Comentário sobre Levítico 1:5

הכהנים …‎ושחט …והקריבו AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER … AND THE PRIESTS SHALL OFFER [THE BLOOD] — All the rites from “receiving the blood in a vessel” (which is implied in והקריבו) and onwards are the duty of the priesthood. This teaches about the slaughtering that it is valid even if performed by a layman (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 2; Zevachim 32a).

AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER THE BULL BEFORE THE ETERNAL. AND THE PRIESTS, AARON’S SONS, SHALL OFFER THE BLOOD. “All acts from receiving [the blood in a vessel] onwards are the duty of the priests. This teaches that the slaughtering [of the offering] is valid if performed by a zar (non-priest). ‘V’hikrivu’ (and they shall offer …) — this refers to ‘receiving’ [the blood], and the sense thereof is the bringing [of the blood to the altar]. Thus we learn that both of them [receiving the blood and bringing it to the altar], are to be done by Aaron’s sons.” This is Rashi’s language.
But it is not correct.⁸⁴Ramban understood Rashi as saying that the word v’hikrivu has a primary meaning of “receiving” the blood in a vessel, which is the first process after the “slaughtering” mentioned immediately before in the verse, and a subsidiary meaning [from the root ‘karav’, to bring near] of “bringing” it to the altar. To this Ramban objects that ‘v’hikrivu’ is not derived from the root ‘karav’, implying bringing near, and hence cannot sustain the interpretation of “bringing it near” the altar even as a subsidiary meaning. Rather, it is associated with the word ‘korban’ (offering), and has only one meaning, that of “receiving” the blood, which is the first stage in offering. If so, whence do we know that bringing it near the altar may also be done only by priests [and is invalid if done by a non-priest]? To this Ramban replies that it is a logical deduction [“if receiving the blood may only be done by priests, it follows ‘all the more’ that bringing it to the altar, which is a later stage in its offering, has this requirement”]. A careful reading of Rashi and Ramban clearly indicates this interpretation. Instead, the Midrash of our Rabbis states:⁸⁵Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 4:4. “V’hikrivu — this is the receiving of the blood.” For the term v’hikrivu does not mean the bringing of the blood near to the altar, namely the holachah (carrying of it). Instead, v’hikrivu is an expression similar to the word korban (offering) and it signifies receiving [of the blood in a vessel] and sprinkling it upon the altar. Thus He mentioned bringing it [to the door of the Tent of Meeting], laying hands on it, and slaughtering it with reference to the owner of the offering, and after the slaughtering He immediately mentioned the sons of Aaron. It accordingly follows that receiving the blood is in itself a duty to be performed by the priests, and may only be done by a qualified priest and with vessels dedicated to the Temple Service; and [it follows] all the more that bringing it to the altar and sprinkling it [can be done only by a qualified priest]. Moreover, even carrying of the limbs to the ramp [leading to the altar] is invalid if done by a non-priest, for so the Rabbis interpreted:⁸⁶Zebachim 4a. “And the priest shall offer it all, and cause it to ascend in fumes upon the altar⁸⁷Further, Verse 13. — this refers to carrying of the limbs to the ramp.” If so, carrying the blood to the altar also may be done only by a priest with all the conditions of priesthood.

והקריבו, the term includes catching the blood after slaughtering the sacrifice, bringing it to the altar and performing the sprinkling of it on the appropriate parts of the altar. Our sages also explain the word והקריבו in this sense. (compare Zevachim 7)

ושחט את בן הבקר, “He will slaughter the young bull, etc.” the word בן means that the bull must not be over age. The word בן is used in a similar way when the Torah refers to בני אהרן in our verse, i.e. over aged priests are not fit to perform this service in the Tabernacle. Alternately, the meaning of the word בן here could be that seeing that Aaron personally, as opposed to his sons, had had some active part in the disastrous affair of the golden calf, he is not now charged personally with performing this sacrificial service, and it is reserved for his sons. This led to a prayer by Aaron asking for G’d’s mercy on him. This accounts for the fact that the next portion addresses G’d’s command specifically to Aaron himself, and instructs him as well as his sons to perform the rites involving the burnt offering (as well as others).

ושחט את בן הבקר, ”he will slaughter the bull, etc.” We have a tradition (Sifra Vayikra 4,2) that slaughtering the sacrificial animal by a non priest (layman) was in order. This is the reason the Torah wrote the word: “he will slaughter,” without being precise as to who will perform this procedure. In other words, “anyone.” Whenever the Torah defines procedures in the plural, such as “they will sprinkle,” “they will burn, etc.,” it invariably refers to priests who have been mentioned previously in that context. If such a plural is followed by a singular such as in verse 6, והפשיט את העולה, “he will skin the burnt-offering;” this means that whoever had performed the last procedure will continue with the present procedure. [The author has to show that the use of the singular does not always mean that a non priest could perform such a procedure. Ed]. The reason that the Torah uses the word בן בקר all of a sudden instead of the word פר used to describe a bull previously, is that the age of the animal, i.e. not over 2 years old is meant here. The term עגל, calf, is used for animals up to one year old, whereas the term פר indicates that the animal is in its third year. Whenever the Torah speaks of כבש or כבשים, one year old sheep (male) are meant, whereas the two year old male sheep are called איל.
Rabbi Meir (in Rosh Hashanah 10) claimed that when the Torah speaks of עגל without adding that it is one year old, what is meant is a one-year old calf. When the Torah speaks of בן בקר a two year old bull is meant. When the Torah speaks of פר without specifying further, a three year old bull is meant.
In Torat Kohanim (Sifra Vayikra 3,6) we are taught that the reason an עגל is a one year old calf is that the Torah speaks in Leviticus 9,3 of “a one year old calf and a one year old sheep.” The reason we know that the term בן בקר applies to a two year old bull is also because the Torah writes in 9,2 עגל בן בקר לחטאת ואיל לעולה תמימים, “a two year old male calf as sin-offering, and a ram as burnt-offering, they are to be flawless.” Just as the calf mentioned there is two years old so the ram is two years old. Just as both have to be flawless, so both have to be of the same age (approx.). Thus far Torat Kohanim. However, speaking of male goats, when it is referred to as שעיר without adjective it is under one year old. Once it is a year old it is referred to as שעיר עזים.

Valid by a non-kohein. Since it is written “he shall slaughter” without specifying who slaughters, and afterwards it is written: “The kohanim shall bring,” this implies that the slaughter is valid even when done by a nonkohein. The explanation is: If you would think that receiving [the blood] is permitted by a non-kohein, and it is a mitzvah of the Kohanim [only] from carrying and onwards, and accordingly, “they shall bring” means carrying, then it should mention receiving together with slaughtering before the phrase, “and the sons of Aharon will bring.” Since it did not mention it there, perforce that “they shall bring” means receiving (Nachalas Yaakov). This is the explanation: Certainly, this word “they shall bring” refers to receiving, since we cannot say it refers to carrying because carrying is not necessarily a Temple service, for if the animal was slaughtered close enough to the altar that no carrying would be needed, then surely no carrying need to be done. If so, we must say that “they shall bring” is receiving, which is an indispensable mitzvah. However, why does Scripture use the expression “they shall bring”? Rather, it implies carrying as well, and we [therefore] learn that both [receiving and carrying] require a kohein (Gur Aryeh).

ושחט, “he will slaughter, etc.” the Torah used the singular mode as ordinarily one person performs that act. On the other hand, when describing the steps following the act of slaughtering, the Torah uses the plural mode, as a number of priests are usually involved in that.

וסמך ושחט, “he will place his hands and slaughter;” up until this point the owners, not being priests, are basically permitted to perform these procedures, provided that they are ritually clean; from this point on the commandment applies only to the priests. The reason the two words are followed in both instances with the words: “in the presence of the Lord,” is that both procedures are carried out at the same location.

'‎לפני ה‎‎‎ means in the forecourt.

אשר פתח אהל מועד, not the golden altar which was inside the Tabernacle.

In the court. But not in the Tent of Meeting, for if [Scripture wants to specify a location that is even holier than the entrance to the Tent, or the Temple courts,] it should have written: “Before Hashem, in front of the Ark-cover,” or “Before Hashem, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.”

את בן הבקר, “the bullock;” the expression: בן הבקר implies that the animal is male and young, as it is forbidden to offer diseased or overage animals.(Compare Malachi 1,8 הקריבהו נא לפחתך, “just offer it to your governor!”) [The prophet reminds people that they would not dare offer a governor something less than first rate as he becomes aware of it immediately and will feel insulted. Ed.]

את בן הבקר, this term describes the animal as being in its youth, not diseased, in accordance with the maxim expressed in Maleachi 1,8: הקריבהו לפחתך, “would you offer such (diseased animal) to your Governor?”

והקריבו AND [THE PRIESTS] SHALL OFFER [THE BLOOD] — This must refer to “receiving the blood in a vessel”, since this is the first rite mentioned after the slaughtering of the animal, but really it implies the bringing of the blood to the altar; we thus learn that both of them (receiving of the blood and bringing it to the altar) as well as all the succeeding rites are priestly duties (cf. Zevachim 4a):

An expression of carrying. I.e., although [“they shall bring”] literally means carrying [the blood] to the altar, nevertheless, since the receiving of the blood [in a vessel] is the first act after slaughtering and precedes carrying, perforce, we must explain [“they shall bring”] as referring to the receiving. We learn carrying [requires a Kohein] as well through a kal vachomer [Re”m].

בני אהרן, the Torah does not mean that other priests are not qualified, but used the sons of Aaron as examples of priests in their prime. This corresponds to what the Talmud stated in tractate Chulin folio 24, according to which priests have to retire from active service when their hands and feet have become red as a sign of weakness.

'את בן הבקר לפני ה, “the bullock before the Lord;” the one who slaughters it should be doing so in the name of the Lord, even if he has a long knife and himself stands outside consecrated earth. Shimon the Yemenite, disagreeing and understanding the words “before the Lord,” has been quoted as saying: whence do I derive the rule that the hand of the slaughterer should be within the foreleg of the animal being slaughtered, i.e. while he is on consecrated ground? You must read the words: 'את בן הבקר לפני ה, as one phrase (without comma) [not supported by the cantillation marks. Ed.]

בני אהרן — One might think that these duties may be performed also by חללים (priests who have lost their priestly status for reasons connected with their birth or marriage)! Scripture, however, adds הכהנים, the priests (i.e. they must not only be descendants of Aaron but also “priests” — fit for priesthood, and חללים are excluded from priestly functions) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 6).

Perhaps those unfit? The verse says: You might ask: [If so,] let it not say “the sons of Aharon”? The Sages already answered in the Gemoro: Perhaps I should exclude those unfit and not those with a blemish? The verse says: “The sons of Aharon” — just as Aharon is valid because he is unblemished, so too, his sons are valid... However, [you might ask:] In Parshas Emor we include those with a blemish from the verse: “[the sons of Aharon]”? See Minchas Yaakov who answers. You might ask: Why do I need a verse to invalidate those with a blemish, you can derive it from what is written (21:18): “For any man who has a blemish [shall not approach]”? The answer is: There, it refers to the service on the altar, as it is written: (Ibid. 21): “Shall not approach to offer the fireofferings of Adonoy.” But here it includes receiving [the blood] and all the rest of the service. Alternatively, it informs that he transgresses on a positive commandment and a negative commandment, for this is what it implies: “The sons of Aharon” — just as Aharon is unblemished, so too every unblemished kohein is permitted to bring, [but a blemished kohein is not permitted to bring]. A negative commandment that is derived by implication from a positive commandment is considered a positive commandment. Thus, it informs us that he transgresses a negative commandment and a positive one (Gur Aryeh).

בני אהרן, “the sons of Aaron.” To exclude elderly priests whose hands might tremble. Our sages in the Talmud tractate Chulin, folio 24 stated that the age or appearance of age, when a priest becomes disqualified from slaughtering is when his hands begin to tremble.

את הדם …וזרקו את הדם [AND THE PRIESTS … SHALL OFFER] THE BLOOD AND SHALL SPRINKLE THE BLOOD — Why does Scripture use the word דם twice (instead of saying והקריבו את הדם וזרקוהו)? In order to include in the command of sprinkling also the blood of an עולה which has been commingled with blood of the same kind of sacrifice (i. e. with the blood of another burnt offering) or with that of a different kind (that of a peace — offering or a guilt — offering). One might think that this law applies also if it has been commingled with that of sacrifices unfit for sacrifice or with that of sin — offerings whose blood has to be sprinkled in the “Interior’ (the Holy Place) or with that of sin — offerings whose blood has to be sprinkled outside (in the court), although these (i. e., the blood of the (חטאות פנימיות וחיצוניות) has to be sprinkled above the red line (that marks the division between the upper and the lower halves of the altar) and it (the blood of the עולה) below! Scripture, however, states of an עולה in another place (v. 11) ‘‘[and he shall sprinkle] its blood (דמו)” (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 7-8; Zevachim 81).

Which was mixed with [other blood of its type or of another type]. “Of its type” means [for example that] the blood of Reuven’s burnt-offering [that was mixed] with the blood of Shimon’s burnt-offering. “Or of another type” [refers to] the blood of a burnt-offering [which was mixed] with the blood of an exchanged offering or with the blood of a guilt-offering or with the blood of any sacrifice whose blood is sprinkled below the red line, such as the blood of a burnt-offering. There is no problem since they are all sprinkled below the red line. [You might ask:] The blood of the burnt-offering requires two applications [of the blood by sprinkling] that are four [in direction], and some of the other [types of] blood require only one application? This is no problem, for he may place all the blood in one application. However, the opposite is not true, because some of the [types of] blood require only one application, and [by placing more than one application] he would transgress the negative commandment of “do not add [to the mitzvos].”

אהרן, who, age notwithstanding [he was 85 at this time, Ed.] was still without physical blemish.הכהנים, the priests, who had not forfeited their status due to having committed acts that would disqualify them, from Temple service.

וזרקו AND [THE PRIESTS] … SHALL DASH [THE BLOOD ROUND ABOUT] — He (the priest) stands below and dashes the blood from the vessel upon the altar wall below the red line over against the two diagonally opposite corners (the north — east and the south — west corners so that there is blood on the four sides). That is what Scripture means when it says, סביב, “round about” — that the blood shall be put upon all the four sides of the altar. Or I might think that it means he (the priest) shall place it (the blood) right round the altar as a line! Scripture, however, states, וזרקו, “and they shall dash [the blood]” (i. e. fling it; cf. Exodus 9:8; thus implying that he must be standing some distance away), and it is impossible to put it right round the altar by flinging it against it. — The explanation given above as to how it was actually done is arrived at by the following argument: If we go only by the meaning of the word וזרקו alone, one might have thought that it would suffice with one “flinging” only (that we need merely fling the blood against one side of the altar)! Scripture, however, adds סביב, “round about”! How then can this be done? He makes two flingings but in such a manner that they virtually constitute four, as stated above). (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 9)

“Inner” sin-offerings. Their blood is sprinkled on the inner Holy Curtain and on the inner altar.

אשר פתח אוהל מועד {AND THEY SHALL SPRINKLE THE BLOOD ROUND ABOUT THE ALTAR} THAT IS BY THE ENTRANCE OF THE APPOINTED TENT — but not at times when it (the appointed tent) had already been dismantled, even though the altar itself were still in position, for then it is not by the entrance of the appointed tent (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 14).

“Outer” sin-offerings. Their blood is sprinkled on the outer altar.

Where these, [the inner ones, require sprinkling] above. Meaning: Above the red line.

“Its blood.” Meaning: This excludes the case where its blood was mixed with the blood of an inner or outer sin-offering. What should he do if the blood was mixed? He should spill it into the amoh (the drainage ditch in the courtyard). Similarly, if blood that is sprinkled above the red line was mixed with blood that is sprinkled below he should spill it into the amoh as well.

Stands below. Meaning: on the ground and not on the ramp.

Two applications that are four. Meaning: The sprinkling is from the vessel in which the kohein received the blood, and he sprinkles on the altar’s wall opposite the edge of the altar’s northeastern corner. The blood spreads on the corner’s two directions like a Greek “Ô (gamma) which is like our ך that is inverted. Then, he goes to the southwestern corner, diagonally opposite, and sprinkles from the vessel towards the edge of the corner like a “Ã.” Thus, with these two applications, one on the northeastern corner and one on the southwestern corner, the sprinkled blood appears on four directions of the altar. This is what is meant by “all around.”

Not when it is taken apart. Otherwise, why does it say: “The entrance of the Tent of Meeting”? Above, it is already written: “The entrance of the Tent of Meeting”!