וַיִּזְבְּח֣וּ לַיהוָ֣ה ׀ זְ֠בָחִים וַיַּעֲל֨וּ עֹל֜וֹת לַיהוָ֗ה לְֽמָחֳרַת֮ הַיּ֣וֹם הַהוּא֒ פָּרִ֨ים אֶ֜לֶף אֵילִ֥ים אֶ֛לֶף כְּבָשִׂ֥ים אֶ֖לֶף וְנִסְכֵּיהֶ֑ם וּזְבָחִ֥ים לָרֹ֖ב לְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
At sila ay naghain ng mga hain sa Walang-Hanggan, at naghandog ng mga handog na susunugin sa Walang-Hanggan, kinabukasan ng araw na iyon: isanlibong toro, isanlibong lalaking tupa, isanlibong batang tupa, kasama ang kanilang mga handog na inumin, at mga hain nang sagana para sa buong Israel.
Rashi
on the morrow of that day the day of this assembly, when David spoke all his words, for on that day they had no time, because when they left the assembly, they were busy until night buying sacrificial animals, and on the morrow, “they slaughtered sacrifices, etc.”
Rashi
a thousand bulls, a thousand rams, a thousand lambs, and their libations On the pattern of (Num. 7:17): “five rams, five he-goats, etc.,” one quantity for them all.
Rashi
and numerous sacrifices It is customary for Scripture to speak in this manner; when it speaks of two or three things, it leaves the first one until the end and explains the last one immediately, and so (Gen. 31:33): “And Laban came into Jacob’s tent... and came into Rachel’s tent.” Now was it not already stated, “And Laban came into Jacob’s tent,” which was Rachel’s tent? However, “and did not find” refers to the maidservants, mentioned last, and then he explains the first matter, “... and he went out of Leah’s tent” first, and he “came into Rachel’s tent.” From Leah’s tent he went to Rachel’s tent, but because he had to say other things about this, “And Rachel had taken, etc.” and consequently, it is inappropriate to say, “... and in the tent of the two maidservants and did not find.” Here too, he had other things to say about the sacrifices, namely...