Komentarz do Kapłańska 6:2

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.]