Comentários de Citação sobre Levítico 8:34

I think that God is not represented as speaking in these two verses, as is the case in many passages of this book—we need only refer to the preceding chapter, verses 18 and 19¹⁵The peculiarity hinted at in this remark seems to consist in the introduction of the dialogue form; ver. 3 is assigned to God, ver. 4 and 5 to Israel, ver. 6 again to God; similarly 26:18—19 is assigned to the people, ver. 20 again to the Lord.—but the men of Judah,¹⁶The expression איש יהודה the men of Judah, is perhaps used by I. E. instead of Israel, because the second part of this chapter (comp. ver. 7), refers, according to his interpretation, to the kingdom of Israel. after having heard God’s promise, I the Lord will keep it, lest he visit it, are introduced, saying, We do not declare with fury, that if the enemy should come to turn the vineyard into a place of briers and thorns, we should kill ourselves. Comp.¹⁷The passages which follow are instances of the use of the third person instead of the first, as is the case here; through it ═ through myself. And Ezekiel shall be, instead of And I shall be (Ez. 25:24), And Samuel, instead of And myself (1 Sam. 12:11); As he hath done, instead of As I have done (Lev. 8:34); במלחמה in war, is to be joined with מי יתנני who would turn me in this way: If one should come to turn me by war into a place of briers and thorns, etc. או יחזק Or if He would strengthen my stronghold, etc., to give me the strengthening promise that He will be in peace with me, and so should the enemy be, then Jacob would take root, etc. I am compelled to explain in this way by the phrase, He will make peace unto me, because it is God alone that maketh peace.¹⁸I. E. is not the author of the first opinion, which attributes to God the words, He will make peace unto me, since, as he says, he is compelled to assume, that they are to be assigned to the men of Judah. It is often the case in the commentaries of I. E., that an anonymous opinion, which is supposed to be generally adopted, is followed by the commentator’s own explanation, introduced by a phrase like ואני אומר ,ולפי דעתי but I think, but I say. In this verse the first explanation is perhaps to be assigned to those whose opinion is introduced at the beginning of verse 4, with the words, some say.

AND EVERY DAY SHALT THOU OFFER THE BULLOCK OF SIN-OFFERING ‘AL HAKIPURIM’ — “for atonement, to atone for the altar for anything strange [i.e., unholy] and abominable [that may happen to be brought upon it]. And in the Midrash of Torath Kohanim²¹⁸Sifra Tzav, Milu’im 1:15. it says: ‘atonement for the altar was necessary in case a person had donated for work in connection with the construction of the Tabernacle and [the sacrifices brought upon] the altar something he had acquired by robbery’” [or other unlawful means]. This is the language of Rashi. The correct interpretation of al hakipurim is, however, [that he is to bring the bullock of sin-offering] in addition to the two rams²¹⁹One was a burnt-offering (Verses 16-18) and the other — the ram of consecration — was a peace-offering, as explained by Ramban above in Verse 31. which were an atonement for Aaron and his sons, as He said here, And they shall eat those things wherewith atonement was made,²²⁰Verse 33. and surely the [bullock] sin-offering was for the purpose of atonement. And it is further written, As hath been done this day, so the Eternal hath commanded to do, to make atonement for you.²²¹Leviticus 8:34. This verse shows that all three sacrifices [the bullock sin-offering, the ram burnt-offering, and the ram peace-offering] brought on each of the seven days of consecration were for the purpose of making atonement. Thus it is seen that there was atonement in all the three sacrifices. Such are the words of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra.