Comentários de Citação sobre Levítico 16:23

“And he shall take off his garments, etc.” Rashi explains that this is not an obligation, but rather the Torah is teaching us proper conduct, etc. This is because Rashi finds it difficult that in the portion of Acharei Mot (16:23) it states and he shall take off the linen garments, and there it does not say “his garments.” Our Sages taught (Sifra, Acharei 13) that these garments do not come from his own possessions but from the sacred treasury. If so, why does it call them here his garments when they are not his? Rather, Rashi means that he should treat these sacred garments as one would normally treat garments, just as he would do if they were actually his own garments. For just as if they were his own, he would certainly remove them when doing some degrading or soiling work and would wear lesser garments, so too he should do with these sacred garments. And from this comparison we can derive that just as his own garments would be optional [to change], so too these are optional [to change] — for otherwise, why would the verse connect these to his garments?

Likewise, in many parashios we come to discover the significance of the textual nuances through [the study] of the Midrash Rabbah. For instance, the passage of the Yom Kippur [service] found in Acharei Mos²⁷Lev. 16: 1-34. [when describing the sequence of the service] is written in a different order [from what is to be performed by the High Priest].²⁸See Rashi on verse 23, citing Yoma 32a, that Lev. 16:23 which describes the entry of High Priest into the Sanctuary is not the proper place for this verse, but that it should rather be read after verse 25; for this entry followed the performance of his burnt offering and the people’s burnt offering, as well as the burning of the sacrificial parts of the bull and the he-goat, described in verses 24 and 25 respectively. [However], certainly, according to the Midrash Rabbah,²⁹Midrash Rabbah, 21:7: “’At all times’ (Lev. 16:2)… [teaches us] that any time he [Aharon] wishes to enter [the Holy of Holies] he may enter, provided only that he enter [by first performing the described service] in the prescribed manner.” Aharon was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies daily [provided he performed the service] in the order stated in the passage.³⁰See Netziv’s Preface to Ha’amek Davar where he writes that in many places the Torah is written in a manner such that it may be read in two different ways. Thus with respect to Aharon’s [daily entry], the chronology [of the service] is correct [as written]; this is explained by the Gra³¹An acronym for the Gaon [genius] Rabbi Eliyahu [of Vilna]. [in Eliyahu Rabbah].³²See Netziv’s Preface to Ha’amek Davar, that when the Torah is written in a manner that it can be read in two different ways, it is considered, p’shuto shel mikra. The order of service as listed in the Torah is exactly as it was followed by Aharon prior to his daily entrance to the Holy of Holies; whereas, reading this parasha in an alternate manner describes the Yom Kippur service. Further, in the passage dealing with shechutei chutz (the prohibition of slaughtering offerings outside the Temple Courtyard),³³These laws are discussed in Lev. 17:1-9. it is clear from the Midrash Rabbah that this prohibition³⁴This is in reference to when the children of Israel were traveling in the wilderness; when one was slaughtering meat (i.e. slitting the animal’s throat) for one’s meal, they were required to be offered as shelamim (peace offerings) within the Tabernacle’s courtyard. The Netziv, based on what the Rambam writes in the laws of Shechitah 4:17, explains that both R. Akiva and R. Yishmael (in Tractate Chulin 17a) agree that Leviticus chapter 17 is referring to both consecrated offerings and meat being slaughtered for an ordinary meal. That is to say that while the children of Israel were traveling in the wilderness, whether one was offering a sacrifice or one was slaughtering meat (i.e. slitting the animal’s throat) for one’s meal, they were to be offered as shelamim (peace offerings) within the Tabernacle’s courtyard. According to R. Akiva, this restriction pertaining to meat for an ordinary meal only applied if one wanted to ritually slaughter the animal; however one was allowed to eat the meat outside of the courtyard if he stabbed the animal instead. According to R. Akiva, the Israelites were allowed to eat meat from stabbed animals, until they entered the Land of Israel. The Torah forbade eating ritually slaughtered meat outside of the courtyard to distance their association with idol worship; idolaters would slit the throat of the animal – not stab it – to obtain an abundance of blood for their offerings. Whereas according to R. Yishmael, it was forbidden in the wilderness to eat any meat for one’s personal meal, unless it was offered as a shelamim sacrifice in the Courtyard. According to R. Yishmael, meat from a stabbed animal was never allowed even when the Israelites were in the wilderness. See Nachmanides ad loc. for an alternate explanation of the disagreement between R. Akiva and R. Yishmael. is applied differently in the wilderness than for future generations.³⁵Devarim Rabbah 4:6 states, “Many things [first] stated by the Holy One blessed be He [to be kept] were later reversed and permitted… For the Holy One blessed be He required that [when] slaughtering meat for eating [in the wilderness, it should only be done so] if it was brought [as a sacrifice] at the gate of the Tent of Meeting. How is this known? As the Torah states, ‘And [if a person] does not bring it to the Tent of Meeting to present it to the Lord, that person shall be cut off from his people,’ (Lev. 17:9). And what is written there? ‘And [if he] does not bring it to the Tent of Meeting to be offered as a sacrifice to the Lord before His sanctuary, it shall be considered as blood shed for that man, he has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from his people.’ (Lev. 17:4). Whereas, here [in Deut.], He reversed this law and allowed them [to slaughter meat for one’s personal meal in any location one desires]. As the Torah states, ‘However, in all of your soul’s desire you may slaughter and eat meat, according to the blessing of the Lord your God, will have given you in all your cities, the contaminated one and the pure one may eat it, like the deer and like the hart’ (Deut. 12:15). And it is known [that it is discussing slaughtering meat for one’s personal meal] as the Torah states, ‘If the place where the Lord your God will choose to place His name will be far from you, you may slaughter from your cattle and your flocks that the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you, and you may eat it in your cities according to your heart’s entire desire’ (Deut. 12:20).” And by using this interpretation, the [seeming textual oddities of the] passage can be properly understood³⁶By understanding how this parasha includes slaughtering animals for meat for an ordinary meal in the wilderness, we can understand the inexact wording, i.e. the placement of the word, osam (them) in the ending phrase of Lev. 17:5: “…and slaughter peace offerings to the Lord, (osam) them” - the phrase should be written as, “…and slaughter (osam) them as peace offerings to the Lord.” (Translator’s note: The English translations of this verse address this textual difficulty by not translating the verse as it is written but as the latter). However, if osam is translated as “with them,” the phrase is then translated as “and slaughter peace offerings to the Lord with them.” The verse is thus stating that together with peace Offerings, “they,” – meat slaughtered for the purpose of being devoured for pleasure – may be offered. The purpose of requiring in the wilderness that the slaughtering for a personal meal be performed in the Court of the Tabernacle, was to discourage the Children of Israel from offering sacrifices to the demons, as stated ad loc. in verse 7, “And they shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices to the satyrs after which they stray.” However, once they entered the Land of Israel, Peace Offerings could only be offered for the sole purpose of the Almighty and no longer be intermingled with one’s personal benefit. Thus inexact wording is employed here by Scripture to enable the verse be read in both the context of holy sacrifices and the slaughtering of animals for a personal meal.; whereas the Tanna of the [baraisa cited in the] Sifra is only concerned in connecting the traditions to the Scriptural allusions applicable to the subsequent generations.³⁷The Sifra’s focus being related to the laws applicable to the future generations, it only discusses the derivations that apply to holy sacrifices. As Rashi comments to verse 17:3, “Scripture is speaking of [slaughtering] holy sacrifices [and not of slaughtering ordinary animals], for Scripture continues (verse 4), ‘to offer up as a sacrifice’ – (Sifra 17:91).” Additionally, there are many other verses for which the Scriptural allusions have not been explained by the Sifra, as [its authors] lacked a tradition and thus did not address the nuances.

and place them in chambers belonging to the Sanctuary as stated by our master Moses, may he rest in peace (Lev. 16:23): “after that, he shall take off the linen garments which he had put on, etc., and he shall leave them there.”