Leviticus · Chapter 1

And He called to Moses, and Hashem spoke with him from the Tent of Meeting, saying:

ויקרא אל משה AND [THE LORD] CALLED UNTO MOSES — All oral communications of the Lord to Moses whether they are introduced by דבר or by אמר or by צו were preceded by a call (to prepare him for the forthcoming address) (cf Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 1 1-2). It is a way of expressing affection, the mode used by the ministering angels when addressing each other, as it is said (Isaiah 6:3) “And one called unto another [and said, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts]”. To the prophets of the nations of the world, however, God revealed himself in a manner which Scripture describes by an expression ordinarily used for denoting events of a casual character and of uncleanness, as it is said, (Numbers 23:4) “and God happened to meet (ויקר) Balaam” (the term ויקר, from the root ,קרה, is connected with מִקְרֶה which denotes “chance”, “occurrence”, and has also the meaning of “uncleanness”, by analogy with Deuteronomy 23:11: לא יהיה טהור מקרה לילה) (cf. Bereishit Rabbah 52:5). ויקרא אל משה AND HE CALLED UNTO MOSES — This implies that the Voice went on and reached his (Moses’s) ears only but all the other Israelites did not hear it). One might think that for the subsections there was also such a call! It, however, states, “[And the Lord called unto Moses] and spake (וידבר) [to him]”, thus intimating that a דבור, a complete section had (was preceded by) a call (e. g., in our text chapters 1—4), but not the subsections. And what purpose did these subsections serve (i. e., why are the larger sections broken up into smaller ones)? To give Moses an interval for reflection between one division and another and between one subject and another — something which is all the more necessary for an ordinary man receiving instruction from an ordinary man (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 1 9). אליו TO HIM — This is intended to exclude Aaron. Rabbi Judah said, “Thirteen communications in the Torah are stated, according to the wording of the text, to have been spoken to Moses and Aaron together; but corresponding to these there are thirteen which include expressions with a limitative force to teach you that they were spoken not to Aaron but to Moses only, with the view that he should communicate them to Aaron. The following are the thirteen limitations: (Numbers 7:89) “[And when Moses had come into the appointed tent] that He might speak with him, [then he heard the Voice] speaking unto him … [from between the two cherubim]: and he spoke unto him”; (Exodus 25:22) “and there I will be met by thee”; — all the thirteen instances you will find in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 1. — I might, however, think that they (Aaron and all Israel) heard at least the sound of the Divine utterance (הדבור), even though they could not distinguish the words! However, in the text, Numbers 7:89: וישמע את הקול מדבר אליו,where it might have said לו... ה]קול], it says אליו… ה]קול], “And he heard the voice (הקול) uttering itself (מדבר) righ...

AND HE CALLED UNTO MOSES; AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE UNTO HIM. Scripture states [the fact that G-d called to Moses] here and not in other places, because Moses was not able to enter into the Tent of Meeting, and to draw near the place where G-d was, except through G-d calling him [to come into the Tent of Meeting]. For Moses had already been told, and I will speak with thee from above the ark-cover; where I will meet with thee. Since he knew that the Eternal that sitteth upon the cherubim was there, Moses was afraid to come into the Tent at all until He called him, just as it was at Mount Sinai where it is said, and on the seventh day He called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud. Or it may be that Moses did not know that the Glory of G-d was in the Tent and that the communication to him would be from there, since the cloud did not cover the Tent of Meeting until the eighth day of the installation according to the opinion of our Rabbis; and after this call Moses came into the innermost part of the Tent [i.e., the Holy of Holies], just as the Rabbis have interpreted: “Aaron was not to enter [the Sanctuary except at the prescribed time], but Moses was not included in this command.” This is the plain meaning of this verse. I have explained it already above. But our Rabbis have said that “all communications [that came to Moses], whether they are introduced by the word dabeir (speak), or by emor (say), or tzav (command), were preceded by a call,” that is to say, G-d said to him, ‘Moses, Moses’ and he answered, ‘Here am I.’ This was a way of expressing affection and encouragement to Moses. Now according to this opinion, Scripture mentioned the expression [And He called unto him …] here, because it was the first communication that came to Moses from the Tent of Meeting, thus teaching us concerning all the other communications that such was His procedure with him all the time and with the whole Torah. The expression out of the Tent of Meeting refers according to the Rabbis to the preceding words, [the interpretation of the verse thus being]: “and He called unto him out of the Tent of Meeting; and the Eternal spoke to him in the Tent,” for Moses was already there [in the Tent]. The explanation of the verse according to its plain meaning and sense is: “and the Eternal called unto Moses and spoke unto him, out of the Tent of Meeting.”By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], this verse is like, And unto Moses He said: ‘Come up unto the Eternal.’ Its secret is known from the Revelation on Mount Sinai and the Ten Commandments. I have alluded to it already.

"And He called" — We find that a covenant [expressed] in the singular can refer to two matters, and likewise a single commandment can encompass many particulars, as with the commandments of the burnt-offering and the sacrifice: for when each portion is given at its proper time, that portion which has a share in the World to Come will be preserved. Therefore the meaning of "to atone" is to give a ransom-payment, as is evidenced from the beginning of [the portion] Ki Tissa; hence it is written "lest He strike us with pestilence." There are also in the burnt-offerings mysteries concerning future things, and one should discern from every sacrifice the secret of generations, and [the significance of] sin-offerings and commandments, to sustain the teachers of the Torah. The reason [the verse says] "And He called to Moses" — even though it was already written "and Moses could not" [enter] — is that the Glory called him from the Tent of Meeting to come there, and there He would speak with him; and the Glory was inside the veil, and it was there that Moses would enter, as it is written — and this is the meaning of "and the form of Hashem does he behold." The reason sacrifices are mentioned before [other] commandments is that the Shekhinah would return to its place [i.e., depart] if the law of the burnt-offering were not observed — and so it came to pass. God forbid, God forbid, that He should be in need of the burnt-offering; and so it is written: "If I were hungry I would not tell you" — but rather it has a mystery.

ויקרא אל משה, always out of the cloud; similar to what was described already at Mount Sinai (Exodus 24,16) “He called to Moses on the seventh day out of the cloud.” Moses could never enter the Tabernacle without first having obtained permission to do so. מאהל מועד, to warn Moses not to enter the Tent while G’d’s glory was still there. Our verse speaks of what occurred on the day when Moses had completed erecting the Tabernacle, for it was then that G’d’s glory descended to sanctify the site as well as the ones performing their sacred duties in and around it. All of this is the execution of G’d’s promise in Exodus 29, 43-44 ונועדתי שמה לבני ישראל ונקדש בכבודי, וקדשתי את אהל מועד ואת המזבח את אהרן ואת בניו, “and there I will meet with the Israelites and it shall be sanctified by My Presence. I will sanctify the Tent of Meeting, the Altar, Aaron and his sons.” The same procedure occurred when the Temple which Solomon had built, at the time it was being consecrated. We read in Kings I 8,11 “the priests could not enter and stand there preparatory to performing their sacred service for the glory of the Lord filled the entire House.” Filling the House with His glory was the manner in which the structure became sanctified, as was spelled out in the Book of Kings I 9,3. However, after this first day Moses could always enter the sanctuary outside of the Holy of Holies, i.e. up until the dividing curtain, פרכת. Numbers 7,89 elaborates on this describing that “when Moses entered the Tent of Meeting in order to speak with Him, he would hear the sound of G’d’s voice speaking to him from above the lid of the Holy Ark.”

ויקרא אל משה, וידבר, He called out to Moses and spoke, etc. According to Torat Kohanim on this verse G'd always called to Moses before He addressed him from the Tent of Testimony. We have to explore why the Torah records such a call on three separate occasions instead of allowing us to conclude that if it was stated once it would form the basis of a Mah Matzinu type of exegesis, i.e. that just as G'd called to Moses on the occasion mentioned here, or elsewhere, so He did on every other occasion He spoke to him from the Tent of Testimony. The author of Torat Kohanim proceeds to explain why such an exegesis could not be applied: "There are only two other occasions when this "call" is recorded as having preceded the דבור, the speech. The first time it occurred when Moses had the vision at the burning bush; the second time was at Mount Sinai, and the third time is here. We cannot establish a common denominator between these three occurrences as at the burning bush Moses had never previously been addressed by G'd and there was a need to prepare him mentally for such an address. At Mount Sinai (Exodus 19,3) G'd wanted Moses to convey His message to the entire Jewish nation. Neither of these two instances could serve as a valid precedent for G'd addressing Moses out of the Tabernacle on earth after having issued a "call." The reason that even this latter occasion does not serve as a precedent for the other two occasions is that in both other instances G'd had manifested Himself out of fire as opposed to the present occasion. According to Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, the source for the Torat Kohanim saying that the call at Mount Sinai came out of the fire is either Exodus 24,16: "G'd called to Moses on the seventh day," or Exodus 19,20 where the Torah writes: "G'd called Moses to (come up to) the top of the Mountain." It cannot be Exodus 19,3 where the Torah writes: "G'd called to him from the Mountain, etc." This follows the explanation of Rabbenu Hillel according to whom this latter verse was not addressed to Moses out of the fire and the Torat Kohanim has stated that the reason the three occasions cannot serve as precedent for one another is that at Sinai and at the burning bush G'd called out of the fire. Thus far Rabbi Mizrachi. With all due respect to Rabbi Mizrachi, the Rabbi was not quite exact in his observation. The premise of the Torat Kohanim was that inasmuch as the word ויקרא is followed by the word דבור, we should have been able to deduce that what happened at the burning bush also happened at the Tabernacle seeing that we have a gezeyrah shaveh, the use by the Torah of similar wording. When we follow this principle the word ויקרא should have been dispensed with in at least one of the three situations. I believe the proof is precisely from Exodus 19,3. The verse in Exodus 24,16 does not contain a single superfluous word as it serves as G'd's call for Moses to come up to the Mountain and to spend there the next forty days. The word ויקרא in t...

ויקרא אל משה, “He called out to Moses;” seeing that the Torah had concluded the end of the Book of Exodus with the words: ‘the glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle so that Moses was unable to enter the Sanctuary,” it was necessary to let us know now that He called out to him, i.e. gave him permission to enter the Sanctuary. In order to make this clear to the reader, the Torah, instead of writing: “the Lord called out to Moses,” omitted to tell us who it was that called out to him, so that the reader will know that this is not really a new paragraph but a continuation of what had been told us at the end of the Book of Exodus. In other words, we need to understand this opening line of the Book of Leviticus as follows: “the glory of the Lord which had been reported at the end of the Book of Exodus as filling the Tabernacle, now spoke to Moses.”This is also how the Jerusalem Targum translates this verse. (Compare Torah shleymah on our verse page 235, where the full text of the Jerusalem Targum appears, in Aramaic, of course) Once Moses had entered the Sanctuary, he heard G-d’s voice emanating from between the two cherubs on top of the lid of the Holy Ark as reported in Parshat Nasso, 7,89. אליו, “to him.” On this word Rashi explains that we might have thought that people outside had heard G-d’s voice speaking to Moses; in order to disabuse us of this, the Torah emphasized: אליו, “to him,” i.e. audible only to Moses. The point is made once more in the Book of Numbers 7,89, where the Torah writes that Moses heard the voice of the Lord talking to him, מדבר אליו, followed by וידבר אליו. Instead of writing מדבר לו, the word אליו stresses the exclusivity of that voice, i.e. audible only to Moses. Rashi stresses this also in his commentary on the Talmud in tractate Yuma folio 4. לאמור, “saying” [in order to relay to the Israelites. Ed.] The author refers the reader to his commentary on Genesis 8,15 on the word: לאמור, where Rash’bam is given as the source of this interpretation of this word. A well known example of the meaning of this kind of repetition is found in verse 2 of our chapter: דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם, “speak to the Children of Israel and say to them;”

עקב ענוה יראת ה' עושר וכבוד וחיים, “the result of humility is fear of the Lord, wealth, honour and life.” (Prov.22,4) Solomon informed us in this verse that the virtue of humility brings in its wake a number of other virtues. The plain meaning of the text is that the reward to be reaped in this life by people who practice the virtue of humility is four-fold. It consists of 1) fear of the Lord; 2) wealth; 3) honour; 4) long life. The virtue of humility is a virtue practiced with one’s body, a virtue practiced in man’s capacity as an active member of human society. [A hermit, though undemanding, does not practice this virtue. Ed.]. Practice of this virtue is demonstrated by the owner being reticent and patient, suffering what others would consider insults, etc., without protest. A person who is humble shows respect and honour to other creatures (humans), and speaks well of them and for their benefit. Having trained himself to acquire this virtue it is only a small step to acquiring fear of the Lord. This virtue is an intellectual virtue. A person who has acquired both the virtue of humility and fear of the Lord will automatically acquire wealth, as wealth is defined by our sages as the ability to be happy with what G’d has seen fit to grant one, without being envious of others who appear to have more (compare Avot 4,1). He will also reap honour; this is the meaning of Proverbs 29,23: “the humble in spirit will retain honour.” We have another verse on that subject in Proverbs 18,12 where Solomon writes: “humility goes before honour.” The author meant that the honour bestowed on a person was preceded by his demonstrating true humility. Finally, the words: “he will acquire life,” have to be under-stood. He who desires and longs for material wealth is obviously worried all the time he has not yet achieved his objective. When he does achieve part of his desire he is worried that he should not lose it. People who have these kinds of worries contribute to their lives becoming shorter as their worries undermine their health. He who enjoys what he has and is grateful for it will live longer as his peace of mind helps him maintain his physical well-being. A Midrashic approach (Song of Songs Rabbah 1:1:9): the words עקב ענוה יראת ה' mean that whereas wisdom is considered the crown, humility is considered the heel of one’s shoe. On the one hand, we are told by David (Psalms 111,10) ראשית חכמה יראת ה', normally translated as “the beginning of all wisdom is fear of the Lord,” on the other hand, Solomon (his son) told us that עקב ענוה יראת ה', that the fear of the Lord is a product of humility. The author wanted to teach us by using the word עקב in connection with humility that this virtue is greater than wisdom as it is the product of fear of the Lord. A product is the result of something more primitive preceding it, hence it is more advanced, superior to the ingredients which contributed to it. It is well known that all virtues manifest themselves in opposite extremes. [If I understand the author correctly he means that one can be described as “the most humble,” or as “the least humble;” “the wisest” or “the one most lacking in wisdom,” etc. I suppose that the word “virtue” must then be divided between “positive” virtues and “negative” virtues. The correct translation of the word מדה used by the author then is not “virtue,” but “characteristic.” Ed.] However, in addition to possessing any such characteristic (virtue) in either of these extremes one may also possess it in a degree which is ממוצע, “average,” i.e. somewhere between the extremes we mentioned. The characteristic (virtue) of humility is such a virtue. The reason that this is so is that it is somewhere in between pride and self-abasement. As a general rule, man should strive to possess these characteristics which are at neither end of the extremes as everything that is extreme is usually something negative. (compare Maimonides Hilchot Deyot 2,2). Concerning this subject Solomon said (Proverbs 4,26) “survey the course your feet will take so that all your ways will be prosperous.” With this warning Solomon wanted to exhort man to pursue paths which lie between two extremes. The very word פלס which he used and which we translated as “survey” is derived from the noun peless, meaning “ balance,” as in the balance of a set of scales. It is in the centre. When keeping this advice in mind, a person will be able to plan his activities properly, giving due weight to all the pros and cons of a situation. Solomon made this crystal clear in the verse following where he said: “do not turn to the right or the left; remove your feet from evil.” The message is that he who veers neither to the right nor to the left of the true path will avoid evil. The exception to all this is the manner in which the virtue of humility is to be practiced (compare Maimonides HiIchot Deyot 2,3). When training oneself to acquire this virtue one must endeavour to practice it to the greatest extreme possible. In fact, the extreme of the virtue ענוה is called שפלות, “a kind of debasement practiced relative to one’s posture in the presence of one’s king.” Any attempt to practice the virtue of humility by applying the yardstick of sticking to the middle of the road might give rise to people thinking that one is somewhat overbearing, arrogant. Seeing that arrogance is the very worst of all negative virtues it is clear that one has to make every effort to steer clear of that characteristic. People guilty of arrogance put their afterlife at risk . Concerning this whole subject our sages in Avot 4,4 said: “be exceedingly humble in spirit.” The reason they repeated the word מאד, i.e. “very much,” was to teach the people to practice this virtue in the extreme, as opposed to the other virtues. The reason is also that this is the greatest virtue and it is one which is evident to people with whom one comes into contact. This is why David described himself as possessing לב נשבר ונדכה, “a contrite and crushed heart” (Psalms 51,19), in spite of the fact that he was a powerful king as well as a prophet. He was also the head of the seventy elders who were the Supreme Court of his generation. (this is based on Samuel II 23,8: where our sages (Moed Katan 16) interpret the words יושב בשבת תחכמוני, to mean that when David took his seat amongst the sages he did not sit on a cushion but on the ground. G’d said to him: “seeing you have humbled yourself you are like Me,” a play on the second part of the word תח-כמוני). Moses also, although the most outstanding of the prophets who ever lived, is described by G’d as the “most humble person” (Numbers 12,3). [This editor has always felt that the virtue of humility is reserved for outstanding people as these have something to be proud of. If the likes of us appear humble it only reflects the fact that we have nothing to boast about. This is hardly a positive virtue.] When the Torah also used the adjective מאד to describe the level of Moses’ humility, this was to tell us that he deliberately tried to practice this virtue in the extreme. Anyone who contents himself with practicing the virtue of humility just as he practices other virtues, i.e. following the middle path between arrogance and total self abasement, may quality for the description ענו, but not for the description ענו מאד. Seeing that Moses was so humble, he did not want to enter the Tabernacle until G’d had invited him to do so seeing the Tabernacle was still enveloped in a cloud housing G’d’s attribute כבוד. Even though Moses had been told by G’d that He would meet with him in that Tent and speak to him inside from above the kapporet, from “between the cherubs” (Exodus 25,22), he was afraid to enter; he was afraid to prophecy inside, to pray inside, or to offer sacrifices inside until G’d would give him express permission by calling him and inviting him inside. This invitation was tendered when the Torah writes: “He called to Moses and Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, to say.” ויקרא אל משה, “He called to Moses, etc.” The word קריאה denotes honor, i.e. the manner in which G’d called out to Moses reflected His fondness of him. The expression is also used when the prophet describes the angels as calling out to each other such as Isaiah 6,3 (compare Rashi.) The very fact that G’d calls out to a prophet establishes the truth of three fundamental tenets of Judaism. They are: 1) the belief in the creation of the universe out of nothing by G’d the Creator. 2) The giving of the Torah to the Jewish people. 3) the belief in the resurrection of the dead. These three tenets of Judaism are connected to the beginning of time (as we know it), to a date within the accepted framework of “Time,” and, finally, an event which will occur at the conclusion of the accepted meaning of the concept of “Time.” Each one of these tenets has a decisive influence on the next one. Prophecy, i.e. the predictions made by a prophet testify to the existence of a G’d who supervises the universe. Such supervision (and control which is an implied part of the term “supervision”) proves that the universe had a beginning, did not precede the Supervisor.” [How could the “supervisor” control something he had not made himself and therefore been privy to its essence? Ed.] Seeing that the universe was created by a Creator who keeps supervising it, it makes sense that the Torah should be given to the people at some point in time in order for the Torah and its observance to guarantee that at the end of time the people could receive the reward for observing its precepts. A period of ultimate and undisturbed delight will be ushered in when the dead are resurrected. We find the expression קריאה being used in connection with each of these three tenets. The prophet Isaiah 48,12 writes: “listen to Me Yaakov and Israel whom I have called (מקראי) I am He- I am the first, and I am the last as well.” In this verse the prophet referred to three separate existences, i.e. “the present, the past, and the future.” In this verse Isaiah referred to the giving of the Torah. It is quite evident that on that occasion G’d manifested Himself as being all these three “existences” mentioned by the prophet (compare Mechilta 20,2). This is why the prophet referred to מקראי, “the ones upon whom I have called,” i.e. the people at Mount Sinai. Both the names Yaakov and Israel were mentioned during that revelation when G’d’s instructions were preceded by the words ויקרא אליו ה' מן ההר לאמר כה תאמר לבית יעקב ותגיד לבני ישראל, “G’d called to him from the mountain saying: ‘thus you shall say to the house of Yaakov and tell (at length) to the Children of Israel’” (Exodus 19,3). In other words, G’d “called” to the people during the episode of giving them the Torah. The reference to the creation of the world ex nihilo is mentioned by Isaiah in the very next verse where he writes: אף ידי יסדה ארץ וימיני טפחה שמים אני קורא אליהם יעמדו יחדיו, “My own hand founded the earth, My right hand spread out the skies. I call unto them, let them stand up.” The prophet describes that all parts of the universe are connected to each other integrally by the fact that G’d has created them. Finally, the expression קריאה occurs in connection with the resurrection when David says in Psalms 50,1 and Psalms 50,4 אל אלו-הים ה' דבר ויקרא ארץ ממזרח שמש עד מבואו as well as יקרא אל השמים מעל ואל הארץ לדין עמו, “G’d the Lord spoke and summoned the world from east to west; and He summoned the heavens above, and the earth, for the trial of His people.” Our sages in Sanhedrin 91 commented on this that the words “He called on the heavens above” refer to the soul, whereas the words “and the earth, for trial of His people” refer to the body. David meant that they will have to give an accounting in preparation for the time of the resurrection. At any rate, you have seen from the above that the call by G’d to His prophet includes references to the three basic tenets of Judaism which we have mentioned earlier. This is the deeper reason why the third Book of the Torah commences with the word ויקרא. The creation of the universe had been the subject of the opening chapters of the first Book of the Torah; the giving of the Torah had occupied a central section of the Book of Exodus. The subject matter of resurrection is introduced-albeit obliquely- in the Book of Leviticus. The Book of ויקרא includes a reference to the third of these tenets. [The author will elaborate on this when explaining Leviticus 18,5 וחי בהם. Ed.] Know that actually the Torah should have written ויקרא ה' אל משה ויאמר אליו; the fact that the subject of who was speaking i.e. the Lord, was not mentioned indicates that although the Book of Leviticus is a Book in its own right, it is an integral part of what came before it; the entire Torah is one continuous document, a single structure. The word ויקרא is simply a reference to the attribute of כבוד which was last mentioned in Exodus 40,35 when the Torah wrote that this attribute filled the Tabernacle. The attribute which called to Moses was the “small” letter א in the word בהבראם In Genesis 2,4. In order to make this clear the letter א in the word ויקרא here is also written small. When the Torah continues with מאהל מועד, “from the Tent of Meeting,” our sages in Torat Kohanim 1-2,10 state that the voice of G’d reached only the walls of the Sanctuary and was not audible outside. In order that we should not think that this was due to the voice of G’d being weak, close to a whisper, the Torah wrote הקול with the letter ה in front to teach us that the voice was powerful but that G’d deliberately restricted the sound waves to the inside of the Tabernacle. We have other verses in Scriptures where the word קול ה' occurs, such as in Psalms 29,4-5 קול ה' בכח, קול ה' בהדר, קול ה' שובר ארזים “the sound of G’d’s voice is power; the sound of the Lord’s voice is majesty; the sound of the Lord’s voice breaks cedars, etc. etc.” The letter ה in our verse before the word קול, while referring to a voice which is familiar to us from other occasions, did not mean that the voice of G’d was especially overpowering such as at Mount Sinai, but it simply meant that it was neither weak nor eardrum-shattering. If this is so, why did the Torah write מאהל מועד, “from the Tent of Meeting,” if the voice was not actually heard beyond the walls of the Tabernacle? The fact is that we encounter something similar in Ezekiel 10,5 where the prophet writes: “and the sound of the wings of the cherubs was heard up to the outer courtyard as the voice of El Shaddai when He speaks.” Another verse in which the voice of G’d is mentioned is in Ezekiel 1,24: “Then I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of great waters, like the sound of Shaddai as they moved, the sound of the words like the sound of the company; when they halt they release their wings.” The meaning of these verses is that the prophet Ezekiel compared the heavenly voice to four different phenomena; 1) he compared it to large bodies of waters the sound of which is steady, continuous; 2) he compared it to the voice of Shaddai, a voice which is neither too loud nor too weak. 3) The words “to the sound of a company (of angels) when they halt they release their wings,” describes the variety of sounds. 4) “The sound of a camp,” describes the sounds of the trumpets when the people in the camp are being alerted to break camp, etc. The remarkable thing was that this voice did not penetrate beyond the walls of the Temple’s courtyard. The meaning of כקול אל שדי בדברו in Ezekiel 10,5 is: “similar to the voice of the G’d Shaddai when He was speaking,” It is a reference to the voice of G’d speaking during the revelation at Mount Sinai. That voice had been described as קול גדול ולא יסף, “a great sound which would not be repeated,” in Deut. 5,19, and as נפשי יצאה בדברו, “my soul departed when He spoke” in Song of Songs 5,6. At the time of the revelation G’d’s voice was inaudible beyond the confines of the camp of the Israelites, whereas here it was inaudible beyond the confines of the Tabernacle. The sound of the wings of the cherubs in Ezekiel’s vision were not audible beyond the walls of the courtyard of the Temple. When you study the beginning of the Book of Samuel where Samuel is described as being called and the High Priest Eli had not heard the voice which called Samuel, he answered him: “go back to sleep” as he had thought that Samuel had mistakenly though that he, Eli, had called him (Samuel I 3,4). Eli thought hat Samuel’s imagination had played a trick on him. When Samuel experienced a second call Eli realized that Samuel had not imagined the call, but Eli was still not certain whether Samuel had heard a human voice or a divine call. In either event, he, Eli, had not heard any voice. This is why he told Samuel again to lie down and to continue sleeping. Only when Samuel reported hearing a voice calling him a third time did Eli understand that this was a heavenly voice. In the interval Eli had made a point of listening closely, and when he noted that Samuel had heard a voice which he himself had not heard, he realised that an angel had called to Samuel. This is the meaning of “Eli understood that G’d called to the lad” (3,8). Just as we find that voices heard by the prophet addressed by G’d or His angel are not heard by those whom G’d does not address, the same is true of visions which prophets are shown. G’d may show something to a person whom He has selected for that purpose, whereas others standing at the same spot will not experience the vision at all. We have clear proof of this in Daniel 10,7 where Daniel reports a vision he saw (obviously while awake and in the company of others) which the people next to him did not experience. This explains why the plagues inflicted by G’d upon the Egyptians were not noticed by the Israelites as affecting them at all. This was particularly true of the plague of darkness where the Torah states that the Israelites could even see in the very houses in which the Egyptians felt a palpable darkness so that they were unable to move (Exodus 10,23). Rabbi Saadyah Gaon, in his Emunot Ve-deyot describes the matter in approx. these words: “it is clear that the sound (voice) which the prophet hears is a sort of new creation by the Lord. Whereas ordinary prophets heard this voice of G’d through an angel who was the intermediary, Moses heard it without needing recourse to an angel as his intermediary. In other words, Moses himself took the place of the angel. This is what the Torah meant when it wrote that G’d spoke to Moses “face to face.” This is also what the Torah meant when it reported about Moses אשר ידעו ה', “with whom G’d was on intimate terms.” To remind us of this for all times, the Torah wrote (Deut. 34,10) that “never again did there arise a prophet of the unique qualities of Moses.” Moses was in a class by himself as prophets go through three distinctive features: 1) his prophetic insights were received without intermediary. 2) He was able to respond to prophetic visions immediately, without trepidation, without feeling physically weakened by the mere fact that he had experienced a call from G’d or a vision. Even great prophets such as Isaiah and Ezekiel describe that they were overwhelmed by their visions (Isaiah 6,1, and Ezekiel 1,28). Moses could immediately involve G’d in a dialogue as we know from Exodus 18,19: “Moses would speak and G’d would respond.” 3) Moses saw his prophetic visions by means of a single מחיצה, “screen, or filter, ”whereas other prophets’ visions had been filtered through no fewer than 9 such screens (based on Vayikra Rabbah 1,14). The fact that Moses did not need multiple “screens” or “mirrors” making such visions into riddles is spelled out in Numbers 12,8. On the other hand, Ezekiel and Daniel, for instance, needed 9 such “filters.” (They are quoted as using these words “such as the vision which I have seen no fewer than nine times for the same vision.” (Ezekiel 43,3). The word “vision” is in the plural on one occasion). The same is true in Daniel 10,5, 10,7-8. What Ezekiel and Daniel saw as מחיצות, barriers or filters, is described in the Torah by the word חידות in the verse from Numbers 12 which we quoted earlier. Thus far Rabbi Saadyah gaon. You will have to appreciate now that the nine filters mentioned by Rabbi Saadyah gaon are not nine different emanations through which these prophetic visions are filtered to the average prophet. Except for Moses, every prophet received his visions only via the tenth (lowest) of the ten emanations. The so-called אספקלריאות, “window-panes,” therefore are merely different levels of prophecy. Ezekiel already referred to this when he said (Ezekiel 1,4) “I looked, and lo a stormy wind came sweeping out of the north- a huge cloud and flashing fire, surrounded by a radiance; and in the centre of it, in the centre of the fire, a gleam as of amber. In the centre of it were also the figures of four creatures.” In verse 26 of the same chapter, the prophet describes that above the expanse over their heads was the semblance of a throne as well as a human-like figure. Altogether the prophet described 9 different “semblances.” רוח סערה, ענן גדול, אש מתלקחת, נוגה, חשמל, אופנים, חיותת רקיע, ראשי החיות, דמות כסא. We have here 9 separate “visions” which form the details of what the prophet had first described as מראות אלוהים, as “visions of G’d,” in verse one of the first chapter of his book. Having concluded these nine “visions” he reports about seeing something resembling מראה אדם, “the appearance of a man.” Moses’ prophetic visions did not have to be filtered through all these stages in order to result in a message to the people whom the prophet is meant to address. All the foregoing gives you an idea of the difference between the quality of Moses’ prophetic insights and those of any other prophet after him. There are scholars who understand the “nine visions” enumerated by Ezekiel as allegorical descriptions of ever higher emanations, these emanations being paraphrased as the various planets, each one closer to the celestial centre. The ninth (highest) is perceived as the one that surrounds the attribute of G’d we know as כבוד. The powerful radiations of ever purer forms of light which the prophet saw appeared to him in the form of the respective four chayot. According to these scholars the meaning of our sages’ statement in the Midrash dealing with the story of the creation that there are chayot in our terrestrial world, i.e. holy beings on earth described by the prophet as chayot hakodesh, ophanim and kisseh hakavod, means that this is the meaning of Isaiah saying in Isaiah 66,1 that “the whole of earth is G’d’s footstool.” What they had in mind specifically was the surface of the moon. [The author continues further in this vein. As I am not certain of his meaning, I have omitted translating those lines. Ed.] A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Vayikra 1-2): The words “He called to Moses,” teach you the meaning of Proverbs 25,6-7: “do not be boastful in the presence of a king, do not stand in the place of great men; for it is better to be told: ‘come up here,’ than to be shamed in the presence of the great.’” Even Moses did not ascend until he had been specifically asked to do so. Our verse also reflects the practical meaning of Proverbs 29,23: “a man’s pride will humiliate him, but the humble in spirit will retain honour.” Anyone who pursues an office because of the authority over others which this will give him, will find that the very authority he was so keen on will escape him. On the other hand, people who try to escape the burden of having authority over others will find that this very opportunity will pursue them. One of the best known examples in Jewish history of humble people who tried to avoid having to wear the mantle of authority was King Saul who “hid amongst the vessels” (Samuel I 10,22) in order not to have to become king. He could not be found until the High Priest consulted his breastplate asking G’d’s help to locate him. The meaning of “the authority runs after him” was proven when in verse 24 of the same chapter in Samuel, the prophet is quoted as asking the people: “have you seen the one whom G’d has chosen (as king)?” On the other hand, Avimelech, son of Gideon was so anxious to establish himself as ruler that his quest escaped him as we know from Judges 9,1: “Avimelech son of Jerubaal (Gideon) went to his mother’s brothers in Shechem and spoke to them and to the whole clan of his mother’s family. He put this question to all the citizens of Shechem: ‘which is better for you, to be ruled by seventy men — all the sons of Jerubaal — or to be ruled by one man?” Some time later after he had murdered his brothers (verse 24) “G’d sent a spirit of discord between Avimelech and the citizens of Shechem, and they broke faith with Avimelech, etc.” Moses tried to escape the position of leadership of the Jewish people saying to G’d: “I am not a man of words, etc.” (Exodus 4,10). He even asked G’d to appoint another (Exodus 4,13). In the end, the position of authority pursued him as we see from our verse where the Torah reports that “G’d called to him.” When David (Psalms 8,6) describes man as “You (G’d) have made him little less than divine, and adorned him with glory and majesty,” he had in mind Moses to whom such adjectives could be applied. [Although generally, commentators use this verse to describe Adam before the fall, our author’s interpretation is more plausible as no one had ever seen Adam in his glory. Ed.]

And He called to Moses, etc. The alef of vayikra [and He called] is small, as if it said “vayikar” [and He happened upon]. The reason for this is to equate Moses’ prophecy with that of Balaam, about whom the term vayikar is used, as it is written (Sifri Berachah 39) And there has not arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, but among the nations one did arise, and who was he? Balaam. This does not mean that Balaam was equal to Moses in prophecy, God forbid, but rather this is the interpretation: Moses attained more than what he was worthy of attaining based on his preparation, as it is written whom the Lord knew (Deuteronomy 34:10). It does not say “who knew the Lord,” but rather to tell you that from his own preparation, he did not know the Lord in this manner, but rather the Lord knew him and gave him additional divine abundance in Israel meaning for the merit of Israel. And all other prophets of Israel each did not attain more than their preparation warranted. But among the nations of the world, one arose for the honor of Israel who attained more than what he was worthy of attaining based on his preparation. Now, it is known that whatever a prophet attains that is appropriate to him according to his preparation, that prophecy adheres to him essentially, and what is essentially acquired remains attached and does not separate from him. But whatever one attains beyond his preparation is contingent to him and not essential, and it is only a gift from God. Therefore, the term vayikar is applied to both Moses and Balaam to indicate that they were equal in this aspect, in that both of them had a contingent attainment beyond what was appropriate to them based on their own essence. And with this is resolved what Rashi explained, that vayikar [ויקר — “he encountered”] is a language of casualness and impurity, and one of these would have been sufficient to distinguish between vayikar and vayikra [ויקרא — “he called”]. However, since Rashi also believes that Moses’s prophecy was contingent and not inherently from his preparation, this raises the difficulty: why wasn’t vayikar written without an aleph at all? Therefore, he comes to explain that the term vayikar“ suggests both casual occurrence, meaning happenstance, and also suggests impurity, which is completely inappropriate regarding Moses, heaven forbid. Therefore, the aleph was written for Moses to exclude him from the language of impure chance. Nevertheless, a small aleph was written to be read as vayikar indicating that even Moses’s prophecy was casual and contingent, in that it exceeded his preparation as mentioned, and the opposite cannot be said at all. It is possible that this is the view of the Midrash, as concluded in Yalkut (431) on this verse, which states: ”One might think that God spoke with Moses for his own sake; therefore Scripture says to say — it was for Israel’s sake that He spoke with him, not for his own sake.“ This Midrash requires explanation, for how could it occur to anyone to say that the speech regarding all the commandments was for Moses alone? Did he alone hear I am and You shall have no other gods? Rather, certainly it refers to the levels of prophecy, that Moses merited vayikar — meaning a contingent prophecy that was added to him beyond his preparation, that God spoke with him face to face for the sake of Israel and not because of his own essence. This is what is meant by ”for Israel’s sake He spoke with him“ — for their needs he merited this addition, and not for the sake of his own essence, as it is written And there arose no prophet in Israel. The letter ”bet“ in b’Yisrael serves as ”for the sake of.“ Therefore, when Israel sinned, Moses was told Go down from your greatness, meaning from this additional divine flow that was given to him for Israel’s sake. And after the forgiveness, it needed to be explained that Moses returned to his former state, as it says And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face (Exodus 33:11). And this explanation is precious. In the Yalkut it concludes why children begin to learn from the section of sacrifices, just as the sacrifices are pure, so too are the children. This is explained according to what the Yalkut concludes in the portion of Pinchas (28:3) that lambs [kevasim] in their first year wash away [mekavsim] a person’s sins and make him like a one-year-old child. Because of this, the alef [in the word “Vayikra”] is small, hinting that small children should begin [their learning] here, and this learning is at the beginning, like the alef is at the head of the letters. Another explanation: “alef” is a term for learning, as in I will teach you [aalefekha] wisdom (Job 33:33), hinting that learning only endures in one who makes himself small [humble]. It also hints that Moses merited this calling because he made himself small and fled from authority, saying I am not a man of words (Exodus 4:10), as concluded in the Yalkut (427).

ויקרא אל משה, “He called to Moses, etc.” Nachmanides, explaining the sequence of the portions in the Torah, writes that after having concluded with the construction of the Tabernacle, a subject which dominated the last four portions with the exception of Parshat Ki Tissa, the Torah now turns its attention to the legislation governing the sacrificial offerings to be brought in the Tabernacle. This is the logical corollary after we have been told that G’d’s glory manifested itself and enveloped the Tabernacle. Part of the legislation about the offerings, are the laws governing who has access to the Tabernacle, and who, even if basically entitled to perform service in the Tabernacle, is temporarily forbidden to do so due to his being in a state of ritual impurity or due to his being drunk. Even the High Priest himself, without being drunk or impure, is forbidden to enter certain parts of the Tabernacle except for a specific purpose on a specific day. (Leviticus,16,2). The priests not only must not be ritually impure when entering the Tabernacle, but they must sanctify themselves prior to performing their service. This additional requirement is based on the presence of the “glory of G’d” in the Tabernacle. Most of the Book of Leviticus deals with sacrificial offerings, the kind of people who present these sacrifices, either voluntary or mandatory, as well as the precise location where these sacrifices are to be offered. There is also a relatively short list of commandments which in one way or another are directly linked to such sacrifices, i.e. which bring in their wake the need to present such sacrifices by the individuals concerned. For instance, the Book opens with voluntary offerings by individuals, and the laws pertaining to them, necessitating the recording of the prohibition for certain fat parts of the animals, as well as all blood, to be forbidden to be eaten. Afterwards, as a corollary of the sin offering, parts of which are consumed by the priests, this brings in its wake the need to inform us generally about which animals may and which may not be eaten. These animals, or even basically “kosher” animals, that have not been killed by ritual slaughter, bring in their wake ritual uncleanness, and confer such on people in contact with them. We read about certain diseases that have a religious background, and therefore are not subject to treatment by physicians, but require the offering of sacrifices upon their termination. Women who have given birth are required to offer certain sacrifices, and are subject to varying degrees of ritual uncleanness for a period of time after they have given birth. The subject of ritual purity is enlarged upon by the laws about incest, and forbidden sexual unions. Women who are menstruating become ritually unclean even to their husbands, until, in due course, they have purified themselves in a ritual bath. The majority of the portions of this Book address themselves specifically to the priests in one way or another. Parshat Kedoshim contains a number of laws applying to all Israelites equally, especially laws governing inter-personal relationships, laws designed to ensure a civilization that functions with minimum inequalities. If the Book commences with the words “Someone called to Moses,” instead of the customary “G’d called to Moses, or similar, this is to remind us that though we are dealing with a separate Book, the train of thought with which the Book of Exodus concluded, i.e. that the glory of Hashem filled and enveloped the Tabernacle is continued here without a break, the Torah now detailing the service to be performed in that Tabernacle. In other words, the subject of the word ויקרא is the כבוד ה' described in Exodus Nachmanides also writes that our sages derive from this introductory word ויקרא, that all conversations initiated by G’d were preceded by a call to prepare Moses that he was about to be addressed by the Shechinah. The word appears only here, as this was the first time Moses was being addressed by a dimension of Hashem in His terrestrial domain, the Tabernacle. Henceforth, this was the standard procedure all the time the Israelites remained in the desert. According to our sages’ understanding, the words מאהל מועד in our context actually have to be understood as if they had been written in an earlier part of our verse, i.e. ויקרא אליו מאהל מועד וידבר אליו באהל כי משה היה שם, “He called to him from the Tent of Meeting and spoke to him because Moses was there.” According to the plain meaning of the text, the meaning is slightly different. Seeing that the glory of G’d filled the Tabernacle, Moses was unable to enter it until he would be invited in, (Exodus 40,35) just as had happened at the revelation at Mount Sinai seven months earlier, when he had been invited to ascend the Mountain. Our verse then describes that on the seventh day of the inaugural rites, the day preceding the first of Nissan, G’d called to Moses out of the Tabernacle, the voice appearing to come out of the cloud. Some commentators believe that what is described here is the basis of the statement in the Talmud Chagigah 14 that every utterance of the Almighty creates an angel that (allegorically speaking) walks in front of Him, as would the page or standard bearer of a terrestrial king. After this angel had alerted Moses to the approach of G’d, He would commence to speak to him directly, or to anyone else whom G’d wished to speak to. אליו, “to him;” This apparently superfluous word is meant to alert us to the fact that G’d addressed Moses exclusively, and that Aaron was not included in this communication. Whenever, elsewhere, the Torah writes: “G’d spoke to Moses and Aaron,” the meaning is that Moses was to inform Aaron of what G’d had communicated to him at that time. Aaron was to be a go between, שליח, from that moment on, equal to Moses in carrying out G’d’s instructions.

ויקרא אל משה, in view of our being told at the end of the last portion that Moses could not enter the Tabernacle (Exodus 40,35), this is why now G’d called to Moses from the Tabernacle. As a result, the meaning of the verse here is “G’d called to Moses from the Tent and spoke to him.” The meaning of the verse is parallel to Exodus 19,3 ויקרא אליו ה' מן ההר, where the operative clause is the word מן ההר, “from the mountain.” It is important for us to know from where G’d’s voice originated. At that time it came out of the mountain, whereas now it came out of the Tabernacle. At that time it signaled that G’d had “descended” into the domain of earth, i.e. on top of Mount Sinai, whereas now it signaled that G’d had taken up residence in His home on earth, the Mishkan. At a later stage, after G’d had limited His presence to the Holy of Holies, we hear in Numbers 7,89 that His voice was heard originating from above the kapporet, the lid of the Holy Ark, between the two cherubs. At the earliest stage of G’d communicating with Moses His voice originated in the burning bush, the site of Mount Sinai, also, as we know from Exodus 3,4. לאמור, there is a repetition here, i.e. וידבר and לאמור although both address the same subject. We explained this phenomenon in Genesis 8,15 This phenomenon occurs again also with Aaron in Numbers 8,2. [the author may refer to these phenomena to draw attention to his differing with the commentary of Torat Kohanim quoted by Rashi. Ed.] [The author’s understanding of the meaning of לאמור is that it is a repetition, emphasisng the preceding words, such as ויצו, or ויקרא. Ed]

ויקרא אל משה, He (the Lord) called to Moses;” according to Tanchuma on this verse, G–d had to call out to Moses from inside the Hoy of Holies, (between the cherubs on the cover of the Holy Ark) as Moses at the time was standing outside the Tabernacle. He did so as He did not consider it fitting for Moses who had erected the Tabernacle to have to stand outside while His glory was inside. Moses had been afraid to enter as He had not been invited to do so, as long as the cloud was resting above the Tabernacle. Rashi adds that an additional reason for G–d calling to Moses first before speaking to him, was that this was also so when He completed speaking to him. The absence of any word indicating this, is that G–d, when having completed what He had to say, did not do so by anything indicating this. Furthermore the word לו, “to him,” which is really not necessary, was to teach that while Moses heard the call while standing outside, the people did not. In Numbers 7,89, at the end of the consecration of the Tabernacle, the Torah elaborates by writing that Moses heard the sound of G–d’s voice emanating from between the cherubs on the Holy Ark. The word אליו, “to him,” there makes it clear that only he heard that voice.

Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: When a person from among you brings an offering before Hashem — from the livestock, from the cattle or from the flock, you shall bring your offering.

אדם כי יקריב מכם IF A MAN OF YOU OFFER [AN OFFERING] — This means, when he offers: Scripture is speaking here of free — will offerings (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 4). אדם — Why is this term for “man” employed here? Since אדם also means Adam, its use suggests the following comparison: what was the characteristic of the first man (אדם הראשון)? He did not offer sacrifice of anything acquired by way of robbery, since everything was his! So you, too, shall not offer anything acquired by way of robbery (Leviticus Rabbah 2:7). הבהמה [OF] THE BEASTS — One might think that wild beasts are also included! Scripture, however,’ goes on to state, “even of cattle or of sheep” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 6). מן הבהמה OF THE BEASTS — but not all of them: the phrase, “some of the beasts”) is used in order to exclude male and female animals with which sexual sin has been committed (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 7). מן הבקר OF THE CATTLE — This serves to exclude an animal which has been worshipped as a god (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 9). מן הצאן OF THE SHEEP — This serves to exclude an animal set aside for the purpose of being offered to an idol (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 11). ומן הצאן AND OF THE SHEEP — The ו prefixed to the word is intended to exclude a goring ox that has killed a man. — When Scripture again says lower down in the section, (v. 3) מן הבקר, “of the cattle”, — which word מן it was unnecessary to use, (it would have sufficed to say: 'אם עולה קרבנו זכר וכו) — it is intentionally used to exclude a טרפה (an animal afflicted with a fatal organic disease) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 11). תקריבו YE SHALL OFFER [YOUR OFFERING] — The plural תקריבו teaches us that two (or more) persons may bring a burnt offering as a free — will gift in partnership (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 3 1). קרבנכם YOUR OFFERING — This teaches us) that it (the עולה) may also be offered as a free-will gift of the community (not of individuals only). This was the burnt offering bearing the name of “the summer - fruit offering”) of the altar which had to be supplied from the surplus of the levy upon the people (cf. Shevuot 12a, Shevuot 12b).

WHEN ANY MAN BRINGETH OF YOU AN OFFERING UNTO THE ETERNAL OF THE CATTLE. The meaning of this verse is as follows: “when any man of you brings from the cattle an offering to the Eternal, of the herd or of the flock you shall bring it.” The reason for this command is that since He commanded afterwards concerning fowl-offerings and meal-offerings, He said here that when a man brings an offering of cattle, he must bring it of one of these two kinds [herd and flock], but not a wild beast nor any other cattle. Thus he who offers a beast [as an offering to G-d], violates a prohibition which is derived from a positive commandment [and carries the force of a positive commandment], just as the Rabbis have said in the third chapter of Tractate Zebachim: “Rabbi Yochanan said: one who offers the limbs of a [kosher] beast [upon the altar of G-d] transgresses a positive commandment.” ‘TAKRIVU’ (YE SHALL BRING). This teaches that two [or more] persons may bring a freewill burnt-offering in partnership. YOUR OFFERING. This teaches that a burnt-offering may be brought as a freewill offering of the [entire] public [not only of groups of individuals]. This refers to the burnt-offering of the altar’s summertime which was supplied from the surplus [of the half-shekels of the past year].” This is Rashi’s language. The meaning of the Rabbi’s interpretation is thus to state that if many persons voluntarily offer to bring a burnt-offering, it thereby becomes a burnt-offering of partners, for what difference is there between two persons who combine to bring an offering, and ten or a thousand who associate to do so? But the burnt-offering for the altar’s summer-time which is supplied from the surplus [of the previous year’s half-shekels], is deemed a “burnt-offering of the public” because the authorities [of the Sanctuary who receive the donations for the offerings] do so with the implied condition [that they may spend them at their discretion, and the burnt-offering of the public is distinguished in certain respects from a burnt-offering of partners]. Thus according to Rashi all burnt-offerings that are brought by many persons — except those which come from the surplus of the half-shekels — have the law of burnt-offerings of partners, and they all require the laying of [their owners’] hands upon the offering, and the libations connected with them are taken from the owners [while “burnt-offerings of the public” need no laying of hands, and the libations are supplied by the Temple treasury]. Perhaps according to the opinion of Rashi it is permitted for the general public to offer [money] beforehand in order to bring a burnt-offering of fowls, which may be brought as a freewill offering by two [or more] persons but may [never] come as a freewill offering of the public, and similarly they [may combine to bring] a peace-offering, concerning which the Sages have said that it may be brought by partners as a freewill offering but may not be brought by the public — and in that c...

"From among you" — this is deferred [in the syntax]; it reads: a person from among you, if he brings an offering. Many [verses] are like this. Or "from among you" means from your possessions; or "from among you" is a hint to exclude stolen [property], as it is written: "who hates robbery with iniquity." "From the livestock" — "offering" is the general category, and thereafter "from the cattle and from the flock" — which is the species of sheep and goat — are the specifics. Also the word "your offering" is the general category.

אדם כי יקריב מכם, when he brings himself close to G’d by means of a confession of his sins and by humbling himself. The concept parallels the verse in Hoseah 14,3 ונשלמה פרים שפתינו, “we will pay with bulls after having done so first with our lips.” Psalms 51,19 warns זבחי אלוקים רוח נשברה, “an offering of sacrificial meat is such only if accompanied by a crushed spirit.” The psalmist means that G’d is not interested in the fools who offer sacrificial animals if they have not first humbled themselves. Our sages paraphrase this when pointing out that the Torah does not write here כולכם, your entire selves, but מכם, something emanating from you, i.e. “by excreting the spiritually unworthy parts of you.” (compare Rashi) מן הבהמה, if he chooses to offer a 4-legged mammal, it must only be from either the category of cattle or sheep and goats. Wild roaming, undomesticated beasts, are not permitted to be offered as sacrifices on the altar. This needed to be spelled out as we were taught in Deuteronomy 14,4-5 that the wild roaming beasts with the distinguishing features that make them “pure” animals are permitted for consumption by Israelites provided they have been slaughtered in the appropriate manner. The animals discussed in these portions as candidates for sacrifices are only the ones mentioned in our verse here, i.e. בקר or צאן. The Torah indicates that such voluntary offerings as are under discussion at this time may even be offered by gentiles and accepted on the altar of the Temple or Tabernacle. When Leviticus 22,25 proscribes offerings tendered by the בני נכר what are meant are not gentiles but Jews who have become estranged to their G’d, have renounced their religion and become meshumadim. These are far worse that gentiles born as such, and that is why G’d rejects their voluntary offerings on His altar. Included are Jews who publicly desecrate the Sabbath. [Eyruvin 69 states that desecrating the Sabbath publicly is equivalent to violating all of G’d’s commandments. Ed.] There are three categories of offerings which may sometimes be voluntary and other times mandatory. These comprise the burnt-offering, עולה, the peace-offering, שלמים, and the gift-offering (non-animal) מנחה. When they are offered by the poor i.e. bird offerings, only pigeons and turtle doves qualify among all the birds. Complementary offerings known as סולת-שמן-לבונה are also part of voluntary offerings on occasion. The sin offerings חטאת and אשם are invariably mandatory offerings. This helps to explain the offerings of Hevel and Kayin and why the offering of Kayin was not accepted by G’d. (Genesis 4,5) It consisted of material which G’d had not designated as fit to be offered as a gift to Him. The Torah did not simply state that G’d did not turn to Kayin, but that “He did not turn to Kayin and His gift.” In other words, the reason He did not accept Kayin’s offering was that it consisted of matter rejected by G’d as unfit to be an offering to Him. On the other hand, when N...

דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת, "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them, etc." The first difficulty is the repetitive: "דבר ואמרת," speak and say!" Besides, why did G'd not say אמור ואמרת, but changed the instructions in mid-stream from דבר, harsh-sounding instruction, to ואמרת, i.e. a softer approach? The answer is that in this communication G'd issued legislation concerning two different kinds of sacrificial offerings. The first kind of offering mentioned here is one which is prompted by man's goodwill towards G'd, his desire to donate a free-will offering, the עולה, the burnt-offering. The second legislation deals with a sin-offering, a mandatory offering, the result of the owner having committed an inadvertent sin which requires him to obtain atonement. The word דבר, the relatively harsh form of communication applied to the legislation about the sin-offering, whereas the word ואמרת was used when telling the people the rules about the burnt-offering. Alternatively, we can recognise in this differential two separate aspects of the sin-offering legislation. The sin-offering is referred to by the word אמירה seeing G'd has declared Himself ready to accept a sheep, or in the worst case, an ox, as atonement for man's sin; on the other hand, the harsher דבר is justified inasmuch as man should not have committed such a sin, even inadvertently. The basic penalty for the sin in question is the death of the sinner. It is a sobering thought that an animal had to die to atone for man's mistake. The Torah addresses בני ישראל. According to Torat Kohanim this expression is to exclude the practice of סמיכה, the owner of the sacrificial animal placing his weight on the animal before it is slaughtered, when such an animal is offered by a non-Jewish owner (something which will be mentioned shortly in this legislation). The word בני, is to exclude בנות, females, from this requirement. The word ואמרת is supposed to restrict the procedure of סמיכה to peace-offerings. This is difficult to understand seeing the expression אמירה is perceived as something additional to דבר, i.e. as inclusive, not exclusive. Although the author of Korban Aharon claims that the word לאמור would have taught us the lesson it did even if the word דבר had not occurred at the beginning of this verse, I beg to differ. Without the words דבר אל בני ישראל at the beginning of this verse I could not have deduced what I did from the word לאמור in the previous verse. There would have been no exegetical value to the word דבר seeing it was needed for the basic message the Torah is trying to convey. Perhaps the author of Torat Kohanim felt that seeing it is not clear which of the two words דבר ואמרת was to be used exegetically and which was needed for the basic message, it was in order to use either word exegetically. Alternatively, Torat Kohanim did not mean to focus on the word דבד at all but on the words בני ישראל. Seeing that the Torah could have written דבר אליהם instead of דבר אל בני ישראל, the...

אדם, “anyone;” this ambiguous description is intended to convey that what follows applies not only also to converts to Judaism, but even to people who are gentiles, although in this paragraph only Israelites are addressed. The exclusive meaning of the word: אדם, here is made plain when the Torah adds the restrictive word: מכם, “from amongst you.” This means that what follows applies only to members of the Jewish people. However, seeing that we have a rule that “whenever the Torah writes two successive restrictive clauses, this is meant to include someone or something, not to exclude it,” the sages understood our verse as the Torah including even gentiles, as qualified to offer sacrifices to Hashem, i.e. using the facilities offered by the priests, but paying for the animals they authorize to be offered on their behalf. (Talmud, tractate Nazir, folio 62) This is based also on when the Torah writes: איש, איש, i.e. “any man,” including idolaters, who vow to offer a sacrifice to the G-d of the Israelites. כי יקריב, “who brings” (close); the word introduces the manner in which G-d wishes to be served now that He has taken up residence among His people. מכם, “from amongst you.” The prefix letter מ reminds us that not all of us are addressed here. On the one hand, even absolute gentile idolaters are welcome to present an offering to Hashem which will be burnt up on the altar in the Temple, as we do not wish to alienate gentiles that are seeking for a religion of truth. On the other hand, by the same token, Jewish renegades who wish to offer such sacrifices in the Temple are rebuffed by the Torah, as what they do would be akin to blasphemy, seeing they demonstrate by their daily conduct that they do not believe in the power of our G-d. מכם “to you” I gave you these commandments and no to the other nations. It is proper to receive an offering even from a completely wicked Jew in order to facilitate his returning to G-d. אדם כי יקריב מכם, the verse has been inverted, it’s meaning is as if it had read: אדם מכם כי יקריב, “when someone amongst you wishes to draw close to G-d;” כי יקריב, same as כי יקדיש, “who wishes to sanctify.” קרבן לה, a sacrifice in honour of the Lord. This is a heading, followed by specifics. מן הבהמה, מן הבקר ומן הצאן, “from a category of domestic beasts, it must be either from cattle or flocks.” These are the details. תקריבו את קרבנכם, “you may offer your sacrifice.” The generalization has been repeated once more, i.e. “your sacrifice.” It teaches us that as a rule the details spelled out after a general statement has been made, do not contain surprises, i.e. no matters that could not have been understood as included in the general statement already. In our case, we find that no free roaming beasts are included as potential sacrifices, even though such beasts may qualify to be eaten, such as deer, for instance. Our sages see in this another example of G-d’s “humility;” He does not ask us to do things which are too difficult, such as hunting deer in order to offer them as sacrifices, even though King Solomon had a stable of them and offered such delicacies as venison to his guests. He only asks for animals that are within the average person’s ability to obtain. This is what the prophet (Michah, 6,3) referred to when he said, quoting G-d: עמי מה הלאיתיך ענה בי?, “in which way did I inconvenience you My people? Testify against me!”An alternate explanation: I only ask you to offer Me animals as sacrifices, not human beings!” The Canaanites were in the habit at that time to offer some of their own children as sacrifices to their deities. (Midrash Tanchuma on Bechukotai, 5; compare also Torah shleymah item 56 on our verse, (who points out that Yiftach could have saved the life of his daughter had he made such a stipulation).

דבר אל בני ישראל, “speak to the Children of Israel, etc.” He told him to tell the Israelites about the rules of the burnt-offering in general terms. ואמרת אליהם, “and say to them, etc.” This refers to the details of this legislation. Moses was to inform the people of specific procedures in preparing the burnt-offering, such as removing the skin and cutting the animal into certain parts after slaughtering it and before burning it on the altar. He told them that the slaughtering had to take place north of the altar and the wood pile. He told them who was entitled to slaughter the animal and which kind of wood was permitted to be used to construct the pile keeping fire going around the clock on the altar. In all instances where the Torah uses the sequence דבר ואמרת, the meaning is that Moses was to tell the people the commandment in general terms followed by teaching them the details of the legislation. Examples are to be found in Numbers 15,38 where the Torah introduces the subject of the ציצית, fringes, and then proceeds to give some details about this commandment. The details, which are spelled out in the oral Torah include rules about the number of threads, the way they are to be attached, how many are to be of blue wool, etc., etc. All this is alluded to in the introductory words “and say to them.” Details of the commandments are hardly ever spelled out in the written Torah. אדם כי יקריב מכם, “when a man amongst you wants to bring an offering, etc.” According to the grammar of our verse it could be inferred that a human sacrifice is theoretically permissible. If G’d had wanted to rule out such a possibility the Torah should have written אדם מכם שיקריב קרבן, “a man amongst you who wants to offer a sacrifice.” [We have already precluded the suggestion made by the author when we translated the text as we did. Ed.] A closer look at the text will convince even the doubter that such a translation (and meaning) would have been quite impossible. The meaning of the verse is: “if someone amongst yourselves feels the urge to sacrifice himself to the Lord, you are to do this by means of offering a domestic animal such as a specimen from the cattle or the flock. You are not to take a human being as a sacrifice to the Lord.” In the event that anyone entertained a doubt about this, this is spelled out beyond the possibility of any doubt in Jeremiah 19,5: where the prophet chastises the people for offering human sacrifices including their children to the Baal, something G’d says: “I have never commanded, never decreed, and which never came to My mind.” In view of all that we have said, the Torah was careful to commence the legislation with the word אדם כי יקריב, “a man who will offer an offering,” as opposed to; “becoming the victim of a sacrifice.” Grammarians (such as Ibn Ezra) have viewed the meter of the verse as follows: “אדם מכם שיקריב,“ ”a man amongst you who offers a sacrifice.” We would have a parallel verse in Isaiah 26,11: אף אש צריך תאכלם, “fire will also consume Your adversaries.” Here too one might have imagined that the subject was “Your adversaries” rather than G’d. The correct translation reverses the relative position of the words אש and צריך. Another example of a similar construction is found in Hoseah 8,2 לי יזעקו אלו-הי ידענוך ישראל, the correct meaning of which is “Israel cries out to Me: ‘O my G’d we are devoted to You.’” The translation assumes that the prophet had meant: לי יזעקו ישראל אלו-הי ידענוך, the prophet refers to the impudence of the Jewish people, who, though unrepentant, claim that they were devoted to the Lord. A similar inverted verse is found in Exodus 22,8 אשר יאמר כי הוא זה, “concerning which one party says ‘this is it.’” Instead of writing כי זה הוא, the Torah in its wisdom chose to write כי הוא זה. There are numerous other examples in Scripture of what appear to be inverted constructions. Tanchuma Tzav 1 comments on this verse that the reason that the Torah chose the word אדם [rather than איש as is usual, Ed.] is to teach that just as when Adam offered a sacrifice he used an animal which was his, was not illegally acquired (seeing he owned all of the earth), so any offering to G’d must be legally owned by the person offering it else it is not only not pleasing to the Lord but displeasing. Isaiah 61,8 spells this out more precisely when he quotes G’d as שונא גזל בעולה, “I hate robbery with a burnt-offering.” קרבן לה, “an offering to the Lord.” Whenever the expression קרבן לי-ה-ו-ה is written, the name of the Lord used is the Tetragrammaton to make certain we do not offer heathens an excuse to rebel against G’d and the word קרבן precedes the word לה' so as to preclude the idea that first one would offer a sacrifice to one of the attributes of G’d, i.e. the attribute of Mercy, in order to subsequently offer a second offering to the attribute of Justice believing it to be an independent power (compare Sifra Vayikra 2,5). Our sages in Sifra Vayikra 2,4 conclude from the wording of the Torah here that when a person sanctifies, i.e. donates an animal as a sacrifice, he is not to say לה' עולה, or לה' מנחה, “for the Lord a burnt-offering”, or “for the Lord a meal-offering,” but he is to use the formula עולה לה', or מנחה לה' “a burnt-offering for the Lord,” or “a meal-offering for the Lord,” as the case may be. Actually they arrived at this ruling using simple logic. If a person who is about to present G’d with an offering is warned not to utter the Lord’s name in vain [before specifying what it is all about, in the event he never gets to complete the sentence, Ed.] then how much more so must one be careful not to use the name of the Lord in vain or even frivolously when one does not do so in connection with sanctifying something for the Lord. מן הבהמה, “from the domestic animals.” The word בהמה is restrictive and excludes free-roaming animals known as חיות from being suitable as offerings on G’d’s altar. One of the reasons for this is that whereas the domesticated animals are victims by definition, the majority of the free-roaming animals are the hunters, the pursuers, the ones which victimise their prey (Tanchuma Emor 9). The rule that free-roaming animals are not fit for the altar prompted our sages (Shabbat 88) to say: “it is better to belong to the category of people suffering insults than to be part of the group of people insulting others.” No bird suffers more pursuit than the turtle-doves and the pigeons, yet the Torah has included these birds amongst those fit for the altar. It is therefore established that both amongst the mammals and the fowl the Torah stipulated that only species which are prone to suffer persecution are permitted as sacrifices on the altar of the Lord. Our sages brought also scriptural proof for their statement when they quoted Judges 5,31 ואוהביו כצאת השמש בגבורתו, “but may those who love Him be as the sun’s rising might.” The thrust of this whole verse (conclusion of Devorah’s song of thanksgiving and victory) is that she referred to the ones who had suffered insults as the ones beloved of G’d and compared them to the sun. The sun was the first creation of the Lord to endure insult when (according to Chulin 60) the moon complained that it could not share prominence with it. [The sun is not on record as responding to this complaint. Ed.] Seeing that the light of the sun is so superior to that of the moon, -considered its reward for suffering in silence- these suffering animals too were elevated in being allowed to give their lives on the altar of the Lord, making what would have been an inevitable death anyway a meaningful death. It is incumbent upon man to learn from this legislation concerning who is chosen as fit to be a sacrifice. It is interesting that whereas Yitzchak sent Esau to hunt game, Rivkah sent Yaakov to the sheep to select a domesticated animal as food for her husband. These animals share the characteristic of תמימות, being flawless in character, with Yaakov whom the Torah described as תמים, flawless. This characteristic is described by Onkelos as שלים, “peaceful, harmonious,” in Genesis 25,28 where the Torah describes the difference between Esau and Yaakov. This תמימות, flawlessness, is the hallmark of Torah which is described as תורת ה' תמימה, “the Torah of the Lord is flawless,” and its paths are described as harmonious, שלום, (Proverbs 3,17).” The word שלום as a proper name for the Jewish people occurs in Song of Songs 7,1 where Solomon calls on Israel saying שובה שובה השולמית, “turn back, turn back O Shulamit!” The reason Israel has been accorded this title is that the eventual everlasting peace will be ushered in in the land of Israel. For the above-mentioned reasons G’d selected the domesticated pure mammals as suitable for His altar whereas He rejected the free-roaming beasts, even the ones which are permissible for us to eat such as deer, etc. Esau was considered as far removed from the sun (the horoscope of the sun) being a hairy man, a man who made his home in the desert, as already characterized by his father Yitzchak who described him as יודע ציד איש שדה, “familiar with hunting, a man of the field” (Genesis 25,27). He showed a preference for the free-roaming animals that live in uncivilized areas, signifying destruction and desolation. Such an environment is the opposite of the environment which bespeaks peace and harmony. This is also the reason the Torah forbade that stones which had been treated with iron (metal) tools should form part of the altar as such tools are reminiscent of the sword, of causing death instead of ushering in peace, the purpose of the altar. (compare author’s comments on Exodus 20,22). The sword became the inheritance of Esau and his descendants. This is the mystical dimension of Exodus 20,22: “for you have swung your sword over it and desecrated it.” [The author has a different count for the number of verses in the Ten Commandments due to the tone-signs which are used when reading the text, so that in his commentary Exodus 20,22 is referred to as 20,25. Ed.] Seeing that it is the function of the altar to help man live longer whereas the function of the sword is to shorten the life span of those who come in contact with it, it is only logical that such an instrument or one which symbolises it should not be used in constructing the altar. Our sages also derive from the words מן הבהמה, מן הבקר, ומן הצאן, “from the domesticated animals such as cattle or flocks,” that the word בהמה excludes any animal which has been mated with a human being; the word מן הבקר is meant to exclude any cow or ox which has been used in idolatrous rites; the words מן הצאן exclude even animals which have been designated for idolatrous service though none such has as yet been performed with them. The extra letter ו in the words ומן הצאן, excludes animals which have gored a human being to death but against which there is not enough evidence to carry out the penalty of stoning prescribed by the Torah (compare Sifra 2).

A person when he brings from you an offering to the Lord. It begins in singular language and concludes in plural language: you shall bring [plural] your offering. What Rashi explained — that it teaches that two people can donate a burnt offering in partnership — is insufficient to reconcile the verse from beginning to end, for we do not know where the matter transitions. It seems to me that [the Torah] wanted to caution all who bring offerings to the Lord not to stumble in two matters in which Cain and Abel erred, who were the first to bring offerings. Cain erred in bringing from the inferior and worst, which was flax seed, and those who sin with their souls need to bring an animal soul in exchange for their own. With difficulty, the Holy One, blessed be He, permitted a poor person to bring a meal offering, which has no soul, and He considers it as if he offered his own soul, as Rashi explained on the verse And when a soul brings a meal offering (Leviticus 2:1). And Abel, although he brought from the firstlings of his flock, nevertheless did not act properly since he was not inspired to bring the offering on his own initiative and was not alacritous for this commandment on his own. Rather, after he saw that Cain brought an offering, then he became envious of him and Abel also brought an offering to equalize himself to him, as explained above in Genesis. Therefore it states, “When a man [adam] from among you brings an offering,” in the singular form, to tell you that the one who brings an offering should be like Adam, the first man, in his offering, since he was alone in the world. Just as in this respect he was saved from theft because he was alone and everything belonged to him, similarly in this respect he was saved from the matter in which Abel stumbled, because being alone in the world, he certainly was inspired to bring the offering on his own and not because he saw others doing so. And regarding this it says, When a man — when he will be like Adam — brings an offering from among you, meaning that the bringing should be from you and not from others, for from you and within you should come the inspiration to the one who brings the offering. This is an offering to the Lord, for certainly his intention is only for the sake of Heaven. This excludes one who is not inspired on his own — this is not from you and not an offering to the Lord. It is not from you because the inspiration came to him from others and not from you, from the one bringing the offering himself. And it is not an offering to the Lord, for anything done out of jealousy of one’s fellow is done only to glorify oneself before others, and thus it is not an offering for the sake of Heaven but for the sake of people. And this is [the understanding of] what was said (Shabbat 28b): “The ox that Adam, the first man, offered had one horn on its forehead.” This is why an ox with one horn was made available to him, because it was similar Adam who had “one horn” — meaning that he was alone in the world and did not steal from anyone, and was not inspired by anyone, but only by himself, that is, from you. Therefore, his offering was accepted favorably. Thus, an offering to the Lord interrupts the matter. And afterward it says, from the cattle, etc. to exclude flax seed, rather one should do like Abel who brought from the firstborn of his flock. And what it says, you shall bring your offering, means from their fat, the choice part that a person chooses for himself, which is called your offering — that you should offer to the Most High. And it uses your offering in the plural form, as Rashi explains, to say that two people can bring one animal [as an offering]. And there are those who say, “A man who sacrifices from among you” [means] literally from his body, through fasts and a broken spirit — this is an offering to the Lord and solely the portion of the Divine. However, what you sacrifice from the animals, from the cattle, this is your offering, because you are the ones eating from your peace offerings — the priests and the owners. Therefore, it [the verse] uses your offering in the plural form because it is not solely the portion of God. “When a man [adam] brings [an offering].” Rashi explains, “This passage speaks about voluntary offerings. ”Why does it say ‘adam’ [man]? Just as Adam did not offer from stolen property…“ Rashi first provides an explanation for when he brings and afterward for the word adam [man]. That is since, initially, there was no difficulty with why the word adam is stated, as one could say it comes to exclude gentile nations who are not called adam, from whom obligatory offerings are not accepted. But now that it says ”when he brings,“ indicating that it speaks of voluntary offerings, and our Sages taught (Nazir 62a) any man [ish ish] includes gentiles who make vows and voluntary offerings like Israelites. If so, why does it say adam? Rather, [it teaches that] just as Adam did not offer from stolen property. The phrase ”from stolen property“ requires explanation, for it should have said ”did not offer a stolen item.“ It seems that Rashi’s view is that it is not the way of the world for someone to go and steal an animal and then offer it to the Most High, for we are not dealing with fools, and who would be so simple-minded as to commit a sin in order to perform a commandment with it when they gain nothing from the sin? However, it is indeed found that a person might steal a large sum of money or commit injustice involving much wealth, and then go and give some of that stolen money to charity or for an offering with this scheme that they devised, thinking that this would serve as atonement for the remainder that is in their possession. This is the meaning of ”from the stolen property“ and not all of it, similar to how they interpreted from the animal (Temurah 28b) and not the entire animal. We find that this portion’s beginning, middle, and end are a warning about theft. Its beginning is When a person brings an offering, its middle is and he shall remove its crop with its feathers, because birds feed from theft, and its end is and he shall return the stolen item. This is because offerings and theft are two opposites, for offerings bring the Divine Presence closer while theft distances it, as it says Because of the plundering of the poor… ‘Now I will arise,’ says the Lord (Psalms 12:6). Furthermore, one who offers his animal is as if he has offered his own soul, because a person’s possessions are like his soul, as he brings his bread with his soul, and as it is written, For he is taking a soul as a pledge (Deuteronomy 24:6), and it is written And He will rob those who rob them of [their] soul (Proverbs 22:23). And part of the soul is like the whole. But how can one who offers a stolen animal, which he did not labor for and his hand did not work for, be a substitute for his soul? From the beast, from the cattle, and from the sheep. Here is a place for me to find desired words and reasoning for all the divisions of sacrificial offerings that come for atonement. For an anointed priest and the Sanhedrin offer a bull as their sacrifice, an individual offers a sheep or goat, and in the case of a sliding-scale offering, a poor person brings two turtledoves, and in extreme poverty, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour. This is because every sinner and rebel appears as if they had horns to gore either upward or to the sides, as all transgressions are either between man and God, blessed be He, or between man and their fellow man. Through transgressions between man and their fellow, a person is compared to a horned ram that gores northward and southward to harm their fellow, either in longevity of days [which is to the right], or in wealth and honor [which is to the left]. Therefore, they bring a ram in their place, or a sheep or goat, as it is written And behold, a ram after [achar, which is spelled the same as acher, different] being caught in the thicket by its horns (Genesis 22:13). This means that this ram is different from the first one, because this person has the horns of a wild ox with which they gore nations. By law, the sinner deserves to be judged by being skinned, cut up, and completely consumed by fire, but through God’s mercy upon them, He rescues them from this destruction and takes a different ram in their place. For this reason, the ram was specifically caught in the thicket by its horns, because similarly, the person deserves to be caught for death because of their horns, but is redeemed from destruction through this ram by the mercy of the Blessed One, and the substitution is a ram for a ram. However, the one who sins against Heaven, is similar to one who has a horn of strength between their eyes rising straight upward, as if they wish to gore upward, so to speak. This follows the explanation of Rashi in Parshat Lech Lecha (14:2) regarding Shemever. Therefore, our Sages said (Shabbat 28b) that the ox that Adam offered had a single horn on its forehead. How did our Sages know to say this? If it is because it says more than a horned [bull] (Psalms 69:32) [which is written with a missing letter, implying one horn], perhaps the horn was on one of the sides, so how do we know it was on its forehead? Rather, certainly because Adam was alone in the world and did not sin against any creature except against God alone. Therefore, Adam resembled the form of an ox that has one horn on its forehead, because from there it rises upward. For so did he act like an animal and thought to be like God, knowing good and evil, which is like goring upward. Therefore, he needed to bring as his substitute an ox with one horn, and it was made available for him at that time, so that the substitute would resemble in every aspect the form of the sinner and his rebelliousness. And perhaps for this reason. He was provided with a bull whose horns preceded its hooves (Chullin 60a), because the hooves are close to the ground and the way of an animal is to cause damage also with its foot and to spoil the land. Likewise, through his sin, man caused the corruption of the land, as it is said, Cursed is the ground because of you (Genesis 3:17). However, the corruption of the land stems from the sin of the horn that preceded it. Therefore, he was provided with a bull whose horn preceded its hooves, and instruction was given to his heart that all these properties were fitting for the sinner, and through this, a person will come to a broken spirit, for this is the desired purpose of God’s sacrifices, as it is written, Behold, to listen is better than sacrifice (1 Samuel 15:22). The commentators explained that the main benefit derived from the sacrifice is to listen to the voice of God, because God did not primarily and initially command matters of burnt offerings and sacrifices but rather for what follows from them, which is to listen to the voice of God. And about this it is said, I said to the boastful, “Do not boast,” and to the wicked, “Do not lift up the horn. Do not lift up your horn on high” (Psalms 75:5-6). First it says horn and then your [plural] horn, implying two [horns], because initially it warns them about the more severe sin of raising one horn upward to rebel against the Holy One, blessed be He, and afterward it warns them not to sin against each other with two horns facing right and left. Therefore it says lift up on high, repeating the language of lifting, because this is the way of an animal to lift its horns somewhat at the time of goring. Even though for future generations the commandment came that even for a sin between man and God, one should bring an animal with two horns, that was after the giving of the Torah, when all Israel became guarantors for one another, and one who sins against Heaven causes the corruption of others, like Achan who sinned alone and caused the downfall of all Israel. And goring is more applicable to creatures and makes an impression on them than it does against Heaven, for if one’s transgressions multiply, what does it do to Him, blessed be He? But Adam, who was alone and there was no other person to receive harm from him, therefore he needed to bring [an animal] with one horn, even though goring is not applicable to Heaven. And according to that which is greater than its fellow, its goring makes a greater impression and it is harder to find a remedy for its wound because it is great. Therefore, these distinctions come regarding those who bring sacrifices: Because the anointed priest and the Sanhedrin — their goring makes a great impression, whether in divine beliefs or in other matters; therefore, their sacrifice is a bull, whose goring is greater and more dangerous than the goring of a sheep or goat. But for other individuals whose goring is not so great, their sacrifice is a sheep or goat or ram. And specifically for the wealthy person who answers with arrogance and relies on his abundant possessions and his great strength to gore to the north and south, not turning back from anything. But the poor person whose strength is diminished, therefore his goring is not so great, and he resembles a bird that strikes with its wings to the right and left, in the way that it uses its limbs to fly and jump and rebel against the Holy One, blessed be He. Therefore, his sacrifice is turtledoves and young pigeons, for he himself is among the pursued like the turtledoves, and nevertheless he strikes at others, as it is written The sound of a driven leaf shall pursue them (Leviticus 26:36). For the leaf itself is driven by the wind that strikes it, and nevertheless it pursues and strikes others, as will be explained in its place. And because the wings are the place of sin, therefore it says, And he shall tear it apart by its wings. And for the poorest of the poor who is considered like dead, as if he has no vital spirit, therefore his sacrifice is a tenth of an ephah of fine flour from plants that have no vital spirit at all.

מן הבהמה, “from a category of animals,” seeing that free-roaming beasts that have the distinguishing marks that make them fit for consumption by Jews are also referred to as בהמה on occasion, [although they are generally described as חיה, or חית השדה, Ed.] the Torah had to narrow down the description further, adding the words: מן הבקר ומן הצאן, from either the category of cattle (בקר), or flock, (צאן). The reason why G’d did not include the free-roaming beasts that are listed in chapter 11 as fit to eat, to also serve as potential sacrifices, was to save the Israelites the tiresome work of catching these animals without inflicting the kind of injury on them that would disqualify them on account of their being blemished. Alternatively, the reason why the Torah did not command us to bring sacrifices from the free-roaming types of animals is that during the period of creation these animals had not received a special blessing. If they had received such a special blessing the serpent would have been included. That animal certainly did not qualify for a blessing. [after the statement that G’d saw that what He had created on the sixth day before reporting the creation of man was good, the blessing which followed at the end of the creative activity on the fourth day is noticeably absent. Ed.] The practical result of this is that the חלב, certain fat parts covering the kidneys, etc., are not included in the prohibited parts of the free-roaming beasts, and may be eaten. [King Solomon served gazelles, roebucks, etc. as a part of what he served his guests on a regular basis. He and his guests did not need to remove this part of the gazelle. Ed.] (compare Kings I 5,3). Seeing that the blood of these animals could not be sprinkled on the altar, the Torah commanded that upon slaughtering them, their blood be covered with earth, a symbolic kind of funeral. (Leviticus 17,13) מן הבקר, “from the cattle;” to exclude “treifah” animals, i.e. animals injured to the point where they are not expected to live for 12 months. The reason why a special word had to be written to exclude such animals, was in the event that at the time when said animal had been sanctified as a sacrifice it had been in completely good health we might have thought that the donor of the animal had discharged his duty when the animal he selected had been healthy at the time he dedicated it, The Torah teaches that what is forbidden for the Israelite to eat is likewise forbidden to tender to G’d as an offering (unless specially permitted.)

כי יקריב, when he donates an animal as a sacrifice. The expression denotes that the person under discussion does not offer such a sacrifice in order to expiate for a sin he is guilty of.

מן הבהמה, “from some species of domesticated mammals;” Torat Kohanim sees in the wording proof that G–d did not want to tire out the Israelites excessively by having to hunt free roaming “kosher” animals to be served up as sacrifices, and this is why only domesticated animals, בהמה, were declared suitable for that purpose.

If his offering is a burnt offering from the cattle, he shall bring an unblemished male; he shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, he shall bring it for acceptance before Hashem on his behalf.

זכר A MALE, but not a female. When Scripture mentions again lower down. (v. 10) that the sacrifice shall be זכר, a male, — which appears unnecessary to state, — it intends to say: a male, but not an animal whose sex is indeterminate or which is a hermaphrodite (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 3 9; Bekhorot 41b). תמים means WITHOUT BLEMISH, אל פתח אהל מועד [HE SHALL BRING IT NEAR] UNTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE APPOINTED TENT — He himself must attend to bringing it right up to the forecourt (where it is handed over to the priests). What is the force of Scripture using the term יקריב twice (יקריבנו and יקריב אתו; it might suffice to say:תמים זכר 'יקריבנו אל פתח אהל מועד לרצונו וכו)?! It is intended to intimate that even in case the burnt offering of Reuben has become mixed up with that of Simeon so that they cannot be identified, nevertheless each must bring one of the animals to the forecourt on behalf of him to whom it really belongs). Similarly if a burnt offering has been mixed up with non-consecrated animals, the non — consecrated ones must be sold for עולה purposes (they are sold to people who have voluntarily undertaken to offer an עולה), and thus all of them become burnt offerings and each is now brought on behalf of him to whom it belongs (cf. Mishna Zevachim 8:1). One might think that this must also be done if it (an animal intended to be a burnt offering) became mixed up with animals unfit for sacrifice (with those mentioned above as excluded from the category of sacrifices) or with a different kind of sacrifices (e.g., peace — offerings)! Scripture. however, states,יקריבנו, “he shall bring it) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 3 13). יקריב אתו HE SHALL OFFER IT — This apparently superfluous word (אתו) teaches us that they (the בי"ד) must put pressure upon him to bring it if he is remiss in bringing the sacrifice he had promised. One might think that this means that they shall force him against his will! Scripture, however, states, לרצונו “[he must bring it] so that it shall be favourably accepted for him”. How is this possible? They press him until he says, “I wish to do it” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 3 15). 'לפני ה וסמך [HE SHALL OFFER] IT …] BEFORE THE LORD (4) AND HE SHALL LAY [HIS HAND UPON THE HEAD OF THE SACRIFICE] - This implies that there is no "laying of hands" upon an animal sacrifice on a private "high place" (במה; at the time when sacrifice was permissible on such) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 1)

"If his offering is a burnt-offering" — this is a specific [type], and the burnt-offering is set forth explicitly. "From the cattle" — whether large or small, after [the animal is] eight days old. Because the burnt-offering is entirely given over to the Most High, it is among the most select [offerings], and the male is more select than the female; therefore there is no female in the burnt-offering. "Unblemished" — without defect. And after it says "he shall bring it," it specifies the place where he shall bring it, for he enters the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. "Before Hashem" — this is syntactically connected with "at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he shall bring it." "For his acceptance before Hashem" — that he shall bring it of his own will and not under compulsion.

אם עולה קרבנו, if his offering consists of a burnt-offering, etc. Why is the wording of the Torah different here from the verses in which the burnt-offerings consisting of either sheep or fowl are described? In both those instances the Torah writes: ואם מן הצאן קרבנו, or ואם מן העוף קרבנו, whereas here the Torah writes: אם עולה קרבנו? If the Torah wanted to be consistent it should have written: אם מן הבקר עולה. We may understand this in conjunction with an idea mentioned in Torat Kohanim (3,20) in connection with the word את קרבנכם at the end of the last verse. We are told there that the Torah speaks of communal burnt-offerings. This would account for the plural ending in the word קרבנכם. In the other two instances we have mentioned the Torah uses the singular ending, i.e. קרבנו, making it plain that the Torah speaks of sacrifices offered by individuals. Moreover, the Torah uses the conditional אם, if, when introducing the burnt-offering to tell us that the only kind of communal burnt-offering acceptable is the one which consists of בקר, a male member of the cattle category. Peace-offerings may not be offered as communal offerings. [Peace-offerings are offerings which are eaten in the main by the owners, whereas the burnt-offering is completely consumed by the altar except for the skin and the hair. Ed.] Furthermore, the sequence קרבנכם אם עולה suggests that only burnt-offerings are acceptable as communal offerings and not peace-offerings as stated in Torat Kohanim. Furthermore, if the Torah had been consistent and written: אם מן הבקר עולה, we would have concluded that only animals which belong to the category of בקר, cattle, are acceptable as burnt-offerings and that sheep, etc., would be unacceptable as burnt-offerings. As a result of such considerations the Torah wrote the words אם עולה in that order to make it plain that there are other alternatives. Both cattle and sheep are acceptable as burnt-offerings, albeit communal burnt-offerings have to be of the בקר variety. Individual burnt-offerings on the other hand, may consist of either cattle or sheep. In order that we should not err concerning the acceptability of burnt-offerings consisting of certain kinds of fowl, the Torah added the word קרבנו once more (1,14) although this was not strictly necessary as pointed out in Torat Kohanim which understands the word as precluding communal burnt-offerings consisting of birds even when these communal offerings are in the nature of נדבה, voluntary offerings. The wording of the Torat Kohanim (3,21) is: "Why did the Torah have to repeat the word עולה, burnt-offering, once more?" Answer: "I could have concluded that all the exclusions we have learned from the previous verses apply only to burnt-offerings which are voluntary offerings but that in the case of mandatory offerings they do not apply; hence the Torah repeats the word אם עולה to teach that the restrictions which we have learned about do not distinguish between voluntary and mandatory burnt...

אם עולה קרבנו, “if his offering consists of an animal to be burned up completely,” (the priests not eating any parts of it). What is meant is that the donor had stipulated this prior to handing the animal to the priest to slaughter on his behalf. The reason why the burnt offering is the first example of animal offerings mentioned in the Torah is that it is the type of offering most welcomed by Hashem. יקריבנו, “he will be able to offer it,” after the building of the Tabernacle has been completed; the owner must first sanctify it, i.e. add when handing over the sacrificial animal: “this I have vowed to offer as a burnt offering for the Lord.” אל פתח אהל מועד, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting;” the Torah stresses this as the donor is not allowed to invite the officiating priest to come to his home and slaughter the beast in question in the donor’s or the priest’s yard, and perform the rituals connected with it. This would be disrespectful to Hashem . Imagine a donor of a gift to a mortal king inviting the King to come and pick it up at the donor’s home!” לרצונו, “in order to find favour in His eyes.” The reason is that this is a voluntary offering, not a thanksgiving offering or a guilt or sin offering, all of which are mandatory offerings. לפני ה, “in the presence of the Lord.” Even though the donor may not enter the sacred precincts of the Temple, his gift is described as “in the presence of the Lord,“ seeing it is not his personal fault that he could not enter these precincts. According to Sifra, after having placed his hands on the sacrificial animal outside those precincts, he is allowed to do this once more inside the sacred precincts.

אם עולה קרבנו מן הבקר, “if his burnt-offering is from the cattle, etc.” The burnt-offering is the first of all the offerings mentioned and discussed in some detail. According to the plain meaning of the text this is logical as before one sins in deed one generally sins in thought. It was therefore appropriate to mention this burnt-offering which atones not for sins committed but for sins of omission such as positive commandments, i.e. sins committed only in one’s mind. The order in which the Torah lists these animals commences with the bull, פר, followed by צאן, smaller animals such as sheep and goats, followed by birds. The bull is the animal which is appropriate for a wealthy man who seeks some kind of atonement seeing that it costs more. Wealthy people often rely on their wealth, itself a sin of arrogance. In order to counter the arrogance involved in relying on one’s material wealth the Torah expects the wealthy man to offer a costly animal. People of moderate means are expected to offer sheep or goats as burnt-offerings, whereas the poor is allowed to offer a pigeon, an inexpensive bird as a burnt-offering. In this way people of different means will each use something commensurate with their financial status as appropriate to atone for their sins of omission. A kabbalistic approach: The עולה type of offering is mentioned first as it corresponds to the emanation of בינה. The sequence of the types of offerings mentioned parallels the emanations in descending order, so that the peace-offering is immediately below the burnt-offering, followed by the offering when the High Priest has become guilty of a sin, i.e., a sin-offering. These three stages correspond to the first three attributes of the thirteen attributes in Parshat Ki Tissa. [At this point the author quotes a non-existent verse meant to support this idea. I cannot understand this. Ed.]

If his offering is a burnt offering of cattle, he shall offer it an unblemished male. The reason why the burnt offering is brought as a male, and the sin offering as a female, and the peace offerings can be either male or female, is because the burnt offering comes for what arises in your spirit, that is, for the sin of impure thoughts, as it is said And he would offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all, for Job said, “Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts” (Job 1:5). The sin offering comes for the sin of action. It follows that one who contemplates a transgression but does not carry out his thought into action is certainly “mighty in the land,” for his strength is like a man’s, conquering his evil inclination, as the thought did not go outward to perform its strange deed; therefore his offering is a male. But one who sins also in deed, his strength is weakened like a female’s, for he was not able to stand against his evil inclination; therefore his offering is a female, similar to him. And since both the burnt offering and the sin offering come for sin which originates from the heart, for a deceived heart has turned him aside (Isaiah 44:20), and the wicked are under the control of their heart, which is located on the left side, therefore their slaughter is in the north. But the peace offerings, which run without iniquity, their slaughter is anywhere in the Temple courtyard, and there is no distinction between male and female for them. Furthermore, the olah offering comes for the sin of improper thoughts, which depends on the intellectual faculty of man, who is compared to the male, for the intellect is the primary part of the household and its master. Therefore, his offering is a male, and the olah is completely burned for the Most High, corresponding to the spirit of humans that ascends oleh upward. So too is the olah offering upon the altar, for the nature of fire is also to rise upward. But the sin offering comes for a sin of action, which is done through the instruments of action that are dependent on the material that is acted upon like a female; therefore its offering is a female. And the main sin is dependent on specific organs, primarily the fat and the blood, and by them will be all disputes and all afflictions. For through the boiling of the blood all day, one will desire forbidden things, as it is written When your soul desires (Deuteronomy 12:20), and it is written For the blood is the soul (Deuteronomy 12:23). And similarly, when Yeshurun grows fat and fatness bulges from their eyes (Psalms 73:7), and their fat has closed their mouth (Psalms 17:10), then one is especially predisposed to sin. Therefore, from the sin offering, the fat and blood are offered, and the meat is eaten by the priests as a form of charity to feed the poor servants of our God, for through kindness and truth sin is atoned. And the peace offerings make peace in the world, because a portion goes to the altar, a portion to the priests, and a portion to the owners. And they all eat at one table, which demonstrates the peace between all of them, for there is no aspect of sin in it that would cause strife between God and His people. There is a distinction between the sin offering and the burnt offering, because the sin offering only comes for unintentional sins, meaning what a person does without intention, while the burnt offering atones for deliberate thoughts, meaning [those done] with intention. For example, one who thinks about a woman and knows that it is forbidden to think about her, but his heart compels him. Therefore it is said, He shall bring it/him of his own free will before the Lord, meaning that it atones even for willful [thoughts] as mentioned. And from the extra word it/him [in the verse], some interpret that Scripture considers it as if he offered himself before God.

אל פתח אהל מועד, “to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” The Torah needs to tell us that the donor cannot ask the priest to come to his house and pick up the animal he designated as a sacrificial offering. The owner or his messenger has to bring it.

אם עולה, if the wording of his vow included use of the term עולה, burnt-offering, as opposed to זבח שלמים “peace-offerings” of which the donour consumes most of the meat himself. (compare 3,1) לרצונו, if he chose a male, unblemished animal and brought it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, then it would be pleasing to the Lord. However, if the animal were to be diseased, or otherwise blemished, G’d would relate to it with disapproval as explained by Maleachi 1,8 הירצך או הישא פניך?, “Could you obtain the governor’s goodwill, or willingness to forgive your trespasses in return for such a gift?” The same considerations apply even to inexpensive offerings such as the מנחה as spelled out in verse 10 of the same chapter of Maleachi where the prophet has switched from the [parable to G’d Himself being the subject to Whom the gift is being offered.

אל פתח אהל מועד יקריב אותו, “he shall bring it to the entrance of the Tabernacle.” This line is necessary so that we understand that it is not good enough for someone wishing to offer an animal sacrifice to say to the priest: “here is the animal, take it and offer it on my behalf.” If he did so, it would not be considered good manners vis a vis Heaven. The owner of the beast in question had to bring it personally all the way to the entrance of the Tabernacle [beyond which he was not allowed to go. Ed.

And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf.

על ראש העולה UPON THE HEAD OF THE BURNT OFFERING — This is intended to include an obligatory burnt offering also in the law of סמיכה (laying hands on the head of the sacrifice) as well as to include a sheep that is offered as a free — will burnt offering (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 3-5). העלה THE BURNT OFFERING — This implies the exclusion of a bird offered as a burnt offering (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 7). ונרצה לו AND PROPITIATION SHALL BE EFFECTED FOR HIM — For what kind of sins does it (the עולת נדבה) effect propitiation for him? Should you say, “for such as make him liable to excision, or to execution by the court, or to the death penalty through the Heavenly Judge, or to lashes, surely, you see that the punishment for those sins is expressly stated and it is that and not the sacrifice which effects propitiation! Consequently it can only propitiate for the neglect of a positive command and for the transgression of “a prohibition transformed into a positive command” (לאו הניתק לעשה, a prohibitive law the transgression of which can be repaired by a succeeding act) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 8).

AND HE SHALL LAY HIS HAND. This means his two hands, for we find it stated: and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock; and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands upon the head of the ram, and the Rabbis interpreted it to mean: “the hands of each and every individual.” Thus [it is clear that] both hands were required for it. In the case of the goat designed to be sent [to Azazel] it is expressly stated, And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat. If so, I do not know why Scripture wrote “his hand” [in the singular] in all other cases of the laying of hands. Perhaps it is for the purpose of deriving therefrom what the Rabbis have interpreted: “His hand — and not the hand of his proxy.” For had it been written “his hands” [in the plural we would have interpreted it] to require the laying of both hands, and we would not have been able to exclude the proxy. But now that [we derive from other verses that] both hands must be laid upon the offering, [we must conclude that] He only wrote the singular [indicating the hands of only one person], to exclude a proxy, for although a man’s proxy is like the man himself in all other places, we should not consider him so in the case of the laying of hands. In Torath Kohanim we find: “And Aaron shall lay both his hands. This teaches that the laying of hands upon the offering must be done with both hands, and forms the general rule for all cases of laying of hands, that they be done with both hands.” AND IT SHALL BE FAVORABLY ACCEPTED FOR HIM TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HIM. “For what kind of sins does [the freewill burnt-offering] effect atonement for the person that brings it? Should you say, for sins [where punishment if wilfully committed] is excision, or any of the [four] deaths imposed by the court, or death by the hands of Heaven, or stripes, the punishment for all these sins is already stated, [and atonement is affected by those punishments, and therefore not by this offering]! You must conclude that [the freewill burnt-offering] effects atonement only for transgression of a positive commandment, and for the violation of a negative commandment that is juxtaposed to a positive commandment.” This is Rashi’s language, and it is a Beraitha in Torath Kohanim. But I wonder! Where is “the punishment” for these sins already stated, since offerings only effect atonement for unwilful violations? Now we could say that [the freewill burnt-offerings] atone for those unwilful sins which the penalty [if committed wilfully] is death by the hands of Heaven, or stripes, or any of the [four] deaths imposed by the court, in such cases that do not obligate one to bring a sin-offering, such as smiting one’s father or mother, or cursing them, just as the sin-offering atones for the unwilful sins for which the penalty [if committed wilfully] is excision. But perhaps it appeared to the Sages that since Scripture expressly states the punishment for both the wilful and unwilful com...

"And he shall lay his hand" — from the plain sense it would appear that he lays [his hand] with one hand, for the procedure of the scapegoat is not like that of every [other] sacrifice, and hence Scripture changed [the wording]. But we follow the transmitters, who transmitted that all laying of hands is done with two hands. The body brought to atone for that which rises in the mind is also called a burnt-offering; similarly, what is brought for a sin-offering or guilt-offering is called a sin-offering or guilt-offering. "And it shall be accepted for him" — he shall obtain favor from Hashem. "To atone for him" — to be a ransom-payment for the penalty that rests upon him.

וסמך ידו, according to the plain meaning of the text, [this is not a commandment but the Torah describes the norm when people offer such an animal. It describes a preparatory activity, Ed] ידו, this does not have to refer to a single hand, but the verse excludes a son or servant performing this procedure. The Torah does not allow the donor to delegate these acts. ידו על ראש, “his hand on the head;” not one hand above the other, or placing his hands on any other part of the animal. על ראש העולה, “on the head of the burnt offering;” Rashi understands this as referring to when this burnt offering is a mandatory as distinct from a voluntary burnt offering. He quotes Torat Kohanim in support of his interpretation. It is stated there that if a voluntary burnt offering requires the above procedure as introductory step, then it is obvious that a mandatory burnt offering does not require less. The fact that the Torah writes simply: עולה, without specifying which type of עולה, the voluntary one or the mandatory one, is taken as proof that this placing of the owner’s hands on the head of the animal refers to both types. It also means that regardless of whether the animal is a sheep, or a bull, the same rule applies. On the other hand, only burnt offerings belonging to an individual require this procedure, not animals representing a group of people. Animals belonging to women or to gentiles do not require this procedure either. All of them require an accompanying libation, however, even animals belonging to gentiles. We know this from a baraitah in Menachot 29, commencing with the words; “when a gentile has sent his burnt offering, etc.” לכפר עליו, “to serve as his atonement.” The use of the word: עליו in this sense is also found in Psalms 44,23, עליך, where it clearly means: “for your sake.” The same is true of Psalms 69,8.

וסמך ידו על ראש העולה, “he is to place his bodily weight on the head of the animal serving as the burnt-offering.” It is well known that this procedure has to be carried out with both hands as this is what Torat Kohanim says in connection with Leviticus 16,21: “and Aaron is to place both his hands on the head of the scape-goat.” This verse is used as applicable for all animal offerings requiring this procedure. Thus far Torat Kohanim. When the Torah writes in this instance that וסמך ידו, “he shall place his hand (sing.),” this is meant to exclude the messenger, intermediary. Although we have a general rule that a person’s messenger enjoys the same legal status as the person on whose behalf he acts, this is an exception. The owner of the animal cannot delegate the requirement to place his own hands on the animal. The placing of the hands on the animal by the owner was performed only in the part of the Tabernacle called Azarah, the courtyard. It was immediately followed by the slaughter of the animal. It was mandatory to place one’s entire weight on the animal using both one’s hands; this is why the Torah wrote: “on the head of the animal,” i.e. not on its neck or any other part.

And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering. The verse mentions one hand, while regarding the scapegoat it is written, And Aaron shall lay both his hands. Ramban explained that even the laying of hands on the burnt offering was done with both hands. But what can I do, since the verse clearly mentions only one hand?What seems most probable to me is that every sin of thought is without action, but every sin of action is not without the thought that precedes the action. Without this prior thought, one would not intend to sin at all, and it would be considered accidental rather than unintentional. Therefore, for the burnt offering which comes for thoughts alone, it is sufficient to lay one hand to transfer the blemish and taint of the sin of thought onto the animal. But for the scapegoat which bears the iniquities of the children of Israel — both sins of thought and action — Aaron laid both his hands upon it to transfer the blemish and taint of these two types of sin. And so we find in the portion of Pinchas (Numbers 27:18) regarding Joshua, that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Take for yourself Joshua son of Nun, a man who has spirit within him, and you shall lay your hand upon him — implying one hand. But in practice it is stated (Numbers 27:23): And he laid his hands upon him — implying two hands. Similarly here, in the command it says and he shall lay his hand, but in practice it is written: and Aaron shall lay both his hands. And likewise in the portion of Pinchas, the passage about the daily burnt offering is placed next to Joshua’s appointment, to tell you that just as the regular offerings bear the guilt of the people — for the morning daily offering atones for sins committed at night, and the afternoon daily offering atones for sins committed throughout the day — and this is the reason for the laying of hands, to place the taint and blemish of all Israel upon the offering, so too the leaders of Israel are a guilt offering for the people, as our Sages learned (Sifrei, Deuteronomy 1:13) from the verse and I will make them heads over you — that the guilt of the people is dependent on their leaders. And this is the reason for the laying of hands upon Joshua, saying: “Behold, the guilt of the people is dependent upon you, both sins of action and sins of thought.” And this specifically applies to “a man who has spirit within him” like Joshua, who knows how to go against the spirit of each and every person, for he is able to see through the holy spirit that is upon him all that comes upon the spirit of each and every person. And when he sees in someone that a spirit of confusion has been drawn into them, not the spirit of God (1 Kings 19:11), then it is incumbent upon him to turn them from their way, to rebuke them, and to chastise them. And if he does not rebuke them, then the sin is dependent on him. But a person who does not have spirit within him and cannot go against the spirit of each and every person is not held accountable for the sins of thought of their fellow, for the hidden things belong to the Lord our God (Deuteronomy 29:28), and none of us knows the extent of our fellow’s spirit and thoughts. Therefore it is said, “Take for yourself Joshua son of Nun, a man who has spirit within him.” He is able to walk with the divine spirit that is upon him in accordance with the spirit of each person, and he also knows their hidden matters. Therefore, it is just that he should bear upon himself the iniquity of the people, even that which arises in their thoughts. And this is the meaning of what was said, And you shall lay your hand upon him, for otherwise, what connection does a man who has spirit within him have to and you shall lay your hand? Rather, certainly one depends on the other. And the Holy One, Blessed be He, did not need to command him to lay a second hand upon him in order to place upon him also the taint and blemish of the sinful actions of the people, because it is obvious that if it is in his power to turn many away from the iniquity of sinful actions and he does not do so, it is clear that he shall bear the sins of many. And from this, Moses learned that at the time of laying hands, he laid both his hands upon him to place upon him the guilt of the people, whether they sin in thought or whether they sin in deed. And this is precisely like the sacrifice upon which hands are laid, which bears upon itself the guilt of the people, and all of Israel is cleared. This is a precious interpretation. And regarding what is written, And it shall be accepted for him to atone for him, the simple meaning is that this laying of hands is the essence of the atonement, through which he places his guilt upon the animal. And by way of allusion we can say, and he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering includes the entire burnt offering, both the animal, which is the burnt offering upon the altar, and the person receiving ordination [semikhah] who is elevated to some position for the reason that has been explained. However, given the magnitude of the punishment placed upon the person receiving ordination, who would be foolish enough to turn here to receive ordination since it is not worth the damage? Therefore it says, and it shall be accepted for him — that they will presumably be willing to accept it in order to atone for them, as it concludes in Sanhedrin (14a): “Rabbi Zeira was hiding to avoid being ordained. When he heard that Rabbi Elazar said, ‘Always be submissive and accept,’ and when he heard Rabbi Elazar’s statement that ‘A person does not rise to greatness unless all their sins are forgiven,’ he made himself available [for ordination].” And this is a precious interpretation. Before the Lord and he shall lay [his hands]. Rashi explained that there is no laying of hands on a bamah [private altar], because bamah implies height, and our Sages said (Sotah 4b) that anyone who is arrogant, it is as if he built a bamah, as it is said, Cease from man, in whose nostrils is breath, for in what [bameh] is he to be accounted (Isaiah 2:22), do not read in what [bameh] but “a high place” [bamah]. For anyone who builds a bamah for himself, his spirit is high and coarse upon him [is arrogant], as we find in the language of our Sages (Chagigah 22a), “so that each person should not go and build a bamah for himself.” Therefore, it is not before the Lord for two reasons: First, because the Divine Presence only dwells in a place where humility is found, as it is said, I dwell with the crushed (Isaiah 57:15), as was explained above at the end of Parashat Yitro (20:19) and in Parashat Miketz (49:1), that the Great Name indicates the essence of humility, and the matter of the bamah will be explained, God willing, later in Parashat Matot regarding our Sages’ statement (Nedarim 22a), “Anyone who makes a vow, it is as if he built a bamah.” Second, because the Divine Presence only dwells in a place where all of Israel is in one group, and everyone gathers to one sanctuary, and not at a time when each person goes and builds a bamah for himself, like the parable of the two ships that they connected to the verse, Who builds His upper chambers in the heaven and has founded His vault upon the earth (Amos 9:6) (Yalkut Shimoni, Amos 548). Therefore, the sacrifice of the bamah does not completely remove sin, and therefore there is no laying of hands on it.

וסמך ידו, “He shall lean his hand on it with all his strength.” Although the word ידו is spelled in the singular mode, the meaning is: “his hands.” We find elsewhere that the Torah spells this out, for instance in Leviticus The reason that here the word is spelled in the singular mode is to enable us to derive the halachah that the owner of the sacrificial animal personally must do this and not anyone whom he has deputized. This is an exception to the rule that normally שלוחו של אדם כמותו, “a person’s designated messenger has the same legal status as the person himself.” ונרצה לו לכפר עליו, “and it shall become acceptable for him to afford him atonement.” Rashi already questions where the idea of the donor requiring “atonement” suddenly comes from. He argues that surely, if the guilt of the donor to be atoned for involves capital sins for which execution or death at the hands of heaven is in order, there should have been a warning somewhere spelling out which sin this donor had committed! Even if the sin had “only” been one warranting 39 lashes as penalty, it should have been spelled out somewhere. He concludes that the only sins such a sacrifice could atone for is omission to fulfill some positive commandment, or a negative commandment which is inextricably involved with a positive commandment so that non-observance is not punishable by lashes. Rashi is supported by a baraitha in Torat Kohanim. Nachmanides questions “whence do we know that the sacrifice atones for all inadvertently committed sins which when committed intentionally carry the penalty of 39 lashes or death at the hands of heavenly decree altogether?” Perhaps we may assume that this sacrifice atones for sins that are subject to premature death by heavenly decree when committed intentionally, but which have been committed inadvertently, and the Torah had not provided atonement in such a case by a sin offering or guilt offering. as a way of atonement. Striking father or mother are an example of such sins committed inadvertently for which the Torah did not provide explicit penalties when these sins were committed inadvertently. Nachmanides suggests as a possible solution to our query that seeing that in some cases the Torah lists penalties for deliberately committed capital crimes, as well as methods of atonement when these crimes were committed inadvertently, it is reasonable to suppose that where the Torah fails to be specific on that point, the burnt offering, עולה, may well be the vehicle through which such atonement can be secured. This would make the wording of Rashi’s commentary more intelligible. The absence of a procedure to secure atonement for such inadvertently committed sins in cases where the Torah failed to spell this out, might otherwise have led us to believe that there is no mechanism for such inadvertently committed sins to be forgiven. Rashi picked the two categories of sin by omission for which the Torah had failed to specify a specific path to atonement, i.e. failure to observe a positive commandment [when it is the type which we must look for opportunities to perform, such as the lulav on Sukkot, as opposed to the building of a protective railing on one’s roof, a commandment only applicable to people who own a house. Ed.] It is further possible that seeing that when the Torah lists specific voluntary offerings, without the wording specifying that such offering atones for a specific sin committed [וכפר על חטאתו אשר חטא, “it will atone for his sin which he had committed unintentionally (or similar as in Leviticus 42, and 5,2),” Ed.], it is clear that the “atonement” mentioned in our verse is for sins of omission (מצות עשה) committed inadvertently. The expression ונרצה, “it will be received with grace,” implies that the person offering this burnt offering had lacked grace in the eyes of the Lord prior to his presenting this offering. If our sages in Torat Kohanim interpreted the verse as the offering conferring atonement for intentionally committed sins when the sinner had repented, their reasoning is that anyone who committed inadvertent sins has not fallen out of grace with Hashem, so that he does not need to be reinstated in a state of grace, as is suggested by our verse. If that is so, the only deliberate sins that these burnt offerings could atone for are sins of omission, and sins of omission directly involving the transgression of a negative commandment, rather than sins of commission. [seeing, as Rashi pointed out, the Torah had spelled out the penalties for violating negative commandments deliberately]. Even though we have a principle according to which if someone commits a sin of omission or one involving a sin of omission involving also a negative commandment, that repentance achieves atonement immediately, without the offering, or the act of leaning on the animal to be sacrificed, (Yuma 86), whereas if he offers the sacrifice without repenting, his offering is rejected as זבח רשעים, the offering of a wicked individual, we need to say that the “forgiveness” mentioned in Yuma is not complete until the person concerned has also offered the burnt offering discussed in our verse.

לכפר עליו, “to make atonement for him.” When someone has eaten forbidden fats, inadvertently, he must bring an offering as atonement. If he is in doubt if he has eaten forbidden fat he must bring an offering known as asham taluy, an offering which suspends his status vis a vis G–d until the doubt has been removed. If it turns out that he had not eaten forbidden fat that is the end of the matter. If it turns out that he did eat forbidden fat, he must bring the additional sin offering. Sometimes it happens that a person was convinced that what he ate was permissible, whereas in fact it was not. In such an event, offering a burnt offering will achieve atonement on his behalf. This is the kind of burnt offering described in our verse.

And he shall slaughter the young bull before Hashem, and the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall bring the blood and dash the blood upon the altar all around, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

הכהנים …ושחט …והקריבו AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER … AND THE PRIESTS SHALL OFFER [THE BLOOD] — All the rites from “receiving the blood in a vessel” (which is implied in והקריבו) and onwards are the duty of the priesthood. This teaches about the slaughtering that it is valid even if performed by a layman (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 2; Zevachim 32a). 'לפני ה means in the forecourt. והקריבו AND [THE PRIESTS] SHALL OFFER [THE BLOOD] — This must refer to “receiving the blood in a vessel”, since this is the first rite mentioned after the slaughtering of the animal, but really it implies the bringing of the blood to the altar; we thus learn that both of them (receiving of the blood and bringing it to the altar) as well as all the succeeding rites are priestly duties (cf. Zevachim 4a): בני אהרן — One might think that these duties may be performed also by חללים (priests who have lost their priestly status for reasons connected with their birth or marriage)! Scripture, however, adds הכהנים, the priests (i.e. they must not only be descendants of Aaron but also “priests” — fit for priesthood, and חללים are excluded from priestly functions) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 6). את הדם …וזרקו את הדם [AND THE PRIESTS … SHALL OFFER] THE BLOOD AND SHALL SPRINKLE THE BLOOD — Why does Scripture use the word דם twice (instead of saying והקריבו את הדם וזרקוהו)? In order to include in the command of sprinkling also the blood of an עולה which has been commingled with blood of the same kind of sacrifice (i. e. with the blood of another burnt offering) or with that of a different kind (that of a peace — offering or a guilt — offering). One might think that this law applies also if it has been commingled with that of sacrifices unfit for sacrifice or with that of sin — offerings whose blood has to be sprinkled in the “Interior’ (the Holy Place) or with that of sin — offerings whose blood has to be sprinkled outside (in the court), although these (i. e., the blood of the (חטאות פנימיות וחיצוניות) has to be sprinkled above the red line (that marks the division between the upper and the lower halves of the altar) and it (the blood of the עולה) below! Scripture, however, states of an עולה in another place (v. 11) ‘‘[and he shall sprinkle] its blood (דמו)” (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 7-8; Zevachim 81). וזרקו AND [THE PRIESTS] … SHALL DASH [THE BLOOD ROUND ABOUT] — He (the priest) stands below and dashes the blood from the vessel upon the altar wall below the red line over against the two diagonally opposite corners (the north — east and the south — west corners so that there is blood on the four sides). That is what Scripture means when it says, סביב, “round about” — that the blood shall be put upon all the four sides of the altar. Or I might think that it means he (the priest) shall place it (the blood) right round the altar as a line! Scripture, however, states, וזרקו, “and they shall dash [the blood]” (i. e. fling it; c...

AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER THE BULL BEFORE THE ETERNAL. AND THE PRIESTS, AARON’S SONS, SHALL OFFER THE BLOOD. “All acts from receiving [the blood in a vessel] onwards are the duty of the priests. This teaches that the slaughtering [of the offering] is valid if performed by a zar (non-priest). ‘V’hikrivu’ (and they shall offer …) — this refers to ‘receiving’ [the blood], and the sense thereof is the bringing [of the blood to the altar]. Thus we learn that both of them [receiving the blood and bringing it to the altar], are to be done by Aaron’s sons.” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct. Instead, the Midrash of our Rabbis states: “V’hikrivu — this is the receiving of the blood.” For the term v’hikrivu does not mean the bringing of the blood near to the altar, namely the holachah (carrying of it). Instead, v’hikrivu is an expression similar to the word korban (offering) and it signifies receiving [of the blood in a vessel] and sprinkling it upon the altar. Thus He mentioned bringing it [to the door of the Tent of Meeting], laying hands on it, and slaughtering it with reference to the owner of the offering, and after the slaughtering He immediately mentioned the sons of Aaron. It accordingly follows that receiving the blood is in itself a duty to be performed by the priests, and may only be done by a qualified priest and with vessels dedicated to the Temple Service; and [it follows] all the more that bringing it to the altar and sprinkling it [can be done only by a qualified priest]. Moreover, even carrying of the limbs to the ramp [leading to the altar] is invalid if done by a non-priest, for so the Rabbis interpreted: “And the priest shall offer it all, and cause it to ascend in fumes upon the altar — this refers to carrying of the limbs to the ramp.” If so, carrying the blood to the altar also may be done only by a priest with all the conditions of priesthood.

"Before Hashem" — as with the flock-burnt-offering: [it is placed] "on the north side of the altar" — corresponding to the Table. The meaning of "and he shall slaughter" — the priest who slaughters it [is] one, while "they shall dash" the blood [is] plural, as it is written: "and the sons of Aaron presented." The reason for [specifying] "at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting" is to exclude the incense altar.

וסמך ושחט, “he will place his hands and slaughter;” up until this point the owners, not being priests, are basically permitted to perform these procedures, provided that they are ritually clean; from this point on the commandment applies only to the priests. The reason the two words are followed in both instances with the words: “in the presence of the Lord,” is that both procedures are carried out at the same location. את בן הבקר, this term describes the animal as being in its youth, not diseased, in accordance with the maxim expressed in Maleachi 1,8: הקריבהו לפחתך, “would you offer such (diseased animal) to your Governor?” את בן הבקר לפני ה, “the bullock before the Lord;” the one who slaughters it should be doing so in the name of the Lord, even if he has a long knife and himself stands outside consecrated earth. Shimon the Yemenite, disagreeing and understanding the words “before the Lord,” has been quoted as saying: whence do I derive the rule that the hand of the slaughterer should be within the foreleg of the animal being slaughtered, i.e. while he is on consecrated ground? You must read the words: 'את בן הבקר לפני ה, as one phrase (without comma) [not supported by the cantillation marks. Ed.] בני אהרן, “the sons of Aaron.” To exclude elderly priests whose hands might tremble. Our sages in the Talmud tractate Chulin, folio 24 stated that the age or appearance of age, when a priest becomes disqualified from slaughtering is when his hands begin to tremble. אהרן, who, age notwithstanding [he was 85 at this time, Ed.] was still without physical blemish.הכהנים, the priests, who had not forfeited their status due to having committed acts that would disqualify them, from Temple service.

ושחט את בן הבקר, ”he will slaughter the bull, etc.” We have a tradition (Sifra Vayikra 4,2) that slaughtering the sacrificial animal by a non priest (layman) was in order. This is the reason the Torah wrote the word: “he will slaughter,” without being precise as to who will perform this procedure. In other words, “anyone.” Whenever the Torah defines procedures in the plural, such as “they will sprinkle,” “they will burn, etc.,” it invariably refers to priests who have been mentioned previously in that context. If such a plural is followed by a singular such as in verse 6, והפשיט את העולה, “he will skin the burnt-offering;” this means that whoever had performed the last procedure will continue with the present procedure. [The author has to show that the use of the singular does not always mean that a non priest could perform such a procedure. Ed]. The reason that the Torah uses the word בן בקר all of a sudden instead of the word פר used to describe a bull previously, is that the age of the animal, i.e. not over 2 years old is meant here. The term עגל, calf, is used for animals up to one year old, whereas the term פר indicates that the animal is in its third year. Whenever the Torah speaks of כבש or כבשים, one year old sheep (male) are meant, whereas the two year old male sheep are called איל. Rabbi Meir (in Rosh Hashanah 10) claimed that when the Torah speaks of עגל without adding that it is one year old, what is meant is a one-year old calf. When the Torah speaks of בן בקר a two year old bull is meant. When the Torah speaks of פר without specifying further, a three year old bull is meant. In Torat Kohanim (Sifra Vayikra 3,6) we are taught that the reason an עגל is a one year old calf is that the Torah speaks in Leviticus 9,3 of “a one year old calf and a one year old sheep.” The reason we know that the term בן בקר applies to a two year old bull is also because the Torah writes in 9,2 עגל בן בקר לחטאת ואיל לעולה תמימים, “a two year old male calf as sin-offering, and a ram as burnt-offering, they are to be flawless.” Just as the calf mentioned there is two years old so the ram is two years old. Just as both have to be flawless, so both have to be of the same age (approx.). Thus far Torat Kohanim. However, speaking of male goats, when it is referred to as שעיר without adjective it is under one year old. Once it is a year old it is referred to as שעיר עזים.

ושחט את בן הבקר, “He will slaughter the young bull, etc.” the word בן means that the bull must not be over age. The word בן is used in a similar way when the Torah refers to בני אהרן in our verse, i.e. over aged priests are not fit to perform this service in the Tabernacle. Alternately, the meaning of the word בן here could be that seeing that Aaron personally, as opposed to his sons, had had some active part in the disastrous affair of the golden calf, he is not now charged personally with performing this sacrificial service, and it is reserved for his sons. This led to a prayer by Aaron asking for G’d’s mercy on him. This accounts for the fact that the next portion addresses G’d’s command specifically to Aaron himself, and instructs him as well as his sons to perform the rites involving the burnt offering (as well as others).

והקריבו, the term includes catching the blood after slaughtering the sacrifice, bringing it to the altar and performing the sprinkling of it on the appropriate parts of the altar. Our sages also explain the word והקריבו in this sense. (compare Zevachim 7) אשר פתח אהל מועד, not the golden altar which was inside the Tabernacle.

ושחט, “he will slaughter, etc.” the Torah used the singular mode as ordinarily one person performs that act. On the other hand, when describing the steps following the act of slaughtering, the Torah uses the plural mode, as a number of priests are usually involved in that. את בן הבקר, “the bullock;” the expression: בן הבקר implies that the animal is male and young, as it is forbidden to offer diseased or overage animals.(Compare Malachi 1,8 הקריבהו נא לפחתך, “just offer it to your governor!”) [The prophet reminds people that they would not dare offer a governor something less than first rate as he becomes aware of it immediately and will feel insulted. Ed.] בני אהרן, the Torah does not mean that other priests are not qualified, but used the sons of Aaron as examples of priests in their prime. This corresponds to what the Talmud stated in tractate Chulin folio 24, according to which priests have to retire from active service when their hands and feet have become red as a sign of weakness.

And he shall flay the burnt offering and cut it into its pieces.

'והפשיט וגו AND HE SHALL FLAY [THE BURNT OFFERING] — Why does it state “the burnt offering” (instead of merely saying, והפשיטה, “and he shall flay it”)? In order to include all burnt offerings (i. e. all עולות בהמה, whether they be free — will or obligatory, whether they are taken מן הבקר or מן הצאן, whether brought by a man or by a woman, by a free Israelite or by an Israelite עבד) in the law of flaying and dismembering (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 2; cf. Note 3 on העולה v. 4). אתה לנתחיה AND HE SHALL SEVER IT INTO ITS PIECES — he shall sever it etc. but not its pieces again into smaller pieces (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 7).

AND HE SHALL FLAY THE BURNT-OFFERING. He is commanded to flay it while it is whole and afterwards he sever it. The expression and he shall flay … and he shall sever refers to the owner of the offering [even if he is a non-priest], just as He said, and he shall lay his hand … and he shall slaughter [which may also be done by a zar — a non-priest], for flaying and severing are not functions relating to the actual offering and are therefore valid if done by a zar. This is why [in the following verse] He says again, And the sons of Aaron [the priest shall put fire upon the altar]. Similarly, it is valid that the washing of the inwards be done by a zar. Hence He says, But its inwards and its legs he shall wash in water, that is, the owner of the offering, and afterwards, and the priest shall cause all to ascend in fumes. He states it in the plural, and they shall put … and they shall set the pieces, because all duties performed by the priests are commanded in this form, since there are many priests gathered in the House of G-d to attend to the burnt-offerings, and in the multitude of the people is the King’s glory, but it is not indispensable, since further on He taught, and the priest shall set them in order [thus showing that even a single priest may perform all the acts]. AND HE SHALL FLAY … AND HE SHALL SEVER … AND THE SONS OF AARON THE PRIEST SHALL PUT FIRE UPON THE ALTAR. This is not the correct order of these actions, for the right way is that the priests should first put fire upon the altar, and only then should they sever the limbs. Such indeed was the order of the arrangement of the Daily Offering. Similarly, the verse stating, And the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall set the pieces, the head and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire, and afterwards, But its inwards and its legs he shall wash in water — does not mean to command that it be done in that order, for “the setting” [mentioned in Verse 8] refers to “the burning” of the pieces which He commanded further on [in Verse 9]: and the priest shall cause all to ascend in fumes. If so, the correct order of performance cannot be that he should bring up the pieces, and the head and the fat, and set them upon the fire that is upon the altar, and only afterwards should he wash the inwards and the legs and burn them! Rather, he first severed it and washed it, and then he brought everything up and set them on the fire to be burnt. The reason [for the order] of the verses is thus as follows: First He mentioned the sprinkling of the blood in order to teach that this comes before everything else. Then He gave the commandment concerning the burning of the limbs, stating [in Verse 6 before us] that he should flay [the animal] and sever it in order to set the pieces upon the fire after washing the inwards and the legs, and then he should burn them all at one time, this being the sense of the expression and the priest shall cause ‘all’ to ascend in fumes. The reason why Scripture repeated [t...

"And he shall flay" — [this is done by] a priest, or a Levite who assists him.

והפשיט את העולה, “he shall flay the burnt offering;” seeing that in the case of rams and bulls that needed to be burnt completely, the skin had to be removed first at any rate as it would be given to the officiating priest. But with regards to the burnt offerings the Torah states that they had to be flayed and cut up into pieces even though afterwards everything was burnt completely.

והפשיט את העולה, ”he is to skin the burnt offering.” The reason the Torah spelled this out is that other sacrificial offerings that are totally burned up on the altar, do not have their skin removed before their carcass is being burned. (Zevachim 5,2) והפשיט ונתח, “after he skins it he cuts the carcass into its pieces.” This verse addresses itself to the owners of this offering, just as the verse speaking about the owner leaning on the animal prior to its being slaughtered is addressed to the owner, not to the priest. Seeing that this could cause some confusion, the Torah repeats in verse 7 that the functions described there are to be performed by the young priests.

והפשיט את העולה, “he shall flay the burnt offering;” this had to be spelled out here as we find in cases where animals which had been disqualified shortly before being slaughtered while already on the altar were burned whole including skin and entrails. Furthermore, we had to be told that the skin after being flayed was not burned, but became the property of the officiating priest.

And the sons of Aaron the priest shall place fire upon the altar and arrange wood upon the fire.

אש … ונתנו AND [THE SONS OF AARON …] SHALL PUT FIRE [ON THE ALTAR] — Although the fire descended from heaven, it was nevertheless a religious duty to bring also some fire of profane origin (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 10; Yoma 21b; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 10:2 and Note thereon). בני אהרן הכהן THE SONS OF AARON THE PRIEST — They shall place the fire on the altar as sons of Aaron the priest: implying that Aaron should always minister in his priestly dignity (i. e. when attired in his priestly garments), consequently if he officiated in the garments of an ordinary priest his service is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 9; Zevachim 18a).

"And the sons of Aaron" — so that the Levites shall not approach; this is a commandment incumbent upon the priests, [requiring] no fewer than two.

עצים על האש, “wood (in order) on the fire.” The fire had to be placed there first.

ונתנו בני אהרן הכהנים אש על המזבח, “the sons of Aaron, the priest are to place fire on the altar.” Our sages in Yuma 53 state that the only sin which brought about the death of the sons of Aaron was the fact that they made a religious/ritual ruling on their own authority when they should have consulted their elders Moses and/or Aaron. What did they read in the Torah which caused them to make this statement? They referred to our verse. The sons of Aaron took this verse as proof that although heavenly fire was expected to descend from heaven to consume the offerings on the altar, it was still a commandment to also contribute man-made fire. Their reasoning was correct but it was not their prerogative to make such a ruling. Rav Saadyah Gaon writes concerning this matter that Nadav and Avihu erred when they thought that our verse means that man-made fire was to be placed on the altar “from the outside.” The word ונתנו in our verse is equivalent to ובערו, “they shall burn.” The word ונתנו is used in that sense in Isaiah 37,19: ונתון את אלוהיהם באש, “they have committed their gods to the flames.” Rav Saadyah uses this example of the error committed by Nadav and Avihu to stress how careful one has to be when trying to derive halachic rulings from the written text of the Torah. If people of the stature of Nadav and Avihu could make such a fatal error in understanding the text of the Torah, how much more likely is it that scholars of lesser distinction can make such errors! Had they troubled themselves to confirm with their teachers Moses or Aaron that their interpretation was correct they would not have brought death upon themselves. The mishap which resulted from the error of the sons of Aaron accounts for the fact that Jewish scholars are so careful in repeating the lessons they have learned from their teachers by using the same words. This principle has been made into a rule in Ediyot 1,3: “a person is obligated to repeat what his Rabbi said by using the same words.” If such care is in place when one merely repeats the words of one’s teacher, how much more so is it incumbent upon each one of us not to misquote a single word from the written Torah! If someone nevertheless changes the wording of the Torah the prophet Jeremiah 23,36 said concerning such people that “they pervert the words of the living G’d.” Concerning this whole subject Jeremiah 23,33-36 writes: “when this people, or a prophet or a priest, asks you: ‘what is the message of the Lord?’ You shall answer them “what is the message? I will cast you off — declares the Lord. As for the prophet or priest or layman who shall say ‘the message of the Lord,’ I shall punish that person and his house. You shall speak to each other, everyone to his fellow, ‘what has the Lord answered? Or “what has the Lord spoken?’ But do not mention ‘the message’ of the Lord anymore.” Does a man regard his own word as “a message?” According to Rav Saadyah Gaon the meaning of Jeremiah is that none of his listeners are allowed to put their own interpretation on the prophet’s words or to paraphrase his words. The only person allowed to interpret the word of G’d is the prophet to whom it was addressed. If the people would take it upon themselves to re-interpret G’d’s message they would become guilty of perverting G’d’s words. In verse 36 the prophet Jeremiah used three words extolling G’d; he spoke of Him as “the living G’d,” as “the Lord G’d of Hosts,” and as “our G’d.” The first description of G’d by the prophet as “the living G’d” was a reference to G’d revealing Himself at Mount Sinai. At that time the people had heard His voice, proof that He was alive. Moses had challenged the people in Deut. 4,33 when he asked them if ever a nation had become privy to such an experience as hearing the living G’d? When Jeremiah referred to G’d as “the Lord G’d of Hosts,” he had in mind the second pillar of Judaism, the belief in prophets to whom G’d had transmitted specific messages (compare Zecharyah 7,12). Jeremiah’s referring to G’d also as “our G’d,” אלו-הינו, was a reference to the G’d of the patriarchs. The expression had been used in Joshua 24,17 where Joshua in his parting address to the Jewish people reminds them of their history and implores them to never forget how that attribute of G’d took them out of Egypt and looked after them every step of the way. The terms employed by Jeremiah for describing G’d are proof of how important it is to use the same terms that one’s teacher had used. Rav Saadyah Gaon understands the word ונתנו in our verse as equivalent to the Arabic for “they shall burn,” just as in Leviticus 6,5: “and Aaron shall kindle wood on it every morning.”

“And the sons of Aaron the priests shall put fire.” Even though fire descends from heaven, it is a commandment to bring [fire] from ordinary sources in order to mix the fire from above with the fire from below, and to judge the sinner in two courts of law, in order to atone for thoughts about the type of sin that should be judged in the heavenly court, and for thoughts about the type of sin that should be judged in the earthly court. This is the reason for Sustain me with raisin cakes [ashishot] (Song of Songs 2:5) — two types of fire [esh] — for I am sick with love — these are the sins, the sickness of the soul that affects the love of the Holy One, blessed be He, and He is healed through these two fires.

ונתנו בני אהרן, ”the sons of Aaron are to place the blood, etc.” The reason why the Torah uses the plural mode, -as if one priest by himself could not perform this task- is that it is customary for the Torah when describing the functions performed by the priests in the Tabernacle, to use the plural mode. There used to be numerous priests milling around in the Temple precincts, seeing that there they would be in the proximity of the Shechinah. We have the principle of ברוב עם הדרת מלך, when the king is surrounded by a multitude of his subjects this reflects positively on the degree of his glory.” [Menachot 62 (et al) where a function is distributed amongst 3 priests although a single one could easily have performed it by himself. Ed.] והפשיט ונתח ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן על האש, “after skinning it, the sons of Aaron are to cut it up and place fire on the altar.” Nachmanides points out that the Torah does not describe these procedures in their traditional sequence. The first step in the procedure was the arranging of the woodpile on the altar on which the remains of the animal would be burned. Only after this had been put in place, was the carcass of the burnt offering cut up into pieces. Similarly, when the Torah, in verse 8, describes the priests as arranging the pieces in the following order: the head, the fat parts, followed by (verse 9) the innards and the feet, after the latter two have first been washed. This is incorrect, seeing that as soon as the carcass has been cut up the parts that need to be washed are being washed. The sequence reported here is not one that is mandatory. Our verse (5) was only concerned with the sprinkling of the blood being the first step in the various procedures necessary to complete the offering. The final step was the burning up of the eyvarim, (Talmud Tamid 30). The Torah hints at this when it adds the words והקטיר הכהן את הכל, “the priest is to burn it all.” The reason why the Torah repeated the command to burn up the various pieces, having first mentioned some parts being placed on the fire, is to teach that after being placed on the fire the priest must not wait until the fire has consumed it all before placing the other parts on the fire to be burned up. When dealing with a burnt offering that is a voluntary offering, there was no need to first arrange the fire properly before proceeding with other steps of the procedure. On the other hand, the daily tamid burnt offering, a mandatory public offering both in the morning and evening, paid for by public funds as it represented the whole nation, had to follow the sequence outlined by the Torah in every detail. The woodpile for consuming that offering was arranged meticulously every morning. (Leviticus 6,5)

And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall arrange the pieces, the head, and the fat upon the wood that is on the fire that is upon the altar.

בני אהרן הכהנים THE SONS OF AARON THE PRIESTS — i e. only as priests : when they are ministering in their priestly dignity; but if an ordinary priest officiates in the eight garments of the High Priest his service is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 9; Zevachim 18a). את הראש את הנתחים [AND THE PRIESTS … SHALL SET] THE PIECES, THE HEAD etc. [IN ORDER] — Since the head was not included in the law prescribing flaying (v. 6) as it was already as good as cut off by the act of slaughter, it therefore was necessary to enumerate it separately here since Scripture wishes every part of the animal to be put on the altar (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 3; Chullin 27a). ואת הפדר AND THE FAT — Why is this mentioned separately (is it not included in the word הנתחים)? In order to teach you that he must bring it up on the altar together with the head, and that with it he must cover the throat of the animal (בית השחיטה, lit., the place where the act of slaughter was performed). This (covering the cut in the throat) was done in way of regard for God on high (Chullin 27a). אשר על המזבח WHICH IS UPON THE ALTAR — upon the altar: this implies that the logs of wood must not project beyond the woodpile (מערכה) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 5).

V’ETH HAPADER.’ Onkelos translated it: tarba (fat), and this is also the concensus of opinion of all commentators, the word (pader) having no companion in the Hebrew language. In my opinion the word is not a generic term for all kinds of fat, but signifies specifically the thin layer of fat which spreads over and divides between the inwards, and the word pader is one of those terms whose letters are interchangeable, thus: pader — pared (division), [and is so called] since it divides between the upper and the lower inwards. That is why our Rabbis have said that [when the limbs are taken up to the altar] the pader is spread over the throat of the animal at the place where the act of slaughter was performed, for this is considered regard for Him Who is on high, since that fat is fit to be spread and serve as a cover. It is also customary among the nobility of nations to spread it over a roast. If, however, the word pader is indeed a generic term for all kinds of fat, [it is my opinion that] fat is so called because it is the greasy substance which is “separated” from the flesh, and such in fact is the term used as an equivalent for fat by students of nature, as I will mention.

"The fat" (הַפָּדֶר) — many of the sages of the generation explained it as the body [meat], but in my view the correct interpretation is that פֶּדֶר refers to the fats [i.e., the suet]. And so: "And the sons of Aaron the priests shall arrange the pieces" — which are the pieces of the body — "the head and the fat," meaning the fats; and the conjunction vav is absent, as is the customary usage of the language, [as in] "odem, pitdah, and bareqet" [where vav is similarly dropped]. Also [read it as]: "and he cut it into its pieces" — the pieces of the body — "its head and its fat." Or the meaning of "with the head" is [the pieces arranged together] with the head, and many [verses] are similar. The reliable proof is: "and Moses caused the head and the pieces and the fat to go up in smoke." "And he shall arrange" — [this applies] to the young of the cattle, because it is large; while for the lamb the form is "and he arranged."

וערכו בני אהרן, “and Aaron’s sons shall arrange” on the pieces of the burnt offering;” seeing that it is of the category of cattle, big animals, the Torah uses the plural mode whereas with sheep or goats the Torah uses the singular mode for this procedure. (compare verse12)

את הנתחים ואת הראש, ”the various pieces including the head, etc.” The head had not been part of the animal which had been skinned as it had already been severed from the rest of the animal at the time of slaughter. This is why the Torah had to mention the head especially (Sifra 4, 6,3). In that case, why did the Torah have to mention the פדר, “fat-parts,” separately also? This was to tell us that the head together with the fat-parts were to be burned after the area where the head had been slaughtered had been covered with the fat-parts. The expression פדר, which means “at-parts,”is a translation of the word פרד, i.e. the same letters in reverse order. This is an allusion to the fact that these fat-parts separate (פדר) between the lower and upper intestines. The whole procedure was to make it as dignified as possible seeing the area where the head had been severed had become bloody and dirty. Even nowadays, when people barbecue animals on the spit, they cover the head separately as mentioned by Nachmanides.

ואת הפדר, “and the fats.” Nachmanides in commenting on Onkelos translating the word פדר as meaning ”fat,” writes that this is not a generic term for all the various fat parts of the animal, but refers only to a thin fatty membrane separating between different parts of the innards. The origin of the word פדר is that it is one of the words which appear in forward and backward spelling, i.e. פרד, the same root, spelled in a different order of the letters means “to separate.” The membrane in question separates upper from lower parts within the innards of the ruminants. This is why our sages have said that the priest is to spread out this membrane above the place where the knife made the incision when it slaughtered the animal. This is a way of showing respect for the animal that becomes the instrument of the donor’s achieving atonement for his sin. Dignitaries among the nations of the world were in the habit of spreading this membrane over the part of it that they roasted. If the name פדר were to apply to fatty parts of the animal in general, this would be because the fat parts separate the flesh from the bones, etc. Maimonides (Moreh, Nevuchim third part chapter 46) writes that the underlying reason of the legislation involving animal sacrifices is connected to the practices of the Egyptians and the Sumerians. (inhabitants of Mesopotamia, the competing civilization of that of the Egyptians.) Jews who had lived within either civilization observed these people actually deifying cattle and sheep, the Egyptians worshipping sheep, and the Chaldaeans male goats, (satyrs) whereas the Indians worship cows to this day, believing them to be their reincarnated ancestors. It is forbidden to slaughter cows in India, as it is considered equivalent to murdering a god. G’d, in order to instill in us an abhorrence of such forms of paganism, demanded from us to sacrifice these animals, in order to demonstrate that we had been weaned from such mistaken beliefs. By means of these animals being sacrificed as gifts to G’d, we are absolved from deviant philosophical and theological thoughts. False philosophies represent a disease of the soul and therefore the personality, and just like any other disease, can be cured only by applying a medicine that represents the opposite of the harmful substance that causes the disease. Nachmanides writes that Maimonides’ writing concerning this subject are worthless, believing that if we are to look for a rationale for animal sacrifice at all, it is better to accept the view that seeing that man’s deeds are the final result of the brain’s thought, the spoken intention to do certain things, and finally, the carrying out in practice of what had been planned and discussed, G’d commanded that in order to rid ourselves of all vestiges of sin we must reverse the process, by first sanctifying the sacrificial animal in our mind, then leaning on it and expressing our remorse with words, and finally, by utterly destroying the symbol of our sin through sprinkling its blood on the altar and burning up the physical remains by fire, we rid ourselves of our having been involved in the sin that led to this process of expiation. During the procedures involving these activities of the priest with the sacrificial animal, the owner is to reflect on all that he had done wrong, as well as on the mercy of the Lord Who accepts the animal’s blood instead of the sinner’s blood. The bodily remains of the animal are accepted by G’d in lieu of our own body, and the animal’s blood is accepted in lieu of our own contaminated soul. Burning of the innards and kidneys are symbolic of the seat of the thoughts of man (according to our tradition). The gifts to the priests performing these procedures are designed to inspire them to pray on our behalf so that the bulk of the Jewish people will be spared and not become enmeshed in sin.

הפדר, fat.

וערכו בני אהרן, “and Aaron’s sons shall arrange, etc.; when the same procedure is to be performed with offerings involving sheep or goats, (verse 12) the Torah uses the singular mode for the verb ערך, The reason is that cattle are so much heavier that more than one priest was required to handle all that.

And its innards and its legs he shall rinse with water, and the priest shall cause it all to go up in smoke upon the altar — it is a burnt offering, an offering accepted with favor before Hashem.

עלה [AND THE PRIEST SHALL CAUSE ALL TO ASCEND IN FUMES ON THE ALTAR, TO BE] A BURNT OFFERING — i. e. only with the intention that it should be an עולה shall he burn it (and not that it should be an offering of another class. The words are to be translated: he shall burn it as an עולה) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 10). אשה AS A FIRE OFFERING — When he slaughters it he shall slaughter it with the intention of making a fire of it (i. e. having in mind the fact that it is to become a prey to the flames, not that it will become charred flesh) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 10). The word אשה wherever it occurs, is connected with אש, feuchère in O. F. ניחוח (of the root נוח, “to repose”, “to draw satisfaction from …”) — an odour of ניחוח: one that causes satisfaction to Me by the knowledge that I gave commands and that My will was executed (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 10; Zevachim 46b).

A BURNT-OFFERING. “[He shall burn it] with the intention that it should be a burnt-offering [and not an offering of another category]. ‘ISHEIH’ (A FIRE-OFFERING). When he slaughters it he should slaughter it with the intention of [burning it by] fire, [as will be explained further on]. Wherever the word isheih occurs, it is an expression of fire. PLEASING — it is pleasing to Me that I have commanded and My will was done.” This is the language of Rashi. Now the Rabbi did not explain what is meant by “the intention of [burning it by] fire.” In the Gemara the Rabbis have said: “this is to exclude kabobo, which may not be done.” Now the commentators explained this to mean that he should slaughter it with the intention of placing it on flames burning the pile of wood upon the altar, and not of placing it upon dying coals which are in the process of being extinguished. To me it appears that the intention he needs to have is that the fire should burn it completely, and not that it should just be roasted there a little, the word kabobo being similar to the expression of the Rabbis in the chapter entitled “A stubborn and rebellious son: ” “k’basar kiba (like partly-roasted meat) which thieves eat.” In Tractate Erubin we also find: “v’nichbeiv (let him roast it) and eat it.” Now some books have a reading in Tractate Zebachim: “this is to exclude gabobo (straw), which may not be done.” Accordingly the meaning thereof is that he should have the intention to put it on a fire of wood, as it is written, on the wood that is on the fire, and he should not intend to put it upon a fire made of stubble and straw, similar to that which we have been taught [in a Mishnah]: “If a double-stove had been heated with stubble and gabobo.”Now this verse mentions a reason for the offerings, namely, that they are a fire-offering, of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal. The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim that the reason for the offerings is because the Egyptians and the Chaldeans in whose lands the children of Israel were strangers and sojourners, used always to worship the herd and the flock, the Egyptians worshipping the sheep and the Chaldeans worshipping the demons whom they imagined as assuming the form of goats. To this day men of India never slaughter the herd. It was for this reason that He commanded [Israel] to slaughter these three species [of cattle: the herd, the flock, and the goats], to the Revered Name, so that it be known that the very act which the idol-worshippers considered to be the utmost sin [i.e., slaughtering the above species], that same act should be done as an offering before the Creator, and through it Israel’s sins would be forgiven. For such is the way to cure people of false beliefs, which are the diseasees of the human soul, for all diseases and sicknesses are healed by medicines which are antithetical to them. These are the words [the Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon], and he expounded them at great length. But these words are mere ex...

"Shall wash in water" — [done by] a priest or a Levite; therefore when it comes to "and the priest shall cause to go up in smoke" it was necessary to add the word "the priest." "A fire-offering" (אִשֶּׁה) — this is an attributive noun meaning a sacrifice of fire, and it is an attribute modifying "the whole" [offering]. "A pleasing aroma" (נִיחוֹחַ) — its meaning is explicit.

את הכל. all of it. Torat Kohanim claims that the word הכל specifically includes the hooves and the horns of the animal. In view of this, we must ask why Abraham did not include the horns of the ram he offered in lieu of Isaac (Genesis 22,14), leaving the horns to be used as shofarot as described in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 31. Perhaps we have to assume that Abraham did indeed offer, i.e. put the entire ram on the altar, and that due to the heat the horns פקעו מעל המזבח, cracked and fell off the altar; we learned in Zevachim 86 that once parts of the burnt-offering fell off the altar they do not need to be put back on. Another possibility is that the horns were separated from the ram prior to sprinkling its blood on the altar. Horns, etc., are not included as fit to be burned on the altar unless they are still attached to the body of the animal in question. If they have been detached, they have to be removed from the altar even if they had been placed on it already as we know from Deut. 12,27: ועשית עלותיך הבשר והדם על מזבח השם. According to Rabbi Zeyrah who stated in Zevachim 86 that the parts which had fallen off the altar are permitted for private use if they had been detached from the body prior to the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, one may fashion handles for knives from such horns. Another way of solving our question is that seeing the Torah had not been given as yet during Abraham's lifetime, the details recorded here did not obligate him. It is true that our sages in Yuma 28 held that Abraham carried out all the minutiae of the commandments. This included ערובי תבשילין, i.e. pre-cooking some food for the Sabbath following a festival on the eve of the festival in order to make preparation of food on the festival for the Sabbath permissible. I have already explained that Abraham did so voluntarily, in order to accumulate merits, not because he was under any obligation to do so. The same reasoning [that the Torah had not yet been given. Ed.] applied when Tamar married Yehudah her father-in-law, or when Jacob married two sisters while both were alive. The fact that the ram was stuck in the thicket by its horns was in itself a supernatural event; Abraham certainly did not have to burn up these very horns, a commandment applicable only in the future.

וקרבו וכרעיו ירחץ, “but its innards and its legs he shall wash;” seeing these parts are being served at the “King’s” table, they had to be prepared as if being served at the table of a mortal king. The animals that were going to be burned without having had their skin flayed were not treated in the same fashion as they represented reminders of the donor’s sins, not his desire to “donate” something to his G-d. ירחץ במים, “he will wash with water;” the translation (in Aramaic) of washing of human beings is יסחי, as it always refers to the immersion of the whole body in a ritual bath. As for instance in Isaiah 25,11: כאשר יפרש השוחה לשחות, “as the swimmer who spreads out his hands in order to swim.” The “washing” of which the Torah speaks in connection with the sacrificial animals is rendered as יחליל, by the Targum. The meaning of that word is more the flushing out of excrements, etc. ירחץ במים, I might have thought that the quantity of water required is like in the case of a ritual bath, a minimum of 40 saah; therefore the Torah writes במים to indicate that it does not stipulate a minimum amount of water, i.e. any amount of water is sufficient if it accomplishes its purpose. את הכל, “everything;” this includes bones sinews, horns, and hooves, wool of the head of the sheep and the beard of the goats, as long as they are still attached to their bodies.

והקטיר הכהן את הכל המזבחה, עולה אשה ריח ניחוח לה, “and the priest shall cause all of it to burn up on the altar, it is a burnt-offering, an offering by fire of pleasing odor to the Lord.” According to the plain meaning of the text the entire purpose of the legislation concerning animal-sacrifices is for man’s benefit. G’d takes a delight in His most perfect creation, i.e. man, for whose sake the entire universe has been created. The purpose of the species is to be so governed by its intellect that it will remain free from sin just like the angels in heaven (who have no evil urge. Ed.) If, perchance, man does commit a sin, due to the evil urge which has been planted within man, it is appropriate that he repent and recognise his inadequacy vis-a-vis his Creator whose will he transgressed. Such a sinner must turn inward recognising that the sin he committed affected both his body and his spirit. Seeing that everything man does involves three components, the physical deed, the planning, and his power of speech, i.e. communicating his thoughts, the Torah commanded man to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin and to place his hands (weight) on the sacrificial animal in order to atone for the physical action involved in the sin committed. He has to confess the sin with words in order to make up for having misused the power of speech given to him when he committed a sin. He has to burn up the inner organs of the animal including the kidneys, seat of his thoughts, in order to make up for the faulty thinking which resulted in his committing a sin. In this manner the atonement will involve three stages just as commission of the sin involved three separate parts of his personality. Strictly speaking, the sinner’s own blood should have been sprinkled on the altar in order for him to obtain forgiveness; however, by performing the rites set out by the Torah, G’d, in His generosity, accounts this for the sinner as if his own blood had been sprinkled on the altar. Man is to think of these procedures in those terms when his sin-offering is being burned up. By rights, most people are guilty of the four death-penalties decreed by the Torah for a variety of sins, i.e. stoning, death by burning, death by asphyxiation, and death by the sword. When the priest takes the animal and forces it to the ground in preparation for slaughter this symbolizes the penalty of death by stoning. It is as if the sinner had agreed that he himself is deserving of this penalty. When the animal is slaughtered and its neck is severed it is as if the sinner had confessed that he himself was guilty of such a penalty. Severing of the windpipe of the slaughtered animal is equivalent to performing the death penalty by asphyxiation, whereas burning up of the fat parts, etc., is equivalent to the owner/sinner admitting that he himself was guilty of that penalty. Tanchuma Shelach 14 explains the concept of animal sacrifice in a similar way when writing about Genesis 22,13 where the Torah reports Avraham as sacrificing the ram as a burnt-offering in lieu of his son.” The word תחת used by the Torah, which we translated as “in lieu of,” is the cause of the Midrash saying that whenever Avraham prepared a part of that animal either its blood or its fat-parts, etc., he first recited a prayer beginning with the words: “may it be Your will O Lord that the sacrificial service I am about to perform should be considered as if it had been performed on my son. The animal’s blood should be considered as Yitzchak’s blood, its body which is being burned as if Yitzchak’s body had been burned.” G’d accepts the sinner’s offering in place of the sinner and grants him atonement. This is an expression of G’d’s great love for His creatures. This explanation of the purpose of sacrifice is one that satisfied one’s heart even though it appears to limit the value of animal sacrifice to sin or guilt-offerings. The fact that the Torah calls such a sacrifice as “a fire-offering of sweet odour for the Lord,” reflects the love with which G’d relates to a repentant sinner. [These sacrifices and the atonement that follows are restricted to unintentionally committed sins. Ed.] A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Pinchas 12). Assaph writes in Psalms 50,12: “if I were hungry I would not tell you, for Mine is the world and all it holds.” In verse 9 in the same psalm we read: ‘I will not take (claim) from your estate a single bull, no he-goats from your pen, for Mine is every animal of the forest, the beasts on a thousand mountains.” Rabbi Simon said thirteen different attributes of G’d’s mercy have been recorded seeing the Torah writes: “the Lord passed in front of him (Moses) etc.” (Exodus 34,6). Is there then anyone who can be called merciful if he entrusts His own food-supply to the cruel (i.e. man)? The idea that G’d would let man decide how much food and what kind of food to feed G’d is so totally ridiculous as not being worth discussing! This is the meaning of Palms 50,12, i.e. we are to read it as a question highlighting the absurdity of G’d making man the arbiter of how much He should consume! Rabbi Yehudah son of Simon said that G’d told man that He had put 10 categories of domesticated (non-carnivorous) beasts at his disposal, 3 of which were easily accessible to him i.e. oxen (cattle) sheep and goats (Deut. 14,4). The other 7 categories are: the hart, the deer, the yachmur, the akko, the dishon, the teo, and the zamir. Seeing they are difficult for you to access I have not demanded that you offer to Me the pure animals which are free-roaming. The only ones which I have asked you to use as sacrificial animals are the ones that feed on your trough, i.e. have ben domesticated by you, the ones you do not have to hunt. This is the meaning of the verse: “If I am hungry I would not tell you.” Rabbi Yitzchack drew attention to the verse in Numbers 28,2 את קרבני לחמי, “My sacrifice, My bread, etc.” Can one then speak of G’d “eating” or “drinking?” You should learn a lesson from what we know about the ministering angels. David writes in Psalms 104,4: “His messengers are fiery flames.” To the question what sustains the ministering angels, i.e. what kind of food to they subsist on, the answer given is that they are sustained by the זיו השכינה, “the brightness and splendour of the Shechinah, as we know from Proverbs 16,15 באור פני מלך חיים, “in the light of the king’s face there is life.” Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: “we can learn all this directly from what the Torah told us about Moses. We have been told in Exodus 34,28 that while Moses was on Mount Sinai he neither ate bread nor drank water. If Moses, while only on a mission for G’d did not need physical food, how much less does G’d Himself need such food? This is the meaning of “if I were hungry, I would not tell you (to supply Me.).” A rational approach: the matter of animal sacrifice and why it is useful may be understood in terms of the origin of the sin. Whether a sin is committed only in the mind or is actually carried out, the source of such sin is some spirit of impurity which has infected man’s soul. If man desires atonement for his sin it is essential that he expel this spirit of impurity first. If he succeeds in doing this he will be cleansed from his guilt. This is why in the case of a sin-offering it is incumbent upon him to offer the animal which symbolises such impurity, i.e. the goat or he-goat. When the animal is consumed the impure spirit of the sinner is consumed at the same time. and is burnt up on the altar. This is what the Talmud Yuma 21 had in mind when it spoke of “fire consuming fire,” i.e. the fire of the altar consumes the fire, (evil urge) which was burning in man when he committed the sin. This quality of the fire on the altar is so important that the Torah commanded that this fire never be allowed to go out (Leviticus 6,5 and 6,6). In the third section of Moreh Nevuchim chapter 32, item 47 Maimonides writes concerning the reason behind the animal sacrifice legislation that the Torah wanted to uproot pagan practices amongst the Jewish people and that by sublimating the animal sacrifice ritual this could be achieved. The most important part of the legislation was that instead of sacrifices of living creatures being offered to idolatrous forces in temples dedicated to forces of nature, the Jew would learn to dedicate all he had to dedicate to the one and only G’d. The idolaters had imagined that by what they were doing they could reinforce the power of their respective horoscopes by offering their sacrifices to them and that in turn their horoscopes would bestow their largess upon them or at least protect them against harmful influences. When the Egyptians worshipped the image of a sheep they did so in the knowledge that the horoscope of the sheep was of great influence in the celestial regions. They felt that the blessings bestowed on earth by means of flocks originated with that zodiac sign. It was generally perceived that essential food products such as milk, butter, etc., were all the “gift” of zodiac signs in the celestial regions. If the Egyptians did not want to be shepherds (compare Genesis 46,34), this was because they felt that acting as if they owned their “gods” was an insult to these gods who they perceived of as being the providers of their essential foodstuffs. What applied to the Egyptians and their sheep applied to the Chaldaens and their attitude to cattle. They perceived the zodiac sign of the ox to be the source responsible for their food-supply. As a result they forbade that cattle be slaughtered, and abstained from eating beef. Indians still cling to such beliefs today and do not slaughter cows, (hence the expression “holy cow.”) This is why G’d commanded that just these species be sacrificed to G’d. This is why the Torah commenced the section dealing with animal sacrifice by referring to a person’s desire to offer מן הבקר ומן הצאן, “from the cattle or the flock” (1,2). The Torah wanted to let us know that these species were considered as so important in determining the fates of the heathens of those days. Henceforth, these very species would be featured in obtaining forgiveness for the trespasses committed by the Jewish people unintentionally. Faulty philosophies, i.e. religious beliefs, can be forgiven only when one reverses course. By dedicating the very thing one used to dedicate to idolatrous causes to a sacred cause approved by G’d, or better still, commanded by G’d, atonement for one’s former errors becomes possible. Diseases of the body are healed, i.e. reversed, when the balance of the body is restored by the person suffering from the disease reversing course, i.e. negating intake of what brought on the disease, etc. The same is true for spiritual imbalances which resulted in idolatrous philosophies. The Torah’s principal concern is the combating of false philosophies, false perceptions of who rules the universe and who has created it. This is why such sacrifices became “a fire-offering of pleasant odour to the Lord.” When the people unite in order to serve the Lord instead of idols, they thereby strengthen the unity of G’d. Idolatry, by definition, is the opposite of unity, in particular of the concept of the unity of G’d. This is the approach of Maimonides and his followers to the subject of animal sacrifice. However much one might be tempted to accept Maimonides’ theory, the fact remains that righteous people long before the Torah had been given were in the habit of offering animal sacrifices not to idols- but to the one and only G’d. All of this preceded the times when idolatrous practices were introduced. Adam offered animal sacrifices (Chulin 60); Hevel, his son, also offered sheep, i.e. animal sacrifices (Genesis 4,4). Noach and his sons offered numerous animal sacrifices as thanksgiving after the deluge from which they had been saved (Genesis 8,21). G’d is on record as responding to these sacrifices by describing them as ריח ניחוח, “pleasant smelling odour.” All this occurred long before there were any Egyptians or Chaldaens. The whole subject of animal sacrifice dating back as it does to the first man is a subject replete with mystical significance. It contains hidden elements of the interrelations between different parts of G’d’s creation. We have touched upon this in the introduction to our commentary to the Torah under the heading “the fourth method.” All those who do understand these matters are duty-bound to conceal their knowledge and not publicise it indiscriminately. This knowledge may only be revealed for the sake of the Creator’s honour to selected individuals, exceptionally pious persons. David already indicated in Psalms 19,11 that the words of G’d which are sweeter than honey are for the ones who have displayed thorough understanding. Anyone lacking such attributes will find these mysteries of the Torah as exceedingly remote. These words are considered as עתיקים, dating back to primeval times (based on Chronicles I 4,22); they are like deep waters which cannot be explored by just anybody. A kabbalistic approach sees in the word קרבן itself an allusion to G’d’s Unity. The word suggests that all of G’d’s various attributes are very close to one another just as His names are very close to each other, all part of One Unity. Anyone offering a sacrifice thereby reinforces this fabric of G’d’s Unity. This is the mystical dimension of the words והקטיר הכהן את הכל המזבחה, “that the priest will ensure that the All will be going up in flames on the altar.” The additional letter ה at the end of the word המזבחה does not wish to confuse us but is meant to explain a concept. That letter represents the final letter ה in the tetragram and as such it symbolises the attribute which “receives.” It is therefore also called מזבח. From this altar ideas rise higher and higher until in the course of their “rising” they become progressively more purified, end up as מחשבה טהורה, pure thoughts. We find similar constructions both in Chronicles II 29,27 where King Chiskiyah instructed the priests to offer burnt-offerings not למזבח but להמזבח, the extra letter ה alluding to the same concept as in our verse. Another example of this concept is found in Psalms 20,4 where David speaks about the ashes of the gift-offerings being received by G’d; he says ידשנה instead of ידשן, the extra letter ה conveying the same idea as the letter ה at the end of the word המזבחה in our verse. [In his chapter on כנויים, the meanings of well-known words or terms, the author of Pardes Rimonim defines the word קרבן as another word for the Shechinah seeing that the function of the Shechinah is to gather together all the “threads” and emanations so that after being gathered together they form a unity, i.e. demonstrate that they did not exist as independent ideas, entities, but all originate in the same whole. This may make the author’s words easier to understand. Ed.] In our verse the Torah describes the result of the sacrificial rites being performed as עולה, אשה ריח ניחוח. The word עולה describes the smoke from the burned up parts of the animal rising heavenwards as far as the region represented by the letter ה in the word המזבחה which we just mentioned. Having reached that level, this very letter ה (i.e. what it represents) helps that offering to rise ever higher into the celestial regions. Once the smoke has ceased rising, the meat turns into fire; this is why the Torah added the description אשה, “a fire-offering” to the word עולה, “a burnt-offering,” which rises into celestial regions. Once the fire has burned itself out also, the whole becomes רוח spiritualised in the form of ריח, something that can neither be seen anymore, felt anymore, but can only be perceived by our sense of smell. This spirit is to “pull” the goodwill and the outpouring of it to earth via the attribute of Mercy. The whole expression ריח ניחוח לה' may be perceived as related to the word נחה, “came to rest, settled.” We find that in the discussion between the prophet Elijah with his disciple Elisha who had balked at accepting the mantle of prophecy from Elijah unless the latter endowed him with twice as much רוח, spirit, as that possessed by his master Elijah, that the Book of Kings (II 2,15 relates that Elisha’s wish was granted and that this spirit came to rest on him. In a similar way the objective of the עולה--אשה--ריח ניחוח is to result in the desired divine qualities being bestowed on those who offer the sacrifice (and the whole people in the case of a public offering). In Torat Kohanim Sifra Vayikra 1,59 the words עולה--אשה--ריח ניחוח are explained as follows: עולה לשם עולה, אשה לשם אשים,לשם ריח ניחוח, לשם נחת רוח לה', לשם מי שעשה את העולם. The meaning of this cryptic sentence is that the word עולה means that the person offering this sacrifice must intend that it reach the tenth emanation; however this does not mean it should be directed at, i.e. dedicated to that emanation. It means that from that region onwards the thoughts which prompted the offering will become capable of achieving their objective; from that region the offering will enter holy celestial domains. The words אשה לשם אשים mean that the offering be addressed to both the “weaker” and the “stronger” attribute of Justice. The meaning is parallel to the Midrash which comments on the words קרבני לחמי “did you think I need the sacrifice as My food?” The meaning is that it should serve to assuage the “injured feelings” of the attribute of Justice; the sinner had offended that attribute by committing the sin which the sacrifice is to atone for. This is all part of G’d saying לאשי, “for My fires,” you bring it to these attributes of Mine. The emanation כבוד will receive the offering from the attribute פחד. We find a parallel statement in the Midrash Zutta on Song of Songs 1,15 on the words הנך יפה רעיתי, where the author interprets the word רעיתי as equivalent to פרנסתי, “My livelihood.” According to the Midrash, G’d said to Israel: “what you are presenting to Me in the form of fire-offerings I view as if it were intended to be My food, My livelihood.” This explains the addition of the letter ה at the end of the word, as normally the word “fire” is written as אש without the letter ה at the end. The letter ה in אשה is basically as superfluous as the letter ה in Psalms 8,8 צנה ואלפים כלם, “sheep and oxen all of them.” The word אשה meaning “woman” is alluded to by the Midrash in Song of Songs which perceives the Jewish people as being G’d’s “provider” by means of their sacrifices. The Midrash reads the word isheh as if the vowel under the letter ש had been a kametz, i.e. making the word into ishah, woman, provider for her husband. Another reason why the word is not spelled merely as אש is so as to draw our attention to the “fifth” emanation (from the tenth down) the emanation of גבורה also known as האש הגדולה, the “great (consuming) fire, the fiery attribute of Justice.” Compare Deut. 5,22 where the expression האש הגדולה occurs. When the Torat Kohanim wrote the words ריח לשם ריח הניחוח, it meant that the Torah wants the person offering the sacrifice to concentrate on the heavenly source (seat of pure thoughts) from where all of G’d’s goodness is lavished on earth and G’d’s creatures. It is from that region that these intentions are drawn towards the attribute of Mercy and come to rest on there. [I believe that to sum up it is simpler to say that a sinner must first assuage the attribute of Justice before he can put the attribute of Mercy at ease. One cannot sin and by trying to bypass the attribute of Justice whom one has offended rely on the attribute of Mercy to deal with the attribute of Justice on our behalf instead of addressing it directly. Ed.] Our verse concludes with the word לה' in order to indicate that in the final analysis the goal of the sin-offering is the attribute of Mercy, as unless that attribute were involved in interceding on our behalf no one could stand up to the attribute of Justice by himself. Torat Kohanim phrased this as “to the One who created the universe,” as without the existence of and active intervention by the attribute of Mercy the world such as we know it would not endure seeing man is so sinful. We know that already when G’d created the universe using the attribute of Justice, He decided to “co-opt” the attribute of Mercy in order to ensure that the universe would endure and not self-destruct (Bereshit Rabbah 12,15, see Rashi on Genesis 1,1). Every single one of G’d’s attributes is a “beneficiary” of the sacrifices offered to G’d. This “benefit” expresses itself in different parts of G’d’s attributes drawing closer together. This is the reason why when the Torah speaks about offerings and instructs us to bring sacrifices we so often find the expression להקריב, “to bring close.” The reference is not only to the donor achieving closeness with G’d but to the various attributes of G’d to draw closer to His essence. This is the reason it is called קרבן, something which results in drawing near. It is important to appreciate the deeper meaning of the halachah expounded in Yuma 21 that although heavenly fire would consume the sacrifices on the altar, it is incumbent on the priest to also contribute man-made fire. When the two kinds of fire intermingle this is a reminder that through the act of sacrifice man can establish close bonds with the attribute of Justice. Just as the two fires become one so the will of G’d (attribute of Justice) and the will of man will become one when man has demonstrated his desire to come close to G’d and to do so by following the rules laid down by G’d. Just as the rising smoke from activities performed by man on earth comes close to G’d, so, as a result of reciprocity by G’d, His largesse will filter down to us here on earth. The important thing is to utilise the proper conduits provided for all this by the Torah. When we do so we are perceived as if lighting candles. The author illustrates the sequence of what occurs as follows: when one places two candles one on top of another, man lights the lower candle by means of his sacrifice. As the smoke from the sacrifice rises, the upper candle will be lit by the warmth of the flame contained in the smoke of the lower candle. It is also important to reflect on why the burnt-offering, עולה, always had to be a male animal, whereas the sin-offering always had to be a female animal, and the peace-offering could be either male or female. The reason is connected to the destination of the burnt-offering, עולה, which is beyond a realm in the celestial regions where male and female emanations or attributes are separated. The domains to which the עולה offering is addressed does not know the distinction of פועל ומקבל, an active and a passive, receiving agent. The peace-offering on the other hand, could be ether male or female seeing that it was addressed to the קו האמצעי, the line in the diagram of the emanations which re-unites the male and the female forces. This is also why the very term שלמים reminds us of its purpose to be משלים, to perfect, to unite that which had been apart, had been separated. I have already mentioned this on Genesis 46,1. It follows that in connection with the peace-offering the Torah writes: אם זכר אם נקבה, “be it male or female.” The reason the sin-offering must be a female animal is that it addresses the attribute שמור, a word which refers to negative commandments, commandments which are violated by not guarding, not observing them, i.e. by ignoring the commandment שמור. No activity is required to fulfill a negative commandment. One does so by remaining passive, i.e. female. An activity is required to violate it. The reverse is true of positive commandments. One has to perform an activity in order to keep a positive commandment. Remaining passive vis-a-vis a positive commandment is tantamount to violating it. This leaves us with the problem why the guilt-offering called אשם which is to atone for violating certain negative commandments had to be a male animal rather than a female. According to the logic we presented it should also be an animal of the female category. [The author’s comments on this, assuming that the אשם atones for sins for which the penalty is karet is untenable as only the חטאת atones for such sins. I have decided not to speculate and amend the author’s words but to omit them. Ed.] The sinner who has to bring an אשם in order to exonerate himself has to direct his sacrifice to a higher celestial region than people guilty of a חטאת sin-offering. Hence this sacrifice has to be a male animal. The saying of the sages in Berachot 34 that “the place where repentant sinners stand is one where even perfectly righteous people (those who never sinned) cannot stand,” is meant for the kind of people who rehabilitate themselves by means of the אשם offering.

וכרעיו, its legs.

וקרבו, “and its insides;” seeing that these parts are going to be presented at the “King’s” Table, extreme care had to be taken that everything was meticulously clean and no trace of blood was visible. On the other hand, when writing of animals which were not served up on the “King’s” Table but were burned outside sacred grounds, the Torah lumps together “its insides and its excrement,” (Leviticus 4,11) as it does in Leviticus 1,16, and 27 where flesh, skin, and excrement are all being burned at the same time and place.

And if his offering is from the flock — from the lambs or from the kids of the goats — for a burnt offering, he shall bring an unblemished male.

ואם מן הצאן AND IF [HIS OFFERING BE] OF THE SHEEP — The ו (of אם) adds something to the former subject (i. e. shows that this is a continuation of it). Why, then, is there a break between the two paragraphs (i. e. why does the following form a separate paragraph)? In order to give Moses an interval between the one section and the next section to reflect upon what has already been said (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 5 1). מן הצאן, מן הכבשים, מן העזים — You have here these three words of limitating force (the three — fold “מן”; cf. Note on v. 1); they serve respectively to exclude an old, a sick and a malodorous animal from those that may be sacrificed (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 5 2; Bekhorot 41a).

AND IF HIS OFFERING BE OF THE FLOCK. This section deals with the burnt-offering of the flock, and the law thereof is in every detail like that of the burnt-offering of the herd. That is why He shortened here the command, and did not mention “and he shall lay his hands” [upon the offering], nor “and it will be acceptable” [as mentioned above]. He said here in addition, however, that it be slaughtered on the side of the altar, northward before the Eternal, in order to explain that the expression before the Eternal mentioned in connection with the bullock means the side of the altar northward. The meaning of yerech [of the altar] is “the side” of the altar, and in the northerly direction. The verse thus teaches that the ramp of the altar was on the south side, where the front of the altar was, concerning which it is said, before the Eternal, in front of the altar. I have already explained the reason why the slaughtering was to be done on the north side. Scripture states without specification, round about the altar, for the reference is to the altar mentioned above, that is at the door of the Tent of Meeting. It does not state [in this section] and he shall flay it, since it has already been mentioned [in the preceding section]. It states and the priest shall set them in order, to teach us that it is sufficient if one priest attends [to all the acts of the offering of the burnt-offering brought by an individual] as I have explained, for the sections on the offerings complement each other, the points not mentioned in one being explained in the other.

ואם מן הצאן קרבנו, If his offering consists of the category of sheep or goats, etc. Torat Kohanim remarks cryptically that the word ואם, in this verse [actually I think it would be better to say "the letter ו in the word ואם," Ed.] informs us of something additional to what we have learned about the עולה. What the author of Torat Kohanim means is that all the details mentioned in connection with a burnt-offering consisting of cattle and not repeated in this paragraph are nonetheless also applicable when the burnt-offering consists of צאן. Examples are the need to perform סמיכה, etc. This word ואם is also used to deduce that rules which are mentioned here for the first time, such as that the sheep used as burnt-offering is to be slaughtered on the northern side of the altar, apply equally to burnt-offerings consisting of cattle. The basic exegetical approach of Torat Kohanim is to use all those words which appear to be repeated unnecessarily for a halachic דרוש. Torat Kohanim concludes: "why did the Torah then interrupt the previous paragrah and write a new paragraph altogether [if we treat the letter ו as making a single paragraph out of the two for exegetical purposes. Ed]? Answer: "in order to give Moses a breather during which time he could assimilate all the information he had just been given." Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi questions that apparently Torat Kohanim would not have queried the fact that verses 10-13 are a new paragraph if the Torah had not introduced it with the letter ו in the word ואם. How is this possible, he asks, seeing that the same Torat Kohanim on verse 1 (3,1) which deals with the meaning of the word ויקרא wrote as follows: "I might have thought that a "call" preceded every communication to Moses even including the separate paragraphs, הפסקות? Therefore the Torah wrote וידבר, to teach us that "calls" preceded דבור but not every paragraph which was a brief interruption of the same communication. What were the reasons for these הפסקות, brief interruptions? To give Moses a chance to assimilate the information he had been taught in the previous paragraph. Thus far the Torat Kohanim." This proves that such הפסקות, short intervals between different parts of the same communication, served to give Moses a breather even when the Torah did not introduce them by an otherwise superfluous letter ו. Rabbi Mizrachi proceeds to answer the question he posed. His words do not appeal to me. [The author refers to the question of Rabbi Mizrachi; he does not even relate to his answer to a question he does not perceive to have any merit in the first place. Ed.] I believe that when Torat Kohanim on verse 1 stated that unless the Torah had linked the paragraphs by an otherwise superfluous letter ו in our paragraph, I would have concluded that the reason for the הפסקה was not to enable Moses to assimilate the information G'd had given him but to warn Moses not to arrive at הלכות by a merely exegetical approach. The fact that the Torah introduced our ...

ואם מן הצאן קרבנו, “and if the donor chose to offer an animal from his herd;” the following rules do not apply to animals stolen by the donor. מן הכבשים או מן העזים, “either from his sheep or his goats;” according to the Sifra this excludes animals born from crossbreeding.

ואם מן הצאן , “and if from the category of flocks, etc.” Seeing that the halachic procedures when offering a member of the category known as “flocks,” is the same as that for offering bulls, the only thing emphasised here is that the slaughtering will take place on the northern side of the altar. The use of the singular mode וערך הכהן, as opposed to the normal plural mode וערכו הכהנים, indicates that from an halachic point of view a single priest is enough to perform all the procedures listed.

And he shall slaughter it on the north side of the altar before Hashem, and the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall dash its blood upon the altar all around.

על ירך המזבח means ON THE SIDE OF THE ALTAR (cf. Rashi on Exodus 40:22). 'צפנה לפני ה NORTHWARD BEFORE THE LORD — but the law of slaughtering northward is not necessarily applicable in the case of a “Bamah” (i. e. an animal offered on a “Bamah” as an עולה need not be slaughtered at its north side, for it states here: northward before the Lord, the last words being used only of the Tabernacle and the Temple; cf. Zevachim 119b and Rashi on 'לפני ה וסמך, v. 3).

"On the side (יֶרֶךְ) of the altar" — meaning the outer part, as in "the far sides (יַרְכְּתֵי) of the north"; for many erred and said that the tower of Zion was within [the city of] Jerusalem.

ושחט אותו וגו, “he is to slaughter it, etc.;” the word אותו implies that the animal which is a burnt offering is to be slaughtered on the northern side of the altar, whereas offerings such as peace offerings, or bird offerings or firstborn animals, tithed animals, and the Passover, cannot be slaughtered on the north side of the altar. (Menachot 56) על ירך המזבח, near the side of the altar; the word: על is to be understood as in Exoduss 40,3: וסכות על הארון, “you will use it as a screen (next to it) for the Holy Ark.” ירך המזבח צפונה, “the side of the altar must be to the north of it, in other words: the front of the altar is to the south of it. This teaches that the ramp leading up to the altar was on the south side of the Tabernacle. (Compare Zevachim 62) צפונה לפני ה, the northern side of the Tabernacle did not have any part of the altar facing it. This rule also applied to the burnt offering of the species of cattle, as the expression: 'לפני ה, is used there also. If the priest had slaughtered that animal on the south side of the altar, this could not properly be described as “facing the Lord,” as no part of the southern part the altar faced the Tabernacle. [only the ramp leading up to it. Ed.] Seeing that the northern part of the Tabernacle was not impeded by priests walking by there, it could be described as פנוי, “always exposed to view.” When slaughtering animals which required to be done on the north side of the altar, this part of the altar faced the Holy of Holies, or 'לפני ה. [The length of the ramp alone proceeding from the southern side of the Tabernacle, was 32 cubits before it reached the altar itself. Ed.] This is based on the Torah having written: במקום אשר תשחט העולה תשחט את החטאת, “ (Leviticus 6,18) It is also written: כי כחטאת האשם, “for the sin offering is treated like the guilt offering.” (Leviticus 14,13.) The principal purpose of these sacrifices was for the sake of heaven. On the other hand, sacrifices known under the heading of kodoshim kalim, sacred gifts of a lower level of holiness, the Torah did not specify the exact location where these had to be slaughtered. [These included thanksgiving offerings, the Passover lamb, the ram offered by a Nazarene at the conclusion of his term, peace offerings, firstling animals etc. The reason is that the greater part of the offering was consumed by the donor and the priests. Ed.]

על ירך המזבח צפונה, “on the side of the altar, at the northern side.” Our sages (Baba Batra 25) say that the world is like a small house and the north wind can turn only inside its confines. It is just like a three-legged stool which cannot stand properly and requires a fourth leg (Berachot 32). The sacrifices may be viewed as if they supplied the fourth leg for the stool called the universe. This is also the meaning of Psalms 48,3 that ירכתי צפון קרית מלך רב, Mount Zion, summit of Zaphon, city of a great king.” [without Mount Zion the world would not be able to function properly. Ed.] When the Mishnah in Zevachim 47 asks “where is the correct site to slaughter the sacrificial animals?” The answer given is that the most sacred sacrifices had to be slaughtered on the north side of the altar. Surely it is preposterous to assume that the editor of that Mishnah did not know something as elementary as this, i.e. that these animals had to be slaughtered in the holy precincts of the Temple! However, the inquiry concerned in which direction of the precincts of the Temple (on which side) did this slaughtering have to take place? The scholar editing the Mishnah answers that it had to take place on the north side (if the animals were of the type called קדשי קדשים, the most sacred ones). The Mishnah cites our verse here where the north side is made mandatory for the slaughtering of the עולה offering, one of those called קדשי קדשים as proof.. When the Mishnah continues that the blood of the עולה has to be sprinkled על בין הבדים, “between and above the staves,” the meaning is that the officiating priest has to stand between the staves of the Holy Ark while sprinkling both above and below the thickness of the kapporet. In other words, the blood had to be sprinkled in the direction where the Shechinah was located between the outstretched wings of the cherubs. This corresponds to what is written in Song of Songs 1,13 בין שדי ילין, literally: (“he will sleep between my breasts”). However, the words בין שדי derive their profound meaning from the individual letters of the expression. The letters ש-ד refer to the שני בדים, two staves by means of which the Ark was carried. The whole expression is to be viewed as an allegorical comparison of the intimacy which existed between G’d and the Jewish people. We are told in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 3 that four directions (of the compass) were created in the world. Light originates from the east; beneficial dew as well as beneficial rains originate in the south, whereas snow, hail, cold and heat and normal rain originate in the west. Whereas G’d had “created” i.e. initiated the north also, He did not assign to it any specific function. G’d reputedly said that anyone who claimed to be a deity should prove his ability by assigning a useful function to the north, i.e. the corner of the universe that He had left incomplete. A kabbalistic approach: the word צפונה is a reference to the attribute of גבורה, i.e. it is meant to be perfected still. [In order for man to perfect himself, such as to atone for his sins, he needs to turn northwards. Ed.] This is what is meant in Zevachim 53 that the officiating priest ascended the ramp called כבש, i.e. that the entire structure (the world) was called כבש. [The priest’s actions were perceived as steps in bringing completion and perfection to our terrestrial universe by means of ceremonies and rituals performed as part of the sacrificial rites. The Kabbalah sees in the walk around the altar by the priest and in the direction in which he walks such symbolic significance. Ed.] Avraham’s journey through the Holy Land described in Genesis 12,9 mentioning also a southward journey is considered a parallel to the priest’s manner of walking on the altar when performing his service in the Temple. The priest awakens the attribute of חסד, love, in G’d. This is why he has to start out in the south (like Avraham proceeding southwards. This means that Avraham embarked on his mission for mankind from a southerly direction.) Having aroused G’d’s love he turns to the east the seat of תפארת, the emanation harmony from where the attribute of Mercy emerges. From there he turns northwards in order to make his peace also with the attribute of גבורה, the attribute of Justice. From the north he turns westwards the site of the emanation מלכות, the emanation representing the עולם העשיה, our terrestrial part of the universe. This is the deeper meaning of the statement by our sages in Baba Batra 25 that the Shechinah resides in the west. Having completed this circle, he addresses himself to the world of the angels, the disembodied creatures. As a result of the priest’s performing this procedure the terrestrial world will enjoy G’d’s blessing. Having reached the westernmost part of his walk, the priest returns to the south, the place from which he started out at the base of the כבש.

And he shall cut it into its pieces, along with its head and its fat, and the priest shall arrange them upon the wood that is on the fire that is upon the altar.

ונתח אותו, “after it has been cut up;” This had to be stated explicitly in order that we do not think that only the large animals, i.e. bullocks, require to be cut up. No mention is made of these animals being flayed, as it was taken for granted by the Torah that the reader understands this.

And the innards and the legs he shall rinse with water, and the priest shall bring it all forward and cause it to go up in smoke upon the altar — it is a burnt offering, an offering accepted with favor before Hashem.

והקריב הכהן את הכל והקטיר, "and the priest shall offer it all and burn it up, etc." We have been told the very same thing already in the first paragraph dealing with the burnt-offering consisting of cattle. Why then did the Torah have to write this line? We cannot say that inasmuch as sheep are covered with wool the Torah wanted to include the wool in the part of the animal to be burnt up and that we could not have deduced the wool on the head of the ram and the hair of the beard of the billy-goat without a special verse, and that all these details could not have been derived from the word הכל in verse nine. The fact is that Torat Kohanim (4,57) derives the inclusion of these various kinds of animal hair in what is to be burned up from the word הכל in verse nine! Therefore, according to what we have stated that any detail applicable to burnt-offerings involving cattle applies also to burnt-offerings involving sheep, there was no need for the Torah to write a special verse containing this information! Furthermore, in our verse here the word הכל appears only next to the expression הקרבה, not to the הקטרה, the burning up of all these parts on the altar; our sages here in Torat Kohanim claim that the position of the word הכל teaches that only a priest may perform this service (bringing the animal to be burnt onto the altar), something we could not have deduced from what was written in verse 9. This makes the argument that the words from והקטיר המזבחה onwards in our verse are superfluous even stronger. I believe we can best explain the reason for these words here by reference to what Torat Kohanim wrote on the words והקטיר המזבחה in our verse. I quote: "he shall burn it up even though it may have become disqualified, even though it may have left the precincts of the Tabernacle (courtyard), even though the priest offering it may have had the wrong thoughts (פגול) already during the earlier stages of offering this sacrifice, and even if it had become ritually defiled. As a result of all these inclusions I might have concluded that the burning up ceremony should take place regardless of whether the disqualifying factors had occurred before the animal was on the altar or while it was still below the altar; therefore the Torah writes והקטיר המזבחה, he is to burn it up only if it had already been on top of the altar." It is difficult to know what is the source for the author of Torat Kohanim to derive the ruling that even if the sacrifice was already disqualified the priest must still burn up its parts. The author of Korban Aharon, aware of this problem, wrote that the fact that the Torah did not write והקטירם, "and he is to burn them up" [seeing the Torah had already written "all" concerning the הקרבה Ed.] is the source of the ruling by Torat Kohanim. If this were correct the author of Korban Aharon should have reacted similarly to the word והקריב instead of והקריבם. According to Korban Aharon, Torat Kohanim should have ruled that the priest ought to pr...

והקריב הכהן את הכל, “the priest is to offer up the whole;” the phrase refers to the priest carrying all the various pieces to be burned up on the ramp to the altar.

And if his offering before Hashem is a burnt offering from birds, he shall bring his offering from the turtledoves or from the young pigeons.

מן העוף [AND IF A BURNT OFFERING … BE] OF FOWLS — of (i.e. of some of) but not of every description of fowls (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1.2 and Rashi on Leviticus 1:10). Since Scripture states, (Leviticus 22:19) “[Ye shall offer, to be accepted for you,] a male without blemish (תמים זכר) of the oxen, of the sheep and of the goats”, it is evident (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1.2 and Rashi on Leviticus 1:10) that unblemished condition and male sex in sacrifices are required only in the case of cattle, but unblemished condition and male sex are not required in the case of fowls. If, then, the condition of the fowl is immaterial one might think that a fowl may be brought as a sacrifice even if it lacks a limb! Scripture therefore states: “of fowls” — but not all fowls (Sifra, Emor, Section 7 2; Kiddushin 24b). התרים TURTLEDOVES — Grown-up ones only may be offered but not young ones. בני יונה YOUNG DOVES — Young doves only may be offered but not grown-up ones (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 8 4; Chullin 22a). מן התרים או מן בני היונה OF TURTLEDOVES AND OF YOUNG DOVES — The word מן is intended to exclude birds in the first stage of their plumage becoming golden-coloured in the case of the one as of the other, for this stage makes the bird unfit for sacrifice, since such a bird is a grown-up one in the case of בני יונה and a young one in the case of תורים (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 8 5; Chullin 22b).

OF TURTLEDOVES OR OF YOUNG PIGEONS. Scripture chose these two species [of birds] because they are accessible and can be more easily caught than other [birds], just as our Rabbis have mentioned with reference to any of the sheep, and any of the goats, that [Scripture chose these species so that] a person should be able to bring an offering from those animals that feed at his crib, and should not have to take his weapons, quiver and bow, to go out on the hunt to bring it. He chose grown-up turtledoves because they abstain [from pairing with strangers] and attach themselves only to their mates, and once they lose their companions they never associate with others. So Israel cleave to the Eternal their G-d, and never attach themselves to another deity, Pigeons, on the other hand, are very jealous and as a result of their jealousy they part [from their previous mates] and take on other mates. Therefore He chose them [as offerings] only when they are young, before their mating begins, for as long as the pigeon is young it is attached with greater love to the nest where it is reared than are all other fowls. Our Rabbis have mentioned that if a person touches the nest of all other fowls to take therefrom the young ones or the eggs, they leave it and never nest therein again, but the pigeon never abandons it under any condition. And so is [the people of] Israel. They will never exchange their Creator and His Torah, but “either Jews or nailed to the stake.” He did not choose cocks [as offerings although they are readily accessible] because of their inclination to lewdness. Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim that the reason for choosing grown-up turtledoves and young pigeons as offerings is that these are the best of their species, since old pigeons are less tasty. But this is not true, for young pigeons are almost inedible as a result of their excessive moistness. If, however, we are to take into consideration their natural tendencies as far as eating them is concerned, it is possible that they were chosen for their special qualities; for turtledoves have a propensity to sharpening of the mind, and young pigeons have a propensity to benefit greatly those who are not fully-matured physically, such as youths in the intermediate stage between boyhood and maturity, and the like.

"From the turtledoves" — [these are] the mature ones, not the young. "Young doves" — to exclude the mature [doves]; therefore it did not say simply "doves" [without qualification].

ואם מן העוף, and if it is from the category of birds, etc. The letter ו in the word ואם means that the rules mentioned previously as applicable to burnt-offerings of four-legged animals apply also to burnt-offerings consisting of birds unless they are specifically negated by what is written in this paragraph. Amongst the differences are: 1) a bird cannot serve as any offering other than a burnt-offering. We derive this from the word העוף עולה as distinct from the descriptions used for burnt-offerings of four-legged animals in the previous two paragraphs. Alternatively, the very word עולה is superfluous and comes to tell us that it is the only kind of offering that can be offered using birds. 2) We also use the word קרבנו restrictively, i.e. that only an individual can offer a burnt-offering consisting of a bird, not a community. 3) the rule that instead of slaughtering the bird it must have its head pinched off is applicable only to a priest, whereas the parallel act of slaughtering the four-legged animal designated as a burnt-offering may be performed also by a non-priest, an Israelite. In instances where in the previous two paragraphs some details have been repeated needlessly, this means that they applied only to the burnt-offering consisting of four-legged animals. The other details, each of which appears in only one of the previous two paragraphs, apply equally to burnt-offerings consisting of birds. Examples of exclusions which are derived from the respective paragaphs are: animals which have been mated with other species, animals set aside to serve as sacrifice for an idol; animals which had been used for idolatrous purposes, animals which are טרפה, have a terminal defect; diseased animals, over-age animals; stolen animals. All of the aforesaid are unfit to serve as burnt-offerings, or as any other offering. All of these examples are listed in the fourth chapter of Maimonides' treatise Issurey Hamizbeach. קרבנו לשם, his offering to G'd. The reason the Torah adds these words here whereas they did not appear in the previous two paragraphs is that the Torah included birds which have certain physical defects as fit to serve as a sacrifice, something which is not the case with offerings consisting of four-legged animals. The source of this halachah is Kidushin 24: אין זכרות ותמות בעוף; "the requirement that sacrificial burnt-offerings be male and free from physical blemish does not apply to burnt-offerings consisting of birds." In view of this relaxation of certain rules when an offering consists of a bird, logic would have told us that any bird-offering is of an inferior nature, why else would the Torah permit a blemished bird to serve as an offering? The Torah therefore had to tell us that as far as G'd is concerned, קרבנו לשם the bird-offering is equally esteemed in the eyes of the Lord. We find support for our view from Isaiah 57,15 where the prophet describes G'd as especially close to the "contrite and lowly in spirit," and our sages i...

ואם מן העוף, if the offering consists of a bird or birds; the word מן “from,” here means that not every part of a bird is fit to be offered up. If the bird in question is missing one of its limbs it is not fit to be offered up as a sacrifice. (Sifra) העוף עולה, a bird does not qualify as a peace offering, i.e. a creature which is partially consumed by the donor or the priest. (Sifra) העוף עולה קרבנו, the personal pronoun at the end of the word קרבנו, “his,” teaches that birds may only be offered by individuals, not by a group of individuals. (Sifra) והקריב, “then he shall bring;” the connective letter ו at the beginning of this word indicates that the Torah speaks of two people having shared in paying for this offering. [Two partners are not considered a group which the Torah had stated as unable to share in the cost of one bird. Ed.] מן התורים, “from the turtledoves;” even if these have already fully matured. The reason that the Torah uses the word התורים in the plural mode, is that when the mate of one of the turtledoves has died, the surviving dove is not suitable as a sacrifice anymore as it will not mate with another dove of the gender to the dead dove. (Talmud tractate Eyruvin, folio 100) או מבני היונה, “or from immature pigeons.” Seeing that a fully mature pigeon is gullible, it does not have a “heart” so that if its mate dies it does not mind mating with another member of its species. Hence the Torah permits only very young pigeons to be offered as a sacrifice. Seeing that these two categories of birds are more persecuted than any other creature, G-d selected them to serve as sacrifices on behalf of man. (Compare Talmud tractate Baba Kamma, folio 93.)

מן התורים או מן בני היונה, “from the turtledoves or the pigeons.” According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah first mentions the fully grown birds of the species, i.e. the turtledoves, as they mate and represent דבקות, the attachment of the Jewish people to its partner, i.e. G’d. It is a remarkable fact that when a female turtledove has lost its mate it will never mate again. Similarly, Israel, having once established an intimate relationship with G’d will never exchange Him for any other deity. This is the reason why under-age doves are not considered as fit to serve as an offering. On the other hand, mature pigeons are not fit to serve as an offering as they have developed a sense of jealousy, having mated, and therefore represent the opposite of דבקות, attachment. Jealousy is the cause of separation, friction etc.; it is not a characteristic we wish to draw attention to when offering a sacrifice to G’d. When pigeons are offered, the halachah insists that they be young ones which have not yet mated. The reason that the Torah did not permit chickens to serve as sacrifices although they are pure birds and serve as our food, is because they mate indiscriminately, unlike the turtledoves and pigeons. Neither roosters nor hens keep faith with their partners. A kabbalistic approach: Turtledoves originate in water. The mature ones have been selected to serve as sacrifices to demonstrate the need for the attribute of חסד in all aspects of life on earth. The pigeon’s origin is fire. Concerning the יונה, pigeon, David writes in Psalms 68,14 ואברותיה בירקרק חרוץ, “its pinions in fine gold,” the golden colour around the neck of mature pigeons represent the negative characteristic of man pursuing gold as a material asset. Gold’s colour simulates the colour of fire. The repetition of the letters רק in ירקרק alludes to the severity of the Judgment. On account of such considerations mature pigeons, may not serve as a sacrifice. Young pigeons are acceptable as they have not yet displayed features that remind us of negative characteristics when found in man.

מן התורים או מן היונים, “from the turtledoves or from young doves.” Nachmanides writes that the reason the Torah selected only these two birds as suitable for bird-offerings, out of a vast amount of biologically suitable birds, [there being only 24 categories of predatory birds which are disqualified by their inherent unsuitability, the Torah referring to them as “impure,” Ed.] is that they have a degree of domesticity in common with the three categories of ruminants which are suitable for sacrifice. Any of the species mentioned can be raised by man in his backyard quite easily, and he does not have to hunt for them when he is in need of offering them as a sacrifice. (Vayikra Rabbah 27,6) The reason why, apparently, G’d prefers the fully grown turtledoves as sacrificial birds, is that these have demonstrated a degree of chastity in their sex lives, and if one loses its mate, it is a well known fact that it does not mate again ever. In this example of undying loyalty to a life’s partner, they resemble the Jewish people, who, having chosen G’d as their “partner,” will never consider trading Him for another. On the other hand, the young doves, יונים, are very jealous by nature, as a result of which they frequently exchange mates, more so even than other species of birds. None of the members of this species are acceptable as sacrificial birds, except the very young, ones that have not yet had a chance to display their indiscriminate sexual habits. While very young, these doves display exceptional patience in staying in their nests, not feeling the urge to explore the world around them. Chickens, though also domesticated, as they cannot fly, are rejected as potential sacrifices due to their promiscuity.

And the priest shall bring it to the altar and pinch off its head and cause it to go up in smoke upon the altar, and its blood shall be drained out against the wall of the altar.

והקריבו [AND THE PRIEST] SHALL OFFER IT — It — even a single bird he may offer (not necessarily more than one, as might be assumed from the plural תורים and בני יונה) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 1; Zevachim 65a). הכהן … ומלק THE PRIEST SHALL … NIP OFF [ITS HEAD] — The nipping of the bird’s head must not be done with an instrument but by the priest’s very self:) he nips with his finger-nail close by the nape, cuts right through the neck-bone until he comes to the “organs” (the wind pipe and the gullet) and cuts them through too (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 3; Zevachim 65a). ונמצה דמו AND THE BLOOD THEREOF SHALL BE WRUNG OUT — The word ונמצה is connected in meaning with (Proverbs 30:33) “the pressing out (מיץ) of wrath”; (Isaiah 16:4) “for extortion (המץ) is at an end). — He presses the place where the neck has been cut (בית השחיטה) against the wall and the blood thus drains itself out) and runs down the wall (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 7; Zevachim 64b). ומלק … והקטיר …ונמצה AND HE SHALL NIP OFF … AND CAUSE IT TO ASCEND IN FUMES … AND [THE BLOOD] SHALL BE WRUNG OUT — Is it possible to say so? Since he has burnt it can he squeeze the blood out?! But the wording is intended to suggest the following: How is it with the burning of the sacrifice? The head is separate and the body is separate (since it states here ומלק את ראשו והקטיר, and in v. 17 it is enjoined והקטיר אתו i. e. the body; vv. 16—17 speaking of the rites performed on the body)! So, too, the nipping has to be thus (i. e. has to have the effect of severing the head from the body so that it may be burnt apart from the body; the מליקה accordingly denotes here complete severance, whilst in 5:8 this is forbidden. The translation therefore is: and he shall nip off the head so that he may burn it on the altar) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 5; Zevachim 65a). According to the literal sense of the verse, however, the wording is inverted: he shall nip off [the head] and burn it, and before the burning the blood shall have been pressed out already (ונמצה has therefore a future-perfect meaning: “and its blood shall have been pressed out”).

AND THE PRIEST SHALL BRING IT UNTO THE ALTAR. This “bringing” means bringing it up onto the altar, signifying that the priest is to bring up the bird onto the altar and nip off its head there, as the nipping off may only be done on top of the altar. It is for this reason that the Rabbis interpreted: “And the priest shall bring it … Could you possibly think that a non-priest could come near the altar? If so, why does it say the priest … shall nip off? It is to teach us that the nipping off be done [not with an instrument but] only by the priest himself.” “And he shall nip off … and cause it to ascend in fumes … and the blood thereof shall be wrung out. Is it possible to say that after he has burnt it, he should squeeze the blood out? But [the order of the wording] is to teach us that just as the burning of the head is to be done separately [as is indicated here in the verse, and he shall nip off its head, and cause it to ascend in fumes], and that of the body is to be done separately [as is stated further on in Verse 17: and he shall cleave it … and cause it to ascend in fumes], so also the nipping off has to be done in this way, the head separately and the body separately. The plain meaning of the verse, however, is that the wording is to be inverted: and he shall nip off and cause it to ascend in fumes, and before the burning its blood shall have been wrung out.” This is Rashi’s language. Now it is impossible to say [that the order of the verse can be explained to mean] that he should nip off its head and burn it, and afterwards wring the blood of the body on the wall of the altar and then burn the body, since no limbs of any offering may ever be burnt [on the altar] before the sprinkling of the blood, the principle for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life applying to all offerings. Therefore the Rabbis interpreted the verse [to mean] that Scripture intended only to liken the nipping off to the burning, so that in both cases the head should be treated by itself and the body by itself. The plain sense of the verse, however, is that “he should nip off its head in order to burn it on the altar,” thus teaching that the nipping off should be done in order to burn the head [separately, and not dispose of it otherwise], just as he will burn the body, concerning which He said, and the priest shall cause it to ascend in fumes, for such is Scriptures’ way of speaking about all offerings, as I have explained in connection with the severance into pieces of the burnt-offering. However, Scripture states here, and the priest shall cause it to ascend in fumes, and did not say “and he shall cause all to ascend” [as it said above in Verse 9, in the case of the burnt-offering of the herd], because [here in the case of the burnt-offering of the fowl] the burning thereof was done in two separate stages: first he burnt the head, and then he removed the crop [from the body], and cleft it by the wings, and then he burnt the body, as we have be...

"And he shall pinch off" (וּמָלַק) — this word has no parallel in Scripture, and the law of the pinching is derived from oral tradition. "And its blood shall be drained out" (וְנִמְצָה דָמוֹ) — this is in the nif'al binyan, derived from the root מצית.

ומלק, “and he will pinch off;” the priest himself, i.e. with his own hands, on the top of the altar; he was not to use a tool such as a knife. This is in consonance with the commandment that in building the altar, no iron tool, sword, knife, was to be used, as the altar is designed to prolong man’s life, whereas the knife or sword is used to shorten man’s life. [What makes sense when building an altar makes even better sense in the procedures to be performed on the altar. Ed.] Just as the act of pinching mentioned in chapter5,8, was performed at the neck, so here too the Torah refers to the bird’s neck being pinched off. (Sifra there) The head is not to be completely severed, however. ראשו והקטיר, just as find that the delivering the head to be burned on the altar was performed by the priest’s hands, no other instrument or container, and the bird’s body was placed on the altar by the priest’s hands, so the “slaughtering” of the two vital tubes that lead to the head was also performed by the priest’s hands. This had to be done in this way in order to prevent the head being accidentally severed from its body by a knife. ונמצה דמו, “and its blood shall be drained;” all of its blood. How could this be accomplished? The priest would hold the bird’s body by it skin to ensure it would not be cut in half completely; in this way the blood would seep out from either side of where the priest held the skin in his hands. We have a tradition that anything that disqualifies a four legged animal from becoming an acceptable sacrifice, does so also if its counterpart on the bird is defective, i.e. improperly treated by the priest. On the other hand, anything that does not invalidate the sacrifice of a fourlegged animal, for instance the skin, does not invalidate the bird offering either if it had been treated incorrectly. ונמצה דמו על קיר המזבח, “and the blood thereof shall be drained out on the side of the altar.” Seeing that if this procedure would be performed by the priest holding a bowl, the amount of blood secured would be minimal, there would not be enough to pick it out of that bowl and to perform the sprinkling of the blood on the top of the altar, the Torah decreed the method described. (B’chor shor)

והקריבו הכהן אל המזבח, “ the priest will present it to the altar.” This “הקרבה” consists of the priest raising the bird onto the altar before nipping its head. ומלק, “and he will nip,” והקטיר, “and cause it to go up in smoke,” ונמצה דמו, “and squeeze out its blood.” It is impossible to explain this verse in the sequence the procedures are described, i.e. to cause the head of the bird to go up in smoke and to squeeze out its blood after that, followed by the burning up of the rest of its body. We find no instance in which atonement is effected through burning up the body parts before the blood has been utilized in that process. Therefore, our sages (Zevachim 65) interpreted this verse as only drawing a conceptual link, הקש, between the performance of the nipping of the bird’s head and the procedure known as הקטרה, burning it up so that it goes up in smoke. Just as the burning up of the head of the bird and the rest of its body are two independent procedures, so the nipping of the head and the squeezing out of the blood from the rest of the body are two separate independent procedures. According to the plain meaning of the text, we have to understand that the nipping of the bird’s head and the burning up of it on the altar, precede one another, as the priest had already burned up the rest of the bird’s body. The reason why the Torah writes here: (verse 17) והקטיר אותו הכהן, [where the word הכהן appears completely redundant, Ed.] instead of writing והקטיר את הכל, as the Torah did when describing the parallel procedure for four legged beasts (verse 9), is because in this instance the parts that were to be burned up were in fact not all burned up at the same time. After having burned up the head, the priest proceeded to remove the bird’s crop with its feathers, for instance. ונמצה דמו, “having pressed out its blood.” As opposed to the burnt offerings of the ruminants, no mention is made here of the blood from the area where the slaughtering had been performed being caught up in a special pan. The reason is that the quantity of blood involved was too miniscule to be usefully accumulated within such a pan. On the contrary, this blood would stick to the walls of the pan, and there would not be any blood left to sprinkle on the wall of the altar

ומלק, our sages explain exactly how this was done. (compare Chulin 8) They base their exegesis on the wording of ומלק את ראשו instead of ומלק אותו, which would have been the parallel of the words ושחט אותו, which the Torah uses to describe the killing of the four-legged sacrificial animal. Dunash [Dunash ben Labrat, a tenth century grammarian born in Fez, disciple of Rabbi Saadyah Gaon. Ed.] explains that a further proof of the correctness of our sages’ exegesis is that they had been eye witnesses of the manner in which the birds’ throat and spine would be snipped with the fingernail of the priest, etc. ונמצה, this term is appropriate when speaking of something soft, as we know from Isaiah 51,17 את קובעת כוס התרעלה שתית מצית, “who have drunks the dregs of the cup,” or Psalms 75,9 אך שמריה ימצו, “Only its dregs will they drain.”

ונמצה דמו על קיר המזבח, “and its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar.” Seeing we speak about a minute amount of blood, no special bowl had been used in first collecting it. Had it first been collected in a bowl there would not have been enough left over to sprinkle it, hence it was squeezed out against the side of the altar.

And he shall remove its crop with its contents and cast it beside the altar, on the east side, to the place where the ashes are deposited.

מראתו [AND HE SHALL REMOVE] ITS CROP — The word is connected in meaning with the word רעי in Rabbinical Hebrew (or the Biblical ראי; cf. Nahum 3:6); it thus denotes the place of the רעי, the digested food, i. e. the crop (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 9). בנצתה means together with its entrails (not with its feathers which meaning the word נוצה usually has). The word נוצה is really an expression for anything that is loathsome. Similar is (Lamentations 4:15) “[depart, depart, touch not:] for they are become loathsome (נצו) and are fled away”.) That is also what Onkelos means when he translates באוכליה, “with the digested food” found in the entrails (excrement). This, too, is the interpretation of the verse given by Abba José ben Chanan who states: he removes the stomach (being the organ which contains digested food) together with it (the crop). But our Rabbis, of blessed memory, taking נוצה; in its usual sense of “feathers”, say: with a knife he cuts out around the crop an opening like a flap and removes it together with the feathers on the skin (of that spot) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 9; Zevachim 65a). — In the case of the burnt offering of the cattle which eats only from the crib of its owner it is stated, (v. 13) “But he shall lave the inwards and the legs with water: and [the priest] shall offer it”; in the case of a fowl, however, which feeds itself from what it picks up of other people’s property (lit., “of robbery”) it states, “he shall cast the entrails away”, because it (the bird) eats that which is stolen (Leviticus Rabbah 3 4). אצל המזבח קדמה BESIDE THE ALTAR ON THE EAST — i. e. at the east of the כבש (the inclined ascent leading to the top of the altar which was on the south of the altar) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 9 3). אל מקום הדשן BY THE PLACE OF THE ASHES — i. e. that place where they deposited the ashes removed from the altar (תרומת הדשן) each morning (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 6:3, 4) and the ashes removed from the inner altar and the candelabrum (Meilah 12a;Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 9 3). All these miraculously sunk there in their place (i. e. on the very spot where they were deposited) (Yoma 21a).

AND HE SHALL REMOVE ‘ETH MURATHO B’NOTZATHAH.’ “Muratho refers to the place of the digested food, namely ‘its crop.’ B’notzathah means ‘together with its entrails.’ The word notzah is a term for anything which is loathsome. Similarly: for ‘natzu’ (they are become loathsome) and are wandered away. That is what Onkelos intended in translating ‘b’notzathah’ as b’uchleih (with its digested food). This is also the interpretation of Aba Yosei ben Chanan who said that he removes the stomach together with it [i.e., the crop]. But our Rabbis have said: he cuts out with a knife an opening around the crop like a flap, and removes it together with the feathers [on the skin].” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct. For the word notzah in all places only means actual feathers. Similarly, for ‘natzu’ and are wandered away means that they have acquired feathers [wings] to fly away from their places and go into exile, and there too they will [constantly] wander, not finding a resting-place. Similarly: for ‘natzoh’ (she must fly away) and get away. The Jerusalem Targum rendered [the above-mentioned verse: for ‘natzu’ and are wandered away]: “for they are ‘quarrelsome’ and have also wandered away.” The Targum thus derived the word natzu from the expression, when men ‘yinatzu’ (strive) together, and the verse is thus stating that “they strive with all the nations and wander away from them, and do not continue to live among them.” This is a correct interpretation. But the word notzah in the sense of “loathsome” as the Rabbi [Rashi] has it, is not found. The interpretation of Aba Yosei which made it incumbent upon the priest to take also the stomach with the crop, is [not because he considers the word b’notzathah to mean “the place of its entrails,” as Rashi understood him, but rather] because the crop and the gullet together with the stomach, comprising the organs for the digestion of food [in the bird], are all included in the term muratho, because in the stomach the food turns into r’ie (dung). Aba Yosei thus does not differ at all with the First Sage who says that he should take it with the “feathers,” for we have been taught in a Mishnah of the sixth chapter of Tractate Zebachim [with reference to the order of the burnt-offering of the bird]: “He [i.e. the priest] came then to the body, and removed the crop and the feathers and the entrails that came forth with the crop, and cast them on the place of ashes.” This Mishnah is in accordance with the teaching of Aba Yosei and yet it mentions “the feathers!”Onkelos’ opinion [in translating b’notzathah as b’uchleih, is not because he considered this to be the Aramaic rendition of the word b’notzathah, so that you might think that he is of the opinion that the Hebrew word means “the place of its digested food,” as Rashi thought, but rather Onkelos’ opinion] is like that of the Sages, that he removed only the crop and its feathers together with the food therein which is the mur’ah [but he did not remove its ...

"Its crop" (מֻרְאָתוֹ) — its meaning is known, and similar to it is: "Woe, rebellious and defiled." "With its plumage" (בְּנֹצָתָהּ) — together with its feathers; similarly, "full of feathers." "Beside the altar" — outside [the altar court]. "To the east" — for it is far from the place of the Glory. "To the place of the ash" — they deposit it there as well.

אל מקום הדשן, “in the place for the ashes.” Chanina, son of Antignos, says (Sifra) that there were two such locations. The first one was situated east of the ramp leading to the altar, and the second one was situated east of the altar itself. The one that was located east of the ramp was used for the remainders of the bird offerings, as well as the ashes of the altar inside the Sanctuary, and the ashes from the candlestick, whereas the one east of the altar was used for ashes that originated from the burning of the remains of sacrificial animals that had become disqualified by a faulty procedure, or because the owners had not eaten all of their parts in the time allocated for it.

והסיר את מראתו בנוצתה, “he shall remove its crop with its feathers.” The word מראה refers to the remnants of food particles retained in the crop; the priest took the crop complete with the skin covering it as well as its feathers and threw them to the place reserved for refuse of the altar. The crop by itself was not large enough to make it worthwhile to wash and clean out and subsequently to burn it up on the altar as was done with the intestines of the four-legged animals after they had been cleaned out. Moreover, it is the nature of birds to wander all over and secure their food supply, i.e. to subsist on stolen food, as opposed to the domesticated four-legged animals. To offer the crop while it still contained stolen food was not ethical. Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 3,4 phrased it thus: ”concerning the domestic beast which receives its food supply from the trough of its owner the Torah instructs that the innards be washed and subsequently be burned up (verse 13); the bird which feeds on stolen property has its crop (substitute for innards) thrown away as stolen things are not acceptable as an offering to G’d.” The whole matter teaches us an important moral lesson regarding the subject of theft and robbery. Just as G’d wants no part of the part of the body of the bird which receives the stolen food, so G’d wants no part of man who is guilty of anything similar until he has made full restoration. The prophet revealed to us the severity of this sin when he said (Jeremiah 17,11) “he who amasses wealth by unjust means, in the middle of his life it will leave him (stolen goods), and in the end he will be proved a fool.” “The end” of which the prophet speaks refers to the world to come where such a person will find out that what he did was counterproductive as he will fall from the proximity of G’d’s throne of glory. David already explained elsewhere (Psalms 24,3-4) that the ones who may expect to ascend the mountain of the Lord and the place of His holiness are “those who have clean hands, i.e. whose hands have not been stained with unjustly acquired wealth.”

והסיר את מוראתו, “he shall remove its crop;” Rashi explained that seeing that this bird had consumed food which was basically stolen, [as opposed to the ruminants, which feed on grass owned by its owners or in areas which are ownerless, Ed.] this had to be removed prior to the bird being able to serve as a vehicle for its owner’s atonement. The reason why not the whole entrails had to be removed for the same reason, is that the food in it had already been digested and could not be identified as such.

מוראתו, the expression occurs both in Nachum 3,6 and in Tzefaniah 3,1, and in both of these instances it refers to a despicable spectacle. Here too, it refers primarily to the feces. בנוצתה, feathers with its crop.

And he shall split it by its wings but shall not separate it, and the priest shall cause it to go up in smoke upon the altar upon the wood that is on the fire — it is a burnt offering, an offering accepted with favor before Hashem.

ושסע AND HE SHALL CLEAVE [IT] — The term שסע is used only for rending with the hands. Similarly it states in the story of Samson (Judges 14:6) “and he rent him (וישסעהו) as he would have rent a kid” (Zevachim 65b). בכנפיו means: he shall rend it together with its feathers he need not pluck out the feathers that form its plumage before doing so. בכנפיו means actually the feathers (not the wings). But surely you will not find even a common sort of man who can smell the odour of burnt feathers without being disgusted with it! Why, then, does Scripture say that it shall be offered with the feathers? In order that the altar should appear full up, as it were, and adorned with the sacrifice of the poor (since the bird with its feathers makes a finer show than without them) (Leviticus Rabbah 3:5). לא יבדיל BUT HE SHALL NOT SEPARATE IT — he must not break it entirely into two pieces, but only rends it from behind. — It is stated here of a bird-offering “a pleasing odour [to the Lord]” and it is stated (v. 13) of an animal-sacrifice “a pleasing odour [to the Lord]”, to tell you: whether one offers much or little it is equally pleasing to God provided that he directs his heart to Heaven (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 9 7; Menachot 110a).

AND HE SHALL REND IT ‘BICHNAFAV’ — “together with its feathers. He need not pluck out the feathers of its plumage. Knafav means the actual feathers [not the wings].” This is the language of Rashi. But it is not correct, for if so, then Scripture does not mention from which place he is to rend [the bird], whether from its front or back. Rather, the meaning thereof is as follows: “he shall rend it at the place of its wings,” for the letter beth [in the word bichnafav] serves here as “the beth of apparatus,” [teaching that the rending is to be done from the back of the bird where “the wings” are, for knafav, as will be explained, means “its wings,” and not “its feathers” as Rashi explained]; similar to the expression, ba’aron, (in the ark), ba’bayith, (in the house), or ba’sadeh (in the field). Knafav does not mean “feathers” [as Rashi wrote], but is similar to all expressions of knafayim mentioned in Scripture [which mean wings]: every bird, whatever hath ‘kanaf’ (wings); and he stretcheth ‘knafav’ (his wings) towards the south. Similarly, ‘bichnaf’ (the skirt) of his robe. Notzah is the down [the soft under-plumage] on the body of birds, something like that which is written, a great eagle with great wings and long pinions, full of ‘hanotzah’ (down). Similarly we have learned [in the Mishnah]: “Large feathers and down are both capable of contracting uncleanness and conveying uncleanness, and join together [with the flesh to make up the required size that is needed to convey uncleanness].” The Rabbis have also said: “excepting the beak and claws, the large feathers and the down.”

"And he shall tear it" (וְשִׁסַּע) — derived from the root of "and [an animal that] cleaves a cleft" (וְשׁוֹסַעַת שֶׁסַע), with the sense of splitting open.

אשה ריח ניחוח לשם, a fire-offering whose fragrance is pleasing to G'd. Our sages in Menachot 110 comment that the fact that the Torah used this expression when describing the burnt-offering consisting of a four-legged animal, as well as when a bird-offering is being offered, as proof that G'd does not judge a person's offering by its monetary value but by the attitude it reflects. As long as the donor's motivation is G'd-oriented, both kinds of offerings are equally welcome in His eyes. The problem the sages wanted to overcome was that if the Torah had written the term אשה ריח ניחוח לשם only in connection with the bird-offering which is worth a few coins, it is obvious that a burnt-offering consisting of a four-legged animal should qualify for that description no less. Hence why did the Torah have to write the expression in connection with the offering of a four-legged animal? This is why they were careful to write: אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט, that there is no difference between the person who offers a valuable animal as a sacrifice and the one who offers something less valuable. We should not imagine that the fact that the Torah mentioned ריח ניחוח in connection with the bird-offering was just an act of graciousness on the part of G'd towards the poor, whereas the four-legged animal offered by the wealthy is dearer to Him. The Torah made the point that the bird-offering is not considered inferior for any reason at all by writing the otherwise unnecessary words ריח ניחוח לשם also in connection with the burnt-offering consisting of four-legged animals. This is why the Rabbi in the Talmud did not simply write הממעיט כמרבה, as this would not have conveyed his true meaning. It is a rule that when one says: "this is as good as that," that the "this" is inferior to the "that" seeing it is a derivative of it. The "this" to "that" relationship is akin to the student-teacher relationship. Even if the student has absorbed all of the teacher's knowledge, the teacher remains superior by dint of having taught the student what he knows. When the Rabbi phrased his comment: "one who does a lot is as one who does a little," he made sure the reader would not consider either of the two as superior or inferior to the second one. This consideration prompted the Torah to write the same wording once more in connection with the meal-offering in 2,2.

לא יבדיל, “he must not completely detach the wings;” the reason is that the bird is so small anyways; if he were to detach all of its parts, head and wings there would not be much left of it, if he were to offer it as a gift to a mortal king. Hence it is not appropriate to do so with a gift to the King of Kings.

ושסע אותו בכנפיו , “he shall split it with its feathers.” The word בכנפיו, “with its feathers,” means that the priest does not have to pluck the feathers. The word בכנפיו means “literally with its feathers.” Although I could hardly have imagined something more revolting than to have to smell the feathers of burned wings, why then did the Torah legislate that the priest is to ‘bring near,’ i.e. to offer up such an evil-smelling offering? It was in order for the altar to be graced with the offering of a poor man and to make same look more substantial. [the bird offering was an accommodation to people who could not afford a more costly offering. Plucking the bird’s feathers would have made it look even less substantive. Ed.]

ושסע אותו בכנפיו, “he is to split it with its wings (feathers);” Rashi explains that the priest need not tear out the feathers from the wings, literally. Nachmanides writes that Rashi’s interpretation is not correct, for if it were, he did not give us an indication of where precisely the wings were to be torn off, whether at the front or at the back. Therefore, he claims that the correct interpretation of the words ושסע אותו is that the priest is to tear off the wings at the place where the feathers grow out of them. The word כנפים therefore is not another word describing the נוצה, the plume. The word means the same as every time we read about birds in the Torah when the Torah describes birds as צפור כנף, a winged bird, [one that is capable of flying. Ed.] The word נוצה describes the skin of the birds.