Leviticus 7:1\u20138<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why should the guilt offering (or, for that matter, the sin offering) be \u201cmost holy\u201d (v. 1)? Wouldn\u2019t this distinction more naturally belong to offerings that have no connection with sin?
\n\u2666 Why is the priest here called \u201cthe priest who makes expiation\u201d (v. 7) and not simply \u201cthe priest who dashes the blood\u201d (as in v. 14)?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:1<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It is most holy. And it is to be offered. If another animal is substituted for it (per 27:10), the substitute animal is not to be offered on the altar.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
This is the ritual of the guilt offering. I have already explained to you the difference between a sin offering and a guilt offering\u2014even though the text itself sometimes refers to them as if the terms were interchangeable. The passage is included here because of the instructions about how to handle the sacrificial fats, which are not mentioned in the previous discussion of the sin offering in chs. 4 and 5.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
It is most holy. The guilt offering (like the sin offering) is called \u201cmost holy\u201d in praise of those who have tasted sin and then repented of it, for this is a higher level than that of the completely righteous. The meal offering too is \u201cmost holy,\u201d in honor of those who bring an offering to God despite their poverty (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
All its fat. The various sacrificial parts have not yet been specified for the guilt offering, which is why it was necessary to do so here. Note that for the sin offering they were specified previously, in 4:8\u20139. The broad tail. The guilt offering must be a ram or a sheep, both of which indeed have such a tail, adding an extra sacrificial part to this offering.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It is a guilt offering. And a guilt offering it remains, unless it is somehow removed from this category. The specification teaches us about the case where the owner of a guilt offering has died, or his sin has been expiated in the meantime by another offering. In the ordinary course of things, such an animal cannot be sacrificed. It must rather be removed from the category of \u201cguilt offering\u201d by sending it out to pasture until it develops a blemish. At this point the animal itself is intrinsically invalid as a sacrifice, so it may be sold; the money is used to purchase a valid animal to be used as a kind of lagniappe for the altar. If the original animal is sacrificed as a burnt offering, the sacrifice is invalid, since it is technically still a guilt offering. But the expression \u201cit is a guilt offering\u201d does not teach that any animal designated as a guilt offering is invalid unless it is specifically offered for that purpose (as is true, for example, of a sin offering; see 4:24). For here the expression is used not in connection with slaughtering the animal, but with turning the sacrificial parts into smoke\u2014which is in any case not required for a guilt offering to be valid.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:6<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It is most holy. This is explained in the Sifra.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:7<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The same rule applies to both. In this particular respect. The priest who makes expiation thereby. Rather, any priest who could legitimately make expiation thereby\u2014thus excluding one who has bathed but is waiting for the sun to set to become ritually pure, one who has pending a necessary sacrifice of his own, and a mourner in the period between the death and the burial.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
It shall belong to the priest. See the comment to v. 10.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The priest \u2026 shall keep the skin of the burnt offering that he offered. Again, it really means that any priest capable of performing the offering can share in the skin, but not those enumerated in my comment to v. 7.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A man\u2019s burnt offering. Note that the Hebrew word for \u201cburnt offering\u201d has the unusual accent O-lat here (rather than o-LAT as one normally finds), following the principle that an accent that immediately precedes another accented syllable (here ISH, \u201ca man\u201d) may be moved back in order to separate the two accented syllables. The priest \u2026 shall keep the skin. Compare OJPS \u201ceven the priest shall have to himself.\u201d The phrase \u201cto himself\u201d is included to make clear that the skin is to be given to the specific priest who performs the ritual and not, as in other cases, to anyone who is a qualified priest.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The priest who offers a man\u2019s burnt offering shall keep the skin. Though the text specifies a burnt offering, in fact this rule applies for all the most sacred offerings\u2014thus excluding the sacrifices of well-being (which is why it is included here, before those offerings are mentioned). The Sifra derives the application to sacrifices other than burnt offerings in midrashic fashion, but the straightforward sense makes clear in any case that the skin of a sin or guilt offering would belong to the priests, since these offerings belong entirely to them. As R. Judah the Prince explains (both on B. Zev. 103b and in the Sifra), the skin follows the flesh. So only here, where the flesh is burnt, must the skin be explicitly given to the priests.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:9\u201312<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is discussion of the sacrifice of well-being (v. 11) postponed until after the discussion of the sin offering and guilt offering, rather than following the same order as they did in the previous weekly portion?
\n\u2666 Why must four different kinds of bread (three of them unleavened) be offered with \u201cthe sacrifice of thanksgiving\u201d (v. 12), none of which are specified with the meal offering (6:7\u201311)?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Shall belong to the priest who offers it. One might think (as NJPS does) that the offering goes to the particular priest who was involved in bringing it. That is why v. 10 says that every meal offering \u201cshall go to the sons of Aaron all alike.\u201d The function of \u201cthe priest who offers it\u201d is to say that only members of the particular priestly family serving on that day are qualified to share in it.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Any meal offering. It is clear that, according to the straightforward sense of the text, the meal offerings enumerated in v. 9 shall belong to the priest who offers them, while any other meal offering is shared alike among all the priests (that is, among all the priests of whatever priestly house is serving that day). The difference is that, in the first case, the particular priest who offered them took the trouble to bake them, so he ought to get a greater reward. But see the next comment.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Any meal offering that is baked in an oven, and any that is prepared in a pan or on a griddle, shall belong to the priest who offers it. It takes more than a single priest to perform such an offering, of course. It belongs to them because, if they were to wait for the other priests to come and share it, it would get cold. It is also logical that the priest who took the trouble to prepare it should get the benefit of it (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
With oil mixed in. This is the voluntary meal offering. Or dry. This is the meal offering for sin (5:11) or that for jealousy (Num. 5:15), neither of which contains oil. Shall go to the sons of Aaron all alike. See my comment to v. 9.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Or dry. These are the meal offering for sin (5:11) and the meal offering of jealousy (Num. 5:15).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Dry. Like the lowest of the sliding-scale offerings (5:11\u201313) or the jealousy offering (Num. 5:15).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Every other meal offering. Rather, \u201cevery meal offering\u201d (OJPS). This would seem to include those of v. 9 as well. This difficulty caused the Sages to interpret \u201cthe priest who offers it\u201d of v. 9 to mean any priest who is present and ritually pure. Vv. 7 and 8 are interpreted similarly to mean that these offerings go to the priests rather than to the owner of the animal. The individual priest or priests who perform the ritual acts do so at the behest and with the permission of the other priests. It is similar to the rule that applies to the military: \u201cThe share of those who remain with the baggage shall be the same as the share of those who go down to battle; they shall share alike\u201d (1 Sam. 30:24). All alike. Similarly OJPS \u201cone as well as another\u201d\u2014no one should get something different than what anyone else gets. Even an offering of unbaked flour is divided equally among them. It goes without saying that if this rule applies to meal offerings, it applies as well to offerings that are more valuable. The deduction of NJPS is logical, but the tradition has decreed otherwise, for the sake of establishing peace among the priests. It would seem that vv. 9\u201310 ought to be translated as follows: \u201cFurther, any meal offering that is baked in an oven, and any that is prepared in a pan or on a griddle, shall belong to the priest who offers it, like every other meal offering, with oil mixed in or dry; they shall go to the sons of Aaron all alike.\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
But every other meal offering, with oil mixed in or dry, shall go to the sons of Aaron all alike. Since waiting for them does not spoil it (Bekhor Shor). Again, we understand that this must apply only to the eligible priests of the house that is on duty that day\u2014for if a tenth of an ephah of flour was split equally among all the priests in Israel, not one of them would get a quantity large enough to see. We might have thought that there was no point in dividing unbaked flour into such small, inedible portions, so the Torah teaches us explicitly that these offerings too are to be divided equally among all the eligible priests on duty that day. And even a priest who is not eligible to offer the sacrifice is eligible to eat it, for it goes to them \u201call alike\u201d; but since the text says \u201cone man as well as another\u201d (compare OJPS), we learn that this applies to the grown priests and not to those who are under age (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The sacrifice of well-being. Rather, the \u201cpeace offering\u201d (OJPS); see my comment to 3:1.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If he offers it for thanksgiving. In thanks for a miracle that was done for him. Examples would be someone who has returned from a sea voyage or a desert journey, someone who has been released from prison, or someone who has been ill and has gotten well. All such people must give thanks: \u201cLet them praise the LORD for His steadfast love, His wondrous deeds for mankind. Let them offer thanksgiving sacrifices\u201d (Ps. 107:21\u201322). If he vowed to bring a peace offering for such a reason, he brings the thanksgiving peace offering that is described here, and it requires the appropriate bread offerings. Moreover, as v. 15 explains, the flesh of the offering must be eaten before the next morning. Together with the sacrifice of thanksgiving. There are four kinds of bread offering, three of them unleavened (our cakes \u2026 wafers \u2026 and cakes of choice flour) and one \u201cleavened\u201d (v. 13). M. Men. 7:1 explains that there are 10 of each kind, totaling five Jerusalem seahs = six wilderness seahs, making a total of 20-tenths of an ephah of flour all together. Well soaked. In boiling water.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
If he offers it for thanksgiving. That is, if he specifically used the word \u201cthanksgiving\u201d in his vow, rather than the phrase \u201ca sacrifice of well-being.\u201d If one simply brings a sacrifice because he was saved from distress, this too is a thanksgiving offering. As the Sages said, \u201cFour types of people must offer thanksgiving\u201d (B. Ber. 54b). They further explain that there were a total of 40 different cakes and wafers, as well as how much oil and flour must be used to make them.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
For thanksgiving. This refers to an offering given to God in thanks for escaping from some difficulty. Unleavened cakes \u2026 unleavened wafers. As many as he likes, but (since the plural is used) no fewer than two of each. Well soaked. In my view, the most well-chosen explanation for this Hebrew phrase is that it too means \u201cchoice.\u201d The \u201cunleavened cakes\u201d and \u201cwafers\u201d are baked, but these are not.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall offer together with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes with oil mixed in. More literally, \u201che shall offer on top of the sacrifice of thanksgiving.\u201d The translations and some commentators take it metaphorically to mean \u201calong with,\u201d but correctly it should be interpreted literally: he must offer the unleavened cakes and so forth atop the sacrifice.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
For thanksgiving. The translations are incorrect; the Hebrew word means not \u201cthanksgiving\u201d but confession. It is not a sin offering or guilt offering, but the offering that one brings when he wants to confess all of his sins and return to the right path (Kimhi).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:13\u201314<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:13<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall offer along with his thanksgiving sacrifice. This tells us that the bread does not acquire physical sanctity until the sacrifice is slaughtered. That is, it is not invalidated by being brought out of the temple area or touched by a priest who has not yet completed his purification. Moreover, until the animal is slaughtered, the bread that was set aside for the offering can be sold for secular use and replaced with other bread.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
With cakes of leavened bread added. The translation \u201cwith\u201d is indeed correct here; see Exod. 35:22 for a similar example.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
With cakes of leavened bread added. Here too \u201cwith\u201d is literally \u201catop.\u201d That is, the cakes and wafers of v. 12 are to be offered atop the cakes of leavened bread mentioned here (since the leavened bread is so much bulkier and is the main part of the bread offering), all atop (not \u201calong with\u201d) the sacrifice of thanksgiving. His thanksgiving sacrifice of well-being. The variation in the name of this sacrifice provides an opportunity for the rabbinic interpretation that the bread part of the offering does not become sanctified until the sacrifice is slaughtered, and it must be slaughtered with the intent that the bread be sanctified along with it. Rashi\u2019s comment to v. 12 does not make clear that one of the two ephahs is for the leavened bread and one for the unleavened, meaning that each of the 10 leavened loaves contains three times as much flour as each of the 30 unleavened cakes. That is, the Sages interpreted the verse to say that the three kinds of unleavened bread in v. 12 were to be equated \u201cwith\u201d the leavened bread of our verse\u2014equal in amount.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Cakes of leavened bread. As with the unleavened \u201ccakes\u201d of v. 12, we learn that these breads must be whole, not sliced (Gersonides). The different kinds of bread are added to this offering to make it a festive one, for the one who offers thanks invites friends to share in the meal, and there must be enough bread to go along with the meat (Abarbanel). The leavened bread that is included in the sacrifice is an allusion to \u201cthe ferment in the dough,\u201d the negative aspect in him that caused the misadventure from which God rescued him (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:14<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
One of each kind. This is the correct understanding of the more literal \u201cone out of each offering\u201d (OJPS). One of each of the four kinds of bread offering is given to the priest who actually performs the service, and the rest may be eaten by the owner. The meat may also be eaten by the owner, except for the breast and thigh (as explained below in vv. 29\u201334)\u2014for the thanksgiving sacrifice is explicitly identified here as an offering of well-being, that is, a peace offering.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
One of each kind. This makes a minimum of four. And the reality is that there are supposed to be 10 of each kind.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall offer one of each kind. For a total gift of four. It is strange that the earlier prohibition against a leavened offering does not seem to apply here. When the text states about honey and leaven, \u201cYou may bring them to the LORD as an offering of choice products; but they shall not be offered up on the altar for a pleasing odor\u201d (2:12), why does it not also mention the leavened bread of this sacrifice? Of course, none of the bread associated with the sacrifice of thanksgiving is actually to be consumed on the altar; rather, it is elevated before the Lord. (The bread of display, described in ch. 24, must be unleavened, because the frankincense that is combined with it is indeed burnt on the altar.) But perhaps the text included 2:12 because of the mention in 2:11 of honey, which is not specifically included among the first fruits. Notice that the leavened bread of 23:17, like that of our verse, is also not mentioned there. For the text does not always specify exceptions to a general rule. Thus 18:16 forbids sex with one\u2019s brother\u2019s wife, though this rule is suspended in the case of levirate marriage; Exod. 31:14 prescribes death for anyone who works on the Sabbath without mentioning that this does not apply to the work of bringing the sacrificial offerings.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
It shall go to the priest who dashes the blood. Again, this refers to any priests who are eligible that day. But we learn that the priest must be eligible at the moment the blood is dashed. If he became ritually impure at any moment in the process before this, he does not share in the distribution of the breads (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:15\u201317<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why can \u201cthe flesh of his thanksgiving sacrifice of well-being\u201d be eaten only \u201con the day that it is offered\u201d (v. 15) and not on the next day, like the other sacrifices of well-being (v. 16)? And why is it not described as \u201cmost holy,\u201d like the sacrifice of ordination, to which the same rule applies?
\n\u2666 Why are we not told that the sin offering and guilt offering must be eaten at a specific time? And why are we not told that the sacrifices of well-being must be eaten in a specific place?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:15<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
And the flesh of his thanksgiving sacrifice of well-being. The redundancies in this expression are interpreted to mean that not only this sacrifice, but also sin offerings, guilt offerings, the ram offered by one who has fulfilled a nazirite vow, and the festival offering that accompanies the passover offering on the evening of the 14th of Nisan all must be eaten before the next morning. On the day that it is offered. The same applies to the accompanying bread offerings. None of it shall be set aside until morning. But it may be eaten at any time during the night. Why then does our tradition say that it must be eaten by midnight? To keep one far from transgression.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Shall be eaten on the day that it is offered. By the one who brings the offering, his household, and anyone else who is ritually pure\u2014for sacrifices of well-being are holy as well, albeit with a lesser grade of sanctity.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The flesh of his thanksgiving sacrifice of well-being. Rashi interprets the redundancies in this expression incorrectly. The festival offering of the 14th of Nisan may be eaten up through the end of the second day, like all the other sacrifices of well-being; see B. Pes. 71b, which derives this from Deut. 16:4, \u201cFor seven days no leaven shall be found with you in all your territory, and none of the flesh of what you slaughter on the evening of the first day shall be left until morning\u201d\u2014for mention of \u201cthe first day\u201d implies that \u201cmorning\u201d refers to the second morning. Rashi himself explains it this way in his comment to that verse. Here, though, Rashi follows the opinion of Ben Tema on B. Pes. 70a\u2014except that Ben Tema derives this rule not from the redundancies but from an assumption that the festival offering for Passover follows all the same rules as does the passover offering itself. Rashi\u2019s source for this interpretation, however, is the Sifra. Ultimately, as is shown by several of Rashi\u2019s comments to talmudic passages, this interpretation is based on the idea (which Rashi had relied on, having learned it from his teachers) that the festival offering of the 14th of Nisan is considered one of the sacrifices of well-being that accompany the passover offering. But this is not so. The same passage in the Sifra on which Rashi relies makes clear that the sacrifices of well-being that accompany the passover offering do not include the festival offering.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The flesh \u2026 shall be eaten on the day that it is offered. For the meat is at its best during this time (Gersonides). As Ps. 116:19 tells us, the priests must eat their share in \u201cthe courts of the house of the LORD,\u201d and the owner of the sacrifice and his guests (who are not allowed in the sacred precinct) must eat it \u201cin the midst of Jerusalem\u201d (Abarbanel). None of it shall be set aside until morning. Ideally, it should be eaten before midnight, since under ordinary circumstances people do not eat after this hour (Gersonides). This is essentially a way of forcing the one who celebrates to invite others to celebrate and share the meal with him (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:16<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A votive or a freewill offering. That is, if it is not brought in thanks for a miracle, then it does not require bread to accompany it and its flesh may be eaten the next day, as the passage explains. And what is left of it shall be eaten on the morrow. The word \u201cand\u201d actually appears twice in this phrase; notice that OJPS includes it in \u201cand on the morrow,\u201d where NJPS omits it, but omits it where NJPS includes it. There are many such superfluous cases of \u201cand\u201d in the Bible, e.g., Gen. 36:24 and Dan. 8:13.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
If \u2026 the sacrifice he offers is a votive or a freewill offering. If he vowed, \u201cI will bring a sacrifice of well-being,\u201d this is a matter of fulfilling a promise, as I have explained in my comment to 3:1. That is to say, this is not a thanksgiving offering, but one that he makes in payment of a vow. On the day that he offers his sacrifice. The meat of the sacrifice shall be eaten on that same day, but not until after the blood has been \u201coffered\u201d on the altar.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Votive. In response to a vow that he expressed verbally when he found himself in some sort of trouble. Freewill. An offering that he brings to God simply because the spirit moved him to do so\u2014not in response to a vow or in thanks for anything in particular. And what is left of it. The word ve-, translated \u201cand\u201d here, does not really mean \u201cand,\u201d but is an emphatic particle akin to Arabic fa. See (e.g.) Exod. 9:21.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
What is left of it shall be eaten on the morrow. See the comments of Rashi and Ibn Ezra. In my opinion, they (and the translations) do not understand the verse properly. It should have been punctuated as follows (using OJPS, which follows the Hebrew word order more closely): \u201cIt shall be eaten on the day that he offereth his sacrifice and on the morrow; that which remaineth of it may be eaten.\u201d The point is that it certainly ought to be eaten on the first day\u2014one may not deliberately set it aside\u2014but any of it that happens to be left over may be eaten on the day after. As we learn from the words of our Sages in the Sifra, if the entire offering happens to be left over until the second day, it may nonetheless be eaten. (Even if the second \u201cand\u201d is superfluous, it still would not mean that it can be deliberately left over until the next day.) But I don\u2019t know why Rashi considers Dan. 8:13 to have a superfluous \u201cand.\u201d The OJPS translation there makes perfect sense out of both \u201cands.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:17<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Shall be consumed in fire. Just as are the sacrificial parts, but with the difference that the leftover flesh is not burnt on the altar.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
What is then left of the flesh of the sacrifice shall be consumed in fire on the third day. NJPS is correct here. OJPS, which reads the Hebrew to say \u201cthat which remaineth \u2026 on the third day,\u201d is mistaken. Their translation would lead one to think that the flesh may be eaten on the second night, but it may neither be eaten nor burnt then; the verse specifies that the burning (like the original offering) must take place by day.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:18\u201320<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are both v. 20 and v. 21 included? Aren\u2019t they redundant?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:18<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It shall not count. The translations do not quite give the correct implication of this phrase, which should be translated something more like \u201che shall not have any thought of it.\u201d The verse is not speaking of a sacrifice being retroactively invalidated. Rather, it is saying that if one slaughters it with the intent to eat any of its meat on the third day, then it is an offensive thing, and the person who eats of it even within the specified time shall bear his guilt.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
If any of the flesh of his sacrifice of well-being is eaten on the third day. The Sages uprooted this verse from its straightforward meaning and explained it as a reference to someone who, during any of the four ritual steps (the slaughter of the animal and the receiving, transporting, and dashing of the blood), intended to eat of the sacrifice on the third day.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
It shall not count for him who offered it. Once the sacrificial parts have been offered to the One on high, all that remains is holy and must be so treated. After all, even the stones of the altar are holy once they are sanctified (which is why Deut. 27:6 tells us we must use unhewn stones; otherwise one part of a stone would be sanctified and another part of the same stone would simultaneously be in use for some secular purpose). Some ask: Once the \u201ctoken portion\u201d has gone up as a pleasing odor to the Lord, how can it retroactively \u201cnot count\u201d for him? This is why it is understood that he must have already had the intent to leave the meat over when he performed the sacrifice. If he offers a sacrifice of well-being\u2014which is sacred\u2014he cannot simultaneously intend for it to become \u201can offensive thing.\u201d Now in the case of a sacrifice of well-being, the reward he would have acquired simply disappears in the loss that he accrues. But if he leaves the flesh of a votive offering over to the third day, his obligation is renewed and he transgresses the original oath if he does not subsequently fulfill it properly. An offensive thing. As the Aramaic translation hints, it is something that \u201cdistances\u201d one from God. Shall bear his guilt. Rather, \u201cshall bear his punishment,\u201d which the Hebrew word used here can also mean. The punishment itself, however, is not specified here. But note that a person who is ritually impure and nonetheless eats sanctified flesh is \u201ccut off\u201d (v. 20).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
It shall not be acceptable. That is, eating the flesh at the wrong time means that the eating does not achieve the expiation which, according to Exod. 29:33, it is meant to do (Bekhor Shor). It shall not count for him. Rather, \u201che shall not count on eating it\u201d after the permissible time, for if he does so he makes it an offensive thing. But merely eating it after the permissible time does not make it offensive; it simply fails to achieve expiation (Bekhor Shor). Since the rule that he must intend to eat it within the proper time applies to these sacrifices of lesser holiness, it is obvious that it applies as well to the sacrifices that are \u201cmost holy\u201d (Gersonides). It is an offensive thing. We might think that the intent to eat it anywhere but in its legitimate place would also make it an offensive thing, like the intent to eat it outside of its legitimate time. But the Torah makes clear that, though this invalidates the sacrifice, it does not make it \u201coffensive\u201d (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:19<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Flesh that touches anything unclean. The reference is to the flesh of the offerings of well-being. The odd repetition of \u201cas for the flesh\u201d (see OJPS) implies an additional aspect to the ruling: if a piece of the flesh is taken outside the permitted area, what remains inside may still be eaten. He who is clean may eat such flesh. Why must we be told (in the more accurate translation of OJPS) that \u201cevery one that is clean may eat\u201d of it, seeing that we know from Deut. 12:27 that \u201cthe blood shall be poured out on the altar of the LORD your God, and you shall eat the flesh\u201d? One might think that only the one who brought the sacrifice could eat of it. So we are told that anyone who is clean may eat of it, by contrast to what is said of the sin and guilt offerings, which must be \u201ceaten by Aaron and his sons \u2026 in the enclosure of the Tent of Meeting\u201d (6:9). But this may be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Only he who is clean may eat such clean flesh.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Flesh \u2026 flesh. This is one of 10 verses in the Torah whose first word (disregarding prepositions and the like) is the same as their last word (Masorah).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:20<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
In a state of uncleanness. The suffix on the word \u201cuncleanness\u201d could mean \u201chis\u201d or \u201cits.\u201d The translations make clear what the Hebrew does not\u2014the verse refers to the situation where the person, not the flesh, is in a state of uncleanness. That person shall be cut off from his kin. Note that a clean person is warned (v. 19) not to eat unclean flesh, but there is no statement that he is \u201ccut off\u201d for doing so. The reverse is true here: The text declares that the unclean person who eats clean flesh is cut off, though the command not to do so is not written explicitly in the Torah. The Sages derive such a command from a close analysis of repeated biblical terminology. The Torah says three times that a person who eats sanctified food while unclean is \u201ccut off from his kin,\u201d which our Sages interpret (on B. Shevu. 7a) as follows: one (22:3) to give the general rule; one (here with regard to the sacrifices of well-being) to specify that it applies only to sacrifices, and not to holy things that are part of the temple ritual but are not offered on the altar; and one (v. 21) to specify that the sliding-scale offering prescribed in 5:2\u20133 is not for being unclean but for communicating one\u2019s uncleanness to the sanctuary or to clean flesh, as described in our passage.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
In a state of uncleanness. Literally, \u201chaving his uncleanness upon him\u201d (OJPS). Nonetheless, it includes both someone whose ritual impurity proceeds from himself\u2014one with a genital discharge, a leper, or a man who has had an ejaculation (as Saul presumed of David in 1 Sam. 20:26), and one whose impurity proceeds from another source, whether a corpse; another leper (etc.); or an unclean animal, bird, insect, or reptile of the kind that is not to be eaten.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:21\u201325<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does the paragraph about not eating fat or blood (vv. 22\u201327) intrude between the two parts of the instructions about sacrifices of well-being? This is extremely strange!
\n\u2666 For that matter, why must the prohibition of fat and blood (which we already know from 3:17) be repeated here?
\n\u2666 Why are we told that \u201cfat from animals that died or were torn by beasts may be put to any use\u201d (v. 24), as if this were not also true of the fat of animals slaughtered for meat?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:21<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
An unclean animal. The text is somewhat terse here; the same rule applies to the (unclean) carcass of a \u201cclean\u201d\u2014that is, kosher\u2014animal. Cut off from his kin. I shall explain the concept of \u201ccutting off\u201d in my comment on 18:29, with God\u2019s help.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Any unclean creature. This refers to the eight creatures listed in 11:29\u201330 (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:23<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall eat no fat of ox or sheep or goat. A \u201cSadducee\u201d once asked me if eating the \u201cbroad tail\u201d of a sheep is prohibited by the Torah. In response I declared that, though the broad tail is indeed referred to as \u1e25elev (e.g., 3:9), the same word used here for prohibited fat, our predecessors, though otherwise forbidding the consumption of \u1e25elev, had permitted the fat tail. He replied that all \u1e25elev was explicitly prohibited by the Torah: \u201cYou must not eat any fat or any blood\u201d (3:17), which that same verse calls \u201ca law for all time throughout the ages, in all your settlements.\u201d I replied, first, that that statement was made in the context of a sacrifice of well-being, and, secondly, that even \u201cfor all time throughout the ages, in all your settlements\u201d was not conclusive proof. Look at 23:14, \u201cUntil that very day, until you have brought the offering of your God, you shall eat no bread or parched grain or fresh ears; it is a law for all time throughout the ages in all your settlements.\u201d Since (with the Temple destroyed) we no longer bring the offering of the first sheaf, it would seem to be a law \u201cfor all time\u201d that even here in the Diaspora we should never eat bread! He replied, \u201c \u2018You shall eat no fat of ox or sheep or goat\u2019!\u201d I replied in turn with the words of v. 25\u2014muddled in the English translations\u2014which says that the fat that is prohibited is that from animals which are offered for sacrifice. So this statement too refers specifically to the fat of the sacrifices of well-being\u2014not the fat of an ordinary beast that is not offered in sacrifice but simply slaughtered and eaten. That is what vv. 23\u201327 are about. And see further my comment to v. 26.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:24<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
May be put to any use. Come and learn from this that fat which is forbidden to eat does not acquire the same impurity as does the (theoretically) edible flesh of an animal carcass. But you must not eat it. The Torah declares here that the prohibition of eating from the carcass of an animal does apply to this fat, and one who does so violates two separate prohibitions. Do not think that the principle \u201cThe same action cannot be prohibited in two different ways\u201d applies to this.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Fat from animals that died or were torn by beasts may be put to any use, but you must not eat it. The meat of the animal is obviously forbidden (and it goes without saying that the blood is forbidden as well). But since the fat of such an animal is not offered on the altar, one might think that it is permissible to consume it. So the verse specifically forbids this.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:25<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
From which offerings by fire may be made. Animals of the same kind that are offered to the Lord, though these particular animals have no sacred status.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
If anyone eats the fat of animals from which offerings by fire may be made. Compare NJPS (which is correct) with OJPS (which is misleading). The point cannot be that the fat of the specific animals that are offered may not be eaten, for such fat from all animals, whether offered or not, has already been unconditionally forbidden: \u201cIt is a law for all time throughout the ages, in all your settlements: you must not eat any fat or any blood\u201d (3:17). Here in ch. 7 too, vv. 23\u201324 have just mentioned the same point. Note, moreover, that rules pertaining to sacrifices frequently include the phrase \u201cfor all time,\u201d but they never include the phrase \u201cin all your settlements,\u201d since the sacrifices are not applicable \u201cin all your settlements,\u201d but only in the Tabernacle and in \u201cthe place that the LORD will choose\u201d (Deut. 12:14). (Let no one be so confused as to be blinded by the phrase \u201cin all your settlements\u201d in 23:14; it refers to the prohibition against eating new grain before the offering of the first sheaf, not to the offering itself. Now that this offering can no longer be brought, the prohibition does not apply.) If there were any doubt that the NJPS translation here is correct, 27:9 and 27:11 would clinch it. There, exactly the same language is used for animals that \u201care\u201d (that is, may be) offered to God and those that \u201care not\u201d (that is, may not be). This language is in fact standard\u2014see, e.g., 11:39, where the singular is used, as in our verse. (Vv. 23\u201324 make clear that the reference is to the species that may be offered, whether a particular animal is valid for sacrifice or not.) What this passage adds is the punishment of being cut off for eating the forbidden fat. If the prohibition applied only to the specific animal that is sacrificed, what would be the point of 3:17? It is clear that the fat of the specific animal must be burnt as a \u201cpleasing odor\u201d (3:16) to the Lord. Wouldn\u2019t they have had to warn us not to eat the liver and kidneys as well, which are also included there? As to why Deut. 15:23, \u201cyou must not partake of its blood,\u201d does not mention fat as well\u2014let the One who is found in every place bring me to the proper place, and I shall explain it there.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:26\u201331<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is the fat presented with the breast (v. 30) and not with the thigh (v. 32)?
\n\u2666 Why does the breast go to all of the priests (v. 31) and the thigh only to the priest \u201cwho offers the blood and the fat\u201d (v. 33)?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:26<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Either of bird or of animal. The blood of fish and edible insects is excluded from this prohibition. In any of your settlements. This is an obligation relating to the person, not an obligation relating to a sacred location, so it applies everywhere. B. Kid. 37b explains why this had to be written.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
In any of your settlements. Though in the outlying districts the animals certainly have no sacred status.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You must not consume any blood, either of bird or of animal. Birds are specifically mentioned here because their equivalent of \u1e25elev, the prohibited animal fat, is not offered on the altar and is therefore in fact permitted for consumption. The conclusive proof of my comments to this entire section, vv. 23\u201327, comes from the book of Deuteronomy, which three times (Deut. 12:23, 24, and 25) insists with regard to nonsacrificial meat that the blood must not be eaten, and never mentions fat at all. At this point in the argument, the eyes of my \u201cSadducean\u201d friend (see my comment to v. 23) were opened, and he blurted out an oath that he would never again trust his own judgment in interpreting the commandments, but would rely on the interpretations that have come down to us in Jewish tradition.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:30<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
His own hands shall present. The fat and the breast are on the hands of the one who is bringing the sacrifice; the priest places his hands under them and elevates the offering. The LORD\u2019S offerings by fire. And what are these offerings? The fat with the breast. Literally, \u201cover\u201d the breast. When the priest brings them from the place where the animals are slaughtered, he puts the fat on top of the breast. So when he transfers them into the hands of the priest who waves them, the breast is on top and the fat below: \u201cthe breast of waving \u2026 over the offerings of the fat\u201d (10:15; see OJPS). When he further transfers them to the priest who is to turn them into smoke, the breast is once again on the bottom: \u201cthe fat parts over the breasts\u201d (9:20). We therefore learn that three different priests are required for this process. This is how B. Men. 62b explains it. Note that our verse is phrased rather carefully. He \u201cpresents\u201d the fat with the breast, which we might think means that the breast is also one of the \u201cofferings by fire\u201d; but no, the breast is presented to be elevated as an elevation offering (or rather, \u201cwaved for a wave offering,\u201d as OJPS more precisely has it).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall present the fat with the breast. The straightforward sense here would seem to be that the breast is elevated with the fat, but the thigh (v. 32) is not; 9:20\u201321 would then imply that, once the fat is burnt, the breast is elevated again, without the fat but together with the thigh. But the Sages say that the individual offering the sacrifice holds the fat parts, atop which the breast and thigh are placed for elevation. According to them, the mention in our verse of the breast by itself was intended to provide an opportunity for the rabbinic interpretation that if either the breast or thigh becomes ritually impure, the other one must still be elevated by itself.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
His own hands shall present the LORD\u2019S offerings by fire. This demonstrates that he is bringing his offering to God, and that whatever the priests get is coming to them \u201cfrom the table of the Most High\u201d (Sforno). An elevation offering. Rather, with OJPS, \u201ca wave offering.\u201d It is waved back and forth, up and down, to symbolize how \u201cthe eyes of the LORD range over the entire earth\u201d (2 Chron. 16:9). The breast and thigh are appropriate for this, since these are their natural movements as well\u2014the breast of the animal moving horizontally and its legs being picked up and set down vertically (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:31<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The priest shall turn the fat into smoke on the altar, after which the breast shall go to Aaron and his sons. We learn that the meat cannot be eaten before the sacrificial parts go up onto the altar.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:32\u201338<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are the breast and the thigh specifically given to the priests (v. 34) rather than any other part of the animal?
\n\u2666 Doesn\u2019t this contradict Deut. 18:3, which specifies that \u201ceveryone who offers a sacrifice \u2026 must give the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach to the priest\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why is the breast an \u201coffering of elevation\u201d and the thigh a \u201cgift offering\u201d?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:32<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The right thigh. The \u201cthigh\u201d is the tibia and its flesh, extending from the calcaneus to the patella\u2014the middle of the three sections of the animal\u2019s leg. (The calcaneus and below is that part which butchers sell along with the head.)<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:33<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He from among Aaron\u2019s sons who offers the blood and the fat. That is, any priest who is eligible to offer them. So anyone who is impure when the blood is dashed or when the fat is turned into smoke is excluded from sharing in this meat.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The right thigh. This goes to the specific priest who dashes the blood against the altar.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:34<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Elevation offering \u2026 gift offering. Actually, what NJPS calls the \u201celevation\u201d offering is \u201cwaved\u201d back and forth horizontally (see OJPS); it is the \u201cgift\u201d offering of NJPS that is \u201cheaved\u201d up and down (that is, elevated and lowered; see OJPS).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The breast. This goes to all the priests.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:35<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Perquisites. NJPS has understood this word\u2014elsewhere translated as \u201canointing\u201d\u2014correctly. What the priests receive from the sacrifices constitutes their pay: \u201cthe skin of the burnt offering\u201d (v. 8), the meat of the sin offering (6:19) and the guilt offering (v. 7), one each of the breads from the thanksgiving offering (v. 14), the breast and thigh of the sacrifice of well-being (vv. 31\u201334), and \u201cwhat is left\u201d of the meal offering (6:9).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The perquisites. Literally, \u201cthe anointing\u201d; but NJPS has the sense. These are the rewards given to Aaron and his sons, for anointing confers princely status.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:36<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Once they had been anointed. Again NJPS has the sense; contrast the more literal \u201cin the day that they were anointed\u201d (OJPS). These are their perquisites from that day on. The same is true of \u201cwhat is left over of the flesh and the bread\u201d (8:32), where even OJPS agrees that the Hebrew preposition must mean \u201cof\u201d or \u201cfrom.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
To be given them, once they had been anointed. NJPS is not quite precise here; OJPS, \u201cwhich the LORD commanded to be given them of the children of Israel, in the day that they were anointed,\u201d is more literal. The sense of the text is that, at the time the priests were anointed, the Lord commanded that these things be given to them ever afterward. The same applies to \u201conce they have been inducted\u201d of v. 35. The NJPS translation follows the explanation of Ibn Ezra, that the Hebrew preposition which OJPS translates here as \u201cin\u201d can indeed mean \u201cfrom\u201d; see 8:32, \u201cwhat is left over of [not in] the flesh and the bread.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:37<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The offering of ordination. Not of ordination in general, but specifically for the day when the priesthood was inaugurated.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The offering of ordination. This offering is described in Exodus 29.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 7:38<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Offerings to the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai. They made no offerings until they reached Mount Sinai. As I have explained in my comment to Exod. 17:15, the altar that Moses built after the defeat of Amalek was at Horeb, which is Mount Sinai. Israel remained there for a year (less 10 days), as the text informs us. The prophet tells us explicitly that they brought no offerings in the wilderness: \u201cDid you offer sacrifice and oblation to Me those forty years in the wilderness, O House of Israel?\u201d (Amos 5:25). Nor did they bring the passover offering except once on the night of the exodus from Egypt and a second time at Mount Sinai. They had no livestock in the wilderness! Once they left Mount Sinai, they did not even go on circumcising their sons. By the time of Joshua most of them were uncircumcised; he had to have them circumcised so that they could eat the passover offering.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
With which the LORD charged Moses on Mount Sinai \u2026 in the wilderness of Sinai. According to the Sages, all of the commandments\u2014from the broadest generalities down to the most precise regulations\u2014were given to Moses on Mount Sinai; some of them, and specifically the laws of Leviticus, were then repeated to him in the Tent of Meeting. According to the straightforward sense, however, the burnt offerings, the sin offerings, and the offering of ordination were commanded to Moses on Mount Sinai, while the meal offerings, the guilt offerings, and the offerings of well-being were commanded in the wilderness, in the Tent of Meeting. But perhaps the Hebrew phrase here does not mean \u201con Mount Sinai\u201d but \u201cat Mount Sinai,\u201d in the Tent of Meeting. This is certainly true of \u201cthe continual burnt offering that was offered at Mount Sinai\u201d (Num. 28:6), which was not offered \u201con\u201d the mountain. Similarly, when the Israelites \u201cmarched from the mountain of the LORD a distance of three days\u201d (Num. 10:33), they marched from the wilderness in front of the mountain, not from on top of it. And in Deut. 1:6 God tells the Israelites, \u201cYou have stayed long enough at this mountain.\u201d My point is that the Israelites camped at, that is, \u201cin front of,\u201d the mountain (as Exod. 19:2 says explicitly) and stayed there until they departed for the wilderness of Paran. They made the Tent of Meeting and set it up in front of Mount Sinai, on its eastern side, and there began to sacrifice the regular daily offering. Our verse, therefore, is careful to make clear that they were in the wilderness of Sinai, at the mountain, but not atop it in the place of glory where God spoke the Ten Commandments. Nor were the sacrifices commanded elsewhere in the wilderness of Sinai, after they had left the mountain, but right there in the vicinity of the mountain and quite close to it. The book begins by telling us that \u201cThe LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting\u201d (1:1), and here in our verse it informs us where the Tent was located.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He commanded that the Israelites present their offerings to the LORD. Specifically to the Lord, and not to idols (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:1\u20133<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why must all of these commands be given again, when they have already been given in the weekly portion of Tetzaveh in the book of Exodus?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:1<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses. This instruction was given seven days before the Tabernacle was erected. Remember that the text of the Torah is not written in chronological order.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Take Aaron. \u201cTake\u201d him with words, draw him in, and persuade him. The bull of sin offering (and so forth)\u2014God told Moses all of these things in the instructions for ordination given in Exodus 29. Now, on the day that the ordination actually began, He repeated them to spur Moses into action.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The bull of sin offering. \u201cThe\u201d bull of sin offering that has already been mentioned in Exod. 29:1. Similarly the two rams, and the basket of unleavened bread.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Take Aaron. Rashi remarks, \u201cThis instruction was given seven days before the Tabernacle was erected. Remember that the text of the Torah is not written in chronological order.\u201d But why should we upend the living words of God? Moreover, Exodus 40 tells us that God gave Moses all the commandments pertaining to setting up the Tabernacle and dressing and anointing the priests, and it goes on to describe Moses actually setting up the Tabernacle. But the text says nothing about Aaron and his sons up until this point, in Leviticus 8. How could the text separate a single incident into two, and tell the earlier part of it later? In fact, Moses was commanded on the 23rd of Adar to set up the Tabernacle, and he did so. Once the Tabernacle was standing, the Holy One Enthroned on the Cherubim commanded him about the sacrifices\u2014everything in the first seven chapters of Leviticus. For He wanted to teach Moses all the rules pertaining to them before any of them was offered. The ordination ceremony involved a sin offering, a burnt offering, and sacrifices of well-being, and they had no way to know the rules for them other than from chs. 1\u20137 here, which necessarily had to precede the description of the ceremony itself. Now God tells Moses to \u201cTake Aaron along with his sons\u201d and do what He had previously explained to him, for now was the moment for him to carry out \u201cwhat you shall do to them in consecrating them to serve Me as priests\u201d (Exod. 29:1). The correct perspective is that Moses was commanded about setting up the Tabernacle before the Golden Calf incident, and when the Holy One reconciled with him and promised him that the Shekhinah would indeed settle upon them, Moses understood on his own that the commandment to set up the Tabernacle was still in force. At which point he commanded Israel about it, as I have explained in my comment to Exod. 35:1. After the work was finished, God spoke to him as is recorded in Exodus 40, where he was told, \u201cYou shall bring Aaron and his sons forward to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting\u201d and so forth (Exod. 40:12). He therefore understood that Aaron, and his sons too, retained the high rank that the Omnipresent had lovingly given them. At this point, in Leviticus 8, on the first day of the ordination, He gives the go-ahead. Now all the texts have been explained as taking place in just the order they are written\u2014except for Exod. 40:34, \u201cthe cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and the Presence of the Lord filled the Tabernacle,\u201d which did not take place until the eighth day of the ordination process, according to our Sages, but was written where it was to keep all of the material about the Tabernacle together in one place. For it is the way of the Scripture in all cases to complete the description of any subject once it is begun.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Assemble the whole community at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. This is one of the places in the Torah where a small area miraculously contains something much larger than itself.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The whole community. The elders and the heads of the tribes.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Assemble the whole community at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. This was added to the instructions given in Exodus 29 so that everyone would know that the Holy One had chosen Aaron and his descendants.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Assemble the whole community. So that they should all treat the priesthood as a sacred institution (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:4\u201311<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
This is what the LORD has commanded to be done. \u201cAll of the things that you see me doing I was commanded by the Holy One to do. Do not think that I am doing them for my own glory or for that of my brother.\u201d\u2014I have explained all of these things in my comments to Exodus 29.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:6<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Moses brought Aaron and his sons forward. To the laver. And washed them. Rather, \u201cand he washed them\u201d\u2014someone who had been instructed by Moses to do so.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Washed them with water. It seems more plausible to me that the text is speaking here in generalities, but that Moses actually washed them separately. First he washed Aaron, then dressed him in the priestly garments and anointed him; afterward he washed Aaron\u2019s sons, dressed them, and anointed them.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:7<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
With which he tied it to him. OJPS is closer to the Hebrew syntax here. The Hebrew actually says not \u201ctied\u201d or \u201cbound\u201d but \u201che ephod-ed it onto him.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He put the tunic on him, girded him with the sash. This is the order in which Moses did it. The commandment to dress Aaron, however, is made in a different order: \u201cClothe Aaron with the tunic, the robe of the ephod\u201d (Exod. 29:5). In that passage, the intent was to give a single command about the sash for both Aaron and his sons: \u201cAnd gird both Aaron and his sons with sashes\u201d (Exod. 29:9). But Moses put the tunic and sash on him, and then put the ephod on him, girding him with the decorated band, though Exod. 29:5 instructs him to gird Aaron with the band only after putting the breastpiece on him, which Moses does not actually do in our passage until v. 8. Moses therefore did clothe him with the tunic and then the robe, in the correct order. But he also understood that proper dressing involves putting on a garment and then immediately belting it with the belt that was specifically made for it\u2014the sash for the tunic, and the decorated band for the ephod. You will notice that Exod. 29:5 mentions the breastpiece only briefly, not bothering to say that it was to be put on the ephod or that the Urim and Thummim of Exod. 28:30 were to be put inside it.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He put the tunic on him, girded him with the sash. The breeches are not mentioned; it should not be thought that Aaron was ever naked of them, for they were always on him (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The Urim and Thummim. That is, an inscription of the Ineffable Name.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He \u2026 put into the breastpiece the Urim and Thummim. Just as the gold frontlet is not the same thing as the headdress (v. 9), so too the Urim and Thummim cannot be the same as the \u201cstones\u201d of the breastpiece, any more than the \u201cPact\u201d (Exod. 25:16) could mean the same as the Ark into which it was put.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The Urim and Thummim. The truth about these is unknown (Kimhi).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
On the headdress \u2026 he put the gold frontlet. He put the blue cords atop the headdress so that the diadem was hanging from it.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:10<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Moses took the anointing oil and anointed the Tabernacle. That is, he had already taken the oil and anointed the Tabernacle previous to clothing Aaron.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Moses took the anointing oil and anointed the Tabernacle. Then \u201cHe poured some of the anointing oil upon Aaron\u2019s head\u201d (v. 12). This too Moses did in the proper order, as originally commanded when the preparation of the oil was discussed (Exod. 30:26, 30). Moses did not want to anoint the Tabernacle until Aaron was dressed, so that he could anoint them at the same time, in order that the one who was to present the offerings would be ready at once to come and serve in the sanctuary. It was enough to anoint Aaron alone\u2014\u201cthe holy one of the LORD\u201d (Ps. 106:16)\u2014at this time, though Exod. 40:12 combines the description of Aaron and his sons being \u201cbrought forward\u201d into a single verse.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He sprinkled some of it on the altar. I do not know where in the Torah he was commanded to do this sprinkling.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He sprinkled some of it on the altar. Rashi wonders where Moses was commanded to do this sprinkling. Perhaps Exod. 40:10, \u201cThen anoint the altar of burnt offering and all its utensils to consecrate the altar, so that the altar shall be most holy,\u201d implied that mere anointing was not enough to add this extra level of sanctification, and that sprinkling might be required in order to make the altar \u201cmost holy\u201d\u2014that is, more so than \u201call its utensils.\u201d He gave it the same sanctification that he had been commanded to give to those who present the offerings: \u201cTake some of the blood that is on the altar and some of the anointing oil and sprinkle upon Aaron and his vestments, and also upon his sons and his sons\u2019 vestments\u201d (Exod. 29:21). For the altar, as a vehicle for the sacrifices, is obviously no less holy than the vestments of those who offer the sacrifices. Notice that when Aaron purges the altar for the Day of Atonement (16:19), he is to sprinkle blood on it seven times to sanctify it. The sanctification of the altar always requires sprinkling, all the more so here at the outset when it must be separated from the realm of impurity and the profane world.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:12\u201316<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He poured some of the anointing oil upon Aaron\u2019s head and anointed him. He first poured the oil on Aaron\u2019s head, and then anointed him by putting some of the oil between his eyebrows and spreading it from one to the other with his finger.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:13<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Wound turbans upon them. That is, he tied the turbans around their heads.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Moses then brought Aaron\u2019s sons forward. This is repeated from v. 6, since so much information has intervened since then. Or perhaps the verse is more correctly translated, \u201cWhen Moses brought Aaron\u2019s sons forward, he clothed them in tunics\u201d and so on.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Moses then brought Aaron\u2019s sons forward. The text does not mention that he anointed them, taking it for granted that we will understand, once told as the LORD had commanded Moses, that he did so as commanded in Exod. 40:15. My reading of the situation is that the sons were not anointed in the same way as Aaron was, by having the oil poured on their heads (see Exod. 29:7); the anointing of the sons is not mentioned there at all because they were not anointed in this way. It may even be that the sons were not anointed at all except for the \u201csprinkling\u201d of Exod. 29:21. It is true that Exod. 30:30 and 40:15 refer to anointing both Aaron and his sons, but there is no mention of sprinkling there; for there is not a single place in the Torah that mentions both anointing Aaron\u2019s sons and sprinkling them. That is why I think that Moses actually did only one of these to the sons\u2014the sprinkling.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:15<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Cleansing the altar. Literally, he \u201cde-sinned\u201d it, purifying it of anything unpriestly so that it might enter into a state of holiness. Thus he consecrated it. NJPS is correct; he did so by the ritual just described. Contrast OJPS, which (following the Hebrew more literally) does not make this clear. In order to make expiation upon it. The reference is a general one, to all the acts of expiation that would be made on this altar from then on.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Cleansing the altar. I have already dealt with this \u201ccleansing\u201d in my comment to 6:19. He consecrated it in order to make expiation upon it. The \u201cexpiation\u201d referred to is not part of the ordination ceremony; rather, this is the process by which Moses prepared the altar so that in the future it could (in general) make expiation for sin.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Cleansing the altar. If Rashi is correct, the procedure here would seem to match that in Ezekiel: \u201cSeven days they shall purge the altar and cleanse it; thus shall it be consecrated. And when these days are over, then from the eighth day onward the priests shall offer your burnt offerings and your offerings of well-being on the altar; and I will extend My favor to you\u2014declares the Lord GOD\u201d (Ezek. 43:26\u201327). What we learn from our text, then, is that this procedure is to be performed with blood, and that the burning of the sacrificial parts described in v. 16 is not an essential part of the inauguration ritual nor (once the altar is inaugurated) of the expiation rituals. In the Sifra I have read the following explanation: Moses was worried that the Israelites did not contribute to the altar willingly, but because of social pressure to do so. This expiation was carried out in case anyone had contributed something stolen to the sanctuary: \u201cFor I the LORD love justice, I hate robbery with a burnt offering\u201d (Isa. 61:8). Indeed, Rashi alludes to this in his comment to Exod. 29:36.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:16<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The protuberance of the liver. He took a bit of the liver along with it, as Exod. 29:13 explains: \u201cthe protuberance on the liver,\u201d that is, along with some of the liver, to \u201ctop\u201d it off.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
All the fat that was about the entrails. Compare \u201cthe fat that covers the entrails\u201d (7:3) and \u201cthe fat that covers the entrails and all the fat that is about the entrails\u201d (3:3). Understand that this \u201ccovering\u201d fat is quite extensive, while there is just a little bit of fat here and there \u201cabout\u201d the entrails. Since the fat that \u201ccovers\u201d the entrails is of course also \u201cabout\u201d them, the text sometimes uses this briefer description.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:17\u201323<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:17<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The rest of the bull \u2026 he put to the fire. Some say that he did this himself, others that \u201che\u201d was someone else whom Moses had instructed to do it. The latter group argue that \u201cas the LORD had commanded Moses\u201d supports their position, since if Moses himself had done it, one would expect \u201cas the LORD had commanded him.\u201d But this is no proof. It is common in Biblical Hebrew to repeat the antecedent rather than replace it with a pronoun.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The rest of the bull, its hide, its flesh, and its dung. \u201cThe rest of\u201d is not part of the Hebrew; see OJPS. But NJPS has probably interpreted it correctly\u2014the point is to include all those parts not included in \u201cits flesh\u201d: the bones, sinews, horns, and hoofs. Or perhaps the \u201cand\u201d of \u201cand its skin\u201d (again, see OJPS) is simply redundant, making the implication of our verse similar to that of \u201cThe cow shall be burned in his sight\u2014its hide, flesh, and blood shall be burned, its dung included\u201d (Num. 19:5).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:20<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The ram was cut up into sections. This is only done after flaying: \u201cThe burnt offering shall be flayed and cut up into sections\u201d (1:6). But our text omits repeating this detail. Moses turned the head, the sections, and the suet into smoke. This was not actually done until \u201cMoses washed the entrails and the legs with water and turned all of the ram into smoke\u201d (v. 21). For all of the ram was \u201cturned into smoke\u201d at once, after the washing. Our verse mentions the sections separately to teach that they do not require washing.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:22<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The ram of ordination. The ram of fulfillment, for \u201cordination\u201d implies fulfillment, seeing that the priests would be fully confirmed in their priesthood.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the ram\u2019s head. The verb here is plural, whereas in v. 14 it is singular. But there is no difference between them. A major grammarian has erred in this respect, saying (in his explanation of Exod. 29:10 and 29:15) that, with the bull, first Aaron laid his hands upon it and then his sons did so, while here they all did it simultaneously.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He brought forward the second ram, the ram of ordination. I have already explained in my comment to Exod. 28:41 that ordination\u2014literally, in the Hebrew idiom, \u201cfilling the hands\u201d\u2014implies that the priest\u2019s hands are completely \u201cfull\u201d of the competence demanded by the task of serving the Lord. (The same idiom is applied as well to the altar itself.) The purpose of all these sacrifices was to \u201cfill\u201d their hands: \u201cThis is what you shall do to them in consecrating them to serve Me as priests: Take a young bull of the herd and two rams without blemish\u201d (Exod. 29:1). The second ram is specifically referred to as the ram of \u201cfulfilling,\u201d because it was the last of all these sacrifices to be made. Since all were necessary for the process, with this second ram the process was completed and they were consecrated to the service of the Holy One. Another possible way of explaining why this second ram is referred to as the ram of \u201cfulfilling\u201d is that the purpose of the sin offering was to consecrate the altar and make expiation upon it (v. 15); that of the burnt offering (v. 18) to provide an acceptable expiation for the priests themselves, as with any freewill burnt offering; the offering of well-being was a thanksgiving offering to God for giving them, in His House and within His walls, a monument and a name. If this is correct, then only this second ram was \u201cfulfilling\u201d the priests\u2019 ordination; hence the name. The Hebrew word is actually in the plural\u2014\u201cfulfillings\u201d\u2014because there are a number of different parts to it: the fats, the thigh, and the unleavened bread, all of which were offered.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:23<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Some of its blood. The blood would make expiation for Aaron\u2019s life; \u201cfor the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar\u201d (17:11). The \u201clife\u201d in the blood of the sacrificial animal makes expiation for the life of the person: \u201clife for life.\u201d Exod. 4:25 is based on a similar premise. The ridge of Aaron\u2019s right ear \u2026 the thumb of his right hand \u2026 the big toe of his right foot. See my comment to 14:14.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Moses took some of its blood and put it on the ridge of Aaron\u2019s right ear. The first anointment (in v. 12) served to make Aaron a priest; the second, here, adding blood to the oil, meant that his priesthood would be passed on to his descendants (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:24\u201330<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:25<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
And the right thigh. Ordinarily the officiating priest would receive both the thigh and the breast. But there were no priests as yet, and Moses could not have eaten this much meat within the required time. So the thigh was burnt on the altar (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:26<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
One cake of oil bread. These are the cakes (7:12) made with boiling water and soaked with as much oil as the cakes of unleavened bread and the wafers combined. That is how B. Men. 78a explains it.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
One cake of unleavened bread. This is the \u201cone flat loaf of bread\u201d mentioned in Exod. 29:23. With respect to gold or silver, a \u201ccake\u201d equals one talent. So perhaps with respect to bread also it is a measure of weight (though of course it would be a different actual weight than a \u201ccake\u201d of gold). Placed them on the fat parts. The kidneys and the protuberance of the liver are not mentioned\u2014the protuberance because it is small (the word itself implies \u201ca bit of something extra\u201d) and the kidneys because they are inseparable from their \u201cfat parts.\u201d But the kidneys themselves are not included in the term \u201cfat parts\u201d; only the sheep\u2019s broad tail can be so called.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:27<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Elevated them. \u201cThem\u201d refers to Aaron and his sons. Moses elevated their hands just as Aaron would elevate the Levites (see the Hebrew of Num. 8:21).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:28<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Turned them into smoke on the altar. Moses served as priest for all seven days of the ordination. With the burnt offering. Rather, \u201cupon\u201d the burnt offering (OJPS), that is, along with it\u2014but after it. Notice that this is the only place where we find the thigh of a peace offering burned on the altar.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:30<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Moses took some of the anointing oil and some of the blood. I don\u2019t know whether Moses mixed the two of them for these sprinklings (as in 16:18, where he mixes the bull\u2019s blood and the goat\u2019s blood) or not. (The word \u201cit\u201d of the translations is not found in the Hebrew.) Moreover, it is not clear to me why these sprinklings were delayed until after the ordination offering was turned into smoke. As originally commanded (Exod. 29:21\u201325), the sprinklings are supposed to come first. Perhaps because Exod. 29:21 says \u201cThus shall he and his vestments be holy, as well as his sons and his sons\u2019 vestments,\u201d Moses understood this to be the culminating act of sanctification. For no mention of holiness is found there in connection with anointing or with putting the blood on the thumbs and so forth. Here in our passage, although v. 12 does say \u201cHe poured some of the anointing oil upon Aaron\u2019s head and anointed him, to consecrate him,\u201d it is clear that the consecration is not fully completed until the sprinklings of our verse have taken place: Thus he consecrated Aaron and his vestments, and also his sons and their vestments. With this final act the consecration of both father and sons was simultaneously completed. The Sifra plainly says exactly this.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:31\u201335<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:31<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Boil the flesh. Aaron and his sons were to boil it themselves. For when God told Moses, \u201cYou shall take the ram of ordination and boil its flesh in the sacred precinct\u201d (Exod. 29:31), the intent was that Moses should have the flesh boiled by the priests.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:32<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
What is left over of the flesh and the bread. That is, what is left over until morning: \u201cAnd if any of the flesh of ordination, or any of the bread, is left until morning, you shall put what is left to the fire\u201d (Exod. 29:34).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
What is left over of the flesh and the bread. The text does not say \u201cwhat is left over until morning,\u201d for they had already learned the rules of sacrifice and knew that these offerings of well-being were to follow the strictest rule, being eaten only during the day when they were offered and the night following. Or the text may be deliberately terse here because this rule is given explicitly in Exod. 29:34, \u201cAnd if any of the flesh of ordination, or any of the bread, is left until morning, you shall put what is left to the fire.\u201d (On the translation \u201cof the flesh,\u201d see the end of my comment to 7:36, and compare also Ezek. 43:27 and Judg. 10:8.)<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:33<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall not go outside the entrance of the Tent of Meeting for seven days. Some explain this to mean that they could not go out during any of the seven days, but that they could go out of the Tent at night to take care of their bodily needs. In my opinion, they could go out for this purpose whether it was day or night. A great scholar has suggested that they dug a trench for this purpose in the courtyard of the Tent, but this is farfetched. One must not overinterpret the text. We are told that \u201cthe Israelites bewailed Moses in the steppes of Moab for thirty days\u201d (Deut. 34:8), as if there was not a single moment during the thirty days when they were not crying. Our verse simply means that Aaron and his sons stayed at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting day and night, not occupying themselves with any other task or going to some other location. The same is true when we are told that the High Priest \u201cshall not go outside the sanctuary\u201d (21:12), as I shall explain. For your ordination will require seven days. The actual Hebrew is terse: \u201cHe shall consecrate you seven days\u201d (OJPS). It is not clear whether the wording to be supplied is \u201cat the end of seven days\u201d or \u201cfor a period of seven days.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:34<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Everything done today, the LORD has commanded to be done [seven days]. To be done \u2026 to make expiation. Our Sages interpret this verse to mean that the priest who burns the red heifer of Numbers 19 must separate himself from his wife for seven days when that is \u201cto be done,\u201d just as the High Priest must before the Day of Atonement, when he is \u201cto make expiation.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Everything done today. More literally, \u201ceverything he has done today\u201d\u2014though we would expect Moses to say \u201ceverything I have done today.\u201d But referring to oneself in the third person is typical of Hebrew style. Ezekiel says, \u201cEzekiel shall become a portent for you\u201d (Ezek. 24:24); and Samuel says, \u201cThe Lord sent Jerubbaal and Bedan and Jephthah and Samuel\u201d (1 Sam. 12:11). The LORD has commanded to be done seven days. This command is found in Exod. 29:35\u201336, where we learn that Moses was to prepare a bull as a sin offering, purge the altar, anoint it, and so forth, \u201ceach day\u201d until the seven-day period of ordination was over. As Exod. 29:37 explains, the purification of the altar was also to take seven days. Exod. 29:36 does not say explicitly that the two rams are to be offered each day of the seven, but this is simply because that text does not refer to every detail. Many people think that indeed only the bull of sin offering was offered on all seven days. But in my opinion the bull is mentioned in Exod. 29:35\u201336, and the rams are not, because the subject of those verses is expiation upon the altar, in which the bull is involved but the rams are not.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:35<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
That you may not die. For you are liable to die if you do not do so.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall remain at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Notice what is added to this command by comparison with v. 33\u2014that you may not die. For so I have been commanded. Some take this as a reference to God\u2019s telling Moses in Exod. 29:35, \u201cjust as I have commanded you,\u201d though the command to remain at the entrance to the Tent is not mentioned there.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall remain at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting day and night for seven days, keeping the LORD\u2019S charge\u2014that you may not die. According to the Sifra, the point of this verse is that they should not leave the Tent of Meeting, day or night, during the hours of service\u2014that is, until they had finished all of the service required of them at a particular time. This rule that priests should not drop what they are doing and leave is, of course, operative throughout the generations. It is a capital offense. We are told of the High Priest, \u201cHe shall not go outside the sanctuary and profane the sanctuary of his God\u201d (21:12). There too the Sifra explains, \u201cWhen shall he not go outside, thus profaning the sanctuary? When he is serving.\u201d They further interpreted 10:7, \u201cDo not go outside the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, lest you die, for the LORD\u2019S anointing oil is upon you,\u201d as follows: Rather than saying \u201cYou are anointed with the LORD\u2019S anointing oil,\u201d the verse adds that the oil is \u201cupon you,\u201d that is, permanently. The implication is that \u201ctheir anointing shall serve them for everlasting priesthood throughout the ages\u201d (Exod. 40:15).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall remain at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting day and night for seven days, keeping the LORD\u2019S charge\u2014that you may not die. He may have been hinting to them here that leaving the sacred enclosure to bring fire from outside it would entail death, as was indeed about to happen to Nadab and Abihu (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 8:36<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Aaron and his sons did all the things that the LORD had commanded. This is said in praise of them\u2014they did not deviate an inch from what God had commanded.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
And Aaron and his sons did all the things that the LORD had commanded through Moses. Everywhere else in this chapter the expression is \u201cas the LORD had commanded Moses.\u201d Here, however, though they did indeed do all the things that the Lord commanded Moses, they did not do as the Lord commanded Moses, for \u201cNadab and Abihu \u2026 offered before the LORD alien fire, which He had not enjoined upon them\u201d (10:1).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The LORD had commanded through Moses. This is one of 10 verses in the Bible in which the Lord commands \u201cthrough\u201d\u2014literally, by the hand of\u2014Moses (Masorah).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:1\u20133<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 On each of the first seven days of the ordination a bull and two rams were offered (8:2). Assuming that the \u201ccalf\u201d of our v. 2 is the bull\u2014still, why is the second ram, the ram of ordination (8:22), omitted?
\n\u2666 Why did Moses tell Aaron to speak to the Israelites (v. 3) rather than commanding them directly?
\n\u2666 Why were they commanded to bring \u201ca he-goat for a sin offering\u201d when 4:14 has told us that the sin offering of the congregation is \u201ca bull of the herd\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why must they bring a sin offering in the first place?
\n\u2666 Why are they to bring \u201ca calf and a lamb\u201d\u2014two animals at once\u2014as a double burnt offering?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:1<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
On the eighth day. Of the ordination ceremony\u2014that is, on the 1st of Nisan, the very day when the Tabernacle was erected. This \u201ceighth\u201d day is called \u201cthe first day\u201d in Num. 7:12 because it was crowned with 10 \u201cfirsts,\u201d as described in Seder Olam: It was (1) the first day of creation; (2) the first time a tribal chieftain brought an offering; (3) the first day of the Shekhinah\u2019s resting upon Israel; (4) the first day on which sacrifice was restricted to a single location; (5) the first day of the priesthood; (6) the first day on which the priestly blessing was recited; (7) the first day of the sacrificial ritual; (8) the first day on which sacrifices were slaughtered on the north side of the altar; (9) the first day on which eating sacrificial portions was restricted to a sacred area; and (10) the first day on which fire descended on the altar. Moses called \u2026 the elders of Israel. To tell them that Aaron would be entering upon the duties of the High Priesthood, by God\u2019s command\u2014so that they would not think he had simply decided on his own to assume that office.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
On the eighth day. On the eighth day of the ordination procedure, when the Tabernacle had already been set up and Aaron and his sons inaugurated to serve there as priests.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
On the eighth day. It would seem to us that \u201cthe eighth day\u201d should be the 8th of Nisan, for the Tabernacle was set up on the first of the month. But our tradition says that the 1st of Nisan was \u201cthe eighth day\u201d of the ordination procedure, and that during the first seven days Moses would set up the Tabernacle every day and then dismantle it, to train them in the standard procedure. Moses called Aaron and his sons. And they came out of the Tent of Meeting, or perhaps the community came into the enclosure.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Moses called Aaron and his sons. To inaugurate them into the priesthood (Bekhor Shor). The elders of Israel. Moses called them to attend the inauguration and to be present as their offerings were brought (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Take a calf. This would make known to all that the Holy One was absolving him, by means of this calf, for the incident of the Golden Calf that he had made.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A calf of the herd. On the first seven days of the procedure there was indeed a ram for a burnt offering (see 8:18), along with a \u201cbull of sin offering\u201d (8:14), but there was no mention of its being a \u201ccalf\u201d (and certainly not a \u201cyearling,\u201d v. 3). It seems most plausible to me that \u201cbull\u201d can just as well refer to a calf if no specific mention is made of its age. The Hebrew literally calls the calf \u201cson of the herd,\u201d which is exactly how the bull of the High Priest is described in 4:3. Without blemish. This expression refers both to the calf and to the ram. The first seven bulls were to purge the altar, but this calf was a ransom for Aaron, replacing the punishment for any sin he might have committed. (See my comment to 1:4 and my introduction to Exodus 32.)<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He said to Aaron: \u201cTake a calf of the herd.\u201d Our master Moses had received this command, as we learn from v. 6: \u201cMoses said: \u2018This is what the LORD has commanded that you do\u2019 \u201d\u2014though the specific utterance in which Moses was given these instructions is not recorded. The same is true when Moses says of the manna, \u201cThis is what the LORD has commanded: Let one omer of it be kept throughout the ages\u201d (Exod. 16:32), and when Jacob recounts a dream in which God said to him, \u201cI am the God of Beth-el\u201d (Gen. 31:13), though God\u2019s saying this is not recorded in the Torah. There are many such examples in the Passover commandments, as I said in my comment to Exod. 11:1.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
A calf of the herd. Though Aaron himself did not sin in the matter of the Golden Calf, he was in some sense the reason that a few of the Israelites sinned; so he needed to make expiation (Gersonides). Aaron is saying (as it were), in the words of Jer. 31:18, \u201cI am like an untrained calf. Receive me back, let me return, for You, O LORD, are my God\u201d (Abarbanel). A ram. The ram may perhaps have been in memory of the Binding of Isaac and the ram in that story (Abarbanel). Without blemish. The implication is that Aaron\u2019s conduct in the matter of the Golden Calf was likewise \u201cwithout blemish\u201d (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A calf and a lamb, yearlings without blemish. Wherever \u201ca calf\u201d is mentioned, it must be a yearling, a rule that we learn from this verse.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A he-goat for a sin offering. For the congregation. Yearlings. Less than one full year old.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Speak to the Israelites, saying. God wanted Aaron to be the one to command these things in His name. Since he was the one who would be offering the sacrifices, God wished to elevate him in the eyes of the people. Yet, though OJPS translates with greater accuracy, NJPS conveys the meaning better here, for the real sense is that \u201cthou,\u201d Aaron, should say these things along with the elders who are mentioned in v. 1. That is why Moses \u201ccalled\u201d them. (See similarly my comment to Exod. 12:21.) Or perhaps it is \u201cTake a calf of the herd\u201d (v. 2) that is specifically addressed to Aaron, and \u201cthou\u201d is telling each of the elders individually that he must speak to the Israelites. For one who speaks to a group can shift easily to giving particular assignments to those in the group, as in Deut. 3:18, when Moses first tells all the people, \u201cThe LORD your God has given you this country to possess,\u201d after which (without any interruption) he speaks specifically to the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, who wish to settle on the east bank of the Jordan: \u201cYou must go as shock-troops, warriors all, at the head of your Israelite kinsmen.\u201d In fact, this phenomenon is common in Deuteronomy. Ibn Ezra (in his comment to v. 6) says that Moses had already spoken to them, which presumably would mean that v. 6 is a continuation of v. 1, with vv. 2\u20134 following after. That is, Moses made a brief, overall statement and then gave them the specific details. But this is not correct. In fact, v. 6 occurs at its proper place. Moses told them the specifics of the offerings, \u201cthey brought to the front of the Tent of Meeting the things that Moses had commanded\u201d (v. 5), and then he repeated: These are the offerings you are to make, in this order, after which the Presence will appear to you. That statement in itself is a reiteration and explanation of \u201cFor today the LORD will appear to you\u201d (v. 4).
\nNow, the offerings mentioned here are not those described following Exod. 29:1, \u201cThis is what you shall do to them in consecrating them to serve Me as priests.\u201d That chapter discusses only the offerings of the first seven days of the process, when they were to be ordained. But now, \u201con the eighth day,\u201d they themselves must bring the offerings, as a kind of initiation (like the offerings of 6:13\u201315, which would be brought in the future by each priest \u201con the occasion of his anointment\u201d [6:13]). It could be that these offerings were added in order to atone for the Golden Calf incident, which (as I explained in my comments to 8:2 and to Exod. 35:1) had not occurred when Moses was given the instruction \u201cthis is what you shall do\u201d in Exodus 29. That would explain why they are not mentioned in that chapter. I therefore disagree with Rashi\u2019s comment to Exod. 29:1 that it is the calf mentioned there which is to atone for the Golden Calf incident. In fact, the purpose of those bulls was to purge the altar, Aaron, and his sons of sin in order to consecrate them. It is this calf offered on the eighth day that was meant to expiate for the Golden Calf. Notice that Aaron\u2019s offering here is essentially equivalent to his offering on the Day of Atonement\u2014\u201cThus only shall Aaron enter the Shrine: with a bull of the herd for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering\u201d (16:3)\u2014while that of the people, \u201cthe goat of sin offering\u201d (16:15), is exactly equivalent. The Sifra too explains that this calf is the one that atones for the Golden Calf, and that the people\u2019s sacrifice too atones for their transgressions\u2014not only a calf as burnt offering to atone for the Golden Calf but also a he-goat for a sin offering to atone for the sin of Joseph\u2019s brothers. The resemblance to the offering for the Day of Atonement apparently explains why Aaron\u2019s offering is burnt, as that one is, rather than eaten (after the sacrificial parts were burnt), as offerings on die outer altar ordinarily are. For Moses did not say what should be done with this offering. But of course it may be that Moses actually was given all these commands, but the text did not wish to explain them at length. For Aaron would not do anything but what Moses had told him, and Moses would not tell them to do anything but what God had commanded him.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
And speak to the Israelites, saying. This phrase occurs only four times in the Bible\u2014here, 24:15; Exod. 30:31, and Num. 27:8 (Masorah). A calf. The people too, once expiation has been made for them, will be like \u201can untrained calf,\u201d needing to be taught and trained to keep the commandments (Abarbanel). A lamb. For the very same reason that a lamb was used as the passover offering on the night they escaped from Egypt\u2014to extract them from the religion of the Egyptians, who worshiped Aries, the Ram (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:4\u20136<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Likewise, how is it that \u201can ox and a ram\u201d (v. 4) make up a single offering of well-being?
\n\u2666 Why do the ox and the ram not have to be \u201cwithout blemish\u201d like the calf and the lamb of v. 3, especially since all sacrifices are expected to be without blemish?
\n\u2666 Why did Moses tell Aaron to say \u201cthe LORD will appear to you\u201d (v. 4), when he himself says in v. 6 only that \u201cthe Presence of the LORD\u201d would appear? As Maimonides makes clear in the Guide, the \u201cPresence of the Lord\u201d is not the Lord Himself. In the event, the Lord did not appear to them, just a fire that consumed the offering.
\n\u2666 If it was indeed Aaron who spoke to them, why does v. 5 tell us that they brought \u201cthe things that Moses had commanded\u201d?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
For today the LORD will appear to you. To rest His Shekhinah permanently on the Tabernacle you have made. These sacrifices are obligatory on such a day.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
For today the LORD will appear to you. And He will send fire forth from the sky to turn the offerings into smoke.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
An ox and a ram. Grown ones. A meal offering. Of choice flour, for each animal.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
For today the LORD will appear to you. That is, the \u201cPresence\u201d (v. 6) or \u201cglory\u201d (OJPS) of the Lord will appear to you, something that you can sense directly, by means of the miraculous fire that would come forth from before the Lord (Gersonides). The divine fire that is God\u2019s representative and His messenger will appear to you. Remember Exod. 24:17, where \u201cthe Presence of the LORD appeared in the sight of the Israelites as a consuming fire\u201d (Abarbanel). Rather, \u201cFor today the LORD appeared to you\u201d\u2014when \u201cthe Presence of the LORD filled the Tabernacle\u201d (Exod. 40:34)\u2014and you must honor the appearance of the Shekhinah by offering these sacrifices (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:6<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Moses said. As I have already explained in another case (see my comment to Gen. 24:14), the implication of this statement is that Moses had previously told them this. This. Offering a he-goat, a calf, a lamb, an ox, and a ram. The Presence of the LORD. The fire that would come forth.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
This is what the LORD has commanded that you do. That you lay your hands upon the offerings of the people (Sforno). That the Presence of the LORD may appear to you. By which you will know that the Lord has chosen Aaron and his sons to serve Him\u2014for I (Moses) performed the rituals for the first seven days (Bekhor Shor). In addition to the appearance of the Shekhinah in the Tabernacle, it would now also appear \u201cto all the people\u201d (v. 23) as well (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:7\u201312<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:7<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Come forward to the altar. For Aaron was reluctant, even afraid, to approach. Moses said to him, \u201cWhy are you reluctant? It is for this that you were chosen.\u201d Your sin offering. The \u201ccalf of the herd\u201d (v. 2). Your burnt offering. The ram. The people\u2019s offering. The he-goat, the calf, and the lamb (v. 3).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Making expiation for yourself and for the people. You are commanded to make expiation, first for yourself (by means of the bull of sin offering), after which you will sacrifice the people\u2019s offering and make expiation for them. For no one can make expiation for someone else before he himself is completely cleansed of all sin.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Come forward to the altar. In my opinion, the straightforward meaning of this is that Moses was telling Aaron to \u201ccome near\u201d (compare OJPS) to the north side of the altar, which is where the sin offering and the burnt offering were supposed to be slaughtered. Moses did not bother to specify this, since Aaron already knew it. In the Sifra, however, our Sages\u2019 imaginations were sparked by this, and they created a parable: \u201cTo what may this be compared? To a king of flesh and blood who married a wife who was too bashful to appear before him. Her sister came to her and said, \u2018sister, why did you get involved in this? Was it not to attend the king? Hold your head up high and come, attend the king.\u2019 So it was with Aaron. Moses said to him, \u2018Brother, why was it that you were chosen to be High Priest? Was it not so that you might serve the Omnipresent? Hold your head up high and come, do your job.\u2019 \u201d Some, they continue, say that the horns of the altar reminded Aaron of an ox and he was afraid of it\u2014for Aaron was \u201cthe holy one of the LORD\u201d (Ps. 106:16), and had no sin on his conscience other than the Golden Calf episode, which continually weighed on his mind: \u201cfor I recognize my transgressions, and am ever conscious of my sin\u201d (Ps. 51:5). The apparent likeness of the altar to the calf would, he assumed, prevent his sin being expiated. Moses went up to him and said, \u201cAaron, my brother, do not be afraid of what you are afraid of. Hold your head up high and come near to it\u201d (thus explaining Moses\u2019 words in our verse)\u2014do it with alacrity. Do not be so downhearted, \u201cfor your action was long ago approved by God\u201d (Eccles. 9:7). Others explain that it was the Adversary who made him see the altar in this form. They explain Moses\u2019 saying \u201cCome forward\u201d as follows: \u201cAaron, my brother, even though God has approved of your expiation, you must still put a little something in the Adversary\u2019s mouth lest he accuse you when you come into the sanctuary.\u201d All of these midrashim are from the Sifra. Making expiation for yourself and for the people. Come forward to the altar to perform all the sacrifices, first making expiation for yourself by means of your sin offering and your burnt offering, and afterward for the people by means of the offerings you will make on their behalf. In this way, Moses taught him that the innocent must make expiation for the guilty.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Come forward to the altar and sacrifice your sin offering and your burnt offering. You must adjust your own situation before helping others (Abarbanel). Making expiation for yourself and for the people. In fact, Aaron\u2019s own expiation was complete after the seven days of ordination. His \u201ccalf of sin offering\u201d (v. 8) was necessary for him to make expiation for himself and the people together, so that he could then bring the people\u2019s sin offering (Gersonides). As the LORD has commanded. This verse, 10:15, and 2 Sam. 24:19 are the only verses in the Bible that end with this phrase (Masorah).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:8<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
His calf. It was his own property, just as on the Day of Atonement the High Priest is expected to offer \u201chis own bull of sin offering\u201d (16:6).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:9<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The rest of the blood. OJPS translates more literally here, but NJPS has the sense.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:10<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The fat. This is the fat that covers the entrails and the kidneys.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The flesh and the skin were consumed in fire outside the camp. We find no other sin offering made on the outer altar that is burned outside the camp like this except for the bull of ordination (8:14\u201317; and see Exod. 29:10\u201314). An explicit divine command provided for these exceptions.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Aaron\u2019s sons passed the blood to him. The somewhat unusual Hebrew word indicates that they passed it to him at the proper moment.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Passed the blood to him. Literally, they \u201ccaused him to find\u201d the blood at the moment when he needed it.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Aaron\u2019s sons passed the blood to him. So that they too might be inaugurated into the ritual service by participating in their father\u2019s sacrifice (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:13\u201320<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:13<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
And he turned it into smoke. That is, Aaron put it on the altar, and it was turned into smoke when the heavenly fire came forth.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:15<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Presented it as a sin offering. The NJPS translation is correct. The previous one. His own \u201ccalf of sin offering\u201d (v. 8).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He brought forward the people\u2019s offering. Rather, \u201che offered the people\u2019s sacrifice\u201d on the altar. This is a general introduction to what follows. Presented it as a sin offering. Rather, he \u201cdesinned the altar with it.\u201d Like the previous one. The \u201cprevious one\u201d was his own calf of sin offering.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:16<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
According to regulation. According to the regulations for a freewill offering described in ch. 1.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
According to regulation. The dashing of the blood, arrangement of the sacrificial pieces on the altar, and turning them into smoke were performed by Aaron\u2019s sons (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:17<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Taking a handful of it. Scooping it in the manner described in 2:2. In addition to the burnt offering of the morning. That is, everything described here was done after the regular morning offering.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
In addition to the burnt offering of the morning. The text had to mention this here in order to teach that the people\u2019s offering neither replaces nor precedes the regular morning offering. There was no need to mention this with regard to the ordination offerings of the first seven days, since these\u2014being individual offerings\u2014would obviously neither replace nor precede the daily offering. The Sifra compares our passage with Num. 28:31, where the phrase \u201cin addition to the regular burnt offering and its meal offering\u201d is used, and deduces from the similar phrase in our verse that here too the people willingly brought an \u201cextra\u201d meal offering in addition to the one belonging to the daily offering, which had already been brought on their behalf.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:19<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The covering [fat]. More specifically, the fat that covers \u201cthe inwards\u201d (OJPS).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
And the fat parts of the ox and the ram. The translations, correctly, make this verse part of the same sentence that begins in v. 18. But NJPS ignores, and OJPS treats ambiguously, the punctuation of the verse. It should read as follows: \u201cAnd the fat parts of the ox. And of the ram: the broad tail and the covering fat\u201d (see the next comment). The kidneys and the protuberances of the livers came from both animals. The covering fat. OJPS follows Rashi\u2014incorrectly, in my view. Why would this fat be specifically mentioned and the others not? In fact, all fat that is offered on the altar is \u201ccovering\u201d fat, whether it covers \u201cthe inwards\u201d or the kidneys or the loins. As our Sages have pointed out, fat that is marbled in the flesh is permitted to be eaten, for the Torah says, \u201con the loins\u201d (e.g., 7:4), not \u201cin\u201d the loins.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:20<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
They laid these fat parts over the breasts. That is, the priest who waved them then turned them over to the priest who would make them into smoke, with the result that the fat parts were now on top and the breasts on the bottom.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
These fat parts. Along with the kidneys and the protuberance of the liver; see my comments to 8:16 and 8:26.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
They laid these fat parts over the breasts. That is, the broad tail, the kidneys, and the protuberances of the livers were put beneath, with the fat parts above them; all of this on top of the breasts. The result was that only the fat parts were visible. This is how a sacrifice is offered with the proper respect. Aaron turned the fat parts into smoke on the altar. With the rest of the parts that were mentioned. Since the offering was so rich in fats, they are mentioned specifically. See similarly v. 24, \u201cFire came forth from before the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the fat parts.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:21\u201324<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does it appear that the people are blessed twice, in vv. 22 and 23?
\n\u2666 Why does divine sanctification take the form of fire, as in v. 24, and not water or something else? The same thing happens at the dedication of Solomon\u2019s Temple in 2 Chronicles 7, and Elijah says explicitly in 1 Kings 18:24 that \u201cthe god who responds with fire, that one is God.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:21<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The breasts. Those of the ox and the ram. The right thighs. Rather, \u201cthe right thigh\u201d (OJPS) of each one. But \u201cright\u201d is not an adjective here; an even more precise translation would be, \u201cthe thigh of the right side\u201d of each.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
As Moses had commanded. This phrase appears six times in the Bible; our verse is one of three (also Exod. 16:24 and 1 Chron. 15:15) that do not add a description of Moses as \u201cthe servant of the LORD,\u201d as do the three other occurrences, all in Joshua (Masorah).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:22<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Aaron \u2026 blessed them. With the priestly blessing of Num. 6:24\u201326. He stepped down. From atop the altar.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Aaron lifted his hands toward the people. Based on this verse, our predecessors have passed on the tradition that the priests must lift their hands high when they offer the Priestly Blessing. He stepped down. From the altar, which was three cubits high. But (as I have already explained many times) this Hebrew syntax can mean, as it does here, that he had already stepped down after offering the sin offering (and so forth) before he lifted his hands to bless the people.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Aaron lifted his hands toward the people and blessed them. If this was indeed the Priestly Blessing of Num. 6:24\u201326, as Rashi thinks, then Num. 6:23, \u201cSpeak to Aaron and his sons: Thus shall you bless the people of Israel,\u201d must also have preceded our passage. And perhaps it did, since the Numbers passage seems to be describing \u201cthe day that Moses finished setting up the Tabernacle\u201d (Num. 7:1). But it might also be possible simply to understand Aaron doing the same here as did Solomon at the inauguration of the Temple, when \u201che spread the palms of his hands toward heaven \u2026 and in a loud voice blessed the whole congregation of Israel\u201d (1 Kings 8:22, 55). That would explain why the text does not record that Moses commanded Aaron to do so. In the Sifra I have seen our passage explained as follows: \u201cAaron blessed the people, but you do not know what he said. Later the text comes and states explicitly, \u2018The LORD bless you and protect you! The LORD deal kindly and graciously with you! The LORD bestow His favor upon you and grant you peace!\u2019 \u201d But I still say that this is what they meant: The text was silent about the blessing that Aaron gave the people, on his own initiative, but did state explicitly, later, the blessing that all the priests would offer ever afterward. Or perhaps they thought that Moses had commanded him to offer the Priestly Blessing on this specific occasion, and that only later was the command given that this should be the Priestly Blessing throughout the generations.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:23<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Moses and Aaron then went inside the Tent of Meeting. Why did they go into the Tent? I have found the following in the special section in the Sifra describing the ordination: Why did Moses go in with Aaron? To teach him the incense ritual.\u2014Or perhaps he went in for some other reason?\u2014Since they blessed the people again when they came out, I deduce that they must have performed some ritual inside, just as Aaron blessed the people outside (in v. 22) after the completion of the ritual of the sacrifices. Thus Moses must have gone in with Aaron to teach him about the incense ritual. Another reading: When Aaron saw that all the sacrifices had been offered and all the other rituals performed, but the Shekhinah had not descended upon Israel, he was upset, thinking, \u201cI know that the Holy One is angry with me, and that I am the reason the Shekhinah has not descended upon Israel.\u201d He said to Moses, \u201cMoses, my brother, I have done as you asked, and you have embarrassed me.\u201d Immediately Moses went into the Tent with him, begged for mercy, and the Shekhinah descended upon Israel. When they came out, they blessed the people. The Sages understand them to have recited Ps. 90:17, \u201cMay the favor of the LORD, our God, be upon us!\u201d as if to say, \u201cMay it be God\u2019s will that the Shekhinah rest upon the Tabernacle you have made.\u201d For all during the first seven days of the ordination procedure, when Moses set up the Tabernacle, served there, and then disassembled it each day, the Shekhinah did not rest upon it. The people were depressed, saying, \u201cOur master Moses! All this trouble we took was so that the Shekhinah would settle among us and we would know that we were forgiven for the sin of the Golden Calf.\u201d That is why he replied to them, \u201c \u2018This is what the LORD has commanded that you do, that the Presence of the LORD may appear to you\u2019 (v. 6). You must understand that my brother Aaron is more worthy than I. For it is by means of his offerings and his service that the Shekhinah will settle on you, so that you may know that God has chosen him.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Moses and Aaron then went inside the Tent of Meeting. To pray that the fire would come down. The Presence of the LORD appeared to all the people. How did it do so? \u201cFire came forth \u2026\u201d (v. 24).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Moses and Aaron then went inside the Tent of Meeting. \u201cThen\u201d is not literally in the Hebrew (see OJPS), but NJPS understands correctly. Perhaps they went inside the Tent to pray for the fire to come forth. Then, when they came out, the two of them blessed the people.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
They blessed the people. That they should be found acceptable through their offering (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 9:24<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The people \u2026 shouted. Rather, as Onkelos has it, they \u201csang songs of praise\u201d to God.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Fire came forth from before the LORD. From inside the Holy of Holies, via the golden altar inside the Tabernacle\u2014in order to turn the incense into smoke (which, according to B. Yoma 33b, must precede the regular daily offering). But there, next to the golden altar, the fire encountered the sons of Aaron and burned them. Then it came forth to the outside altar and consumed the burnt offering and the fat parts.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The burnt offering. Which consisted of three separate sacrifices\u2014that of Aaron, that of the people, and the regular daily offering. As Num. 28:23 shows us, the regular morning offering goes without saying. The fat parts. Of Aaron\u2019s calf and ram, and of the people\u2019s he-goat, ox, and ram. Shouted. This is indeed the correct translation. Compare \u201ca shout went through the army\u201d (1 Kings 22:36).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Fire came forth from before the LORD. More literally, \u201cfrom with the face of the Lord.\u201d The enlightened person will comprehend this, as I have already explained it.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Fire came forth from before the LORD. The fire that came forth in Moses\u2019 day was not extinguished from the copper altar until they got to the time of the Temple, and that which came down in Solomon\u2019s day was not extinguished until the time of King Manasseh (Hizkuni). All the people saw, and shouted, and fell on their faces. They had no fear, but raised their voices in supplication and prostrated themselves to the God who was answering them and accepting their sacrifices (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Leviticus 7:1\u20138 ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS \u2666 Why should the guilt offering (or, for that matter, the sin offering) be \u201cmost holy\u201d (v. 1)? Wouldn\u2019t this distinction more naturally belong to offerings that have no connection with sin? \u2666 Why is the priest here called \u201cthe priest who makes expiation\u201d (v. 7) and not simply \u201cthe priest … <\/p>\n