ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף ויקרא 17:1

אשד ישחט, who will slaughter, etc. Torat Kohanim phrases its comment thus: "From the mention of the words 'ox, sheep, and goat' I can only derive culpability for slaughtering four-legged mammals; whence do I know that slaughtering birds intended for the altar outside the precincts of the Temple or Tabernacle is also prohibited on pain of the karet penalty? Answer: from the words או אשר ישחט. I could have reasoned that if slaughtering the bird's neck, which is not the normal procedure is culpable, then someone who merely severed the bird's neck by pinching, i.e. מליקה i.e. the normal procedure, would certainly be culpable if he performed this act outside the precincts of the Temple, therefore the Torah had to tell us that he would only be culpable for שחיטה, slaughter, but not for מליקה, pinching." Thus far Torat Kohanim. From the above we learn that the word או serves to include culpability for slaughtering the bird in the wrong place whereas from the words אשר ישחט I derive that pinching is not culpable which I would otherwise have considered punishable due to the קל וחומר. How do I reconcile this with a Baraitha in Zevachim 107 where we are told by Rabbi Yishmael that he derives the culpability for slaughtering the bird from the expression אשר ישחט, whereas he derives the exclusion of culpability for pinching the bird's neck from the words זה הדבר (in verse 1) which I would have included on the basis of the קל וחומר had it not been for the words זה הדבר? Even Rabbi Akiva who disagrees with Rabbi Yishmael in Zevachim uses the extra words דם יחשב in order to derive the law that slaughtering sacrificial birds in the wrong place is culpable. He derives the exclusion of this culpability when the bird's neck is merely pinched from the expression אשר ישחט. We are forced to conclude that the author of Torat Kohanim was neither Rabbi Yishmael nor Rabbi Akiva. It is quite impossible to reconcile the view of Rabbi Yishmael with that of the author of Torat Kohanim, because the former uses the expression זה הדבר for an exegesis based on a גזרה שוה, comparing it to the same expression in Numbers 30,2, where the Torah speaks about who can cancel vows. On the other hand, the fact that Torat Kohanim does not record the exegetical comment of Rabbi Yishmael concerning the extraneous words דם יחשב, who includes culpability of someone who sprinkles the blood outside the precincts of the Tabernacle, it appears that the author of Torat Kohanim accepts the view of Rabbi Akiva. The exegetical use made by Torat Kohanim of the words או זבח in verse 8 i.e. that the blood is included in the prohibition and culpability of שחוטי חוץ makes it plain that Torat Kohanim does appear to accept the viewpoint of Rabbi Akiva as per the folio of the Talmud we quoted. From all this it emerges that the exegesis that the slaughtering of the bird is culpable when performed outside the courtyard of the Tabernacle is based on the words דם יחשב, whereas the exclusion of pinching the bird's neck as culpable is based on the words אשר ישחט. The question therefore arises why the author of Torat Kohanim derives two separate הלכות from the words אשר ישחט? Besides, why does the author of Torat Kohanim need the words דם יחשב in verse 4?

AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE FIRST MONTH… ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE MONTH. In the opinion of our Rabbis [who hold, as mentioned above,⁸⁴Above, Verse 2. that the eighth day of the installation was on the first of Nisan], Scripture stated that the Tabernacle was first put up on a permanent basis on the first day of the first month, as He had commanded.⁸⁴Above, Verse 2. It states, And Moses put up the Tabernacle,⁸⁵Verse 18. in order to tell us what he did when putting it up from the first day that he began to do so, which was on the twenty-third day of Adar. Scripture does not mention here the anointing of the Tabernacle and its vessels, nor the anointing of Aaron and his sons and the offerings of the installation, since Moses did not do these until he had finished putting up the Tabernacle [on each of the seven days of the installation],⁸⁶See my Hebrew commentary p. 538, where I have shown that this is perforce the meaning of Ramban. and was commanded thereon a second time, Take Aaron and his sons,⁸⁷Leviticus 8:2. as is explained in the section of Tzav.⁸⁷Leviticus 8:2. Now the Tabernacle and its vessels were only sanctified for the Divine Service through their anointing, just as it is said, and thou shalt anoint the Tabernacle, and all that is therein, and shalt hallow it, and all the vessels thereof.⁸⁸Above, Verse 9. Therefore the meaning of the verses, And he set a row of bread upon it,⁸⁹Further, Verse 23. And he lighted the lamps,⁹⁰Ibid., Verse 25. must be that he did so at the time that was appropriate for them, that is, after they were anointed [on each of the seven days of the installation], and the sense of the verses is that such was their ultimate purpose [i.e., he put the table in the Tent of Meeting so that he would later on be able to set a row of bread upon it; he put the candelabrum so that he would be able to light the lamps]. And that which Scripture states above, And thou shalt bring in the table, and set in order the bread that is upon it,⁹¹Above, Verse 4. also means that he is to set the bread upon it after the anointing of the table. The same meaning applies to the verse, And thou shalt set the golden altar for incense.⁹²Ibid., Verse 5. Similarly, and he offered upon it the burnt-offering and the meal-offering⁹³Further, Verse 29. means at its proper time, for the court around the Tabernacle had not yet been put up,⁹⁴For that is only mentioned further, in Verse 33. and no sacrifices can be brought without the hangings of the court, for that would be considered slaughtering outside [the Tabernacle].⁹⁵A matter strongly forbidden in Leviticus 17:1-9. But all these mean that they were done at their proper time.
And he took and put the Testimony into the ark.