Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Levitico 27:34

קדש קדשים הוא [THIS THE LAW OF THE GUILT OFFERING] IT IS MOST HOLY — “It is most holy”; it may be offered, but an animal that is exchanged for it (cf. Leviticus 27:34) may not be offered (Sifra, Tzav, Section 5 2).

Their general rules and specifications. You might ask: How does Rashi know that all of them [including] their general rules and specifications were said at Sinai? Obviously, because the superfluous words “on Mount Sinai” indicate that the general rules and specifications were said at Mount Sinai. But perhaps this only comes to teach [the laws] of about the Sabbatical year itself, and not about other mitzvos? Also, regarding [the claim that these words are superfluous] itself you can object, from where [does Rashi know this]? Perhaps [the verse writes] “on Mount Sinai” so that you do not say that “(And Hashem spoke to him from) the Tent of Meeting” written at the beginning of parshas Vayikra refers to all the parshiyos after parshas Vayikra, and therefore it writes “on Mount Sinai” here? The answer is: This is why Rashi writes “And it seems to me, etc.” He means as follows: Since we do not find that [the laws of] shemittoh of the land whose general rules principles were taught at Sinai were repeated at the Plains of Moab in Sefer Devorim., Tthis could make lead one to mistakenly say that all the mitzvos were repeated taught at the Plains of Moav because of their details and specifications, and are [thus] not from Sinai. Even though it is written later at the end of Vayikra (27:34), “These are the commandments which Hashem commanded Moshe for Bnei Yisroel on Mount Sinai,” which implies that all the mitzvos are from Sinai, this may apply only to the general rules of mitzvos but not to their details. However, since the Sabbatical year is not repeated there except in the hint of “Suspend (every creditor’s hand from his loan to his neighbor)” (Devorim 15:2), if so, its general rules and details must all have been said at Sinai. If so, why does the verse here [superfluously] say “Mount Sinai”? It must be to teach us that every utterance which was prophetically said to Moshe, that all of them were from Sinaiùtheir general rules and their specifications. And [the Sabbatical year] is an example that applies to the entire Torah.

It disqualifies that which preceded it. If you say: [This rule seems not true because] in Parshas Bechukosai (Vayikra 27:34) it is written, “ אלה (These) are the commandments.” And in Parshas Masei (Bamidbar 36:13) it says, “ אלה (These) are the commandments and the laws.” And in Parshas Matos (ibid 30:17) it says, “ אלה (These) are the statutes.” And in Parshas Ki Savo (Devarim 28:69) it is written, “ אלה (These) are the words of the covenant.” And in all theses cases we do not interpret it as disqualifying that which preceded. The answer is: We only interpret it this way for “ אלה (These) are the histories of the heaven and the earth” (Bereishis 2:4; see Shemos Rabba 30:3), where the histories were already mentioned above, so a difficulty arose: why are they repeated and detailed? Similarly for “ אלה (These) are the descendants of Noach” (Bereishis 6:9), where the descendants were mentioned above in Parshas Bereishis, so a difficulty arose: why were they mentioned again? Thus we say they were mentioned again in order to disqualify the preceding. [The meaning of “disqualify” is discussed in the next entry.] But with “ אלה (These) are the commandments” and all the above verses, nothing was mentioned [preceding them that was similar to them], so אלה cannot mean to disqualify the preceding. Similarly in Parshas Devarim, where it says “ אלה (These) are the words” (Devarim 1:1), we cannot interpret אלה as disqualifying the preceding, since Chumash Devarim is Mishneh Torah [i.e., its primary purpose is a repetition of the Torah].