Comentário sobre Levítico 6:1

צו את אהרן ואת בניו לאמר, “command Aaron and his sons to say”. Nachmanides writes that whereas in Parshat Vayikra Moses had been directed to issue laws to the Children of Israel, here the directives are addressed to the priests. The reason is that in Vayikra the subject is the offering of sacrifices, which are brought on behalf of the Israelites at large. Here the people who act as the Israelites’ executives in this matter, i.e. the priests, are addressed. In the Midrash we find Moses being quoted as saying to G’d: “where do we ever find that when the well, i.e. the source of the water is despised and hated that the water it produces is beloved?” Moses had referred to the fact that in all the sacrifices mentioned thus far the sons of Aaron were addressed and not Aaron himself. When G’d heard this, He immediately changed the format of the directives and included Aaron personally in them so as no to leave the impression that Aaron himself was less beloved by G’d. Rashi, quoting the words of Rabbi Shimon says that whenever fulfilling one of G’d’s commandments involves expense to the party fulfilling it, the Torah must use language which is designed to spur on the party concerned to fulfill the directive. Nachmanides writes that this Rashi has been printed in the wrong place seeing that here no expense is involved for the addressees, the sons of Aaron. On the contrary, the sons of Aaron benefit from all the sacrifices, including even that of the burnt offering where the priests share in the skin of the animal that is offered up on the altar. The reason why Rabbi Shimon is quoted by Rashi at this point, must be in order to draw attention to the difference of opinion between him and the opinion expressed in the Talmud (Kidushin 29) before that, that the wording is intended to teach that the directive is effective immediately and in subsequent generations. Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the principle that the wording used here generally means that the directive becomes effective immediately and remains if force throughout the generations; he only claims that in some instances this is not the reason why the Torah employed this wording, and then the reason has to do with the expense involved in carrying out G’d’s directive. One such example is the oil to be provided for lighting the Menorah. (Exodus 27,20) a directive that could not be fulfilled until at least 8 or nine months later after the Tabernacle had been constructed and inaugurated. Similarly, in Numbers 35,2 where the Israelites are instructed to cede to the Levites certain cities including a strip of land around these cities. Seeing that the directives of the Torah were issued before the Israelites had even crossed the Jordan, and they had certainly not yet taken possession of their own lands, the directive could not have been intended to be carried out immediately. Alternatively, it is possible to argue that even carrying out the present directive involved expense to the priests, seeing that immediately following this, we hear about the offerings that Aaron and his sons had to bring on their own behalf, paying out of their own pockets. (compare 12-15) Still another approach to the meaning of the wording of our verse is that seeing Aaron and his sons would experience considerable personal inconvenience in carrying out the instructions following, this is considered as if they had been asked to spend their own funds in performing this commandment.