Komentarz do Kapłańska 1:13

והקריב הכהן את הכל והקטיר, "and the priest shall offer it all and burn it up, etc." We have been told the very same thing already in the first paragraph dealing with the burnt-offering consisting of cattle. Why then did the Torah have to write this line? We cannot say that inasmuch as sheep are covered with wool the Torah wanted to include the wool in the part of the animal to be burnt up and that we could not have deduced the wool on the head of the ram and the hair of the beard of the billy-goat without a special verse, and that all these details could not have been derived from the word הכל in verse nine. The fact is that Torat Kohanim (4,57) derives the inclusion of these various kinds of animal hair in what is to be burned up from the word הכל in verse nine! Therefore, according to what we have stated that any detail applicable to burnt-offerings involving cattle applies also to burnt-offerings involving sheep, there was no need for the Torah to write a special verse containing this information! Furthermore, in our verse here the word הכל appears only next to the expression הקרבה, not to the הקטרה, the burning up of all these parts on the altar; our sages here in Torat Kohanim claim that the position of the word הכל teaches that only a priest may perform this service (bringing the animal to be burnt onto the altar), something we could not have deduced from what was written in verse 9. This makes the argument that the words from והקטיר המזבחה onwards in our verse are superfluous even stronger.

והקריב הכהן את הכל, “the priest is to offer up the whole;” the phrase refers to the priest carrying all the various pieces to be burned up on the ramp to the altar.

I believe we can best explain the reason for these words here by reference to what Torat Kohanim wrote on the words והקטיר המזבחה in our verse. I quote: "he shall burn it up even though it may have become disqualified, even though it may have left the precincts of the Tabernacle (courtyard), even though the priest offering it may have had the wrong thoughts (פגול) already during the earlier stages of offering this sacrifice, and even if it had become ritually defiled. As a result of all these inclusions I might have concluded that the burning up ceremony should take place regardless of whether the disqualifying factors had occurred before the animal was on the altar or while it was still below the altar; therefore the Torah writes והקטיר המזבחה, he is to burn it up only if it had already been on top of the altar."

It is difficult to know what is the source for the author of Torat Kohanim to derive the ruling that even if the sacrifice was already disqualified the priest must still burn up its parts. The author of Korban Aharon, aware of this problem, wrote that the fact that the Torah did not write והקטירם, "and he is to burn them up" [seeing the Torah had already written "all" concerning the הקרבה Ed.] is the source of the ruling by Torat Kohanim. If this were correct the author of Korban Aharon should have reacted similarly to the word והקריב instead of והקריבם. According to Korban Aharon, Torat Kohanim should have ruled that the priest ought to proceed with the offering in spite of the animal having suffered the kinds of disqualifications which did not affect the need for its being burned up. Seeing he did not do so, he cannot derive any הלכות, religious rulings, from the missing letter ם in the word והקריב either. The correct answer is that the author of Torat Kohanim arrives at his conclusion based on the unnecessary repetition of the word והקטיר first in verse 9 and then again in verse 13. This brings us back to our original question why this whole line beginning with the word והקטיר in verse 13 had to be written at all. That line should have appeared either in verse 9 or in verse 13 but not in both verses. The very fact that the line is superfluous entitles Torat Kohanim to use it exegetically.

עולה הוא. it is a burnt-offering. Torat Kohanim interprets the extraneous word הוא as making the slaughtering of animals to be offered as a burnt-offering on the northern side of the altar mandatory, i.e. unless the animal had been slaughtered on that side of the altar it could not be offered as a total-offering. This is the reason the Torah wrote this extraneous word only in the paragraph in which the northern side of the altar has already been mentioned, i.e. in verse 11. Clearly, the exclusion implied in the word הוא is related only to what was stated in verse 11, and there was no need to write the word הוא in the paragraph discussing a burnt-offering consisting of cattle which also discussed the need for סמיכה, the placing of the owner's weight on the animal prior to it being slaughtered. Had the word הוא occurred in that paragraph, we would have had to conclude that the act of סמיכה was mandatory and that failure to perform it would have disqualified that animal from becoming a burnt-offering. Actually, we have used the occurrence of the equally extraneous word עולה in verse 9 to establish that the act of סמיכה, i.e. the owner of the sacrifice placing his entire weight on the animal prior to its being slaughtered is not mandatory. We noted that the text hinted at some of the exclusions and inclusions respectively in the first paragraph, whereas other inclusions and exclusions respectively are hinted at in the second paragraph. We had stipulated that they all apply equally to both burnt-offerings consisting of cattle and of sheep, etc.; nonetheless there is something different about this particular exclusion which invalidates the premise concerning these two details of the burnt-offering regulations which we adhered to thus far. The two words עולה הוא, both of which are extraneous, refer to two separate commandments, i.e. the need for סמיכה, and the need to slaughter the burnt-offering on the northern side of the altar. We are therefore faced with the dilemma which of the extraneous words should serve exegetically for which of these two commandments. When we are faced with such a dilemma it is no more than reasonable to apply the extraneous word which appears next to an exclusion in its context, and the other extraneous word which appears next to an inclusion in its context. The word הוא in verse 13 is used exegetically as defining the commandment of where the animal is to be slaughtered since it appears in the text close to that commandment, whereas the word עולה which first appears in the text close to the inclusion of the סמיכה requirement is used exegetically as defining that requirement.

Torat Kohanim supplies an additional reason for using the word עולה which is inclusive as applicable to the rules of סמיכה, and the word הוא which is restrictive to the rules about where the animal must be slaughtered. Seeing that the rule of סמיכה is not even an initial requirement for all kinds of burnt-offerings, -burnt-offerings brought on behalf of the public not requiring סמיכה at all,- it is reasonable to assume that even when required initially, such a regulation should not be so essential that its absence would invalidate the offering. The requirement to slaughter a burnt-offering on the northern side of the altar applies to all kinds of burnt-offerings, however. It is possible that Torat Kohanim was unduly expansive in its exegetical use of this detail; the reason we have stated was quite adequate already. Even though the two paragraphs in question deal with one basic subject, the fact that there was room for some doubt makes it justifiable to write something extraneous. You will find, for instance, that the words עולה הוא occur again in connection with a burnt-offering consisting of a bird (1,17); in that instance Torat Kohanim uses the word עולה inclusively; even if the blood had only been squeezed out of the bird's body and not out of its head, it is still acceptable as a burnt-offering in that condition. The word הוא is again interpreted as restrictive, i.e. if the blood of that bird had been sqeezed out of its head and not out of its body, it is not acceptable as a burnt-offering. Zevachim 66 asks on this interpretation מאי תלמודא? "what is the logic behind this kind of exegesis?" The Talmud's answer is that seeing most of the blood is in the body and not in the head, squeezing the blood out of the body is more important. We see from there that the Talmud too fell back on logic in order to resolve something that had been in doubt, i.e. where to apply the words עולה and הוא respectively as inclusive and where to apply them as restrictive.