Cytowanie Komentarza do Samuela I 30:24

לכהן המקריב אותה, “to the Priest who offers it.” Seeing that I might have thought that this meal-offering is exclusively that of the Priest who has offered it, the Torah adds in verse 10 “it shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, every man alike.” What precisely is meant by these words? The words mean that the members of the roster for that day are all equally entitled to participate in the edible parts of that meal-offering. The arrangement of these rosters is already referred to in Kings II 11,9 “The chiefs did as Yehoyadah (High Priest) ordered, each took his men-those who were on duty that week and those who were off duty that week- etc.” Whatever accrued to the roster of the priests during the week they would share equally. This is what the Torah wrote in Deut. 18,8 חלק כחלק יאכלו, “portion for portion they shall eat it.”
The Torah here mentions each category of meal-offering separately by name first and afterwards added the words איש כאחיו, “each man alike,” to make sure that each Priest receives equal shares of each category of meal-offering, not that one Priest gets a share of the meal-offering baked in the oven whereas his colleague is compensated by getting his share from a meal-offering made in a deep pan. Even if the meal-offering consists of a mixture of fine flour and oil, מנחת הסולת, something not ready for immediate consumption as it is raw, the Priests also share in this alike. The reason the Torah teaches us this rule in connection with the most inexpensive type of offering, the meal-offering, is to make it clear that a similar rule applies to the sharing of the more expensive offerings, i.e. animal offerings. The compensation for performing the various duties in the Temple is the entitlement to the parts of the offering designated for the Priests. All Priests in a state of ritual purity belonging to the roster of the week (day) are entitled to share equally. [The week’s roster was divided into the six week days, each “roster” or משמר, being further divided into what are called בתי אבות, family groups, of which each performed the service on one of the weekdays, all participating on the Sabbath. Ed.] Although some Priests performed their part of the service individually whereas others did so in groups of two or three, each one qualified equally for the parts to be shared out. Even Priests whose duties did not require them to perform manual tasks were entitled (Taanit 26). The procedure followed was similar to the sharing of the spoils of war where the people of the “home-front” also shared equally with the soldiers who had gone into battle. (Based on Nachmanides interpreting Samuel I 30,24).

AND EVERY MEAL-OFFERING THAT IS BAKED IN THE OVEN, [AND EVERYTHING MADE IN THE BOILING POT, AND IN THE PAN, SHALL BE THE PRIESTS THAT OFFERETH IT]. The simple explanation of this verse is apparent, namely that He is commanding here that if one vows to bring one of the three kinds of meal-offering — the one baked in the oven, or made in the boiling pot, or in the pan — that they should all be given exclusively to the priest who offered them. Then He states concerning all the other meal-offerings, — such as if a person vowed to bring a meal-offering without specification of which kind, in which case he brings it of fine flour, and the meal-offering of first-fruits,⁷⁹Above, 2:14-16. which are both mixed with oil; and the meal-offering of the sinner⁸⁰Ibid., 5:11-14. and of the suspected adulteress⁸¹Numbers 5:15. which are dry [without oil and without frankincense] — that they should be divided among all the sons of Aaron,⁸²Verse 10. that is to say, among all priests of their Father’s House.⁸³The priests were divided into twenty-four groups. Each group came by turn to the Sanctuary for one week’s service. These groups were in turn subdivided into Fathers’ Houses, each House ministering for one day out of the seven. On the festivals all the groups shared equally in the Service. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 46-47. The meaning of the expression, and every meal-offering, mingled with oil, or dry — is that a meal-offering which is of fine flour only, whether it be mixed with oil or dry, which is not one of these [three] mentioned above [the one baked in the oven, or made in the boiling pot, or in the pan — belongs to all priests who were ministering on that day, and not exclusively to the priests who offered them]. The reason for the difference between them is because [in the case of the three meal-offerings mentioned above] the priest took pains in baking them, and therefore he deserves to be given a greater reward. [All this is in accordance with the plain meaning of Scripture].
Our Rabbis, however, did not want to explain the verses in this way because Scripture said, and every meal-offering, mingled with oil or dry, which includes all possible meal-offerings, since they are all either mingled with oil or dry. Therefore the Rabbis understood the expression it shall be the priest’s that offereth it [mentioned here in Verse 9 in connection with the three meal-offerings: the one baked in the oven, etc.] as meaning that it shall belong to all pure priests who are present there. Similarly, when He said, And the priest that offereth any man’s burnt-offering,⁸⁴Verse 8 — stating that the skin of the burnt-offering belongs to the priest who offered it. and the priest that maketh atonement therewith, he shall have it,⁸⁵Verse 7 — stating that the meat of the sin-offering and guilt-offering belong to the priest that made the atonement. these verses are only intended to say that they do not belong to the owners who brought them, but that in reward for offering them they belong to the pure priests who are present there, for all of them are engaged in offering them, whether physically or by command, since any individual priest or two or three of them who offered up [the particular offering], did so with the permission of all of them and acting as their deputy, and all of them would stand by the offering. As is the share of him that goeth down to the battle, so shall be the share of him that tarrieth by the baggage; they shall share alike.⁸⁶I Samuel 30:24. After He had said [in general terms] that they shall belong to the priests as a reward for their service, He explained it again in detail: and every meal-offering, mingled with oil, or dry,⁸²Verse 10. which includes all meal-offerings, shall all the sons of Aaron have, meaning all the officiating priests mentioned [in the preceding verses], one as well as another, that is to say, all clean priests of the Father’s House,⁸³The priests were divided into twenty-four groups. Each group came by turn to the Sanctuary for one week’s service. These groups were in turn subdivided into Fathers’ Houses, each House ministering for one day out of the seven. On the festivals all the groups shared equally in the Service. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 46-47. as they are all the officiating priests mentioned previously. Thus Scripture [first] mentioned the meal-offerings by their individual names — the one baked in the oven, or made in the boiling pot, or in the pan — and then mentioned them all again in a general rule, saying [that they belong to all the priests], one as well as another, meaning that one priest should only have [of the kind of meal-offering] that the other priest has, [and they cannot give one priest his share of one kind of meal-offering, and the others a share of another kind]. Even if the meal-offering was of fine flour, each is to be given his share from that offering.⁸⁷The point here is as follows. In the case of the three meal-offerings which are baked [i.e., the one baked in the oven, made in the boiling pot, and in the pan], even if the priest receives only a small part thereof, he can eat it readily. But in the case of the meal-offering of fine flour, if the share is small he will not be benefitted much by it. One might therefore think that he can receive his share from another kind of meal-offering, hence the law states that the apportionment must be only in that one kind. Scripture thus states that this law applies to meal-offerings, and all the more so to the other offerings, which are of greater monetary value. It is tradition which decides [in favor of the Rabbis’ interpretation mentioned above],⁸⁸In other words, even though the literal interpretation of the verses indicates that the three baked meal-offerings should all belong exclusively to the priest who was actively engaged in offering them, yet it is tradition which is the deciding factor that the Rabbis’ analysis of the verses, as explained above, is correct. and it is furthermore for the benefit of [all] the priests and conducive to peace in the Sanctuary.
It is possible that the interpretation of the verses according to this opinion of the Rabbis is as follows: “And every meal-offering that is baked in the oven, and everything made in the boiling pot, and in the pan, shall be the priest’s that offereth it; and every meal-offering, mingled with oil, or dry shall [also] be so, and all the sons of Aaron shall have it, one as well as another.”⁸⁹This interpretation indicates clearly that all meal-offerings are mentioned alike in Scripture with respect to the share of all ministering priests on that day.

(Netziv’s addendum – I will now be able to explain the [following] verses in I Samuel, chapter 30²⁴Verses 24 and 25.: Like the share of the one who goes down to do battle, so is the share of the one who stays with the [soldiers’] equipment; they shall share alike. It was from that day u-ma’alah (onward), that he [David] established a statute and an ordinance for Israel unto this day. The phrase “Like the share of the one who goes down to do battle, so is the share of the one who stays with the [soldiers’] equipment” does not read well. It would have been better to state, “As one who goes down to do battle so is one who stays with the [soldier’s] equipment; they shall share alike.” Also, the word u-ma’alah is used for “onward” [which really means “and above”]. It would have better to use the word ve-halah [“onward”], (a [note on this strange wording] is already provided in Bereshis Rabbah, parasha 43). In addition, it is unclear how “that he made a statute and an ordinance for Israel unto this day” relates to the simple understanding in this particular context.

הנערים THE LADS — My servants who went with me. Then, again, the others ANER, ESHCOL AND MAMRE [THEY MAY TAKE THEIR PORTION ] — Although my servants took part in the battle as it is said (Genesis 14:15) “he and his servants and smote them” — whilst Aner and his friends remained with the baggage to guard it yet they may take their share. From him (Abraham) David took a lesson when he said, (1 Samuel 30:24) “But as his part is that goeth down to the battle, so shall his part be that tarrieth by the stuff: they shall share alike”; therefore it goes on to say (1 Samuel 30:25), “And this had been so from that day — ומעלה — and had been so from former times: therefore he (David) made it a statute and an ordinance” — it does not state והלאה “and henceforward”, for the statute had already been ordained) in the days of Abram (Genesis Rabbah 43:9).