Comentário sobre Levítico 6:4

‎ ופשט את בגדיו ‎ AND HE SHALL PUT OFF HIS GARMENTS — This is not compulsory (cf., however, Nachmanides) but it is a matter of decency so that he should not, through removing the ashes, soil the garments in which he has regularly to minister at the altar; in the clothes he wore when he boiled the pot for his master (a menial task) he should not pour out a glass of wine for him (an honourable office). On this account it states: And he shall put on other garments — inferior to those in which he ministers at the altar (Yoma 23b; Shabbat 114a).

AND HE SHALL PUT OFF HIS GARMENTS, [AND PUT ON OTHER GARMENTS, AND CARRY FORTH THE ASHES WITHOUT THE CAMP UNTO A CLEAN PLACE].³⁴The subject-matter of this verse [4] should be clearly distinguished from that of the preceding verse. In Verse 3 the Torah commanded the priests to remove the ashes daily from the altar. This involved the priest’s taking a silver pan and going up to the top of the altar, and afterwards “he cleared away the cinders on either side and he scooped up the ashes in the center. He then descended, and when he reached the pavement he turned his face to the north and went along the east side of the ascent for about ten cubits, and then made a heap of the cinders on the pavement three handbreadths away from the ascent” (Tamid 28 b). This process of course did not remove all the ashes from upon the altar. This was done from time to time when there was a need for it, when so much accumulated that there was no more room on the woodpile. Then it was removed to a place outside the camp or Jerusalem. It is this latter subject which is the theme of the present verse. “This was not compulsory for him to do so, but it would be a matter of propriety, so that he should not soil the garments in which he regularly ministers at the altar, by the removal of the ashes to a place without the camp. Garments worn when boiling the pot for one’s master, one should not wear when pouring out a glass of wine for him. That is why He said, and he shall put on other garments — of [a quality] inferior [to those in which he ministers at the altar].” This is Rashi’s language. Now the intent of our Rabbis in this remark was to state that the taking of the ashes [to a place outside the camp] must be done with the priests wearing the priestly garments, and thus the other garments [mentioned in the verse] are not ordinary clothes. Thus I do not know the source for that which the Rabbi [Rashi] said, that “it was not compulsory” [that he remove the garments in which he performs the regular Divine Service, and put on other garments when taking out the ashes to a place outside the camp]. For it would appear that it is a positive commandment to the priest, that the garments in which he performs the acts of offering, including the [daily] lifting up of the ashes, be clean ones, and that he must not perform the regular Divine Service with those garments in which he takes the ashes [outside the camp]. This commandment [of the changing of the garments] is of the nature of a servant’s etiquette towards his master. Therefore the priests should have more expensive garments for performing the acts of offering, and ones of inferior quality for removing the ashes [to a place outside the camp or city of Jerusalem].
All this is in accordance with this reasoning which the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote [i.e., that the removal of the ashes must be done in priestly garments]. But there are some of our Rabbis mentioned there in Tractate Yoma³⁵Yoma 23 b. See my Hebrew commentary p. 29, that the Sage holding this opinion is Rabbi Eliezer. who say that the taking out of the ashes did not have to be done in priestly garments. Thus the verse stating, and he shall put on other garments means “ordinary clothes,” and this is also the plain meaning of the verse, commanding the priest that he should not soil the linen garments, which are the holy garments,³⁶Further, 16:32. with the taking out of the ashes; instead he is to put on ordinary clothes.

ופשט את בגדיו ולבש בגדים אחרים, “the priest will divest himself of his clothes and shall don other garments.” Rashi writes that this language does not make this procedure obligatory. (although it is good manners to do so, so as not to soil the special garments he wears during performing other duties) Nachmanides writes that he does not know of any reason that would indicate that what is written here is not obligatory. Surely it is a duty for the priest not to wear the regular priestly garments while engaged in a task that would soil those garments, such as when he removes the ashes. Even when engaged in just הרמת הדשן, the removal of the ash, or incompletely consumed incense, from the golden altar in the Sanctuary itself, an activity that is rated as part of the Temple service, priestly garments must be worn, though they may be of an inferior quality. There is an opinion according to which the word אחרים that we understood as “alternate, others,” but sacred garments, does not refer to inferior priestly garments, but to ordinary garments such as the ones worn by non-priests. The carrying of the ashes outside the Temple precincts was simply not considered as part of the Temple service.

Clothes in which he cooked. If Scripture had written: “He shall [then] remove his garments and dress in others,” I would understand that it is an obligation: If he wore [until] now priestly garments, he should now wear non-sacred garments, or vice versa. However, now that it is written, “He shall [then] remove his garments and dress in other garments,” this implies garments like the first ones, i.e., if the first ones were non-sacred, he should now wear non-sacred ones as well. If so, what is the difference between the first ones and the second ones? Therefore, Rashi explains that the other garments are of lesser worth than these, but both are sacred garments. If so, why does he need to remove them? Perforce [it is because of] good manners: “This is not [obligatory,] but good manners.”

והוציא, same as להוציא, “in order to remove the ashes.” The absence of the word “the priest,” here is an indication that even a priest who is disqualified from performing other procedures in the Temple due to physical blemishes, may perform this procedure.

והוציא את הדשן AND HE SHALL BRING OUT THE ASHES that were heaped upon the ash-heap (not the ashes mentioned in v. 3). When it accumulated and there was no more room on the wood-pile (מערכה) he carried it out; this was not compulsory every day, whilst the תרומת הדשן (the taking out of the pan of ashes commanded in v. 3) was a daily duty (Yoma 20a).

Which are gathered. Rashi is answering the question: Above, it is written, “and he shall separate,” and here it is written, “he shall take out”! Furthermore, here it is written: “beyond the encampment,” and there it is written, “next to the altar.” Upon this Rashi explains: “[He shall take out the ashes] which are gathered in the heap.” This, then, is the difference between [the mitzvah of] “and he shall separate” and [the mitzvah of] “he shall take out” — [the terumoh was obligatory every day and the removal was only when there was a great deal of ash. Also, the terumoh was from the innermost ashes and the removal was from the ashes gathered in the heap] (Re’m).

אל מקום טהור,”a ritually pure location” seeing that these ashes had originated in sacred precincts. This is distinct from the stones of a house whose stones were afflicted with tzoraat, which have to be removed to a ritually unclean location, a location which people carrying objects that require ritual purity may not be brought to. (Leviticus 14,41)