Komentarz do Kapłańska 1:16

מראתו [AND HE SHALL REMOVE] ITS CROP — The word is connected in meaning with the word רעי in Rabbinical Hebrew (or the Biblical ראי; cf. Nahum 3:6); it thus denotes the place of the רעי, the digested food, i. e. the crop (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 9).

AND HE SHALL REMOVE ‘ETH MURATHO B’NOTZATHAH.’ “Muratho refers to the place of the digested food, namely ‘its crop.’ B’notzathah means ‘together with its entrails.’ The word notzah is a term for anything which is loathsome. Similarly: for ‘natzu’ (they are become loathsome) and are wandered away.¹⁷⁵Lamentations 4:15. That is what Onkelos intended in translating ‘b’notzathah’ as b’uchleih (with its digested food). This is also the interpretation of Aba Yosei ben Chanan who said¹⁷²Zebachim 65a. that he removes the stomach together with it [i.e., the crop]. But our Rabbis have said:¹⁷⁶Zebachim 65b. he cuts out with a knife an opening around the crop like a flap, and removes it together with the feathers [on the skin].” This is Rashi’s language.
But it is not correct. For the word notzah in all places only means actual feathers. Similarly, for ‘natzu’ and are wandered away¹⁷⁵Lamentations 4:15. means that they have acquired feathers [wings] to fly away from their places and go into exile, and there too they will [constantly] wander, not finding a resting-place. Similarly: for ‘natzoh’ (she must fly away) and get away.¹⁷⁷Jeremiah 48:9. Here too, the word natzoh is derived from the original root meaning “feathers” — hence: “she must fly away.” The Jerusalem Targum rendered [the above-mentioned verse: for ‘natzu’ and are wandered away]:¹⁷⁵Lamentations 4:15. “for they are ‘quarrelsome’ and have also wandered away.” The Targum thus derived the word natzu from the expression, when men ‘yinatzu’ (strive) together,¹⁷⁸Deuteronomy 25:11. and the verse is thus stating that “they strive with all the nations and wander away from them, and do not continue to live among them.” This is a correct interpretation. But the word notzah in the sense of “loathsome” as the Rabbi [Rashi] has it, is not found. The interpretation of Aba Yosei which made it incumbent upon the priest to take also the stomach with the crop, is [not because he considers the word b’notzathah to mean “the place of its entrails,” as Rashi understood him, but rather] because the crop and the gullet together with the stomach, comprising the organs for the digestion of food [in the bird], are all included in the term muratho, because in the stomach the food turns into r’ie (dung). Aba Yosei thus does not differ at all with the First Sage who says that he should take it with the “feathers,” for we have been taught in a Mishnah of the sixth chapter of Tractate Zebachim¹⁷⁹Zebachim 64b. [with reference to the order of the burnt-offering of the bird]: “He [i.e. the priest] came then to the body, and removed the crop and the feathers and the entrails that came forth with the crop, and cast them on the place of ashes.” This Mishnah is in accordance with the teaching of Aba Yosei¹⁸⁰For according to the Sages he removes only the crop but not the entrails. and yet it mentions “the feathers!”¹⁸¹This proves that Aba Yosei also interprets the word b’notzathah to mean with “its feathers,” and not, as Rashi explained it. that Aba Yosei interprets it to mean “the place of its digested food, namely the crop.”
Onkelos’ opinion [in translating b’notzathah as b’uchleih, is not because he considered this to be the Aramaic rendition of the word b’notzathah, so that you might think that he is of the opinion that the Hebrew word means “the place of its digested food,” as Rashi thought, but rather Onkelos’ opinion] is like that of the Sages, that he removed only the crop and its feathers together with the food therein which is the mur’ah [but he did not remove its entrails]. Since the priest takes hold of the crop and removes the food therein with it, therefore Onkelos rendered it: “and he shall remove yath zfokeih b’uchleih,” the expression being as if it had said: “and he shall remove uchleih bizfokeih,”¹⁸²Ramban is thus saying that Onkelos in translating the Hebrew phrase muratho b’notzathah as yath zfokeih b’uchleih, did not put it in the order of the wording of the Hebrew; instead, it is as if he had inverted it and rendered it yath uchleih bizfokeih, as the Aramaic uchleih is the equivalent of the Hebrew muratho, and the Aramaic bizfokeih is the equivalent of the Hebrew b’notzathah, as explained in the text. The reason for this change is, as explained by Ramban, because the food (muratho) is only removable by means of taking away the crop (zfokeih). Ramban then brings a number of proofs to illustrate that it is Onkelos’ habit to change the order of the Hebrew wording when it appears better to him to do so. for uchleih [according to Onkelos] is the Aramaic for the Hebrew muratho [as muratho is associated with the word r’ie — “dung,” and “food” turns into dung], whereas zfokeih is the translation for the Hebrew b’notzathah [as will be explained]. The verse [according to Onkelos] thus means as follows: he should remove the mur’ah, which is the food, with the plumage upon it, meaning that he takes the crop with its skin and the feathers upon it. In a similar way Onkelos translated [the Hebrew ‘ki sh’mi b’kirbo’ — for My Name is in him¹⁸³Exodus 23:21.]: arei bishmi meimreih (“for in My Name is his word”),¹⁸⁴I.e., he speaks in My Name. which, according to the Hebrew, he should have rendered into Aramaic as follows: arei sh’mi b’meimreih (for My Name is in his word). But Onkelos changed the order of the wording because of a certain reason known to him.¹⁸⁵See Ramban ibid., Verse 20 (towards the end — Vol. II, p. 413) where he explains Onkelos’ intent in that translation. So also he translated the verse: And the two ends of the two wreathen chains¹⁸⁶Ibid., 28:25. — “and the two wreathen chains of the two ends.” There are many other such cases.

מוראתו, the expression occurs both in Nachum 3,6 and in Tzefaniah 3,1, and in both of these instances it refers to a despicable spectacle. Here too, it refers primarily to the feces.

והסיר את מוראתו, “he shall remove its crop;” Rashi explained that seeing that this bird had consumed food which was basically stolen, [as opposed to the ruminants, which feed on grass owned by its owners or in areas which are ownerless, Ed.] this had to be removed prior to the bird being able to serve as a vehicle for its owner’s atonement. The reason why not the whole entrails had to be removed for the same reason, is that the food in it had already been digested and could not be identified as such.

The place of excrement; this is the crop. רעי means excrement, as in (Nachum 3:6): “ושמתיך כראי (and I will make you like dung).” In the language of the Sages רעי is with an ע, for the א and the ע are interchangeable.

אל מקום הדשן, “in the place for the ashes.” Chanina, son of Antignos, says (Sifra) that there were two such locations. The first one was situated east of the ramp leading to the altar, and the second one was situated east of the altar itself. The one that was located east of the ramp was used for the remainders of the bird offerings, as well as the ashes of the altar inside the Sanctuary, and the ashes from the candlestick, whereas the one east of the altar was used for ashes that originated from the burning of the remains of sacrificial animals that had become disqualified by a faulty procedure, or because the owners had not eaten all of their parts in the time allocated for it.

בנצתה means together with its entrails (not with its feathers which meaning the word נוצה usually has). The word נוצה is really an expression for anything that is loathsome. Similar is (Lamentations 4:15) “[depart, depart, touch not:] for they are become loathsome (נצו) and are fled away”.) That is also what Onkelos means when he translates באוכליה, “with the digested food” found in the entrails (excrement). This, too, is the interpretation of the verse given by Abba José ben Chanan who states: he removes the stomach (being the organ which contains digested food) together with it (the crop). But our Rabbis, of blessed memory, taking נוצה; in its usual sense of “feathers”, say: with a knife he cuts out around the crop an opening like a flap and removes it together with the feathers on the skin (of that spot) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 9; Zevachim 65a). — In the case of the burnt offering of the cattle which eats only from the crib of its owner it is stated, (v. 13) “But he shall lave the inwards and the legs with water: and [the priest] shall offer it”; in the case of a fowl, however, which feeds itself from what it picks up of other people’s property (lit., “of robbery”) it states, “he shall cast the entrails away”, because it (the bird) eats that which is stolen (Leviticus Rabbah 3 4).

בנוצתה, feathers with its crop.

East of the ramp. [Rashi knows that it is eastward of the ramp] because Scripture should have written (v. 16): “throw it to the place of the ashes,” and the place of ashes is explained in Parshas Tzav (6:3) that it is beside the altar. Rather, [it must be that] “beside” that is written here refers to the ramp, and “beside” means that the ramp was beside the altar. [This is because] the altar was thirty-two amoh by thirty-two amoh, the ramp’s width was on the altar’s southern side, and the ramp’s width was sixteen amoh and its length thirty-two amoh. The [corner formed by the] rest of the amos in width that remained on the altar’s southern side, where it intersected with the ramp’s eastern side, was where they placed the bird’s crop and the ashes that had been lifted [from the altar]. This is taught in the first chapter of Tamid (Mishnah 4).

אצל המזבח קדמה BESIDE THE ALTAR ON THE EAST — i. e. at the east of the כבש (the inclined ascent leading to the top of the altar which was on the south of the altar) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 9 3).

Were absorbed there. [Rashi knows this] because it should say “upon the ashes.” Rather, it must be that it comes to teach that the ashes were absorbed there, and only the place was there [and no ashes].

אל מקום הדשן BY THE PLACE OF THE ASHES — i. e. that place where they deposited the ashes removed from the altar (תרומת הדשן) each morning (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 6:3, 4) and the ashes removed from the inner altar and the candelabrum (Meilah 12a;Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 9 3). All these miraculously sunk there in their place (i. e. on the very spot where they were deposited) (Yoma 21a).