanim and Talmud. the verse speaks only with reference to “the inner sin-offerings,” concerning the burning of which He had already commanded,⁶⁹Above, 4:12, 21. and here Scripture came to add a negative commandment against eating them,⁷⁰The command in Chapter 4 is a positive one; Ramban is saying that the verse here adds to this a negative command, not to eat of the flesh, in addition to the positive one to burn it. There is thus an additional penalty for one who eats of it. for this section is intended to complete the laws of sin-offerings.⁷¹Ramban means to say that although Verses 17-22 clearly speak of outer sin-offerings [which are eaten], Scripture wished to complete here all laws pertaining to all sin-offerings, and thus we may interpret Verse 23 as indeed referring to inner sin-offerings (see note 68 above). This is the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean in the Torath Kohanim⁷²Torath Kohanim, Tzav 8:5. and in Tractate Zebachim.⁷³Zebachim 82 a.

וכל חטאת אשר יובא מדמה אל אהל מועד, the following comprise the sin offerings included in the verse we are discussing. 1) The bull offered as a sin offering by the High Priest; 2) the bull offered on behalf of the people who had become inadvertent victims of a faulty ruling by the High Court, known as פר העלם צבור in Talmudic parlance. 3) Both the bull and the male goat offered as sin offering on the Day of Atonement. 5) The male goats which are offered as sin offerings for inadvertent sins involving idolatry. Concerning all the above 5 sin offerings the Torah requires the blood to be offered inside the sanctuary, either on the dividing curtain or the golden altar. This is the plain meaning of the text.

וכל חטאת אשר יובא מדמה, “any of the types of sin-offering whose blood brought into the Sanctuary, etc.” Rashi comments that if the priest brought blood from a sin offering whose blood was not destined for sprinkling on the corners of the golden altar, such as the blood of the sin-offerings Aaron offered on the Day of Atonement, into the Sanctuary, then the offering is retroactively invalid. According to this the meaning of the words לכפר בקודש in our verse cannot be understood literally, as the wording assumes that it is capable of securing atonement. On the contrary, it even nullifies what otherwise would have been atonement. The meaning of the words לכפר בקודש must then be “with the intention of achieving atonement in the Sanctuary.” There is a sage who holds that the sin offering of which our verse speaks becomes invalidated only if the priest had sprinkled some of that blood on the golden altar, not if he had merely brought it within the confines of the Sanctuary. There is yet another sage who understands our verse as speaking of the type of sin offering whose blood is meant to be sprinkled inside the Sanctuary on the golden altar in the Sanctuary, and that the Torah merely informs us that it is forbidden for the priests to consume any parts of that type of sin offering. We can therefore understand the meaning of the words לכפר בקודש as quite literally: “the one that requires to be brought into the Sanctuary in order to achieve atonement, etc.’

וכל AND ALL — The word “all” serves to include in this law other sacrifices too (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 8 1; Zevachim 81b).

That is that He commanded us to burn a fire on the altar every day continuously. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "A continual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, not to go out" (Leviticus 6:6). And this is only possible with His having commanded to place fire continually on the wood in the morning and in the afternoon, as it is explained in the second chapter of Yoma and in Tractate Tamid. And in the explanation, they said that even though the fire descends from the heavens, it is a commandment to bring it from the commoners (humans). And the laws of this commandment - meaning the arrangement of the fire which they are to do every day on the altar - have already been explained in Yoma and in Tamid (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 2.)

That is that He commanded the priests to remove the ashes from off the altar every day. And this is what is called, removing the ashes. And that is His, may His name be blessed, saying, "he shall put on other vestments, and carry the ashes" (Leviticus 6:3). And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tamid and Yoma. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 2.)

That is that He commanded us that the high priest offer a regular grain offering every day in the morning and in the afternoon. And that is called the griddle-cakes of the high priest and it is also called the grain offering of the anointed priest. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "This is the offering of Aharon and his sons" (Leviticus 6:13). And the regulations of this commandment and when it is offered have already been explained in Menachot, in Yoma and in Tamid. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 3.)

That is that He commanded us with the process of the sin-offering sacrifice, according to the description that is mentioned - whatever sin-offering it may be. And that is His saying, "This is the law of the sin-offering" (Leviticus 6:18). And in Leviticus, it is also explained how it is offered, what is burnt from it and what is to be eaten. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 6.)

That is that He commanded the priests to eat the remainders of the grain offerings. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "What is left of it shall be eaten by Aharon and his sons; it shall be eaten as matzot" (Leviticus 6:9). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Tzav, Section 9:1-2) is, "'It shall be eaten' - is a commandment. Similar to this, 'her levirate husband shall come to her' (Deuteronomy 25:5) - is a commandment." This means to say that eating the remainders of the grain offerings is like the sexual intercourse of the levirate husband, which is a positive commandment and not just a permitted matter. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Menachot. And the language of the Torah about this commandment is specific to males - and that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "Every male among the Children of Aharon may eat it" (Leviticus 6:11). (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 10.)

That is that He commanded the priests to eat the remainders of the grain offerings. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "What is left of it shall be eaten by Aharon and his sons; it shall be eaten as matzot" (Leviticus 6:9). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Tzav, Section 9:1-2) is, "'It shall be eaten' - is a commandment. Similar to this, 'her levirate husband shall come to her' (Deuteronomy 25:5) - is a commandment." This means to say that eating the remainders of the grain offerings is like the sexual intercourse of the levirate husband, which is a positive commandment and not just a permitted matter. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Menachot. And the language of the Torah about this commandment is specific to males - and that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "Every male among the Children of Aharon may eat it" (Leviticus 6:11). (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 10.)