Leviticus<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:1<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The LORD called to Moses. Every speech, utterance, and command is preceded by a call. The term implies affection. The ministering angels do the same: \u201cAnd one would call to the other, \u2018Holy, holy, holy! The LORD of Hosts! His presence fills all the earth!\u2019 \u201d (Isa. 6:3). But the terms used when God reveals Himself to the prophets of other nations are casual and even a little bit crude: \u201cGod happened upon Balaam\u201d (Num. 23:4). In the instance described in our verse, God\u2019s voice proceeded directly to Moses\u2019 ears without the rest of Israel being able to hear it. One might think that a call preceded even each separate paragraph; therefore the text says \u201cThe LORD called to Moses\u201d and spoke\u2014the calling precedes every speech, not every paragraph. What then was the purpose of the pauses between paragraphs? To give Moses a breather after each passage and each subject so that he could think about it. If this was necessary when God spoke to Moses, it goes without saying that it is necessary between an ordinary teacher and an ordinary learner. To him. And not to Aaron. R. Judah b. Bathyra says, \u201cThirteen utterances were spoken in the Torah to Moses and Aaron, and corresponding to them are thirteen utterances where it is made clear that they were not spoken to Aaron, but to Moses for him to speak to Aaron. They are: Num. 7:89 (three times), Exod. 25:22 (twice)\u201d\u2014and so forth, as listed in the Sifra. One might think that at least the sound of God\u2019s voice might have been audible to all. So Num. 7:89 specifies that God spoke not \u201cto\u201d him, but \u201cunto\u201d him\u2014directly. Moses could hear it, but the rest of Israel couldn\u2019t. From the Tent of Meeting. That is, the sound cut off precisely at the entrance to the Tent so that it could not be heard outside. One might think that the sound was simply so quiet that it could not be heard outside the Tent; that is why Num. 7:89 specifies that Moses would hear \u201cthe Voice\u201d addressing him\u2014that is, \u201cthe Voice\u201d that is described in Psalm 29: \u201cThe Voice of the LORD is power; the Voice of the LORD is majesty; the Voice of the LORD breaks cedars\u201d (Ps. 29:4\u20135). But despite the power of this Voice, its sound could not be heard outside the Tent of Meeting. A similar phenomenon is found in Ezekiel: \u201cThe sound of the cherubs\u2019 wings could be heard as far as the outer court, like the Voice of El Shaddai when He speaks\u201d (Ezek. 10:5). Though the cherubs\u2019 wings were as loud as \u201cthe Voice,\u201d their sound cut off precisely at the extremity of the outer court. In our case, Num. 7:89 tells us that the sound was even more limited. It could not be heard throughout the Tent, but only \u201cfrom above the cover that was on top of the Ark of the Pact,\u201d and not even from the whole cover, but only \u201cbetween the two cherubim.\u201d Saying. A better translation would be that the Lord spoke to Moses and told him \u201cto say.\u201d It is as if God had told him, \u201cGo out and speak captivating words to them: \u2018It is for your sake that He communicates with me.\u2019 \u201d For we find that during the whole 38 years when Israel was ostracized, Moses had no private communication with God\u2014from the episode of the spies right up to the time \u201cWhen all the warriors among the people had died off\u201d (Deut. 2:16). Only after that does Moses again say, \u201cthe LORD spoke to me, saying\u201d (Deut. 2:17)\u2014that is, \u201ca private Utterance came to me.\u201d Another reading of \u201cto say\u201d: \u201cGo out and speak My words to them in order to say back to Me whether they accept them.\u201d This is what happened, for instance, in Exod. 19:8, \u201cAnd Moses brought back the people\u2019s words to the LORD.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Whoever is attentive to the word of our Creator, let him not stray from the explanations of my grandfather Rashi and not budge from them. For most of the laws and midrashim in them are close to the straightforward meaning of the texts or can be derived from superfluous expressions or variations in the language. It is best that you grasp what I have explained without letting go of the other. There are a great many laws in this section, and scholars should pay close attention to my grandfather\u2019s explanations, for I will not comment at length except in those places where the straightforward meaning of the texts needs to be explained.
\nThe LORD called to Moses. Since, as we were told at the end of the previous book, \u201cMoses could not enter the Tent of Meeting\u201d (Exod. 40:35), the Holy One had to call to him from the Tent. The verse then is saying, \u201cThe Lord called to Moses from the Tent of Meeting and spoke to him\u201d; \u201cfrom the Tent\u201d belongs with \u201ccalled,\u201d not with \u201cspoke.\u201d Similar expressions are used in \u201cThe LORD called to him from the mountain\u201d (Exod. 19:3) and \u201cGod called to him out of the bush\u201d (Exod. 3:4). Saying. This is essentially a repetition of \u201cspoke to him,\u201d as I have explained in my comment to Gen. 8:15. A similar redundancy is found in Num. 8:2, \u201cSpeak to Aaron and say to him.\u201d Just so, our text says, \u201cThe Lord \u2026 spoke to him \u2026 saying [to him].\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
We see that the individual covenant of circumcision may have two different purposes; so too a single commandment may have many different purposes. Such is the commandment concerning burnt offerings and other sacrifices. First, in giving each individual portion of a sacrifice in its proper time, each individual who has a portion in the World to Come escapes the evil destiny that might otherwise befall him. For lekapper (\u201cin expiation,\u201d v. 4) really means something like \u201cas a ransom\u201d (kofer). Exod. 30:12\u201316 demonstrates the link between the two terms: \u201cWhen you take a census of the Israelite people according to their enrollment, each shall pay the LORD a ransom for himself \u2026 You shall take the expiation money from the Israelites and assign it to the service of the Tent of Meeting; it shall serve the Israelites as a reminder before the LORD, as expiation for your persons.\u201d Exod. 5:3 makes clear what might happen if the proper ransom for one\u2019s life is not offered: \u201cThe God of the Hebrews has manifested Himself to us. Let us go, we pray, a distance of three days into the wilderness to sacrifice to the LORD our God, lest He strike us with pestilence or sword.\u201d For the burnt offerings can in some mysterious way avert one\u2019s fate. Second, careful study of the sacrificial system will reveal many mysteries of the natural world. Finally, the sin offerings (and the priestly shares of other sacrifices ) serve to sustain the lives of those who teach Torah. The reason the sacrifices are mentioned before the other commandments is that if the sacrifices were not offered, the Shekhinah would return to Her place in the heavens\u2014as indeed happened when the Temple was destroyed. But heaven forbid that we think God has some need of the burnt offerings! \u201cWere I hungry, I would not tell you\u201d (Ps. 50:12). Rather, there is a mystery involved.
\nThe LORD called to Moses. We have just been told that \u201cMoses could not enter the Tent of Meeting, because the cloud had settled upon it and the Presence of the LORD filled the Tabernacle\u201d (Exod. 40:35). The sense of our verse, then, is that the Presence of the Lord called to Moses from the Tent of Meeting to tell him to come in there, where He would speak with him. The Presence was behind the curtain of the Shrine, and that is where Moses would go: \u201cThere I will meet with you, and I will impart to you\u2014from above the cover, from between the two cherubim that are on top of the Ark of the Pact\u2014all that I will command you concerning the Israelite people\u201d (Exod. 25:22). This is what is meant by \u201che beholds the likeness of the LORD\u201d (Num. 12:8).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
This book is the instructions for the priests and Levites. It explains all the matters having to do with the offerings and with the protection of the Tabernacle from impurity. The previous book, Exodus, the story of the redemption from Egyptian exile, concludes with the setting up of the Tent of Meeting and the Presence of the Lord filling the Tabernacle. It was therefore necessary at this point to command them about the offerings and the protection of the Tabernacle, so that their offerings might make expiation for them and their transgressions would not cause the Shekhinah to depart. Since \u201cthe priests also, who come near the LORD, must stay pure\u201d (Exod. 19:22), they are cautioned about impurity with regard to the Tabernacle and the other sacred things, just as they were warned not to \u201cbreak through to come up to the LORD\u201d (Exod. 19:24), and just as God will subsequently warn Moses, \u201cTell your brother Aaron that he is not to come at will into the Shrine behind the curtain, in front of the cover that is upon the Ark, lest he die; for I appear in the cloud over the cover\u201d (16:2). The next book, Numbers, will describe how bounds were set about the Tabernacle just like the bounds that were set about Mount Sinai when the Presence of the God of Israel was there.
\nThe majority of Leviticus deals with the offerings: how they are to be made, by whom, and where, as well as the ancillary rules that go along with these topics. For example, after giving the rules for voluntary offerings and for sin offerings, the text continues by describing the foods that are forbidden because they make one who eats them impure. One who eats or even touches them must not touch anything sacred or enter the sanctuary. If he does so in a state of impurity, he is obligated to bring exactly the kind of sliding-scale sacrifice that has by then already been described in ch. 5. Similarly, the instructions about lepers, about women who have given birth, and about those with a genital discharge are given here, because they too are obligated to bring an offering, and to emphasize the warning at the end of that section: \u201cYou shall put the Israelites on guard against their uncleanness, lest they die through their uncleanness by defiling My Tabernacle which is among them\u201d (15:31). This is followed by the warnings about the kinds of sexual relations that defile those who engage in them and cause the Shekhinah to depart and be exiled. Even one who has forbidden relations inadvertently must bring a sin offering: \u201cIf any person from among the populace unwittingly incurs guilt by doing any of the things which by the LORD\u2019S commandments ought not to be done, and he realizes his guilt\u2014or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge\u2014he shall bring a female goat without blemish as his offering for the sin of which he is guilty\u201d (4:27\u201328). Finally, the rules for Sabbaths and festivals, on which special offerings had to be made, are given: \u201cThose are the set times of the LORD that you shall celebrate as sacred occasions, bringing offerings by fire to the LORD\u2014burnt offerings, meal offerings, sacrifices, and libations, on each day what is proper to it\u201d (23:37).
\nMost of the book is addressed specifically to the priests (see, e.g., 6:2 and 6:18). But in the weekly portion of Kedoshim there are a number of commandments that are addressed to all the Israelites, most of them in connection with offerings and the like. I shall explain these in their proper place, with the help of the Holy One.
\nThe LORD called to Moses and spoke to him. The other sections do not begin with a \u201ccall\u201d preceding the speech. But at this point Moses could not go to the Tent of Meeting, and thus draw near to the place where God was, without being specifically called there. God had already told him, \u201cI will impart to you\u2014from above the cover, from between the two cherubim that are on top of the Ark of the Pact\u2014all that I will command you concerning the Israelite people\u201d (Exod. 25:22), but Moses, knowing that God Enthroned on the Cherubim was inside the Tent, was afraid to go in without being summoned, just as on Mount Sinai \u201cHe called to Moses from the midst of the cloud\u201d (Exod. 24:16). Or perhaps Moses did not, after all, know that the Presence was inside the Tent and that God would address him from there. For according to the tradition of the Sages the cloud did not cover the Tent until the eighth day of the priests\u2019 inauguration. Once called, however, Moses could enter the Tent freely at any time. As the Sifra says, \u201cAaron fell under the prohibition \u2018Do not enter,\u2019 but Moses did not.\u201d This would seem to be the straightforward sense of our verse, as I have already explained in my comment to Exod. 40:2. In fact, the Sages say that every word God uttered to Moses\u2014whether He \u201cspoke,\u201d \u201csaid,\u201d or \u201ccommanded\u201d\u2014was preceded by a call. That is to say, He would call out, \u201cMoses!\u201d and Moses would reply, \u201cHere I am.\u201d God did this as a way of expressing friendly encouragement to Moses. The Sages think it is specifically mentioned here because this is the first occasion of God\u2019s speaking to Moses from the Tent. It shows how it would be done afterward throughout the whole rest of the Torah. From the Tent of Meeting. According to the Sages, this phrase is misplaced; God called to Moses from the Tent of Meeting but spoke to him in the Tent. But the straightforward, literal meaning of the verse is as the translations give it. The True interpretation follows the interpretation of \u201cThen He said to Moses, \u2018Come up to the LORD\u2019 \u201d (Exod. 24:1). The mystery involved is known from the giving of the Torah and the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai, and I have already alluded to it in my comments to Exod. 24:1.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Once the Tabernacle was erected, the Holy One set out how His creatures were to serve Him in it (Bekhor Shor). The book is divided into two parts: one (chs. 1\u201317) concerning the holiness of the priests and how they are to serve, and the other (chs. 18\u201327) concerning the holiness of the people (Abarbanel). The three types of animals that are sacrificed symbolize the three Patriarchs: The largest of them, the cattle, represent the greatest of the Patriarchs, Abraham, who ran to take a calf from among his cattle to feed the three strangers. The sheep fall into a middle category, as does Isaac, for whom a ram was substituted. And the smallest animal, the goat, represents Jacob, who fetched two kids for his father\u2019s dinner and wore their skins on his hands and neck so that his father would bless him (Abarbanel). The burnt offerings connect one\u2019s active intellect to its blessed Creator, rising up just as we rise up after death to achieve unification under the Throne of Glory. The sin offerings involve a financial burden, to encourage one to improve one\u2019s actions and sin no more. The sacrifices of well-being serve both as thanks to God for His goodness in the past and as a prayer that His gracious blessing will continue into the future (Abarbanel).
\nThe LORD called to Moses. This is one of only two verses in the Torah where the Lord \u201ccalled to Moses\u201d; the other is Exod. 24:16. Note also that the first Hebrew word of the book is spelled with a miniature \u05d0 (Masorah). The book literally begins, \u201c\u2026 and called to Moses\u201d; it follows naturally after Exod. 40:35: \u201cThe Presence of the LORD filled the Tabernacle \u2026 and called to Moses\u201d (Bekhor Shor). The Lord always called Moses, as in Exod. 24:16, \u201cfrom the midst of the cloud,\u201d which he could never enter without permission. This took place on the day when Moses finished setting up the Tabernacle. From this first day on, however, Moses could enter the Tabernacle as long as he stayed outside the curtain of the Shrine (Sforno). From the Tent of Meeting. Since some of the commandments were given at Mount Sinai and some in the Tent of Meeting, it was necessary here to specify that the commandments regarding the sacrifices were given in the Tent of Meeting (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:2<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Since this section is about the sacrifices, why does God tell Moses to speak to \u201cthe Israelite people\u201d (v. 2) rather than to Aaron and his sons, as in 6:2?
\n\u2666 Why does v. 2 continue, \u201cWhen any of you presents an offering,\u201d rather than simply saying \u201cWhen anyone presents an offering\u201d?<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
When. But only \u201cwhen\u201d\u2014this passage refers to voluntary offerings. Any of you presents an offering. More literally, \u201cany man of you\u201d (OJPS), using the word adam for \u201cman.\u201d Just as Adam offered to God nothing ill gotten (for everything was his), so must you offer nothing to God that is ill gotten. Of cattle. The Hebrew word is sometimes used to refer to any kind of beast, but the following reference to \u201cherd\u201d and \u201cflock\u201d makes clear that here it refers only to domestic animals. \u201cOf\u201d cattle implies that only some of the cattle can be offered; animals that have bestialized a human, or been bestialized, are excluded. He shall choose his offering. Literally, \u201cye [the plural of \u201cyou\u201d] shall bring your offering\u201d (OJPS). This teaches us that two people may combine to present a freewill offering. \u201cYour offering\u201d teaches further that such a freewill offering may be brought on behalf of the public, as a kind of lagniappe for the altar, from surplus temple funds. From the herd. Again, \u201cfrom\u201d implies an exclusion from the general category. Here, an animal that has been worshiped as a god is excluded from the category of those that may be offered to the Lord. (See also my first comment to v. 3.) Or from the flock. \u201cOr\u201d excludes an animal that has gored someone to death from the category of those that can be offered; \u201cfrom\u201d excludes those that have been set aside for future idolatrous worship.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
When any of you presents an offering. When you voluntarily present an offering that is not required because of some sin.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When any of you presents an offering. The Hebrew is somewhat more complicated: \u201cWhen anyone presents an offering of you.\u201d But the translations most likely have the sense correct; similar syntax is found in a number of other places. Perhaps, however, it means to say, \u201cWhen anyone presents an offering of yours\u201d\u2014that is, from your possessions. Alternatively, it may mean that an offering must be something that is \u201cyours,\u201d not robbed from someone else. After all, \u201cI the LORD love justice, I hate robbery with a burnt offering\u201d (Isa. 61:8). Cattle. The term is used here as a general noun including both animals from the herd and those from the flock (sheep and goats). His offering is also a general term, not referring specifically to a burnt offering.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall choose his offering. As Rashi explains, individuals may combine to present a freewill offering, and according to him it makes no difference whether this private offering is given by a single person, by two, by ten, or by a thousand. But the \u201cdessert\u201d for the altar (what Rashi calls \u201clagniappe\u201d) is considered a public offering. In his opinion, every offering that is brought by more than one person (except for the dessert) is considered a joint offering and requires the participants to lay hands on the animal and to bring libations at their own expense. Perhaps (in his view) this would even apply to offerings of birds and to sacrifices of well-being, of which we are told by the Sages that individuals may offer them jointly but the public as a whole may not. That is, they are not to be brought at public expense. But if the public as a whole were to decide to set aside funds for this purpose, as they do for the regular sacrifices, it might possibly be permitted\u2014falling under the conditions of this verse, but (as a public offering) not requiring the laying on of hands. The essential point is that with regard to the offering of cattle mentioned here (but not in the case of a bird offering or an offering of well-being), if a majority of Israel brings it, it is considered a public offering; if less than a majority, it is considered an offering brought in partnership by individuals. From the herd or from the flock. Since the text will go on to describe meal offerings and offerings of birds, it was necessary to make clear here that when animal offerings are made, they must be from the herd or the flock\u2014not from other domestic animals or from wild animals. In effect, this is a prohibition given in the form of a positive commandment; see R. Johanan\u2019s comment on B. Zev. 34a.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Speak to the Israelite people. Since they had taken so much trouble in constructing the Tabernacle and would be paying for the sacrifices, God wished to honor them by directing the first commandment about the sacrifices to them rather than to Aaron and his sons (Abarbanel). Any of you. Gentiles included. \u201cThe sacrifice of the wicked man is an abomination\u201d (Prov. 21:27), but this distinction applies only to Israelites; as for gentiles, even if one is completely wicked, his offering is accepted in order to bring him under the wings of the Shekhinah (Bekhor Shor). The Hebrew word used here, adam, is the name of the species, including both male and female. The reason offerings can be accepted from non-Jews but not from Jewish apostates is that non-Jews are distant from God and should be encouraged when they attempt to draw closer; but apostates knew the true faith and rejected it (Gersonides). \u201cAny of you,\u201d that is, who brings an offering with \u201ca contrite spirit\u201d (Ps. 51:19); God takes no pleasure in fools who bring an offering without previously submitting themselves to His will, particularly those who engage in idol worship or violate the Sabbath publicly (Sforno). An offering of cattle \u2026 from the herd or from the flock. More literally, \u201can offering of the cattle, of the herd, or of the flock\u201d\u2014but not of humankind. The Canaanites burn their sons and daughters to the One on high, which is why this verse was written (Hizkuni). These two kinds are both the most esteemed and the easiest to acquire. God had no desire to burden us with a demand for sacrifices that are not readily to hand (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:3\u20134<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does v. 3 say \u201che shall offer it\u201d twice (though the English translations obscure this)?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
From the herd. Only those \u201cfrom\u201d the herd that are not found to be diseased. A male. And not a female. When v. 10 repeats that it must be a male, the implication in that verse must therefore be \u201ca male, and not an animal of indeterminate sex or of both sexes.\u201d To the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. He himself must take responsibility for bringing it as far as the courtyard. \u201cHe shall bring\u201d and \u201che shall make\u201d are the same verb in Hebrew; the repetition is understood to imply that if Reuben\u2019s and Simeon\u2019s animals get mixed up, they should still bring them, each on behalf of whichever one of them it really belongs to. The same holds true for an animal set aside for sacrifice that gets mixed in among ordinary animals. They must all be sold as sacrificial animals, after which each is offered on behalf of the person to whom it now belongs. One might think this applies even if the sacrificial animal is mixed up with others that are unfit for sacrifice or that were intended for a different kind of sacrifice. But \u201che shall bring it\u201d is interpreted to mean that, in such a case, he is forced to bring another animal that will meet the original criteria. For acceptance in his behalf. Literally, \u201caccording to his will.\u201d How does this jibe with their forcing him? They pressure him until he says, \u201cI am willing.\u201d Before the LORD. For \u201che shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering\u201d (v. 4), and such laying on of hands was permitted only at the Temple in Jerusalem and not at the local \u201chigh places\u201d where sacrifice was offered before the Temple was built.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
If his offering is a burnt offering. If he specified that his voluntary sacrifice was to be a \u201cburnt offering.\u201d \u201cIf his offering is a sacrifice of well-being\u201d (3:1) is to be interpreted similarly. For acceptance in his behalf. That is, if he makes his offering \u201ca male without blemish\u201d and brings it \u201cto the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,\u201d then it will be acceptable in his behalf. But of a diseased or defective animal we are told, \u201cJust offer it to your governor: Will he accept you? Will he show you favor?\u2014said the LORD of Hosts \u2026 I will accept no [such] offering from you\u201d (Mal. 1:8, 10).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If his offering is a burnt offering. Here the text returns to detail a particular kind of sacrifice, the burnt offering, whose Hebrew name is self-explanatory: this is the sacrifice that olah, \u201cgoes up,\u201d entirely to God. Similarly, an offering brought to atone for sin is called a sin offering, and one that is brought to atone for one\u2019s guilt is called a guilt offering. From the herd. Whether a grown animal or a young one (as long as it is at least eight days old). Given that a burnt offering goes entirely to the One on high, it must be the choicest specimen. A male is considered more choice than a female, which is why no female animals are used for burnt offerings. To the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. That is, within the enclosure around the Tent of Meeting. Before the LORD. The sense shows that this phrase really belongs before the comma, following \u201cHe shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.\u201d For acceptance on his behalf. Rather, \u201caccording to his own acceptance\u201d\u2014he must bring it willingly, not under duress.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
For acceptance. Rather, \u201cvoluntarily.\u201d Notice this Hebrew word is not used with any of the other offerings, which are sometimes obligatory (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Upon the head of the burnt offering. Instead of saying \u201cupon its head,\u201d \u201cburnt offering\u201d is unnecessarily repeated here to include required burnt offerings along with freewill ones among those for which laying on of hands is practiced. Offerings \u201cfrom the flock\u201d (v. 10), where this expression is omitted, are also included. But \u201cthe burnt offering\u201d must be of the animal kind described here in order to require the laying on of hands, thus excluding burnt offerings of birds. That it may be acceptable in his behalf. Instead of what does God accept this of him? If you say that it is instead of capital punishment by a court, instead of death at the hands of heaven, or instead of being whipped\u2014well, these are punishments that are stated in the Torah. Rather, God accepts such an offering in lieu of the punishment for failure to perform a commanded action or for violating a prohibition whose transgression must be rectified by a specific action.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall lay his hand. The straightforward sense of the verse would seem to be that he lays one hand upon the head of the offering. (Note that for the scapegoat sent off to the wilderness, 16:21 must say explicitly that Aaron \u201cshall lay both his hands\u201d on its head\u2014for the scapegoat differs from an ordinary sacrifice.) But those who passed our tradition down to us have told us that in every case one must rest both hands upon the sacrifice; we therefore rest our case, in reliance upon them. That it may be acceptable to God in his behalf. In expiation for him. Rather, it serves to ransom him from the punishment that he would otherwise face.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall lay his hand. This must actually be done with both hands. For the Sages interpreted \u201clet Aaron and his sons lay their hands\u201d of Exod. 29:10 and 29:15 to mean both hands of each of them. In the case of the scapegoat, this is stated explicitly: \u201cAaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat\u201d (16:21). But if this is so, why does every other instance use the words \u201chis hand\u201d in the singular? Perhaps so that it could be interpreted as do our Sages: \u201chis hand\u201d but not the hand of one representing him. For if the text said \u201chis hands\u201d we would not be able to interpret it in this way. But now we know that, even though one can appoint someone to represent him in all other cases, this does not apply to laying hands on the sacrificial animal. The Sifra certainly considers the case of the scapegoat to be the classic example on which our understanding of this is based in all other cases. That it may be acceptable in his behalf, in expiation for him. See Rashi\u2019s comment, which is taken from the Sifra. But I find it surprising. Where are these other punishments \u201cstated in the Torah\u201d? The offerings described here all deal with cases of inadvertent sin. Apparently the idea is that what is stated in the Torah covers these cases\u2014that is, for inadvertent sins where no punishment is stated, no atonement is necessary. But in the two categories specified by Rashi (that is, failure to perform a commanded action and violating a prohibition whose transgression must be rectified by a specific action)\u2014sins committed deliberately, for which it is impossible that there be no punishment\u2014this offering is accepted if he brings it of his own free will.
\nPerhaps, however, the reasoning is a bit more subtle. Note that \u201cthe error that he committed unwittingly\u201d (5:18) is not mentioned in our verse, which states that the offering should \u201cbe acceptable in his behalf.\u201d Apparently the Sages took this as an implicit reference to intentional sin. For such people are not accepted by God, while the unintentional sinner, though he has indeed sinned, is accepted by God. Clearly those who have sinned in either of Rashi\u2019s two categories are unacceptable to the King. They have transgressed His command. How can they win their Lord\u2019s acceptance? By means of this gift, the burnt offering. In Leviticus Rabbah I have seen the following: \u201cR. Simeon b. Yohai said: The olah, the burnt offering, is offered to atone for one\u2019s sinful thoughts. Said R. Levi: There is a whole verse in the Bible devoted to this: \u2018What arises in your mind shall never come to pass\u2019 (Ezek. 20:32)\u2014the olah, the burnt offering, atones for the sinful thoughts that \u2018arise\u2019 [olah] in one\u2019s mind \u2026 Job 1:5 expresses the same idea: \u2018Job \u2026 would make burnt offerings, one for each of them; for Job thought, \u201cPerhaps my children have sinned and blasphemed God in their thoughts.\u201d \u2019 We see therefore that burnt offerings are meant to atone for sinful thoughts.\u201d Since these are sins that are unrecognized by anyone but God, the offering is entirely burnt up and offered to God. Such a sacrifice is \u201cacceptable\u201d to God \u201cin expiation for him\u201d in the sense that it appeases Him. The same language is used in 1 Sam. 29:4, \u201cFor with what could that fellow appease his master if not with the heads of these men?\u201d and in many other places. But it is also possible that \u201cacceptable\u201d refers to the sin in the sense that it has been atoned for, as in Isa. 40:2, \u201cher iniquity is expiated.\u201d This sense of the words implies repayment of a debt: \u201cmaking up for its sabbath years\u201d (26:43); \u201cuntil the land paid back its sabbaths\u201d (2 Chron. 36:21). But perhaps this is the same as the first explanation: it is as if the sin is now \u201cacceptable\u201d before God, and He will no longer be angry at him.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering. People customarily use the laying on of hands to symbolize the beginning of an action (Hizkuni). He must confess his sins as he does so, in effect transferring them onto the animal (Gersonides). In expiation for him. If the sacrifice did not expiate for his sins, he might think there was no point in returning to God and go on sinning (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:5<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is the blood of some sacrifices dashed \u201cagainst all sides of the altar\u201d (e.g., vv. 5, 11), while the blood of other sacrifices is put \u201con the horns of the altar\u201d (e.g., 4:7)?<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The bull shall be slaughtered. Literally, \u201che shall slaughter it\u201d (compare OJPS). From the point where the priests receive the animal\u2019s blood, they are in charge of the procedure. But the animal may be slaughtered by a nonpriest. Before the LORD. In the courtyard. Aaron\u2019s sons, the priests. Those of Aaron\u2019s descendants who are priests, not those who are secular. Shall offer the blood. They shall \u201cpresent\u201d it (OJPS), that is, bring it to the altar. But the next step after slaughtering is to receive the blood, and that must be included here too. Dashing the blood. Why is \u201cblood\u201d repeated here, when the text could have said \u201cdashing it\u201d? To imply that the blood ritual is performed even if the blood has been accidentally mixed with that of another burnt offering or even another type of sacrifice altogether. But v. 11, where the instructions are repeated for sheep and goats, implies that the ritual is not performed if the blood has been mixed with that of an animal that is unfit for sacrifice or with blood from sin offerings. (The blood of some sin offerings is dashed at the curtain of the Shrine, but even with the sin offerings whose blood is dashed against the altar, it must be dashed against the upper half of the altar, while this blood, from a burnt offering, is dashed against the lower half.) Dashing the blood. One \u201cdashes\u201d the blood by standing at the foot of the altar and throwing the blood from the basin that holds it against the side of the altar, at opposite corners, below the red line marking the halfway point. Against all sides of the altar. This is the correct interpretation of the more literal \u201cround about\u201d (OJPS). One might have thought the blood was literally to be applied \u201call around\u201d the altar\u2014but this cannot be so if it is to be \u201cdashed\u201d against the altar. On the other hand, \u201cdashing\u201d sounds as if it could be dashed just once; but \u201cagainst all sides\u201d points to the correct procedure: the blood is dashed twice, once against a corner of the altar (hitting two sides of it) and a second time against the opposite corner (hitting the other two sides). Which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Once the Tent has been dismantled for a journey, the procedure cannot be performed even if the altar is still standing.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Aaron\u2019s sons, the priests, shall offer the blood. OJPS \u201cshall present the blood\u201d is closer; the Hebrew more literally says \u201cshall bring the blood near.\u201d The process represented by this term (as the Sages have explained it) involves receiving the blood in a container and bringing it to the altar where it is to be dashed. The altar which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Not the golden altar that is inside the Tent of Meeting.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The bull shall be slaughtered. By the priest. This verb is singular, so the animal must be slaughtered by a single priest; but the subsequent verbs are plural, showing that the blood may be dashed against the altar by multiple priests. As 9:12 says, \u201cAaron\u2019s sons passed the blood to him.\u201d Before the LORD. As with the offering from the flock in v. 11, \u201cbefore the LORD\u201d here implies \u201con the north side of the altar,\u201d opposite the table. The altar which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Not the incense altar, which is inside the Tent.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The bull shall be slaughtered \u2026 and \u2026 the priests shall offer the blood. Rashi\u2019s explanation that \u201coffering\u201d the blood refers to bringing it to the altar is mistaken. According to our Sages, \u201coffering\u201d the blood means receiving it; although the verb literally means that the priests shall \u201cbring it close,\u201d it refers not to transport, but to bringing it close (metaphorically) to God as an offering. This covers both receiving the blood in a basin and dashing it against the altar. Notice that it is the owner of the animal who \u201cshall bring it\u201d (v. 3), \u201cshall lay his hand\u201d upon it (v. 4), and shall slaughter it (v. 5; OJPS makes this clear), immediately after which \u201cAaron\u2019s sons\u201d enter the picture. So it is clear that receiving the blood from the slaughtered animal is a commandment to the priests, and can only be performed by a valid priest using temple utensils. All the more so must the blood be transported to and then dashed against the altar by a priest. Carrying the sacrificial pieces onto the altar ramp is invalid if performed by a layman; this is how our Sages interpret v. 13, \u201cthe priest shall offer up and turn the whole into smoke on the altar.\u201d But if such carrying is invalid when done by a layman, it is abundantly clear that transporting the blood demands a priest with full priestly powers.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The bull shall be slaughtered. It seems to me that all aspects of the ritual not specifically reserved for the priests both may and must be performed by the person bringing the sacrifice. There are five such acts: laying on of hands, slaughtering, flaying, cutting into sections, and washing. Even if the person bringing the offering is the king of Israel, he must perform these five actions with his own hands (Abarbanel). Aaron\u2019s sons. That is, the younger priests, not those who are old and unsteady (Bekhor Shor). And they must be like Aaron, who had no imperfection (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:6\u20138<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:6<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The burnt offering shall be flayed. Again, the text might have said merely \u201cit shall be flayed.\u201d The repetition shows us that all burnt offerings must be flayed and cut up. Cut up into sections. The more literal OJPS, \u201ccut it into its pieces,\u201d includes a critical word that NJPS leaves out. The priest shall cut it into pieces, but may not cut the pieces into pieces.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The burnt offering shall be flayed. Rather, \u201che [the layman who is offering the sacrifice] shall flay\u201d it (OJPS), accompanied by a priest or a Levite.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The burnt offering shall be flayed and cut up into sections. It must be fully flayed and subsequently cut up into sections. As the singular, active verbs of the Hebrew make clear (again, see OJPS), these actions (like the laying on of hands and the slaughtering) are to be performed by the owner of the animal, for they are not part of the ritual and may thus be performed by a layman. That is why v. 7 must explicitly mention \u201cthe sons of Aaron the priest.\u201d The passive \u201cshall be washed\u201d of v. 9 is, again, a singular, active verb in the Hebrew, for this washing too may be performed by a layman; notice that there too, in the continuation of the verse, the priest is mentioned specifically with regard to turning the sacrifice into smoke.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:7<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The sons of Aaron the priest. \u201cAaron\u201d must be acting in his priestly capacity. If the High Priest performs a ritual dressed in the garments of an ordinary priest, it is invalid. Shall put fire on the altar. Even though fire comes down from heaven to consume the offerings, there is nonetheless a commandment to put ordinary fire there. Note that this refers to the regular morning offering; see my comment to 3:5.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar. At least two of them, and Levites may not perform this task. It is specifically for the priests.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and lay out wood upon the fire. Again, plural verbs are used, as in all the references to the priests so far. For the priests gather in great numbers in God\u2019s Temple to carry out the burnt offerings; \u201ca numerous people is the glory of a king\u201d (Prov. 14:28). But if there is only a single priest, this does not prevent the sacrifice from taking effect: \u201cthe priest shall lay them out\u201d (v. 12). Vv. 6\u20137, though, are out of order, for the fire and the wood should be laid upon the altar before the offering is flayed and cut up. This was the order in which it was done for the daily offering. The same is true of vv. 8\u20139, which make it look as if the sections of the animal, the head, and the suet are to be laid on the wood before the entrails and legs are washed. But this is of course not correct. Everything must first be cut up and washed, then put atop the wood and turned into smoke. The sense of the text is that dashing the blood against the altar is the first part of the ritual, which precedes all else. Then the animal is flayed and cut up, the entrails and legs are washed, everything is placed on the fire, and \u201cthe whole\u201d (v. 9) is turned into smoke. V. 9 indicates that, once the pieces are arranged on the altar, the priest must not leave them until the fire completely consumes them and smoke rises from them. Similarly, vv. 6\u20137 show that there is in fact no obligation in the case of these voluntary offerings to arrange the wood on the altar first, as there is with the daily offering, of which the text says, \u201cThe fire on the altar shall be kept burning, not to go out; every morning the priest shall feed wood to it\u201d (6:5). For with the daily offering, kindling the fire was the first of \u201ceverything pertaining to the altar\u201d (Num. 18:7), as B. Yoma 33a explains.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Aaron\u2019s sons, the priests. They too must act in their priestly capacity. If an ordinary priest performs a ritual while dressed in the eight garments of the High Priest, the ritual is invalid. Shall lay out the sections, with the head and the suet. Since the head has already been partially severed when the animal was slaughtered, it is not one of the \u201csections\u201d into which the carcass is cut; that is why it is mentioned separately here. The suet is mentioned separately to teach you that it is put on the altar with the head and used to cover up the marks of slaughtering, out of respect for God. On the wood that is on the fire upon the altar. The pieces of wood added to the fire must not stick out past the edges of the pyre on which the sacrifice is offered.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
The suet. The separate, nonedible fat.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Aaron\u2019s sons, the priests, shall lay out the sections. Since cattle are large, this task requires multiple priests. Note that with regard to the sections of a sheep or goat, which are smaller, v. 12 uses the singular: \u201cThe priest shall lay them out.\u201d The suet. Many contemporary scholars interpret the Hebrew word used here to mean \u201cthe body,\u201d so that the whole phrase would be \u201cthe head and the body.\u201d The English translations, however, follow my opinion, which is that the word refers to the animal\u2019s fat. The \u201csections\u201d laid out by the priests are sections of the body, which are accompanied by the head and the fat. The word \u201cand\u201d of \u201cand the head\u201d (OJPS) is not in the Hebrew text, but it is a normal feature of language sometimes to omit this word. (Note that it is included in v. 12.) Since the grammatical particle et can also mean \u201cwith,\u201d the NJPS translation \u201cwith the head and the suet\u201d may well be the correct interpretation. There are many other such cases. The clinching proof that the suet is something different from the sections of the body is the different arrangement of the same words in 8:20, \u201cMoses turned the head, the sections, and the suet into smoke on the altar.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The suet. Onkelos translates this word pader as \u201cfat,\u201d and the commentators agree with him unanimously, under the assumption that it is unrelated to any other word in the Hebrew language. In my opinion, it is not a general word for fat, but is indeed \u201csuet,\u201d the specific name for the thin fat spread over the internal organs, which separates them from each other. The Hebrew verb meaning \u201cseparate\u201d is par\u00e8d, and our word pader is derived from it by metathesis, the switching of two consonants, since this fat \u201cseparates\u201d the upper and lower internal organs. That is why our Sages said (on B. Yoma 26a) that the suet should be spread over the incision in the animal\u2019s throat, out of respect for heaven. For this fat is particularly fit for spreading out to cover things; aristocrats of other nations are accustomed to spread it on top of roast meat. If it were indeed a general reference to fat, the implication would be that it is the \u1e25elev, the fat that is separate from the flesh. In fact, this is the term used by natural scientists, as I will point out in my comment to 3:9.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The priests shall lay out the sections. The five actions that must be performed by the owner of the sacrifice are matched by five that must be performed by a priest: offering the blood, dashing it against the altar, putting fire on the altar, laying wood upon the fire, and laying out the sections on the wood (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
As a burnt offering. The priest must turn the animal \u201cinto smoke\u201d with the intent that it be a burnt offering. An offering by fire. It must be slaughtered for the sake of the fire; an isheh is an offering by \u201cfire,\u201d esh. Pleasing. This is preferable to \u201csweet\u201d (OJPS). \u201cIt pleases Me because I commanded it and My will was done.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Shall be washed with water. By either a priest or a Levite. This is why the next phrase must specify that only a priest can turn it into smoke. An offering by fire. The Hebrew word is really an adjective, implying something that is \u201coffered by fire.\u201d The word modified by this adjective is \u201cthe whole,\u201d for this is an offering that is wholly \u201coffered by fire.\u201d Pleasing. I have explained this in my comment to Gen. 8:21.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
A burnt offering. Rashi explains that it is called isheh because it must be slaughtered \u201cfor the sake of the fire\u201d\u2014but he does not explain what he means by this. B. Zev. 46b explains it with a difficult term, which Rashi (in his comment there) takes to mean that he must slaughter it with the intent to offer it on a fire burning atop the wood on the altar, not on gray coals that are dying out. To me it seems that he must have the intent that the fire consume it completely, not that it merely roast it a bit. (Some texts of the Talmud have a slightly different reading, which would mean that he must intend to burn it on wood, not on straw.)
\nNow Maimonides explains in the Guide (3:46) that the point of the sacrificial system is that the Egyptians and Babylonians amongst whom the Israelites lived worshiped these animals, the Egyptians serving Aries the ram and the Babylonians demons who appeared to them in goat form. The inhabitants of India will not slaughter cattle to this day. That is why we were commanded to slaughter these three species\u2014so that it might be known that the very thing that they consider the height of transgression is exactly what they should be sacrificing to the Creator to atone for sin. For that is how wrong beliefs (which are really no more than diseases of the spirit) are healed, since sickness is cured by administering its opposite. So said Maimonides, and indeed at much greater length.
\nBut these are idle words. It is at best dealing offhandedly with a great problem and at worst an actual defilement of the Lord\u2019s altar to suggest that the purpose of the sacrifices was simply to root out false beliefs from the minds of these wicked fools. For 3:16 says explicitly that the sacrifices are \u201cfood\u2014an offering by fire, of pleasing odor.\u201d In any case, such sacrifices would not cure the Egyptians\u2019 stupidity; they would just make things worse. They themselves do not eat these animals, out of respect for the constellations that they worship. But if the Israelites had sacrificed these animals to God, the Egyptians would have taken it as a mark of respect for their gods! In fact this is exactly what idolaters themselves do, as we learn from 17:7, \u201cthat they may offer their sacrifices no more to the goat-demons after whom they stray.\u201d Those who made the Golden Calf sacrificed to it as well. Maimonides himself points out that the idolaters would offer sacrifices to the moon at the beginning of every month and to the sun when it entered the constellations mentioned in their texts. The \u201cdisease\u201d would be better cured by our eating our fill of these animals, which they consider forbidden and even disgusting and would never do.
\nThink about it. When Noah and his three sons came out of the ark, there was not a Babylonian or an Egyptian on the face of the earth. Yet he offered sacrifice, and God found it good: \u201cThe LORD smelled the pleasing odor, and the LORD said to Himself: \u2018Never again will I doom the earth because of man\u2019 \u201d (Gen. 8:21). Even Abel \u201cbrought the choicest of the firstlings of his flock,\u201d and \u201cthe LORD paid heed to Abel and his offering\u201d (Gen. 4:4) at a time when there was not yet so much as a whisper of idolatry anywhere on earth. Balaam too told God, \u201cI have set up the seven altars and offered up a bull and a ram on each altar\u201d (Num. 23:4), and he had not been commanded to do so, nor was God trying to cure him of idolatry. Balaam\u2019s purpose was to draw close to God so that God\u2019s word would come to him. In fact God says plainly, \u201cBe punctilious in presenting to Me at stated times the offerings of food due Me, as offerings by fire of pleasing odor to Me\u201d (Num. 28:2). Heaven forbid that the sacrifices should be useless for any purpose other than eradicating idolatry from the heads of fools. It is more fitting to hearken to the following explanation: Since human deeds are a combination of thought, speech, and action, God commanded that, when one brings a sacrifice to atone for sin, one lays hands on the animal (action), confesses (speech), burns the kidneys (which are the organs of thought and desire) along with the limbs (corresponding to the arms and legs of the man, which do all his work), and dashes the blood (corresponding to his own lifeblood) against the altar. When a man does all these things, he must realize that he has sinned against his God with his body and with his soul, and that it would have been fitting for his own blood to be spilled and his own body burnt were it not for the grace of the Creator. For He has accepted this sacrifice as atonement in exchange for him\u2014its blood for his, its life for his, its limbs and organs for his. As for the portions eaten by the priests, they are to give life to those instructors of God\u2019s teaching so that they might pray for him. (There is also a daily public offering, since the masses cannot continually avoid sin.)
\nAll of these things are reasonable; they attract the heart, like the rest of rabbinic lore. But understood according to the True interpretation, the sacrifices contain a hidden mystery, which you can enter by way of what our Sages said in the Sifrei and on B. Men. 110a: \u201cSaid Simeon b. Azzai: Come and see what is written in the passage on the sacrifices. Neither \u2018El\u2019 nor \u2018your God\u2019 nor \u2018God\u2019 nor \u2018shaddai\u2019 nor \u2018of Hosts\u2019 is written there\u2014only the Tetragrammaton, God\u2019s ineffable Name, so as to give no one the opportunity to claim that there is more than one divine power in the world. Perhaps you might think that God needs the sacrifices for eating. The text therefore says, \u2018Were I hungry, I would not tell you, for Mine is the world and all it holds\u2019 [Ps. 50:12]. The only reason I told you \u2018Sacrifice\u2019 was so that My will might be said and done.\u201d And in the Sifra, R. Yose too says, \u201cEverywhere sacrifices are mentioned, the Tetragrammaton is used, so as not to give freethinkers an opportunity to rebel.\u201d These are the words of the Sages, of blessed memory. But the truth is that we do find in connection with sacrifices \u201cthey offer the LORD\u2019S offerings by fire, the food of their God \u2026 you must treat them as holy, since they offer the food of your God\u201d (21:6, 8); \u201cYou shall offer on it burnt offerings to the LORD your God\u201d (Deut. 27:6); and, in the aforementioned psalm, \u201cSacrifice a thank offering to God, and pay your vows to the Most High\u201d (Ps. 50:14). Moreover, 2 Chron. 29:6\u20137 says plainly, \u201cFor our fathers trespassed and did what displeased the LORD our God; they forsook Him and turned their faces away from the dwelling-place of the LORD, turning their backs on it. They also shut the doors of the porch and put out the lights; they did not offer incense and did not make burnt offerings in the holy place to the God of Israel.\u201d In fact, the matter is clarified by Num. 28:2, \u201cBe punctilious in presenting to Me at stated times My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire,\u201d and here in 3:11, \u201cThe priest shall turn these into smoke on the altar as the food of the offering made by fire to the LORD.\u201d The sacrifices are the food for the fire offering, and from it for the fires; as the English indicates, isheh and esh are related words. Ibn Ezra explains isheh as an adjective meaning \u201coffered by fire\u201d and modifying \u201cthe whole\u201d (see his comment to this verse); in 2:2 he would presumably explain it as modifying \u201chandful.\u201d But it is not so. The word isheh is a noun meaning \u201cfire,\u201d just like the more common word esh. But isheh is used literally here, \u201cas you were shown on the mountain\u201d (Exod. 27:8) at the giving of the Torah, an offering with respect to the divine attribute of justice. But the slaughtering of the sacrifice is for the Tetragrammaton alone, and may not be directed at anything in the world but that Name. That is why it says that \u201cthe burnt offering [olah] \u2026 is an offering by fire [isheh] to the LORD\u201d (Exod. 29:25). Similarly, here in Leviticus, 21:6 and 21:8 associate the offerings with the Lord alone; it is the food that is associated with \u201ctheir God\u201d or \u201cyour God.\u201d But the offerings must be directed at the Name alone. The priest must not direct his thoughts at anything but the Ineffable Name; no other must even occur to him. This is the saying of the Sages that all aspects of the temple service are restricted exclusively to the Ineffable Name. The Sifra explains to the LORD of our verse to mean \u201cfor the sake of the One who made the world.\u201d Ps. 50:14, \u201cSacrifice a thank offering to God, and pay your vows to the Most High,\u201d is to be explained similarly, for Ps. 47:3 makes clear that the Most High is none other than \u201cthe LORD,\u201d to whom alone vows may be made. Ps. 50:7 speaks of \u201cGod, your God\u201d in connection with the sacrifices because (as the First Commandment, \u201cI the LORD am your God\u201d [Exod. 20:2], shows us) the Lord is sometimes referred to as God. This in fact is the theme of Psalm 50, which begins, \u201cGod, the LORD God spoke and summoned the world from east to west\u201d (Ps. 50:1), linking the full name of \u201cGod, LORD God\u201d to the full earth, in connection with the sacrifices. Isa. 60:7 explains, \u201cThey shall come up with acceptance on My altar, and I will glorify My glorious house.\u201d That is, acceptance is found on the altar, and His glorious house is glorified when they ascend as a \u201cpleasing odor.\u201d The word \u201cpleasing\u201d here, ni\u1e25o\u2019a\u1e25, is etymologically related to the verb nu\u2019a\u1e25, \u201cto rest,\u201d as when the spirit \u201crested\u201d on Eldad and Medad (Num. 11:26) or \u201cThe spirit of Elijah has settled on Elisha\u201d (2 Kings 2:15).
\nThe sacrifices themselves, korbanot in Hebrew, are etymologically related to kerivah, \u201ccloseness\u201d\u2014a closeness approaching unification. (That explains 2 Chron. 29:7, which tells us that burnt offerings in the holy place were to be made not to the Tetragrammaton but to \u201cthe God of Israel.\u201d) The angel of the Lord taught Samson\u2019s father Manoah all about the sacrifices: \u201cIf you detain me, I shall not eat your food; and if you present a burnt offering, offer it to \u2018LORD\u2019 \u201d (Judg. 13:16). If Manoah offered food to him, he would not accept it\u2014it would be offensive, a sacrifice abhorrent to God\u2014but if he wished to make a burnt offering, he should offer it to the Lord alone. Then it would be acceptable as an offering made by fire to the Lord\u2014at which point he \u201cascended in the flames of the altar\u201d (v. 20). Now the matter is explained and clarified, and may \u201cthe good LORD provide atonement\u201d (2 Chron. 30:18).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Washed with water. One might think that the washing needs to be done in a minimum volume of 40 seahs, as when a person must wash by immersing himself; so the verse adds, \u201cwith water\u201d\u2014in any amount. Aramaic distinguishes between the two kinds of washing by using different verbs (Hizkuni). The whole. Up to and including the hair of a goat\u2019s beard (Hizkuni). A burnt offering. Contrary to Nahmanides, many sources in the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings, and rabbinic literature confirm that Maimonides\u2019 explanation of the sacrifices is not \u201cidle words,\u201d but words of holiness. In my opinion, however, one cannot say that all the sacrifices have the same purpose. Their details are so particular and so different that it is impossible that each does not have its own specific reason (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:10<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Since the offering \u201cfrom the herd\u201d (v. 3) is the same as that \u201cfrom the flock\u201d (v. 10), why must these be presented in two separate sections?<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If. OJPS includes an important word that NJPS omits: \u201cAnd if.\u201d The \u201cand\u201d shows the connection between this passage and vv. 3\u20139. Why was there a pause before this verse? To give Moses time in between the two sections to reflect on what he had been taught so far. From the flock, of sheep or of goats. Again, the implication is that only some \u201cof\u201d the flock (see OJPS), the sheep and the goats, may be used. Three ofs imply three exclusions: sheep that are too old, too ill, or too foul smelling.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
If his offering \u2026 is from the flock. This passage refers to offerings from the flock, which are the same in all respects as offerings from the herd (vv. 3\u20139). So the passage is abridged; there is no equivalent here of v. 4.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If his offering \u2026 is from the flock. The fact that this demands a separate section shows that the offerings from the herd and from the flock are not of equal status. One ought to bring the most expensive offering he can afford (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:11\u201314<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Before the LORD on the north side of the altar. Once again, this only applies \u201cbefore the Lord\u201d (see my comment to this phrase in v. 3). At the \u201chigh places,\u201d there was no need to slaughter the animal on the north side of the altar.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The north side of the altar. The Hebrew word translated \u201cside\u201d implies the outer side, the extremity, as in Ps. 48:3, where Mount Zion is called \u201cthe extremity of the north.\u201d (Many have made the mistake of thinking that the Tower of Zion was within the city of Jerusalem, but the use of this word shows clearly that it was outside.)<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Before the LORD on the north side of the altar. This, on the other hand, is an addition, clarifying \u201cbefore the LORD\u201d of v. 5. The Hebrew word correctly translated here as \u201cside\u201d literally means \u201cthigh,\u201d teaching us that the ramp at the front of the altar was on its south side: \u201cbefore the LORD, in front of the altar\u201d (6:7). I have already explained (in my comment to Exod. 32:1) why sacrificial animals are slaughtered on the north side of the altar. Against all sides of the altar. \u201cThe\u201d altar is clearly \u201cthe altar which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting\u201d (v. 5).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
It shall be slaughtered. Again, every action not specifically allocated to the priests must be performed by the person bringing the offering. For one must bring one\u2019s offering not proudly and demonstratively, but humbly and submissively (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:12<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Cut up into sections. Note that the flaying (v. 6) is not mentioned again. The priest shall lay them out. This demonstrates that (as I explained in my comment to v. 7) a single priest is enough to carry out the ritual actions of sacrifice. For these two passages are to be explicated together. Whatever detail is lacking in one of them is found in the other.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:14<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Of birds. Again, \u201cof\u201d implies that not all birds are permitted. Since 22:19 specifically requires that an offering of cattle, sheep, or goats must be \u201cmale\u201d and \u201cwithout blemish,\u201d we learn that this is not necessary for birds. One might assume, then, that even a bird missing a body part would be permitted, but the exclusionary phrase in our verse, \u201cof birds,\u201d shows that this is not so. From turtledoves or pigeons. Rather, \u201cyoung\u201d pigeons (OJPS). Young turtledoves and old pigeons are not permitted, and even some \u201cfrom\u201d these are excluded: At the intermediate stage of growth, when the neck feathers begin to turn gold, both kinds of birds are forbidden. The pigeons are now too old, while the turtledoves are still too young.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Turtledoves. Grown ones, not young ones. Pigeons. As OJPS more precisely notes, the Hebrew text specifies \u201cyoung pigeons\u201d; older ones are excluded.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
From turtledoves or pigeons. Rather, as OJPS has it, \u201cturtledoves or young pigeons.\u201d The text chose these two species because they are commoner and easier to catch. As our Sages have pointed out, of the larger animals, the Israelites were instructed to bring as offerings only those that are raised at the trough, so that they would not have to load up their gear\u2014quiver and bow\u2014to hunt for their offerings. But the acceptable birds are (adult) turtledoves, even though they must be caught, because of the sexual restraint and loyalty for which they are well known. For when a turtledove loses its partner, it does not ever consort with another. Similarly the Jews hold fast to the Lord their God and will never do so with any other. But pigeons are extremely jealous and they break up and change partners frequently because of their jealousy. So only young pigeons, before they have begun to mate, are appropriate for the offering. For when it is young, the pigeon has much more love for the nest in which it is raised than do other birds. As our Sages have explained, when a human touches a nest in order to take chicks or eggs from it, the birds abandon it and never nest there again. But a pigeon will never abandon its nest for any reason. Israel is the same. They will never abandon their Creator or His Torah for any reason\u2014Judaism or death! Chickens too were deemed unsuitable, because they are promiscuous. In the Guide (3:46) Maimonides explains that adult turtledoves and young pigeons are the best of each species, for adult pigeons taste bland. But this is not true. It is the young pigeons that are almost unfit to eat, being excessively moist. But if we are to think about them as food, it could be that they were chosen for their nutritional qualities. For turtledoves are known to sharpen the intellect, and young pigeons are known to aid growth in those who are physically underdeveloped, such as adolescents and the like.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Turtledoves or pigeons. The word o (\u201cor\u201d) is the same in French as it is in Hebrew (Kimhi). Notice that the birds need not be \u201ca male without blemish\u201d as the others must. Birds are at a lower level than mammals to begin with, and in any case many of the blemishes found in mammals do not apply to birds (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:15\u201316<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is an offering from the herd first slaughtered and then its blood is brought to the altar (v. 5), while an offering of birds is first brought to the altar and then killed (v. 15)?
\n\u2666 Why may an offering from the herd or flock be slaughtered by a layman, while a bird\u2019s head may be pinched off only by a priest (v. 15)?
\n\u2666 Why must the bird\u2019s crop be thrown away (v. 16)?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:15<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The priest shall bring it to the altar. Though one might think that a pair of birds is required, \u201cit\u201d shows that he may bring even a single bird. Pinch off its head. The priest does not do this with a tool, but with his own hand. With his fingernail, he cuts it at the nape of the neck and slices through the neck bone until he reaches the windpipe and the gullet, and he cuts them. Its blood shall be drained out. Rather, \u201csqueezed out\u201d; the Hebrew verb implies pressure, as in Prov. 30:33, \u201cmilk under pressure,\u201d and Isa. 16:4, \u201cfor violence [literally \u201cpressure,\u201d that is, oppression] has vanished.\u201d The priest presses the bird, with the cut against the altar, so that the blood is squeezed out and drains down the side of the altar. Can it really be, as the verse makes it sound, that the blood is drained out after the bird is turned into smoke? Yes! The bird\u2019s head and body are treated separately, so one could be turned into smoke before the other has been drained of blood. But the straightforward interpretation of the verse is to understand the last phrase as \u201cits blood having been drained out\u201d before it was turned into smoke.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Pinch off its head. The Sages have explained how this is to be done. Some view the Hebrew verb translated \u201cpinch\u201d here as the avian equivalent of \u201cslaughter\u201d; but the verse does not say \u201cpinch it\u201d but \u201cpinch off its head.\u201d Dunash b. Labrat considers this evidence for the explanation of the Sages\u2014who, after all, saw the temple service when it was still being carried out\u2014that the priest cuts through its neck and spinal column with his fingernails until he gets to the throat. He then cuts down until he gets to the windpipe and the gullet and cuts them. Drained. This word applies only to liquids, as in Isa. 51:17, \u201cRouse, rouse yourself! Arise, O Jerusalem, you who from the LORD\u2019S hand have drunk the cup of His wrath, you who have drained to the dregs the bowl, the cup of reeling!\u201d or Ps. 75:9, \u201cThere is a cup in the LORD\u2019S hand with foaming wine fully mixed; from this He pours; all the wicked of the earth drink, draining it to the very dregs.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Pinch off its head. The verb used here is not found in any other context in the Bible (it is repeated in the same context in 5:8). Tradition explains how this \u201cpinching\u201d is to be done. Its blood shall be drained out. The verb is a passive form of the same verb used in Isa. 51:17, \u201cArise, O Jerusalem, \u2026 You who have drained to the dregs the bowl, the cup of reeling!\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The priest shall bring it to the altar. Better, \u201cshall bring it up onto the altar.\u201d He must bring it up onto the altar and pinch off its head there. For this pinching can only be done on top of the altar. This led our Sages to proffer the following midrash: Could one imagine that a layman would be permitted to perform this ritual atop the altar? Why then must it explicitly say \u201cthe priest\u201d? To show that the priest must \u201cpinch\u201d the bird with his own hand, not with a tool. Rashi suggests that the verse sounds as if the head and body could be treated separately, but this cannot be; there is no offering in which pieces of the animal are offered separately before the blood ritual is performed. \u201cFor \u2026 it is the blood, as life, that effects expiation\u201d (17:1) in all of the sacrifices. That is why our Sages interpreted this verse as saying that the head and the body are kept separate to be turned into smoke just as they are separated by pinching. But the straightforward sense of the verse is that the priest must turn \u201cit,\u201d the head, into smoke, just as v. 17 says plainly about the body: \u201cThe priest shall tear it open \u2026 and turn it into smoke on the altar.\u201d The descriptions of all of the offerings require this kind of interpretation, as I have explained in my comments to vv. 6\u20137. Our verse does not say that the priest should \u201cturn it all into smoke,\u201d for (as explained on B. Zev. 65a) one first turns the head into smoke, then removes the crop, then tears the body open and turns it into smoke.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Its blood shall be drained out against the side of the altar. A bird has so little blood that there is no point in catching its blood in a bowl as is done with larger animals (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:16<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Its crop. This is the bird\u2019s digestive organ. With its contents. NJPS is correct here, not OJPS \u201cfeathers.\u201d The Hebrew word implies something disgusting; a similar word is used in Lam. 4:15 of the people whose garments are defiled. NJPS follows Onkelos, whose translation (\u201cwith what it ate\u201d) fits with the explanation of Abba Yose b. Hanin, who says, \u201cHe takes out the gizzard along with it.\u201d OJPS follows the Sages, who say, \u201cHe cuts a kind of hatch around the crop with a knife and takes it along with the feathers on the skin.\u201d Notice the difference between v. 9, where the entrails of a burnt offering from a domestic animal (which has never eaten anywhere but from its own master\u2019s crib) are washed with water and then turned into smoke upon the altar, while a bird (which simply seizes from anywhere food that does not belong to it) must have its crop thrown into the place of the ashes, at the east side of the altar. Not \u201ceast of the altar,\u201d but \u201con the east\u201d of the altar, that is, east of the ramp. This is where the ashes of the sacrifices (which were removed every morning), the ashes from the incense altar, and the ashes from the lampstand are placed. All of these simply disappear into the ground there where they are thrown.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Its crop. Like the words to which it is etymologically related, found in \u201cI \u2026 will make thee as dung\u201d (Nah. 3:6) and \u201cAh, sullied, polluted, overbearing city!\u201d (Zeph. 3:1), the Hebrew word (like the Aramaic word used here by Onkelos) has the connotation of disgusting filth.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Its crop. It is clear that this is what the Hebrew word must mean. See also Zeph. 3:1, where a related word means \u201cpolluted.\u201d Its contents. Rather, \u201cits feathers\u201d (see OJPS). The word is found in Ezek. 17:3, \u201cThe great eagle with the great wings and the long pinions, with the full plumage and the brilliant colors.\u201d The place of the ashes. In the Hebrew this phrase comes at the end of the verse (see OJPS). This is not the same as the east side of the altar, but an alternative location. At the east side of the outer altar. The east side is the side farthest from the place of God\u2019s Presence.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
With its contents. NJPS, which follows Rashi\u2019s comment, is not correct. The Hebrew word always and only refers to \u201cfeathers,\u201d as OJPS translates. Even in Lam. 4:15, the verb from this root implies that the people metaphorically grew feathers and flew away, but could find no rest. The same root (and the same metaphor) is found in \u201cGive wings to Moab, for she must fly away\u201d (Jer. 48:9). But the word never has the meaning Rashi attributes to it. Abba Yose b. Hanin is basing his remark on the word \u201ccrop,\u201d not on this word. M. Zev. 6:5, which is clearly in accordance with Abba Yose\u2019s view of the process, mentions the feathers explicitly. Onkelos too follows the Sages on this matter; Rashi has misunderstood his intent.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Its crop with its contents. Rashi has explained that the bird\u2019s crop is thrown away because a bird simply takes food that does not belong to it. By this logic, the entire bird that is nourished from such food ought to be thrown away. But Maimonides makes clear in the Mishneh Torah that once a stolen object has been changed in form, it is considered to have been \u201cacquired\u201d by the thief\u2014though he must of course repay its value (Abarbanel). Cast it into the place of the ashes, at the east side of the altar. The honored direction in the Temple was toward the west and the dishonored direction toward the east where the sun rises, so that no one would imagine that offerings were being made to the sun (Gersonides). If we estimate 100 such offerings every day, the stink would soon have turned the east side of the altar into a garbage dump. Perhaps the fact that they did not stink was one of the 10 miracles that took place in the Temple; or, more likely, they were in fact cleared away each morning with the ashes (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:17\u20132:2<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are the meal offerings (ch. 2) described before the sacrifices of well-being (ch. 3)?
\n\u2666 Why are the meal offerings not laid out \u201con the wood\u201d like the offerings of ch. 1?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 1:17<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The priest shall tear it open. Again, this must be done by hand. The same verb is used of Samson in his encounter with the lion: \u201che tore him asunder with his bare hands as one might tear a kid asunder\u201d (Judg. 14:6). By its wings. Rather, \u201calong with its wings.\u201d And this means the whole wing, feathers and all; he need not pluck off the feathers. Now, no one in the world is so low as to not find the smell of burning feathers disgusting. So why must the priest burn it on the altar? So that the altar looks full and properly arranged even for the sacrifice of the poorest person. Without severing it. He does not tear it completely in half, but rips it apart in back. Pleasing odor. The same phrase is used for the sacrifice of cattle as is used here, to make clear that it is not important whether you bring much or little\u2014only whether your heart is directed to heaven.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The priest shall tear it open. The verb translated \u201ctear\u201d implies splitting; it is etymologically related to the word used in 11:3, \u201cwith clefts through the hoofs.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
By its wings. Again, Rashi\u2019s comment that this is really about the feathers is mistaken. If he were correct, the text would not have explained whether it is supposed to be torn open in front or in back. The translations here are correct. The Hebrew word used here never refers to feathers, but is always \u201cwing\u201d; see, for example, \u201cevery bird, every winged thing\u201d (Gen. 7:14) and \u201cIs it by your wisdom that the hawk grows pinions, spreads his wings to the south?\u201d (Job 39:26). It is the word in v. 16 that refers to the feathers that cover the body of the bird: \u201cThe great eagle with the great wings and the long pinions, with the full plumage\u201d (Ezek. 17:3).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Without severing it. If it were severed, the pieces would be so small that they would not be fitting to offer before the King (Hizkuni). Of pleasing odor to the LORD. A bird is no less pleasing to God than a bull, as long as the heart of the one offering it is directed toward heaven (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 2:1\u20132<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall pour oil upon it, lay frankincense on it, and present it to \u2026 the priests. Rashi (in his comment to v. 2) explains that everything up to the moment of scooping may be done by a layman; from scooping onward, the priests are commanded to continue the procedure. But we must clarify that this is not in fact the beginning of the priests\u2019 responsibilities. For the offering must be taken up to the altar before a handful is scooped out of it, and it cannot be taken up to the altar by a layman: \u201cit shall be brought to the priest who shall take it up to the altar\u201d (v. 8). Only then \u201cthe priest shall remove [that is, scoop out] the token portion from the meal offering\u201d (v. 9). Thus it is the priest who takes the offering up to the southwest corner of the altar, after which he scoops out a handful. (In fact rabbinic literature points out that women cannot bring a meal offering up to the altar because this is one of the tasks that must be performed by the \u201csons\u201d\u2014not the daughters\u2014of Aaron.) The rabbinic saying that \u201cthe priests are commanded to handle the rest of the procedure\u201d (which Rashi quotes) applies specifically to the steps mentioned in these two verses, where taking the offering up to the altar does not happen to be mentioned.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 2:1<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A person. More literally, a \u201csoul\u201d or a \u201clife.\u201d This expression is found in connection with none of the voluntary offerings except here, with the meal offering. And who commonly brings a meal offering? One who is poor. Says the Holy One, \u201cI account it to him as if he had offered Me his life.\u201d His offering shall be of choice flour. If one imposes a meal offering on himself without specifying which kind, this is the kind he brings. For it is the first one listed, since it is the only one that is scooped from unbaked flour (see v. 2). For there are five kinds of meal offerings listed in the chapter, and all are baked before scooping but for this one. \u201cChoice\u201d flour implies wheat flour, as Exod. 29:2 makes explicit: \u201cchoice wheat flour.\u201d The minimum amount of a meal offering is a tenth of a measure: \u201cone-tenth of a measure of choice flour with oil mixed in for a meal offering\u201d (14:21)\u2014for any meal offering. He shall pour oil upon it. All over it. Lay frankincense on it. Somewhere on it. He shall place a handful of frankincense on one side of the offering. What makes me think so? The repetition of \u201cupon it\u201d and \u201con it\u201d (which are the same word in Hebrew). For the Torah uses such repetition to restrict the second occurrence by comparison with the first. Another reading: he puts oil all over it because the oil is mixed and scooped along with it. Note that v. 2 combines them: \u201ca handful of its choice flour and oil.\u201d But he puts frankincense only on part of it because that is not mixed and scooped along with it, but added separately: \u201cas well as all of its frankincense.\u201d For as he scoops it, he collects all the frankincense that is on it and turns it into smoke.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Meal. As I have already explained in my comment to Gen. 4:3, the Hebrew word really refers to a gift, something that is \u201cbrought.\u201d It is derived from the same root as the similar-sounding word in Exod. 32:34, \u201cGo now, lead the people where I told you.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A person. Literally, \u201ca soul.\u201d The word is appropriate, for the meal offering is not required but given willingly, and the soul too is referred to as willing; see Ps. 51:14, \u201clet a willing spirit uphold me.\u201d Choice flour. Pure, white flour, made from wheat. An offering made to the One on high must naturally come from the finest kind of flour.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
An offering of meal. These are the holiest of offerings, though they are typically brought by the poor, and they were deliberately made the holiest of offerings to demonstrate the humility of the Holy One, a great King who loves the poor (Bekhor Shor). Animals of whatever kind rank higher than plants, which is why these offerings are mentioned only now. The four kinds of offerings correspond to four types of people: those who believe themselves to be righteous, and who are considered righteous by others; those who know themselves, and are known by others, to be wicked; those who know themselves to have sinned, though others consider them righteous; and those who do not know that they have sinned, though others complain about it (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 2:2\u20133<\/p>\n
Leviticus 2:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
And present it to Aaron\u2019s sons, the priests. Note that the pouring and the mixing may be done by a nonpriest; but once it is presented to them, the priests are commanded to handle the rest of the procedure. The priest shall scoop out of it. Literally, \u201cout of there\u201d (compare OJPS), meaning out of the place where the nonpriest is standing. This is to teach you that the scooping may be done in any part of the courtyard, even in the 11 cubits where nonpriests are permitted to walk. A handful. This might be assumed to mean that the flour should be spilling out of his hand on every side, but we learn in 6:8, \u201cHe shall pick up some of it in his hand\u201d\u2014only what he can hold in his hand is proper for the ritual. But it cannot be less than that; his hand must literally be \u201cfull.\u201d As the word is used in Hebrew, \u201cscooping\u201d implies that one bends the first three fingers against the palm of one\u2019s hand. All of its frankincense. The hand must be full of flour and oil; the frankincense is separate. This token portion. Including all the frankincense as well. The \u201chandful\u201d of flour and oil must not include even a grain of salt or a particle of frankincense, or it is invalid. The handful of the offering that goes up on high is a token, literally a \u201cmemorial part\u201d (OJPS), of the offering as a whole, by which the one who offers it is remembered before God for good and for having pleased Him.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
A handful. The Sages have explained on B. Yoma 47a that he scoops \u201ca handful\u201d with the three middle fingers of his hand. Token portion. More literally, \u201cthe memorial part\u201d (OJPS). Terms derived from the root that means \u201cremember\u201d are frequently found in connection with frankincense on account of the fragrance that arises from it. \u201cWith each row you shall place pure frankincense, which is to be a memorial part for the bread\u201d (24:7); \u201ca memorial offering of frankincense\u201d (Isa. 66:3). Tractate Mena\u1e25ot explains each of the different kinds of offerings described in this chapter: how many cakes must be made, how much frankincense is to be used, how much oil goes into each cake, exactly what distinguishes a \u201cgriddle\u201d (v. 5) and \u201ca pan\u201d (v. 7). (A pan, Hebrew mar\u1e25eshet, is deep, and its contents ru\u1e25ashin, \u201cvibrate,\u201d when they are fried in it; a griddle is not deep.) But all of the different offerings are unleavened; see 6:10, \u201cIt shall not be baked with leaven.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Scoop. The verb kamatz is related to the noun kematzim, found in Gen. 41:47: \u201cthe land produced in abundance.\u201d Our predecessors the Sages explained that a handful is meant, and their words are true. Of its choice flour. That is, some \u201cof\u201d the choice flour is scooped out, and the same applies to the oil. But all of its frankincense is \u201cturned into smoke.\u201d Token portion. The noun is related to zakhar, \u201cremember.\u201d The sense is that this portion serves him as a remembrance before God of his offering. Many have explained it as a reference to the fragrance of the incense: \u201cHis scent [zikhro] shall be like the wine of Lebanon\u201d (Hosea 14:8).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 2:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
For Aaron and his sons. The High Priest takes his part of it first, after which it is doled out to the regular priests. A most holy portion from the LORD\u2019S offerings by fire. The priests can take their share of it only \u201cfrom\u201d the time when the Lord\u2019s portion is put on the fire.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
For Aaron and his sons. That is, for all the priests equally.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 2:4\u201310<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does v. 10 repeat v. 3?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 2:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Baked in the oven. One who vows this sort of offering has two options: cakes or wafers. The cakes would be mixed with oil, the wafers spread with it. Spread with oil. The Sages disagree about how they were to be spread with oil. Some say that they are spread over and over again until they have absorbed a full log\u2019s worth of oil (for all meal offerings must include a log of oil). Others say that it is spread with oil once in the shape of a Greek X, and the rest of the oil may be eaten by the priests. With oil. The repetition of the phrase indicates that oil from the second and third pressings of the olives is permissible. Oil from the first pressing is required only for the lampstand: \u201cclear oil of beaten olives for lighting, for kindling lamps regularly\u201d (Exod. 27:20). On B. Men. 76a we learn that all the meal offerings that are baked before being scooped (and therefore must be \u201cscooped\u201d by crumbling) are presented in offerings of 10 loaves (or wafers) at a time.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Unleavened cakes. \u201cCakes\u201d implies that they are thick. Some understand this word \u1e25allah to imply that they are also round, since the word \u1e25alilah can have this meaning in rabbinic Hebrew.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 2:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If your offering, the one you have vowed to make, is a meal offering on a griddle. This was one of the utensils used in the Temple, a shallow pan in which a meal offering could be cooked in oil over a flame. Because the griddle was shallow, the oil got very hot, and the meal offering fried on it would be crisp. All the meal offerings require three applications of oil: pouring, mixing, and of course oil for the pan. Choice flour with oil mixed in. This makes clear that oil must be mixed directly into the flour before it is prepared.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A griddle. The Hebrew word ma\u1e25avat implies a pan that is covered; it is derived from the Hebrew root that means \u201chide.\u201d (But note that the expected ending -ah is replaced in this word by -at; a similar phenomenon is found in the phrase \u201cit shall revert [shavat] to the prince\u201d (Ezek. 46:17).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 2:6<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Break it into bits. The Hebrew words for \u201cbreak\u201d and \u201cbits\u201d come from the same root; the repetition indicates that this rule applies to all of the meal offerings that are prebaked. Pour oil on it; it is a meal offering. All meal offerings must have oil poured on them; but \u201con it\u201d is understood to mean that this does not apply to the offering \u201cbaked in the oven\u201d (v. 4). The word \u201cit\u201d occurs twice in the phrase to make clear that both the \u201ccakes\u201d and the \u201cwafers\u201d are included in the exception.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
It is a meal offering. Hebrew has no word for \u201cit\u201d; the word for \u201cmeal offering\u201d is of feminine gender. But the pronoun here has the consonants of the masculine word along with the vowel mark of the feminine one. In fact, the feminine pronoun is spelled in this unusual way almost throughout the Pentateuch (e.g., Deut. 17:5), since the feminine is a subset of the more general notion indicated by the masculine. See the section beginning with Exod. 23:20.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 2:7<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A pan. This was another temple utensil, but (as opposed to the griddle) it was a deep pan. So too the oil in it was deep and would not burn. For this reason the meal offerings made in it were elastic. Anything saturated with liquid is elastic and flexible, seeming to move when you touch it.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If your offering is a meal offering in a pan. Rather, if it is something \u201cfried.\u201d Some explain this word mar\u1e25eshet as connected to the verb ra\u1e25ash, as in Ps. 45:2, \u201cMy heart is abuzz with gracious words\u201d; the implication would be that this kind of cooking makes a sizzling sound.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 2:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Made in any of these ways. Contrast OJPS \u201cmade of these things.\u201d But NJPS is correct here. It shall be brought up to the priest who shall take it up to the altar. To the southwest corner of the altar.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 2:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The token portion. The handful.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 2:10<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
For Aaron and his sons. In the case of the cooked offerings, \u201chis sons\u201d must mean not \u201call the other priests\u201d (as it does in v. 3), but \u201cthe priests, Aaron\u2019s sons,\u201d who will follow after him in later generations. For in this case the remainder goes to the priest who takes it to the altar. This is stated explicitly in 7:9\u201310.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 2:11\u201313<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Since it is clear that only the things that are commanded may be offered, why must we be specifically told that \u201cno leaven or honey\u201d (v. 11) may be offered?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 2:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Honey. The Hebrew word refers to any sweetener derived from fruit.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Honey. The reference is to fruit honey, specifically that made out of dates.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
No leaven or honey. The Hebrew word translated \u201cleaven\u201d here is different from that translated the same way earlier in the verse. This word refers to any agent that causes leavening, which in fact honey does as well. Many people say that the \u201choney\u201d referred to here is not bee honey but date honey, and they would argue that the same is true wherever the text refers to \u201ca land flowing with milk and honey.\u201d They have support of a kind for this suggestion from Neh. 10:36, \u201cAnd we undertake to bring to the House of the LORD annually the first fruits of our soil, and of every fruit of every tree,\u201d where the reference is apparently to the seven species mentioned in Deut. 8:8, \u201ca land of wheat and barley, of vines, figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive trees and honey.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
No meal offering that you offer to the LORD shall be made with leaven. One may not bring an offering that has leavened; and no leaven or honey may be turned into smoke, and nothing that leavens after it has been brought may be offered. \u201cTurning into smoke\u201d implies an offering with spices, for which the apothecaries claim that honey is good; but the Torah forbids it. The Hebrew more literally says \u201cany leaven or any honey: none of it shall be turned into smoke\u201d; that is, not even a smaller-than-standard amount, say half a scoop. As B. Men. 58b and B. Pes. 43b explain, the phrase \u201cany leaven or any honey\u201d implies that even the slightest admixture of either of these into the offering earns the punishment of lashes. The reason may be as explained by Maimonides in Guide 3:46. He says that he found in idolaters\u2019 books that their custom was to bring all of their offerings leavened and to mix honey with all of their sacrifices. For this reason the Torah outlawed them as offerings to the Most High. Our Sages explained that exactly this happened in the case of the stone pillars that were so favored in the days of the Patriarchs, but which God began to detest (see Deut. 16:22) once they were established as a regular feature of idolatrous worship. With regard to salt, according to Maimonides, exactly the opposite is true. Idolaters despise it and never include it in an offering. It may also be that it was not considered respectful to offer bread to God that was bland and salt free. As Mal. 1:8 puts it, \u201cJust offer it to your governor: Will he accept you? Will he show you favor?\u201d This is also why the wood and the blood, which strictly speaking are also offerings, do not require salt. Or perhaps there is some mystery in all of this that escapes us. May be turned into smoke. The Hebrew literally says, \u201cYou\u201d (in the plural) shall not turn them into smoke, since this instruction is directed jointly at \u201cAaron and his sons\u201d (v. 10).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
No leaven or honey may be turned into smoke. They are forbidden for opposite reasons: leaven, because it might tempt the priests to delay the offering while they wait for the leavening action to take place and because it symbolizes the evil inclination; honey, because it might prompt the priests to rush an offering before its time (since honey can actually begin the digestive process) and because it weakens the intellect. Also, the priests might be tempted to lick the sanctified honey off their fingers (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 2:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You may bring them to the LORD as an offering of choice products. What leavening or honey might you bring? Well, the leavening could be the \u201ctwo loaves of bread\u201d of the elevation offering (23:17); the \u201choney\u201d could be the first fruits of figs or dates.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
You may bring them \u2026 as an offering of choice products. Such as the two loaves brought on the Feast of Weeks that are called \u201can offering of new grain\u201d (23:16), and the offering of first fruits described in Deut. 26:2, \u201cYou shall take some of every first fruit of the soil, which you harvest from the land that the LORD your God is giving you, put it in a basket and go to the place where the LORD your God will choose to establish His name.\u201d \u201cYou may bring them\u201d to the courtyard as an elevation offering, but they shall not be offered up on the altar.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
To the LORD as an offering of choice products. Like the \u201ctwo loaves of bread\u201d of 23:17 that are elevated before the Lord on the Feast of Weeks (which are \u201cbaked after leavening\u201d), they are presented and sanctified \u201cto the LORD\u201d but are given to the priests to eat.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 2:13<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The salt of your covenant. For a covenant was made with the salt during the six days of creation, in that the waters (which had been forced to leave the dry land) were promised that they could be offered on the altar in the form of salt, and on the Feast of Booths as the water libation. With all your offerings. Whether bird or animal, including the sacrificial parts of all the sacred offerings.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Your covenant with God. The covenant I have brought you into with Me, and sworn you to, is that you not offer anything unsalted and bland, for that would be disrespectful.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall season \u2026 with salt. Here \u201cyou\u201d is in the singular, for this refers back to the \u201cperson\u201d of v. 1, who brings (e.g.) \u201ca meal offering in a pan\u201d (v. 7); for salting, like pouring and mixing oil, may be done by a layman. Your every offering. All of your offerings. For all kinds of offerings require salt, not just the meal offering. You shall not omit from your meal offering the salt of your covenant with God. As Rashi notes, citing an explanation of the Sages, a covenant to this effect was made with the salt during the six days of creation. Ibn Ezra explains it more contextually, in line with my comment to v. 11. I would add that the reference here to salt as part of the \u201ccovenant\u201d of the offerings is the prototype for the covenant granting the offerings to the priests (\u201cAll the sacred gifts that the Israelites set aside for the LORD I give to you, to your sons, and to the daughters that are with you, as a due for all time. It shall be an everlasting covenant of salt before the LORD for you and for your offspring as well,\u201d Num. 18:19) and the covenant granting the dynasty to David (\u201cSurely you know that the LORD God of Israel gave David kingship over Israel forever\u2014to him and his sons\u2014by a covenant of salt,\u201d 2 Chron. 13:5). Both of these are as permanent as \u201cthe salt of your covenant with God\u201d that accompanies every offering. Ibn Ezra, in his comment to Num. 18:19, connects the expression with the \u201csalt marsh\u201d of Ps. 107:34, a land that is \u201ccut off\u201d from life just as one \u201ccuts\u201d a covenant. But his explanation does not taste right to me. With God. The verse does not say \u201cthe Lord\u201d (as one would expect from the rest of the passage), or even \u201cthe Lord God.\u201d I believe this is to be explained as follows: Salt is essentially the product of water that has been turned into salt by evaporation through the power of the sun. Now it is in the nature of water to moisten the earth, engendering plant life. But, being salty, it would also naturally cut every location on earth off from life, turning it into one of \u201cthe scorched places\u201d\u2014as Deut. 29:22 has it, \u201call its soil devastated by sulfur and salt, beyond sowing and producing.\u201d Salt thus partakes of the qualities both of water and of fire\u2014combining, as it were, the divine attributes of mercy and of justice. With this combination too \u201cIt shall come to you: The former monarchy shall return\u201d (Mic. 4:8)\u2014the kingship of the Lord. For just as saltiness gives flavor to all foods, is an essential nutrient, and at the same time has destructive power, so too the covenant both maintains the world and has the power to destroy it. The verses we have quoted from Numbers and 2 Chronicles imply that the covenants with David and with the priesthood are likewise \u201csalt\u201d for the world, having similar power to maintain and to destroy. I have already taught you (in my comment to Exod. 31:16\u201317) to contemplate these three words: \u201can eternal covenant.\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
With all your offerings you must offer salt. Salt is an enduring substance and was commanded as part of the offerings to demonstrate that the offerings are an enduring covenant of expiation. Once a man has brought an offering, knowing that he is clean, he makes sure not to soil himself with sin again, just as one who puts on freshly laundered clothes is careful not to dirty them (Bekhor Shor). You shall not omit from your meal offering the salt of your covenant with God. But like the wood to burn the offering and the water to wash it, this was provided at public expense, not being part of the offering per se (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 2:14<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If you bring. Here \u201cif\u201d is being used in the sense of \u201cwhen\u201d\u2014for the offering of first fruits is not optional. The reference is to bringing the first sheaf, which is obligatory. This use of the word is found also in Num. 36:4, \u201cif the Israelites observe the jubilee.\u201d A meal offering of first fruits. Again, the reference is to the omer, the first sheaf of grain offered in the spring when the crops are ripe. It is a sheaf of barley, for the \u201cnew ears\u201d mentioned in our verse are aviv in Hebrew, and just this word is used to describe barley in Exod. 9:31, \u201cthe barley was in the ear.\u201d Parched with fire. It was not literally parched with fire, but dried over a flame in a \u201cfresh roasting\u201d tube. For unless this was done it was too moist to be ground. Grits of the fresh grain. Broken into bits while still moist. Like the English word \u201cgrits,\u201d the Hebrew geres implies being broken and ground into bits by a gristmill, e.g., \u201cHe has broken my teeth on gravel\u201d (Lam. 3:16); \u201cMy soul is broken with longing\u201d (Ps. 119:20). The \u201cfresh\u201d grain, karmel, really means the whole grain, fear mal\u00e9, when it is moist and still has its husks; the same word may even refer to standing grain. See also 2 Kings 4:42, \u201cfull ears of corn [karmel] in the husk thereof.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If you bring a meal offering of first fruits. Many have said that the word im must be interpreted here as \u201cwhen,\u201d not \u201cif,\u201d for this offering is required. In my opinion this interpretation of the word is not necessary. For the requirement is to bring the choice first fruits (see Exod. 23:19 and 34:26). Anyone who wants to bring an offering of others of the first fruits may do so if he wishes. New ears. Rather, \u201cfirst ears.\u201d The Hebrew word aviv is derived from av, \u201cfather,\u201d implying the first of the ears of grain. Grits. The meaning of this word is well known. The related word in Ps. 119:20 is spelled with a \u05e1 while our word is spelled with a \u05e9, but that makes no difference.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
If you bring a meal offering of first fruits. Rashi explains that the text really means \u201cwhen you bring\u201d: it is not a discretionary offering. More precisely, though, this is simply not the place where the meal offering of first fruits is commanded. What the text is saying is this: \u201cIf your offering is a meal offering on a griddle\u201d (v. 5), offer it this way; \u201cIf your offering is a meal offering in a pan\u201d (v. 7), do it this way; and \u201cIf what you are bringing is the meal offering of first fruits,\u201d this is the way you should do it. So \u201cif\u201d can be interpreted quite straightforwardly here. With regard to Num. 36:4, what the heads of the clans of Manasseh are saying there is that \u201ceven if the Israelites observe the jubilee\u201d the Manassites will not get their share of the land back. In our verse, the implication may be as follows: \u201cIf the Lord your God brings you into the land, and you subsequently bring a meal offering of first fruits, this is how you should do it.\u201d For the possession of the land was indeed presented to them conditionally, e.g., \u201cIf, then, you faithfully keep all this Instruction that I command you \u2026 the LORD will dislodge before you all these nations\u201d (Deut. 11:22\u201323), and similarly in many other verses.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If you bring a meal offering of first fruits. This offering is of course obligatory. Nonetheless the text says \u201cif\u201d since it is obligatory only if conditions in the land are such that it is possible to bring the offering\u2014which, by the way, must be of barley, as we know by observation of the agricultural calendar of the land of Israel (Gersonides). New ears. The Hebrew word used here really refers to the ear along with the stalk on which it grew (Kimhi).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 3:1\u20134<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are only the specific parts of the body mentioned in vv. 3\u20134 to be offered, and not the rest of the animal, or at least the more important parts?
\n\u2666 Why do the instructions not specify what is to be done with the rest of the animal?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 3:1<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A sacrifice of well-being. Rather, with OJPS, \u201cpeace offerings\u201d\u2014for they spread peace throughout the world. Another reading: they are \u201cpeace offerings\u201d (in the plural) because they create peace among the altar, the priests, and those who bring the sacrifice.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
If his offering is a sacrifice of well-being. (See my comment to 1:3.) More accurately, this is \u201ca sacrifice of fulfillment.\u201d This is not a burnt offering, so it is not entirely consumed on the altar. It is simply an otherwise unspecified offering, falling under the category of \u201cHe vowed and must fulfill his vow.\u201d In such cases, the procedure to be followed is as described in this chapter. But the Sages understand the term as do the English translations. For everyone\u2019s well-being is increased by such a sacrifice: the sacrificial parts go to the One on high, the breast and thigh to the priests, and the rest of the meat is eaten by the one who brought the sacrifice.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A sacrifice of well-being. As I have explained in my comment to Exod. 29:28, the name shelamim may be connected to their being offered to ensure the well-being, shalom, of those who offer them, or it may allude to the fact that they are offered by a soul that is shelemah, \u201ccomplete,\u201d and not lacking due to sin.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Whether a male or a female. The point is that a burnt offering must be a male, a sacrifice of well-being may be either male or female, and a sin offering should be female. As its Hebrew name implies, an olah, a burnt offering, must be something that rises, oleh, to the highest level. The name of the sacrifice of well-being, shelamim, is derived from the word shalem, \u201cwhole,\u201d so it is not restricted to a particular sex. The purpose of a sin offering is to \u201cpropitiate Him with presents\u201d (see Gen. 32:21). I have already explained this in my comment to Gen. 46:1. A guilt offering, by contrast, is male. A sin offering is brought for violations that are punishable by being \u201ccut off\u201d (that is, death at the hands of heaven), in which \u201cthe soul returns to God who bestowed it\u201d (Eccles. 12:7). But a guilt offering is not brought in such cases; like a burnt offering, it partakes of the nature of a \u201cpleasing odor to the LORD\u201d (v. 5) and, like a burnt offering, it must \u201crise\u201d to the highest level. The sin offering of a chieftain (4:22\u201323) is a he-goat, because the chieftain is a ruler who must live by the sword and fight the wars of the LORD. The same applies to the he-goat that is brought as a sin offering when the community commits idolatry.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 3:2<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering. Note that this only applies if it is his offering, and not if it is an offering that everyone must make like the passover offering (Gersonides). At the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Literally, \u201cat the opening\u201d of the Tent\u2014the entrance must be open, not shut (Kimhi). Aaron\u2019s sons, the priests. \u201cAaron\u2019s sons\u201d must be \u201cpriests\u201d when they perform this service\u2014not profaned, wearing a complete set of priestly garments, and all the rest of what pertains to priesthood (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 3:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
All the fat that is about the entrails. The point of this expression is to include the fat that is on the maw, according to R. Ishmael; but according to R. Akiva it is to include the fat that is on the small intestines.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
An offering by fire to the LORD: the fat. Fat ignites with a sudden flame and makes the fire burn well (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 3:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The loins. That is, the flanks. For when the animal is alive, the fat that is on the kidneys is at the same height as the loins, but below them. This is the fat that is under the hips, the whiteness that is visible at the top of the loins; below this, the flesh covers it. The protuberance. This is the protective membrane. On the liver. It protrudes a bit from the liver; elsewhere it is described as \u201cthe protuberance from the liver\u201d (9:10). With the kidneys. Rather, \u201con top of,\u201d that is, aside from, the kidneys. The verse is to be read this way: \u201cThe protuberance, aside from the liver and aside from the kidneys, he shall remove it as well.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
The protuberance. The Hebrew word conveys the sense of something extraneous, in this case, something that grows on the liver.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
At the loins. This is known to be the correct interpretation of the unusual Hebrew word used here. The Hebrew word for \u201cconstellations\u201d (see Isa. 3:10) is related to it, since the constellations \u201cflank\u201d the astronomical poles. With the kidneys. More precisely, \u201calong with the kidneys.\u201d \u201cOn top of\u201d in the meaning \u201calong with\u201d is also found in Exod. 35:22, \u201cthe men as well as the women.\u201d The word for kidneys, kelayot, is related to the verb kalah (\u201cyearn\u201d), as in Ps. 84:3, \u201cI long, I yearn for the courts of the LORD.\u201d The reference is to the role the kidneys play in sexual desire.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
That is at the loins. It should read \u201cand that is at the loins\u201d; this is separate from the fat that is on the kidneys (Kimhi).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 3:5\u20139<\/p>\n
Leviticus 3:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
With the burnt offering. Again the Hebrew literally says \u201con top of the burnt offering\u201d (see OJPS), meaning \u201caside from the burnt offering.\u201d We thus learn that the regular daily burnt offering goes up onto the pyre before any other sacrifice that is offered that day.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Aaron\u2019s sons shall turn these into smoke. This matches \u201cThe priest shall turn these into smoke on the altar\u201d (v. 16), where \u201cthese\u201d refers to all of the sacrificial parts. Midrashically the three occurrences in this passage of the verb \u201cto turn into smoke\u201d are analyzed to mean (1) that only fit animals, not those that are not valid for sacrifice, may be turned into smoke (v. 5); (2) that the fat from different animals may not be burned together (v. 11); and (3) that all the sacrificial parts from a single animal must be burnt together (v. 16).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 3:7<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A sheep. Since the sheep\u2019s \u201cbroad tail\u201d (v. 9), which a goat does not have, is an integral part of this sacrifice, the two are described separately here, though for the other sacrifices this was not necessary.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
A sheep. The word used here, kesev (found elsewhere as keves), refers specifically to a yearling lamb (Kimhi).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 3:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Shall dash its blood. Again, it is dashed from a container twice against opposite corners of the altar (thus touching all four sides), not applied to the horns of the altar with the fingers. That is done only for a sin offering.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Its blood. V. 2 mentions \u201cthe\u201d blood of the cattle offering, since it gushes forth and is so plentiful that it is impossible to catch it all in a receptacle. But with a sheep one can offer all of \u201cits\u201d blood, because there is less of it and it flows with less force (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 3:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The fat. The choicest fat, which is: the whole broad tail. Close to the backbone. The backbone here is atzeh, and the kidneys give eitzah, \u201cadvice,\u201d on how to act.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Close to the backbone. That is, close to the kidneys. Exactly how it is to be removed is described by the Sages on B. \u1e24ul. 11a.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The fat from the sacrifice of well-being: the whole broad tail. Literally, the broad tail is to be offered \u201cperfect,\u201d but the translations have understood this correctly to mean \u201cwhole\u201d or \u201centire\u201d (OJPS). \u201cThe fat from the sacrifice of well-being,\u201d however, refers in fact to this tail, not to all the different kinds of fat enumerated here. As I will explain in my comment to 7:23, the Sadducees have erred with regard to this. Even Saadia is mistaken on this point; the NJPS translation is not grammatically possible. See OJPS, \u201cthe fat thereof, the fat tail entire.\u201d Close to the backbone. The precise location is well known (see OJPS, \u201cthe rump bone\u201d), though the Hebrew word used here is not found anywhere else in the Bible. Some think that this word atzeh is related to etz (\u201ctree\u201d), but that is implausible.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The whole broad tail. OJPS is closer to the Hebrew here: \u201cthe fat thereof, the fat tail entire.\u201d The Biblical Hebrew word \u1e25elev, translated here as \u201cthe fat thereof,\u201d refers specifically to the suet, the separate pieces of fat, not to shomen, fat that is marbled through the flesh. The same root from which shomen comes is regularly used for \u201cfat\u201d in general throughout the Bible (see Deut. 32:15; Neh. 9:25; Isa. 6:10; Ps. 109:24, and so forth). Note especially Ps. 63:6, where deshen is paired with \u1e25elev; Isa. 30:23 demonstrates that dashen and shamen (\u201crich and fat\u201d) are synonyms, while \u1e25elev is something different. The suet is the separate fat that peels away. Hebrew never confuses the two. (We speak of \u201cfatty\u201d meat, not \u201csuety\u201d meat.) As the example of English shows, non-Jewish languages also have separate words for these two kinds of fat. (Hebrew has still another word; see my comment to 1:8.) In Hebrew, the word for \u201csuet\u201d is also used metaphorically. E.g., in describing what the priests are to do with the agricultural tithes given them by the Israelites, Num. 18:30 says (in the NJPS translation), \u201cWhen you have removed the best part from it\u201d\u2014but \u201cthe best part\u201d is literally \u201cits suet.\u201d Just as the suet is the most highly regarded part of an animal sacrifice, so the most highly regarded part of any product is referred to as \u201cthe suet\u201d: \u201cthe very finest wheat\u201d (Deut. 32:14) is literally \u201cthe kidney suet of wheat.\u201d (In the same verse, similarly, \u201cfoaming grape-blood was your drink,\u201d though wine is of course not literally blood.) Gen. 45:18 has given us the idiom to \u201clive off the fat of the land,\u201d again using the word that would be translated more literally as \u201csuet.\u201d Now \u201cthe whole broad tail\u201d of our verse has no suet whatsoever, only marbled fat, for (as the naturalists have learned through their studies) suet is never found close to the hide nor in a limb that is constantly moving. Ordinary fat is by its nature inseparable from the flesh, and that of the broad tail is moist and warm. Suet, on the other hand, is moist, but cool, coarse, thick, and hard to digest; it spoils quickly, increases the bile, and causes constipation. When v. 17 says \u201cyou must not eat any fat or any blood,\u201d then, this should more properly be translated as \u201csuet.\u201d It does not refer to ordinary fat like that of the broad tail. It is not fat, but suet, that is prohibited. And suet is prohibited even if it is a kind of suet that is not offered upon the altar (like the suet on the spleen), while any fat that is not called suet is permitted even if it is offered on the altar (like the kidneys, the lobe of the liver, and the broad tail). You will note that the procedure for ordaining the priests (described in Exod. 29:22 and carried out in Lev. 8:25) mentions \u201cthe fat [i.e., the suet] and the fat tail\u201d as separate items. (NJPS has it wrong, but OJPS translates correctly.)
\nThe reason our verse seems to refer to \u201cthe suet of the broad tail\u201d is that, when the broad tail is removed close to the backbone, the large amount of suet on its inner side comes off along with it. The Sifra refers to this fat as \u201cthe suet that is between the sinews.\u201d In 7:3 as well, not everything that is listed is actually suet; where the translations have a colon, there should really be a comma. Vv. 4:31; 4:35, and 9:20 can be explained similarly. I have found it necessary to go on at such length in order to stop up the mouths of the \u201cSadducees\u201d (may their name be blotted out), for in Torah matters one must \u201cAnswer a dullard in accord with his folly, else he will think himself wise\u201d (Prov. 26:5)\u2014as the Sages tell us, \u201cStudy Torah diligently so that you may respond to a heretic\u201d (M. Avot 2:14). Ibn Ezra\u2019s argument against Saadia is not correct, for the grammatical phenomenon he mentions is indeed operative here. (By the way, Ibn Ezra himself has made a huge mistake in his comment to 7:25, worse than the Karaites, as I shall clarify there.) Yet Saadia\u2019s explanation is in fact not persuasive\u2014certainly not enough to permit the eating of the broad tail. In fact, the rabbinic explanation\u2014that only fat that is found in cattle and goats as well as sheep is forbidden\u2014is a logical one, but we have been forced to outline the arguments laid out here rather than provide an opening for our adversaries to argue their case.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 3:10\u201317<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is the phrase \u201csacrifice of well-being\u201d used to introduce the \u201cherd\u201d paragraph and the \u201cflock\u201d paragraph, but not the \u201cgoat\u201d paragraph (v. 12)? In chs. 1 and 2 the appropriate terms are always repeated.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 3:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
As food, an offering by fire to the LORD. That is, as food for the fire that is lit in God\u2019s name. The Hebrew word le\u1e25em need not literally mean \u201cbread,\u201d but can refer to anything that is consumed, as in \u201cLet us destroy the tree with its fruit\u201d (Jer. 11:19); \u201cKing Belshazzar gave a great banquet for his thousand nobles\u201d (Dan. 5:1); \u201cThey make a banquet for revelry\u201d (Eccles. 10:19).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Food, an offering by fire. I have already explained in my comment to Exod. 16:4 that the word le\u1e25em is used not only for bread but for all kinds of food, including fruit and meat.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 3:12<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
If his offering is a goat. Though the Hebrew word specifically refers to a male goat, Onkelos and the English translations have it correctly that the point is merely to describe it as a goat and not some other kind of animal. The same word is used in 1:10, \u201cIf his offering for a burnt offering is from the flock, of sheep or of goats.\u201d In my opinion, the Hebrew language does not always specify the gender of an animal by the gender of the noun used to describe it. For many animals, such as the camel, the donkey, the hare, the pig, and the dove, there is but a single Hebrew word for both sexes. Even when the language has separate words for the male and female of the species (as in \u201cbull\u201d and \u201ccow,\u201d for which Hebrew too has separate words), the masculine word may be used as a general term for both sexes. For example, when 22:28 specifies that \u201cno animal from the herd or from the flock shall be slaughtered on the same day with its young,\u201d the masculine words are used despite the fact that the situation clearly refers to the mothers. Thus in our verse a goat of either sex is implied, while in 5:7, \u201cif his means do not suffice for a sheep,\u201d the reference is to a ewe or a she-goat, as is clear from 5:6.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 3:14<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The fat. As in v. 3 (with cattle), the broad tail is not mentioned as it is in v. 9 (with sheep), for this is quite small in cattle and goats. Moreover, the broad tails of the sheep in the land of Israel are known to be large.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 3:16<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
All fat is the LORD\u2019S. This is the general rule. Given that the fat and the blood belong to God, it follows (v. 17) that \u201cyou must not eat any fat or any blood.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 3:17<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A law for all time. This whole verse is explained quite well in the Sifra. The provision that \u201call fat is the LORD\u2019S\u201d (v. 16) not only applies in the desert Tabernacle,
\nbut is also a law for \u201ceternity\u201d (as the Hebrew really says), that is, for the \u201ceternal house,\u201d Solomon\u2019s Temple. Throughout the ages. Even once the Temple is destroyed. In all your settlements. Both in the land of Israel and outside it.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
In all your settlements. That is, even where no sacrifices of fat and blood are made on an altar and animals are simply slaughtered for their meat, the fat and the blood may still not be eaten.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A law for all time. See my comment to 7:23.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You must not eat any fat or any blood. The commentators give at least five reasons why these are the intrinsic parts of the sacrifices of well-being, and I would add a sixth, following Isa. 1:18: \u201cBe your sins like crimson, they can turn snow-white.\u201d Blood represents the red of sin, fat the white of forgiveness (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:1\u20133<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does all fat belong to God (v. 16), and why must no fat or blood be eaten (v. 17)?
\n\u2666 Since these are food rules, why are they given here with the sacrifices rather than with the other rules about eating?
\n\u2666 Why must the sin offerings be introduced by a second speech of God to Moses (v. 1), when all the previous sacrifices were lumped together in a single speech?
\n\u2666 Since the sacrifices of the anointed priest (v. 3) and the whole community of Israel (v. 13) are the same, why must they be repeated in separate paragraphs?
\n\u2666 Why are those two sacrifices exactly the same? And why are they both, like a burnt offering, completely consumed?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:1<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Chapter 4
\nThe Holy One always begins with the favorable aspect and saves the aspect of punishment for later. Here too the burnt offerings, meal offerings, and sacrifices of well-being, which are brought out of love, are described before the sin offerings and guilt offerings, which are brought out of fear. Note that the four cases in our chapter match the four \u201ccrowns\u201d of M. Avot 4:13: \u201cR. Simeon says, There are three crowns: the crown of Torah, the crown of priesthood, and the crown of kingship; but the crown of a good name surpasses them all\u201d (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Any of the LORD\u2019S commandments. As the Sages explained it, a sin offering applies only to the deliberate violation of a prohibition for which the punishment is to be cut off. Does one of them. The Hebrew implies, \u201cdoes even part of one of them\u201d\u2014as if, for instance, one were to write the first two letters of the names Simeon, Nahor, or Daniel.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Things not to be done. As the Sages have explained on M. Ker. 1:1 and B. Ker. 3a (see also M. Hor. 2:3), one is punished by being \u201ccut off\u201d only for doing things that are \u201cnot to be done\u201d\u2014with two exceptions: failure to bring the passover offering and failure to perform circumcision, which are sins of omission, not commission. One of them. More literally, \u201cpart of\u201d one of them, which the Sages explain to mean partial violation of a commandment, such as writing the first two letters of \u201cSimeon\u201d on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A person. This therefore refers to either an Israelite or a stranger. The various categories of \u201cperson\u201d are detailed below. Things not to be done. The category referred to here is that of violations that are punished by excision or by whipping.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
When a person unwittingly incurs guilt. The Hebrew literally says \u201cWhen any soul unwittingly incurs guilt,\u201d for the soul is the seat of thought. Even an unwitting act demands a sacrifice, because transgressions give rise to disgrace in the soul, and they are a defect in it. But it cannot face its Creator unless it is purified from all sin. If it were not so, every fool on earth would deserve to come before Him. So even the unwitting soul must bring a sacrifice in order to earn closeness \u201cto God who bestowed it\u201d (Eccles. 12:7). That is why the word \u201csoul\u201d is used here. But our Sages interpret it to mean that strangers and slaves are also included in this rule.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
When a person unwittingly incurs guilt. He may bring these offerings when he sins unwittingly\u2014but not when he sins deliberately (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If it is the anointed priest who has incurred guilt, so that blame falls upon the people. The latter phrase is interpreted to mean \u201cas when blame falls upon the people.\u201d This situation is described in v. 13. It involves doing something wrong not deliberately, but based on a mistaken conclusion about what the correct law is. But the straightforward interpretation is the one given in rabbinic literature and followed by the English translations: When the High Priest sins, guilt falls upon the people, for they depend on him to atone for them and pray on their behalf\u2014yet he is ruined for this purpose. A bull. The NJPS translation implies that a bull of any age might be used, but the Hebrew text has deliberately added a word that implies it must be a \u201cyoung\u201d bull (see OJPS) to eliminate this possibility. Nonetheless, it must clearly be old enough so that it can be considered a \u201cbull\u201d and not a calf. How old is this? Three years old.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
So that blame falls upon the people. The Sages, on B. Hor. 7b, derive from this verse that the anointed priest (i.e., the High Priest) incurs guilt just as the people do. But according to the straightforward sense of the text it is to be understood this way: since it is said of the priests, \u201cThey shall teach Your laws to Jacob and Your instructions to Israel\u201d (Deut. 33:10), and this must apply above all to the High Priest (who serves as the priestly expert for the masses), if the High Priest should sin in his teaching so that the whole people sins with him, then he shall offer for the sin of which he is guilty a bull of the herd without blemish and so forth.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The anointed priest. That is, the High Priest. So that blame falls upon the people. Since he has taught them wrongly, blame falls upon them for what they unwittingly did wrong. But the Hebrew may in fact mean that he sins \u201cwith respect to\u201d the guilt of every individual. For the priest is the bearer of Torah, and he himself is careful to remain holy to God. For the sin of which he is guilty. Because he is so great, he must offer a bull, which is the greatest of the animals that are offered on the altar.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
If it is the anointed priest who has incurred guilt. Note that this section, which extends through v. 12, does not include the phrase \u201cThus the priest shall make expiation on his behalf for his sin, and he shall be forgiven,\u201d which is found in the sections about the sin of the community (v. 20), the chieftain (v. 26), and the individual (v. 31). Perhaps on account of the greatness of his station he is not completely forgiven until he prays and begs his God. \u201cFor he is a messenger of the LORD of Hosts\u201d (Mal. 2:7), and must be pure and innocent.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
So that blame falls upon the people. Rather, \u201chis guilt is equivalent to that of the entire people\u201d (Bekhor Shor). Rather, if he has incurred guilt \u201cwith regard to the people\u201d\u2014for even inadvertent sin only befalls him on their account. Note that the word \u201cguilt\u201d is not used in connection with him, as it is with the other cases in this chapter (Sforno). A bull of the herd. This is an allusion to the Golden Calf incident, where Aaron unintentionally sinned and all Israel sinned on his account (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:4\u20139<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is the blood of this offering, unlike that of a burnt offering (which seems to be on the same level of sanctity), brought \u201cbefore the LORD, in front of the curtain of the Shrine\u201d (v. 6)? Conversely, though it is entirely burnt, why is it not all burnt on the altar?
\n\u2666 Why does the sacrifice of the anointed priest not say, as do the others in this chapter, that the officiating priest \u201cshall make expiation \u2026 for his sin, and he shall be forgiven\u201d?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Into the Tent of Meeting. That is, the Tabernacle. In the permanent Temple, the equivalent is the Great Hall.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:6<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
In front of the curtain of the Shrine. Facing the holiest spot, that is, directly opposite the area between the poles of the Ark. The blood would not actually touch the curtain, but if it did so by accident, no matter.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The priest. The High Priest himself. Seven times. You will find the reason for this in my comment to Num. 23:1. Because of the greatness of the High Priest, he sprinkles the blood at the curtain of the Shrine and \u201con the horns of the altar of aromatic incense\u201d (v. 7).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The priest shall dip his finger in the blood. It must be his right finger, just as the blood must be received, carried, and dashed against the altar with his right hand (Gersonides). Seven times. How many things the Holy One has arranged in sevens! There are the seven planets, the seven days of the week, the seven heavens, the seven Hebrew names for the earth, and the seven deserts; the seventh day of the week, the seventh month of the year, the seventh year of seven, the seventh cycle of seven years, the seventh jubilee, and the seventh millennium of the 7,000 years. Then there are the seven lights of the lampstand, the seven altars of Balaam, the seven lambs that are brought as burnt offerings, and many more (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:7<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
All the rest of the bull\u2019s blood. The Hebrew actually says merely \u201call of the bull\u2019s blood,\u201d but the translations have interpreted the verse correctly.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall remove. According to the Sifra, he must remove the fat \u201cfrom it\u201d (OJPS), that is, while the carcass is still intact, before it is cut into pieces. All the fat from the bull of sin offering. It might have simply said \u201cAll of its fat.\u201d The word \u201cbull\u201d is added here to indicate that the fat of the bull that is sacrificed on the Day of Atonement (16:25) likewise includes the kidneys and the protuberance on the liver mentioned here; and \u201csin offering\u201d performs the same function with regard to the he-goats that are the sin offering for idolatry (Num. 15:24). On the liver \u2026 with the kidneys. See the comment to the latter expression in 3:4.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:10\u201314<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Just as it is removed from the ox of the sacrifice of well-being. The same pieces are removed as from that sacrifice. But is anything mentioned there that is not mentioned here? The point of the expression, then, is to demonstrate the ways in which this sacrifice is like that of the \u201csacrifice of well-being\u201d (really a peace offering; see my comment to 3:1). They must be offered with intent, and so must this; they bring peace to the world and so does this. B. Zev. 49b uses this text to prove that, in the laws of sacrifice, one cannot deduce a rule from another rule that was itself merely deduced and not explicitly stated.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The priest shall turn them into smoke on the altar of burnt offering. Neither the phrase \u201ca pleasing odor\u201d nor the phrase \u201can offering by fire to the LORD\u201d is used here, the reason being that part of the animal is burnt \u201coutside the camp\u201d (v. 12) and is therefore not \u201can offering by fire to the LORD.\u201d In the case of the chieftain\u2019s he-goat, expiation is mentioned (v. 26, and see my comment to v. 3), but no \u201cpleasing odor\u201d or \u201coffering by fire\u201d is mentioned, since the offering is a goat. In the individual case, the \u201cpleasing odor\u201d is indeed mentioned (v. 31), but not the \u201coffering by fire,\u201d which was after all obvious; the whole point of this sacrifice is the \u201coffering by fire to the LORD.\u201d One who is enlightened will understand what I mean.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
As well as its head and legs. Here too the text really says \u201con top of [i.e., aside from] its head and on top of [aside from] its legs.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
To a clean place outside the camp. It must specify \u201ca clean place\u201d since there are places outside the camp (with regard to the permanent Temple, outside the city) that are set aside for uncleanness\u2014e.g., cemeteries and places where stones \u201cwith the plague in them\u201d are thrown. \u201cOutside the camp\u201d means outside all three \u201ccamps,\u201d as the Sages explain on B. Yoma 68a and B. Sanh. 42b. To the ash heap. The place where the ashes removed from the altar are thrown: \u201cHe shall then take off his vestments and put on other vestments, and carry the ashes outside the camp to a clean place\u201d (6:4). It shall be burned on the ash heap. This is repeated only to make clear that it is to be burned there whether there are actually any ashes there or not.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
The ash heap. \u201cHe shall \u2026 carry the ashes outside the camp to a clean place\u201d (6:4).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
It shall be burned on the ash heap. For the bull is not a burnt offering; only its fat is burned on the altar. The ash heap is the place where the ashes removed from the altar were located.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Outside the camp. The offerings of the High Priest and the \u201cwhole community\u201d\u2014i.e., the Sanhedrin\u2014are burnt outside the camp so that everyone will be aware that they have sinned and repented (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:13<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The whole community of Israel. \u201cThe whole community of Israel\u201d means the community as a whole, that is, the Sanhedrin. The matter escapes \u2026 notice. If the Sanhedrin has taught by mistake that one of the things for which the Torah prescribes excision is actually permitted. The congregation. The public that does one of these actions, based on the Sanhedrin\u2019s ruling.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If it is the whole community of Israel that has erred. This happens only quite rarely (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:14<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When the sin \u2026 becomes known. This is not stated in the section dealing with the High Priest, but it must apply to him as well. For if he were not informed of his sin, he would not bring a sin offering (though some think that he brings one every year just in case he sinned during the year). The phrase is used explicitly in this section because the High Priest could inform the community of their sin. But who could make the High Priest\u2019s own sin known to him but himself? Since the rules in the case of the High Priest\u2019s sin are exactly the same as those in the case of the community\u2019s sin, we learn that the High Priest is the moral equivalent of all Israel.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
When the sin through which they incurred guilt becomes known. Obviously they would not bring a sin offering unless they realized that they had sinned. It is in the nature of language to express such tautologies. There was no need even to mention this in the case of the anointed priest (v. 3). Or perhaps the point of this expression is to say that the community is not obligated to bring a sin offering unless there is explicit knowledge of a sin, and not merely doubt about whether one has been committed, as in the case of the conditional guilt offering. Our Sages interpreted this phrase as follows: If the community had promulgated a mistaken teaching, but did not know which of their teachings was mistaken, one might have thought that they would be obligated to bring a sacrifice; therefore our verse says when the sin \u2026 becomes known and not \u201cwhen the sinners become known.\u201d Again, this is not mentioned in the case of the anointed priest, because in his case \u201cblame falls upon the people\u201d (v. 3); the rule for the priest is in this respect like that for ordinary individuals.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The congregation. We know from 2 Chron. 20:5, \u201cJehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah,\u201d that this expression may apply not only to all of Israel but also to individual tribes (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:15\u201322<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Since the \u201cchieftain\u201d of v. 22 is really a reference to the king, who outranks both the High Priest and the \u201cwhole community\u201d (that is, the Sanhedrin), why is his sacrifice a lesser one\u2014a goat rather than a bull? Why is its blood not brought \u201cbefore the LORD\u201d? And why is it only partially burnt?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:15<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The elders of the community. That is, its leaders. Shall lay their hands upon the head of the bull. On their own behalf and on behalf of all Israel. For it would be impossible for all of Israel to lay their hands on the bull\u2019s head.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:17<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
In front of the curtain. V. 6 says \u201cin front of the curtain of the Shrine,\u201d literally, \u201cof the Holy,\u201d but this last phrase is missing in our verse. It is like a king when a province rebels against him. If only a small part of the province has rebelled, everything that accompanies royalty remains in place. But if the whole province rebels, it does not remain in place. Here too, if the anointed priest has sinned, the place is still considered holy. But if all of them (God forbid) have sinned, its holiness departs.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
In front of the curtain. The straightforward sense is that this is the sanctuary curtain, the curtain that separates the Shrine, that is, the Holy of Holies, from the rest of the Tabernacle. The reason why v. 6 specifies \u201cin front of the curtain of the Shrine\u201d\u2014literally, \u201cthe Holy\u201d\u2014is to indicate that the blood must be sprinkled outside the curtain just opposite the place where, on the inside, the Holy Ark is located.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:18<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
At the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. That is, the western side of the base, which is opposite the entrance of the Tent.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:19<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall remove all its fat. Even though the two kidneys and the protuberance on the liver are not mentioned here, we learn from v. 20 that they are to be included. (See my comment there.) Why are they not mentioned specifically? The school of R. Ishmael taught: It is like a king who gets angry at his friend, but expresses his anger tersely because of his love for him.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:20<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall do with this bull just as is done with the priest\u2019s bull of sin offering. That is, he must remove and offer the two kidneys and the protuberance of the liver, as is explained in the section on the bull of the anointed priest (v. 9), though they are not mentioned here. But the blood rituals of the sacrifice are repeated here to make clear that, if any one of them is omitted, the entire sacrifice is invalid. Since with regard to this outer altar one application of blood is ordinarily sufficient to achieve atonement, the text must show us that here the omission of even a single one of the blood rituals prevents the sacrifice from being effective.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
They shall be forgiven. \u201cThey\u201d being both the \u201cwhole community\u201d (v. 13) and the \u201canointed priest\u201d (v. 3) who have taught Israel wrongly and caused them to err; that is why these words are not written at the very end of the passage, as they are in all the other cases (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:21<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
It is the sin offering of the congregation. The bull is. Again, this refers to violations of a prohibition. But (as Num. 15:22\u201324 explains) if the entire community neglects a positive commandment, they must bring a bull as a burnt offering and a goat as a sin offering.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:22\u201323<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
In case it is a chieftain who incurs guilt \u2026 or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge. See the comments of Rashi and Ibn Ezra. But there is no need for all of this. The word asher has a multiplicity of uses, but one of them refers to time (e.g., Gen. 37:23, \u201cWhen Joseph came up to his brothers\u201d; Gen. 43:2, \u201cwhen they had eaten up the rations which they had brought from Egypt,\u201d and the like). That is exactly the case here. To be sure, one might expect the word to be ka\u2019asher, but sometimes the preposition is lacking, as in Deut. 11:27; Exod. 14:13, and so on. What is meant here is that when he unwittingly commits any of the things which by the commandment of the LORD his God ought not to be done, then he \u201cis guilty\u201d (OJPS), or he realizes his guilt and must expiate it by means of a sacrifice. That is, either he remains guilty or he brings a sacrifice and expiates his guilt. The point of invoking the LORD his God here is to say that, although this chieftain is lord and king and has no fear of flesh and blood, he must nonetheless fear the LORD his God, who is \u201cthe Lord of lords\u201d (Ps. 136:3). In the same way, Deut. 17:19 prescribes that the king of Israel must have a Torah scroll written for him and read it all his life \u201cso that he may learn to fear the LORD his God,\u201d that is, so that he may take to heart that there is one higher than he, his God, in whose hand are both his soul and his kingdom.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:22<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
In case it is a chieftain who incurs guilt. Unlike the other paragraphs, which begin with the word im (\u201cif\u201d), this paragraph begins with the word asher, which is related to ashrei, \u201chappy.\u201d Happy is the generation whose leader takes care to bring a sacrifice for violating God\u2019s commandments unwittingly\u2014for it is obvious that such a leader would beat himself up over his deliberate infractions.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
In case it is a chieftain who incurs guilt. The translations are correct here. The relative pronoun asher here precedes the noun to which it refers (which is unusual). There is a comparable example in Esther 6:8. The commandment of the LORD his God. That is, he is one who fears God and has not sinned deliberately, but \u201cunwittingly.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
In case it is a chieftain. A grammatically unusual phrase; it is actually connected to v. 13, and should be translated as follows: \u201cIn case the one who incurs guilt is a chieftain\u201d (of a tribe or clan).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
In case it is a chieftain who incurs guilt. Each tribe has a \u201cchieftain,\u201d but the reference here is only to the chieftain of all Israel, who has no other man as chief over him, paralleling the anointed priest of v. 3, who has no other priest over him (Gersonides). In the times of the monarchy, the \u201cchieftain\u201d is of course the king. Though he has no fear of flesh and blood, he must still fear his God (Abarbanel). Unlike the sin of the \u201cwhole community,\u201d this is quite common (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:23\u201325<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:23<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge. Rather, if it is brought to his knowledge. The two words are often used interchangeably in Hebrew. Compare Exod. 21:36, where the Hebrew says \u201cor,\u201d NJPS says \u201cif,\u201d and OJPS has \u201cor if.\u201d In our case, the situation is not that he did not realize what he had done, but that he did not realize it was a sin. It is this that is \u201cbrought to his knowledge.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Or the sin \u2026 is brought to his knowledge. Ordinarily this phrase is understood as in OJPS: \u201cIf his sin \u2026 be known to him.\u201d But I say that NJPS is correct. V. 22 covers the case when \u201che realizes his guilt\u201d himself and v. 23 when \u201cthe sin \u2026 is brought to his knowledge\u201d by others.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Brought to his knowledge. As in the paragraph concerning the High Priest, the text here does not fully spell out its meaning. The sense is that either he himself realized his guilt, or he was informed of it by someone else who saw him. The verb is not passive, as translated, but active, though the subject of the verb (who informed him) is left out. See the Hebrew of Num. 26:59 for a similar example. (But according to Moses Gikatilla, the verb is indeed passive, for the only thing that differentiates between the two forms is the vowel, o or u, two sounds that often alternate with each other.) A male goat. This is appropriate for a chieftain, who is \u201cThe greyhound, the he-goat, the king whom none dares resist\u201d (Prov. 30:31), as Saadia explains in his commentary to Proverbs. And the goat must be \u201cmale,\u201d as is the chieftain.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge. V. 22 describes the case where he is in doubt whether or not he sinned, in which case he must bring a conditional guilt offering, and v. 23 the case in which he is made definitely aware that he has sinned, in which case he must bring not a guilt offering but a sin offering. The same applies to the individual (v. 28). But the conditional guilt offering does not apply to the High Priest (vv. 3\u201312) or to the \u201cwhole community\u201d (vv. 13\u201321), of whom this phrase is not used (Bekhor Shor). A male goat without blemish. Since, unlike the High Priest or the \u201cwhole community\u201d (referring to the Sanhedrin), he does not teach the people, the bull offering does not apply to him. The goat alludes to Satan (that is, the evil inclination) in accordance with the \u201cgoat demons\u201d of 17:7 (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:24<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
At the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered. \u201cOn the north side of the altar\u201d (1:11). It is a sin offering. If it is offered as such, it makes expiation for his sin; but if it is not, it doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
It shall be slaughtered at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered. Those who see it will assume it is a burnt offering rather than a sin offering, avoiding embarrassment to the chieftain (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:25<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The rest of its blood. See my comment to v. 7.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
The altar of burnt offering. The outer altar; not the inner one, as in the case of the High Priest (v. 7) and the whole community (v. 18).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
On the horns of the altar \u2026 at the base of the altar. But none of the blood is brought inside the Shrine, as it is for the sacrifice of the High Priest and that of the whole community. According to 6:19, this offering (like other sin offerings) is to be eaten by the priests to make expiation for the chieftain. But the High Priest does not eat his own sin offering; it is entirely burnt (see v. 12).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The altar of burnt offering \u2026 the altar of burnt offering. It is natural language for a noun sometimes to be repeated rather than use a pronoun; see v. 4, where \u201cthe bull\u201d is repeated three times. Our Sages preferred to derive additional meaning from such expressions, for \u201cThe teaching of the LORD is perfect\u201d (Ps. 19:8), lacking nothing and having nothing superfluous in it.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:26\u201335<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does v. 27 not refer to \u201call the things\u201d that must not be done, as do vv. 13 and 22? (Again, the translations obscure this point.)
\n\u2666 Why is this sin offering, unlike all the others, a female (v. 28) rather than a male? Why is it not completely burnt, and why is its blood not brought \u201cbefore the LORD\u201d?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:26<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Like the fat of the sacrifice of well-being. The same sacrificial parts as with the goat in 3:14\u201315.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:27<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Any person from among the populace. Including priests, Levites, and ordinary Israelites.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If any person from among the populace unwittingly incurs guilt. Here, as with all the guilt offerings, part of the sacrifice is given to the priests, for the priests\u2019 eating of the sacrifice accomplishes expiation for the sinners (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:28<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A female goat. For the status of \u201cany person\u201d is less than that of a chieftain.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
A female goat. Just as the male rules the female, the king rules the people. Hence his sacrifice is a male and theirs a female. As Maimonides explains, the female alludes to matter and the male to form (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:31<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Just as the fat is removed from the sacrifice of well-being. See the previous comment.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall be forgiven. See my comment to Num. 14:19.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:32<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A female. The equivalent of the \u201cfemale goat\u201d of v. 28.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:33<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It shall be slaughtered as a sin offering. It must be slaughtered with that purpose in mind.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 4:35<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Just as the fat of the sheep of the sacrifice of well-being is removed. With the broad tail as well as the other standard pieces. This applies to the sin offering as well. Over the LORD\u2019S offering by fire. Rather, \u201cover the Lord\u2019s fires.\u201d It is not put atop another offering, but on top of the piles of wood of the fire built for the Lord.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Just as the fat of the sheep of the sacrifice of well-being is removed. \u201cThe whole broad tail, which shall be removed close to the backbone\u201d (3:9).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Just as the fat of the sheep of the sacrifice of well-being is removed. Including the \u201cbroad tail,\u201d which does not pertain if the offering is a goat.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:1\u20132<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:1<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
When he has heard a public imprecation. Rather, when he personally has been adjured (compare OJPS) that if he has testimony to give he must give it.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A public imprecation. OJPS translates \u201cadjuration.\u201d In fact, the Hebrew word literally means \u201coath,\u201d but it refers here to a declaration that anyone with information must respond or be excommunicated. If anyone with information fails to provide it, the force of the imprecation is such that he incurs punishment from God. But our passage deals with the case where he did not testify because he has forgotten that he had such information and only later remembers it.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
A public imprecation. \u201cPublic\u201d is not in the Hebrew (see OJPS); this is a personal adjuration. See the next comment. Although able to testify as one who has either seen or learned of the matter. The Hebrew text apparently says \u201che was a witness or saw or learned.\u201d But as the translations recognize, there are not three possibilities listed here, but two. No one can be a witness without having seen or learned something. But when one has been adjured in such a matter, he bears guilt if he has seen or learned something of it. However, one is not obligated to bring this sacrifice unless he knows that he can provide testimony that will cause the one who has adjured him to win the case. The Sages explain in this regard that there can be testimony that one sees but does not know, as well as testimony that one knows but has not seen. If one person claims, \u201cI gave such-and-such to you in the presence of so-and-so,\u201d and the other says, \u201cIt never happened,\u201d he must come and testify. This is testimony based on seeing without knowing (for the witness did not know the significance of what he saw). Alternatively, if one claimant says, \u201cYou admitted owing me such-and-such in the presence of so-and-so,\u201d again he must come and testify to what was said. This is a case of knowing without having seen the original transaction. But according to a straightforward explanation of the text, we need not imagine that seeing without knowing is implied. The word saw means that he saw the entire transaction, and the word learned means that he heard both parties admitting it in front of witnesses, though he did not see it. This verse does not include the phrase \u201cthe fact has escaped him\u201d (v. 2), for in this situation, if he knows that he has testimony to give, he is liable whether he ignores the adjuration deliberately or inadvertently. But if (when he was adjured) he did not remember having seen or learned anything about the matter, he is under no obligation.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
A person. The word was specifically chosen to make clear that these rules apply to both men and women (Abarbanel). Imprecation. That is, an oath invoking one of God\u2019s holy names (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
When a person touches any unclean thing. And afterward eats sanctified food or enters the sanctuary\u2014both of them matters for which, if they are done deliberately, one is cut off. So it is explained in ch. 2 of Tractate Shevu\u2019ot. And the fact has escaped him. The fact that he was unclean. He realizes his guilt. In eating the sanctified food or entering the sanctuary.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
The fact has escaped him, and then, being unclean, he realizes his guilt. His guilt at having forgotten that he was unclean and entering the sacred area or eating sacred food\u2014both of which, if deliberately done while unclean, are punishable by death at the hands of heaven.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The carcass of an unclean beast. The four unclean beasts are listed in 11:4\u20137: the camel, the daman, the hare, and the swine. Unclean cattle. That is, unclean for eating, such as the horse and the donkey. An unclean creeping thing. One of the eight kinds mentioned in our text: \u201cthe mole, the mouse, the great lizard of every variety, the gecko, the land crocodile, the lizard, the sand lizard, and the chameleon\u201d (11:29\u201330). The fact has escaped him but eventually he realizes his guilt.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The fact has escaped him, and then, being unclean. Rashi does not mean that the words \u201che realizes his guilt\u201d indicate that the matter has to do with eating sanctified foods or entering the sanctuary. The same phrase occurs three times in ch. 4. Rather, the verse is speaking succinctly about matters that are obvious. Since there is no sin in touching a corpse or an unclean animal\u2014not even the priests are warned against this\u2014it is impossible that the text could be requiring one to bring a sacrifice for having done so. Only when forgetting about having touched something unclean or about having taken an oath leads one to sin can one be required to bring a sacrifice. Obviously the only kind of sin one can commit by forgetting about having touched something unclean is to eat sanctified foods or enter the sanctuary. Similarly, forgetting about an oath can lead to sin only if one violates the oath. This restores the straightforward, contextual meaning of this passage. The Sages have other interpretations on this subject that confirm the point.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:3\u20137<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is the first of these offerings female (v. 6) rather than a ram, as for the others?
\n\u2666 Why do none of the previous offerings offer an alternative \u201cif his means do not suffice\u201d (v. 7), as does this one?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Human uncleanness. That derived from a corpse. Any such uncleanness. Or that of a person with a discharge. Whereby. Or one who swallows the flesh of a bird that (though of a kosher species) has not been slaughtered properly. One becomes unclean. The third repetition of \u201cunclean\u201d adds the category of one who has touched a man who has had sex with a menstruant woman. The fact that he was unclean has escaped him, but later he realizes his guilt in having eaten sanctified foods or entered the sanctuary in a state of uncleanness.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Though he has known it, the fact has escaped him, but later he realizes his guilt. More literally, \u201che knows and is guilty.\u201d He finds out now that he was unclean, and realizes that he is guilty.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Human uncleanness. Someone who has a discharge, or has touched a corpse, or is menstruating.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Or when a person utters an oath. The Hebrew adds \u201cwith his lips\u201d (OJPS)\u2014but not with his heart. To bad or good purpose. That is, it doesn\u2019t matter whether he has sworn \u201cto do evil\u201d (OJPS) to himself or \u201cto do good\u201d (OJPS) to himself. E.g., he swears, \u201cI will eat\u201d or \u201cI will not eat,\u201d \u201cI will sleep\u201d or \u201cI will not sleep.\u201d Whatever a man may utter. Including an oath about the past that is false, but due to forgetfulness rather than deceit. The fact has escaped him. And he has violated his oath. For any of these violations he must bring a sliding-scale offering, as is explained here. But if he swears a false oath in a monetary matter, he must bring a guilt offering, not a sliding-scale offering.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When a person utters an oath. Literally, utters it \u201cwith his lips\u201d (OJPS)\u2014it must have been spoken out loud. To bad \u2026 purpose. To do something bad to someone who deserves punishment. Or perhaps, following Saadia, it means to afflict himself.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:5\u20136<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall confess that wherein he has sinned. And he shall bring \u2026 his penalty. This is not the correct order. First he brings his sin offering and then he lays his hands on it and confesses, as is demonstrated by 16:21, \u201cAaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites.\u201d It does not mention laying on of hands here because the earlier verses regarding sin offerings (4:4, 15, 24, 29, 33) have already made it clear that this is required (as it is of the various freewill offerings). The confession was simply not mentioned in the previous cases of sin offerings. In a straightforward reading of the text, confession is mentioned here because one must bring a sacrifice for deliberately violating one\u2019s oath, as described in Num. 5:6\u20137, \u201cWhen a man or woman commits any wrong toward a fellow man \u2026 and that person realizes his guilt, he shall confess the wrong that he has done.\u201d But no confession is mentioned in the case of inadvertent sin. The Sages, however, think that our phrase he shall confess applies to everything in this passage (entering the sanctuary in a state of impurity, inadvertently violating one\u2019s oath, and so on), but that it was specifically mentioned here because the oath violations of vv. 1 and 4 are not punishable by death at the hands of heaven. (For sins that are punishable in that way, it is obvious that one would have to confess.) They said moreover (in the Sifrei) that our verse indicates the necessity of confessing over a sin offering just as Num. 5:6\u20137 does for a guilt offering. In fact, they explain the Numbers text as requiring confession by anyone who is charged with a capital offense.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:5<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall confess. This applies only to ignoring the imprecation of v. 1. He need not confess any of the other misdeeds (that involve prohibited action) before the priest. But the offering he must bring is the same.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:7<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If his means do not suffice. Literally, \u201cif his hand does not reach.\u201d For it is the hand that performs every task, including that of acquisition. As the translations have recognized, the metaphor implies that he cannot afford a sheep. One for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. According to R. Isaac, one reason he must bring a burnt offering (olah) is in case some thought \u201carose\u201d (oleh) in his mind because he was too poor to afford a sheep. To me it is more plausible that the burnt offering replaces the sacrificial parts which would have come from the sin offering if it had been a sheep or goat, and that the other one is the standard sin offering.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
If his means do not suffice for a sheep. The text is lenient with regard to these categories of sin, in that he is permitted (if necessary) to bring one of the less expensive offerings described in this passage, technically known as a \u201csliding-scale\u201d offering. The reason may be that the oath violations are not punishable by death at the hands of heaven, and that the violations of sanctity take place while fulfilling a commandment. For the priest who eats sanctified food, or one who enters the sanctuary to worship or to offer a sacrifice, is fulfilling a commandment, and his thoughts are directed toward heaven. For this reason, despite his having sinned because his impurity has escaped him, the text has given him many opportunities to expiate his sin. Two turtledoves or two pigeons. In each case, the Hebrew word for \u201ctwo\u201d reverses the gender of its noun, to indicate that it makes no difference whether the birds one brings are male or female. The other for a burnt offering. Ibn Ezra says that the burnt offering replaces the sacrificial parts that would have come from the sin offering if it had been a sheep or goat, and this explains it nicely.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If his means do not suffice. Literally, \u201cif his hand does not reach\u201d as far as the money. The Sages make clear that he is not to borrow the money or work at his trade to acquire it. In fact, even if he has a sheep but does not have the money for travel expenses, he is to bring a less expensive offering (Kimhi). It is always preferable to perform a commandment at its proper time, even if waiting would permit one to fulfill it at greater expense (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:8\u201312<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Who shall offer first the one for the sin offering. A sin offering must precede a burnt offering, just as an advocate first restores his client to good favor and then sends a gift of thanks. At the nape. Rather, \u201cfacing the nape.\u201d The nape is the back part of the head, which slopes down to the neck. So it must be pinched anywhere along the length of the back of the neck, the part that faces the nape. Without severing it. He \u201cpinches\u201d only the windpipe or the gullet, but not both.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Without severing it. Either the windpipe or the gullet is \u201cpinched,\u201d but not both.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall sprinkle some of the blood. In the case of the burnt offering, the bird\u2019s blood was to be drained onto the altar. With the sin offering, some must be sprinkled and some drained. As noted earlier, the latter is done by grasping the bird at the neck and squeezing out the blood against the altar. It is a sin offering. If brought expressly for that purpose, it expiates the sin; but if not, it doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
He shall sprinkle some of the blood. He takes hold of the body and sprinkles some of the blood at the altar from a distance, and then drains out whatever blood remains. But in the case of a burnt offering (1:15), the blood is not sprinkled at all; it is drained out against the side of the altar.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall sprinkle some of the blood \u2026 on the side of the altar. It is not \u201cdrained\u201d vertically but sprinkled horizontally (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
According to regulation. According to the rules laid out in 1:14\u201317.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
For it is a sin offering. And therefore ought not to be performed in an elegant manner.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A tenth of an ephah of choice flour. Enough to feed one man for one day.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall not add oil to it or lay frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering. One would think that they would be required\u2014why should the sinner profit, saving money by omitting these extras? (If he brings an animal sacrifice rather than a bird sacrifice, he similarly does not bring a libation along with it.) But we do not want a sin offering to have these extra features that make an offering more elegant. Note that a leper who brings a \u201csin\u201d offering does add a libation, since he has not actually sinned; his offering merely requalifies him to come in contact with the sacred (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It is a sin offering. If the meal is scooped and turned into smoke for that purpose, it expiates the sin; but if not, it doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:13\u201315<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Again, why are two of these guilt offerings introduced by separate speeches of God to Moses (vv. 14, 20)?
\n\u2666 Since the conditional guilt offerings described in this passage essentially replace sin offerings but (because of the uncertainty of the sin) are slightly less severe, why must they be made with a ram rather than a female sheep or goat?
\n\u2666 Why is this the only sacrifice described as being \u201cconvertible into payment in silver by the sanctuary weight\u201d (v. 15)?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:13<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
For \u2026 these sins. In the cases of the man rich enough to bring a sheep (v. 6) or the poorer man who must bring two birds (v. 10), the Hebrew literally says that expiation is made \u201cfrom his sin.\u201d But here the literal language is \u201con his sin.\u201d The Sages interpreted this careful precision of language in the following way: If a man who sinned was rich enough to buy a sheep or goat but (having set aside the money to do so) then became impoverished, he may instead use part of the money for two birds for a sin offering. If a poorer man sinned and (having set aside money for two birds) became still poorer, he too may use just part of the money for a tenth of an ephah of choice flour. But if a man sinned, set aside enough money for an ephah of choice flour, and then somehow became rich, he must add on to what he had bought and bring the standard sacrifice of a rich man. For the expression in the first two cases can be interpreted to mean \u201cpart of his sin offering,\u201d in which case the expression used in our verse would mean \u201con top of [i.e., in addition to] his [original] sin offering.\u201d Whichever of these sins. The Hebrew literally says \u201cthe priest shall make atonement for him on the sin that he has sinned from whichever of these things\u201d (see OJPS)\u2014from whichever of the three he brings: the sacrifice of a rich man, of a poor man, or of a destitute man. One might have thought that the more expensive offerings were to expiate the more grievous sins. We are therefore taught that the lightest sin demands a sheep if the one who commits it is rich, while the most grievous sin requires no more than a tenth of an ephah of flour if the one who commits it is destitute. It shall belong to the priest, like the meal offering. Whatever remains of a sin offering of meal may be eaten by the priest\u2014that is the straightforward meaning. But the Sages read it this way: \u201cTo a priest, it shall be like a meal offering.\u201d If the sinner is a priest, it must be treated like any meal offering presented by a priest: \u201cEvery meal offering of a priest shall be a whole offering: it shall not be eaten\u201d (6:16).<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
For whichever of these sins he is guilty. Whichever of the three: hearing a public imprecation but not testifying (v. 1), uttering an oath and letting the fact escape him (v. 4), or encountering something holy while unclean (vv. 2\u20133).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:15<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
When a person commits a trespass. The Hebrew expression for \u201ccommitting a trespass\u201d implies a change of allegiance: \u201cBut they trespassed against the God of their fathers by going astray after the gods of the peoples of the land\u201d (1 Chron. 5:25); \u201cIf any man\u2019s wife has gone astray and broken faith with him\u201d (Num. 5:12). Being unwittingly remiss about any of the LORD\u2019S sacred things. Having gotten personal benefit from the sacred things. We know that this is forbidden by the following analysis: The word translated \u201cremiss\u201d here is used also in 22:9, \u201cThey shall keep My charge, lest they be remiss therewith and die for it.\u201d Since one who is remiss there is warned that he shall die for it, we understand that here too the one who is remiss is warned that he shall die. In ch. 22 being remiss refers only to eating something that is not appropriate for a priest. But we know that our verse is not limited only to eating the sacred donations, because the Hebrew word ma\u2019al (\u201cremiss\u201d) is used twice, indicating that it refers not just to eating but to benefiting in any way. \u201cThe Lord\u2019s sacred things\u201d are those set aside specifically for God, thus excluding those \u201cless sacred\u201d parts that would remain for human use after the sacrifice is performed. A ram. The same word is used for a strong person: \u201che carried away the nobles of the land\u201d (Ezek. 17:13). Here too the implication is that it must be a sheep at its full strength, two years old. Convertible into payment in silver. More literally, \u201caccording to thy valuation in silver by shekels\u201d (OJPS). The plural shows that it must be worth a minimum of two shekels.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Remiss about any of the LORD\u2019S sacred things. Getting some benefit from one of the sacred things. This is the guilt offering for \u201ctrespass.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Commits a trespass. The Hebrew word ma\u2019al implies something that is covered up; compare it to the related word me\u2019il, \u201ccloak.\u201d Since this trespass involves the LORD\u2019S sacred things, he must bring a ram valued in silver. The verse literally says that it is valued \u201cin silver by shekels\u201d (OJPS), where the use of the plural tells us that it must be valued at a minimum of two shekels.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall bring as his penalty to the LORD. The word translated as \u201cpenalty\u201d here (\u201cforfeit\u201d in OJPS) is literally \u201cguilt,\u201d and (as we see from the end of the verse) the sacrifice he brings is called a guilt offering. But the \u201cpenalty\u201d of v. 6 is a sliding-scale offering: in that verse, the word simply implies that he brings a sacrifice, for that sacrifice is a sin offering: \u201ca female from the flock, sheep or goat, as a sin offering\u201d (v. 6). Since both offerings are brought as the result of a sin, it is not clear why one should be called a sin offering and the other a guilt offering. We cannot say that it is because a sin offering must be a female, because there are sin offerings that are male\u2014goats (4:23 and Num. 15:24) and bulls (4:3 and 4:14). Likewise, it cannot have to do with the gravity of the sin, for a leper also brings two sacrifices, one a sin offering and one a guilt offering! I think that the implication of the term \u201cguilt offering\u201d points to something so grave that one who commits it deserves utter destruction. The same root is used in \u201cCondemn them, O God\u201d (Ps. 5:11) and \u201cWe are being punished on account of our brother\u201d (Gen. 42:21). The term \u201csin,\u201d on the other hand, etymologically implies missing the mark, straying from the path: \u201cEvery one of them could sling a stone at a hair and not miss\u201d (Judg. 20:16). Thus the sacrifices brought in the cases of robbery (vv. 20\u201326) and having sex with another man\u2019s slave girl (19:20\u201322) are called guilt offerings because these violations are committed deliberately, and the same is true of a nazirite (Num. 6:1\u201321) who violates his oath. Here in our verse, the sacrifices for trespassing on the sacred, even though the violations are inadvertent, are also called guilt offerings, because they involve the Lord\u2019s sacred things. Such a great sin demands destruction; the Hebrew word itself implies \u201cbetrayal.\u201d With regard to the leper, he is considered as dead, and so his first sacrifice is called a guilt offering to defend him from the guilt for which he was \u201cdestroyed.\u201d The second is a sin offering to expiate his (inadvertent) sin. A conditional guilt offering is so called because the one who brings it does not really think he deserves punishment, because he is not aware of having committed any sin. The text is therefore more severe with him than with one who has certainly sinned, and demands of him a ram \u2026 convertible into payment in silver, while if he knew that he had sinned he need bring a sin offering worth no more than a sixth of a dinar. It is nonetheless still called a guilt offering to say that it must amount to two shekels \u201cof the sanctuary\u201d (as with the more severe crimes we have already mentioned), and to show him that if he were to treat it lightly and not bring an expiatory sacrifice, he would be destroyed for his crime. V. 19 puts it plainly: \u201cIt is a guilt offering; he has incurred guilt before the LORD.\u201d Even though he himself is in doubt about his guilt, he acknowledges that the Lord \u201cknows the secrets of the heart\u201d (Ps. 44:22) and, if he had sinned, would indeed punish him for his guilt. V. 6 too uses the word \u201cpenalty\u201d (\u201cforfeit\u201d in OJPS, that is, \u201cguilt\u201d) in describing how his sin is expiated, for it covers sins that require bringing an offering even when they are performed deliberately, like ignoring the adjuration to testify. Further, in accordance with the True interpretation, the female sacrifice for a sin is called a sin offering, while the male is called a guilt offering. But he-goats and bulls are nonetheless called sin offerings, because they are brought to expiate sin.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
A ram without blemish from the flock, convertible into payment in silver. Rams were extremely expensive in the wilderness (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:16\u201317<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:16<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall make restitution for that wherein he was remiss about the sacred things. He pays back the temple treasury the amount by which he benefited and adds on \u201ca fifth part,\u201d that is, 25 percent.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Give it to the priest. \u201cIt\u201d is the ram of the guilt offering, which he gives to the priest so that the priest can make expiation for him with it.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall make restitution. He must repay the amount by which he sinned and add 25 percent to it. This is the rule for one who commits such a sin unwittingly and later realizes that he has done so.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall make restitution. Note that he must make restitution before the priest makes expiation on his behalf. How could his sin be expiated while he still had possession of its fruits? (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:17<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
When a person, without knowing it, sins \u2026 and then realizes his guilt. The situation under discussion here is when a person thinks that he may have committed a sin deserving of being cut off, but is not sure. For example, he has two pieces of fat before him, one of sacrificial fat and the other of ordinary, permissible fat, but he thinks they are both permissible. He eats one of them and then finds out that one was sacrificial fat\u2014but he does not know whether or not that was the one he ate. He must bring a conditional guilt offering in order to protect himself as long as he does not know for certain whether or not he sinned. If he eventually learns that he did sin, he then brings a sin offering. He shall be subject to punishment. R. Yose the Galilean said: If the text so severely punishes one who does not know for sure that he sinned, how much more it must punish one who knows that he has sinned! R. Yose said: If you would like to know what reward is given to the righteous, go and learn from Adam. He had only a single prohibition to obey, yet when he violated it, look how many deaths he and his descendants were sentenced to! Since God\u2019s kindness must be greater than His vindictiveness, and yet all of Adam\u2019s descendants were sentenced to death for his single sin, I must conclude as follows: One who refrains from eating sacrificial meat after the deadline for eating it, and even refrains from eating it before the deadline if it was sacrificed with the intent to eat it afterward, and who nonetheless afflicts himself on the Day of Atonement\u2014how much the more so must he certainly win reward not merely for himself and his descendants, but for the descendants of his descendants, straight through to the last generation. R. Akiva said: According to Deut. 17:6, \u201ca person shall be put to death only on the testimony of two or more witnesses.\u201d If two witnesses are enough, why does the text have to mention \u201cmore\u201d? It can only be to make clear that if a third witness perjures himself along with the first two in an attempt to send an innocent man to his death, he is punished for it along with the two witnesses whose testimony would have been enough. If the text is so concerned to punish one who joins with evildoers like the evildoers themselves (though the third man\u2019s testimony had no legal effect), how much more must it be concerned to reward those who assist the doers of a good deed as if they had done the good deed themselves! R. Eleazar b. Azariah said, \u201cWhen you reap the harvest in your field and overlook a sheaf in the field, do not turn back to get it; it shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow\u2014in order that the LORD your God may bless you in all your undertakings\u201d (Deut. 24:19). The text grants blessing to one who overlooks something and does a good deed inadvertently! One can deduce that if a man drops a coin and a poor person picks it up, the Holy One grants blessing to the one who dropped it!<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
When a person, without knowing it, sins \u2026 and then realizes his guilt. Vv. 17\u201318 refer to a provisional guilt offering. It is used for the sort of situation when ordinary fat has been replaced by forbidden fat and someone eats it without realizing that it was forbidden fat. Once he learns that he might have eaten forbidden fat \u2026<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When a person \u2026 sins. When he violates a commandment by committing any prohibited act, but does so without knowing that the act he committed was prohibited, he must bring an offering of a ram (v. 18). Many people are of the opinion that this verse refers to the conditional guilt offering, which pertains to a case where he knew what was prohibited but was not certain whether or not he had committed such a violation. A sin offering, on the other hand, deals with the situation where he knew what he had done but did not know that it was a sin. In fact, however, the guilt offering of our passage refers to a case where he had known that the act was sinful, but forgot that it was so, and remembered again only after committing it. Or perhaps it does refer to the conditional guilt offering.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:18\u201322<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:18<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Or the equivalent. See v. 15. For the error that he committed unwittingly. Again, the guilt offering does not make expiation for him if it later turns out that he actually did commit the violation; in this case he must also bring a sin offering. There is a similar rule in the case of a murder victim whose killer is not known. There is an intricate procedure described in Deuteronomy 21 to clear the town nearest the murder of any guilt. Yet if the actual murderer is later found, he is put to death.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
He shall bring to the priest a ram without blemish from the flock, or the equivalent, as a guilt offering. But if he learns for certain that the fat he ate was forbidden fat, he must bring a sin offering.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:19<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It is a guilt offering; he has incurred guilt. If you think this is an unnecessary repetition, its significance has already been explained in the Sifra: the second reference to \u201cguilt\u201d points us to the ram that must be brought as a guilt offering by a man who has slept with a slave woman who has already been designated for another man (Deut. 19:21). Just as our ram must be worth two shekels, so must that one. But it does not refer to the ram brought by a leper (14:12) or a nazirite (Num. 6:12), because the doubling that implies extra information is then followed (in the Hebrew word order) by the limiting word \u201cit\u201d\u2014this one extra rule, but no other.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He has incurred guilt before the LORD. This explains why it is called a guilt offering.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
It is a guilt offering. One should not think that this conditional guilt offering turns out to be a sacrifice in vain in cases where he has not actually sinned. The verse makes clear that he has incurred guilt before the LORD by being so careless as to bring into consideration the possibility that he might have sinned (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:21<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Dealing deceitfully with his fellow. R. Akiva said: In what way are these activities a trespass \u201cagainst the LORD\u201d? When one loans or borrows money or concludes a business deal, it is all done with contracts and before witnesses. If one of the parties later lies about it, he is denying the contracts and the witnesses. But in the case of one who leaves a deposit, you have a situation where he does not want a soul to know about it but \u201cthe third party who is between them.\u201d When he lies about it, therefore, it is this \u201cthird party\u201d\u2014God\u2014whom he is denying. A pledge. The Hebrew phrase literally means \u201cputting [money] in someone\u2019s hand,\u201d whether as a loan or as an investment. Through robbery. Having taken something from him. By defrauding his fellow. The reference here is to withholding the pay of a hired worker.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Dealing deceitfully with his fellow. Vv. 20\u201326 deal with the guilt offering for robbery.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Commits a trespass against the LORD. In these cases, the prohibited act he has committed falls into the realm of crimes against other human beings, by contrast to the previous passage, which dealt with sins with regard to sacred things. A pledge. Rather, \u201ca partnership.\u201d The Hebrew literally says \u201cplacing of the hand\u201d\u2014they shook hands on a deal. Robbery. By force. We find a verb from this root used when Benaiah \u201cwrenched the spear out of the Egyptian\u2019s hand\u201d (1 Chron. 11:23). Defrauding. Rather, by theft, in secret. His fellow. It probably means just \u201csomeone else,\u201d but the etymology of the Hebrew word suggests that it could possibly mean \u201chis neighbor\u201d (OJPS), that is, someone who is at hand.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
With his fellow. But not with God or with a non-Jew (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:22<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If he swears falsely. Denying, in any of the cases, that he owes money.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If he swears falsely. The translations have misunderstood this phrase. It is not a summary but still another kind of violation, false swearing in connection with money that someone is trying to get from him. The proof is v. 24, where the case of the lost object (which immediately precedes this phrase in our verse) is followed by the words \u201cor anything else about which he swore falsely.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:23\u201326<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:23<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
When one has thus sinned and, realizing his guilt \u2026 NJPS is correct here. It is not merely that he has sinned but that he comes to the realization that he must repent, both understanding and confessing that he has sinned and is guilty.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:24<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The principal amount. Literally, \u201cthe head,\u201d the chief part of the money. And add a fifth part to it. Literally, \u201cand add its fifths to it.\u201d Torah law is such that many fifths can be added to a single principal amount. If, for example, he admitted what he had done and agreed that he owed the principal but swore that he did not owe the extra fifth part, but later repented and admitted he owed the fifth part as well, he must pay an extra fifth part of the fifth part. Hypothetically he could go on paying the principal and denying that he owed a fifth (which thereby becomes the new principal) until the disputed amount drops below a perutah. He shall pay it to its owner. NJPS is correct; the real owner of the original money is the one \u201cto whom it appertaineth\u201d (OJPS).<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
When he realizes his guilt. Literally \u201cin the day of his being guilty\u201d (OJPS); but NJPS has the sense. The \u201cday\u201d is the day on which he repents of his robbery, fraud, and so forth, and confesses it.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The principal amount. It is irrelevant whether he returns exactly what he stole or its equivalent. A fifth part. The grammatical form of this word suggests that it is actually plural; he must pay two \u201cfifth parts.\u201d See my comment to Num. 5:7. When he realizes his guilt. \u201cThe day of his being guilty\u201d (OJPS) is actually the day on which he repents of his guilt. That is when he brings a ram.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
And add a fifth part to it. The rule of \u201cfifths\u201d described by Rashi only applies when it is the testimony of others that proves he owes the principal amount. If he himself admits it, he pays only a single fifth (Hizkuni). The \u201cfifth\u201d part means 20 percent (Abarbanel). He shall pay it to its owner when he realizes his guilt. Literally, \u201con the day\u201d when he realizes his guilt\u2014he must repay it on the day he brings his offering, so that the offering will be acceptable (Hizkuni). It must be repaid directly to the owner, not to his son or other agent (Gersonides). He pays the principal to the owner and the fifth part to the priest (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:25<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Or the equivalent. Literally, \u201caccording to thy valuation\u201d (OJPS). The sense is that he must bring a ram equivalent in value to that described in v. 15. As noted in my comment to the previous verse, he is fined two \u201cfifth parts\u201d because he committed the crime deliberately. The idea that this passage too refers to a conditional guilt offering is to be rejected as the minority opinion of a single individual.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 5:26<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
For whatever he may have done to draw blame thereby. More literally, \u201cFor each of all the things he may have done.\u201d If he swore falsely to 100 people, he must bring 100 guilt offerings (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:1\u20132<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 How can each burnt offering \u201cremain where it is burned upon the altar all night until morning\u201d (v. 2) when so many different offerings are brought and burned every day?
\n\u2666 What exactly is \u201cthe\u201d burnt offering to which this refers?
\n\u2666 If this refers to the daily afternoon offering (as the commentators say), why is that not specified directly? In fact, the daily offerings are not described anywhere in Leviticus!
\n\u2666 If this does refer to the afternoon offering, why does the text not specify that the morning offering may be brought any time during the day?
\n\u2666 Once the verse says \u201call night,\u201d why must it add \u201cuntil morning\u201d?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Command Aaron and his sons. \u201cCommand\u201d is used to give an instruction that must be followed with alacrity, both immediately and in succeeding generations. R. Simeon says, \u201cThe text must especially command us to act with alacrity in a matter that involves taking money out of one\u2019s pocket.\u201d This is the ritual of the burnt offering. Every time the Hebrew word torah is used (here, \u201critual\u201d in NJPS and \u201claw\u201d in OJPS), its purpose is to indicate that the rules are worded in such a way as to give us additional information that is not specifically recorded. In this case, we learn that the fats and other parts of a sacrifice may be burned on the altar at any time during the night, and also which invalid offerings must be taken down from the altar and which must remain and be offered anyway. The burnt offering itself. This apparently redundant expression tells us that animals that have been involved in bestiality and the like may not be used as a burnt offering even if they are accidentally put up on the altar, since their disqualification took place before they were brought into the courtyard and not in the holy place itself.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
This is the ritual of the burnt offering. All of the offerings in the weekly portion of Vayikra are repeated here, and the rules concerning them are completed. The burnt offering itself. The burnt offering must be brought during the day: \u201con the day that he offers his sacrifice\u201d (7:16); \u201con the day you sacrifice it\u201d (19:6). All night. It may be turned into smoke at any time throughout the night. The fire on the altar is kept going on it. By night just as it is by day.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The burnt offering itself. Rather, as OJPS translates, the burnt offering \u201cis that which goeth up\u201d entirely on the altar. That is why it is called by the Hebrew word olah, which has this meaning. Correctly read, the verse implies that the burnt offering may not be put on the altar during the night but that it remains on the fire during the night. Where it is burned. OJPS \u201con its firewood.\u201d It is not clear whether this word mokdah (found only here in the Bible) is a variant of the word mok\u00e9d (literally \u201chearth\u201d) or a different noun from the same root. While the fire on the altar is kept going on it. This fire is kept going on the altar but may not be transferred elsewhere.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Command Aaron and his sons. The book of Leviticus begins with \u201cSpeak to the Israelite people\u201d (1:2) because that section describes the bringing of the offerings, and the offerings are brought by all of the Israelites. Now, however, Moses is told to \u201ccommand Aaron,\u201d because this section describes how the offerings are to be made, which is the job of the priests. The comment of R. Simeon mentioned by Rashi is therefore not pertinent, since the priests who are commanded here make no expenditure themselves; in fact, they profit by making the offerings. R. Simeon is actually arguing with the first comment provided by Rashi, which says that \u201ccommand\u201d refers specifically to commandments that go into effect immediately and also pertain to future generations, while other commandments are introduced simply by saying \u201cSpeak to the Israelite people\u201d or \u201cSay to them.\u201d R. Simeon\u2019s point is that \u201ccommand\u201d actually is sometimes used with commandments of limited applicability: when they involve expenditure\u2014e.g., for oil for the lampstand (Exod. 27:20) or for towns for the Levites to settle in (Num. 35:2). It might be that R. Simeon\u2019s comment is understood to apply here, since v. 13 does speak of an offering to be brought by \u201cAaron and his sons.\u201d But in the Sifra, where both comments originate, R. Simeon is (as I said) arguing with the first comment, not supplementing it as Rashi makes him seem to do. This is the ritual of the burnt offering. The rule specified by Rashi does not apply to all \u201cofferings\u201d (as he says) but to all burnt offerings\u2014not to libations and not to offerings of blood. With regard to the nighttime aspect, this expression teaches us that we are not to bring a burnt offering at night. But if it is slaughtered and its blood is dashed on the altar while it is still day, then the sacrificial pieces may be burnt at any time during the night. The same is true of the sacrificial fats from a sacrifice of well-being. The burnt offering itself. This is the phrase that expresses the limitation we have mentioned: that the offering itself may not be taken down from the altar if it is found to be invalid, while its accompanying libations or blood offerings are removed. But this verse has nothing to do with burnt offerings that are not put up on the altar until nighttime. That situation is covered by Exod. 23:18. While the fire on the altar is kept going on it. That is, it is a commandment to the priests to add enough wood during the day so that it is not used up at night, letting the fire go out. In my opinion, v. 6 is a separate commandment: that the fire should not be permitted to go out at all. (In fact, the Sages decreed a second, separate fire on the altar to be kept continuously burning in fulfillment of this commandment.) V. 5, which says something similar, would appear to be superfluous, permitting the Sages to interpret it as extending this commandment beyond the priests to everyone, such that not even a coal from the fire may be taken off the altar and extinguished. But I don\u2019t think one who does so violates two commandments, as Rashi says in his comment to v. 6.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
This is the ritual of the burnt offering. The burnt offering is mentioned first, as it was in ch. 1, because it is the most preferred, as if God had said, \u201cIf only all your offerings were burnt offerings and none of them sin or guilt offerings\u201d (Abarbanel). Not \u201cthe ritual\u201d but \u201cthe Torah,\u201d that is, the teaching. Having described all the different offerings, the text now returns to allude to the theoretical aspects of each (Sforno). The burnt offering itself. \u201cThe ritual of the burnt offering\u201d in general is described in the weekly portion of Vayikra, but now the specific rules pertaining to the regular evening offering are given (Abarbanel). Where it is burned. The \u05de of the Hebrew word \u05de\u05d5\u05e7\u05d3\u05d4 is to be written noticeably smaller than the other letters (Masorah). The offering that must remain where it is burned all night is obviously the regular daily twilight offering; the reason it must remain is so that, to honor God, the altar is never empty day or night (Bekhor Shor). It should rather be translated \u201con its hearth\u201d (compare OJPS). There should be a fire that is specifically dedicated to it alone (Gersonides). All night. There was no need to add that the morning offering could be burned at any time during the day, since this is obvious. But we also learn that the evening prayer may be recited at any time during the night, for there is an allegorical interpretation of this whole section relating it to the three daily prayers of evening, morning, and afternoon. As we learn from Song 8:6, the love of God that impels one to pray bums like a flame (Abarbanel). While the fire on the altar is kept going on it. Rather, \u201cthe fire of the [inner] altar is to be lit from it,\u201d that is, from the fire on the outer altar (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:3\u20134<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does v. 3 specify the \u201clinen breeches\u201d without mentioning the tunics, sashes, and turbans that Exod. 28:40 makes clear are an essential part of the priestly uniform?
\n\u2666 Why is the priest instructed to carry off \u201cthe ashes\u201d (v. 4), but not the crops of birds (and so forth), which he must also obviously do?
\n\u2666 What exactly is the \u201cclean place\u201d to which the verse refers?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Linen raiment. This refers to the priestly tunic. NJPS omits a critical part of the word middo, \u201chis linen garment\u201d (OJPS), indicating that it must be made to the priest\u2019s measure (middato). Next to his body. Literally, \u201cupon his flesh\u201d (OJPS). Nothing must intervene between the breeches and his flesh. He shall take up the ashes. He must take a fire pan full of ashes from the center of the fire, where the offering has been totally reduced to ashes, lift it up as an offering, and deposit the ashes east of the altar ramp. This was the first ritual performed every morning. The burnt offering on the altar. If he finds parts of the offerings that have not yet been consumed, he must put them back on the altar after having raked the coals back and forth and taken some ashes from the center of the fire. As long as it is still a \u201cburnt offering\u201d (and not yet completely ash), it must remain \u201con the altar.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Linen raiment. The -o suffix of the word middo (\u201craiment\u201d) is grammatically superfluous, as occurs, e.g., in the names \u201cson of Zippor\u201d (Num. 23:18) and \u201cBalaam son of Beor\u201d (Num. 24:3). The word itself simply means \u201cclothes\u201d (see, e.g., 1 Sam. 4:12). He shall take up the ashes. This is a specific ritual attached to the burnt offering of the morning. Carrying the ashes outside (v. 4) is done less often, for it is simply a matter of making space on the altar by clearing away the ashes.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Raiment. This is in fact the straightforward translation of middo. The Sages indicate that the suffix implies a garment suited to the priest\u2019s measure, middato. Next to his body. Literally, \u201cupon his flesh\u201d (OJPS), a euphemism for the genitals, as is clear from 15:2. To which the fire has reduced the burnt offering. OJPS \u201cwhereto the fire hath consumed the burnt offering\u201d\u2014what remains after the fire \u201ceats\u201d the offering (as the text literally says). Beside the altar. On its eastern side.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The priest shall dress in linen raiment. Assuming this is the tunic, as Rashi explains, then the addition of the breeches means that the verse refers explicitly only to two of the priestly garments. But taking up the ashes, like any other priestly task, requires that the priest be dressed in all four of the garments. The tunic and breeches are specifically mentioned here because of the new points that the verse adds in connection with them: that the tunic must be long enough to reach his feet\u2014if it is not, any priestly service he performs is invalid\u2014and that the breeches must be next to his body, with nothing between them and his skin. But once the verse requires priestly raiment, we know automatically that a priest who performs the task must wear all the appropriate garments (four for an ordinary priest, eight for the High Priest). This is explained on B. Yoma 23b. The Sifra derives this same ruling from the double use of the verb \u201cput on\u201d (see OJPS), while Onkelos appears to understand \u201craiment\u201d as an inclusive term denoting the entire priestly uniform. The same Hebrew word is used in 1 Sam. 4:12; Ps. 133:2, and 2 Sam. 20:8 simply for a person\u2019s \u201cclothes.\u201d Since linen is specified, Onkelos would seem to be following the opinion that the sash of an ordinary priest is not the same as that of the High Priest, which (according to Exod. 39:29) is made of a combination of linen and wool.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Raiment. The vav at the end of the word is indeed superfluous, but the dagesh in the dalet does show that the word is derived from \u05de\u05d3\u05d3, meaning \u201cmeasure\u201d (Kimhi). \u201cRaiment\u201d here refers to three of the garments\u2014the tunic, the headdress, and the sash\u2014as a unit, since they cannot be worn separately, but only as a single outfit (Hizkuni). It remains to be explained why the rules Rashi mentions are added only here. Perhaps the priests would otherwise have worn extra-short tunics to avoid dirtying them with the ash, or additional undergarments to avoid dirtying themselves with it (Abarbanel). He shall take up the ashes. It is the \u201ctaking up\u201d of these ashes that is the essence of the commandment, not the later disposal of them (Kimhi). Beside the altar. These ashes are deposited on the eastern side of the altar to demonstrate deliberate disrespect toward the east, where some people mistakenly bow in worship of the sun (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall then take off his vestments. This is not a ritual obligation, but simply sensible behavior so that he does not dirty his vestments when he carries the ashes away. One does not pour wine for one\u2019s master in the same garments in which one cooked the dinner. That is why he must put on other, less fancy, vestments. Carry the ashes outside. The ashes were gathered into a pile. Once the pile became so large that there was no room for it on the altar, it would be taken away. Ash must be removed as a gift offering daily (per v. 3), but the general disposal of ash described here took place only when necessary.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall then take off his vestments. See Rashi\u2019s comment. But the Sages clearly understood the other vestments mentioned here as priestly vestments, not simply ordinary clothes. Rashi is certainly correct that this is \u201cgood behavior,\u201d but I do not understand why he thinks it is not actually a commandment, which it clearly appears to be. Admittedly, there is one rabbinic opinion in the passage on B. Yoma 23b which implies that the priest changes into ordinary clothes, in which case the straightforward meaning of the verse would be as Rashi explains.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall \u2026 carry the ashes. Since the text does not specifically say \u201cthe priest shall carry the ashes,\u201d we learn that this may be performed by a blemished priest, who could not perform the other priestly tasks (Hizkuni). The crops of birds, which seem to have been disposed of here according to 1:16, are not mentioned. But since they would have been covered with the ash, perhaps they are simply included in the term (Abarbanel). To a clean place. Though they are ashes, being brought from before the Holy One they must be disposed of in a clean place. Contrast the stones \u201cwith the plague in them\u201d (14:40), which must be disposed of in an unclean place, which those who are in a state of ritual cleanness will automatically avoid (Bekhor Shor). We learn from 4:12 that this was a particular clean place (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:5\u20138<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are \u201cthe fat parts of the offerings of well-being\u201d (v. 5) mentioned specifically here, when we are discussing the burnt offering and, in any case, this applies to all offerings?
\n\u2666 Why are we told so many times\u2014in v. 2, v. 5, and again in v. 6\u2014that the fire must be kept going?
\n\u2666 Why are all of the offerings in Leviticus so different in their terminology? E.g., why does v. 8 say \u201ca pleasing odor to the LORD\u201d but not \u201can offering by fire of pleasing odor to the LORD\u201d or one of the other combinations of these terms? It\u2019s important that we understand the reasons for these variations.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The fire on the altar shall be kept burning. The repetition of this instruction in vv. 2, 5, and 6 is discussed in Tractate Yoma, where our Sages differ on how many different fires were kept burning atop the altar. Lay out the burnt offering on it. That is, the regular daily offering is laid out first. The fat parts of the offerings of well-being. That is, if any offerings of well-being are brought. Since this is not necessarily so, the Sages understand that our verse says \u201cthe\u201d offerings of well-being to permit ha-shelamim to be read as hashlemam, \u201cComplete them.\u201d Thus all other offerings must be completed \u201con top of\u201d the morning offering, leaving the regular afternoon offering as the last one of the day.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The fire on the altar shall be kept burning. This repeats exactly the expression at the end of v. 2 (as OJPS does in English), in order to indicate that it is not to go out at any time during the day. Every morning the priest shall feed wood to it, lay out the burnt offering on it, and turn into smoke the fat parts of the offerings of well-being. We learn that the regular daily offering precedes whatever offerings of well-being may be brought that day.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The fire on the altar shall be kept burning. Rather, \u201cthe fire shall burn on the altar\u201d\u2014that is, it must be kindled there and not kindled below and brought up to the altar (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:6<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A perpetual fire. And it is from this fire that is described as burning \u201ccontinually\u201d (see OJPS) that the lampstand which burns \u201ccontinually\u201d (Exod. 27:20) is to be lit. Not to go out. Anyone who puts it out violates two commandments, for v. 5 also says that it is \u201cnot to go out.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A perpetual fire shall be kept burning. The \u201ckept burning\u201d phrase is repeated yet again to emphasize that the fire must be \u201cperpetual.\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Not to go out. Not even when they were traveling (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:7<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
And this is the ritual of the meal offering. The implication is that the priests\u2019 meal offering of vv. 12\u201316, even though it is completely burned, must have oil and frankincense heaped on it just like an ordinary meal offering, of which only a portion is burned. For that is \u201cthe ritual\u201d of the meal offering. Aaron\u2019s sons shall present it. They shall bring it (not \u201coffer it,\u201d as OJPS has it) to the southwest corner of the altar, as the following two phrases explain. Before the LORD. This indicates the west, the direction of the Tent of Meeting. In front of the altar. This indicates the south, which is the front of the altar, since the ramp is placed on that side.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The meal offering. This passage expands on the information given about the meal offering in ch. 2. Aaron\u2019s sons. That is, one of them. This is demonstrated by the singular at the beginning of v. 8, \u201che shall take up\u201d (OJPS).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
This is the ritual of the meal offering. This section, read straightforwardly, adds four things to what we already knew about the meal offering: (1) that it must be eaten as unleavened cakes (v. 9), (2) that it must be eaten \u201cin the sacred precinct\u201d (also v. 9), (3) that any priestly male may eat it (v. 11), and (4) that anything that touches it becomes holy (also v. 11). But rabbinic interpretation has deduced many other details from it: that the priests\u2019 meal offering must be \u201cscooped\u201d just as a layman\u2019s offering would be, that before the LORD, in front of the altar indicates the altar\u2019s southwest corner, and the other details listed below in connection with each verse.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The meal offering. This is the allusion to the afternoon prayer that I mentioned in my comment to v. 2; the Hebrew word for \u201cmeal offering\u201d is the same as that for the afternoon prayer, min\u1e25ah (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A handful. Taken literally by hand rather than measured by a utensil. The choice flour and oil. The handful must be taken from the oiliest part of it. Of the meal offering. It must be a handful of \u201cthe\u201d meal offering, which may not be mixed with any other meal offering. Shall be taken from it. The masculine gender shows that \u201cit\u201d refers to the combined flour, oil, and frankincense, which must total one-tenth of an ephah. With all the frankincense. After taking a \u201chandful\u201d of the mixture, he must gather all the frankincense and \u201cturn it into smoke.\u201d
\nSince these instructions were previously given only with the offering of fine flour (2:1\u20132), they are repeated here to indicate that the same procedure applies to all of the meal offerings.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
A handful. This is interpreted by the Sages to mean that it must be taken by hand. Shall be taken from it. \u201cIt\u201d (the one-tenth ephah of the meal offering) must be all together in a single container.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Shall be taken from it. This verse and 27:9 are two of the six cases where \u201cfrom it\u201d in the masculine gender apparently should really be in the feminine gender (Masorah). The apparently masculine gender of \u201cfrom it\u201d is used to refer to feminine nouns as well, as in 27:9 and many other places (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:9\u201311<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why must we be told that the meal offering \u201cshall not be baked with leaven\u201d (v. 10) when we already know that no offering may include leaven or honey?
\n\u2666 Why are we told that the meal offering is \u201cmost holy, like the sin offering and the guilt offering\u201d (v. 10), when we have not yet been told that the sin offering and the guilt offering are \u201cmost holy\u201d?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
In the sacred precinct. That is, in the enclosure of the Tent of Meeting, not \u201cin a holy place\u201d (OJPS) that is in the enclosure.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
In the enclosure of the Tent of Meeting. That is, in the temple courtyard, but not throughout Jerusalem.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
As unleavened cakes, in the sacred precinct. Note that these are two separate commandments; the instruction in v. 11 that \u201cevery male among the children of Aaron may eat of it\u201d is a third.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It shall not be baked with leaven. The English translations obscure the fact that in Hebrew \u201ctheir portion\u201d comes immediately after \u201cleaven\u201d and can be read with it to say that even the portions left over for the priests may not be baked with leaven. Like the sin offering and the guilt offering. Rather, it can be \u201clike the sin offering or the guilt offering.\u201d The meal offering that the extremely poor person brings for inadvertent violations of sanctity (5:11\u201313) is like a sin offering, in that it is not valid unless the \u201chandful\u201d is scooped with the specific intention that it is for this purpose. But the freewill meal offerings of ch. 2, like those brought with a guilt offering, do not have this requirement.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
It shall not be baked with leaven. As with the unleavened bread of Passover, it is the baking that is the critical step. It is most holy, like the sin offering and the guilt offering. It falls into the same \u201cmost holy\u201d category as do they; see my next comment.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
It shall not be baked with leaven. According to the Sages, neither mixing, kneading, or baking with leaven is permitted, each of them being punished by lashes. I have given it as their portion from My offerings by fire. Rabbinically this is interpreted to mean that they are not eligible to take their portions until the offerings by fire have been made. It is most holy. The same applies to all the sacred offerings. Moreover, the Sages also read this verse (against the punctuation) to say \u201cnot with leaven have I given it as their portion\u201d\u2014that is, the portion left over for the priests may itself not be subsequently leavened. Like the sin offering and the guilt offering. Like the sin offering, the priests\u2019 meal offering must be offered from their private means, not from temple funds; during the day; and with the right hand.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
My offerings by fire. Wherever this expression is used, it always implies also the \u201cpleasing odor\u201d of v. 8, and vice versa. For they both imply that the sacrifice is particularly acceptable, which is not the case if neither term is used (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Only the males. Rather, \u201cevery male\u201d (OJPS)\u2014even those who have some bodily defect. But why must this be said? We already know that such a priest is permitted to \u201ceat of the food of his God, of the most holy as well as of the holy\u201d (21:22). Our verse indicates that they are permitted not merely to eat of it, but that they get the same full share as any other priest. Anything that touches these\u2014whether it is a thing of lesser holiness or of none at all\u2014shall become holy in exactly the same way that they are holy. That is, if the offerings are invalidated, anything that touches them acquires the same status: most holy, but invalidated. But if they are fit to be eaten, then anything that touches them must be eaten with the same restrictions as apply to the original offerings\u2014in the enclosure, and by males only.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Anything that touches these shall become holy. Rather, anyone who is to touch them must first become holy, that is, ritually pure.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Anything that touches these. \u201cThese\u201d being the meal offering, the sin offering, and the guilt offering.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The males among Aaron\u2019s descendants may eat of it. Not \u201conly\u201d the males, but rather \u201cevery male\u201d (OJPS), even one who is physically disqualified from serving, participates in the distribution of portions.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Anything that touches these shall become holy. Because it has absorbed something from them and thus contains some of the same holiness (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:12\u201316<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does \u201cthe offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer to the LORD on the occasion of his anointment\u201d (v. 13) intrude on the sequence of the regular offerings rather than being delayed until its proper place in ch. 8?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:13<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer. Not merely the High Priests, but even an ordinary priest, on the day when he is inaugurated into priestly service, brings an offering of a tenth of an ephah of choice flour. But the High Priest must bring such an offering every day, as a regular meal offering; this is \u201ca law for all time\u201d (v. 15).<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer. The straightforward sense of the text is that this offering should be made by those descendants of Aaron who replace him as High Priest. But our Sages explain it to mean that every priest, when he first serves, must bring this inaugural meal offering.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer. That is, first Aaron and subsequently whichever of his descendants has replaced him as High Priest. On the occasion of his anointment. When the anointing oil is poured on his head. Many have said that the preposition \u201con\u201d should really be understood here to mean \u201cfrom,\u201d indicating that the High Priest becomes continually obligated from this point on to bring such a meal offering every day.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer \u2026 as a regular meal offering. That is, this is the offering that the High Priest would make every day (Kimhi). The Holy One wished to make sure that the High Priest would make an offering every day to make whole whatever failings there might be that day, and so that every evening and every morning there would be at least one public offering and one private offering. It is most appropriate that the private offering be given by the holiest individual among the public, and one who would not miss a day or two, as a private individual might (Abarbanel). Choice flour. It goes without saying that here, as everywhere else in the Torah where this term is used, it refers to wheat flour, and of the finest quality (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:14<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Well soaked. In boiling water. Baked. It is cooked several times after being soaked, first baked in an oven and then fried on a griddle. Slices. Not \u201cslices\u201d but \u201cbroken pieces\u201d (OJPS); as 2:6 explains, \u201cBreak it into bits.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Well soaked. The context suggests that the Hebrew word used here must mean that the offering must be \u201csoftened\u201d in oil. Since it is baked in an oven, the way to do this is to soak it in oil. Baked slices. Though the \u05d0 is missing, this word is indeed derived from \u05d0\u05e4\u05d4, \u201cto bake.\u201d The omission of an \u05d0 is a common phenomenon (see, e.g., Isa. 13:20 and Exod. 10:21).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall bring it. \u201cYou\u201d meaning Aaron. Well soaked. This Hebrew word is etymologically unrelated to any other word in the Bible. Some think it means \u201csoft,\u201d and others take it to mean \u201cquickly.\u201d Baked slices. This word tufinei is a hapax legomenon, a word that appears only once in the Bible. In fact, the tav at the beginning of the word indicates that it too is addressed to Aaron; it is not a noun at all, but a verb. Our predecessors have explained it to mean, \u201cBake it partially.\u201d Admittedly, Ibn Janah takes it as a noun, formed along the same lines as dukhifat, \u201choopoe.\u201d But his analysis is somewhat convoluted.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Baked slices. The word actually refers to its being \u201csliced\u201d in half, \u201chalf of it in the morning and half of it in the evening\u201d (v. 13). In fact, if the evening \u201chalf\u201d is somehow misplaced, one cannot bring a twentieth of an ephah of other flour but must bring another tenth and divide it in half (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:15<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The priest, anointed from among his sons to succeed him. That is, the priest from among his sons who is anointed to succeed him. To be turned entirely into smoke. It does not merely have a handful taken out, leaving the rest to be eaten, but is completely burned.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
It is the LORD\u2019S\u2014a law for all time\u2014to be turned entirely into smoke. The English translations\u2014which are correct\u2014ignore the masoretic punctuation. Rendering in accordance with it would demand a translation like the following: \u201cIt is a law for all time for the Lord, that it be turned entirely into smoke.\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
A law for all time. There must be no interruption of these daily offerings; if the High Priest dies, his heirs bring the offering until another High Priest is appointed (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:16<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Every meal offering of a priest shall be a whole offering. Even a voluntary one. It is \u201cwhole\u201d in the sense that it is wholly devoted to the One on high.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
It shall not be eaten. As with all the meal offerings (and sin offerings too), the one who is bringing the offering does not eat it, even though in this case it is a priest, who ordinarily would eat the remains of the offering brought by a non-priest.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Every meal offering of a priest shall be a whole offering: it shall not be eaten. Maimonides (Guide 3:46) says, \u201cThe reason for the burning of the priest\u2019s oblation is as follows: Every priest could offer his sacrifice with his own hands. Accordingly if he had brought an oblation and eaten it himself, it would have been tantamount to his not having offered anything at all. For only frankincense and a handful of flour were offered upon the altar from the oblation of one private individual. If then, not content with the smallness of this sacrifice, he who brought it had also eaten it, no act of worship at all would have been manifested. Hence the oblation is burnt.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:17\u201320<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Don\u2019t we already know that \u201cthe sin offering shall be slaughtered before the LORD, at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered\u201d (v. 18) from 4:24 and 4:33?
\n\u2666 Why are the rules about \u201cif any of its blood is spattered upon a garment\u201d (v. 20) and \u201can earthen vessel in which it was boiled shall be broken\u201d (v. 21) not included with all the other offerings as well?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:18<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The sin offering shall be slaughtered \u2026 at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered. If it were slaughtered at a different spot, it would be identifiable as a sin offering and the one who brought it would be publicly embarrassed.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered. The north side of the altar, where all sin offerings are slaughtered. It is most holy. Not the most holy of the offerings, but one of the offerings that falls into the category \u201cmost holy.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
This is the ritual of the sin offering. In the weekly portion of Vayikra the burnt offerings, meal offerings, and offerings of well-being (all of which are voluntary) are discussed first, and only then the obligatory sin offerings and guilt offerings. Here the sin offerings and guilt offerings are grouped with the burnt offerings and meal offerings, since all of these are \u201cmost holy\u201d (see below and v. 10); afterward the offerings of lesser holiness will be clarified. There are in fact many new details included here. Note for example that saying \u201cthis\u201d is the ritual of the sin offering implies that the rule of v. 20 applies even to sin offerings brought on the inner altar (but not if the offering is a bird, for it applies only to \u201cthis\u201d kind of offering). The sin offering shall be slaughtered before the LORD, at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered. North of the altar, which has previously been indicated specifically only in the cases of the sin offering of the chieftain (4:24) and the individual (4:29); now all sin offerings are included in this rule. It is most holy. A public sacrifice of well-being must also be slaughtered on the north side of the altar, for \u201cit\u201d is most holy, but offerings of thanksgiving and the nazirite\u2019s ram are excluded from this category. The material in vv. 19\u201322 is also new.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
At the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered. But any offering that does not fall into the category of \u201cmost holy\u201d need not be slaughtered here (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:19<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The priest who offers it as a sin offering. Literally, \u201cthe priest who be-sins it,\u201d that is, who performs the rituals by which it is turned into a sin offering. Shall eat of it. In fact, any priest who is fit to perform the ritual may eat of it (thus excluding a priest who is ritually impure at the moment when the blood is dashed against the altar, since such a priest does not share in the sacrificial meat). This expression cannot mean that only he may eat of it, since v. 22 tells us that \u201cevery male among the priests\u201d (OJPS) may eat of it.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The priest who offers it as a sin offering. That is, the priest who dashes the blood against the altar. It is he who \u201cde-sins\u201d the person, that is, removes sin from the sinner. Most of the commentators agree that this is the sense of the Hebrew verb used here, as if it said \u201cto cleanse\u201d or \u201cto purify\u201d; compare \u201cPurge me with hyssop till I am pure; wash me till I am whiter than snow\u201d (Ps. 51:9).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The priest who offers it as a sin offering shall eat of it. Deut. 18:8, \u201cThey shall receive equal shares of the dues,\u201d makes clear that all the eligible priests of the house that is serving on that day may eat of it. Otherwise the Torah could not have commanded that none of it should be left over, since it would be impossible for a single priest to eat an entire animal (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:20<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Anything that touches its flesh. Any other food that touches it and absorbs something of it. Shall become holy. It shall have the same status as the flesh of the sacrifice. If the sacrifice is invalid, it too is invalid; if the sacrifice is fit to be eaten, then it too is eaten, with all the restrictions applicable to the sacrifice whose material it has absorbed. If any of its blood is spattered upon a garment. Then the blood spot on the garment must be laundered within the courtyard.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
You shall wash the bespattered part. So that it does not end up being forbidden as a part of the animal that is \u201cleft over,\u201d which would mean that it would have to be burned.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Anything that touches the flesh of the sin offering becomes holy to the Lord and must be eaten by a priest. The portion of the one who dashes the blood is therefore the same as the portion of his fellow priests. If any of its blood is spattered. Since the sin offering is holy, the Lord has commanded that the spot on any garment where its blood falls must be laundered. (Moses Gikatilla explains the Hebrew verb translated \u201cspattered\u201d as a Qal verb from the root \u05e0\u05d6\u05d4, and he is precisely right.) You shall wash the bespattered part. \u201cYou,\u201d the priest, shall do so. But the Hebrew text is considerably more complicated than the English translations show. It might either mean (1) if any of the blood spatters upon a garment, you must wash it; or (2) if any other blood spatters upon the flesh of the offering, you the priest must wash that flesh before you eat it. The difficulty (a little bit easier to see in OJPS) results from the phrase \u201cthat whereon it was sprinkled.\u201d The word \u201cthat\u201d in this expression is feminine, while \u201cgarment\u201d is ordinarily masculine. So \u201cthat\u201d presumably refers to the offering. But \u201cgarment\u201d is occasionally treated as feminine, and this is how the English translations interpret it here. In the sacred precinct. That is, the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. The NJPS translation is interpretive; OJPS translates literally: \u201cin a holy place.\u201d But this is the same as saying \u201cin any clean place\u201d (10:14; Num. 19:9). There is only one \u201choly\u201d place, and that is \u201cthe sacred precinct.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall wash the bespattered part in the sacred precinct. The text is careful to make sure that none of the sanctified blood goes outside the hangings of the sacred enclosure.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:21\u201323<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does the fact that the sin offering is \u201cmost holy\u201d imply that \u201cEvery male in the priestly line may eat of it\u201d (v. 22; see OJPS)?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:21<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
An earthen vessel in which it was boiled shall be broken. Since whatever was absorbed in it becomes a part of the sacrifice that is \u201cleft over\u201d beyond its allotted time. The same rule applies to any sanctified food. Scoured and rinsed. With a copper vessel, the scouring serves to remove whatever of the sanctified food it has absorbed. As we have seen, with an earthen vessel the taint of the food can never be removed. It is clear that the Hebrew word translated as \u201cscoured\u201d can have a meaning related to cleanliness (though this is not its invariable meaning) from the use of another word from this root to refer to the \u201ccosmetics\u201d given to the young women brought to King Ahasuerus in Esther 2:3.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
An earthen vessel in which it was boiled shall be broken. This too must be broken \u201cin the sacred precinct\u201d (v. 20), and the broken pieces of it are left there to vanish (miraculously) into the ground. But it is not \u201cscoured and rinsed.\u201d A copper vessel \u2026 shall be scoured and rinsed. This too must take place \u201cin the sacred precinct.\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
A copper vessel. Copper is mentioned since this is what was commonly used, but the same procedure applies to a vessel of any metal (Hizkuni). Scoured and rinsed. According to our Sages, scouring is done with hot water and rinsing with cold, though some say both are done with cold water and only afterward is it put in boiling water (Kimhi).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:22<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Only the males in the priestly line may eat of it. Again, note that the correct translation is \u201cevery male\u201d (OJPS). This makes clear that \u201cthe priest who offers it\u201d of v. 19 cannot mean that only he may eat of it, but that only a priest who is fit to perform a sin offering may eat of it.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
It is most holy. This is why \u201conly the males in the priestly line may eat of it.\u201d It is not right that anyone should eat of an offering whose sacrificial parts are brought to atone for sin except those who are perfect, and the male is more perfect than the female. Even a little boy is a male, of course, but the tradition transmitted to us by our ancestors is that this may be eaten only by a male who has attained the age of 13.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Only the males in the priestly line may eat of it. It is restricted to the \u201csons,\u201d not the \u201cdaughters,\u201d of Aaron.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 6:23<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
But no sin offering may be eaten from which any blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting for expiation in the sanctuary. For bringing blood that properly belongs to the outer altar into the sanctuary invalidates the offering.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
But no sin offering may be eaten from which any blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting. These \u201cinner\u201d offerings are: the bull of the anointed priest (4:3), the bull of the congregation (4:14), the bull and the goat of sin offering on the Day of Atonement (16:27), and the goat of sin offering for idolatry (Num. 15:24). For all five of these, the text prescribes blood offerings to be made inside the Temple, on the curtain and on the golden incense altar. This is the straightforward meaning of the verse.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The sanctuary. Literally, \u201cthe holy\u201d (compare OJPS). The reference is to the space before the curtain in the Tent of Meeting. For the courtyard, holy as it is, is essentially ordinary by comparison with the Tent of Meeting. Similarly, the space behind the curtain can be called \u201choly\u201d (as in 16:3) by comparison with the rest of the Tent. The sin offerings referred to here are that of the High Priest (4:3\u201312) and that of the whole community (4:13\u201321).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
But no sin offering may be eaten from which any blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting for expiation in the sanctuary. Rashi says that this invalidates the offering. Of course, bringing the blood inside does not actually effect expiation; rather, the moment any of the blood is brought inside, the offering is invalidated and must be burnt. Bringing the blood into the Tent \u201cfor expiation\u201d is simply an expression meaning that he had the (mistaken) intent that this would effect expiation. But it is possible that if one brings it inside without the intent to sprinkle the blood, the offering remains valid, in accordance with the opinion of R. Simeon on B. Zev. 83a. The same rule applies if one brings the blood of the bull of the anointed priest (4:5) or that of the erring community (4:16) into the Holy of Holies. This blood is supposed to be brought into the Tent of Meeting for expiation, but not further in, to the Holy of Holies. But the straightforward sense of our verse is quite different. It is simply saying that those sin offerings whose blood is legitimately brought inside, which we have already been told must be burnt (e.g., 4:21), must not be eaten. That is, the positive command to burn them is supplemented here by a prohibition against eating them. For this passage completes the rules of the sin offering. This is how R. Yose the Galilean explains it in the Sifra and on B. Zev. 82a.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Any such shall be consumed in fire. Not, of course, in the altar fire, but in a fire elsewhere in the courtyard that is specifically for the purpose of consuming invalidated sacrifices (Gersonides).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Leviticus Leviticus 1:1 RASHI The LORD called to Moses. Every speech, utterance, and command is preceded by a call. The term implies affection. The ministering angels do the same: \u201cAnd one would call to the other, \u2018Holy, holy, holy! The LORD of Hosts! His presence fills all the earth!\u2019 \u201d (Isa. 6:3). But the terms used … <\/p>\n