레위기 2:12의 인용 해설

בראשית; Rashi comments on this word as follows: “Rabbi Yitzchok said that there was not really any need to commence the Torah before the beginning of chapter 12 in Exodus, when G-d addressed the Jewish nation with legislation about the forthcoming Passover. He only did so in order to tell mankind that He owns the earth and therefore can allocate parts of it to those, whom He chooses, i.e. that the Israelites did not rob the Canaanites of their land, which had never been rightfully theirs. Rashi therefore considers the laws about Passover as the first commandment given to the Jewish people. If we were to counter that the seven universal laws that apply to all of mankind apply to us also, and these had been given many years before there was an Avraham, even, the answer is that what Rashi meant was the Passover legislation was the first commandment given to the Jewish people when all of them were present during that address. (Exodus 12,3) To the question that the mere idea of the Canaanites arguing that the Israelites had stolen their land, seeing that what belongs to the slave automatically belongs to his master, and Canaan (Noach’s grandson) had been demoted to being a slave by his grandfather ever since he had been cursed, so how could they have ever owned it? (compare Genesis 9,26) Canaan’s descendants had been slaves of Shem, the great-grandfather of Avraham ever since! Rashi himself pointed this out already on Genesis 12,6. The Canaanites, as alluded to in that verse, had robbed the descendants of Shem of their heritage! We would have to answer that the Canaanites i.e. the tribes making up that kingdom, also contained kings (King of Chatzor) and others who were not descended from the original Canaan. (Compare Joshua, beginning chapter 11) The latter might even have been descended from Shem, so that the Israelites would have had a legal claim on the land they occupied as they were rightful owners. An alternate way of explaining why the Torah commenced with the word (and the story that follows) of בראשית is this. It is to inform us of the sequence in which this material universe came into existence and how once created it was allocated to the creatures inhabiting it, as Rashi explained, i.e. to prove that the Canaanites had no legal claim to dispute the Jews’ viewing it as their inheritance, ancestral heritage, by claiming that rightfully Eylam had a legal claim to it. [Eylam was Shem’s firstborn son, (Genesis 10,21, whereas Avraham was a descendant of Shem’s youngest son Arpachshad, basing themselves on what is written in Genesis 11,13 where this son is listed last, not first as in 10,21. Ed.] Yet another reason for the Torah commencing with the words: בראשית ברא אלוקים, “at the beginning G-d created, etc.;” is to state categorically that the universe in which we live did not exist eternally, or is the result of “the big bang,” but was created by a Creator. When Rashi states that G-d allocated the land of Israel to the Israelites מרצונו, “as an expression of His goodwill,” this is an implied warning that such an allocation was not absolute and irreversible for all future time, otherwise how could He take it back by exiling its people and reallocate it to someone else? Rashi also makes the point that the word ראשית, whenever it occurs in the Bible is invariably linked to the word following it. The author, supporting Rashi, cites an example from Leviticus 2,12: קרבן ראשית תקריבו אותם, “you are to present them as an initial offering.” [Rabbi Chavell, in his annotations, already pointed out that the author’s statement is not quite accurate, pointing to Deuteronomy 33,21, וירא ראשית לו. Ed.]

so auch die Rampe. Die Heiligung des Altars wird Exod. 40, 10 mit den Worten geboten: וקדשת את המזבח; aus dem Wörtchen את wird geschlossen, dass nicht nur der Altar selbst, sondern auch die zu dem Altar gehörende Rampe mit geheiligt worden ist. Wie der Altar das auf ihn Heraufgekommene heiligt, so deshalb auch die Rampe (Talmud). Der Sifra führt hierfür eine andere Schriftstelle an, wo es nicht את המזבח sondern אל המזבח heisst, nämlich den Schriftvers (Lev. 2, 12): ואל המזבח לא יעלו לריח ניחח, Sauerteig und Honig dürfen nicht zum Altar heraufgebracht werden zum Wohlgeruch. Wäre nur das Darbringen auf dem Altar selbst verboten, so hätte es heissen müssen: ועל המזבח; da es aber heisst ואל המזבח, zu dem Altare hin, so wird daraus geschlossen, dass auch das Hinauftragen auf die Rampe schon verboten ist. Wie also hier inbezug auf das Darbringen die Rampe dem Altar gleichgestellt wird, so heiligt auch die Rampe ebenso wie der Altar das, was auf sie heraufgekommen ist.

והקריב על זבח התודה, “he shall offer with the meat part of the thanksgiving offering, etc.” The thanksgiving offering consists of several parts, a peace offering described as זבח השלמים, breads, both unleavened and leavened. He will bring it all to the (side of) the altar and the leavened loaves will be considered the major component [although they are 10 loaves out of a total of forty loaves. Ed.] The reason that the Torah uses the word עליו, “in addition to it,” stressing that the leavened loaves are the principal component, is because the unleavened loaves outnumber the leavened loaves and we would otherwise have thought that they outrank the leavened loaves in that offering. Nachmanides writes that he is amazed that the Torah did not exclude the thanksgiving offering as one to which the prohibition of bringing it to the altar is applied, just as it did state this in connection with bringing of the בכורים, the first fruit offerings. [I suppose the references are to Leviticus 2,12 where no mention of exceptions are made at all, and Leviticus 23,17 where the Torah specifically exempts this offering by writing it is to consist of leavened loaves. I have not yet found where Nachmanides writes what our author attributes to him. Maybe Nachmanides’ comment on verse 14 is meant. Ed.] Nachmanides poses a problem that is no problem at all, seeing that in the prohibition of leavened products for the altar, the Torah stresses that bringing leavened products to the altar is prohibited. Seeing that the loaves of these offerings mentioned here are not presented on the altar, they are in a different category and cannot be lumped together with the firstling offerings mentioned elsewhere. The loaves of the thanksgiving offering are only heaved by the priest, but not deposited on the altar. Seeing they are all being consumed, what would be the point in depositing them on the altar where things are deposited for burning up? Nachmanides also suggests that seeing that the ריח ניחוח, pleasant fragrance, enjoyed by G’d, is not an issue in these offerings, the donor not having to restore himself in G’d’s grace, there was no need at all to refer to the admissibility or not of leavened products. Perhaps there was not even any cause for the Torah to mention any of this dispensation of the restriction on offering leavened products on the altar, seeing that this offering was accompanied by animal sacrifices which achieved the ריח ניחוח status through the parts of it which were burned up on the altar. At any rate, -Nachmanides- speaking, I have already pointed out earlier that the need for ריח ניחוח is not an issue in voluntary offerings at all, as the people presenting those had not fallen out of grace with G’d, and would not regain their grace except by presenting something described as ריח ניחוח.