Verse structure: 4 words, 18 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה, 4 letters) and the longest is "and·spoke" (וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר, 5 letters). 4 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "saying" (root אמר, 79x in Leviticus); "and·spoke" (root דבר, 76x in Leviticus). Full calculation: וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר [and·spoke] (222) + יְהֹוָ֖ה [Hashem] (26) + אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה [to·Moses] (376) + לֵּאמֹֽר [saying] (271) = 895.
Speak to Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, which they hallow to Me, and that they profane not My holy name: I am Hashem.
verse value 4377 — יְהֹוָֽה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 16 words, 71 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָֽה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "they" (הֵ֧ם, 2 letters) and the longest is "sons·of·Israel" (בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל, 8 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·they·shall·separate·themselves" (וְיִנָּֽזְרוּ֙), "consecrate" (מַקְדִּשִׁ֛ים). The root בן appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "and·not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'my·holiness', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 6 words.
Onkelos
Speak with Aaron and with his sons, that they shall separate themselves from the sacred offerings of the children of Israel, and they shall not profane My holy Name — which they consecrate before Me. I am Hashem.
Rashi
וינזרו THAT THEY KEEP AWAY [FROM THE HOLY THINGS etc.] — The term נזר always denotes “keeping aloof". Similarly it is said (Ezekiel 14:7) "and he separates himself (וינזר) from following Me”; (Isaiah 1:4) "They are gone away (נזורו) backward”. The meaning of this verse therefore is: they (the priests) shall keep aloof from the holy things during the time of their uncleanness (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 1). וינזרו מקדשי בני ישראל אשר הם מקדשים לי. ולא יחללו את שם קדשי — Invert the words of the verse in the order here set forth and explain it accordingly. אשר הם מקדשים לי WHICH THEY HALLOW UNTO ME — This is intended to include in the prohibition the holy things of the priests themselves (i. e. הם refers to אהרן ובניו not to בני ישראל) (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 1).
Ramban
SPEAK UNTO AARON AND TO HIS SONS, THAT THEY SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM THE HOLY THINGS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND THAT THEY PROFANE NOT MY HOLY NAME, WHICH THEY HALLOW UNTO ME. “Transpose the verse and interpret it thus: ‘that they [the priests when in a state of impurity] separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, which they [the children of Israel] hallow unto Me, and that they [the priests] profane not My holy Name.’ Which they hallow unto Me, this comes to include things hallowed by the priests themselves.” This is Rashi’s language. But if we explain which they hallow unto Me as referring to [the things] which the priests themselves hallow, then there is no need for this transposition! Rather, [according to this final interpretation mentioned by Rashi, the whole verse can be explained in the order it is written without transposing the phrases, in the following way:] Scripture is stating: “that they [the priests] separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they [the priests] profane not by means of them [i.e., the holy things] My holy Name [through eating them in a state of impurity], and that which they [the priests themselves] hallow unto Me” [they should also not profane], meaning that they [the priests] should not profane the holy things which Aaron and his sons themselves hallow unto Me [and thus there is no need for transposing the verse.]! And in the Torath Kohanim it is interpreted as follows: “That they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel. For the holy things of the children of Israel [the priests] are liable to punishment for [eating] pigul, nothar, or when in a state of impurity, but they are not liable for [eating] pigul, nothar, or when in a state of impurity if they are holy things of non-Jews. The holy things of the children of Israel. From this I would only know that [the priests when in a state of impurity are not to eat of] the holy things of the children of Israel. How do I know [that this prohibition applies also to] the holy things which they themselves have hallowed? From the expression, which they hallow unto Me, which includes all of them” [even those of the priests themselves]. But there [in the Torath Kohanim] no mention is made at all of a transposition of the verse [as Rashi said]! And by the way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], which they hallow unto Me, I am the Eternal means that the priests are not to profane the Name which is hallowed to Him, since His Name is upon the Sanctuary of the Eternal [and therefore they should not cause My Presence to depart therefrom when they profane the holy things]. I have already alluded to this in the section of ‘V’yikchu Li Terumah’ (And they take for Me an offering).
Ibn Ezra
"And they shall abstain" (ve-yinnazeru) — this is like "and you shall separate" (ve-hizartem); it is in the nif'al binyan, and the meaning is that they shall distance and separate themselves, derived from the root of nazir. "And they shall not profane" — this verb draws itself and another along with it, and likewise: "and they shall not profane them — My holy name" and "they shall not profane that which they consecrate to Me." The meaning of "I am Hashem" — [I am] holy.
Sforno
וינזרו מקדשי בני ישראל, they should not think that the senior among them may treat the sacrifices donated by the people as if they were secular in nature as far as they were concerned. We are familiar with the principle alluded to here by the Torah from Moed Katan 16 מנודה לתלמיד אינו מנודה לרב, “if something is legally out of bounds to the student this does not automatically mean that it is equally out of bounds to the student’s teacher.” (although if the situation is reversed what is out of bounds to the teacher is most certainly also forbidden to the student. ולא יחללו את שם קדשי אשר הם מקדישים לי. They shall not desecrate the things the ordinary Jews have sanctified for Me, which now bear My holy name.
Chizkuni
ולא יחללו את שם קדשי, “so that they will not profane My holy Name.” The whole purpose of a sacrificial offering is to honour My holy name; anyone presenting such while in a state of ritual impurity will desecrate it instead of honouring it. אשר הם מקדישים, “which they are sanctifying;” and do not profane. The heading of this verse applies to both My holy name and the offerings sanctified in its honour.
Tur HaArokh
ולא יחללו את שם קדשי, “so as not to desecrate My holy Name.” According to Rashi the verse is truncated and the clause “by performing their Temple duties in an inappropriate state of purity,” are missing. Nachmanides does not consider that there was any need for these words, as the words אשר הם מקדישים, are quite adequate to make the meaning of the verse crystal clear. He explains that the words ולא יחללו את שם קדשי clearly refer to animal and animal parts that these priests had previously sanctified for use on the altar. Why else would the Torah have to add the words: אשר הם מקדישים לי, “which they are sanctifying for Me?”
Rashbam
וינזרו, they are to abstain from eating sacred sacrificial meat while in a state of ritual impurity.
Say to them: Whoever he be of all your seed throughout your generations, that approaches to the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow to Hashem, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me: I am Hashem.
verse value 6710 — יְהֹוָֽה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 19 words, 100 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָֽה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "say" (אֱמֹ֣ר, 3 letters) and the longest is "from·all·your·offspring" (מִכׇּל־זַרְעֲכֶ֗ם, 8 letters). 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "that·he·shall·approach" (אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרַ֣ב), "from·all·your·offspring" (מִכׇּל־זַרְעֲכֶ֗ם), "to·the·sacred·donations" (אֶל־הַקֳּדָשִׁים֙). The root קדש appears 2 times in this verse. 17 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "sons·of·Israel" (root בן, 143x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'upon·him', dividing the verse into phrases of 13 and 6 words.
Onkelos
Say to them: Throughout your generations, any man of all your descendants who approaches the sacred offerings that the children of Israel consecrate before Hashem, while his impurity is upon him — that person shall be cut off from before Me. I am Hashem.
Rashi
כל איש אשר יקרב WHOSOEVER HE BE THAT GOETH UNTO [THE HOLY THINGS… SHALL BE CUT OFF etc.] — This “approaching" unto the holy things signifies nothing else but eating of them. Similarly we find that the prohibition of eating holy things in a state of uncleanness is expressed by the term נגע, (which means, as does קרב, “approaching”): (Leviticus 12:4) “she shall approach near to nothing that is holy" — which is explained as a prohibition addressed to one who would eat of the holy things (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 12:4). And our Rabbis derived it (the fact that לא תגע means: she shall not eat) from a verbal analogy. It is indeed impossible to say that one is punishable for touching holy things in a state of uncleanness, because the penalty of excision for eating holy things in such a state is mentioned in the section commencing צו את אהרן (Leviticus 7:20, 21) — twice is the punishment of כרת mentioned there, one immediately after the other; and if one really becomes liable to punishment for the mere touching of holy things it is unnecessary to pronounce him liable to punishment for eating them! In this sense also is it (our passage) expounded in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 7): But is a priest who merely touches holy things when he is unclean really liable to the punishment of excision? Surely not, since Scripture expressly states in the following verse that an unclean priest who eats of the holy things is liable to excision and this latter statement would be unnecessary since eating without touching is impossible. But if this be so, why does Scripture use the term יקרב and not יאכל which means "eating”? It is in order to intimate that this law applies only when an unclean priest eats of it after it becomes fit לקרב, “to be offered” — that one does not become liable on account of his uncleanness until its מתירין (its “permitting portions”) have been offered, and he then eats of it. And if you ask, “Why are three mentions of the כרת-punishment (Leviticus 7:21 and here) necessary in respect to priestly uncleanness? then I reply, they have already been interpreted in Treatise Shevuot 7a, one as being intended as a generalisation, the other as a specification, etc. (see Rashi on Leviticus 7:20). וטומאתו עליו means, AND THE MAN'S UNCLEANNESS IS UPON HIM (the first word meaning "and his uncleanness”). I might, however, think that Scripture is speaking of the flesh — "the uncleanness of the flesh is upon it” (the first word meaning “and its uncleanness, the word בשר being implied in the term הקדשים that precedes) and that Scripture is thus speaking of a clean person who ate holy things which have become unclean! You must needs admit that from what is implied in it (in the phrase) you must learn that Scripture is speaking of one whose state of uncleanness can fly (pass) away therefrom (since the phrase implies: “whilst the טומאה is still present", presupposing that there is a possibility of the טומאה passing away), and this can only refer to a h...
Ibn Ezra
The meaning of "from before Me, I am Hashem" is that once one is cut off from before Hashem, he shall not stand again — as I explained in [the treatise] Sod Hashem.
Or HaChaim
אמר אלהם, "say to them, etc." Torat Kohanim write that the people addressed in this verse were the ones standing at Mount Sinai. The author tried to answer why the Torah added the apparently superfluous words אמר אלהם seeing that the verse is a continuation of chapter 21 and the opening verses of this chapter. The previous directives had been addressed to the priests, so that this chapter is merely a continuation. If, on the other hand, this chapter is addressed to the Israelites at large, these had not even been mentioned in any of the adjoining verses! It follows therefore that it was addressed to all the people who had stood at Mount Sinai, the time they had become G'd's bride, so to speak. When the Torah does not bother to mention to whom the speaker addresses Himself, we may assume that the speaker is G'd Himself and that He speaks about the whole people. It follows that the retribution threatened in this paragraph for desecrating the holy name of G'd applies to all the people who had heard the revelation at Mount Sinai. [the word אלהם is therefore equivalent to עלהם. Ed.] You may well ask that if this is so why does the Torah in all other instances mention that the Israelites are addressed by writng such formulae as דבר אל בני ישראל, or something similar instead of merely writing אמר אלהם? Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 2,5 already answered this with a parable. A father had an only son and he always mentioned the fact that he was his son by saying to him: "eat my son, drink my son, etc. Similarly, G'd told Moses on an almost daily basis: 'Tell the Israelites, etc.' He mentions their name as a reminder of how fond He is of them." This kind of address is standard procedure in the Torah. Whenever the situation appears to allow for some additional message we endeavour to extract it from that text.
Whatever man of the seed of Aaron is a leper, or has an issue, he shall not eat of the holy things, until he be clean. And whoever touches any one that is unclean by the dead; or from whomever the flow of seed goes out;
verse value 6053 — וְה֤וּא = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 21 words, 83 letters. Notable word values: "and·he" (וְה֤וּא) = 18, chai, 'life'. The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "by·anything·corpse-impure" (בְּכׇל־טְמֵא־נֶ֔פֶשׁ, 9 letters). Words sharing gematria 311: man, man, man. 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "leprous·one" (צָר֙וּעַ֙), "of·the·sacred·donations" (בַּקֳּדָשִׁים֙), "he·shall·be·pure" (יִטְהָ֑ר). The root איש appears 3 times in this verse. 17 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "who" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "by·anything·corpse-impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'he·shall·be·pure', dividing the verse into phrases of 14 and 7 words.
Onkelos
Any man of the descendants of Aaron who is a leper or who has a discharge shall not eat of the sacred offerings until he becomes clean. And whoever touches anything that is impure through a corpse, or a man from whom there issues a seminal emission —
Rashi
1 Among Aaron’s offspring: I know only that Aaron’s offspring. How do I know that he himself is also included]? Talmud says, “if he has tzara’ath ”; for one might think that since he is allowed to offer up holy sacrifices when he is an onen , he would also be allowed to offer them up if he has tzara’ath or if he had a discharge. Talmud, therefore, says, “if he…” 2. Until he cleanses himself: At sunset , or, perhaps, it means only immersion. It says here, וְטָהֵר, and it says below (verse 7), וְטָהֵר, Just as there it means sunset, here too, it means sunset. בכל טמא נפש [AND WHOSO TOUCHETH] ANY טמא נפש — This means: who touches a person who has become defiled by a corpse.
Ibn Ezra
"Until he is purified" — [this means] the days of his purification.
Or HaChaim
מזרע אהרון, "from the seed of Aaron, etc." Why did this prohibition have to be mentioned a second time seeing that it was included in the overall directive in verse 3 that approaching holy things or holy places is forbidden on pain of the penalty of karet? Actually, the purification process for a priest afflicted with צרעת or זיבה or other impurity emanating from his body is not completed until sunset in order for him to be allowed to eat קדשי קדשים, sacrificial offerings of a kind forbidden to be eaten by an ordinary Israelite. If an ordinary Israelite had contracted the same kind of impurity he would be allowed to eat from the peace-offerings (a lower form of sanctity) as soon as he had immersed himself in a ritual bath without awaiting sunset. This is stated in Torat Kohanim. [I have not found it. Ed.] והוא צרוע, "and he suffers from צרעת, the skin affliction, etc." On this word Torat Kohanim write. "From this wording I would only have known that the descendants of Aaron (or another High Priest) would be subject to this legislation. How do I know that the same legislation applies to the High Priest himself? Answer: This is why the Torah added the word והוא, 'and he himself.'" Thus far Torat Kohanim. In this instance we cannot apply what we explained on 21,7, that the words איש מזרעך imply that G'd would protect both Aaron and his sons from becoming afflicted with a מום, a physical blemish of the kind that disqualifies them from performing sacrificial service, seeing the Torah includes impurity caused by emission of semen, something which is not only natural but absolutely necessary in the fulfilment of the commandment to be fruitful and to multiply. We know for a fact that Aaron, -as opposed to Moses- did not separate from his wife and thereby avoid emission of semen. If the Torah had not added the word והוא I could have erred thinking that Aaron himself was permitted to eat sacrificial meat while in a state of such ritual impurities as are described in this verse. Once the Torah included Aaron in this prohibition his sons are automatically included in it also. As a result of these considerations, the earlier verse in which the Torah speaks about priests who suffer from a physical blemish and which did not include Aaron could have been interpreted as Aaron being exempted from this legislation in principle. Torat Kohanim therefore told us that the reason he is exempted is only that G'd promised that neither he nor his sons would suffer such a blemish.
Chizkuni
והוא צרוע או זב, and he is afflicted with tzoraat, or has had involuntary seminal issue;” The Torah here uses a form of construction known as lo zu af zu, “not only this but even that,” meaning that not only the more severe affliction but even the relatively minor affliction is also a cause for the prohibition described, i.e. not to eat holy things. Not only a ritual impurity originating in one’s own body is the cause of the prohibition but merely coming into contact with a corpse are similarly a cause for this prohibition. On the other hand, not only contact with a corpse but even a seminal emission from one’s own body that can be purified by immersion in a ritual bath on the same evening, is also included in this legislation. Conversely, even a ritual impurity due merely to an external cause such as touching a corpse, is similarly triggering this prohibition. עד אשר יטהר, “until he will become purified.” A process completed by the setting of the sun. (Compare verse 7 in our chapter)
or whoever touches any swarming thing, whereby he may be made unclean, or a man of whom he may take uncleanness, whatever uncleanness he has;
verse value 3328
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 49 letters. Verse gematria: 3328 is divisible by 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "or" (א֤וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "in·all·swarming·thing" (בְּכׇל־שֶׁ֖רֶץ, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 501: which, which, which. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "or·man" (אוֹ־אִישׁ֙), "in·all·swarming·thing" (בְּכׇל־שֶׁ֖רֶץ). The root אשר appears 3 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "becomes·impure·by·it" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'becomes·impure·by·it', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 6 words. Full calculation: אוֹ־אִישׁ֙ [or·man] (318) + אֲשֶׁ֣ר [which] (501) + יִגַּ֔ע [he·shall·touch] (83) + בְּכׇל־שֶׁ֖רֶץ [in·all·swarming·thing] (642) + אֲשֶׁ֣ר [which] (501) + יִטְמָא־ל֑וֹ [becomes·impure·by·it] (96) + א֤וֹ [or] (7) + בְאָדָם֙ [in·human] (47) + אֲשֶׁ֣ר [which] (501) + יִטְמָא־ל֔וֹ [he·shall·be·impure·to·him] (96) + לְכֹ֖ל [to·all] (80) + טֻמְאָתֽוֹ [his·impurity] (456) = 3328.
Onkelos
or a man who touches any swarming creature by which he becomes impure, or a person by whom he becomes impure — for any impurity of his —
Rashi
בכל שרץ אשר יטמא לו [OR WHOSOEVER TOUCHETH] ANY PROLIFIC CREATURE BECAUSE OF WHICH (לו) HE MAY BE MADE UNCLEAN — This means: who touches any שרץ of the minimum size that is capable of communicating uncleanness, viz., a particle of the size of a lentil (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 4 4; Chagigah 11a). או באדם OR A HUMAN BEING — a dead person (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 4 4). אשר יטמא לו BY WHOM HE MAY BE MADE UNCLEAN - i. e. by touching the minimum size of a portion of the dead person which is capable of transmitting uncleanness, and this is, a portion as large as an olive (Mishnah Oholot 2:1). לכל טמאתו WHATSOEVER UNCLEANNESS HE HATH — This is intended to include in the prohibition of eating holy things one who has touched a man or a woman who has an issue, or who has touched a נדה or a woman in childbirth (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 4 4).
Ibn Ezra
"By which he becomes impure" (asher yitma lo) — [the word lo means] on account of it, as in "say of me: he is my brother" (emri li achi hu). All those mentioned here become impure until the evening.
Chizkuni
אשר יטמא לו, “whereby he may become ritually unclean;” the word לו in this verse means בשבילו, “on its account,” on account of the creeping animal. It is parallel to Exodus 1,10, where Pharaoh exerted his people to outsmart the Israelites since he could not outnumber them and said: הבה נתחכמה לו, “let us instead try to be smarter than it,” i.e. “on account of its numerical superiority.” It is also similar to Esther 6,4: אשר הכין לו, “which he had prepared on his account.” (On Mordechai’s account, in order to hang him from that gallows). Our author cites more parallels.
the soul that touches any such shall be unclean until the even, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he bathe his flesh in water.
verse value 3440
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 52 letters. Verse gematria: 3440 is divisible by 86, the value of Elohim. The shortest word is "for" (כִּ֛י, 2 letters) and the longest is "from·the·sacred·donations" (מִן־הַקֳּדָשִׁ֔ים, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 61: and·she·shall·be·impure, eat. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "touches·it" (תִּגַּע־בּ֔וֹ), "if·he·has·washed" (אִם־רָחַ֥ץ). 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "who" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "and·not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "and·she·shall·be·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'until·the·evening', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 7 words. Full calculation: נֶ֚פֶשׁ [person] (430) + אֲשֶׁ֣ר [who] (501) + תִּגַּע־בּ֔וֹ [touches·it] (481) + וְטָמְאָ֖ה [and·she·shall·be·impure] (61) + עַד־הָעָ֑רֶב [until·the·evening] (351) + וְלֹ֤א [and·not] (37) + יֹאכַל֙ [eat] (61) + מִן־הַקֳּדָשִׁ֔ים [from·the·sacred·donations] (549) + כִּ֛י [for] (30) + אִם־רָחַ֥ץ [if·he·has·washed] (339) + בְּשָׂר֖וֹ [his·body] (508) + בַּמָּֽיִם [in·the·waters] (92) = 3440.
Onkelos
the person who touches it shall be impure until evening, and shall not eat of the sacred offerings unless he has bathed his flesh in water.
Rashi
נפש אשר תגע בו THE SOUL WHICH HATH TOUCHED IT — i. e. who touches any one of these unclean persons or things (enumerated in the second half of v. 4 and in v. 5).
Chizkuni
כי אם רחץ בשרו במים, “unless he has first washed his body in water.” (ritual bath) In case we understood this as piecemeal washing of the limbs of one’s body, [the Torah adds the word: במים in water (all at the same time). Ed.] This is why the words (in the next verse): “when the sun sets he will be ritually clean,” are of importance here. Just as sunset is not a gradual process but it occurs at the same time, so the whole body has to be washed at the same time. (Sifra)
And when the sun is down, he shall be clean; and afterward he may eat of the holy things, because it is his bread.
verse value 1825
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 36 letters. The shortest word is "for" (כִּ֥י, 2 letters) and the longest is "from·the·sacred·donations" (מִן־הַקֳּדָשִׁ֔ים, 8 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "the·sun" (הַשֶּׁ֖מֶשׁ), "his·food" (לַחְמ֖וֹ). 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "he·shall·eat" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "from·the·sacred·donations" (root קדש, 101x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'and·he·shall·be·pure', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 6 words. Full calculation: וּבָ֥א [and·he·shall·come] (9) + הַשֶּׁ֖מֶשׁ [the·sun] (645) + וְטָהֵ֑ר [and·he·shall·be·pure] (220) + וְאַחַר֙ [and·after] (215) + יֹאכַ֣ל [he·shall·eat] (61) + מִן־הַקֳּדָשִׁ֔ים [from·the·sacred·donations] (549) + כִּ֥י [for] (30) + לַחְמ֖וֹ [his·food] (84) + הֽוּא [it] (12) = 1825.
Onkelos
And when the sun has set he shall be clean, and afterward he may eat of the sacred offerings, for it is his food.
Rashi
ואחר יאכל מן הקדשים [AND WHEN THE SUN IS DOWN HE SHALL BE CLEAN] AND MAY AFTERWARDS EAT OF HOLY THINGS — This is interpreted in Treatise Jebamoth (74b) to have reference to the heave-offering (not to holy things of every description): that he (a priest who was unclean and has bathed) is permitted to eat it as soon as the sun has set. מן הקדשים accordingly means: some OF THE HOLY THINGS, but not all holy things (the word מן having a partitive meaning: “some of”).
Ibn Ezra
"And the sun sets and he is purified" — it is known that "and he is purified" (ve-taher) refers to the impure person, as in "and the priest shall make atonement for her and she shall be purified" — for there is no mention of day in this verse. But the Sages transmitted that even when the sun sets, he may not eat until the light has departed, and they used this verse as an asmakhta [Scriptural support], as I explained on the verse concerning a foreign people. This is therefore what they said: the day becomes pure. "For his food" (ki lachmo) — [this means] his sustenance; I have already explained it.
Sforno
כי לחמו הוא, and he need not await his atonement before he may eat what is his regular diet, לחמו. Our sages in Pessachim 35 stated that as soon as the sun has set the priest (who had ritually immersed himself after having contracted ritual impurity) may eat t‘rumah. [he may not yet eat sacrificial meats which are of a higher level of holiness until the following morning as those are not considered his לחמו, regular diet. Ed.]
Chizkuni
ובא השמש וטהר ואחר יאכל, “when the sun has set and he has become ritually pure, he may eat, etc.” It is the setting of the sun which causes the purified person to be allows to eat t’rumah, second degree holy matters, not the immersion in the ritual bath preceding that, although that had been a prerequisite. On the other hand, the line: ואחר יאכל מן הקדשים, “and afterwards he may eat from the holy matters,” i.e. holy matters of the first degree. If as apparent in some manuscripts the order were to be reversed it would not make sense if he could already eat holy things of the first degree, why would he have to await sunset to be allowed to eat t’rumah, which is inferior in its degree of holiness?On the other hand, one may argue that seeing that a non priest is not allowed to eat t’rumah even when ritually pure, this requires additional steps when purification is required for the priest. Still another consideration is the fact that when something holy has been allowed to become piggul, unfit to eat because it has not been eaten during the time prescribed for it, a restriction unknown in respect of t’rumah, this could be a reason why the Torah had to mention both separately. (Sifra)
That which dies of itself, or that which is fatally injured (treifah), he shall not eat, so as to defile himself thereby: I am Hashem.
verse value 658 — יְהֹוָֽה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 7 words, 29 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָֽה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֥א, 2 letters) and the longest is "to·be·impure·in·her" (לְטׇמְאָה־בָ֑הּ, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 61: eat, I. 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "to·be·impure·in·her" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·be·impure·in·her', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 2 words. Full calculation: נְבֵלָ֧ה [carcass] (87) + וּטְרֵפָ֛ה [and·treifah·(fatally·injured)] (300) + לֹ֥א [not] (31) + יֹאכַ֖ל [eat] (61) + לְטׇמְאָה־בָ֑הּ [to·be·impure·in·her] (92) + אֲנִ֖י [I] (61) + יְהֹוָֽה [Hashem] (26) = 658.
Onkelos
That which has died of itself or that which died from injury he shall not eat, becoming impure through it. I am Hashem.
Rashi
נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל לטמאה בה CARRION, OR THAT WHICH IS TORN HE SHALL NOT EAT TO BECOME UNCLEAN THEREBY — It is with regard to the defilement that Scripture lays down this prohibition: that if he (the priest) eats the carrion of a clean bird — which has no defiling effect through being touched or carried but has a defiling effect only when eaten, as soon as it is in the gullet — he is forbidden to eat holy things (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12 6). And it was necessary for Scripture to mention טרפה also, in order to define what נבלה is here intended, viz., one that can have a טרפה amongst the individuals of its class: therefore the נבלה of an unclean bird is excluded, for in its class a טרפה can never occur (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 17:15).
Ramban
N’VEILAH’ (THAT WHICH DIETH OF ITSELF) ‘U’TREIFAH’ (OR IS TORN OF BEASTS) HE SHALL NOT EAT TO DEFILE HIMSELF THEREWITH. Scripture is stating that [the priest] should be careful not to eat n’veilah or treifah so that he should not become defiled therewith, and then it will be necessary for him to be separated from the holy things, and he will not be able to eat of them until he bathes his flesh in water, and when the sun is down, he shall be clean. And the reason [why He mentioned here the prohibition against eating n’veilah and treifah], is that since He had referred to every sort of impurity which can occur to a person, seeing that He mentioned leprosy and an issue, which includes male and female, and the impurity of the dead, of semen, and of a swarming thing, therefore He goes back [in the verse before us] to warn [the priests to separate themselves] from the holy things when they are impure because of n’veiloth, and He warned them about this by way of an admonition against eating them. And the reason [why He singled out n’veilah and treifah in warning the priests not to eat them, and He did not mention those creeping things which also render the eater impure], is because a man’s soul finds it loathsome to eat creeping things, but it does not find n’veilah and treifah loathsome. Therefore He mentioned here [the prohibition against eating food which conveys] impurity in the case of [that food] which it is common [to eat]. Now the word treifah mentioned here [which renders the eater impure, must perforce] mean an animal that was torn by a lion or bear which killed it in the field, for when it is still alive [and is then slaughtered ritually] it does not convey impurity [although it may not be eaten. The term treifah which the Torah mentions here as conveying impurity to one who eats it, is applicable, however, even to an animal that was not killed when torn by beasts], for from the moment when it is torn by the lion [or any beast] it is called treifah (“torn”), whether it is alive or after its death. Thus He mentioned here all sources of impurity, for having stated that animals of the forbidden species [which are not mentioned here, although they do convey impurity to one who eats them], cannot be [made permissible by] ritual slaughtering, as I have explained in the section of ‘Vay’hi Bayom Ha’shemini’ (And it came to pass on the eighth day), it is [automatically] included under the term of n’veilah [which is mentioned here]. This is by way of the plain meaning of Scripture. The [Rabbinical] explanation likewise interprets [this verse as an admonition] about holy things with reference to impurity, namely that the verse speaks of the carrion of a bird of a permissible species [i.e., which died by itself, or has not been slaughtered properly], which has no defiling effect by means of contact or carrying, but [conveys] impurity only when in the [eater’s] gullet, and thus it forbids him to eat [subsequently] of the holy things. And we must then e...
Ibn Ezra
Empty-headed interpreters expound the verse as though it belongs in the book of Ezekiel — [as if] the meaning of "any carcass or torn animal" is that priests may not eat anything that birds or beasts have killed or torn. This is nonsense, for the Torah has already written "any carcass or torn animal he shall not eat" [as a general rule]. The [actual] meaning here is: if he does eat it, he may not serve [in the Temple].
Chizkuni
נבלה וטרפה, “that which dies of itself, or has been torn;” the Torah refers to the carcass of a pure bird, (one that could be eaten if it had been ritually slaughtered) and of flesh from sacrificial meat of mammals which could have been eaten, had it not been removed, but which because it had been removed from the sacred domain within which it could have been eaten had now become treif; or similarly since such a bird had at one point been fit to eat, it is compared to something that had died of its own accord. The priests are not to eat of it as it would confer ritual impurity on them. (Compare Ezekiel 44,31)
Tur HaArokh
נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל, “He shall not eat from a carcass or a fatally injured animal.” Nachmanides reminds us that our sages in Torat Kohanim Emor 4,4 explain that the news here is that seeing that there are species of birds not subject to the ritual contamination caused by carcasses of mammals, we might have thought that the priests do not need to be on guard against contact with or eating same when they were part of an offering. The Torah therefore had to write our verse, even though, naturally, the priests were included in all the carcasses and treyfah animals mentioned in chapter 11. If we were to look at the plain meaning of the text, [something we must never disregard, Ed.] the injunction for the priests here does not repeat the ordinary prohibition against eating נבלה וטרפה, applicable to all Israelites, but it adds the new dimension of the priest violating their status of ritual purity when they do this, a dimension that does not apply to the ordinary Israelite unless these animals had been sanctified at some time prior to their death. Seeing that the various ways a human being can become ritually contaminated had been discussed in previous chapters, as well as the definitions of such ritual impurity of sperm, and other effluences from the body, this was the place to add this reminder to the priests. In case you wonder why the Torah used the wording “he shall not eat” such animals (on the basis of the פשט), an expression not normally used with the contaminating factor of such repulsive creatures as insects, vermin, rodents, and the like, it is the Torah’s awareness that most people would not eat these creatures even if the Torah had not expressly prohibited this. However, this consideration does not apply to mammals which had died by an arrow or a gunshot wound, or had been fatally wounded but had undergone decapitation immediately afterwards. The word טרפה in our verse refers to animals that had been mauled by predators such as lions or bears or wolves. While prohibited as food, such injured animals do not transmit ritual contamination until after they have died. The Torah here expands the prohibition by referring even to such animals that had not yet died as included in those that confer ritual contamination on contact. The expression נבלה automatically includes this aspect of conferring ritual contamination.
Rashbam
נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל, even though they were permitted to eat the sacrificial birds without such procedure as slaughter, by simply snipping off, מליקה, their windpipe or food pipe.
They shall therefore keep My charge, lest they bear sin for it, and die in it, if they profane it: I am Hashem who sanctify them.
verse value 3581 — חֵ֔טְא = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 53 letters. Notable word values: "guilt" (חֵ֔טְא) = 18, chai, 'life'. The shortest word is "in·it" (ב֖וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "my·charge" (אֶת־מִשְׁמַרְתִּ֗י, 8 letters). 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·they·shall·keep" (וְשָׁמְר֣וּ), "and·they·shall·not·incur" (וְלֹֽא־יִשְׂא֤וּ), "and·they·shall·die" (וּמֵ֥תוּ). The root שמר appears 2 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "upon·it" (root על, 127x in Leviticus); "who·sanctify·them" (root קדש, 101x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'they·shall·defile·it', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְשָׁמְר֣וּ [and·they·shall·keep] (552) + אֶת־מִשְׁמַרְתִּ֗י [my·charge] (1391) + וְלֹֽא־יִשְׂא֤וּ [and·they·shall·not·incur] (354) + עָלָיו֙ [upon·it] (116) + חֵ֔טְא [guilt] (18) + וּמֵ֥תוּ [and·they·shall·die] (452) + ב֖וֹ [in·it] (8) + כִּ֣י [for] (30) + יְחַלְּלֻ֑הוּ [they·shall·defile·it] (89) + אֲנִ֥י [I] (61) + יְהֹוָ֖ה [Hashem] (26) + מְקַדְּשָֽׁם [who·sanctify·them] (484) = 3581.
Onkelos
They shall keep the charge of My Word, and they shall not bear sin on account of it and die thereby, because they would have profaned it. I am Hashem, who sanctifies them.
Rashi
ושמרו את משמרתי THEY SHALL THEREFORE KEEP MY CHARGE — not to eat the heave-offering (as mentioned in v. 7) whilst they are in a state of bodily uncleanness (Sanhedrin 83a). ומתו בו LEST THEY DIE THEREBY — This phrase teaches us that this means death through Heaven (not through the sentence of the court) (cf. Sanhedrin 83a).
Ibn Ezra
"And they shall keep My charge" — this is a reference to the Temple; therefore [it continues]: "and they shall not bear sin because of it and die thereby."
Sforno
אני ה' מקדשם, I have sanctified them (the items sanctified as donations by the ordinary Israelites) It is therefore appropriate that priests who treat these sanctified objects with disdain (as if they were profane), be punished for desecrating them.
Targum Yonatan
But the sons of Israel shall observe the keeping of My Word, that they may not bring sin upon themselves, nor die for it by the flaming fire; because they have profaned it: I am the Lord who sanctify them.
There shall no common man eat of the holy thing; a tenant of a priest, or a hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.
verse value 2574
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 35 letters. Verse gematria: 2574 is divisible by 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "holiness" (קֹ֑דֶשׁ, 3 letters) and the longest is "he·shall·not·eat" (לֹא־יֹ֣אכַל, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 404: holiness, holiness. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·hired·worker" (וְשָׂכִ֖יר). The root אכל appears 2 times in this verse. 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "he·shall·not·eat" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus); "holiness" (root קדש, 101x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root תושב ("resident·of") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'holiness', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 5 words. Full calculation: וְכׇל־זָ֖ר [and·no·lay·person] (263) + לֹא־יֹ֣אכַל [he·shall·not·eat] (92) + קֹ֑דֶשׁ [holiness] (404) + תּוֹשַׁ֥ב [resident·of] (708) + כֹּהֵ֛ן [priest] (75) + וְשָׂכִ֖יר [and·hired·worker] (536) + לֹא־יֹ֥אכַל [he·shall·not·eat] (92) + קֹֽדֶשׁ [holiness] (404) = 2574.
Onkelos
No common person shall eat of the sacred offering; a sojourner of the priest, or a hired laborer, shall not eat of the sacred offering.
Rashi
לא יאכל קדש [THERE SHALL] NO [LAYMAN] EAT OF THE HOLY THINGS — Scripture is speaking here of the heave-offering (i. e., the word קדש means here תרומה only, and not any holy food) because the whole section (cf. Rashi on v. 7 and 9) is speaking of this. תושב כהן ושכיר A SOJOURNER WITH THE PRIEST OR A HIRED SERVANT [SHALL NOT EAT OF THE HOLY THINGS] — These words mean: the תושב of a כהן and his שכיר (not a כהן who is a תושב or a שכיר); on this account this word תושב here is punctuated with a Patach, because it is in the construct state. What is a תושב? One (a Hebrew servant) whose ear has been pierced (cf. Exodus 21:6), who thereby becomes his (the master’s) possession until the Jubilee year. And what is a שכיר? One (a Hebrew servant) who has been acquired as his possession for a limited number of years only — who goes free at the end of six years (cf. Exodus 21:2). Scripture intends to teach you here that it is not his body (that of the תושב or the שכיר), but only his labour for a term of years that has been acquired by his master that he should become entitled to eat of his heave-offering (as is the case with the קנין כספו, with “a person obtained as a property with money”, mentioned in the next verse) (Sifra, Emor, Section 5 17; Yevamot 70b).
Ibn Ezra
"And every stranger" — one who is not of the seed of Aaron.
Chizkuni
תושב כהן ושכיר, “a tenant of a priest or a hired servant;” you could have thought that if a tenant or physically owned slave of a priest is forbidden to eat of these holy things, it is only logical that a hired hand whose has been hired for a limited period only cannot eat from it either, so why did the Torah have to spell this out for us?; The reason is that if the word תושב alone had been written, I would have thought that it refers to someone hired only for a limited period; (Sifra)
Rashbam
וכל זר לא יאכל קודש, even relatively low grade sacred produce such as the tithe given to the priest known as תרומה.
But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it; and such as are born in his house, they may eat of his bread.
verse value 1839 — בְלַחְמֽוֹ = 86 (Elohim)
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 51 letters. Notable word values: "in·his·food" (בְלַחְמֽוֹ) = 86, equal to Elohim. Verse gematria: 1839 is divisible by 613, the number of the commandments (mitzvot). The shortest word is "in·it" (בּ֑וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "if·he·shall·buy" (כִּֽי־יִקְנֶ֥ה, 6 letters). 6 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·priest" (וְכֹהֵ֗ן), "if·he·shall·buy" (כִּֽי־יִקְנֶ֥ה), "property·of" (קִנְיַ֣ן). The root אכל appears 2 times in this verse. 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "he·shall·eat" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus); "he" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root קנה ("if·he·shall·buy") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·it', dividing the verse into phrases of 8 and 5 words. Full calculation: וְכֹהֵ֗ן [and·priest] (81) + כִּֽי־יִקְנֶ֥ה [if·he·shall·buy] (195) + נֶ֙פֶשׁ֙ [person] (430) + קִנְיַ֣ן [property·of] (210) + כַּסְפּ֔וֹ [his·silver] (166) + ה֖וּא [he] (12) + יֹ֣אכַל [he·shall·eat] (61) + בּ֑וֹ [in·it] (8) + וִילִ֣יד [and·one·born·in] (60) + בֵּית֔וֹ [his·household] (418) + הֵ֖ם [they] (45) + יֹאכְל֥וּ [they·shall·eat] (67) + בְלַחְמֽוֹ [in·his·food] (86) = 1839.
Onkelos
But if a priest purchases a person with his own money, he may eat of it; and those born in his household — they may eat of his food.
Rashi
וכהן כי יקנה נפש BUT IF THE PRIEST BUY ANY SOUL… [HE MAY EAT OF IT] — This refers to a Canaanitish servant who has been acquired even in respect to his body (not only as regards his work). ויליד ביתו AND THEY THAT ARE BORN IN HIS HOUSE — This refers to the children of his maid-servants. A priest's wife may eat תרומה as may be derived from this verse, for she, too, is “an acquisition obtained by his money” (Ketuvot 57b; cf. Mishna Kiddushin 1:1… 'האשה נקנית בכסף וכו, one of the ways in which a marriage may be contracted is by the passing of money or its equivalent from the man to the woman. A wife is therefore a קנין כסף). But it may also be derived from another verse (Numbers 18:11) "[the heave-offering…] everyone that is clean in thy house may eat of it”. Thus is it expounded in Sifrei Bamidbar 117 2.
Ibn Ezra
"They may eat of his bread" — both males and females.
And if a priest's daughter be married to a common man, she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the holy things.
verse value 3482
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 39 letters. The shortest word is "if" (כִּ֥י, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·daughter·of·priest" (וּבַ֨ת־כֹּהֵ֔ן, 6 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "an·outsider" (זָ֑ר), "of·the·gift·of" (בִּתְרוּמַ֥ת). 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·daughter·of·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "she·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'an·outsider', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 5 words. Full calculation: וּבַ֨ת־כֹּהֵ֔ן [and·daughter·of·priest] (483) + כִּ֥י [if] (30) + תִהְיֶ֖ה [she·shall·be] (420) + לְאִ֣ישׁ [to·man] (341) + זָ֑ר [an·outsider] (207) + הִ֕וא [she] (12) + בִּתְרוּמַ֥ת [of·the·gift·of] (1048) + הַקֳּדָשִׁ֖ים [the·sacred·gifts] (459) + לֹ֥א [not] (31) + תֹאכֵֽל [eat] (451) = 3482.
Onkelos
And the daughter of a priest, if she becomes the wife of a common man — she shall not eat of the separated sacred offerings.
Rashi
לאיש זר TO A LAYMAN — to a Levite or an ordinary Israelite (i. e. to any non-priest) (Sifra, Emor, Section 5 7).
Ibn Ezra
"In the heave-offering of the holy things" — [this refers to] the thigh and the breast.
Or HaChaim
ובת כהן כי תהיה לאיש זר, "And the daughter of a priest who marries an non-priest," etc. Torat Kohanim uses the restrictive word היא, "she," to exclude her mother, meaning her mother (the wife of a priest) may eat תרומה even though her daughter is not allowed to do so even if the mother had meanwhile become a widow (who had not remarried). I have seen an allusion of a moral-ethical nature in this paragraph which it is important for people to appreciate. Remember that Sanhedrin 93 taught us that the spiritual level of the Israelites is higher than that of the angels. We have also been taught in the Zohar second volume page 155 that G'd created four different worlds, each one higher than its counterpart. All this is derived from Isaiah 43,7 כל הנקרא בשמי ולכבודי בראתיו, יצרתיו, אף־עשיתיו. "All that is called by My name I have created, for My glory, fashioned it, and completed it." The word לכבודי refers to a higher world called עולם האצילות. The word בראתיו refers to a world known as עולם הבריאה. The word יצרתיו refers to the world known as עולם היצירה, whereas the word עשיתיו refers to our world, the world known as עולם העשיה. You must also appreciate that G'd's glory fills the entire universe including all these worlds we have described. It says in Deut. 33,27 ומתחת זרעות עולם, "and from beneath the arms of the world." G'd's "light" illuminates all four worlds. This is the mystical dimension of the tetragram, the four-lettered name of G'd י־ה־ו־ה. The letter י refers to G'd illuminating the domain called עולם האצילות, the totally spiritual, abstract world which we described. The first letter ה refers to the עולם הבריאה; the letter ו refers to the עולם היצירה, and the second letter ה refers to the עולם העשיה. The Zohar volume 1 page 80 also states that the vital parts of man are divided into four categories each of which is identified by a different name. One part is called נפש, a second part is called רוח whereas a third part is called נשמה. A fourth, and still more spiritual part, is called חיה. The part called חיה belongs to a domain called אפנים [a domain of the angels supporting G'd's throne Ed.] a celestial domain which may best be described as the "soul of the soul; Kabbalists claim that the vital part of man which is due to the light G'd employs in the עולם העשיה, our physical universe, is relatively weak and provides only the small part of the vitality needed to enable creatures to move. This is the only part of the "soul" that we are conscious of in this life. G'd arranged things in this way seeing the world we live is relatively gross, coarse. This "soul" is commonly referred to as נפש, "a physical life-force." On the other hand, the category of "vitality" which emanates from the light of G'd with which He illuminates the עולם היצירה is commonly known as רוה, spirit. It is a commensurately stronger spiritual force. The "vitality" which originates in the light with which G'd illuminates the עולם הבריה is called נשמה, in accordance wit...
Chizkuni
.ובת כהן....ובת כהן, why does each verse have to be written separately and have to be introduced by the words: ובת כהן, “and the daughter if a priest?” We must understand these verses as follows: “if this daughter of a priest gets married to someone who is not a priest, i.e. someone who had actually not qualified for marrying a priest’s daughter, as described in the Talmud, tractate Yevamot folio 68, where the subject is the widow of a High Priest; seeing that this woman had married someone forbidden to her, she has forfeited the right to eat t’rumah something that had been her right from birth until such time. [If the Torah had not written that after becoming divorced or widowed such a woman if she returned to her father’s house could resume eating trumah, if she was still childless, I would not have known that while married to a non priest she had been forbidden to do so. Ed.]
But if a priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned to her father's house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father's bread; but there shall no common man eat of it.
verse value 4043 — אָבִ֙יהָ֙ = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 18 words, 77 letters. Notable word values: "her·father" (אָבִ֙יהָ֙) = 18, chai, 'life'. Verse gematria: 4043 is divisible by 13, the value of echad ('one') and ahavah ('love'). The shortest word is "if" (כִּ֨י, 2 letters) and the longest is "as·her·youth" (כִּנְעוּרֶ֔יהָ, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 18: her·father, her·father. 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·offspring" (וְזֶ֘רַע֮), "and·she·shall·return" (וְשָׁבָ֞ה), "to·house·of" (אֶל־בֵּ֤ית). The root אב appears 2 times in this verse. 15 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·daughter·of·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "she·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "she·shall·eat" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'she·shall·eat', dividing the verse into phrases of 15 and 3 words.
Onkelos
But the daughter of a priest, if she is a widow or divorced, and has no child, and she returns to her father's house as in her youth — she may eat of her father's food. But no common person shall eat of it.
Rashi
אלמנה וגרושה [BUT IF A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER BE] A WIDOW OR DIVORCED WIFE of the layman mentioned in the preceding verse, וזרע אין לה AND SHE HATH NO DESCENDANTS — from him (from the layman) (Sifra; Yevamot 87a), ושבה THEN SHE MAY RETURN [UNTO HER FATHER'S HOUSE AS IN HER YOUTH AND MAY EAT OF HER FATHER’S BREAD] — if, however, she has descendants from him she is forbidden to eat as long as the descendants (cf. Yevamot 87a) are alive. וכל זר לא יאכל בו BUT THERE SHALL NO LAYMAN EAT THEREOF — The repetition of the prohibition already mentioned in v. 10 intends nothing else than to exclude from it the אונן — i. e. that he (the אונן) is permitted to eat תרומה. [Scripture, as it were, says here:] The status of being a non-priest, I tell you, debars one from eating תרומה but not that of being an אונן (Yevamot 68b).
Ibn Ezra
"She may eat of her father's bread" — as at first [before her marriage]. "And no stranger shall eat of it" — on account of [her] son, if she has one, and because of him she herself may not eat.
Or HaChaim
ובת כהן כי תהיה אלמנה, "And if a priest's daughter will become widowed, etc." In this verse the Torah speaks of the person who had achieved the most spiritually advanced level that of being נשמה לנשמה. We have explained that as a result of such an ascent this kind of person is separated from sin almost absolutely, his whole lifestyle being one of avoiding even the proximity of sin. The Torah hints at this by describing such a בת כהן as "married," i.e. closely attached to her holy roots. This is the kind of soul of which Solomon had spoken in Proverbs 12,21 when he described it as not becoming the victim of any mishap, i.e. sin. When such an elevated soul somehow commits a sin, the result is that it will lose its status of being "married" to her holy roots and will become "widowed or divorced," as the case may be, in either case forfeiting the source of its sustenance, the most holy domain, the עולם האצילות. The example גרושה refers to the nature of its misdemeanour having been more serious than the one in which it is described as אלמנה, widowed. When the Torah adds וזרע אין לה, that she (the soul of souls) did not have any seed, this is a simile for such a soul (person) not having performed the kind of good deeds in this world that are known as פרות, "fruit." Nonetheless, the punishment is "only" that "she will return to her father's house," to eat of the food dished out at the table of her father such as she did before her soul had begun to ascend to spiritual heights. The fact that she has to eat once more the kind of food she used to eat when she had been only on the level of נפש or רוח, is a very painful experience for such a soul. It is equivalent to a person who had sinned and who had never ascended beyond the נפש level of existence, having to die as a punishment for his sin. If the person who had attained the spiritual level of being a נשמה לנשמה had also performed the kind of good deeds on earth known as פרות, its punishment for having committed a trespass would be "only" that she is considered as eating at her own table. וכל זר לא יאכל קדש, "any non-priest must not eat sacred things." Here the Torah provides a rationale why G'd does not display His mercy to such a soul, permitting her to eat sacred things if not as a matter of right then at least as a matter of G'd's grace. When a soul which had once ascended to lofty spiritual heights had allowed herself to backslide and make common cause with spiritually negative forces known as זר, as alien, she can no longer qualify for partaking from קדש, "G'd's table," as it were.
Chizkuni
כי תהיה אלמנה או גרושה, “the daughter of a priest who after having married a non priest had become widowed or divorced; the Torah speaks of a woman divorced or widowed from an Israelite or a Levite; אלמנה וגרושה, why does the Torah not only write: גרושה without adding: אלמנה widow;? I would then have reasoned that if even a divorcee would be permitted to revert to the status of being single in her father’s house, a widowed woman surely would be able to do no less; this is why it says: אלמנה וזרע אין לה, “a widow who has no child.” By the same token, if the Torah had only written: אלמנה, “widow,” and had not mentioned a divorced woman, I would have reasoned that a widow who did not have a child could return to her father’s house and her former status as belonging to a priest would be reinstated, but a divorced woman would be reinstated even if she did have children from her ex husband who is not a priest. This is why the Torah had to write: גרושה וזרע אין לה “divorced but childless.” In the case of the widow the addition of “without child,” was a restriction for the widow, whereas the same words were an easing of the rules for the divorcee. ושבה אל בית אביה, “when she returns to live in the house of her father.” This excludes the case where because she had no children she is awaiting a levirate marriage to the brother or one of them, of her late husband. This is not called: “returning to the house of her father.” כנעוריה, as when she was less than 12 years and 6 months old, i.e. when she was not yet pregnant. (Sifra)
And if a man eat of the holy thing through error, then he shall put the fifth part of it to it, and shall give to the priest the holy thing.
verse value 3582
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 46 letters. Verse gematria: 3582 is divisible by 18, the value of chai ('life'). The shortest word is "holiness" (קֹ֖דֶשׁ, 3 letters) and the longest is "if·he·shall·eat" (כִּֽי־יֹאכַ֥ל, 6 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "if·he·shall·eat" (כִּֽי־יֹאכַ֥ל). The root קדש appears 2 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "upon·it" (root על, 127x in Leviticus); "if·he·shall·eat" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·error', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 6 words. Full calculation: וְאִ֕ישׁ [and·man] (317) + כִּֽי־יֹאכַ֥ל [if·he·shall·eat] (91) + קֹ֖דֶשׁ [holiness] (404) + בִּשְׁגָגָ֑ה [in·error] (313) + וְיָסַ֤ף [and·he·shall·add] (156) + חֲמִֽשִׁיתוֹ֙ [its·fifth·part] (764) + עָלָ֔יו [upon·it] (116) + וְנָתַ֥ן [and·he·shall·give] (506) + לַכֹּהֵ֖ן [to·the·priest] (105) + אֶת־הַקֹּֽדֶשׁ [the·holiness] (810) = 3582.
Onkelos
And if a man eats of the sacred offering in error, he shall add a fifth of its value to it and give the sacred offering to the priest.
Rashi
כי יאכל קדש AND IF [A MAN] EAT OF HOLY THINGS — the heave-offering. ונתן לכהן את הקדש THEN SHALL HE GIVE UNTO THE PRIEST THE קדש — i. e. a thing capable of becoming קדש, thus implying that he does not pay him money but fruits of a non-sacred character (חולין), which then become תרומה (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 6 5; Pesachim 32b).
Ramban
AND IF A MAN EAT OF THE HOLY THING THROUGH ERROR, THEN HE SHALL ADD ITS FIFTH PART UNTO IT, AND SHALL GIVE UNTO THE PRIEST THE HOLY THING. “He must give him a thing which is capable of becoming holy [like the original holy food of the priest that he ate, thus teaching] that he is not to pay him money, but fruits of a non-holy status, which then become terumah (a heave-offering).” This is Rashi’s language. Thus the explanation of the verse is as follows: “A man that eats the holy thing [i.e., the heave-offering which belongs to the priest], must add the fifth of that holy thing to it, and give to the priest this holy thing which is its original value and the added fifth.” And since Scripture called it [the restitution] kodesh (holy thing), we deduce that it becomes as the original heave-offering [which he ate in error, and that it must therefore be] something which is capable of so becoming [namely fruits, but not money]. This is the correct explanation according to both the plain meaning of Scripture and the [Rabbinical] interpretation thereof. So also did Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra comment: “And he shall give unto the priests ‘eth’ the holy thing, means ‘with’ the holy thing [i.e., he is to give the priest its original value with the added fifth, all in fruits]. Or it may that the word v’nathan (and he shall give) draws along with it a similar word, and the sense of the verse is thus: ‘then he shall add its fifth part to it and shall give unto the priest, and he shall give unto the priest the holy thing.’ But in my opinion [so continues Ibn Ezra], there is no need [for both interpretations] because of the word alav (to it).”
Ibn Ezra
"And he shall give to the priest the holy thing" — its meaning is [that he gives it] together with the holy thing; or else the phrase "and he shall give to the priest" draws itself and another along with it, and the interpretation is then: he shall add a fifth part to it, and shall give to the priest, and shall give the holy thing. In my view, however, this is unnecessary on account of the word "to it" (alav).
Or HaChaim
ונתן לכהן את הקדש, "and he shall give to the priest the holy thing." Our sages in the sixth chapter of Terumot are divided about the meaning of this verse. Rabbi Eliezer holds that what is meant is anything which can potentially become holy, sacred may be used as compensation for the תרומה which a person had consumed inadvertently. Rabbi Akiva holds that only the same category of food which the person consumed inadvertently may be used as compensation for the תרומה which someone who was not entitled to ate inadvertently. Thus far the Mishnah. Perhaps Rabbi Akiva meant that by means of making this restitution the Torah considers it as if the guilty person had actually restored the holy things he had consumed and had recreated a situation similar to that which existed before he inadvertently ate the holy things.
Chizkuni
ויסף חמישיתו, “and he shall add one fifth to the value of the forbidden holy food that he has eaten.” What is meant is that after having added the penalty, the total will represent 20% more than the original, i.e. the sinner had actually added 25% to the original value.
And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they set apart to Hashem;
verse value 2763
Insights
Verse structure: 7 words, 37 letters. The shortest word is "and·not" (וְלֹ֣א, 3 letters) and the longest is "that·they·shall·set·apart" (אֵ֥ת אֲשֶׁר־יָרִ֖ימוּ, 10 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "the·sacred·donations·of" (אֶת־קׇדְשֵׁ֖י), "that·they·shall·set·apart" (אֵ֥ת אֲשֶׁר־יָרִ֖ימוּ). 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "and·not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "sons·of" (root בן, 143x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Israel', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 2 words. Full calculation: וְלֹ֣א [and·not] (37) + יְחַלְּל֔וּ [they·shall·profane] (84) + אֶת־קׇדְשֵׁ֖י [the·sacred·donations·of] (815) + בְּנֵ֣י [sons·of] (62) + יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל [Israel] (541) + אֵ֥ת אֲשֶׁר־יָרִ֖ימוּ [that·they·shall·set·apart] (1168) + לַיהֹוָֽה [to·Hashem] (56) = 2763.
Onkelos
They shall not profane the sacred offerings of the children of Israel — those which they set apart before Hashem —
Rashi
'ולא יחוללו וגו AND THEY SHALL NOT PROFANE [THE HOLY THINGS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] — by giving them to non-priests to eat of them.
Ramban
AND THEY SHALL NOT PROFANE THE HOLY THINGS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — “by giving them to non-priests to be eaten.” 16. AND SO CAUSE ‘OTHAM’ (THEM) TO BEAR THE INIQUITY THAT BRINGETH GUILT. “[The word otham here means] ‘themselves,’ meaning that they [the priests) cause themselves to bear iniquity when they [the non-priests] eat the holy things which have been set aside as the heave-offering, and have become sanctified as such, and forbidden to them [the non-priests]. And Onkelos who rendered the verse: ‘when they [the priests] eat them in impurity’ has translated it so unnecessarily.” Thus far is the language of Rashi, of blessed memory. But I did not understand Rashi’s opinion. For it would appear from his words that this negative commandment constitutes a prohibition to the priests, that they are not to give the heave-offering to non-priests to eat of it. And if so, it would be fitting to explain [the word ‘otham’ in the phrase] and so cause ‘otham’ (them), as a pronoun for “Israel,” meaning that the priests will thereby burden the Israelites with the iniquity that beareth guilt, when they [the Israelites] eat the holy things! Why then did Rabbi Yishmael find it necessary to interpret the word otham [as a reflexive form], meaning “themselves” [as Rashi mentioned]? Besides, this negative commandment is not mentioned [specifically] in the Talmud, but instead the priest is forbidden to do so as is the case with all other prohibitions [where we are forbidden to help or cause another person to commit a transgression]. Rather, the explanation of the phrase the children of Israel [in Verse 15] is that it refers back to the beginning [part of that verse, thus making it as follows]: “and the children of Israel shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel which they set apart unto the Eternal,” the verse thus constituting a second admonition to the non-priest that he is not to eat of the holy things, [and the reason why it is repeated is] because He wanted to mention the punishment for the transgression thereof, stating and they will cause themselves to bear the iniquity etc. when they [the non-priests] will eat their holy things. Now our Rabbis explained [that the reason for] the repetition of this admonition was to forbid the eating of tevel. Thus they have said: “Whence do we know that one who eats tevel is liable to death [by the hand of Heaven]? From the verse, And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel which ‘yarimu’ (they shall set apart) unto the Eternal. Now the verse refers to that which is yet to be offered [namely, the verse refers to the holy things — the heave-offering and the tithes — which are not yet set apart from the produce, so that it is all tevel]; and then an identity of law is learned from the use of ‘profanation’ here and in the case of the heave-offering: [just as there the penalty is death by the hand of Heaven, so here too].”However, in the Torath Kohanim I have found this text: “An...
Tur HaArokh
ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל, “and they shall not desecrate the holies of the Children of Israel,” according to Rashi this is a warning not to feed any consecrated gifts to ordinary Israelites. [Verses 14,15, and 16 all speak of the same type of holy gifts, the first describes non priests eating such inadvertently, the second speaks of the same people eating same knowingly, the third speaks of priests feeding such to non priests not entitled to eat them. Ed]
and so cause them to bear the iniquity that brings guilt, when they eat their holy things; for I am Hashem who sanctify them.
verse value 2801 — יְהֹוָ֖ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 44 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "for" (כִּ֛י, 2 letters) and the longest is "their·sacred·donations" (אֶת־קׇדְשֵׁיהֶ֑ם, 8 letters). 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·cause·them·to·bear" (וְהִשִּׂ֤יאוּ), "iniquity·of" (עֲוֺ֣ן), "guilt" (אַשְׁמָ֔ה). The root קדש appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "when·they·eat" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus); "their·sacred·donations" (root קדש, 101x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'their·sacred·donations', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְהִשִּׂ֤יאוּ [and·cause·them·to·bear] (328) + אוֹתָם֙ [them] (447) + עֲוֺ֣ן [iniquity·of] (126) + אַשְׁמָ֔ה [guilt] (346) + בְּאׇכְלָ֖ם [when·they·eat] (93) + אֶת־קׇדְשֵׁיהֶ֑ם [their·sacred·donations] (860) + כִּ֛י [for] (30) + אֲנִ֥י [I] (61) + יְהֹוָ֖ה [Hashem] (26) + מְקַדְּשָֽׁם [who·sanctify·them] (484) = 2801.
Onkelos
and thereby bring upon them iniquity and guilt through their eating of their sacred offerings — for I am Hashem, who sanctifies them.
Rashi
והשיאו אותם means, and they (the priests) would burden themselves with sin, באכלם את קדשיהם WHEN THEY (the non-priests) EAT THEIR HOLY THINGS which have been set apart for the purpose of heave-offering and have thereby become holy and forbidden to them. [Onkelos who translated באכלם את קדשיהם by “when they (the priests) eat them in their uncleanness” has translated it thus quite unnecessarily] (But cf. Rashi on Sanhedrin 90b). והשיאו אותם — This (the word אותם) is one of the three cases of את with a pronominal suffix occurring in the Torah which R. Ishmael explained as speaking of (referring to) the person himself who is the subject of the sentence (i. e. as being reflexive and not accusative pronouns). In the same sense did he explain (Numbers 4:13) “[And this is the law of the Nazarite] when the days of his Nazaritehood are fulfilled, יביא אותו [to the entrance of the appointed tent]” as meaning: he shall bring himself (i. e. present himself) to the entrance etc. Similarly he explained (Deuteronomy 34:6) “ויקבור אותו in the glen” as meaning: he (Moses) buried himself (i. e. he went into a cave and died there cf. Avot 5:9 and יד משה on Shemot Rabbah 10). Thus is it explained in the Sifrei Bamidbar 32 (on Numbers 6:3).
Ibn Ezra
"And they shall cause them to bear" (ve-hesi'u otam) — this is a verb that takes two objects, and the meaning is that they shall warn and instruct them so that they do not go astray.
Sforno
והשיאו אותם עון אשמה, they themselves, when they declared the items in question (for instance t’rumah) as sacred cause themselves to become guilty in the event they would trespass and make profane use of them. The Torah does not allow you to apply the principle הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר, that just as one may declare something forbidden, the same person can also declare it as allowed. (D’mai,6,11) The reason why we cannot apply this principle in this case is אני ה' מקדשו, seeing that G’d Himself elevated this item to a status of holiness, a mere mortal, even the donor, cannot remove such sanctity at his own discretion.
Or HaChaim
והשיאו אותם עון אשמה, "and so cause them to bear the sin which brings guilt, etc." The meaning of the verse is that if the guilty person did not make restitution of both the value of the amount of holy things consumed plus the 20%, the parameter of the sin will grow wider so that it will be classified as if it had been committed intentionally (i.e. עון). The justification for this is that when one fails to correct a sin inadvertently committed although one has been given an opportunity to correct it, the original sin becomes so much more serious. The word והשיאו is equivalent to ינשאו "they will have to bear them;" הם i.e. the combined sins. The Torah adds: באכלם את קדשיהם, the sin will now be considered not merely failure to pay the penalty but it will be considered as if they had eaten their holy things on purpose. Compare my comments on the last verse.
Chizkuni
.והשיאו אותם עון אשמם, “and so cause them to bear the guilt brought on by their iniquity.” This is a reference to the people who desecrated holy things by feeding them to non priests. They will have to bear the burden of their sin, not the people who ate them, who were unaware of their status as being holy. את קדשיהם, ”their holy things.” This teaches that the farmers can give their t’rumah to any priest of their choosing. מקדשם, “who sanctify them.” This refers to holy matters that had been sanctified by Israelites
Tur HaArokh
והשיאו אותם עון אשמה, “and they would cause themselves to bear the sin of guilt.” They would bring the punishment of their guilt upon themselves, etc. Nachmanides writes that he has not understood the meaning of Rashi, whom he understands as saying that our verse is a warning for the priests not to give non priests to eat produce which had already been set aside as תרומה, the priest’s share of the farmer’s harvest. If that were so, the words there would not be needed to explain the wordsוהשיאו אותם עון, as applying to themselves, i.e. the people eating this תרומה, as the sin had been committed by the priests, and they would be the guilty ones, having burdened the ordinary Israelite consuming these קדשים, sacred things, with guilt. Furthermore, we do not find this prohibition Rashi speaks about being mentioned in the Talmud as a separate negative commandment, although misleading an Israelite into eating food forbidden to him because it is reserved for priests of their households, is of course, forbidden, no more and no less so than feeding the unsuspecting other categories of food which the Torah has placed out of bounds for the individuals it is given to. The proper meaning of our verse is that the verse is conceptually a continuation of verses 14 and 15 which are addressed to the Israelites and warn them not to eat such food that is described here as קדשים. The reason the legislation is repeated is to spell out that there is a punishment for disobeying it. According to our sages the punishment is even death at the hands of heaven, if the forbidden food is grain that has not been tithed, or harvest products, known as טבל. The reason is simple, and the word קדשים alludes to it. All טבל still contains the portion which was meant to be set aside as תרומה, sacred heave produce for the priest. (Midrash Hagadol Devarim, page 579)
Rashbam
באכלם, a reference to the non priests mentioned in verse 13. את קדשיהם, T’rumah
Verse structure: 4 words, 18 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה, 4 letters) and the longest is "and·spoke" (וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר, 5 letters). 4 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "saying" (root אמר, 79x in Leviticus); "and·spoke" (root דבר, 76x in Leviticus). Full calculation: וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר [and·spoke] (222) + יְהֹוָ֖ה [Hashem] (26) + אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה [to·Moses] (376) + לֵּאמֹֽר [saying] (271) = 895.
Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them: Whoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that brings his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their freewill offerings, which are brought to Hashem for a burnt offering;
verse value 7651
Insights
Verse structure: 22 words, 115 letters. The shortest word is "speak" (דַּבֵּ֨ר, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·for·all·their·freewill·offerings" (וּלְכׇל־נִדְבוֹתָ֔ם, 10 letters). Words sharing gematria 541: Israel, Israel. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "to·all·their·vows" (לְכׇל־נִדְרֵיהֶם֙), "and·for·all·their·freewill·offerings" (וּלְכׇל־נִדְבוֹתָ֔ם). The root אל appears 3 times in this verse. 15 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "and·to·his·sons" (root בן, 143x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·them', dividing the verse into phrases of 8 and 14 words.
Onkelos
Speak with Aaron and with his sons and with all the children of Israel, and say to them: Any man of the house of Israel, or of the proselytes among Israel, who brings his offering for any of their vows or for any of their freewill offerings that they bring before Hashem as a burnt offering —
Rashi
נדריהם THEIR VOWS — [An animal is termed נדר when an obligation is entered into by the words:] Behold, I take it upon myself [to bring a burnt-offering]. נדבותם THEIR FREE-WILL OFFERINGS — [it is a נדבה when one states:] Behold, this animal [shall be a burnt-offering] (Megillah 8a).
Ramban
FOR ALL ‘NIDREIHEM’ (THEIR VOW-OFFERINGS) AND FOR ALL ‘NIDVOTHAM’ (THEIR FREEWILL-OFFERINGS). “Nidreihem (their vow-offerings). This is when one says, ‘I pledge myself [to bring an offering].’ Nidvotham (their freewill-offerings). This is when one says, ‘This shall be [an offering].’” This is Rashi’s language. It appears to me that because Scripture states ‘l’phalei’ (to clearly utter) in fulfillment of a vow or for a freewill-offering, and similarly it always uses this [identical] expression in the section dealing with the drink-offerings, and likewise it is used in the verse, when a man ‘yaphli’ (shall clearly utter) a vow of persons, and so also in the section dealing with the Nazirite — [therefore it appears] that “the vow” is something which comes in connection with that which is beyond our power, the person in distress vowing unto G-d that “if You will deal ‘wondrously’ with me to save me from this trouble, then I will bring a burnt-offering or peace-offering,” similar to that which is stated: And Jacob vowed a vow, saying: ‘If G-d will be with me;’ And Israel vowed a vow unto the Eternal, and said: ‘If Thou wilt deliver this people into my hand;’ and they vowed vows, and so also all similar verses. And our Rabbis have said: “Which is a vow-offering? When he says, ‘I pledge myself to bring a burnt-offering.’ [Which is] a freewill-offering? When he says, ‘This [animal] shall be a burnt-offering.’ And what is the difference between a vow-offering and a freewill-offering? In the case of a vow-offering, one is responsible for it [and must replace it] if it dies or is stolen, [since he took upon himself a general obligation to offer an animal], but in the case of a freewill-offering, he is not responsible for it if it dies or is stolen” [since he did not assume a general pledge upon himself, but merely said that this particular animal should be an offering]. Now the reason for this difference between them [a vow and a freewill-offering], is because the custom of those vowing in the time of their distress is to say, “If G-d will be with me [and guard me] in this [trouble], then I pledge myself to offer a burnt-offering or a [peace-] offering,” and this is not usually called a freewill-offering, [since he has not yet set aside any particular animal for it]. But [a vow which is followed] by setting aside immediately [an animal] and giving it, is called “a freewill-offering,” because from the moment of giving, his spirit made him willing. Thus Scripture is stating here that whether he brings a burnt-offering or a peace-offering which he vowed at the time of his distress, or whether he brings them because his spirit made him willing — in either case it must be perfect [without blemish], for perhaps we might have thought that [it is more important that] the vow-offering should be perfect than the freewill-offering. This is the meaning of the verse.
Ibn Ezra
After mentioning the sacred donations of the children of Israel, [the text] warns that they shall not bring sacred offerings from blemished animals. The mention of "and from the stranger" is because the same law applies equally to one who takes a vow and one who makes a freewill offering, whether Israelite or sojourner, for so it is written. The Sages, however, distinguished between a vow (neder) and a freewill offering (nedavah): every vow is [also] a freewill offering, but not every freewill offering is a vow. Any offering that goes up entirely on the altar must be without blemish.
Sforno
אשר יקריב קרבנו, after the Torah had addressed the priests, who offer the sacrifices on the altar as well as their status of sanctity, it now discusses rules applying to the offerings themselves., saying that the following applies to לכל נדריהם ולכל נדבותם, even these offerings were voluntary offerings as opposed to mandatory offerings, and I might have thought that any such offering, even of a blemished animal, would be gratefully accepted by G’d, seeing the individual in question was under no obligation to offer any sacrifice at this time, the Torah states flatly that this is not so. The author, quoting Maleachi 1,5 as proof that one would not dare offer a gift to a human ruler that was less than perfect, how much less would one dare to do this “for” G’d, concludes that there must have been people in his time guilty of mistaking what is expected of them and offering inferior animals as sacrifices.
Chizkuni
איש איש וגו, from the repetition here of the word איש איש, meaning: “anyone,” we learn according to Rashi, that the donations to the Jewish Temple by gentiles are acceptable. If you were to ask why Rashi needed this verse to learn this from indirectly, when we could have inferred this from a very specific verse in verse 25 of our chapter, where the Torah writes: ומיד כל בן נכר לא תקריבו את אלו, “and when donated from any gentile you must not offer on the altar any of these,” it is clear that the only kind of offerings from gentiles we must not present on the altar of our temple are blemished beasts, but beasts that are not blemished but are perfect specimens of their respective categories, may certainly be offered on behalf of the gentiles, the answer is that from that verse we could have derived that if a Jewish priest presented a perfect specimen donated by a gentile he would transgress only against an ordinary negative commandment, but if he presented a blemished animal he would transgress also a positive commandment at the same time. At the same time, if the Torah had only written our verse here, I would have thought that gentiles may even present animals that are blemished as sacrifices on the altar of the Jewish Temple. Not only that, I would have thought that if gentiles wanted to offer sin offerings on the altar of the Jewish Temple this would also be acceptable; this is why the Torah had to approve only nedarim and nedavot, free will offerings of the category of gifts to G-d, by writing what it did.
that you may be accepted, you shall offer a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats.
verse value 1960
Insights
Verse structure: 6 words, 29 letters. The shortest word is "male" (זָכָ֔ר, 3 letters) and the longest is "to·your·acceptance" (לִֽרְצֹנְכֶ֑ם, 6 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "in·the·young·rams" (בַּכְּשָׂבִ֖ים), "and·in·the·goats" (וּבָֽעִזִּֽים). 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "male" (root זכר, 26x in Leviticus); "without·blemish" (root תמים, 23x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·your·acceptance', dividing the verse into phrases of 1 and 5 words. Full calculation: לִֽרְצֹנְכֶ֑ם [to·your·acceptance] (430) + תָּמִ֣ים [without·blemish] (490) + זָכָ֔ר [male] (227) + בַּבָּקָ֕ר [from·the·cattle] (304) + בַּכְּשָׂבִ֖ים [in·the·young·rams] (374) + וּבָֽעִזִּֽים [and·in·the·goats] (135) = 1960.
Onkelos
for it to be acceptable on your behalf, it shall be a wholesome male, from the cattle, from the sheep, or from the goats.
Rashi
לרצנכם — The meaning is: bring such a thing (animal) as is fitted to cause רצון, propitiation for you before Me. The word לרצנכם means: so that it may be to you for propitiation; apaisement in old French And which animal is it that is fitting to effect propitiation? תמים זכר בבקר בכבשים ובעזים A MALE WITHOUT BLEMISH OF THE CATTLE, OF THE SHEEP, OR OF THE GOATS — but in the case of a burnt-offering that consists in a bird, the unblemished condition and the male sex are not essential, and it does not become unfit for sacrifice by reason of a mere blemish (a bodily defect), but only by reason of the loss of a limb (Sifra, Emor, Section 7 2).
Sforno
לרצונכם , as a sacrifice that will confer G’d’s goodwill upon you, and not for the Temple treasury. תמים זכר, it must be male and unblemished seeing the Creator is described as having produced work which is perfect, unblemished, when He created the universe. (Compare Deuteronomy 32,4)
Chizkuni
לרצונכם תמים זכר, “without blemish, male, that you will be well received,” earlier in the portion of Vayikra, 1,3, the Torah spoke of mandatory offerings, when mentioning that the offering needs to be such that G-d will look at the donor with fondness. No mention was made there of any blemishes in the animal offered. The author wonders why the Torah here did not mention other categories of sacrifices.
And whoever brings a sacrifice of peace offerings to Hashem to fulfill a special vow, or for a freewill offering, of the herd or of the flock, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish in it.
verse value 3210
Insights
Verse structure: 16 words, 74 letters. The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "a·sacrifice·of·well-being" (זֶֽבַח־שְׁלָמִים֙, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 7: or, or. 6 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "a·sacrifice·of·well-being" (זֶֽבַח־שְׁלָמִים֙), "to·fulfill·a·special·vow" (לְפַלֵּא־נֶ֙דֶר֙), "to·freewill·offering" (לִנְדָבָ֔ה). The root או appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·the·flock', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 6 words.
Onkelos
And if a man brings a peace offering before Hashem, to fulfill a vow or as a freewill offering, from the cattle or from the flock — it shall be wholesome to be acceptable; no blemish whatsoever shall be in it.
Rashi
לפלא נדר means, expressing it by speech (not expressing it mentally, בלב).
Ibn Ezra
"To fulfill" (le-falle) — [this means] to specify [the vow].
Sforno
After the Torah has warned that the burnt offering, עולה, is of such a high rank of such sacred items, קדשי קדשיםthat only unblemished male animals may be used for such offerings, and that this requirement pertains only to cattle and sheep or goats, i.e. conditions which are not applicable to bird offerings, (compare Kidushin 16) it continues with ואיש כי יקריב 'זבח שלמים לה, to inform us that although this kind of meat offering is of a lower ranking sanctity, קדשים קלים and the Torah does not insist that such an animal must be male, in order to confer G’d’s goodwill on the donor, it must still be a perfect, unblemished animal of its species. We know from Leviticus 3,1 that such offerings are acceptable also if a female animal is offered. Verse 22 explains that it is simply not acceptable to offer a blemished animal to G’d as a sacrifice. An additional rule why blemished animals are not acceptable are the words ואשה לא תתנו מהם על המזבח לה'. The Torah informs us with these words that even if the blemish in the animal designated as the sacrifice originated only after it had been sanctified, the parts which are normally burnt on the altar, i.e. certain fat parts and membranes over the kidneys, because it simply is not acceptable that even if the parts designated for the altar are unblemished, anything which before getting to this stage had had a disqualifying blemish disqualifies the whole as it is looked upon with dismay by G’d.
Chizkuni
ואיש כי יקריב, “and when an individual will bring a peace offering, etc.;” only individuals can offer this type of peace offering. לפלא נדר, “in fulfillment of a vow;” there are two diametrically opposite ways of explaining the word לפלא. One is the one we just used, the other we find in a verse in Deuteronomy 17,8: כי יפלא ממך דבר, where it means “if something is concealed from you;” another example where the same expression is used in a similarly contradictory manner is the word דשן, and לדשנו, in Exodus 27,3 which can mean to remove ashes and dross, and which can mean: to saturate, to have a surfeit of, (in the positive sense, such as when applied to a harvest.) Also, in Zachariah 3,4 מחלצות, where it means fancy priestly robes, whereas in Psalms 7,5, ואחלצה צוררי, it means: “I stripped my oppressors, (removed their protective clothing)” The author quotes another example or two of the same phenomenon.
Tur HaArokh
לפלא נדר או לנדבה, “to fulfill a promised vow or making a voluntary offering.” Nachmanides writes: “it appears to me that seeing that the Torah uses the expression לפלא נדר או נדבה, that both here and in other situations where this expression is used it refers to people who when making such a vow they felt that they were under extreme stress which prompted them to make this “vow.” (Compare Leviticus 27,2, and Numbers 6,2, for instance) The vow goes something like this: “If Hashem will perform some kind of miracle, פלא so that I will be extricated from the predicament I find myself in at this time, I promise to do such and such as a thanksgiving offering.” The whole situation is analogous to Yaakov having made a vow after his dream with the ladder, and his being penniless on the way to get a wife for himself. The basic difference in the formula of a vow called נדר and one called נדבה, is that the נדר is a personal obligation that has to be seen through, i.e. if the item vowed has been lost or stolen before it was paid, the person who vowed it has to make restitution, seeing he had said “I accept the obligation on myself to do or give such and such.” The person vowing a נדבה, on the other hand, declared a certain item as holy for G’d, and once he had declared it as such, if something happened to it, it is no longer his responsibility to make restitution. Seeing that in the case of the נדר the party vowing it does not make the selection at once, the Torah applies more stringent rules to the state of physical perfection used for such an animal. [There are, of course, numerous other distinctions between the two kinds of vows, but they do not concern our verse. Ed.]
Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scabbed, or scurvy, you shall not offer these to Hashem, nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar to Hashem.
verse value 5033 — אֵ֖לֶּה = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 17 words, 74 letters. Notable word values: "these" (אֵ֖לֶּה) = 36, double chai. The shortest word is "or" (א֨וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "you·shall·not·bring" (לֹא־תַקְרִ֥יבוּ, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 56: to·Hashem, to·Hashem. 6 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "blind" (עַוֶּ֩רֶת֩), "fractured" (שָׁב֜וּר), "or·maimed" (אוֹ־חָר֣וּץ). The root או appears 3 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "you·shall·not·bring" (root קרב, 112x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root יבל ("or·wart") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·Hashem', dividing the verse into phrases of 12 and 5 words.
Onkelos
Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having warts, or having mange, or having scabs — you shall not bring these before Hashem, and you shall not place an offering from them upon the altar before Hashem.
Rashi
עורת is a noun denoting the blemish of blindness (עִוָּרֹן), being, however, a feminine form of the latter. The text therefore means that there shall not be the defect of blindness in it (in the sacrifice). או שבור nor shall it be a broken animal. חרוץ CHAPPED — an eye-lid that is split or has a piece cut out of its edge; and similarly, its (the animal’s) lip that is split or has a piece cut out of its edge (Sifra, Emor, Section 7 12; Bekhorot 38a). יבלת is called verrue in old French, (English = wart). גרב is a kind of lichen and so too is ילפת. The word ילפת is connected in meaning with (Judges 16:29) “And Samson took hold (וילפת) [of the two middle pillars]”. The blemish is so called because it keeps its grasp on him (the sick person) until the day of his death, since there is no cure for it (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 21:20). לא תקריבו YE SHALL NOT OFFER — Three times is the expression לא תקריבו used in this section (here and in v. 20 and 24), in order to lay down a separate prohibition regarding designating them (blemished animals) as sacrifices, slaughtering them and sprinkling their blood (cf. Temurah 6b). ואשה לא תתנו YE SHALL NOT MAKE A FIRE-OFFERING [OF THEM] — This contains the prohibition of burning them on the altar (Temurah 6b).
Ibn Ezra
"Blind" (averet) — an adjectival form referring to the eye. Some say that "broken" (shavur) refers to the foreleg, and "gashed" (charuts) to the hind leg; and charuts is from the same root as "you have decreed [it]" (ken mishpatekha atta charatsata) — meaning, as if cut. "Wart" (yabbelet) — this is like tabbulul; and the general principle is that we rely upon the received tradition [of the Sages] and do not lean upon our own deficient understanding. "You shall not offer these to Hashem" — for the fulfillment of a vow; and [the priest] shall not accept any of those mentioned.
Chizkuni
או שבור, “or broken;” just as we have the expression שבר יד, and ,שבר רגל, describing a broken hand or a broken foot as examples of blemishes seen by all, so here too it describes a very visible blemish due to a fracture of a bone, that is not visible to all. חרוץ, “maimed,” as in Kings I 20,40: משפטך אתה חרצת, “you yourself have released (decreed) it.” יבלת, scabbed;
Tur HaArokh
עורת או שבור, “blind or having a fractured limb.” Nachmanides writes that seeing the Torah had already listed the blind and broken limbs as disqualifying such an animal it did not have to lengthen the list of disqualifications. It is therefore quite possible that the whole list of disqualifications in our verse applies to the נדבה kind of vow, which was not intended as an offering on the altar in the first place, but was intended as a gift to the Temple treasury. The verse therefore has to be understood as telling us that all the blemishes listed are acceptable in a vow called נדבה, but are not acceptable in a vow called נדר. נדבה תעשה אותו, “you may donate it under the heading of nedavah.” Rashi says that it may be donated to the Temple treasury. ולנדר לא ירצה, “but it is not welcome as a vow made under the heading נדר.” Animals with the above-mentioned blemishes are not acceptable as gifts for the altar. The expression ירצה is used to make plain that the Torah speaks about a gift vowed which by definition requires G’d’s goodwill, ירצה, in order to be acceptable. Nachmanides writes that in accordance with this interpretation we need to read the previous line as follows: נדבה תעשה אותו ולנדר, “you may vow it as either a נדבה according to the definition we mentioned, and as a נדר according to the definition we mentioned, i.e. personal responsibility, in the event it disappeared, etc., but, -and that is important- as a gift for the altar which requires goodwill by G’d, it is not welcome. In that respect it does not matter which formula the vow had been phrased as. Nothing that is blemished is acceptable as a gift for the altar. On the other hand, both types of vows if intended as gifts to the Temple treasury are acceptable in spite of the animals having the blemishes mentioned in the Torah. It is possible that we can understand the wording of the Torah as primarily thinking of the type of gift to the Temple treasury in terms of נדבה, because during the donations the Jewish people made prior to the building of the Tabernacle the Torah constantly referred to the generosity of the people’s hearts prompting them to make such gifts, terming them נדיב לבו, as emanating from the generosity of his heart. (Compare at length in Exodus chapters 25,35,36 where this word appears in this context repeatedly.) It is not mentioned in connection with animals but with lifeless objects, clearly unfit for the altar. Wherever the word נדבה without further adjective is mentioned, it refers to gifts to the Temple treasury. The very fact that we do not find the expression תקריב אותה, “you shall bring it near as a sacrifice,” mentioned in connection with נדבה, but only the words תביא אותה, “you shall bring it,” supports our theory.
Either a bullock or a lamb that has anything too long or too short, that you may offer for a freewill offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted.
verse value 3419
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 38 letters. Verse gematria: 3419 is divisible by 13, the value of echad ('one') and ahavah ('love'). The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֥א, 2 letters) and the longest is "or·stunted" (וְקָל֑וּט, 5 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·lamb" (וָשֶׂ֖ה), "or·stunted" (וְקָל֑וּט), "and·to·vow" (וּלְנֵ֖דֶר). 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "you·may·present" (root עשה, 94x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'or·stunted', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 6 words. Full calculation: וְשׁ֥וֹר [and·ox] (512) + וָשֶׂ֖ה [and·lamb] (311) + שָׂר֣וּעַ [with·limb·extended] (576) + וְקָל֑וּט [or·stunted] (151) + נְדָבָה֙ [freewill·offering] (61) + תַּעֲשֶׂ֣ה [you·may·present] (775) + אֹת֔וֹ [it] (407) + וּלְנֵ֖דֶר [and·to·vow] (290) + לֹ֥א [not] (31) + יֵרָצֶֽה [it·shall·be·accepted] (305) = 3419.
Onkelos
An ox or a sheep that has a limb too long or too short — as a freewill offering you may bring it, but for a vow it shall not be acceptable.
Rashi
שרוע is an animal that has one limb larger than its fellow-limb (Bekhorot 40a). וקלוט is an animal which has uncloven hoofs (the sign of uncleaness; cf. Leviticus 11:4—6. It is a שור or a שה which, being a clean animal, is fitted to be sacrificed, but abnormally its hoofs are uncloven) (Bekhorot 40a). נדבה תעשה אתו THOU MAYEST DESIGNATE IT FOR A FREE-WILL OFFERING for the purpose of repairing the breaches in the Temple from the proceeds of its sale, ולנדר BUT AS A VOW — i. e. as an animal vowed for the altar (for sacrifice), it shall not be accepted. לא ירצה [BUT AS A נדר] THERE SHALL NOT BE PROPITIATION — What dedicated thing is it that is intended to effect propiation? You must admit that it is something dedicated to the altar. Consequently נדר can only mean a sacrifice for the altar (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 7 6).
Ramban
ANY OF THE HERD OR FLOCK THAT HATH A LIMB TOO LARGE OR TOO SMALL, THAT MAYEST THOU MAKE FOR ‘NEDAVAH’ (A FREEWILL-OFFERING) — “for keeping the Temple in repair.” ‘UL’NEDER’ (BUT FOR A VOW-OFFERING) IT SHALL NOT BE ACCEPTED — “for the altar. What hallowed thing is it that effects propitiation? I must say that it is something dedicated to the altar.” This is Rashi’s language. But according to this explanation, we must interpret the verse, that mayest thou make for ‘nedavah’ (a freewill-offering), ‘ul’neder’ (but for a vow-offering) it shall not be accepted as stating: that [a blemished animal] may be given as a freewill gift or as a vow [to be sold so that its money is used] for the Temple repair, but not for acceptance [to be offered up itself] on the altar; for there is no difference between a neder (vow-offering) and nedevah (freewill-offering) in this respect at all, both being permissible for the Temple repair and prohibited for the altar [on account of the blemish in them], and Scripture has already mentioned this in the case of the burnt-offering, whether it be any of their vow-offerings, or any of their freewill-offerings, and in the case of the peace-offering, in fulfillment of a vow-offering clearly uttered, or for a freewill-offering. And such is the interpretation of our Rabbis in the Torath Kohanim. It is possible that we can improve the explanation as to the language of Scripture [i.e., why it uses here the term nedavah for a freewill gift for Temple repair]. For since most freewill gifts are given for Temple repair, as it is said with reference to the Tabernacle, all that were ‘n’div leiv’ (willing-hearted) … brought the Eternal’s offering, and similarly with reference to the Sanctuary it is said, As for me, in the uprightness of my heart ‘hithnadavti’ (I have willingly offered) all these things, and so also in connection with the Second Temple it is said, beside ‘ha’nedavah’ (the freewill-offering) for the House of G-d, and it is likewise written about the Temple repair, all the money that cometh into any man’s heart to bring into the House of the Eternal, therefore it is [called] the freewill gift [without qualification, and Scripture here uses the term nedavah as referring not to a type of offering, but to the freewill gift for Temple repair]. And the reason for [this expression] is that there is nothing in connection with gifts for Temple repair which is obligatory, for [they are all brought only as a consequence of] willingness of the soul, and the custom of those who give a donation for Temple repair is that they bring it with [the language used in offering a] freewill-offering, “‘This is’ for the building.” Therefore wherever Scripture mentions nedavah without any qualification, it is for Temple repair, unless [the donor] expressly says that it is for a burnt-offering, or an offering of peace-offerings, as mentioned above. But the term neder (vow) without any qualification is said with reference to the holy things of the al...
Ibn Ezra
"Overdeveloped" (sarua) — like the first [type of blemish mentioned]. "And stunted" (ve-kallut) is its opposite, and is derived from the same root as ir miklat [city of refuge].
Sforno
נדבה תעשה אותו, even though numerous blemishes may be apparent you may donate them for the Temple treasury although the donor thought that on account of these blemishes they would be rejected by the Temple treasurer. The Torah differentiates between gifts for the Temple treasury and animals destined for the altar. Whereas even minor blemishes disqualify an animal from being offered on the altar, no such restrictions apply to gifts known as נדבה. This is possible because the bodies of such animals do not possess any sanctity, such sanctity only applies to their value, i.e. to the money realised from the sale of such animals. This enables the body which was donated to be treated as if it had never been sanctified in any way.
Chizkuni
[the next four verses detail certain blemishes which disqualify animals as sacrifices to be offered on the altar, regardless of whether they have been donated by Israelites or gentiles; in the case of the latter, they must not even be accepted by the Temple treasury as gifts while still alive so that they could be sold by him and the proceeds be used for repairs of the Temple. The Torah also forbids us to inflict these kinds of blemishes on human beings deliberately; one of the most serious such disfigurations would be castrating either animals or human beings. I have just summarized this. Ed.]
Rashbam
וקלוט, unsplit hooves. נדבה תעשה, as a gift for the Temple treasury ולנדר, but as sacrifice to be offered on the altar.
That which has its stones bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut, you shall not offer to Hashem; neither shall you do thus in your land.
verse value 4139
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 46 letters. The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֥א, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·in·your·land" (וּֽבְאַרְצְכֶ֖ם, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 31: not, not. 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·bruised" (וּמָע֤וּךְ), "and·crushed" (וְכָתוּת֙), "or·torn" (וְנָת֣וּק). The root לא appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "bring" (root קרב, 112x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·Hashem', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 3 words. Full calculation: וּמָע֤וּךְ [and·bruised] (142) + וְכָתוּת֙ [and·crushed] (832) + וְנָת֣וּק [or·torn] (562) + וְכָר֔וּת [and·cut] (632) + לֹ֥א [not] (31) + תַקְרִ֖יבוּ [bring] (718) + לַֽיהֹוָ֑ה [to·Hashem] (56) + וּֽבְאַרְצְכֶ֖ם [and·in·your·land] (359) + לֹ֥א [not] (31) + תַעֲשֽׂוּ [you·shall·do] (776) = 4139.
Onkelos
That which has been bruised, or crushed, or torn away, or cut off — you shall not bring before Hashem, and you shall not do this in your land.
Rashi
ומעוך וכתות ונתוק וכרות are forbidden as sacrifices whether the mutilation be in the testicles or the membrum. מעוך means, one whose testicles have been pressed by hand. כתות CRUSHED — it implies more severely crushed than מעוך. נתוק — they have been torn off by the hand, so that the threads on which they hang have snapped but they are still in the scrotum, the scrotum itself not having been torn off. וכרות — they have been cut away by an instrument but are still in the scrotum (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 7 9; Bekhorot 39b). [ומעוך — Its translation in the Targum is, ודי מריס; this is its exact translation in Aramaic, because this Aramaic root has the meaning of pounding. וכתות, however, is translated by the Targum ודי רסיס “and that which is smashed”, (a stronger term than מרס), similar to, Amos 6:11) “The great house shall be smitten into רסיסים” i. e. into small fragments; similar is the Talmudical expression (Shabbat 80b) a reed crushed to pieces (מרוסס)]. ובארצכם לא תעשו NEITHER SHALL YE DO IN YOUR LAND this thing — to castrate any cattle or beast even if it be unclean. That is why Scripture adds “in your land” — to include every animal that is in your land under this law (cf. Chagigah 14b and Tosafot there). For it is impossible to say that they are here commanded to abstain from mutilating animals in the Land of Israel only, (and that the word must be translated: “In your land you must not do this”, implying, but you may do it elsewhere) for surely the command regarding mutilation is a personal duty and any personal duty has to be practiced both in the Land and outside the Land (Kiddushin 36b; cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 7 11).
Ibn Ezra
"Bruised" (makhukh) — derived from [the root of] "they bruised their breasts" (me'akhkhu shadayhen). "And crushed" (ve-khathuth) — derived from "and I ground it" (va'akhoth oto tachon); both [of these terms] refer to the testicles. "And torn" (ve-nathuq) — derived from "as a thread is pulled apart" (ka'asher yinnatteq pathil ha-ne'oroth). "And in your land you shall not do" — to alter the work of Hashem.
Sforno
ומעוך וכתות, after the Torah spoke about the kind of physical blemishes which are of ritual consequence only in connection with sacrificial animals, and which must under no circumstances be caused to such an animal once it has been sanctified, the Torah turns to the kind of internal blemishes which one must not cause even to animals which have never been sanctified, are totally secular in their use.
Chizkuni
The author raises the question of whether the prophet Samuel castrated Agag, King of the Amalekites before killing him, and concludes that under the circumstances prevailing that was justified. (Samuel I 7,9, Midrash Shmuel on the subject. Ed.) Apparently, the prohibition was limited to when it was done inside the boundaries of the Land of Israel, as stated in verse 24.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ובארצכם לא תעשו, “and in your land you shall not do so.” Seeing the Torah had mentioned such defects as damage to the reproductive organs earlier in our verse, the Torah adds that it is forbidden to castrate animals in the land of Israel even if such animals were not intended as offerings. Even animals which are not fit for consumption by Jews must not be castrated. Contrary to the first impression that the word בארצכם, “in your land,” suggests that only in the land of Israel is it forbidden to castrate animals, this is misleading, and castrating G’d’s creatures is forbidden everywhere. The only reason the Torah wrote that word was to emphasize that even in our land where many of these animals cannot serve the general population as food seeing the animals in question are ritually impure, we must still not castrate such animals as a means of keeping down their numbers. It is also possible that the use by the Torah of the word תעשו here points out that castrating an animal is equivalent to “undoing it;” G’d made it, we undo it but allow it to live at the same time preventing it from procreating. We find a similar use of the word לעשות in Kohelet 4,17 where Solomon speaks about כי אינם יודעים לעשות רע, “for they do not know that they are to destroy the evil and remove it.” At first glance we would have translated the verse as “they do not know how to do evil,” something that clearly does not fit the context of the verse.“ [Rashi does not have trouble with the ordinary meaning of the word לעשות in that verse. Ed.] Another verse in which the word עשה does not have the meaning which it usually has is Genesis 9,24 where the Torah speaks about אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן, normally translated as “which his younger son had done to him,” (Noach who had been naked in his tent). On the face of it, the son (Cham) had done nothing except tell his brothers that their father had uncovered himself while drunk. Nonetheless, our sages in Sanhedrin 70 use the word to mean that he had castrated his father. So we see that the word עשה, though normally meaning “did” in a constructive sense such as when G’d created the universe, may appear in exactly the opposite sense such as when depriving the animal of its regenerative potential by castrating it. This may also be the meaning of the word יעשנה in Proverbs 6,32, where Solomon writes משחית נפשו יעשנה, which at first glance looks as if he says that “he who destroys his life is really creating it.” Instead, the meaning is “if he wants to destroy himself let him do such a thing (commit adultery).” When someone destroys his soul, his life, he most certainly deprives (יעשנה) it of the opportunity to achieve its lofty aims..”
Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these, because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you.
verse value 3262 — מ֣וּם = 86 (Elohim)
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 58 letters. Notable word values: "blemish" (מ֣וּם) = 86, equal to Elohim. The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֥א, 2 letters) and the longest is "bring" (תַקְרִ֛יבוּ, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 31: not, not. 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·from·hand·of" (וּמִיַּ֣ד), "son·of·foreigner" (בֶּן־נֵכָ֗ר), "from·all·these" (מִכׇּל־אֵ֑לֶּה). The root לא appears 2 times in this verse. 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "son·of·foreigner" (root בן, 143x in Leviticus); "bring" (root קרב, 112x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'from·all·these', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 8 words.
Onkelos
And from a foreigner you shall not bring the offering of your God from any of these, for their corruption is in them, a blemish is in them — they shall not be acceptable on your behalf.
Rashi
ומיד בן נכר AND FROM ANY STRANGER’S HAND who has brought a sacrifice through the agency of a priest to offer it to the Lord, לא תקריבו YOU SHALL NOT OFFER a blemished animal on his behalf. And though blemished animals are not forbidden as sacrifices of the “Sons of Noah” (the non-Israelite world) except such as lack one of their limbs (as derived from the text: Genesis 6:19; cf. Avodah Zarah 5b) — this rule applies only to animals offered to God by the “Sons of Noah” themselves on a Bamah (an altar, lit., an elevated place) in the open field, but on the altar in the Tabernacle shall you not offer blemished animals on their behalf (cf. Temurah 7a). An animal, however, that has no blemish you may accept from them as an offering on your altar. It is for this reason that Scripture says above (v. 18): איש “Any man… who offers”, in order to include in this law the heathens also — that they, too, are permitted to undertake to bring vowed animals (נדרים) and free-will offerings (נדבות) just the same as the Israelites (Chullin 13b). משחתם THEIR CORRUPTION — Translate this as the Targum does: חבולהון, their wound (defect). לא ירצו לכם THEY SHALL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR YOU — i. e. to atone for you.
Ibn Ezra
"And from the hand of a foreigner's son" — lest one think: since this is the offering of a foreigner's son, I need not concern myself with offering it. "Their corruption" (mashchatam) — the mem is a prefix and the tav is from the root, derived from the word hashchatah [corruption]; but in the verse "for the anointing of their priesthood" (Ex. 40:15), where mashchatam means "their anointing," the mem is a root letter and the tav is added. "They shall be accepted" (yirratzu) — this is in the nif'al binyan. After mentioning "they shall not be accepted," [the text] notes that any offering brought before the eighth day also shall not be accepted.
Sforno
Even though gifts for the Temple treasury are accepted from pagans, no blemished animals are to be accepted from them as such. Even if the animal became blemished through a deliberate surgical procedure, such as castrating it, something which generally improves the value of the animal so castrated, it disqualifies it from use by the Temple treasury, not to mention as a sacrifice on the altar. Seeing that the gentiles consider such animals as superior, we could not apply to such gifts the criticism voiced by Maleach 1,8 which we referred to twice already. We might therefore have thought that seeing that in the donor’s eyes he presents a superior gift to G’d this would be acceptable; the Torah takes a dim view of castrating animals which were created to proliferate. The Torah describes such castrated animals as כי משחתם בהם מום, for their corruption is within them, (not only external). When disqualifying blemished animals for the altar the Torah did not only have in mind visible blemishes, which are after all, only external, but invisible blemishes also, the latter often being more serious.
Verse structure: 4 words, 18 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה, 4 letters) and the longest is "and·spoke" (וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר, 5 letters). 4 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "saying" (root אמר, 79x in Leviticus); "and·spoke" (root דבר, 76x in Leviticus). Full calculation: וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר [and·spoke] (222) + יְהֹוָ֖ה [Hashem] (26) + אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה [to·Moses] (376) + לֵּאמֹֽר [saying] (271) = 895.
When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam; but from the eighth day and thenceforth it may be accepted for an offering made by fire to Hashem.
verse value 4365 — וְהָיָ֛ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 17 words, 69 letters. Notable word values: "and·it·shall·be" (וְהָיָ֛ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "when" (כִּ֣י, 2 letters) and the longest is "the·eighth" (הַשְּׁמִינִי֙, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 47: its·mother, and·onward. 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "is·born" (יִוָּלֵ֔ד), "and·from·day·of" (וּמִיּ֤וֹם), "and·onward" (וָהָ֔לְאָה). The root יום appears 2 times in this verse. 15 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "and·it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "days" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'its·mother', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 7 words.
Onkelos
When an ox, or a sheep, or a goat is born and it remains seven days with its mother — from the eighth day and onward it shall be accepted to be brought as an offering before Hashem.
Rashi
כי יולד WHEN [ANY OX etc.] IS BORN… [FROM THE EIGHTH DAY, AND THENCEFORTH, IT SHALL BE FAVOURABLY ACCEPTED AS A FIRE OFFERING…] — The expression יולד “that is born” excludes the case of an animal delivered through the abdominal wall (i. e. by Caesarian section) (Chullin 38b).
Ibn Ezra
"An ox, or a sheep, or a goat" — these are named according to their eventual [adult] state, as in "and the garments of the naked you will strip," or "the dead one will be put to death," or "when the falling one falls" — or the meaning is that the species [in general] is indicated. The meaning of "and from the eighth day" is like the [rule of] circumcision — [the animal is eligible] until the [end of] the fourth [quarter of the month]. "And beyond" (ve-hal'ah) — [meaning] after it; the proof is [the phrase] "Jonathan's arrow."
Sforno
שור או כשב, after the Torah had mentioned the various defective animals that are disqualified from being offered on the altar, it now mentions a number of situations in which even a perfectly healthy specimen of the ritually qualified animals may also not yet (or no longer) be fit as a sacrifice on the altar. Just as we learned that the monetary value of the animal is not the only criterion regarding its acceptability for the altar, so we shall hear now that there are still other considerations which can disqualify an animal frrom its being welcome to G’d as an offering. If an animal has not yet reached the eighth day of its life, it cannot be used as a sacrifice. If the owner of said animal, or the priest offering it on his behalf, intends to consume it or part of it outside the holy precincts allocated for such eating by the Torah, or said owner plans to eat it past the deadline set by the Torah for consumption of such sacrificial meat, the sacrifice not only becomes disqualified but the penalty is extremely harsh. The technical terms for such disqualify cations are מחוסר זמן, too young, or אותו ואת בנו, if the mother animal had been sacrifice already on the same day, or פיגול, if the donor or priest had planned to deviate from the halachah governing where and for how many days such an animal could be eaten after it had been slaughtered. The intention known as חוץ לזמנו, eating part of it beyond the deadline set by the Torah even carries the karet penalty. The time limits are spelled out in our verses here.
Chizkuni
.שור או כשב או עז, “a bullock or sheep or goat;” these animals are named here to remind us that animals that have the distinctive features making them pure, as stated in Leviticus chapter eleven, are nonetheless not fit as sacrifices if they are the product of crossbreeding, or even if they were born by caesarean birth as opposed to being born from the womb. This is why the Torah added the words: כי יולד, “when born.” The word עז in our verse but not in verse 28, is meant to exclude any animal that does not look like its mother, i.e. cannot easily be identified as the same species though we witnessed by which animal it had been born. Such animals do not qualify for ritual slaughter. (Sifra) כי יולד, the restriction of caesarean birth do not apply to human beings, who are treated in all respects as if born normally. [The exception being that a son born by caesarean incision does not qualify as “firstborn,” the father not having to redeem such a son. Ed.] Such a person born by caesarean incision may offer an animal as a sacrifice, just like a person born from the womb. והיה שבעת ימים, “it has to remain for a period of seven days;” these seven days are applicable to an animal after it had gone through five or nine full months of pregnancy (depending on what species it is) in its mother’s womb; if it had been born prematurely, or we have reason to think so, seven days are not enough before it qualifies as a potential sacrifice. Another explanation, any person or animal who emerges from a place of spiritual impurity requires seven days of separation before it can enter the Divine compound, like a leper or one who had been in contact with a corpse. תחת אמו, “with its mother;” the legislation does not apply to an orphaned calf. This commandment had already been written in Parshat Mishpatim, 22,29, in connection with the firstborn. ומיום השמיני, “and commencing on the eighth day of its life;” in the same legislation in Mishpatim, the version is slightly different, i.e. “on the eighth day,” instead of “from the eighth day onward.” The reason is that there the Torah speaks of the first day of its life that that animal is subject to be sanctified as being a sacrificial animal. ירצה לקרבן, “it becomes welcome as a sacrificial offering;” after the Torah dealt with offerings that are not welcome due to certain circumstances, it now deals with those that are welcome, for instance from the eighth day onwards of the life of the animal in question.
Rabbeinu Bahya
שור או כשב או עז כי יולד, “when an ox, a lamb, or a goat is born, etc.” Sifra at the beginning of Parshat Shemini comments on the sequence of these words “let the ox come and atone for the image of the ox (golden calf),” as David said in Psalms 106,20: “they traded their honour for the image of an ox.” We find a similar exegesis in connection with the gifts to be given for the building of the Tabernacle when Exodus 25,3 speaks first of gifts of “gold, silver, and copper.” According to the Midrash, the gold was to atone for the contributions of gold made by the Israelites which enabled the golden calf to be made. Tanchuma Terumah 8 says that this gold was to atone for the gold contributed at that time. The Midrash Tanchuma Emor 11 quotes Hoseah 7,3 ברעתם ישמחו מלך, “with the thing which represented their wickedness they make a king happy,” i.e. the very instrument of the sin became the instrument of their expiation. Rabbi Levi asked: “What caused the Torah to make the ox the principal animal amongst the sacrificial offerings?” He explains this by means of a parable. A prominent lady at the king’s court had been slandered by other courtiers claiming she had committed adultery with the prime minister. The king had these accusations examined and could not find any substantiation for them. What did the king do then? He gave a dinner party and seated the prime minister who had been the victim of these rumours in the seat of honour in order to show one and all that his investigation had proved the accusations as unfounded. Similarly, G’d examined Satan’s accusation that the Jewish people had made the golden calf; He concluded that they had not, that the golden calf had been the work of the proselytes who had joined the Jewish people at the Exodus. They had been the ones who had said: “these are your gods O Israel” This is why the ox (the subject of the slander) became the chief animal amongst the sacrificial animals. Rabbi Levi spoke of a “society lady,” meaning the Jewish people. Personally, I would like to add that according to tradition the “prime minister” in that parable is one of the senior ministers at G’d’s court. In order to make plain that the natural born Jews had not been the ones who had initiated the sin of the golden calf, He determined that henceforth the ox would be the primary animal to feature in sacrificial offerings. You will find that similarly the fruit of the עץ הדר, “the tree whose fruit Chavah had eaten in Gan Eden,” became the favourite fruit amongst the four species of plants with which we praise the Lord on the festival of Tabernacles. The fact that the Torah mentions the etrog before the palm frond, a much larger plant, is to indicate that whereas Chavah sinned because she was a victim of deception by the serpent, her husband Adam sinned both in thought and in deed when he ate of that fruit also. We find that history repeats itself in that Adam atoned for his sin by offering an ox as a sacrifice; similarly his descendants, especially highly placed ones, have to offer an ox as their sin-offering when such an offering is called for. This is the deeper meaning of the verse in Hoseah we quoted, that with the very item which their sin consisted of they subsequently pleased the Lord. According to Chulin 60 Adam offered a single-horned bull as his sin-offering. We find a verse which combines both the word שור and the word הדר, thereby alluding to the two examples of the instrument of the sin becoming the instrument of pleasing the Lord. The verse in question is in Deut. 33,17: בכור שורו הדר לו, which we may translate allegorically as: “just as we praise Him with the fruit of the tree הדר, so we atone for our sins by means of the ox, the symbol of original forgiveness.” In a verse preceding the verse from Hoseah we quoted, the prophet said (Hoseah 6,7) והמה כאדם עברו ברית, “they violated the covenant like just like Adam,” an allusion to the comparison of the sin of the golden calf by the Israelites and that of Adam in Gan Eden. On the one hand, the animal which had helped Adam atone for his sin had become the one atoning for the sins of the Israelites. On the other hand, looked at from a philosophical point of view, the Israelites thought that this animal had proven to be the salvation of mankind, i.e. Adam, once, hence it might again become the symbol of their future, seeing Moses had not come back. In fact, Adam had been the original cause of the sin the Israelites participated in. [— My own phraseology in trying to convey this line of reasoning. Ed.] The reason that the Torah permitted just three categories of ritually pure beasts as potential sacrifices for the altar is in deference to the three patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. The ox symbolises Avraham, of whom the Torah wrote that he ran to the cattle in order to serve a meal to the three angels who visited him as reported in Genesis 18,1-15. The sheep is in deference to Yitzchak, when it was offered as a burnt-offering in his stead in Genesis 22,14. The goat was selected in deference to Yaakov who took the two goats at the behest of his mother in order to secure the blessing from his father (Genesis 27,9) (compare Tanchuma Emor 12). These goats were described in the Torah as טובים, “good,” meaning they were to be good both for him personally as well as for his descendants, seeing that by means of two male goats the Jewish people, Yaakov’s descendants, would secure atonement for their sins on the Day of Atonement. When the Torah therefore wrote: “an ox, a sheep, or a goat which will be born, etc.”, it referred to known functions of these animals on behalf of the Jewish people. This is what Solomon had in mind when he wrote in Kohelet 3,15: “What has been already exists, and what is still to come has already been, and G’d always seeks out the pursued.” What Solomon meant was that if someone were to say to you: “if Adam had not sinned at the time when he ate from the tree of knowledge would he still be alive and well nowadays?” You may answer him that the prophet Elijah did not sin and he did indeed not die but is alive to this day. As to the words אשר להיות, “what is still to come,” if someone believes that the idea of G’d resurrecting the dead is something which occurs only in the future [i.e. we have no proof of something like that being possible, Ed.], tell him that it has already occurred, i.e. that both the prophet Elijah, the prophet Elisha, as well as the prophet Ezekiel are on record as having revived the dead (Tanchuma Emor 9). Finally, the words והאלוהים יבקש את הנרדף in the verse from Kohelet which we quoted, means that whereas the righteous pursue (imitate and try to emulate) the other righteous people who preceded them this is normal and appropriate. The wicked persecute both other wicked people as well as righteous people; this is their nature; however, G’d seeks out the persecuted (righteous ones to save them). If you look for proof, read history. Hevel had been persecuted by his brother Kayin; in response G’d turned to Hevel’s offering while rejecting the gift of Kayin (Genesis 4,4-5). Noach had been ridiculed and persecuted by the people of his generation. G’d responded to Noach positively as stated in Genesis 6,8: “Noach found favour in the eyes of G’d.” Shortly afterwards we are told that all the remainder of mankind was wiped out (Genesis 7,23). Avraham was persecuted by Nimrod; he was saved as we know from Nechemyah 9,7 where it is written: “You are the Lord G’d who have chosen Avraham and removed (rescued) him from the fire of the Chaldaens.” Yitzchak was persecuted by the Philistines; in the end Avimelech (King of the Philistines) acknowledged his rigtheousness, G’d’s power and asked to make a treaty with him (Genesis 26,28). Yaakov was persecuted by Esau; nonetheless we have been told in Psalms 135,4: “for G’d chose for Himself Yaakov, Israel, etc.” Joseph was persecuted by his brothers only to become a most successful individual, i.e. “the Lord was with Joseph and he became a successful man” (Genesis 39,2). Moses was persecuted by Pharaoh, but G’d thwarted Pharaoh’s efforts to kill him. The Jewish people were persecuted by the pagans; this is why G’d chose them as His people, as we know from Deut. 14,2: “and the Lord chose you to be His special people.” In our situation we find something parallel. The animals mentioned here are normally the innocent victims of predatory animals. The ox is hunted by the lion, the sheep by the wolf, the goat by the leopard. G’d chose the animals as suitable for sacrificial offerings because they were the persecuted ones, saying: “do not offer Me animals which are pursuers, predators, but certain categories of their victims, the persecuted.” והיה שבעת ימים תחת אמו, “it shall remain under the care of its mother for seven days.” This may best be understood by means of a parable (Tanchuma Emor 12). A king who visited a country issued a decree that no one would be allowed an audience with him until after they had paid their respects to a certain lady of high society. Similarly, G’d said to the people of Israel: “you may not offer Me a sacrificial offering until after that animal has paid its respects to My daughter, (society lady in the parable) i.e. to the Sabbath. Just as there is no week one day of which is not a Sabbath, so there cannot be a circumcision until the baby in question has experienced at least one Sabbath. (compare Tanchuma Emor 12). The “society lady” in the parable should be the first thought in the mind of the party offering the animal.
Kli Yakar
An ox or a sheep or a goat that is born. The commentators have said that on the day of its birth, it already has the name ox or sheep because it does not add anything to its completeness or essence, as it is born with all its completeness. This is in contrast to a human, who is born a wild donkey’s colt (Job 11:12), and the acquisition of his completeness depends on his actions. It seems that the verse informs us of this so that you would not say that since on the day of their birth they have all the completeness appropriate for them, they should be immediately eligible for sacrifice. Therefore, the verse says: it shall be seven days under its mother, and from the eighth day onward it shall be acceptable. For every count of eight is holy, as explained above in the portion of Shemini (9:1), therefore it is not fitting to be consecrated until this count has passed over it.
Tur HaArokh
שור או כשב או עז וגו', “an ox or goat that will be born, etc.” After the Torah had given us a list of animals unwelcome on the altar due to various kinds of blemishes, it now adds a new type of disqualification, i.e. being under age, less than seven days old. Even though these animals do not display any blemish, being too young (or too old) can also disqualify an animal as a potential sacrifice. Some commentators claim that the reason is that if one were to sacrifice an animal on the very first day it was born, some onlookers might construe this as homage to that day, the first day heaven and earth existed. Similarly, offering such a young animal on any other of the seven days of its first week on earth might be misinterpreted as some form of idolatry. Hence, after a whole week has elapsed, such a misinterpretation of the owner’s intention is impossible. By waiting at least seven days before offering a newly born animal as a sacrifice, this amounts to an acknowledgment that G’d created the universe in six days and that He rested on the seventh day.
And whether it be an ox or a ewe, you shall not slaughter it and its young both in one day.
verse value 2521 — אֶחָֽד = 13 (echad/ahavah)
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 31 letters. Notable word values: "one" (אֶחָֽד) = 13, the value of echad ('one') and ahavah ('love'). The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֥א, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·its·young" (וְאֶת־בְּנ֔וֹ, 6 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "or·lamb" (אוֹ־שֶׂ֑ה), "and·its·young" (וְאֶת־בְּנ֔וֹ), "you·shall·slaughter" (תִשְׁחֲט֖וּ). 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "and·its·young" (root בן, 143x in Leviticus); "in·day" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'or·lamb', dividing the verse into phrases of 2 and 6 words. Full calculation: וְשׁ֖וֹר [and·ox] (512) + אוֹ־שֶׂ֑ה [or·lamb] (312) + אֹת֣וֹ [it] (407) + וְאֶת־בְּנ֔וֹ [and·its·young] (465) + לֹ֥א [not] (31) + תִשְׁחֲט֖וּ [you·shall·slaughter] (723) + בְּי֥וֹם [in·day] (58) + אֶחָֽד [one] (13) = 2521.
Onkelos
And a cow or a ewe — it and its young you shall not slaughter on the same day.
Rashi
אתו ואת בנו [AND WHETHER IT BE AN OX OR A SHEEP YE SHALL NOT SLAUGHTER] IT AND ITS YOUNG [BOTH IN ONE DAY] — This law applies only to the female parent, although Scripture uses the masculine term אתו — that it is forbidden to slaughter the dam and its male or female young in one day, but it does not apply to the male parent, and it is permissible to slaughter the father animal and its young whether male or female in one day (Chullin 78b; cf. also Onkelos). אתו ואת בנו IT AND ITS YOUNG — The prohibition of slaughtering the young first and then it (the dam) in one day is also implied (Chullin 82a).
Ramban
AND WHETHER IT BE OF THE HERD OR FLOCK, ‘OTHO V’ETH B’NO’ (IT AND ITS YOUNG) YE SHALL NOT SLAUGHTER IN ONE DAY. “[The law] applies only in the case of the female parent, it being forbidden to slaughter the dam and its male young, or the dam and its female young, but it does not apply to the male parent, and it is therefore permissible to slaughter the male parent and his young.” This is Rashi’s language. The Rabbi [Rashi] thus decided that the conclusive decision of the law is in accordance with the opinion of the Sage who says that we do not take into consideration the male parentage [of animals]. And such also is the opinion of Onkelos [who translated: “and whether it be the dam or the ewe, her and her young ye shall not slaughter in one day”]. This is the correct decision [reached] in the Gemara [of Tractate Chullin] concerning the law of “It and its young.” But the way of Scripture when mentioning specifically the female [of the herd], is to call it parah (cow), and if so it would have been proper that Scripture say, “and whether it be parah (cow) or ewe, her and her young.” But since He had mentioned [at the beginning of this section], When any of the herd, or a sheep or a goat is brought forth, and He mentioned the dam and its young by saying, then it shall be seven days under its dam, He therefore states [in the verse before us] that concerning these kinds of animals mentioned, namely, the herd and the flock, there is yet another commandment that it and its young mentioned above, must not be slaughtered in one day [and thus it is self-evident that the law applies only to the female parent].
Ibn Ezra
"And an ox or a sheep" — I have explained this [elsewhere]; and the commandment applies to both male and female.
Chizkuni
, ושור, “and a bullock,” as opposed to a free roaming mammal; או שה, “or a lamb,” as opposed to a bird. אותו ואת בנו, the older generation, i.e. the “mother” or “father;” the one who models itself after the mother, i.e. a female calf. This would exclude a male lamb. According to Rashi, slaughtering a male animal and its male offspring on the same day is not prohibited. Let us agree that there is no penalty of lashes for slaughtering both “father” and “son” on the same day, nonetheless there is a prohibition to do so. This has been spelled out in the Talmud tractate Chulin, folio 79. [Rabbi Chavell, in his annotations, shows that later authorities are all agreed on this. Ed.]
Rabbeinu Bahya
ושור או שה, אותו ואת בנו לא תשחטו ביום אחד, “and an ox and its (son) young, you shall not slaughter on the same day.” Seeing that the Torah has already mentioned that there is a special commandment regarding sacrificial animals and their offspring, i.e. that the young must not be separated from the mother for at least seven days before it may be offered up as a sacrifice, the Torah immediately lists another related commandment, namely not to offer both the mother animal and the young on one and the same day. First of all, contrary to the impression gained from the grammar in the verse, the ruling applies to female animals, i.e. mother and young, not father and young. It is perfectly in order to slaughter the calf’s father with the calf on the same day (Chulin 79). This also corresponds to the way Onkelos translates the words, i.e. ותורתא או שיתא לה וברה, “and a cow and a sheep, her and her “son.” In other words, the law applies to mother animals. According to this halachah, the difficulty is that the Torah should have written ופרה ובנה, instead of ושור ובנה. Or, at least, if the Torah considered the word שור as the generic term for the category of cattle, it should have continued with the words אותה ואת בנה, instead of the misleading אותו ואת בנו. However, seeing that the Torah already spoke about a female animal and her son when mentioning the law not to offer the young animal during the first seven days, by continuing with this legislation immediately the Torah hinted that here too we are speaking about a law applying to the mother animal and its young. This is the interpretation of Nachmanides. A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Emor 13 draws a parallel between Proverbs 12,10; “the righteous man knows the soul (needs) of his beast; but the compassion of the wicked is cruelty.” The “righteous one” in that verse is a reference to the Almighty who has said that mother animal and its young are not to be slaughtered on the same day; by contrast the compassion of the wicked cited by Solomon refers to someone like Haman who decreed that all Jews of all generations be killed on the same day (Esther 3,13). Another example of the righteous (G’d) knowing the needs of his beast is reflected in the legislation in Deut. 22,6 that the mother bird is to be sent off before its nest is to be robbed of its chicks or eggs. By contrast, the “compassion for the wicked which is cruelty” was demonstrated by Sancheriv the wicked of whom it is written (Hoseah 10,14) “when mothers and babes were dashed to death together.”
Tur HaArokh
אותו ואת בנו, “it together with its offspring.” This legislation applies only to the females of the species, not to the males. [Although according to the masculine mode employed by the Torah we might have been misled. Ed.] Nachmanides writes that actually we could have expected the Torah to write instead of the words שור או כשב או עז, the feminine equivalent i.e. פרה או כבשה אותה ואת בנה, the reason why the Torah did not do so was that the paragraph began with the legislation that the species cattle and sheep etc., must not be used as sacrifices on the same day.
And when you sacrifice a sacrifice of thanksgiving to Hashem, you shall sacrifice it that you may be accepted.
verse value 1800
Insights
Verse structure: 5 words, 31 letters. Verse gematria: 1800 is divisible by 50, the years to the Jubilee (yovel). The shortest word is "to·Hashem" (לַיהֹוָ֑ה, 5 letters) and the longest is "and·when·you·shall·slaughter" (וְכִֽי־תִזְבְּח֥וּ, 8 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·when·you·shall·slaughter" (וְכִֽי־תִזְבְּח֥וּ), "sacrifice·of·thanksgiving" (זֶֽבַח־תּוֹדָ֖ה). The root זבח appears 2 times in this verse. 4 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "and·when·you·shall·slaughter" (root זבח, 32x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·Hashem', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 2 words. Full calculation: וְכִֽי־תִזְבְּח֥וּ [and·when·you·shall·slaughter] (459) + זֶֽבַח־תּוֹדָ֖ה [sacrifice·of·thanksgiving] (432) + לַיהֹוָ֑ה [to·Hashem] (56) + לִֽרְצֹנְכֶ֖ם [to·your·acceptance] (430) + תִּזְבָּֽחוּ [you·shall·slaughter] (423) = 1800.
Onkelos
And when you slaughter a thanksgiving offering before Hashem, you shall slaughter it so that it may be acceptable on your behalf.
Rashi
לרצנכם תזבחו [AND WHEN YE WILL SLAUGHTER A SACRIFICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT UNTO THE LORD], SLAUGHTER IT SO THAT IT MAY EFFECT PROPITIATION FOR YOU — i. e. take care from the very outset of your slaughtering that it should effect acceptance for you; and wherein consists the assurance of its acceptance? ביום ההוא יאכל in the intention that IT SHALL BE EATEN ON THE SAME DAY — Scripture intends by these words only to express the warning that the slaughtering shall be made with this intention: — do not slaughter it with the intention of eating it on the morrow, because if you then harbour any intention which will lead to its disqualification it shall not be favourably accepted for you. Another explanation of לרצנכם is: sacrifice it wittingly (with full knowledge of what you are doing); hence we may derive that if one is “handling” the sacrifices when slaughtering them (i. e. when he does the act of שחיטה without the intention of doing this) they become invalid (Chullin 13a). And (referring again to the first explanation) though Scripture has already specifically stated this (the fact that the slaughtering must be made with the clear intention not to eat the flesh beyond the prescribed time) with regard to such offerings that may be eaten during two successive days (cf. Leviticus 7:18), it specifically states here again of those sacrifices which are permitted to be eaten on one day only that their slaughtering must take place with the clear intention to eat them within the time prescribed for them.
Ibn Ezra
The meaning of "and when you slaughter a thanksgiving sacrifice" — that it must be eaten in a single day — is because [the text] just mentioned that an ox or a sheep may not be slaughtered [with its young] on the same day; and now it adds to the passage written in Tzav et Aharon the word "for your favor" (liretzonkhem).
Sforno
לרצונכם תזבחו ביום ההוא יאכל, your intentions at the time of performing the sacrificial procedure must be to eat it on the same day, (compare Rashi), the reason for these rules bein אני ה', seeing that I am perfect and My work is perfect, I will not tolerate deviations by you either by shortening the period or lengthening it. [seeing that this legislation has been dealt with in the Torah already in Leviticus 7,15-17 may have prompted the author to refer to Rashi’s explanation on our verse that the beginning of the time frame is meant, i.e. the same day, one must not wait until the second day to start eating from it.. Ed.]
Tur HaArokh
וכי תזבחו זבח תודה, “when you slaughter a thanksgiving offering, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that the reason this verse appears adjoining the law not to slaughter mother and its young as a sacrifice on the same day, is that the offering called תודה must be consumed on the same day it is offered.
On the same day it shall be eaten; you shall leave none of it until the morning: I am Hashem.
verse value 1788 — יְהֹוָֽה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 36 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָֽה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "I" (אֲנִ֖י, 3 letters) and the longest is "you·shall·not·leave" (לֹֽא־תוֹתִ֥ירוּ, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 61: shall·be·eaten, I. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "you·shall·not·leave" (לֹֽא־תוֹתִ֥ירוּ). 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "in·the·day" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus); "shall·be·eaten" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'until·morning', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 2 words. Full calculation: בַּיּ֤וֹם [in·the·day] (58) + הַהוּא֙ [that] (17) + יֵאָכֵ֔ל [shall·be·eaten] (61) + לֹֽא־תוֹתִ֥ירוּ [you·shall·not·leave] (1053) + מִמֶּ֖נּוּ [from·it] (136) + עַד־בֹּ֑קֶר [until·morning] (376) + אֲנִ֖י [I] (61) + יְהֹוָֽה [Hashem] (26) = 1788.
Onkelos
On that same day it shall be eaten; you shall leave none of it until morning. I am Hashem.
Rashi
ביום ההוא יאכל IT SHALL BE EATEN ON THE SAME DAY — Scripture only intends by these words to express the warning that the slaughtering shall be done with this in mind (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 9 2), for if it intended to fix the time for eating it they would be redundant, since it is already stated (Leviticus 7:15) “And the flesh of the sacrifice of his feast offerings for acknowledgment [shall be eaten the same day that it is offered]”. אני ה׳ I AM THE LORD — Know Who it is that has decreed this matter, and let it, therefore, not be a light thing in your eyes!
Ibn Ezra
The meaning of "I am Hashem" — so that the thanksgiving offering be complete.
And you shall keep My commandments, and do them: I am Hashem.
verse value 2886 — יְהֹוָֽה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 6 words, 27 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָֽה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. Verse gematria: 2886 is divisible by 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "them" (אֹתָ֑ם, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·you·shall·keep" (וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם֙, 6 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "my·commandments" (מִצְוֺתַ֔י). 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "and·you·shall·do" (root עשה, 94x in Leviticus); "I" (root אני, 71x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'them', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 2 words. Full calculation: וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם֙ [and·you·shall·keep] (986) + מִצְוֺתַ֔י [my·commandments] (546) + וַעֲשִׂיתֶ֖ם [and·you·shall·do] (826) + אֹתָ֑ם [them] (441) + אֲנִ֖י [I] (61) + יְהֹוָֽה [Hashem] (26) = 2886.
Onkelos
You shall keep My commandments and perform them. I am Hashem.
Rashi
ושמרתם — This implies the study of the commandments, ועשיתם, the doing of them (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 9 3).
Ramban
AND YE SHALL KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS. The meaning of this is that here He admonished Israel to keep the commandments, that they should be careful with the offerings [that they should not have] blemishes, or be wanting in time, such as before completion of the seven days [after birth of the animal], and [that they may not be slaughtered] on the day that the dam had been slaughtered [or conversely], and that they bring the peace-offerings and the thanks-offering [properly as ordained], and that they slaughter them with the intention that they be accepted for them; thus He included therein all commandments together. Now He has already mentioned above with reference to the statutes and ordinances, And ye shall observe all My statutes, and all Mine ordinances. He states [here], And ye shall not profane My holy Name, which means to say that there should not be among you one who dealeth craftily, [whereas he hath in his flock a male, and voweth,] and sacrificeth unto the Eternal a blemished thing, just as He said with reference to the sons of Aaron, and they profane not My holy Name, warning them in connection with the offerings against impurity or blemishes.
Ibn Ezra
"And you shall keep My commandments" — in the heart. "And do them; I am Hashem" — for I will search out what is in the heart and see all that is done.
Chizkuni
ועשיתם אותם, אני ה, “you will carry them out, I am The Lord.” G-d uses this expression when He wants to impress the reader with the fact that He examines our minds and hearts. Here it is treated as separate.
Tur HaArokh
ושמרתם מצותי, “You shall observe My commandments, etc.” Nachmainides writes that this verse is meant as a warning to the people of Israel to be very circumspect that their offerings are not blemished, are not offered too soon, and that the thanksgiving offering not be eaten for longer than the day on which it had been slaughtered. The various offerings must be presented in a manner that will secure Hashem’s goodwill for those on whose behalf they are being presented. The reason that the Torah adds the words לא תחללו, “do not desecrate, etc.,” is to warn you not to tolerate amongst yourselves anyone who would present unfit offerings on the altar. This is parallel to a similar injunction to Aaron and the priests in verse 2 of our chapter.
And you shall not profane My holy name, and I shall be sanctified in the midst of the children of Israel: I am Hashem who sanctify you,
verse value 4158 — יְהֹוָ֖ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 48 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. Verse gematria: 4158 is divisible by 18, the value of chai ('life'). The shortest word is "and·not" (וְלֹ֤א, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·I·will·be·sanctified" (וְנִ֨קְדַּשְׁתִּ֔י, 7 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "you·shall·profane" (תְחַלְּלוּ֙), "and·I·will·be·sanctified" (וְנִ֨קְדַּשְׁתִּ֔י). The root קדש appears 3 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "and·not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "sons·of" (root בן, 143x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Israel', dividing the verse into phrases of 8 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְלֹ֤א [and·not] (37) + תְחַלְּלוּ֙ [you·shall·profane] (474) + אֶת־שֵׁ֣ם [name·of] (741) + קׇדְשִׁ֔י [my·holiness] (414) + וְנִ֨קְדַּשְׁתִּ֔י [and·I·will·be·sanctified] (870) + בְּת֖וֹךְ [in·midst·of] (428) + בְּנֵ֣י [sons·of] (62) + יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל [Israel] (541) + אֲנִ֥י [I] (61) + יְהֹוָ֖ה [Hashem] (26) + מְקַדִּשְׁכֶֽם [who·sanctify·you] (504) = 4158.
Onkelos
You shall not profane My holy Name, and I shall be sanctified in the midst of the children of Israel. I am Hashem, who sanctifies you —
Rashi
ולא תחללו YE SHALL NOT PROFANE [MY HOLY NAME], by transgressing My commands willfully. Having regard to what is implied in the statement: You shall not profane [My holy name] (viz., that it must be hallowed), what is the meaning of ונקדשתי? But, this implies a positive act of sanctification: Abandon yourself to martyrdom and hallow My name! I might think that this command applies even to the Israelite when he is alone (i. e., when no other Israelites are present when the heathen bids him transgress a Divine command)! Scripture, however, states: בתוך בני ישראל [AND I SHALL BE SANCTIFIED] AMIDST THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. — And when offering oneself to martyrdom, one should offer himself with the firm determination (lit., under the condition) to die if necessary, for he who abandons himself on condition (i. e. cherishing the hope) that God will not exact the sacrifice and that a miracle will happen to save him will have no miracle wrought for him; for thus we find in the case of Chananyah, Mishael and Azariah that they did not offer themselves for martyrdom expecting a miracle, as it is said (Daniel 3:17, 18) “[And God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace and He will deliver us out of thy hand, O king]. But if not, be it known unto thee that we will not serve thy gods etc. — Whether He saves us or whether he does not save, “be it known unto thee etc.” (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 9 5)
Ramban
AND I WILL BE HALLOWED AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. The meaning thereof according to the opinion of our Rabbis is that it constitutes a positive commandment, that we sanctify His Name by observing the commandments, and that [under certain circumstances] we submit to death rather than transgress them. This is the explanation of the following verse, That brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your G-d, which is a reason including all the commandments, meaning that it is fitting for them to sanctify His Name because we are His servants whom He has redeemed from Egypt.
Ibn Ezra
The meaning of "and you shall not profane My holy name" — [the text] is speaking with the sons of Aaron, for this passage is continuous with the foregoing, and they are the ones commanded not to slaughter [a mother and its young] — whether for themselves or for Israelites — on the same day. It is also possible that the commandment "when you slaughter a thanksgiving sacrifice" is addressed to the priests; the proof being that the passage begins [with the priests], then continues with "speak to the children of Israel," and as a second proof: "and I shall be sanctified among the children of Israel."
Sforno
ולא תחללו את שם קדשי, seeing that you the priests of all people are more aware than anyone of the perfection of My works, if you do not take care not to deviate from My commandments, this would be the greatest desecration of My holy name. The verse is reminiscent of Ezekiel 36,20 where the prophet laments that the exiles who come to host countries behave in such a way that the leaders of the host countries exclaim in dismay that surely these cannot the people of whom they have heard that they emulate the ways of their G’d! ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל, to continue to perform miracles for them as I had vowed to do when I said in Exodus 34,10 “I shall display miracles in the presence of your whole nation as proof that אני ה' מקדשכם, I, the Lord sanctify you.”
Rabbeinu Bahya
ולא תחללו את שם קדשי ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל, “You shall not desecrate My holy Name, rather I should be sanctified among the Children of Israel.” Desecration of the Lord’s name is the most serious sin. We find that on occasion G’d ignored the sin of idolatry while not ignoring the sin of desecrating His name. This is what Ezekiel referred to when he said: (Ezekiel 20,39) “As for you, O house of Israel, thus said the Lord G’d: “go, every one of you and worship his fetishes and continue, if you will not obey Me; but do not profane My holy Name anymore.” Our sages in Yuma 86 state that the sin of desecrating the holy Name of G’d is not one for which the Day of Atonement brings forgiveness. Even repentance does not suspend the punishment due for this sin for a period of time. Even the suffering of afflictions does not wipe out this sin. If one is guilty of the sin of desecrating the name of G’d such a sin is at best “suspended” and the death of the sinner may eventually assist in wiping out this sin. There is, however, one way of counteracting the sin of desecrating the holy Name of the Lord. This is the sanctification of the Lord’s Name in public by the person who was guilty of desecrating it. The Torah alludes to this when writing: ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל, “I want to be sanctified among the Children of Israel.” We have another verse in Proverbs 16,6: “sin will be expiated through kindness and truth;” this means that the sin of desecrating the holy Name of the Lord through speaking lies and committing other sins may be counterbalanced by the subsequent performance of deeds of kindness and truth, thus reversing the damage one had become guilty of. It is somewhat similar to the person afflicted with a disease who can only be cured by imbibing the very opposite ingredients which had caused his sickness. Our sages said: “if a person sinned with his tongue let him engage in Torah study. If he sinned by improper use of his eyes, let him shed many tears;” this is what David alluded to when he said (Psalms119,136) “my eyes shed streams of tears because they did not obey Your teaching.” Note that David did not say: “I did not obey Your commandments;” but he shed the tears because “they did not obey.” The “they” he referred to were his eyes. Concerning this same subject, i.e. how to reverse the negative effect of the sins one has committed, the sages in Vayikra Rabbah 21,4 say that if one has committed a whole package of sins, one should endeavour to offset them with a similar package of commandments performed carefully. If one’s feet had been eager to rush towards an opportunity to commit a sin, they should now be at least as eager to run towards an opportunity to perform good deeds. If one’s hands had been in the habit of spilling the blood of the innocent, the same hands should become preoccupied with the laying of phylacteries accompanied by the liberal distribution of money to the poor. The following Midrash spells out the advice to counter the sin of desecrating the holy Name of G’d by performing public acts of sanctifying that Name (Sifra Emor 9,4-5). The author understands the directive: “I want to be sanctified among the Children of Israel” as a call for someone to risk his life for the sanctification of the Lord’s name. I might have thought that one could have fulfilled this directive by risking his life on behalf of G’d in private; the Torah adds the words “among the Children of Israel,” to teach that this directive is aimed at performing such an act in public. When doing so one must not hope that G’d would save one but must really be prepared to die for the cause. Anyone who publicly risks his life on behalf of G’d’s name hoping thereby to become the beneficiary of a miracle by G’d will not experience such a miracle. If, however, such a person is clearly resigned to the fact that G‘d will not rescue him, a miracle is liable to be performed for him as occurred in the incident of Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah, all of whom were defying the threats of Nevuchadnezzar and who chose to become martyrs explaining that they did not do so in order to demonstrate G’d’s power to save them (compare Daniel 3,18). [The author had elaborated on this drawing on a Midrash in Shir Hashirim Rabbah 7,13 describing these martyrs’ previous discussion with the prophet Ezekiel. Ed.] Furthermore, our sages use this verse as proof that matters involving sanctification of G’d’s Name [not necessarily risking one’s life, but prayers such as the Kedushah, Ed.] have to have an audience of at least ten male adults. They draw a comparison between the death of the ten spies in a group described by the Torah as עדה, a “community,” i.e. the minimum number of adult males to which this term can be applied. (Compare Berachot 21). Rabbeinu Yaakov (Tosaphist) already comments on that statement in the Talmud that it is not admissible to derive such halachic rules from an example of the ten spies, i.e. “an ungodly” congregation rather than a “holy congregation.” The principal message of that discussion in the Talmud is the word בתוך, “amongst.” Clearly, when the word is used here it means “a holy congregation.” When the word appears in connection with Joseph’s ten brothers entering Egypt (Genesis 42,5) it is the Torah’s way of hinting that these brothers at that time were also a holy congregation. [There are many Midrashim proving that the brothers were bent on rescuing Joseph during their trip, certainly a holy task, and one that involved danger to themselves as evident in the story with Benjamin during their second trip. Ed.]
that brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am Hashem.
verse value 2068 — יְהֹוָֽה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 40 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָֽה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "to·you" (לָכֶ֖ם, 3 letters) and the longest is "who·brought·out" (הַמּוֹצִ֤יא, 6 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "who·brought·out" (הַמּוֹצִ֤יא). 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "to·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "from·land·of" (root ארץ, 77x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·God', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 2 words. Full calculation: הַמּוֹצִ֤יא [who·brought·out] (152) + אֶתְכֶם֙ [you] (461) + מֵאֶ֣רֶץ [from·land·of] (331) + מִצְרַ֔יִם [Egypt] (380) + לִהְי֥וֹת [to·be] (451) + לָכֶ֖ם [to·you] (90) + לֵאלֹהִ֑ים [to·God] (116) + אֲנִ֖י [I] (61) + יְהֹוָֽה [Hashem] (26) = 2068.
Onkelos
who brought you out from the land of Egypt to be your God. I am Hashem.
Rashi
המוציא אתכם THAT HATH BROUGHT YOU OUT [OF THE LAND OF EGYPT] — for the sake of this (that you should hallow His name). 'אני ה I AM THE LORD — Who is faithful in paying you your reward (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 9 6).
Ibn Ezra
"Who brought you out" — and at the end [comes] "I am Hashem," which is the first utterance and the foundation of all commandments. Having mentioned the sacred donations of the children of Israel, [the text] now mentions the days on which burnt-offerings are brought, beginning with the Sabbath.
Sforno
המוציא אתכם מארץ מצרים להיות לכם לאלוקים. I wanted to become your immediate leader, not employing any intermediaries, just as I am an immediate leader for disembodied beings. Of course, this was based on the premise that you would walk in the path of My Holiness, as mentioned by Jeremiah 10,2 “do not learn the ways of the nations and do not be in awe of the portents you believe to see in the sky.” 'אני ה; I have not changed and I will continue to perform miracles as I have done in former times, unless you erect barriers between yourselves and Me by not walking in the paths I have assigned for you. We have this promise spelled out in Micha 7,15 “as in the days when you came out of Egypt I will display miracles.”
Onkelos