Leviticus · Chapter 6

And Hashem spoke with Moses, saying:

צו את אהרן ואת בניו לאמר, “command Aaron and his sons to say”. Nachmanides writes that whereas in Parshat Vayikra Moses had been directed to issue laws to the Children of Israel, here the directives are addressed to the priests. The reason is that in Vayikra the subject is the offering of sacrifices, which are brought on behalf of the Israelites at large. Here the people who act as the Israelites’ executives in this matter, i.e. the priests, are addressed. In the Midrash we find Moses being quoted as saying to G’d: “where do we ever find that when the well, i.e. the source of the water is despised and hated that the water it produces is beloved?” Moses had referred to the fact that in all the sacrifices mentioned thus far the sons of Aaron were addressed and not Aaron himself. When G’d heard this, He immediately changed the format of the directives and included Aaron personally in them so as no to leave the impression that Aaron himself was less beloved by G’d. Rashi, quoting the words of Rabbi Shimon says that whenever fulfilling one of G’d’s commandments involves expense to the party fulfilling it, the Torah must use language which is designed to spur on the party concerned to fulfill the directive. Nachmanides writes that this Rashi has been printed in the wrong place seeing that here no expense is involved for the addressees, the sons of Aaron. On the contrary, the sons of Aaron benefit from all the sacrifices, including even that of the burnt offering where the priests share in the skin of the animal that is offered up on the altar. The reason why Rabbi Shimon is quoted by Rashi at this point, must be in order to draw attention to the difference of opinion between him and the opinion expressed in the Talmud (Kidushin 29) before that, that the wording is intended to teach that the directive is effective immediately and in subsequent generations. Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the principle that the wording used here generally means that the directive becomes effective immediately and remains if force throughout the generations; he only claims that in some instances this is not the reason why the Torah employed this wording, and then the reason has to do with the expense involved in carrying out G’d’s directive. One such example is the oil to be provided for lighting the Menorah. (Exodus 27,20) a directive that could not be fulfilled until at least 8 or nine months later after the Tabernacle had been constructed and inaugurated. Similarly, in Numbers 35,2 where the Israelites are instructed to cede to the Levites certain cities including a strip of land around these cities. Seeing that the directives of the Torah were issued before the Israelites had even crossed the Jordan, and they had certainly not yet taken possession of their own lands, the directive could not have been intended to be carried out immediately. Alternatively, it is possible to argue that even carrying out the present directive involved expense to the priests, seeing that immediately following this, we hear about the offerings that Aaron and his sons had to bring on their own behalf, paying out of their own pockets. (compare 12-15) Still another approach to the meaning of the wording of our verse is that seeing Aaron and his sons would experience considerable personal inconvenience in carrying out the instructions following, this is considered as if they had been asked to spend their own funds in performing this commandment.

Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt-offering — it is the burnt-offering that burns on the altar all night until morning, and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it.

צו את אהרן COMMAND AARON — The expression “Command …!” always implies urging on to carry out a command, implying too, that it comes into force at once, and is binding upon future generations (cf. Rashi on this passage in Kiddushin 29a). R. Simeon said: Especially must Scripture urge on the fulfilment of the commands in a case where monetary loss is involved (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 1; Kiddushin 29a). 'וגו זאת תורת העולה THIS IS THE LAW OF THE BURNT OFFERING: [SUCH BURNT OFFERING SHALL REMAIN ON THE FIRE-PLACE UPON THE ALTAR ALL NIGHT] — This paragraph (vv.1—2) is intended to teach, with reference to the burning of the fat-portions and limbs of sacrifices that it is permissible during the whole night (Megillah 21a); and to teach regarding disqualified sacrifices, which of them, if already brought up on the altar, must be taken down, and which, if brought up, need not be taken down. The latter case may happen, because the term, תורה wherever it occurs in Scripture as an introduction to a group of laws (cf. Leviticus 6:7, 18; 7:1,11 etc.) is intended as an all-inclusive term (to include all of the class mentioned); here it is intended to tell us: One law applies to all animals that may be brought up on the altar, even certain disqualified ones — that if these have once been brought up on the altar they shall not be taken down again (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 7; Zevachim 27b). הוא העולה — is intended to exclude from the general law of עולה male and female cattle with which sexual sin had been committed and the like (i. e. that even if they were put on the altar they must be taken down again), because their disqualification did not occur in the Holy Place, since they were dis-qualified before they came into the forecourt (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 8).

TZAV’ (COMMAND) AARON. In the [preceding] section of Vayikra, Scripture stated, Speak unto the children of Israel, for there He gave the command about the bringing of the offerings, and it is upon the Israelites to bring them. But here He states, Command Aaron and his sons, for He now speaks of the rites of the offerings and these are performed by the priests. Now Rashi wrote: “Command Aaron. The expression ‘command …’ always implies urging [to fulfill the command] at once, and also for future generations. Rabbi Shimon said: Scripture found it especially necessary to urge, in cases where fulfillment of a command involves monetary loss.” But the explanation of Rabbi Shimon was not [said] with reference to this command, for here there is no monetary loss involved to the priests to whom this command was given. Indeed, they gain profit and reward from all the offerings, even the burnt-offering. Rather, the intention of the First Sage [whom Rashi quoted] in saying, “the expression ‘command …’ always implies urging [to fulfill the command] at once and also for future generations,” was to say that in those sections of the Torah where Scripture wanted to urge fulfillment, saying that they should be fulfilled immediately and that they apply throughout the generations, it uses this expression of “command …” But in other sections it will say, “speak” to the children of Israel, or “say” unto them. With this [generalization] Rabbi Shimon differed, saying that sometimes this expression [“command … “] occurs in a matter which is not to be fulfilled immediately and throughout the generations, but it is used because the command involves a monetary loss. Such [a use of the word] “command” is that found in the case of the oil of the lighting [where, according to Rabbi Shimon, the expression “command …” is used because it applies immediately and for all generations, as well as for the reason that it involves a monetary loss], and that which Scripture states, Command the children of Israel, that they give unto the Levites of the inheritance of their possession cities to dwell in, [which is a case where the use of the expression “command” can only be because monetary loss is involved, since it did not apply at once, but only after they had taken possession of the Land].It is possible that we say that our command does involve a monetary loss to the priests, as a result of that which it says further on [in this section], This is the offering of Aaron and his sons, which is a continuation of this command. However, at the beginning of the Sifre, the opinions [of the First Sage and that of Rabbi Shimon] are taught in a manner indicating that they hold opposing views. THIS IS ‘TORATH’ (THE LAW OF) THE BURNT-OFFERING. “This text is intended to teach us that the burning of the fats and limbs of offerings is valid [if performed anytime] during the whole night [following the day on which they were slaughtered]. It is also intended to teach us which of the disqualified offeri...

"It is the burnt-offering" — it is called by this name because it ascends [olah] entirely upon the altar. Here the text hints that a burnt-offering may not ascend at night; rather, it shall remain on its fire the entire night. The he' of מוקדה is either a particle added for form, or מוקד and מוקדה are two separate nouns. "And the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it" — and not outside of it.

צו את אהרן זאת תורת העולה, after the Torah had informed us about most of the sacrifices and how they were to be offered, the Torah now refers to the specific “Torah” pertaining to each of these voluntary burnt offerings. We pointed out already that different people who feel the need to offer this sacrifice are motivated by quite different considerations. The variety of sacrificial offerings provided for by the Torah corresponds roughly to the variety of human personalities and the considerations motivating their actions. The Torah mentions as a salient feature of the burnt-offering, עולה, that the entire animal is offered on the altar for ריח ניחוח, “sweet smelling fragrance,” although only a small part of it is actually going up in flames. It is this small part which is truly the sacrifice called עולה. Further parts of that sacrifice (animal) [which burned to ash from the heat but did not go up in flames. Ed. ] are deposited אצל המזבח, next to the altar after having turned to ash. Those parts are referred to as דשן, containing a certain degree of moisture which gives the fire a chance to smolder within them. This is meant by the words אשר תאכל אותם האש את העולה, some of it, when completely turned to ash is removed outside the camp while the priest carrying same wears garments of a lower rank. Even though these ashes are just that, ash, the place they are being consigned to cannot be just any dump but must be a site described by the Torah as טהור, ritually pure. [A significant ingredient of this “Torah”, (call it symbolism if you will) of the Olah is the מוקד, the burning center of the altar. We do not find the expression in connection with the other sacrifices. Perhaps this is symbolic of the “rising” of the עולה heavenwards. Ed.]

צו את אהרון, "Command Aaron, etc." Torat Kohanim comments that the expression צו is always one which denotes a sense of urgency covering both the present and future generations. [I believe the meaning of "future generations" is that the commandment does not merely involve a one-time contribution such as the materials for the Tabernacle. Ed.]. Rabbi Shimon says that this expression is used especially when performance of the commandment involves personal expense. According to the first opinion quoted, the reason the expression צו is justified here more than elsewhere is because the legislation involving the burnt or total-offering involves also night-time activity, something which is not the case with any of the other offerings. The priests therefore had to be impressed with a special sense of urgency. We find a parallel passage in the Torah (Leviticus 24,2) where the expression צו is used in connection with the oil for the candlestick which was used primarily at night. That commandment also involved personal expense for the people contributing the oil. Aaron was commanded with those words, and the Torah reports in Numbers 8,3 that Aaron carried out the instructions to the letter. The word לדורות used by Torat Kohanim means that the rules laid down here after the word צו are not subject to change in the future. We encounter the following comment in Pessikta on our verse. "The need for the Torah to legislate with the word צו was based on the Israelites having said: 'in the past while we were wandering through the desert we used to offer daily communal burnt-offerings. Now that we have have stopped wandering, we will also discontinue the practice of these offerings.'" We see from the above that there was room for error as to the application of the daily תמידים offerings. As far as the חסרון כיס, the personal expense cited by Rabbi Shimon as the reason for the use by the Torah of the word צו in this instance is concerned, there are many interpretations as to what the Rabbi had in mind. Some say that Rabbi Shimon did not restrict his comment to when a commandment involved personal expense, but that he also referred to any commandment the fulfilment of which involved pain, discomfort, etc. to the person performing it. Others say that he included commandments which robbed the performer of his regular night's sleep or the work he would otherwise perform during that night. Others say that all the Israelites considered themselves as losing money when they observed the sacrificial animal being burned up and no one enjoying any part of it. Still others believe that Rabbi Shimon referred to the financial loss to the priest who would have preferred to officiate over a different offering, one from which he would have been able to eat at least a part. In the case of the burnt-offering the priest's share was limited to the skin of the animal. I consider all these interpretations of what Rabbi Shimon had in mind with his statement as missing the mark by a wide m...

צו את אהרן, “command Aaron;” whenever the expression tzav is used, it is a commandment to be performed with alacrity, without delay, and is meant to apply indefinitely, not only for a limited period, i.e. one time. The reason we know that it is meant to encourage the person so commanded to fulfill the order without delay, is because the Torah wrote in Deuteronomy 1,16: “I will charge (command) your judges, etc.” In Numbers 5,2 the Torah wrote: (concerning the people afflicted with tzoraat, the dreaded skin disease, that such people must be removed forthwith from the camp of the Israelites. The Torah there adds, that this order was carried out without delay (Numbers 5,4). The fact that this is not a formulation used with commands valid only on a single occasion, is that in Numbers 15,23, the Torah writes concerning a number of commandments that they apply for all future generations for sins committed inadvertently. Seeing that such tasks were removing last night’s ash from the altar, or making sure that there was always an adequate supply of wood at hand on the altar, it is human nature not to relate to this with exceptional haste, the Torah, when legislating this command, employed a term implying haste, the need to perform that task without delay. Rashi, quoting Rabbi Shimon, is on record as saying that all commandments which involve expense to the person commanded to do so need reminders not to delay, as it is only human to seek to delay having to spend one’s money when it is not for making a profit from the transaction. What he means is that if the first person charged with doing something has not performed his task, then another person has to substitute for him, something called חסרון כיס, being out of pocket. In our age the correct term would be: “because time is money.” את אהרן, up until now we read about the sons of Aaron having to perform certain chores, as for instance in chapter 1 verse 11, and verse 8. At this point, according to Vayikra rabbah, Moses turned to G-d and said: “how can a well which is in disgrace produce water that is welcome and pure? What he meant was that if Aaron was in disgrace because of the sin of the golden calf, how could his sons be fit to perform the duties in the Tabernacle? [I find this somewhat difficult to accept as the commands in our chapter were addressed to both Aaron, and his sons (6,2). Ed.] We have learned in Mishnah 3 of Tamid at the beginning of chapter 2, that all manner of wood is suitable as firewood for the sacrifices with the exception of olive wood and the wood of grape vines. The reason is that the wood of the olive tree is of a higher status as the oil of the lamps candlestick is made from the olives that grew on an olive tree, and the wine used in libations is used in Temple. The Mishnah immediately preceding that one reports the fact that none of the priests charged with removing the ash had ever been late in the performance of his duties. We see that the trunk of the olive tree was honoured on account of its fruit, so that the sons of Aaron should be honoured because of their father. When G-d heard Moses’ reasoning He immediately changed the wording of the commandment by including Aaron in it. זאת תורת העולה, “these are the instructions pertaining to offering any burnt offering;” up until now we had not known from which hour in the morning this communal daily sacrifice could be offered. Neither had we known at what hour its counterpart in the evening was to be presented. This is why this verse was preceded by the words: זאת תורת העולה, ”this is the instruction concerning the burnt offering,” i.e. this burnt offering is subject to special rules. The rules for any burnt offerings mentioned in the Book of Leviticus have been reiterated here. היא העולה, even though this burnt offering is burned up by day, (as opposed to most other offerings). This point is underlined once more when the Torah wrote in Leviticus 7,16: ביום הקריבו את זבחו, “on the day when he offered his meat offering, its fat parts and its limbs are permitted for consumption all night long.” ואש המזבח, but the fire on the golden altar within the Sanctuary, תוקד בו, “shall be fed and kept going all night long; you are to light it by taking fire from the copper altar,” (the altar on which the burnt offerings were offered and burned up. (compare Torat kohanim on our verse.) בו, “from it;” the letter ב here is substituting for the letter מ which we would have expected. We find something similar in Exodus 30,26: ומשחת בו את אהל מועד, “you are to anoint from it (from the oil of anointing) the Tent of Meeting.” You find this use of the word בו again in verse 13 of our chapter: where the words: ביום המשח אותו, mean “from the day he had anointed him.”Whence do we know that the fire for Aaron’s coalpan and the fire for kindling the candlestick in the Sanctuary were also taken from the altar for the animal sacrifices? This is simple logic. If the fire for the golden altar had to be provided from the fire on the altar in front of the Tabernacle, the same must be true for the fire of the priest’s coalpan (for incense) and for lighting the lamps on the candlestick. (Sifra)

הוקר רגלך מבית רעך פן ישבעך וישנאך, “Visit your neighbor's house sparingly, otherwise he will become fed up with you and hate you” (Proverbs 25,17). In this verse Solomon taught us both ethics and manners. On the one hand, a person should endeavor to acquire friends and strive to socialize with them. On occasion he should take his leave before he becomes a burden or intrusion to his friends. It appears that both here as well as elsewhere Solomon counsels us to exercise one’s discretion, to walk the middle path between seclusion and imposing one’s presence on one’s friends all the time. When friends and companions meet at a central location such meetings are apt to increase mutual friendship and comradeship. This is why Solomon writes in Proverbs 18,24: ”a man who has friends must himself be friendly, some friends cling to one another more than a brother.” Basically, what Solomon is saying is that if someone has the attribute of winning friends, this is proof that he is of a friendly disposition himself. The meaning of the word להתרועע in that verse is “to be praiseworthy.” The word is connected to בצלצלי תרועה, (Psalms 150,5) “cymbals” being two matching instruments. It is presumed that if one is seen to have friends, other people will search out the company of such a person. He is likely to possess two positive virtues: 1) humility, (seeing that people to not flock to keep company with the haughty, the arrogant but they flee the company of such people). 2) He is not shy of contact with other people. When one possesses these two positive attributes one is saved from two major problems which are usually associated with both poverty and material wealth. The poor usually speak in a beseeching manner, whereas the rich usually respond in a harsh manner (Proverbs 18,23). A poor person has reason to be afraid of society, of people; he does not like to have to flatter people because he needs to rely on their goodwill. The damage which results from being materially wealthy is that one tends to brag about one’s wealth. When Solomon wrote the verse we just quoted he actually downgraded both the possession of too much wealth and the lack of sufficient economic means. Both are not character-building but tend to be character-destructive. This is not the only time Solomon has voiced such ideas. We find a similar verse in Proverbs 30,8: “give me neither poverty nor riches, feed me with bread allotted to me.” He explains the reason for his request saying: “lest I become so sated that I renounce You and say: ‘who is the Lord?’ then I would become impoverished and steal and profane the name of the Lord.” We find similar sentiments expressed by a famous scholar who said: “excess of material wealth is just as damaging to a person as excess blood.” The meaning of the earlier verse is that the poor man is in the habit of speaking beseechingly as he is in fear of people, lacking self-confidence; the rich man, however, will become pro- gressively more arrogant as his “so called” friends by appearing to agree with him, flattering him, reinforce his own self-esteem. This is why Solomon added immediately: (Proverbs 18,24) “a man who has friends must be friendly;” he is saved from both dangers. 1) The fact that he has friends means he has no need to be afraid of people and does not have to speak beseechingly; 2) the fact that he is of a friendly disposition saves him from becoming arrogant. Solomon cautions even such people not to “overdo this friendliness” by allowing themselves to become viewed as intruders in their friends’ homes when showing up at all hours, overstaying their welcome, etc. Unless such people practice restraint they are liable to find themselves unwelcome and hated after a while. Solomon compares the experience to people who eat honey, something delectable at the beginning but apt to become revolting when overindulged in. All of this is a simile for the principle never to overdo anything as even the best of virtues when practiced to excess is bound to turn people off. Rain is certainly necessary for the plants on earth, for the climate, and for our general well being. Too much rain in too concentrated a form is not only no blessing but a curse. The reason that Solomon illustrated his point by choosing someone’s friend as the example is precisely because he wanted to drive home the point that not only should one keep one’s distance from the “wrong kind” of people, but one should even be discreet in one’s association with one’s friends as they too are entitled to a degree of privacy, etc. There are times for social intercourse, such as the gatherings mentioned earlier. Nonetheless, at other times, one must know when to leave the company of one’s friends in order to keep the relationship at its best level. When it is time to retire to bed one should not overstay one’s welcome resulting in resentment; neither should one stay at meal-times unless invited as one interferes with one’s friend’s family’s routine. A Midrashic approach to Proverbs 25,17 (based on Rashi, Chagigah 7): On the one hand Solomon wrote הוקר רגלך מבית רעך, “visit your neighbor's house sparingly;” on the other hand David wrote in Psalms 66,13 :אבא ביתך בעולות, “I enter Your house with burnt-offerings.” The apparent contradiction is resolved by applying the “house” mentioned in Proverbs to the occasions when one has to offer sin-offerings or guilt-offerings. One should strive to minimize the need for such visits to the Temple. On the other hand, the verse in Psalms refers to the occasions when one approaches G’d bearing burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, i.e. voluntary gifts, not offerings in order to obtain atonement and forgiveness. The message of this Midrash is that both Solomon and David refer to the Holy Temple as “the house of your friend.” We find a similar comment by our sages when they said that the Israelites are called “friends” i.e. ריעים of the Lord, citing such verses as Psalms 122,8 למען אחי ורעי, “for the sake of my kin and friends...for the sake of the house of the Lord.” Solomon also says of G’d: רעך ורע אביך אל תעזוב, “do not abandon your friend or the friend of your father” (Proverbs 27,10), and in Song of Songs he speaks of זה דודי וזה רעי, “this is my beloved, and this is my friend” (Song of Songs 5,16). The thought behind all these verses is that a person should be careful not to sin so that he does not have to abuse his friendship with the Lord by entering His house too frequently in order to offer sin-offerings. It is best not to have to offer such offerings altogether. We find that the prophet Samuel (Samuel I 16,22) expresses similar sentiments when he says: “it is better to listen to G’d’s commandments (observe them) than to offer meat-offerings to the Lord (in the Temple).” The reference was to the animals captured from the Amalekites. which the people and Saul offered to G’d as sacrifices, consuming their meat. When Solomon counseled not to be a frequent visitor in one’s friend’s house he referred to the House of G’d who should remain one’s “friend.” When Solomon wrote in Proverbs 21,27 that the meat-offerings of the wicked are an abomination, he meant that at the time when a wicked person brings an offering to G’d, G’d automatically thinks of his sins turning the entire procedure into an abomination. However, when the offerings are not connected to sin but are brought by righteous people and this is reflected in the kind of animals being offered, David tells us that such offerings are welcome, i.e. אבא ביתך בעולות, “let me enter Your house with burnt-offerings.” One of the temptations we must resist is taking advantage of having a “friend” in the house of G’d to whom we bring זבח i.e. meat-offerings, as if it were something “He” needs, until “He gets fed up” with these frequent unwelcome intrusions by us. When David speaks about bringing burnt-offerings to the Temple, he means offerings which are to atone for sins not actually committed but contemplated. Such sinful thoughts occur mostly at night, and they are difficult for a person to be saved from as there are no social restrictions to man thinking sinful thoughts. He is not found out and his image with his peers is not affected by what he merely thinks about. This is one of the reasons that the time for bringing such an offering is the night when the sin is still fresh and can be forgiven immediately. צו את אהרן ואת בניו לאמר, זאת תורת העולה, היא העולה על מוקדה על המזבח כל הלילה עד הבוקר ואש המזבח תוקד בו, “Command Aaron and his sons, saying: ‘this is the law of the burnt-offering: it is the burnt-offering that stays on the flame, on the Altar, all night until morning, and the fire of the Altar shall be kept aflame on it.’” According to the plain meaning of the text this paragraph dealing with the burnt-offering contains four elements. First of all it teaches that the burnt-offering is the most highly regarded of all the animal offerings and that its effect in obtaining forgiveness for its donor is very powerful indeed. The second lesson to be derived from this paragraph is that it is of the utmost importance for man to serve his Creator, and to do so visibly. The third lesson our paragraph teaches is that there occurred a great miracle on this Altar on a regular basis. The fourth lesson is the great punishment which the wicked will incur because they spurn the opportunity to obtain atonement from G’d for their sins. They will suffer afflictions in gehinom which do not come to an end. Our sages (Rosh Hashana 17) say that even though the institution of gehinom may be abolished at some time in the future, the afflictions to which the wicked have been subjected will not thereby terminate. It is worth reflecting on the fact that there are a total of 13 different categories of offerings corresponding to the 13 attributes of His which G’d revealed to Moses. (Compare Maimonides Maaseh Hakorbanot 12,4). Five of these offerings consist of different combinations of meal-offerings מנחת סולת, מנחת מרחשת, מנחת מחבת, מנחת חלות, מנחת רקיקין. All of these are referred to by the term קרבן. The other eight categories of sacrifices are animal-offerings: The names of the offerings are: עולה, חטאת, אשם, תודה, שלמים, בכור, מעשר (בהמה), פסח. Some of the offerings (or part of them) may be eaten by the Priests, such as the חטאת, sin-offering; the אשם, guilt-offering, and the בכור, first-born male animal of the pure domesticated beasts. Other categories of offerings may be consumed by their owners (minus the parts reserved for the Priests and the Altar). Examples are: מעשר, the tenth animal of the new flock; the פסח, Passover (of which the Priest does not receive anything), and the תודה, thanksgiving offering. The latter offering is mandatory if a person has been saved from danger through an obvious miracle, for instance (Berachot 54). He also has to bring such an offering if he has been cured from a normally fatal disease. The Talmud Berachot writes that these people are to bring the offering in question and to tell praises of the Lord in a loud voice. When a person celebrates joyful events such as a wedding, it is also appropriate to offer such sacrifices to the Lord in acknowledgment of His kindness. This is based on Jeremiah 33,11. There are also some sacrifices of which no part may be eaten by either the Priest or the owner. This is first and foremost the sacrifice discussed here, the עולה, burnt-offering, concerning which the Torah stipulated that all of it is to be burnt up on the Altar. This is the meaning of the word כליל, (verse 15). This burnt-offering is the most highly regarded of all the offerings and that is why the Torah emphasises that היא העולה, “it is the upwards striving offering, etc.” Similarly, in Ezekiel 10,20 when the prophet describes היא החיה אשר ראיתי, “this is the chayah which I saw.” the extra word היא shows that of a variety of similar offerings or beings the one singled out with this extra word is considered the most elevated, the most highly regarded. The burnt-offering also possesses the quality of atoning for sinful thoughts as we know from Job, 1,5 where we are told that Job would offer such burnt-offerings after family gatherings during the various feasts in respect of each member of his family. [Had the offering been in respect of deeds committed, he would not have had to do this on behalf of everyone. Ed.] According to Ezekiel 20,32 this offering was in respect of sinful thoughts. Seeing man entertains these kinds of thoughts mostly at night the offering may remain on the altar all night long to counteract the thoughts of the person at night which are not carried out until daytime on whose behalf it had been brought. The prophet Michah 2,1 phrases it thus: “Ah, those who plan iniquity and design evil on their beds; when morning comes they do it, for they have the power.” This is why the Torah commanded that the atonement should occur at the time the iniquity is being committed. Seeing that in essence the sin was insubstantive, i.e. only in the mind, the offering is to dissolve entirely in the wind, the smoke rising into the air. The animal, so to speak, returns to the regions of the spirit it came from. No substantive part of the world, i.e. a body, is allowed to derive any benefit from this offering. This is one aspect of the burnt-offering. The second aspect is the lesson of how important it is for the creature to serve his Creator. It is a well known fact that man has to relate to his G’d from a position of being submissive, humble. One needs to demonstrate this both while praying and while performing any of the other relatively easy commandments or even the difficult commandments. One needs to remain aware that performance of such commandments is not meant to be a “feather in our cap,” but is meant to enhance G’d’s glory. We need to remain constantly aware that our flesh is weak and that it is not capable of fulfilling the commandments in the manner they ought to be performed. We have to learn from Avraham who described himself as עפר ואפר, “dust and ashes,” though he had already offered his very life for Hashem (Genesis 18,27). King David expressed a similar sentiment when he said (Psalms 15,4) “man must be contemptible in his own eyes.” [He must feel that he has done less than a fraction of what is expected of him. Ed.]

Command Aaron and his sons, saying. The term command [tzav] always implies urging, both immediately and for generations. Rabbi Shimon said: The Scripture needs to especially emphasize urging in situations where there is financial loss. Urging is only needed in places of laziness, and it is written Laziness casts one into a deep sleep (Proverbs 19:15), and it is written How long will you lie down, O lazy one? (Proverbs 6:9). Here, the commandment involves tending to the fire burning all night until morning, and there is concern that due to the natural laziness in people, one might fall into slumber and ruin the sacrifice. Therefore, urging is needed. Similarly, the Re’em [Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi] explained regarding financial loss, that there is much greater pain in maintaining the fire all night than the pain of financial loss. From here, our Sages (Shabbat 20a) learned to say that priests are generally considered diligent, because the Scripture urged them by saying Command Aaron and his sons, saying, for generations — that all of them should be diligent in their service, removing sleep from their eyes and slumber from their eyelids, and engaging in the service all night until morning. Regarding the financial loss mentioned here, there are many opinions. So I will add a good lesson from my own understanding: Since the burnt offering atones for sinful thoughts of the heart, and we find in the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 8:4 at the end) a story about Rabbi Yochanan who lost his money pouch. They asked him about Torah matters, but he did not know [the answers]. They said to him: “Has your knowledge been lost because you lost your pouch?” He replied to them: “The mind depends on the heart, and the heart depends on the pouch.” From here we have proof that financial loss can confuse a wise person and cause him to lose the gift of heart that God gave him to contemplate the Tree of Life, and instead his heart is drawn to think and contemplate sin. And if the priest does not perform this sacrifice according to its proper procedure, he must make another one, and the first is nullified and wasted — as explained by Chizkuni. Through this financial loss, he will lose his mind and heart and come to sinful thoughts. Then even the second sacrifice will not atone for these thoughts, because it would be a mitzvah that comes through a transgression. How can it atone for sinful thoughts when the sacrifice itself causes additional sinful thoughts through the financial loss? Therefore, the priest needs extra urging specifically regarding the burnt offering. Another explanation: Since this entire portion is a commandment to the priests to be told to future generations, to teach them this is the law of the burnt offering and this is the law of the sin offering and similarly all the laws of the sacrifices. And the teaching is presumably free of charge, as our Sages of blessed memory said (Nedarim 37): “Just as I teach for free, so too you should teach for free.” Furthermore, the priests are presumably not wealthy because they have no portion in the land, and their sustenance is provided daily from the “high table” [i.e., from God’s altar]. Due to their lack of funds, we are concerned that they might lose their knowledge, which depends on their financial situation. Therefore, [the Torah] comes to urge them and says Command Aaron and his sons, saying — meaning to say these laws to future generations and to teach them this is the law of the burnt offering and similarly all the this is the law of statements mentioned throughout this portion. For all of it is the priests’ teaching, and the lips of a priest should safeguard knowledge, and people should seek teaching from his mouth (Malachi 2:7). Therefore, the Torah comes to urge them to strengthen their hearts in God’s Torah, to teach it to future generations, and that what happened to Rabbi Yochanan should not happen to them — they asked him about the law and he did not know — similar to what is stated: Ask the priests about the law, etc. (Haggai 2:11). And like Samuel said, “The priests were not mistaken” (Pesachim 17a). Aaron and his sons. Throughout the entire book of Leviticus, Aaron is not mentioned, only “the sons of Aaron.” The Midrash explains that God distanced Aaron because of the sin of the Golden Calf, but Moses brought him close through his prayer, saying “The pit is hated but its waters are beloved,” etc., as appears in the Yalkut Shimoni (Tzav 479). The reason for this is that all the sacrifices in Parashat Vayikra primarily deal with those offerings that come because of sin, and if they had not sinned with the Golden Calf, they would not have needed these sacrifices at all, as it is written: For I did not speak to your forefathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices on the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt (Jeremiah 7:22). The commentators explain that specifically on the day I brought them out, before they sinned with the Golden Calf, I did not command them about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but after they sinned with the Golden Calf, I commanded them about the Tabernacle and the sacrifices, because they then needed atonement. And since Aaron, who made the Golden Calf, was the cause of the need for sacrifices, therefore he was distanced from their performance, because “a prosecutor cannot become a defender,” until Moses brought him close through his prayer, saying: “You have given honor to the wood for the sake of their children,” as we learn (Tamid 29a): “All types of wood are suitable for the altar pyre except for olive and vine, etc.” This is because wine and oil, the products, are offered on the altar; therefore the trees, which are their “fathers,” are saved from being burned on the pyre. Similarly, Aaron should be saved for the sake of his sons. For God said to destroy all his fruit, and Moses’ prayer was partially successful, and because of the half of his sons that were burned, their father was acquitted. So God made His ways known to Moses that this is how it would be — that the House would be sanctified through Aaron’s sons — and on this, Moses built the foundation of this prayer. “This is the law of the burnt offering, it is the burnt offering on its pyre.” The phrase it is the burnt offering is completely superfluous. The commentators have agreed to explain that this comes to inform us that whoever engages in [studying] the law of the burnt offering, it is as if he has offered a burnt offering. And regarding this it says, This is the law of the burnt offering — [meaning] one who engages in the law of the burnt offering, it is the burnt offering — this is as good as offering the actual burnt offering itself. And we read it [in the feminine form] “she” [hi], [but it is written “he” [hu]] — this refers to the Torah scroll, because the word “book” [sefer] is masculine and “Torah” [torah] is feminine. Therefore it is written as “hu” [he] but read as “hi” [she]. “It is the burnt offering.” There are those who say this means that the study of Torah, which is called tushiyah because it weakens [mateshet] a person’s strength, is considered as if one has offered oneself as a burnt offering. And do not say that Torah study is merely metaphorically similar to offering a burnt offering, for in truth there is neither a fireplace nor an altar here. [That is why] scripture teaches us: on its firewood upon the altar — because the fire of Torah within a person is similar to the fire of the altar. The verse informs us that the time for the burnt offering is all night until morning, and furthermore, the phrase until morning is superfluous. This teaches wisdom to the people by way allusion: just as the time for the burnt offering is all night until morning, so too the appropriate time for one who engages in the Torah of the burnt offering [which is comparable to actually offering a burnt offering] is during the exile, which is compared to night. For it is then that Israel needs to pay “the bulls of their lips.” Until morning — but not including morning itself. For in the time when the morning of Israel dawns, then they will offer actual bulls on God’s altar. As it is written, O Lord, open my lips (Psalms 51:17). And when do I ask that You accept the utterance of my lips? For [Ki] You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it (Psalms 51:18). The word ki indicates a specific time, meaning there will be a time when You will not desire sacrifice, and regarding that time I ask that You accept the speech of my lips in place of sacrifice. For through engaging in the laws of sacrifices, a person will also come to a “broken spirit.” This is what is meant by The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, You will not despise (Psalms 51:19). And from the fact that it says You will not despise, we can deduce that the actual sacrifice itself is more favored by God than engagement in the Torah of the burnt offering. And what is meant by This is the law of the burnt offering; it is the burnt offering applies specifically all night — during exile when there is no sacrifice or meal offering. And that is why afterward it says, Do good in Your good pleasure to Zion… Then You shall be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness… then bulls shall be offered upon Your altar (Psalms 51:20-21). And it may be that about this it is said (Jeremiah 7:21) Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat flesh, for the prophet rebukes them to come to the house of the Lord with burnt offerings and peace offerings, whose meat is eaten by the owners, and not to cause the destruction of the Temple and the cessation of the sacrifices. And do not lean on a broken reed of love by saying, “We can exempt ourselves from sacrifices through words of burnt offering and sacrifice,” meaning the speech of our lips. For I did not speak with your fathers, nor did I command them on the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning [literally, about the words of] burnt offerings and sacrifices (Jeremiah 7:22) — specifically regarding the words of burnt offering and sacrifice I did not command on the day of redemption, that is, on the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, for this is the morning of Israel. And the verse that says This is the law of the burnt offering, it is the burnt offering specifically [means] all night until the morning but not including [morning], for morning is the time for the actual sacrifice. And it says the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it — if it speaks of ordinary fire, it means it shall burn in the person who offers the sacrifice, for fire is kindled in his anger because he is alarmed and recoils backward, saying, “What have I done? For I have done evil and cut short my life, for I deserve all these judgments.” Thus, the fire of the altar affects him and causes him to return in repentance. And if it speaks of the fire of the law of the Torah, it is obvious that it burns within him literally and burns away all evil thoughts and all animalistic tendencies within him. And on the level of allusion that it mentioned the darkness of exile which is compared to night, and at that very time, from on high, God sent fire in Jacob, and there is concern lest, God forbid, it may consume from soul to flesh, and where is the morning which He promised? Therefore, it said that the heavenly fire burns but does not consume, for it is the fire of the altar that shall burn within him — within Israel — because all heavenly fire has this nature: it burns but does not consume. The fire of the altar proves this, and as our Sages of blessed memory said (Chagigah 27): “The sinners of Israel, the fire of Gehenna has no power over them.” This is a fortiori from the golden altar, which had only the thickness of a gold dinar upon it and did not burn; how much more so for those who are as full of commandments as a pomegranate. And it concludes in the Tanchuma (Exodus 15) that heavenly fire has this nature that it burns but does not consume, with proof from the fire of the burning bush, for the bush was not consumed. This is a wonderful lesson on what is written: From on high He sent fire, to tell you that His fires are like His arrows — for His arrows are spent but Israel is not spent. So too His fires which God sent from on high will not burn them to destruction, but rather a fire resembling the fire of the altar shall burn within him until the morning — until the dawn of Israel rises. And what we said, “all night until morning,” is a hint to the time of exile. This interpretation is compelled by the Midrash that concludes in Yalkut This is the law of the burnt offering. Rabbi Abba bar Yudan said: This is comparable to a king whose friend honored him with a barrel of wine and a basket of figs. The king said to him, “Is this a gift?” He replied, “My Lord king, for the time being I have honored you with this, but when you enter your palace, you know with what I will honor you.” Similarly, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses, This is the law of the burnt offering — is this the burnt offering? [expressed with surprise]. Moses said before Him, “Master of the Universe, for the time being I have offered it, but when You show favor to Zion according to Your will and build the walls of Jerusalem, then You will desire righteous sacrifices, burnt offerings, and whole offerings.” And there is a difficulty with this midrash, where is this answer hinted at in the verse? For the question is here and the answer is in the book of Psalms (51:20–21). Rather, certainly the author of this midrash relied on the superfluous phrase until morning mentioned here, and interpreted that Moses replied to the Holy One, Blessed be He, specifically all night in this world, which is compared to night, You will accept this until the morning — until the time of redemption, when the morning of Israel will rise, meaning when You favor Zion with Your goodwill (Psalms 51:20), but not including that time itself. For then You will desire righteous sacrifices (Psalms 51:21). And he incidentally used the language of the verse in Psalms, but he derived this entire answer from the additional phrase until morning. The intention of the statement is that the burnt offering in this world comes for the sin of impure thoughts, and is this an honor and a gift? For there is no honor to God when one sins and brings a sacrifice, as it would be better if one did not sin and did not bring a sacrifice, because this sacrifice is not a gift at all but payment for the sin. And does one honor a king by paying a debt? Therefore, he brought a parable about figs and wine, because it is said Like grapes in the desert I found Israel; like the first fruit of the fig tree (Hosea 9:10). For in the desert, the Israelites were sinful and evil from within and without, as will be explained, God willing, in the verse The mixed multitude among them felt a craving (Numbers 11:4) — see there. And in this, he compared them to grapes, which appear beautiful on the outside but have waste and seeds inside. And figs have a stem on the outside, as concluded in Yalkut Parashat Lech Lecha (16:80) regarding circumcision: “Just as the fig has no waste except for its stem, etc.” And wine is after the removal of the waste from within it, and a basket of figs is after the stems have been cut off. He compared the sacrifices that atone for sins of action and thought, both internal and external, to these. And the answer to this came: All night — in this world, while man is entangled in the darkness of his material nature, then there is no righteous person on earth who does good and does not sin (Ecclesiastes 7:20). Specifically, as long as he is on earth, connected to the earthly, material part of himself. However, when the morning of redemption rises, then the heart of stone will be removed from among Israel. Then You will desire righteous sacrifices, burnt offering and whole offering (Psalms 51:21) — not burnt offerings for sin, but peace offerings and voluntary burnt offerings that come as acts of righteousness and gifts. Then “bulls” that come as acts of righteousness and gifts will be accepted favorably. And this is a precious interpretation. On its burning place on the altar, etc. Three burnings [yekidot] are mentioned in this section, and Abarbanel explained that they correspond to the three daily prayers, as the prayers were established to correspond to the daily sacrifices: The morning prayer corresponds to the morning daily sacrifice, the afternoon prayer corresponds to the afternoon daily sacrifice, and the evening prayer corresponds to the limbs and fats [of the sacrifices] whose time [for burning] is the entire night. And this is what it means by on its burning place on the altar all night until morning — corresponding to the evening prayer, whose time is the entire night until morning. And about this it says, and the fire of the altar shall burn in it. Afterward it says, And the fire on the altar shall burn in it, and the priest shall kindle wood on it every morning — corresponding to the morning prayer. And afterward it says, A perpetual fire shall burn on the altar; it shall not go out. And this is the law of the meal offering [minchah] — this corresponds to the afternoon [minchah] prayer. Thus far is the essence of his words. And as a kind of proof for his words that prayer is hinted at in the language of burning [yekidah] is since it is said, My heart grew hot within me; in my meditation a fire burned; I spoke with my tongue (Psalms 39:4). And I am adding to his words to bring robust and good proofs on this matter. For initially it says And the fire of the altar shall be kept burning in it — there is no prohibition here but only a positive commandment. And in the second [verse], both a prohibition and a positive commandment are stated, as it says And the fire on the altar shall be kept burning in it, it shall not go out — shall be kept burning is a positive commandment, shall not go out is a negative commandment. And in the third [verse], a prohibition and a positive commandment are also stated, with the addition of the concept of permanence, as it says A perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, it shall not go out. And all this was not written haphazardly, but with a great and wonderful purpose. This is because the evening prayer is optional and not obligatory, therefore no prohibition is mentioned regarding it, and even the positive commandment is not a complete commandment, as there is no direct command to the fire, since it says And the fire of the altar shall be kept burning in it. The morning prayer is obligatory and forbidden to neglect, therefore the prohibition of it shall not go out was added. And for the afternoon prayer, in addition to the prohibition of it shall not go out, it says perpetual fire, indicating the permanence that should not be neglected due to any business in the world, as concluded in tractate Berakhot (6b): Rabbi Chelbo said: A person should always be careful about the afternoon prayer, for Elijah was answered only in the afternoon prayer, etc. Rabbi Yochanan says: Also with the evening prayer, as it says Let my prayer be set forth as incense before You, the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice (Psalms 141:2). Rabbi Nachman bar Yitzchak says: Also with the morning prayer, as it says O Lord, in the morning You shall hear my voice; in the morning I will direct my prayer to You and watch (Psalms 5:4). You can see that the terms “perpetual” and “always” indicate diligence and persistence in the afternoon prayer, therefore it says here perpetual fire, and there they said “a person should always be careful, etc.” However, this statement still requires explanation, because these three opinions were not mentioned in the order of their levels, for he should have placed Rabbi Yochanan’s statement last in order to arrange them in a pattern of “not only this, but also that” — not only mincha, but also shacharit, and not only shacharit, but even ma’ariv. Therefore, it seems to me that all three are speaking only about the mincha prayer, with each of them adding more time for mincha, as concluded in the Tur Orach Chaim section 108 regarding one who neglects any prayer, if there is compensation after two prayers. According to the Ba’al Halakhot Gedolot, there is compensation even if two prayer times have passed, and according to Rabbenu Yonah, even if the entire day has passed, as concluded in the Beit Yosef. Therefore, these three amoraim saw fit to speak about the virtue of the mincha prayer, as Rabbi Chelbo says, “A person should always be careful with the mincha prayer,” as it says a perpetual fire, that he should not neglect it for any business in the world. Rabbi Yochanan adds a time for the mincha prayer, even if one was prevented [by circumstances] and did not pray mincha, nevertheless he should be careful to make up the prayer in the evening service that follows it. And this is what he meant by “even in the evening prayer,” meaning that one should be careful to pray mincha even in the evening, as it is said, May the lifting of my hands be like the evening offering [minchat arev] (Psalms 141:2). The difficulty is: Why did he call the evening prayer “mincha”? Certainly, he is speaking about someone who forgot to pray mincha and now prays two evening prayers — first the regular evening prayer and the second as a make-up for mincha. Therefore it is said regarding the evening prayer, May my prayer be established as incense before You (Psalms 141:2) — this refers to the evening prayer that comes at the time of the offering of the incense in the late afternoon, that is, at the time of the kindling of the lamps. And afterward, one prays another [prayer] for mincha, which is what he called the evening offering. And Rav Nachman added that it also applies in the morning, meaning that even in the morning there is a makeup for the mincha prayer, even though two prayer times have passed and the day itself has passed, as it is written In the morning, hear my voice; in the morning I will arrange my prayer before You and I will watch expectantly (Psalms 5:4). But this is difficult: why do I need the word morning twice? For one cannot say that it refers to someone who forgot the evening prayer and prays twice in the morning, since the evening prayer is optional, and something that is optional does not require a makeup. Furthermore, from the phrase I will arrange before You, it is clear that this second morning refers to the mincha prayer, about which it is said The sons of Aaron shall bring it before the Lord (Leviticus 6:7), which is not said about any of the other prayers. And before the Lord mentioned here corresponds to [before] You mentioned there, because this prayer [mincha] is closer to the Lord than all the others. From here, he learned to say that this verse speaks about someone who forgot mincha and did not pray it even in the evening, so they pray two prayers in the morning: the first one is the morning prayer, about which he said, Lord, in the morning hear my voice, and the second one is to make up for mincha, about which he said, in the morning I will arrange my prayer before You and I will watch expectantly — meaning that they were waiting until they first prayed the obligatory morning prayer. And he said before You similar to before the Lord mentioned here, because the mincha prayer is especially close to the Lord, the attribute of mercy, since at night the attribute of judgment rules; therefore, the evening prayer is not so much a time of favor, and that is why it is optional. And the morning prayer is somewhat close to the night that has passed. But the afternoon mincha prayer is far from both these boundaries, as it says And Your judgment is like the afternoon (Psalms 37:6). Therefore, Scripture arranged them in this section according to their level of significance: evening, morning, afternoon. And so David arranged them, saying Evening, morning, and afternoon I will pray and cry aloud (Psalms 55:18). This is according to the numerical value of and cry aloud [ve’ehemah], which is 57, corresponding to the 57 blessings in the three prayers including the blessing against heretics. According to this, the phrase “one should always be careful with the afternoon prayer” refers to all three prayers. And similarly, what is written a perpetual fire shall burn upon the altar refers to continuity, and therefore it says this is the law of the meal offering, for it is also its law is that forever and perpetually one should be careful with it. This also explains what is written and the priest shall burn wood on it morning by morning, as it is written Lord, in the morning You will hear my voice; in the morning I will direct my prayer to You (Psalms 5:4), which is to give two “mornings” to the afternoon prayer as mentioned. All night until morning. The commentators said that since the burnt offering comes to atone for thoughts of the heart, which mainly occur at night, as it is said: Those who plan iniquity and plot evil on their beds; when morning dawns, they carry it out (Micah 2:1). Therefore, its time is all night. And in the Midrash Tanchuma (Pinchas 13, see there) we find a contradiction to this view, where it concludes Righteousness lodged in it (Isaiah 1:21). Rabbi Yuda bar Simon said: No person spent the night in Jerusalem with sin in their hand. How so? The morning daily offering atoned for the transgressions of the night, and the evening offering atoned for the transgressions of the entire day. This is what is meant by Righteousness lodged in it. And it is written: The people who dwell in it shall be forgiven of iniquity (Isaiah 33:24). Since lodged speaks of one who spends the night in it, the verse needed to bring The people who dwell in it regarding the day, because it is a time of dwelling and not a time of lodging and lying down. According to this, the night offering atoned for the transgressions of the day. And there is another difficulty: Why did he say that the time of the evening offering is all night, and why didn’t he mention regarding the morning offering that its time is all day? And there is a further difficulty: In Parshat Tetzaveh and Parshat Pinchas, the morning burnt offering is mentioned only once, while the evening offering is mentioned twice. It seems that this is because the sin of the day is double — in deed and in thought — and furthermore, all day a person is free for transgression. Therefore, he mentioned between the evenings twice, because its atonement is doubled, and its time is all night to atone for the sin of the entire day. But the night is not a time of action, and for the most part, the main sin of the night is in thought, as it is said: Those who plan iniquity and plot evil on their beds; when morning dawns, they carry it out. Additionally, for most of the night, a person is asleep on their bed, and therefore the morning burnt offering only atones for sinful thoughts, and it does not specify that its time is all day because it does not need to atone for the sin of the entire night.

זאת תורת העולה, “this is the law concerning the burnt offering.” Ibn Ezra explains the term עולה as justified, seeing the entire animal is burnt up on the altar and the smoke rises heavenwards. The priests do not share in any of the meat of this offering. היא העולה על מוקדה על המזבח כל הלילה, “it is the burnt offering that stays on its firewood on the altar the whole night long, etc.” The Torah’s purpose in giving us this detail is to teach that this offering [as all others. Ed.] must not be slaughtered, etc., after nightfall. If it has been slaughtered, and its blood sprinkled on the altar as long as it was still daylight, the burning of the remains may take place during the whole night. Interestingly, the Torah refers to these parts of the burnt offerings a היא, i.e. “she.” in the feminine mode. There is a problem here for we have another verse from which we derive that the remains of the flesh of burnt offering are burnt up at night, seeing that the Torah writes: (Exodus 23,18) ולא ילין חלב חגי עד בוקר, “and the fat of My festive offering may not remain on the altar until morning.” This means that the fat must not remain below the altar until morning but must be burned up at night, but the pieces must be placed on the altar during the night. We must therefore conclude that our verse here speaks of אברים, remains left for being burned up, which though they had been placed on the altar still by day, had not been placed on the fire until after it had become night. Concerning such remainders of a burnt offering, [generally one offered on weekdays, not like the example in Exodus Ed.], the Torah writes the somewhat superfluous word היא. In other words, the Torah refers to something that had already been on the altar, but had not yet had the final procedure performed upon it. We must also consider that the Torah uses three (זאת, היא, העולה) expressions known as מיעוטין, words or letters that limit the applicability of something previously understood to apply generally. In this instance, the word היא forbids the throwing back onto the altar of any parts of the bones or flesh that had fallen off the altar while they were burning up. ואש המזבח תוקד בו, “and the fire of the altar should be kept burning on it.” According to Nachmanides the Torah here issues a command that the fire on the altar be kept going all night long, seeing that it commands that a great deal of firewood be put on the pile by day so that there is no danger that all of this wood will be consumed by the fire during the daylight hours. As to the words ואש תמיד המזבח לא תכבה, “that the fire on the altar not go out,” (6,5 and 6,6) this means that it must be kept going on a year round basis, and it is the task of the priests to see to it that it is kept going. The Torah simply repeats, in order to underline what it had said in verse 5 ובער עליה הכהן עצים בבוקר בבוקר, “the priest shall kindle it every morning,” this is a reminder to see to it that enough firewood is always on hand on the large מערכת, woodpile, to ensure that the fire on the altar never goes out completely. Our sages derive from the impersonal styling of this command, i.e. the Torah warns of what should not happen, not only instructing the priest what to do, that if any person would extinguish a single coal of that fire it would be considered a violation of a negative commandment. [a Midrash even makes a calculation that this fire, started in the second year of the Israelites in the desert was kept going without interruption for 116 years. Ed.] The whole reason why there was a secondary smaller woodpile on the altar was to act as insurance in the event that due to some negligence by some priest, the primary woodpile had been allowed to become extinguished. The sages derive the negative commandment here from the words [not really needed. Ed] והאש על המזבח “and the fire on the altar.” Although they say that this results in the penalty of lashes when committed deliberately, I do not believe that there are separate lashes on account of each coal that was allowed to go out or was extinguished deliberately.

זאת תורת העולה, this portion now deals in greater detail with the variety of offerings which have been mentioned and discussed in some detail already in Parshat Vayikra. הוא העולה, that is burned up on the altar during the day, as is clear from 19,6 where reference is made to “the day on which on which you slaughtered,” or in 7,16 ביום הקריבו את זבחו, “on the day he offered his meat offering, etc.” כל הלילה, the remains are allowed to burn to ash. ואש המזבח תוקד בו, both by day and by night.

And the priest shall put on linen garments, and linen breeches shall he put on over his body; and he shall separate the ash that the fire has consumed from the burnt-offering on the altar, and set it beside the altar.

מדו בד HIS LINEN ROBE — this is what is elsewhere termed the כתונת, the undercoat; and why then is it here called מדו? To intimate that it (the כתונת) must be made to his measure (מדו from מדד to “measure”) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 2 1; Yoma 23b). על בשרו [AND LINEN DRAWERS HE SHALL PUT] UPON HIS FLESH — This implies that nothing should interpose between them (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 2 3; Zevachim 19a). והרים את הדשן AND HE SHALL TAKE UP THE ASHES — He raked a full pan of ashes from the innermost consumed mass of ashes and deposited them at the east side of the כבש (the inclined plane leading up to the altar) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 4 Yoma 20a; cf. Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 2:1). העולה את אשר תאכל האשהדשן [HE SHALL TAKE OUT] THOSE ASHES INTO WHICH THE FIRE HATH CONSUMED THE BURNT OFFERING — and thus has made it into ashes; from those ashes he shall take out a תרומה, a portion, ושמו אצל המזבח AND PUT IT BESIDE THE ALTAR. [על המזבח [THE BURNT OFFERING] ON THE ALTAR — This implies that if he (the priest) finds any limbs of the burnt offering that were not yet consumed he shall put them back on the altar after having raked the coals hither and thither and having taken from the innermost ashes, because it states, העולה על המזבח את which implies: the burnt offering (i.e.so long as it can be called an עולה and not דשן) must be on the altar] (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 5; Yoma 45b; cf. Rashi there s. v. אשר תאכל את העולה).

AND THE PRIEST SHALL PUT ON ‘MIDO’ (HIS GARMENT OF) LINEN. “This is a reference to the k’toneth (tunic). Why then does Scripture here call it mido [which means ‘his measure’]? It is to indicate that the tunic is to be made to his measure. AND HIS LINEN BREECHES SHALL HE PUT UPON HIS FLESH — that there should be nothing interposing between them.” This is Rashi’s language. Now the [daily] removal of the ashes [from the altar, which is the subject-matter of this verse], must be done with the priest wearing the [four] garments of priesthood, as no Service can be performed with only two of the [four] garments! However, He mentioned only these two garments because of new points that are added here to them, namely, that the tunic must be made to the priest’s measure. This means to say that if it was raised [above his feet], being so short that it did not reach his feet, and he performed therein one of the acts of offering, his Service is invalid. It further teaches that there must be nothing intervening between the breeches and his flesh. But the law requires equally that the priest who removes the ashes from the altar should wear all [four] priestly garments, for since Scripture mentioned that the removing of the ashes must be done with priestly garments, we know [automatically] that it requires four for the common priest and eight for the High Priest. So also is it explained in the second chapter of Tractate Yoma and in Torath Kohanim: “Why does Scripture repeat the term yilbash [‘he shall put on’ — ‘V’lavash hakohein’ (and the priest shall put on) his linen garment, and his linen breeches ‘yilbash’ (he shall put) upon his flesh]? It is to include the turban and the belt” [which the priest is also to put on for the removing of the ashes].Now Onkelos translated the word mido as levushin [“garments” — as opposed to Rashi’s interpretation, according to which it refers only to one garment, the tunic]. It would appear then that according to Onkelos, the word mido is a term which includes all of the priest’s garments, as if the verse were stating, “and the priest shall put on linen garments.” Similarly we are to understand the expressions: ‘madav’ (his clothes) rent; that cometh down upon the collar ‘midothav’, which means upon the edge of his garments; girded with ‘mido’ (his apparel) of war, which means his garments. This then will be in accordance with the opinion of the Sage who says that the belt of the common priest was unlike the belt of the High Priest.

"מדו" — a tunic. The Sages said it is fitted close, corresponding to his measure. "Upon his flesh" — a euphemism for the private part; similarly, "a discharge from his flesh" (Lev. 15:2). "Which the fire has consumed" — that which remains from the fire's consuming of it. "Beside the altar" — outside, on the eastern side.

מדו בד, “in a garment made of linen;” the letter ו at the end of the word: מדו is superfluous, just as the second letter ו in וחיתו ארץ in Genesis 1,24, and the letter ו in Numbers 24 in the word: .בנו מדו בד, these are the cap, tunic, and belt worn by the ordinary priest, all of which are made of linen. The reason that they are all mentioned in the singular mode, is that whenever worn by the priest, all of them are worn simultaneously. The reason why the pants are mentioned separately, as we find already in Exodus 28,42, after the garments worn by the High Priest and the ordinary priests have been listed. The pants are mentioned separately, as both the High Priest and the ordinary priest wear the same kind of pants. According to Torat Kohanim, (Sifra on our verse) this is hinted at in the apparently extraneous word: ילבש, the four letters hinting that the ordinary priests wore four garments when on duty. The repetition both here and Exodus 28 that the pants must be worn on his skin, על בשרו, suggest that these pants must always be also the first garment the priest dons in order to cover his private parts. [The plural mode מכנסים is similar to the English language where “pants” or “trousers” are in the plural mode because they refer to a single garment covering both legs. Ed.] על בשרו, a delicate description of the priest’s private parts (see Lev. 15.2). והרים את הדשן, “he shall lift up the ashes;” the plain meaning of the verse is that in order to remove the ashes the priest must first put on the priestly garments described here. He is not allowed to wear street clothes even for performing this procedure. את הדשן, “at least a fistful of ashes.”

ולבש הכהן מדו בד ומכנסי בד ילבש על בשרו והרים את הדשן, “The Priest shall put on his fitted tunic and he shall put on linen trousers on his flesh; he shall remove the ash.” The Torah here teaches that even such a seemingly inconsequential activity as removing the ash from the altar is considered as part of the sacrificial service. Were this not so it would not be necessary for the Priest to don the garments reserved for performing service in the Temple or Tabernacle. When the Torah writes the word מדו, “its measurement,” the meaning is that the garments are to be fitted individually to each Priest according to his size. The words על בשרו mean that they are to be worn directly on the skin, no other matter is to be a חציצה, a screen or intervening object, between the trousers (or the tunic in the appropriate part of the priest’s body). Furthermore, if the trousers were short and did not reach until the Priest’s feet, if he did perform the service while wearing such attire it would be considered as unfit, i.e. invalid. Why did the Torah mention only two of the Priest’s four garments? The fact is that having mentioned these two garments it is understood that the כהן הדיוט, ordinary Priest, must wear his four garments, and the High Priest his eight garments, for any part of the service that he performs. This is made plain by Sifra Tzav 2,1. They deduce this from the word ילבש, “he must don, etc.” One may also understand the very word מדו as referring to “garment,” such as when the word appears in Samuel I 17,39: מעל למדיו, “on top of his garment.” The word occurs in that context also in Psalms 133,2 על פי מדותיו, “over the top of his robe.” If that is the meaning of the word מדו here it automatically includes all of the Priest’s garments. Onkelos also translated the word as לבושין, “garments". The ethical teaching of all this is that when performing sacred tasks, especially in the Temple, regardless of how demeaning the same task would be considered for a socially highly placed individual outside the sacred perecincts, one must wear the finest garments in order to enhance the reputation of the Lord in whose honour this whole service is being performed. If this holds true, we may learn that even when in the synagogue or the Yeshivah while studying Torah it is only elementary good manners vis-a-vis G’d whose Torah we study to be properly attired. We have learned from King David (Psalms 57,9) “awake, O my honour! Awake, o harp and lyre! I will waken the dawn.” David did not speak about “Your honour”, i.e. the Lord’s honour, but he spoke about his own dignity, honour. He adresses himself, admonishing himself that his honour and dignity are of no consequence at all. We know that he lived up to this when he danced in front of the Holy Ark so that even his wife Michal considered such behaviour as unseemly in a King (compare Samuel II 6,14). We have an additional verse on that subject by David in verse 22 of that same chapter where he explains to Michal: “and dishonor myself even more, and be low in my own esteem, but amongst the slave-girls that you speak of I will be honoured.” Logic teaches that one cannot be considered a “slave” until one has a master. Neither can the term “master” have meaning unless this master owns a slave. The two terms are mutually exclusive, one not having any meaning without the other. Seeing man is a servant of his Creator and is obligated to serve Him as his Master, his service cannot be described as being carried out properly until after he has formally accepted his status (conditions implied in that relationship) as servant. These conditions include submissiveness and an appropriate degree of humility. He is not to carry himself as if he were someone of authority and was in control of matters as this would be an insult vis-a-vis the honour and dignity of his Master. This is why Solomon writes (Proverbs 25,6): ”do not exalt yourself in the king’s presence.” If such advice is good advice, how much more so is it good advice when applied to one’s posture vis-a-vis the King of Kings, the Lord! G’d’s “garment” is “grandeur,” as we know from Psalms 93,1 “the Lord is king, He is robed in grandeur.” Anyone daring to wear the king’s robes is guilty of treating him with contempt. Due to such considerations the Torah commanded the Priest who performs even such a relatively simple task as removing the ashes from the Altar to wear the appropriate garments when performing this task as he is, after all, G’d’s representative on earth. By performing such menial tasks, especially when dressed in garments testifying to his elevated status as Priest he humbles himself before his Master in heaven. We find that when Hillel the elder, was engaged in celebrating the libations of water on the festival of Sukkot, he danced and said: אם אני כאן הכל כאן, אם אין אני כאן מי כאן? [when translated literally and superficially this statement seems like the height of arrogance, i.e. someone saying: “if I am here everybody and everything is here; if I am not here who is here?” Ed.] Of course, this is not what Hillel, famous for being self-effacing meant. He used the word אני as a pronoun for G’d, saying: “if G’d is present everybody (who counts) is present; if G’d is not present who is present?” He meant that there is no worthwhile presence other than the presence of G’d (compare Sukkah 53). Rabban Gamliel, (President of the Sanhedrin, Hillel’s grandson) and his colleagues would dance in the courtyard of the Holy Temple and disport themselves in what we would call an undignified manner, all in honour of heaven, i.e. showing G’d that the decorous behaviour normally expected of them when fulfilling their functions vis-a-vis the people over whom they presided was not meant to accent their own importance but only to lend weight to the importance of the office to which they had been appointed. This is why they had to demonstrate to G‘d (in the presence of the people) that they themselves felt totally submissive and unimportant when compared to Him. You know that the Levites were the most “holy” tribe of the Israelites and that the Torah appointed them to walk behind the wagons transporting the components of the Tabernacle whenever the people were on the move. Walking behind the wagons was certainly a very minor kind of duty, something more appropriate to the least skilled and educated amongst the people. We read in Numbers 7,6-8: “Moses (personally) took the carts and the oxen and gave them to the Levites. Two carts and four oxen he gave to the Gershonites, as required for their service, and four carts and eight oxen he gave to the Merarites, as required for their service.” These verses teach you that a person (Moses as well as the Levites) has to “lower” his own dignity in order to accord honour to the Lord. These verses prompted our sages (Bamidbar Rabbah 4,20) to say “when someone does indeed diminish his own stature in order to enhance the stature of heaven then not only will heaven’s stature be enhanced through his actions but his own stature will be enhanced also. Conversely, if someone tries to enhance his own stature at the expense of heaven’s stature, his own stature will suffer whereas heaven’s stature remains unimpaired.” In connection with this subject we find that a man by the name of Issachar, a resident of a village called Barkai, was punished as he was desecrating sacred property while bestowing honour upon himself. Our sages in Pessachim 57 speak of four indignities which occurred in the courtyard of the Temple. [The Talmud presents the matter as if the courtyard were a person and gave voice to its feelings. Ed.] The result of the first indignity was the expulsion of the sons of the High Priest Eli from the holy precincts because they had caused defilement inside those precincts with their conduct. A second occasion when the courtyard banned someone from its precincts was an incident involving this Issachar from the village of Barkai who had “used” the Temple to enhance is own stature at the expense of the sacred contents of the Temple. His sin consisted in the fact that he was too considerate of his own hands, wrapping them in silk before performing his priestly duties. A third occasion which provoked protest by the courtyard was when the courtyard called out protesting angrily שאו שערים ראשיכם, “raise your heads o gates and observe how Yochanan son of Narbai, disciple of Pankai enters the sacred precincts and stuffs his belly with the meat of the sacrifices.” They said of this man that he had a daily intake of 300 calves and that he drank three hundred jars of wine daily and had 40 measures of pigeons as dessert. [Whenever the number 300 appears in the Talmud it is a figure of speech employed to describe unbelievably big quantities. Ed.] They say furthermore that as long as this Yochanan son of Narbai was alive there was never any leftover sacrificial meat to which the law that it had to be burned needed to be applied. What happened to this Issachar from Barkai? Another person concerning whose conduct in the holy precincts the courtyard protested was a certain Yishmael son of Pabi, disciple of Pinchas whom the courtyard was instrumental in appointing as High Priest in lieu of the infamous Issachar. It happened once during his time that the king and queen sat at the table arguing whether the taste of a young goat or that of a young sheep was superior. The queen favoured the taste of the young sheep (lamb) whereas her husband the king preferred the taste of the kid (young male goat). In order to settle their argument they called in this Issachar and seeing that he had eaten plenty of either animal in his capacity as High Priest they asked him which tasted better. Thereupon this Issachar made a disrespectful motion with his hand indicating that the question was silly as if the goat’s meat were better surely the Torah would have stipulated that the daily public burnt-offering should consist of a male young goat. When the king observed that the High Priest had failed to observe good manners and had waved his hand about, he decreed that the offending hand of the High Priest be cut off. Issachar bribed the executioner to cut off his left hand instead of his right hand. When the matter of the bribe became known he lost his right hand also. Upon hearing about this, Rabbi Yossi asked his students the rhetorical question of what caused the High Priest Issachar to become a victim of such cruelty? The student Rabbi Ashi said that it was his failure to have studied the relevant Mishnah in which it is stated that sheep always take precedence over goats. Nonetheless, Rabbi Ashi added that he thanked the Lord who punished this Issachar in this world so that he could enter the hereafter having already paid his dues. This is not the only time that someone in Biblical times was punished while on earth in order to preserve his reward in the hereafter intact. During the period of the prophet Isaiah and King Chiskiyahu (compare Isaiah 22,15) there was a certain scribe by the name of Shevna who according to some scholars was also the High Priest. At any rate, he was a highly placed individual who, if not the High Priest, was in charge of the King’s palace. Seeing he had treated sacrificial offerings with disdain, he was killed by Sancheriv, King of Assyra. Concerning this Shevna the prophet Isaiah said quoting G’d: (Isaiah 22,25) “the peg fixed in a firm place shall give way.” Isaiah had prophesied his downfall and it had been fulfilled in his lifetime in order for Shevna’s merits for the hereafter to be preserved intact. [The nature of Shevna’s sin has been the subject of much disagreement. Our author’s assumption that he was remiss in his attitude to the Altar is difficult to substantiate. Ed.] The third matter which this paragraph of the Torah teaches us is the great and ongoing miracle which was an adjunct of this Altar. We are speaking about the so-called copper altar which was overlaid with a sheet of copper the thickness of the coin called dinar in those days. The fire on top of the Altar never ceased to burn. Neither the wood underneath the copper was burned by the heat nor did the copper crack, melt, or otherwise lose its effectiveness. This was one of the 18 miracles which occurred in connection with the Tabernacle and the first Temple (they are listed in Pirke Avot chapter 5,7 and another eight in Yuma 21). The Torah draws attention to this miracle by repeating the fact that the fire on the Altar was never to go out. (verses 2 and 5). Seeing the Torah had already stipulated in verse 2 that the fire had to be kept going, what need was there to repeat this in verse 5? Clearly, what is a commandment in verse 2 is a promise in verse 5, i.e. the fire would never go out. Not only that, but the Altar itself would remain undamaged. The fourth matter which this paragraph of the Torah teaches us is the magnitude of the punishment suffered by the wicked during their stay in gehinom. This explains why the fire on the Altar is mentioned a third time in our paragraph in verse 6., where the Torah writes: “a permanent fire shall remain aflame on the Altar; it shall not be extinguished.” Seeing that the purpose of the Altar is to secure atonement the wicked are not in line for such atonement because they had denied the power and function of the Altar and the sacrificial offering thereon. The Torah therefore hints by repeating this message about the never-dying fire that it is a hint to the wicked of what is in store for them. The prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 33,14) remonstrated with the people saying to them: “Sinners in Zion are frightened, the godless are seized with trembling; ‘who of us can dwell with the never-dying blaze?’” These sinners had become frightened of the very fire whose power they had been in the habit of mocking when they refused to repent and to accept atonement. This is also what the verse in Isaiah 33,14 is all about which means that the wicked are to be made afraid of the fires of gehinom concerning which it is written in Isaiah 66,24 that their worms shall not die, nor their fires quenched, they shall be a horror to all flesh.” The meaning of “it shall not be quenched” in Isaiah is parallel to the words “it shall not go out or die” in our verse here. A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Tzav 2) to the words היא העולה, “it is the burnt-offering.” The reference is to the Roman Empire which is the most arrogant Empire, constantly aggrandizing itself. The same Midrash also states that anyone who aggrandizes himself will eventually be judged by fire. They base this on what happened to the generation of the deluge who had boasted of their own importance saying: (Job 21,15) “who is Shaddai that we should serve Him?” They were judged by fire as it is written (Job 6,17) ”when they thaw they vanish; in the heat they disappear where they are.” The people of Sodom were judged by fire because they were too proud, as we know from Ezekiel 16,49: “Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom: ‘arrogance!’ She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquillity; “ they were judged by fire as we know from Genesis 19,24: “G’d caused it to rain on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire.” Pharaoh was also judged by fire seeing he was so arrogant and had said: “who is Hashem that I should listen to Him?” (Exodus 5,2). He had also claimed: “the river Nile belongs to me and I have created it!” (Ezekiel 29,3). We know that he was judged by fire from Psalms 18,14: “Then the Lord thundered from heaven, the Most High gave forth His voice, hail and fiery coals.” We have also been told in Exodus 9,24: ”there was hail which contained fire within it.” Another arrogant king who was punished by fire was Sancheriv who had boasted (Kings II 19,23) “it is I who have climbed the highest mountains, to the remotest parts of Lebanon, and have cut down its tallest cedars, its choicest cypresses.” He was judged by fire as we know from Isaiah 10,16 ”and under its body (כבודו) shall burn a burning like that of fire, destroying frame and flesh.” Something similar happened to boastful Nebuchadnezzar who had been arrogant enough to proclaim (Isaiah 14,14): I will mount the back of a cloud- I will match the Most High.” He had also said (verse 13): “I will climb to the sky higher than the stars of G’d.” Furthermore, he had said: (Ovadiah 4) that he would ascend beyond the stars. As a result of such boastful statements by their king, his soldiers were burned by fire. When you check Daniel 3,3 where the preparations for the inauguration of Nebuchadnezzar’s giant golden image are described, mention is made of eight nations, i.e. you will find the names: Adragozariah and seven others. When mention is made of the celebration a second time, i.e. in verse 27, we find that 4 of these nations are no longer mentioned. The Talmud Sanhedrin 92 suggests that the other four nations (i.e. their honour guards representing them at Nebuchadnezzar’s court) had been burned to death. According to Rashi it was the same fire which consumed the men heating the kiln into which Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah were to be thrown.” Thus far the Midrash [approximately. Ed.] When the Torah in our paragraph wrote: “command Aaron and his sons,” this is very unusual as throughout the Portion of Vayikra we find Aaron’s sons mentioned instead of their father such as: “the sons of Aaron shall throw, etc.” (Leviticus 1,14), or “the sons of Aaron will (arrange) prepare” (Leviticus 1,8.). The reason that in these instances Aaron was ignored is still the fallout from his part in the making of the golden calf. When Moses became aware of this he said to G’d: “how can a well be hated whereas the water it produces is well beloved?” If You G’d have honoured the wood (to be used on the Altar) on account of its offspring as we know from Tamid 2,3 that all kinds of logs are suitable to be used as kindling on the Altar with the exception of olive wood and the wood of the grape vine, surely Aaron should be admitted on the Altar if only on account of the fine sons he had produced!” When our portion starts with the words: “command Aaron and his sons,” etc., this reflects G’d’s response to Moses’ plea on behalf of his brother. A rational/investigative approach to the words: “this is the law of the burnt-offering; it is the burnt-offering, etc.” The Torah here alludes to the superior nature of the soul, the intellectual part of man. The words may be understood as if the Torah had written: “this is the superior nature of the soul which is constantly ascending on account of the input by the Torah which is the subject of the pronoun היא “she” in our verse.” There are numerous instances in the Bible where the Torah is referred to by the pronoun היא, such as in Proverbs 3,18 עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה, or in Psalms 19,8 תורת ה' תמימה משיבת נפש, i.e. that the soul is enabled to return to its Maker thanks to the Torah it has studied. על מוקדה על המזבח, these words are also an allusion to the lofty nature of the intellectual part of man which is able to rise beyond the world of the planets and which is superior even to the attributes with which angels have been equipped. The word מוקדה, is reminiscent of the world of the planets whereas the word מזבח, alludes to all the angels. We could understand the. words על מוקדה as if the Torah had written על האש, “above the fire,” such as in Isaiah 10,16: “and it wastes away on account of the heat.” [The heat described is fever burning up man’s flesh. Ed.] Our author understands the word אש in this verse as a reference to the sun, i.e. the soul will rise higher than the sun. He views the sun as the immediate cause of all movements involving fire. In a similar way he views the moon as the origin of all influences on the motion of water. King Solomon, who, in his Book Kohelet 1,9, describes all the things in this world as being תחת השמש, “beneath the sun,” makes an exception when he refers to the soul (רוח), and describes it as ascending beyond that domain, i.e. העולה היא למעלה, “which ascends on high” (Kohelet 3,21). In other words, the spiritual-intellectual part of man has access to regions above the sun which itself serves as a model for the entire planetary system in Solomon’s summation. In Solomon’s time the sun was viewed as the central planet, the middle one out of a total of seven. As such it is considered symbolic of the essence of the system as Solomon always counsels that man take the “middle path,” stay away from extremes, from fringes. When the Torah continues with the word על המזבח this is a simile for the lofty spiritual niveau of the angels, the expression מזבח being a term including all of the angels, the species, so to speak. Just as the altar on earth is a site for the sacrifices which express G’d’s goodwill towards man seeing G’d Himself describes the sacrifices as ריח ניחוחי which Onkelos translates as “that which I accept with goodwill” (Numbers 28,2), so all that the angels are doing is to congregate around G’d in order to carry out His will and to listen to His instructions (compare Psalms 103,20). When the Torah continues speaking about כל הלילה עד הבוקר, “all night long until morning,” this is an explanation of the merit which enables man’s soul to ascend to these lofty spiritual regions, and what it is that enables it to soar so high above the domain of both the planetary system and that of the angels. The merit is the preoccupation with Torah and its precepts. It is presumed that the fact that the soul is imprisoned in a body in this terrestrial world is equivalent to its residing in the “night,” i.e. לילה. If the soul will spend the time it is imprisoned in a night-like earth by devoting itself to Torah until בוקר, until morning, i.e. until it is released from that imprisonment, then it will soar to regions above those inhabited by the angels, even. The “morning” the Torah speaks of here is a morning which does not bring with it disappointments (compare Samuel II 23,4 where David extols such a morning describing it as “without clouds”). When the Torah continues with ואש המזבח תוקד בו, ”and the fire of the Altar shall be kept aflame on it,” the meaning is that notwithstanding the fact that the “fire” of the angels is very strong and powerful, the “fire” of the righteous described outclasses even that of the angels. A kabbalistic approach: The words היא העולה may be understood as והיא מתהלכת, “it keeps progressing,” (compare Ezekiel 1,13, i.e. “it made progress amongst all these chayot spiritual, disembodied beings”). The Torah describes a virtue which commences the ascent of the soul towards the “quarry” in heaven from which it was originally “hewn. The process is set in motion with the thoughts of the person offering the sacrifice. (Compare author’s comments on Leviticus 1,9 last paragraph and this Editor’s translation).

“And the priest shall put on his linen garment, etc.” Ramban explained that the removal of the ashes requires priestly garments, and no service can be performed with only two garments. Nevertheless, the text specifies these garments to introduce a new requirement: that the tunic should be of his exact measure, and that nothing should interpose between the breeches and his flesh. This explanation is difficult, however, because why would these new requirements be specified here? They should have been written in the portion of Tetzaveh, since that is where the text discusses the preparation of the priestly garments. I say to resolve this: Since the burnt offering atones for the thoughts of the heart, which primarily occur at night, and the main impure thoughts are about forbidden sexual relations, because from these thoughts one may come to inappropriate actions on one’s own, namely nocturnal emissions. This is also considered as bloodshed, because wasting seed that comes through impure thoughts is similar to bloodshed, that is, the blood of one’s potential offspring, as they derived from the verse who slaughter children in the valleys (Isaiah 57:5) — read it [both] as slaughter [shochatei] but as “squeeze” [sochatei] (Niddah 13a). And you already know that the breeches atone for sexual immorality and the tunic atones for bloodshed, as is found in Tractate Arachin (16a). And the burnt offering atones for thoughts that include both sexual immorality and bloodshed together. Therefore, it is said regarding the removal of the ashes of the burnt offering the priest shall put on his linen garment. This is the tunic that atones for bloodshed, and put on his linen breeches which atone for sexual immorality. And for this reason it specifies which the fire has consumed the burnt offering, to tell you that even though the ashes contain a mixture of other kinds [of offerings], nevertheless, this removal is done specifically with these two garments because the ashes of the burnt offering atone for impure thoughts. And since in reality there is neither actual sexual immorality nor actual bloodshed, but rather something similar to them, one might think that even if the tunic is not the right size for him, or if there is something separating between the breeches and his flesh, it would not invalidate [the service]. Therefore, Scripture specifies to teach that even here, they must be properly fitted in every aspect. And in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 7:6) they said, This is the law of the burnt offering that is the burnt offering [haolah] on its burning place — anyone who is arrogant is judged by fire, etc. The intention is not to remove this verse from its simple meaning and to interpret that is haolah as referring to the arrogant person. Rather, the view of this Midrash is to say that the burnt offering atones for haughtiness of spirit. And it has some support from the verse and that which comes up [oleh] in your spirit (Ezekiel 20:32), meaning haughtiness of spirit. Therefore, the law of the burnt offering is with fire, whose nature is to rise upward. Therefore it says, it is the burnt offering on its burning place, because the burning fire of the altar that rises upward is an atonement for the haughty spirit who rises up [haoleh] in matters too great and too wondrous for him. And with this intention, it mentioned the lifting of the ashes, because the correction is the ash, that one should say I am dust and ashes like Abraham, and then he will be exalted and lifted up and be very high because whoever humbles himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, elevates him. And this is what it means by and he shall lift up the ashes. And for this reason, it specified these two garments that the atoning priest should wear: And the priest shall put on his linen garment, according to his measure, that his garment of authority should not be longer than him but rather according to his measure, because “whoever wears a garment [of authority] should wear it according to his measure” (Berakhot 28a), and not walk in matters too great or too wondrous for him. And linen breeches which atone for sexual immorality, as our Sages said (see Sotah 4b), “Anyone who is arrogant, it is as if he engaged in all the forbidden sexual relations, etc.” And the placing of the ashes next to the altar is because the altar also indicates the attribute of humility, as explained above in Parshat Mishpatim. And some say that since the removal of the ashes is a light and lowly task, there is concern that perhaps the priest will wear short garments so they will not get dirty from the ashes, or they will wear something that creates a barrier on their skin so that their flesh will not be soiled by the ashes. Therefore, it says that the tunic should be of their proper measurement and that there should not be anything creating a barrier between them and the breeches.

ולבש הכהן מדו בד ומכנסי בד, “the priest is to don his linen tunic and his linen trousers.” The Torah mentions the tunic and trousers in connection with the procedure of removing the ashes, although according to Nachmanides, [alluded to here by the author not by name but uncharacteristically as “ה'הג” הרב הגאון, Ed.] needs to wear all four of his priestly garments as there is no kind of Temple service that may be performed with fewer than four garments. The reason why only two of these garments were mentioned here is, that they both have a feature we did not hear about previously. The Torah, by writing מדו, indicates that these garments were not of standard measure but were fitted according to the size of the individual priest who would wear them, both the tunic and the trousers. It was important that nothing should separate the garments from the skin of the wearer. Nachmanides refers to Onkelos who translates מדו, as לבישין, writes: it appears that he understood the word as the name of a comprehensive garment, something we would refer to nowadays as the “uniform” worn by liveried people, for instance. The expression מדיו, in Samuel I 17,28 where Saul gave David his uniform also refers to a uniform tailored for him especially, [which because David was much shorter would have been a hindrance rather than a help to David in his fight against Goliath. Ed.] In Samuel I 4,12 we read about ומדיו קרועים ואדמה על ראשו, “the torn uniform and the earth on his head described the state of mourning of its wearer who brought news of the capture of the Holy Ark by the Philistines”, not to mention the thirty thousand men who had fallen in that battle.

מדו, as in Numbers 23,18 בנו צפור, [in both instances the letter ו at the end is something extraneous. Ed.] It again occurs in that mode in Numbers 24,3. Basically the word מד refers to some kind of garment, especially work oriented or vocation oriented, as in Samuel I 4,12 where the expression ומדיו קרועים, refer to a “torn uniform.” והרים את הדשן, the procedure known as תרומת הדשן, the cleaning out of the ash, a procedure which could be performed all day long. It was mandatory to do this before the offering of the daily morning burnt offering. However, the removal from the camp of the ash could be taken care of any time during the day and not daily. When the top of the altar was too full it would be removed. (verse 4)

Then he shall remove his garments and put on other garments, and he shall carry the ash outside the camp to a clean place.

ופשט את בגדיו AND HE SHALL PUT OFF HIS GARMENTS — This is not compulsory (cf., however, Nachmanides) but it is a matter of decency so that he should not, through removing the ashes, soil the garments in which he has regularly to minister at the altar; in the clothes he wore when he boiled the pot for his master (a menial task) he should not pour out a glass of wine for him (an honourable office). On this account it states: And he shall put on other garments — inferior to those in which he ministers at the altar (Yoma 23b; Shabbat 114a). והוציא את הדשן AND HE SHALL BRING OUT THE ASHES that were heaped upon the ash-heap (not the ashes mentioned in v. 3). When it accumulated and there was no more room on the wood-pile (מערכה) he carried it out; this was not compulsory every day, whilst the תרומת הדשן (the taking out of the pan of ashes commanded in v. 3) was a daily duty (Yoma 20a).

AND HE SHALL PUT OFF HIS GARMENTS, [AND PUT ON OTHER GARMENTS, AND CARRY FORTH THE ASHES WITHOUT THE CAMP UNTO A CLEAN PLACE]. “This was not compulsory for him to do so, but it would be a matter of propriety, so that he should not soil the garments in which he regularly ministers at the altar, by the removal of the ashes to a place without the camp. Garments worn when boiling the pot for one’s master, one should not wear when pouring out a glass of wine for him. That is why He said, and he shall put on other garments — of [a quality] inferior [to those in which he ministers at the altar].” This is Rashi’s language. Now the intent of our Rabbis in this remark was to state that the taking of the ashes [to a place outside the camp] must be done with the priests wearing the priestly garments, and thus the other garments [mentioned in the verse] are not ordinary clothes. Thus I do not know the source for that which the Rabbi [Rashi] said, that “it was not compulsory” [that he remove the garments in which he performs the regular Divine Service, and put on other garments when taking out the ashes to a place outside the camp]. For it would appear that it is a positive commandment to the priest, that the garments in which he performs the acts of offering, including the [daily] lifting up of the ashes, be clean ones, and that he must not perform the regular Divine Service with those garments in which he takes the ashes [outside the camp]. This commandment [of the changing of the garments] is of the nature of a servant’s etiquette towards his master. Therefore the priests should have more expensive garments for performing the acts of offering, and ones of inferior quality for removing the ashes [to a place outside the camp or city of Jerusalem].All this is in accordance with this reasoning which the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote [i.e., that the removal of the ashes must be done in priestly garments]. But there are some of our Rabbis mentioned there in Tractate Yoma who say that the taking out of the ashes did not have to be done in priestly garments. Thus the verse stating, and he shall put on other garments means “ordinary clothes,” and this is also the plain meaning of the verse, commanding the priest that he should not soil the linen garments, which are the holy garments, with the taking out of the ashes; instead he is to put on ordinary clothes.

והוציא, same as להוציא, “in order to remove the ashes.” The absence of the word “the priest,” here is an indication that even a priest who is disqualified from performing other procedures in the Temple due to physical blemishes, may perform this procedure. אל מקום טהור,”a ritually pure location” seeing that these ashes had originated in sacred precincts. This is distinct from the stones of a house whose stones were afflicted with tzoraat, which have to be removed to a ritually unclean location, a location which people carrying objects that require ritual purity may not be brought to. (Leviticus 14,41)

“And he shall take off his garments, etc.” Rashi explains that this is not an obligation, but rather the Torah is teaching us proper conduct, etc. This is because Rashi finds it difficult that in the portion of Acharei Mot (16:23) it states and he shall take off the linen garments, and there it does not say “his garments.” Our Sages taught (Sifra, Acharei 13) that these garments do not come from his own possessions but from the sacred treasury. If so, why does it call them here his garments when they are not his? Rather, Rashi means that he should treat these sacred garments as one would normally treat garments, just as he would do if they were actually his own garments. For just as if they were his own, he would certainly remove them when doing some degrading or soiling work and would wear lesser garments, so too he should do with these sacred garments. And from this comparison we can derive that just as his own garments would be optional [to change], so too these are optional [to change] — for otherwise, why would the verse connect these to his garments?

ופשט את בגדיו ולבש בגדים אחרים, “the priest will divest himself of his clothes and shall don other garments.” Rashi writes that this language does not make this procedure obligatory. (although it is good manners to do so, so as not to soil the special garments he wears during performing other duties) Nachmanides writes that he does not know of any reason that would indicate that what is written here is not obligatory. Surely it is a duty for the priest not to wear the regular priestly garments while engaged in a task that would soil those garments, such as when he removes the ashes. Even when engaged in just הרמת הדשן, the removal of the ash, or incompletely consumed incense, from the golden altar in the Sanctuary itself, an activity that is rated as part of the Temple service, priestly garments must be worn, though they may be of an inferior quality. There is an opinion according to which the word אחרים that we understood as “alternate, others,” but sacred garments, does not refer to inferior priestly garments, but to ordinary garments such as the ones worn by non-priests. The carrying of the ashes outside the Temple precincts was simply not considered as part of the Temple service.

And the fire on the altar shall be kept burning on it; it shall not be extinguished. The priest shall kindle wood upon it each morning, and he shall arrange the burnt-offering upon it, and burn upon it the fat of the peace-offerings.

והאש על המזבח תוקד בו AND THE FIRE ON THE ALTAR SHALL BE BLAZING IN IT — Scripture uses here (in this section) many expressions from the root יקד “to ignite”: (Leviticus 6:2) “on the fire-place (מוקדה); (Leviticus 6:2) “and the fire upon the altar shall be blazing (תוקד) on it”; (Leviticus 6:5) “and the fire upon the altar shall be blazing (תוקד) on it”; (Leviticus 6:6) “a continual fire shall be blazing (תוקד) upon the altar” — all these passages have been expounded in Treatise Yoma 45b where our Rabbis state their different opinions as to the number of מערכות (wood-piles — fire-places) that were there (on the altar). וערך עליה העלה AND HE SHALL SET THE BURNT OFFERING IN ORDER UPON IT — The morning continual burnt offering had to come first (Menachot 49a; cf. also Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 2 10 and Rashi on Leviticus 3:5). השלמיםחלבי [AND HE SHALL CAUSE TO ASCEND IN FUMES THERÈON] THE FAT OF THE PEACE OFFERINGS — if people are bringing peace offerings there that day (this is no command that peace offerings must be placed on the altar after the daily burnt offering; if, however, any are being sacrificed on a particular day, it must be done at this point of the day’s work). — Our Rabbis, however, derived from here the following Halacha, taking the word השלמים in the sense of השלם “to complete”, “to finish”: עליה upon it — upon the continual burnt offering of the morning — complete the offering of all sacrifices; it follows therefore that no thing should be offered later than the continual burnt offering brought in the afternoon (Yoma 33a; Pesachim 58).

"And the fire on the altar shall be kept burning on it" — stated a second time to add: it shall not be extinguished, by day. The sense of "morning by morning" is: every single morning. And first the burnt-offering is placed on the fire, and after it the fat pieces of the peace-offerings.

והאש על המזבח, “and the fire on the altar, etc.;” the Torah reverts now to a statement made by Rabbi Yehudah in the Talmud Yuma folio 45 according to which the wood used for kindling may be burned only on the top part of the altar, i.e. על המזבח. This was used to kindle the major stack of wood that burned around the clock on the altar. (This is the way Rashi explains the word .(אליתא וערך עליה, to the question where on the altar all the parts of the burnt offering are to burned up, the Torah answers with the word: עליה; to the question where the relevant parts of the sin offerings and peace offerings are to be burned up, the Torah adds the words: חלבי השלמים, “the best parts of the peace offerings.” [fat parts listed previously, mainly above the kidneys and liver of the animal. Ed.] To the question where the fistful of meal offerings and frankincense, and libations etc. are to be burned up, the Torah answers with the word: והקטיר. To make sure that we do not get the impression that the incense is also to be burned up on the large altar in front of the Temple, the Torah adds: ובער עליה וערך את העצים, “that the priest is to set a special fire on the golden altar where the incense will be burned up.”

A perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar; it shall not be extinguished.

אש תמיד — The redundant word תמיד (because it could have written לא תכבה המזבח אש תוקד על ; for this, too, would imply that it must be continually burning since it states that it must never go out) intimates: The fire about the use of which the expression תמיד is used, viz., that by which the lamps of the Candelabrum were kindled, with reference to which it is said, (Exodus 27:20) “to light the lamps continually (תמיד), this, too) should be ignited from the fire on the outer altar Yoma 45b). תכבה לא IT SHALL NEVER GO OUT — One who extinguishes the fire on the altar transgresses two negative commands (this and that contained in v. 5).

"A perpetual fire shall be kept burning" — the purpose of this verse is to add the word תמיד, 'continually.'

אש תמיד, “a perpetual fire;” it will be kept burning even on the Sabbath, even if for some reason it became ritually impure. לא תכבה, “where it will not go out.” Even while the Israelites were journeying through the desert, G-d’s honour demanded that precautions be taken that this flame be kept going. According to Rabbi Yehudah in the Sifra. they used a kind of metal dome fixed above it to insure that it was kept going. [Seeing that the clouds of glory kept the people protected from rain, sandstorms and other inclemency of weather, this does not sound so exceptional. Ed.]

And this is the law of the meal-offering that the sons of Aaron shall bring near before Hashem, before the altar.

וזאת תורת המנחה AND THIS IS THE LAW OF THE MEAL OFFERING — one law for all meal-offerings (cf. Rashi on v. 2) — making requisite for them “oil” and “frankincense” which are prescribed in the previous section (Leviticus 2:1). This had to be intimated in some way here because I might think that there I have the law that meal offerings require oil and frankincense only if they belong to an ordinary Israelite since it is that alone of which a fistful (קומץ) had to be taken, (for the command to take the קומץ is preceded by the words ויצק עליה שמן ונתן עליה לבונה cf. Leviticus 2:1 and 2)! Whence can I know that the same applies to the meal-offering of priests which was entirely burnt (and of which therefore no קומץ was taken; cf. Rashi on v. 15)? Because Scripture states, תורת — “this is the general law of the meal-offering” (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 3). הקרב אתה [AARON AND HIS SONS SHALL] BRING IT — This means bringing near (not offering, i. e. burning, for this is mentioned later in v. 8) to the south-west corner of the altar. לפני ה׳ BEFORE THE LORD — This is the west side of the altar which faced the direction of the “tent of meeting” in which the Lord revealed himself. אל פני המזבח — This again implies the south side of the altar, because that was the אל פני המזבח, the front of the altar, since the ascent leading up to it was situated on that side (the combination therefore of both locations:'לפני ה and אל פני המזבח describes the south-west corner of the altar, as stated above) (Sotah 14b; Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 4).

AND THIS IS THE LAW OF THE MEAL-OFFERING. This section, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, adds [to Chapter 2 above where the law of the meal-offering was discussed] four commandments about the meal-offering: that [the residue be] eaten unleavened, that it be eaten in the Court of the Tent of Meeting, that every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it, and that whatever touches it becomes holy. Now according to the Rabbinical interpretation thereof, there are many new teachings added [in this section, among them being the following]: that even of a meal-offering brought by priests the handful is taken out [and burnt on the altar, in the same way as the residue which must be burnt on the altar]; that the priest must bring it near before the Eternal which means to the western corner [of the altar, since the Tent of Meeting where the ark of the covenant stood, was to the west of the altar, and therefore nearest to it], and in front of the altar which means to the southern corner [since the ramp of the altar which is its “front,” was on the south side thereof]. Thus you find that it had to be “presented” [i.e., brought near] to the southwestern corner of the altar. [And this section further teaches:] And he shall take up from it a handful — “from it” as one joined mass, meaning that he is not to bring one tenth of an ephah of flour [which is the amount brought for a meal-offering] in two receptacles [but it must be a full tenth of an ephah in one receptacle], nor is he to make a fixed measure that holds as much as his handful [to remove the amount of flour for the altar, but he must do it with his hand]. He also states, It shall not be baked as anything leavened. This is to liken all the stages of work [in the preparation of the meal-offering] to baking, thus teaching that one is also liable for kneading and rolling it if it be leavened, and that for each and every such act he transgresses a negative commandment and is liable to whipping on each count.

"הַקְרֵב אֹתָהּ" — this is an infinitive form, and its meaning is: 'the sons of Aaron shall bring it near,' meaning one of the sons of Aaron; therefore it says afterwards in the singular, "and he shall lift from it." This passage supplements what was written in the portion of Vayikra.

לפני המזבח, now the Torah explains the “Torah” of the gift-offering, מנחה, explaining that all of it is to be brought לפני המזבח “in front of the altar” as opposed to the Olah which was brought on the מוקד of the altar. All sacrifices are brought directly and exclusively to G’d. The parts allocated to the priests are not allocated by the owners of the sacrifice, but are to be viewed as G’d inviting the priests to be guests at His table, in Talmudic parlance as משלחן גבוה קא זכו, “they are benefiting from a table in the celestial regions.” The gift offering by a priest ends up on the altar completely as opposed to that of ordinary Israelites’ gift offering of which only a fistful gets to the altar, the balance being eaten by the priests.

אל פני המזבח, “In front of the altar.” There was no need to present it on the altar, as explained already on Leviticus 2,1. (Compare also B’chor shor)

וזאת תורת המנחה, “and this is the law of the meal-offering.” Actually this had already been mentioned in Leviticus 2,1 where the Torah wrote: “if a person wishes to offer a meal-offering, etc.” It is mentioned here again on account of four additional commandments listed in this paragraph. 1) It has to be eaten as unleavened bread; 2) It has to be consumed inside the courtyard of the Tabernacle (Temple) as the Torah writes: “in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it” (6,9). 3) It may be eaten only by male priests (verse 11). 4) It confers sanctity on anything which touches it. This means that such matters will henceforth be subject to the stringent regulations governing holy things. Even when things which are already “holy,” such as parts of offerings which have the status of קדשים קלים, “sacred matters of a relatively mild level of sanctity,” touch the meal-offering, they will be upgraded in their sanctity, i.e. be subject to the more stringent regulations of קדשי קדשים, “most holy things.”

He shall separate from it, with his handful, from the fine flour of the meal-offering and from its oil, and all the frankincense that is upon the meal-offering, and he shall burn it on the altar, to be received with favor — a memorial portion before Hashem.

והרים ממנו AND HE SHALL TAKE UP FROM IT [IN HIS GRASP] — From it — from it as a united mass) — that there should be a full tenth part of an ephah at the same time in the vessel when he takes the fistful (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 5; Menachot 24a). בקמצו WITH HIS GRASP — This implies that he shall not make a measure for the קומץ (he must not use a measure that holds as much as his fist and in that remove the flour) (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 5; Yoma 47a). ומשמנה מסלת המנחה OF THE FLOUR OF THE MEAL OFFERING AND OF THE OIL THEREOF — From here we may derive that he takes the “fistful” (קומץ) from that spot where there is plenty of oil in it (Sotah 14b). המנחה THE MEAL-OFFERING — This implies that it shall not be mixed up with another meal-offering (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 5). הלבנה אשר על המנחה והקטירואת כל AND ALL THE FRANKINCENSE WHICH IS UPON THE MEAL OFFERING HE SHALL CAUSE TO ASCEND IN FUMES — This means that the picks the frankincense off the meal-offering after the fistful has been taken from the latter and burns it (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 2:1). And because Scripture has stated this specifically only in the case of one of the meal offerings mentioned in ויקרא (Leviticus 2:2; viz., in the case of מנחת סולת, and it might therefore be applied to that special case only), it was compelled to state this paragraph here in order to include in a general rule all kinds of meal offerings as to all the regulations applicable to them.

והרים ממנו, “he will remove some of it,” (the gift offering) it has been written in the masculine mode (although the word מנחה is feminine) We find a similar grammatically incorrect construction in Leviticus 27,9: כל אשר יתן ממנו לה' יהיה קודש, where according to the grammar the Torah could have been expected to write ממנה instead of ממנו. There are numerous such incongruous constructions in different parts of the Torah.

And what remains of it, Aaron and his sons shall eat; it shall be eaten unleavened in a holy place — in the court of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it.

קדושבמקום [AS UNLEAVENED BREAD SHALL IT BE EATEN) IN A HOLY PLACE. — And which is this? בחצר אהל מועד IN THE ENCLOSURE OF THE TENT OF MEETING (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 12).

"It shall be eaten unleavened in a holy place" — behold, here are two commandments. And "every male" is a third.

והנותרת ממנה, “and what is left of it;” the Torah here repeats itself seeing that it had written in Leviticus 2,3: that the leftover from the minchah offering was to be given to Aaron and his sons. If the Torah had not stated this at this point, we might have thought that the entire left over was to be given to be burnt. The word: ממנה from it, makes it clear that this is not so. מצות תאכל, “it must be consumed as unleavened cakes;” seeing that up until now, i.e. before it had been sanctified the flour was permissible to be eaten by anyone either leavened or unleavened, the Torah had to make clear that though it is “leftovers,” it did not revert now to its original status. We find something similar in the legislation of the levirate marriage. (Deuteronomy 25,5) The Torah writes that even though prior to the marriage of this woman to her late husband she was free to marry any Jews, now she is limited to her brother-in-law who must perform the levirate marriage.

It shall be eaten unleavened in a holy place, in the court of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it. Rashi explains it as, in a holy place — and what is it? In the court of the Tent of Meeting.“ Nevertheless, in a holy place is redundant, and also shall be eaten and they shall eat it — one of them is redundant. The meaning of the language suggests that there are two aspects here: the eater and what is eaten. The aspect of the eater means that the priest who eats it needs to know that his eating is from the Divine table, and by law, the meal offering should be entirely consumed by the altar, except that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him his portion from His offerings. Therefore, the priest needs to eat his portion in the place where the Divine portion is consumed, namely in the court of the Tent of Meeting, because that is where the altar is located. And even though that place is indeed holy, the requirement for the eater is not because of the holiness of the place, but rather because he needs to connect his eating to the consumption by the altar, to indicate that just as the consumption by the altar atones, so too does the eating by the priests — the owners receive atonement through them. However, the aspect that is eaten is the matzah. Due to its being clean from leaven, there is an aspect of holiness in matzah. Therefore, it says unleavened bread shall be eaten in a holy place, because from the perspective of the matzah’s quality, there is a requirement that the place be holy. And afterward, it gave a reason for both: Regarding what it said in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it, this is because I have given it as their portion from My fire-offerings. Therefore, both need to be within the same partition. And regarding what it said, unleavened bread shall be eaten in a holy place, it gave the reason saying it is most holy, like the sin offering and like the guilt offering. For the sin offering and guilt offering that come for atonement of sin are called most holy, because the completely righteous person who has not sinned at all is holy to the Lord, but the sinner who returns in repentance is most holy, for in the place where penitents stand, even the completely righteous cannot stand (Berakhot 34b). And our Sages said (Yoma 86b) that one who repents out of love, his intentional sins are transformed into merits, as will be explained, God willing, later in the portion of Vayelech. And this is a great level that is not found in the completely righteous person, besides the other virtues that our Sages mentioned there. Therefore, it is proper that the sin offering be most holy, and similarly, the matzah requires a holy place for this reason, because it too is most holy due to the removal of the leaven in the dough which profanes a person’s holiness. The reason for distancing leaven seems to be explained in two ways. The first way is according to Rabbi Alexandri who said (Berakhot 17) “We want to do Your will, but the leaven in the dough prevents us,” and in this approach we have explained above the verse All leaven and all honey you shall not burn in the portion of Vayikra, see there. And regarding this it is stated here it is most holy, like the sin offering and like the guilt offering. For through the slaughtering of the sacrifice, a person slaughters his evil inclination and it will be sought but is no more, therefore the meal offering also comes clean of leaven. However, the two loaves of Shavuot specifically come leavened because if not for the evil inclination, those below would not need the Torah more than those above, as with this argument Moses defeated the angels, saying, “Is there an evil inclination among you, etc.” (Shabbat 89a). Furthermore, the existence of the evil inclination is necessary, and without it a person would not build a house nor marry a woman. And in the place of Torah, there is no concern that it might breach its boundaries, for the Torah is the antidote to it. But in the thanksgiving offering, there were both leavened and unleavened breads together. This is because the unleavened bread symbolizes that one has already humbled oneself with the toil of one’s heart, as it is written regarding the four who need to give thanks: and He humbled their heart with labor (Psalms 107:12). For the wicked are under the control of their hearts, etc. And our Sages interpreted the verse Whoever offers thanksgiving honors Me (Psalms 50:23) as referring to one who slaughters one’s evil inclination and confesses over it, etc. (Sanhedrin 43b). From there is proof that the slaughtering of the thanksgiving offering represents the slaughtering of the evil inclination. Therefore, one brings as a sign unleavened cakes that are clean from leaven. Nevertheless, one still needs the evil inclination for the continuation of the species, therefore there were also leavened cakes. And there were three unleavened cakes corresponding to one leavened cake, to nullify its existence by majority, because every person should divide their years into three parts with the threefold Torah: Scripture, Mishnah, and Talmud, and give the fourth part to the maintenance of one’s body. However, since we do not find any leaven in the sin offering’s meal offering, we can say the opposite — that one who brings a sacrifice for his sin voluntarily without being compelled certainly has no remnant of the inner leaven left within him. But one who offers a thanksgiving offering after suffering afflictions that force him to repent certainly has some impression of the inner leaven remaining within him. And know and understand that the letters of chametz [leaven] are [essentially] the same as matzah [unleavened bread] and they are equal in pronunciation. As the letters hei and chet are interchangeable in the letter group alef-hei-chet-ayin. However, chametz has a numerical value three greater than matzah, and correspondingly, for each leavened loaf there were three unleavened ones, so that they would be equal in quantity. This hints that the evil inclination has an advantage of three over the good inclination — these are the three arguments that the Duties of the Heart mentions that the evil inclination has over the good inclination. And if one wants to overcome it, then the threefold cord of Scripture, Mishnah, and Talmud will stand against it, and then there will be equanimity between them — half for God and half for yourselves. The second approach is more correct and easier to understand, that the matzah symbolizes humility, like matzah dough that does not rise upward. The matzah of Passover proves this, as it is a symbol of freedom and redemption. This is because God only desired Israel because they diminish themselves, as they learned (Chullin 89a) from the verse Not because you were more numerous than all the peoples did the Lord desire you, for you are the fewest (Deuteronomy 7:7). For what does the Lord ask of you but to fear Him (Deuteronomy 10:12), as humility leads to fear of Heaven. The more humility is found among those below, the more the kingdom of Heaven is revealed and seen, for He is clothed in majesty and there is none besides Him. This is the reason for the Egyptian exile — to humble them in the crucible of affliction, and they will take refuge in the name of the Lord (Zephaniah 3:12). Through humility, they were freed from earthly kingdoms and accepted the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, chametz must specifically be burned, for it is a customary practice that anyone who becomes arrogant is judged by fire, as it says in the Midrash on the verse This is the law of the burnt offering; it is the burnt offering [haolah] on its firewood. For one who wishes to rise up high [lealot], like the nature of chametz which rises upward [haolah], deserves to be judged by fire, whose nature is also to rise upward. Therefore, chametz is forbidden even in the smallest amount, because in all character traits a person needs to follow the middle path, except for pride, about which our Sages said (Sotah 5a), “Not any of it, not even a bit of it.” Thus, they forbade even the slightest amount of pride, just as the slightest amount of chametz is forbidden. Similarly, our Sages said (Avot 4:4), “Be exceedingly humble in spirit” before every person, which alludes to the extreme importance of this matter and the need to distance oneself from it completely. According to the words of Rabbi Alexandri, who compared the evil inclination to leaven in dough, we can say that this is why even the slightest amount [of leaven] is forbidden: As our Sages said (Bereishit Rabbah 22:6), “At first the evil inclination resembles a spider’s thread,” meaning something minimal, but afterward it grows and rises until it becomes like cart ropes, and injustice rises beyond remedy. Therefore, a person should not consider even a minimal amount of it insignificant, for a small amount of leaven grows and rises as mentioned. For this reason, they would bring 30 unleavened cakes with the thanksgiving offering, because regarding the four situations requiring thanksgiving, it says and He humbled their heart with labor. After this humbling, it is fitting to offer 30 unleavened cakes, perhaps corresponding to kingship which is acquired through 30 qualities that encompass all forms of elevation appropriate for a king. One who becomes proud, either in all or some of these ways, after being humbled through his suffering, should bring 30 unleavened cakes symbolizing humility, indicating that not even the slightest trace of pride remains. The 10 leavened cakes symbolize exaltation and elevation, directing all greatness and exaltation to the First Cause, blessed be He, who encompasses the 10 abstract spheres, and it is the glory of God to conceal a matter. For this reason, unleavened bread is a sign of redemption and freedom everywhere — both in the Exodus from Egypt and in the thanksgiving offering, as it is written Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, whom He has redeemed from the hand of the adversary (Psalms 107:2), which refers to all four situations requiring thanksgiving, where they were redeemed because He humbled their heart with labor, and therefore one brings unleavened cakes. The same applies to meal offerings, for through sacrifices a person is redeemed from the evil inclination whose net is spread to capture him in the bonds of iniquity. The person is freed from suffering, from foreign dominion, and from the angel of death through the sacrifice that brings him to a broken spirit and humility. Therefore, the law for meal offerings is to bake them unleavened, and they are similar to sin offerings and guilt offerings in the manner explained.

בחצר אהל מועד, only in the holy precincts but not in all of Jerusalem.

It shall not be baked leavened. I have given it as their portion from My offerings; it is most holy, like the sin-offering and like the guilt-offering.

לא תאפה חמץ חלקם IT SHALL NOT BE BAKEN AS ANYTHING LEAVENED FOR THEIR PORTION — The remains of the meal-offering which become the portion of the priests, are also forbidden to be baked in the form of leavened (Menachot 55a). כחטאת וכאשם [IT IS MOST HOLY] AS THE SIN OFFERING OR THE GUILT OFFERING — the meal-offering of the sinner (v. 11) is as the sin-offering, therefore if he (the priest) takes the fistful out of it not as such (not having in mind that offering) it is invalid as is the sin-offering under such circumstances (cf. Rashi on 5:12); a free-will meal-offering (i.e. any of the other meal-offerings mentioned in ויקרא), however, is as the guilt-offering, therefore if he takes the fistful out of it not doing it as such, it is still valid (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 3 3; Zevachim 11a).

I HAVE GIVEN IT AS THEIR PORTION OF MY OFFERINGS. Even to apportion it [i.e., the residue of the meal-offering which the priests are to eat] they are not permitted to do until after the parts given to the fire [i.e., the handful] have gone up on the altar. It is from here that we learn that the same law applies to all hallowed offerings, as it is written, I have given it as their portion of My offerings; it is most holy. It shall not be baked as anything leavened. Their portion … — even the residue [which the priests receive as their share of the meal-offering] may not be baked with leaven. As the sin-offering, and as the guilt-offering — this teaches that just as the sin-offering must come from ordinary money, and can be offered only at daytime, and the priest performs all its acts with his right arm — so also this meal-offering must come from ordinary money, and be brought at daytime, and its acts must be performed with the priest’s right hand. Every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it — it may be apportioned even amongst those priests who have a bodily blemish [such as are mentioned further in Chapter 21:16-21 as disqualifying them from performing the acts of offering, but they may eat the residue of the meal-offering].Now with regards to the meal-offering of the priests He added [this command]: And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten. On this the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim that the reason [for the meal-offering of the priest being entirely burnt] is because every priest offered up his own meal-offering himself, and if he were to offer it and eat the residue of it himself, it would appear as if he had brought no offering. For nothing was offered of an ordinary individual’s meal-offering except the frankincense and the handful of the flour. If then, in addition to the fact that the whole offering was small, he who offered it were to eat it himself, he would imagine that he had brought no offering at all. Therefore [the Torah required] that it be entirely burnt.

The sense of "it shall not be baked leavened" — this is the essential rule regarding the unleavened bread of Passover. "Like the sin-offering and like the guilt-offering" — so too is the meal-offering [governed by this rule].

חלקם נתתי אותה מאשי, “I have given it as their share of My offerings by fire;” The Torah explains here why it must not be baked with leavening, having first been part of the offerings brought to Hashem. Of these offerings we had been told in Leviticus 2,11: 'כל שאור וכל דבש לא תקטירו ממנו אשה לה, “you are not to burn up as a fire offering to Hashem anything leavened or anything containing honey.” קדש קדשים היא, “it is most holy;” it is of the same status as all holy things. כחטאת, “just as the sin offering;” just as the sin offering originally had been secular, i.e. the person presenting it used money to purchase the animal without first sanctifying that money. This had to be done by day and with the right hand.

חלקם נתתי אותה מאשי, “I have presented it as their share from My fire-offerings.” The meaning of the entire verse, which on the face of it contains nothing new, is that none of the remains becomes the property of the priests until all the parts of the sacrifice slated for burning up have done so. From this verse we derive the rule that what applies to the three fingers full of the minchah offering applies to all the offerings, seeing that the Torah adds the words קודש קדשים היא כחטאת וכאשם, i.e. the meal offering is just as holy of holies to G’d as are the sin and guilt offerings.

Every male among the sons of Aaron may eat it — an eternal statute throughout your generations from the offerings of Hashem; whoever touches them shall become holy.

כל זכר ALL THE MALES [AMONG THE CHILDREN OF AARON SHALL EAT OF IT] — all the males: even one with a bodily blemish. But why is this stated at all? If you say: for the purpose of permitting the eating of the meal-offering to such a priest, then it is redundant, for you see, this has already been stated, (Leviticus 21:22) “He (the priest with a blemish) may eat of the bread of his God, both of the most holy [and of the holy]”! But it is intended to include the priests with bodily blemishes in the right of apportionment alluded to in the preceding verse: I have given it to them as their portion (i.e. that they may not only eat holy food if such is given to them by their fellow priests, but they are entitled to participate in the apportionment) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 3 5; Zevachim 102a). כל אשר 'יגע וגו WHATEVER TOUCHETH THEM — i. e. sacrifices holy in a minor degree or non-consecrated flesh (חולין) which touch it (the meal-offering) and absorb anything of it (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 3 6; Zevachim 97b), יקדש SHALL BECOME HOLY so as to be exactly like it (the מנחה) — that if it (the meal-offering) has become disqualified (as when e. g. it was not offered as such, לשמה), they (the holy things touching it) shall also become similarly disqualified, and if it is fit for eating they must be eaten only under the same stringency as the meal-offering (i.e., they must be eaten in a holy place (v. 9) and by males only; v. 11, etc.) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 3 6; Zevachim 97b).

"Whatever touches" — whether the meal-offering, the sin-offering, or the guilt-offering — it is holy to Hashem.

כל זכר, “every male; the content of this paragraph had already been written Leviticus 2,10. It was repeated here for three reasons. 1) Unleavened bread. 2) had to be eaten on sacred ground. 3) Any male priest could eat it. Anyone or anything coming into contact with it would become out of bounds unless such a person had first ritually purified himself.

יקדש. Assuming that the substance (or the person) had been ritually pure prior to touching these parts of the sacrifice it now becomes sanctified, i.e. out of bounds, forbidden. Compare author’s comment on parallel verses as Exodus 29,37 as well as Leviticus 11,8.

And Hashem spoke with Moses, saying:

This is the offering of Aaron and his sons that they shall bring near before Hashem on the day he is anointed: one-tenth of three seahs of fine flour, a perpetual meal-offering — half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening.

זה קרבן אהרון ובניו THIS IS THE OFFERING OF AARON AND HIS SONS — The ordinary priests, too, offer a tenth part of an ephah of flour on the day they are installed into the priestly service; the High Priest, however, offers one every day, as it is said, “a continual meal-offering, [half of it in the morning, and half thereof in the evening] etc. And the priest amongst his sons that is anointed in his stead (i. e. every high priest) [shall offer it]; it is a statute for ever” (Sifra, Tzav, Section 3 1-4; Menachot 51b).

"This is the offering of Aaron" — or of one of his sons in his stead. "On the day of his anointing" — on the day when the anointing oil is poured upon his head. Many say that this bet is in place of a mem, and the sense is: from the day of his anointing onward he is obligated to bring his meal-offering continually.

ביום המשח אותו, “on the day when he is anointed;” the prefix letter ב in the word ביום was used here instead of the prefix letter מ, “from.” From that day on the high Priest has to present this daily offering. We find another example of the use of the letter ב in the same sense as here, in chapter 7, verse 36: ביום משחו אותם, “from the day they were anointed.” (Ibn Ezra) Also in chapter 8, verse 32, והנותר בבשר ובלחם, the correct translation is: “and that which is left over from the meat and the bread.” מחציתם בבקר ומחציתם בערב, “half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening.” How is the High Priest to perform the procedure? He brings a whole tenth of an eyfah in the morning, and proceeds to divide that quantity in half, proceeding to offer the first half in the morning and the remaining half in the evening. If, in the interval, the half reserved for offering in the evening has becoming ritually contaminated, or has somehow been lost, the priest will bring the full eyfah in the evening to compensate for what was lost or has been contaminated. He will do so by dividing it into two halves, but only offering one of the two halves, so that a whole eyfah will have been offered and a whole eyfah will have been lost. (Sifra)

זה קרבן אהרן ובניו, “this is the offering of Aaron and his sons.” Our sages have told us that there were four matters which Moses found difficult to comprehend, and that the offering Aaron was to bring on the day he was anointed was one of them. The four are easy to remember when one thinks of the first letters of them forming the word מקש'ה, i.e. “he has trouble under-standing.” [they are the laws of the מנורה, קרבן, שקלים, החדש, (laws about the lampstand, the sacrifice (of Aaron), the coin called shekel hakodesh, and the legislation of the new moon). The mystical dimension of our verse is this: the word זה in the sequence זה קרבן אהרן ובניו אשר יקריבו לה', refers to an attribute Aaron and his sons are to offer. They are to present G’d with a certain character-virtue represented by this offering about which the Torah now gives the measurements and components. When the prophet Ezekiel 44,27 speaks about the inauguration sacrifices of the third Temple, he also lists the size and composition of that sacrifice as consisting of עשירית האפה סולת, calling it “a sin-offering.”(although Ezekiel did not spell out what this sin-offering consisted of the Talmud Moed Katan 15-16 states that it was the same as that mentioned in our verse here). Since no specific sin was being atoned for, the meaning is that this offering symbolised a spiritual cleansing of the priest prior to his commencing his sacred vocation.

זה קרבן אהרן ובניו. According to the plain meaning of the verse the persons meant are Aaron and his successors, other High Priests subsequent to him. Our sages (Menachot 51) interpret the verse to refer to all ordinary priests as well. In other words, any newly inducted priest is required to bring a gift offering as his first service in the Temple.

On a griddle, with oil, it shall be made, well-stirred; you shall bring it in broken pieces — a meal-offering of portions — to be received with favor before Hashem.

מרבכת means, scalded with hot oil to saturation (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 4 6). תפיני means, many times baken: after it has been scalded he bakes it in the oven and then again fries it in a pan (cf. Menachot 50b). מנחת פתים THE BROKEN PIECES — This teaches that it requires breaking into pieces (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 4 6; Menachot 75b).

"מרבכת" — it has no parallel word. Some say it means soft, and some say it means quickly prepared. The tav of תביאנה is a sign referring to Aaron [as the subject], and likewise the tav of תקריב. In my view the same applies to the tav of תפיני — its meaning is 'prepared,' and it has no equivalent. The earlier authorities said it consists of two words: תאפה נא, 'bake it now.' And Rabbi Yonah the grammarian said it follows the pattern of דּוּכִיפַת, but this pattern is irregular.

תעשה מרבכת, “it will be presented after having been prepared with oil on a griddle.” The only time in the Torah that we hear about such a procedure, is here and in connection with the קרבן תודה, mandatory thanksgiving offering, and during the consecration rites of the priests when the Tabernacle was consecrated. (Menachot 78) תפיני, “in broken pieces;” the expression means that it has not been baked thoroughly, and is neither raw nor cooked.

מרבכת, softened with oil according to the requirements of the individual sacrifice. Seeing this had to be baked in an oven, it needed to be softened with oil. תפיני, an expression denoting baking of some kind. The letter א is somehow absent in this word. This missing letter א is not unusual, for instance it occurs in Isaiah 13.20 לא יהל ערבי instead of לא יאהל ערבי, “no Arab shall pitch his tent.” In Exodus 10,21 וימש חשך we would have expected ויאמש חשך, [from the word אמש, last night, i.e. darkness which normally lasts only a single night will last much longer. See author’s comment on that verse. Ed.]

And the priest who is anointed in his place from among his sons shall make it — an eternal statute before Hashem; it shall be entirely offered up.

המשיח תחתיו מבניו is the same as המשיח מבניו תחתיו THE PRIEST THAT IS ANOINTED FROM AMONGST HIS SONS IN HIS STEAD. כליל תקטר IT SHALL WHOLLY ASCEND IN FUMES — The קמץ (the altar's share) is not taken off from it so that there can be any remaining of it to be eaten by the priests, but the whole of it is burnt entire. Similarly the next verse points out that every free-will meal-offering of a priest (i. e. such offering in general) shall be wholly burnt (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 5 3).

"כָּלִיל" — like כָּלָה, 'wholly'; it shall be entirely [consumed] to Hashem.

והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו, and one of his sons, the priest who will be anointed in his stead, etc. The sages in Menachot 51 explain that this verse teaches that if a High Priest has died and no successor has as yet been appointed, that one of his sons must offer the daily meal-offering which is mandatory for the High Priest. They derive this הלכה from the words מבניו תחתיו, "one of his sons in his stead." The same sages use the letter ם in the word מבניו for a different exegetical purpose. The Talmud on that folio quotes a Baraitha according to which the word בניו means that the High Priest's sons enjoy the status of ordinary priests; to the query that may be the Torah intended them to have the status of High Priests (pl)? The sages point to the words והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו as proof that only one of the sons may be anointed as High Priest in place of their father. It seems clear that this conclusion is derived from the word מבניו, i.e. from amongst his sons, not all his sons. On this subject the Talmud Horiot 11 adds that even a High Priest who is the son of a High priest needs to undergo anointing with the oil of anointing. They derive this from the words: והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו; if anointment of the son were not required all the Torah would have had to write was והכהן מתחתיו מבניו the extraneous word המשיח teaches that even if the High Priest's own son is his successor he has to be anointed. This seems difficult. The word המשיח is essential to teach us that the sons who up until then were only ordinary priests, as per We could answer this query by saying that we did not need the word המשיח to enable us to allow the sons to offer the meal-offering in the absence of a newly appointed High Priest, for why else would the Torah write two verses dealing with the ordinary priest offering a meal-offering. It is clear therefore that on the first occasion the Torah mentions the meal-offering brought by an ordinary priest that the regular priest is meant, whereas on the second occasion the Torah refers to an ordinary priest who happens to be the son of a High Priest. The word המשיח did not have to be mentioned unless the Torah wished us to derive an additional lesson from that word. The Talmud concluded therefore that the word teaches that even if a High Priest is succeeded by his son he needs to be anointed for his new office. There remains the problem why the Torah had to write תחתיו מבניו, an inverted way of saying מבניו תחתיו, "from amongst his sons as his replacement." Perhaps the Torah was especially interested in the word תחתיו appearing next to the person whom he replaced in order for the Talmud in Menachot to be able to arrive at the conclusion that one of the High Priest's sons must offer the meal-offering normally offered by the High Priest pending appointment of a new High Priest. The whole verse may then be understood as follows: והכהן המשיח תחתיו יעשה, "and the priest who will be anointed in his place will carry out (the functions of that...

And every meal-offering of a priest shall be wholly offered up; it shall not be eaten.

כליל (connected with כל, all) means, all of it belongs alike to the Most High God (i. e. no part of it is given to the priests).

"It shall not be eaten" — like all the meal-offerings; for how could the priest eat from his own meal-offering or sin-offering? The place of slaughter of every sin-offering is on the north side.

כליל תהיה, “it shall be offered whole.” Seeing that no one will eat part of it, how miserly would it be if he only offered part of a fistful, קומץ to the Lord, as is done with the minchah offering of the ordinary Israelites, of which only this partial fistful will be burnt up symbolically, the remainder being eaten by the priests in their capacity of servants of Hashem? It can also not be compared to sin offerings or guilt offerings offered by the priests (on their own behalf). Seeing that they themselves are the servants of the Lord, the whole offering had become a gift to Hashem. What do the priests lose by offering the entire minchah offering to Hashem? We can also not make a comparison with the sin offerings and guilt offerings of the priests for their own sins or guilt, as in wither event at least the entrails are burned up on the altar, and the skin is distributed among the priests of that particular watch. Logic also dictates that the whole minchah be burned up as it is the priest who has presented it, and it would not make sense that he present part of his offering to Hashem to other priests. We find an example of this reasoning being practiced in the bulls offered by the priests during the consecration rites, which are burned up completely. (Leviticus 8,17)

וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה, לא תאכל, “and every meal-offering of a Priest is to be whole (completely consumed by the Altar), it shall not be eaten (by man).” The meaning of this verse is that any offering brought by the Priest as a voluntary offering shall be like the burnt-offering, i.e. all of it remaining on the Altar going up in flames. Our sages (Sotah 23) use the word כהן as restrictive, meaning that what is written here does not apply to an offering brought by a female Priest. There are many laws which dscriminate between male and female Priests, i.e. daughters of a Priest, one of them being that whereas the meal-offering of a male Priest may not be eaten, the corresponding voluntary meal-offering offered by a female Priest may be eaten. Whereas a male Priest is cautioned not to defile his body there is no such law which applies to a female Priest. Our sages derive this from the words בני אהרן, “the sons of Aaron,” i.e. not the daughters of Aaron (Leviticus 21,1). The reason why Priests of the female gender are discriminated against is the fact that women introduced mortality into the world. This is why it is not appropriate to have women Priests offer sacrifices, seeing the procedures are designed to preserve life not result in mortality. This accounts for the fact that a male Priest must not marry a divorced woman, whereas a female Priest is permitted to marry a divorced Priest. Similarly, the gifts provided by the Torah are given only to male Priests, not to female Priests. Halachically speaking, while these gifts may be presented only to male Priests in order for the party handing it over to be discharging his obligation, female Priests are allowed to eat the parts known as קדשים קלים, sacred matters of a relatively mild degree of sanctity. Maimonides writes in his Moreh Nevuchim section 3 chapter 4 that the reason for the ruling “every meal-offering of the Priest is to be whole, it may not be eaten (by humans)” is the fact that when a Priest offers such an offering he does in effect offer his very essence to G’d. If he were allowed to eat even part of that offering he would in effect “eat himself” and nullify what he had hoped to achieve when presenting his offering to G’d. The only parts of the meal-offerings of the individual which are burned up on the Altar (for G’d’s consumption) are the frankincense and the fistful of the flour and oil mixture. If he were allowed to consume the fistful of meal it would appear as if nothing remained for the Lord at all. Due to considerations of this nature the Torah decreed that all of the offering be burned.

וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה, “and every meal offering offered by a priest must be complete, (not just the three fingers full) none of it may be consumed by the priests. Maimonides (Moreh Nevuchim, 3,46) explains that the reason for the above is simple, i.e. that the priest cannot consume his own offering. Were he allowed to partake of it, the impression would be created that he had in fact not brought an offering to G’d at all. After all, the altar receives only three fingers full of any meal offering, pus a small amount of frankincense. By legislating that the entire meal/oil mixture is to be burned, the priest will be seen to have brought an offering of his own. The treatment by the Torah of the meal offering differently from the sin offering, for instance, is that in the case of the latter, substantial parts of the sacrificial animal are burned up on the altar in addition to the parts that the priests may consume.

'וכל מנחת כהן וגו, “and every meal offering by a priest shall be a whole offering, not to be consumed (by man.)” The reason may well be that the Torah was afraid that if the priest were allowed to eat a part of it, he would reason that it was not worthwhile for him to do so, as even whole it is only a small quantity of food. It would, of course be quite inappropriate for him to think that way; but to forestall such a thought the Torah decreed that none of it may be eaten. The above is not the case when an ordinary Israelite offers a meal offering. The portion that is not burned up is eaten by the priests, seeing that only a partial fistful, קומץ, has been burned up.

And Hashem spoke with Moses, saying:

Speak with Aaron and with his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin-offering — in the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, the sin-offering shall be slaughtered before Hashem; it is most holy.

THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SIN-OFFERING. In Seder Vayikra He commanded concerning [the offerings in the following order]: the burnt-offering, the meal-offering, the peace-offerings, the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, [the reason for this order being] that at first He spoke about the freewill offerings [namely the burnt-offering, the meal-offering and the peace-offerings], and afterwards He mentioned those offerings which are obligatory upon the sinner. Here, however, [in Seder Tzav] the explanation is given first in connection with the burnt-offering and meal-offering, and only then about the sin-offering and guilt-offering, because He wished to explain the laws of the most holy offerings [in one group], since there is one law for them all, as He said [above in Verse 10] with reference to the meal-offering, it is most holy, as the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, and only afterwards He explains the law of those offerings which are less holy [namely, the peace-offerings].Now in this section [dealing with the sin-offering] He added many new laws. [The verse] This is the law of the sin-offering teaches that there is one law for all sin-offerings, meaning that even the blood of “the inner sin-offerings” [if sprinkled upon a garment] must be washed off [in a holy place]. I might think that this applies also to a sin-offering brought from a bird, Scripture therefore says zoth [‘zoth’ torath hachatath (‘this’ is the law of the sin-offering) — and the word zoth denotes exclusion]. He also states here [in the verse before us], in the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered shall the sin-offering be slaughtered before the Eternal, thus indicating that all sin-offerings must be slaughtered only on the northern side of the altar, since in the section of Vayikra this was stated only with reference to the sin-offering of the prince and of the individual; therefore here [in this section] they are all included — the sin-offerings of the public and “the inner sin-offerings.”The Rabbis have further interpreted: Most holy, this comes to include the peace-offerings of the public, teaching that they may only be slaughtered on the northern side of the altar, as all offerings of the most holy degree are required to be slaughtered on the northern side. Hi (this) — ‘this’ is the law of the sin-offering, comes to exclude the thanks-offering and the ram of the Nazirite [thus teaching that they may be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple Court, as their holiness is of a lesser degree]. He further commanded here to give the meat of the sin-offerings to the sons of Aaron — that is, to the males and not the daughters of Aaron — and commanded them to eat it within the Court of the Tent of Meeting. In addition He mentioned [in this section] many new laws concerning absorption [of the taste of] the sin-offerings [by the vessels in which they are boiled].

"Most holy" — for it is like one of the holy offerings.

now the “Torah” of the sin offering, חטאת, is mentioned. If the sin offering is meant to atone for a serious sin, its blood has to offered in side the sanctuary, and none of the offering is allocated to the priests to eat. The parts normally eaten by the priests will also be burned.

במקום אשר תשחט העולה, “at the site where the burnt offering will be slaughtered;” the reason why the Torah repeats this is because when it wrote about it the first time (4,24) we did not know that the rule applies to all sin offerings to be slaughtered at the same site as the burnt offering.

זאת תורת החטאת, “this is the law of the sin-offering.” The Torah refers to this offering as קדש קדשים, “it is most holy,” the same description applied to the meal-offering. Similarly, the status of the guilt-offering אשם is also that of “the most holy” (7,1). The sequence of subjects dealt with in the various paragraphs is as follows: the paragraph dealing with the burnt-offering, followed by the meal-offering; this is followed by the paragraph dealing with the sin-offering, which in turn is followed by the guilt-offering. All of the foregoing are described as “the most holy,” At the conclusion of all these paragraphs the Torah states once more: “this is the law for the burnt-offering, the meal-offering, the sin-offering and the guilt-offering.” The reason that these sacrifices and their laws are all lumped together is that the Torah wanted to explain the rules pertaining to offerings called “most holy.” Following the sacrifices referred to as “most holy,” the Torah discusses the rules pertaining to the offerings known as קדשים קלים, “sacred matters of a milder degree of sanctity.” Examples of the latter are the peace-offerings, and the thanksgiving-offerings. במקום אשר תשחט העולה תשחט החטאת, “The sin offering is to be slaughtered in the same place as the burnt-offering.” The burnt-offering must be slaughtered in the northern part of the courtyard (עזרה). It is offered to atone for sinful thoughts as has been mentioned earlier at the beginning of this portion. Seeing that the Torah did not want to embarrass the sinner offering a sin- offering, we are told that his offering has been assigned the same site for slaughter as the burnt-offering which is totally burned up on the Altar, i.e. an offering very dear to the Lord. Seeing that this is so, an outsider will not know whether the person offering this particular offering was guilty of an actual trespass or whether he was guilty only of sinful thoughts.

In the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered, the sin offering shall be slaughtered. The commentators said this is to cover for the sinners, so people will say he is offering a burnt offering. This is a weak reason because, in any case, his sin would be revealed when they see that he is not offering it completely [entirely consumed, as] for a burnt offering. Furthermore, the burnt offering is male and the sin offering is female. Now, regarding the burnt offering, some say it comes for the contemplation of sin, and others say the burnt offering is among those sacrifices that run without iniquity (Psalms 59:5). For those who say that the burnt offering has an aspect of sin atonement, the reason is that the heart, which is on the left side, is the cause of all sin, as the heart desires and the implements of action complete it. Therefore, both are slaughtered on the north side [associated with the left], to indicate that a deluded heart has turned him aside (Isaiah 44:20) and from the north the evil will break forth (Jeremiah 1:14). For those who say that the burnt offering only comes as a gift, with their proof from the verse I will come into Your house with burnt offerings (Psalms 66:13), we can say that after the sinner has resolved in his heart to repent and bring a sin offering for atonement, from then on he is acceptable and his sacrifice is pleasing before the Holy One, Blessed be He, as if he had offered a burnt offering, which is the most elevated of all sacrifices.

וזאת תורת החטאת, “and this is the law of the sin offering.” Nachmanides points out that in Parshat Vayikra the order in which the various sacrifices are listed is: עולה-מנחה-זבח שלמים חטאת, אשם, the reason being that the Torah first wanted to deal with all the voluntary offerings, followed by the list of mandatory sacrifices, offered in order to expiate various types of sins, transgressions. In our Parshah the Torah first lists all the sacrifices described as קדשי קדשים, holy of holies, before listing sacrifices known in the Talmud as קדשים קלים, “sacred things of a lower level of holiness.” Many additional rules have been revealed in this Parshah, so that we do not only deal with the same list of sacrifices presented in a different sequence. I have not set myself the task of explaining the rationales behind the various sacrifices; I only attempt to explain what is behind the order in which these various verses have been recorded in the written Torah.

The priest who effects atonement with its blood shall eat it; it shall be eaten in a holy place — in the court of the Tent of Meeting.

המחטא אתה means the priest who performs those rites connected with it (i. e. those connected with the sprinkling of the blood), he is called the מחטא because it is through him that it becomes a sin-offering. המחטא אתה יאכלנה THE PRIEST THAT OFFERETH IT MAY EAT IT — i. e., the priest who is fitted to carry out the rite (so that the words denote: Any priest who may offer it as a sin-offering may eat of it; they do not refer to that priest alone who offered it). Thus there is excluded a priest who is unclean (and therefore unfitted) when the blood is sprinkled — that he has no share in the flesh. One cannot say that Scripture here forbids the eating of it to ANY priests (i. e. even to clean priests) except him who sprinkles the blood, because, you see, it is stated later on (v. 22), “All the males among the priests may eat thereof” (cf. Zevachim 99a).

"הַכֹּהֵן הַמְחַטֵּא" — its meaning is the one who sprinkles the blood, as though he said 'the one who removes the sin of the sinner.' Most commentators said that the meaning of המחטא is 'the one who washes' or 'purifies,' as in: "Purge me [תְּחַטְּאֵנִי] with hyssop and I shall be clean" (Ps. 51:9).

הכהן המחטא אותה יאכלנה, “the Priest who is instrumental in conferring atonement through it, he shall consume it.” The meaning of these words is not that the Priest who sprinkles the blood on the Altar and burns up the fat parts is to be the only one to consume the meat of this offering, and that the other Priests are not to receive any part thereof. If this were so it would lead to friction amongst the Priests as each one would say that he wants to perform the service of the sin-offering. Rather, the meaning of the word המחטא, refers to all the Priests theoretically suitable to perform this procedure, so that only the temporarily ritually impure Priests are excluded by these words. Even Priests who suffer from a brief ritual impurity such as the emission of semen, something that can be purified by sunset, are excluded from eating any part of the sin-offering or guilt-offering offered on the day of their impurity. Neither could they share in the eating of the meal-offerings or be recipients of the chest and upper thigh of peace-offerings which the owners have to give to the Priests. We know that this rule applies in the case of the sin-offering as the Torah writes הכהן המחטא אותה יאכלנה; the Torah writes in connection with the guilt-offering: הכהן אשר יכפר בו לו יהיה, “it will belong to the Priest who performs the atonement rites on it” (7,7). In connection with the peace-offering the Torah writes (7,14) “the Priest who sprinkles its blood, it shall be his.” In connection with the meal-offering the Torah writes (7,9) “every meal-offering baked in an oven....it shall be the Priest’s who offers it up.” Seeing that all the aforementioned sacrifices are of the category which the Torah described as “most holy,” and may be consumed only on the day they are being offered, anyone who was not ritually pure at that time is automatically excluded from eating part of such an offering seeing it cannot be saved up for the following day.

Whatever touches its flesh shall become holy; and if any of its blood is sprinkled upon a garment upon which it is sprinkled, it shall be washed in a holy place.

כל אשר יגע בבשרה WHATSOEVER SHALL TOUCH THE FLESH THEREOF [SHALL BECOME HOLY] — any article of food that shall touch it and absorb anything of it (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Section 4 5; Zevachim 97a and Rashi on v. 11), יקדש SHALL BE HOLY, so as to become exactly like itself: if it (the sin-offering) has become invalid, it (the food touching it) also becomes disqualified, and if that be fit for eating this may be eaten only under the same stringency applying to it (the sin-offering). ואשר יזה מדמה על הבגד means, and if there is splashed of the blood thereof on a garment, that blood-stained spot in the garment whereon it was splashed shalt thou wash in the forecourt (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 6 3). אשר יזה means, shall be splashed. It is the same as the verb in (Job. 15:29) “and their substance shall not be spread (יטה) on earth” (cf. Rashi on that verse).

THOU SHALT WASH IT IN A HOLY PLACE. Scripture laid down a strict law in connection with the blood [of a sin-offering] which became absorbed by a garment, giving it the law it [the blood] had before it was sprinkled [on the garment, namely] that it may not be taken outside the curtains [and therefore it must be washed within the Court]. He states, and the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken. This too is to be broken in the holy place [i.e., within the Court], and the pieces of pottery are swallowed up in the place [where they are broken], and there does not have to be any scouring and rinsing at all [as required if it was boiled in a copper pot]. Similarly, the scouring and rinsing required if [the meat of the sin-offering] was boiled in a copper pot have to be done in a holy place, for all the verses [i.e., Verses 20-21] are connected with “the holy place” mentioned [above in Verse 19: in ‘a holy place’ shall it be eaten, in the Court of the Tent of Meeting].

"Whatever touches" — the flesh of the sin-offering — shall be holy to Hashem, and the priest shall eat it; therefore the one who sprinkles shares equally with all his brethren. "יִזֶּה" — R. Moses ha-Kohen said it is like יִטֶּה, from the qal binyan, and in the pataḥ of its yod [it resembles] the hif'il, the implicit letter being a nun — just as וַיַּז מִדָּמוֹ אֶל הַקִּיר has a ḥireq alongside וַיַּז with a pataḥ; except that in the word נָטָה, [the form indicating] 'on the wall' with a ḥireq has וַיַּז in the ẓere in the qal binyan. So too we find וַיַּז נִצְחָם, also from the qal — and he analyzed it well. Because the sin-offering is holy, Hashem commanded that the place where its blood falls on a garment be washed in a holy place — that is, the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting — for there is a distinction between 'holy' and 'pure.' "Upon which it is sprinkled" — a word [indicating] 'place' is omitted, or the meaning is: or if [some] is sprinkled upon it — that is, upon the flesh — the priest shall wash the flesh and afterwards eat it. Or its interpretation is: the place upon which [some] of the blood is sprinkled shall be washed; and בֶּגֶד can be either feminine or masculine — as in אֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ — and the tav of תְּכַבֵּס is for the priest.

אשר יזה עליה תכבס, “the one (part) which he has splashed upon you shall wash;” only that part has to be washed, not the whole garment. תכבס, it is necessary to wash off the blood because it is the blood of an offering which is destined to be eaten within the Sanctuary; if the officiating priest would leave the holy precincts with these bloodstains on his garments, the offering would have become disqualified retroactively. במקום קדוש, “in the sacred precinct.” This includes (in Solomon’s temple) the offices adjoining the Sanctuary, even those built outside the Sanctuary, as long as their doors led directly to the sacred precinct. (Sifra) [There were none such in the Tabernacle. Ed.]

תכבס במקום קדוש, “you shall wash in a holy place.” We have already learned from the previous verse that the reference is to the courtyard of the Tabernacle, as it has been spelled out with the words: “it shall be eaten as unleavened bread in a holy place, the courtyard of the Tabernacle.” This courtyard corresponded to what was called עזרה during the period of the Temple.

תכבס, so that it [garment Ed.] will not become forbidden as past the time allowed, when it would have to be burned. [any part of the offering even blood which was never permitted to be eaten, will have to be burned if it had not been disposed of in time. In this instance the priest’s garment would have to be burned in order to get rid of the blood, unless it had been washed out in time, before the deadline. Ed.]

Any earthen vessel in which it was cooked shall be broken; and if it was cooked in a copper vessel, it shall be scoured and rinsed with water.

ישבר [BUT AN EARTHEN VESSEL WHEREIN IT IS SODDEN] SHALL BE BROKEN — because the substance absorbed in it becomes what is known as נותר (the technical term for any portion of a sacrifice not eaten by the time prescribed for this) (cf. Avodah Zarah 76a). That, too, is the regulation applicable to all sacrifices (i. e. that an earthen vessel wherein they have been cooked must be broken). ומרק — of the same root and meaning as the noun in (Esther 2:12) “the things for purifying (תמרוקי) women”; escourement in old French; English, scouring. ומרק ושטף [AND IF IT BE SODDEN IN A COPPER POT] IT SHALL BE BOTH SCOURED AND RINSED [IN WATER] — in order that it should give out what it has absorbed: but as far as an earthen vessel is concerned Scripture teaches you that it can never get rid of its taint (lit., can never leave the grasp which its taint has on it) (Avodah Zarah 34a; Pesachim 30b).

"It shall be boiled in it" — both בֻּשְּׁלָה, 'it was boiled,' and מֹרַק, 'it was scoured,' and שֻׁטַּף, 'it was rinsed,' are passive forms [lit. forms in which the agent is not named]. מֹרַק appears with a ḥolam on account of the resh, which cannot take a dagesh except in a few cases — following the pattern of לֹא זֹרַק עָלָיו, from the root מָרַק (as in מָרְקוּ הָרְמָחִים, 'they polished the spears'), for the mem is part of the root.

וכל כלי חרש תשבר, “Just as the washing (ritual cleansing) of garments when required had to take place inside the sacred precincts, so the breaking of earthen vessels (which had become ritually contaminated because the blood had been washed in it) had to take place inside the sacred precincts, if that vessel had to be broken (made useless).” בכלי נחושת, “if, however such garment as we discussed was washed in a copper vessel, (or any metal vessel), ומרק ושוטף, ”it requires scouring and rinsing out with water (only).” The condition is that this scouring takes place during the period that the remains of that sacrifice were allowed to be eaten by the priests. Otherwise, it would be subject to the laws of נותר, sacrificial meat left uneaten, and it would have to be destroyed by fire. (Sifra) The “washing” i.e. ritual cleansing did not have to be done in a ritual bath containing a minimum of 40 seah of water (approx 530000 ccm). The Torah added the word: במים, to tell us that the quantity of water was immaterial.

חרס אשר תבושל בו ישבר, “and an earthenware vessel which it has been cooked in must be broken.” This means that the boiling of the meat must also take place in the sacred precincts, just as the washing had to take place in sacred precincts. ואם בכלי נחושת בשלה ומרק ושטף במים, “But if it was boiled in a copper vessel, it should be purged and rinsed in water.” These words are also governed by the previous rule that this must take place in sacred precincts. Every procedure took place in a מקום קדוש “a holy site,” i.e. the washing, the breaking, or the rinsing. Rashi explains that the reason the earthenware vessel had to be broken is that seeing this is a porous material which does not release what it has once absorbed, the remains of the meat would be נותר, “leftover,” on the day following the offering of that sacrifice, and as such it is subject to destruction by fire (normally, when the meat is identifiable). In this instance the next best way of destroying any vestige of what is left over is to break the vessel. The term ומורק is related to the expression תמרוקי הנשים which we read about in Esther 2,12, i.e. “feminine cosmetics.” The entire procedure of purging and rinsing it is designed to remove any part of it which was absorbed by the copper walls of the vessel in question. Seeing that the walls of an earthenware vessel do not yield up what they have once absorbed, the vessel itself must be destroyed. The Torah informs us here that copper vessels as well as vessels made of other kinds of metal in which forbidden food has been cooked are subject to cleansing through boiling water and that mere rinsing out with water is not sufficient for these vessels to become usable again for other foods. By contrast, earthenware vessels cannot be made fit again and thus have to be destroyed. Water possesses three properties (powers), depending on whether it is cold, lukewarm, or boiling. If the forbidden item fell into cold water the metal vessel which contained such a mixture only has to be thoroughly rinsed out before it is again fit for use. If the water in the vessel was lukewarm when the forbidden item fell into it, it does not suffice to rinse it with cold water but the vessel has to be rinsed out with lukewarm water, i.e. of at least the same degree of warmth as the water into which the forbidden object had fallen. If the water in the vessel was boiling-hot when the forbidden item fell into it, neither of the previous two procedures are adequate to cleanse out this vessel and make it fit for use again, but it must be cleansed through being immersed in boiling water. The scientific principle underlying the procedure is that the way to reverse the process of the walls of the metal vessel absorbing some of the forbidden substance is through a repetition of the conditions during which this had occurred in the first place, i.e. כבולעו כך פולטו, “in the same way that it penetrated it will escape.” As a result of such considerations, our sages (Avodah Zarah 75) state that vessels which are normally used cold such as cups, water carafes, etc., need only to be washed out properly before they can be used again on Passover. Pots and kettles which are placed on the stove and used hot need to be immersed in boiling water and afterwards they are considered as having been cleansed. Utensils which are used directly on the fire, such as spits, roasting pans, etc., need to undergo a process of being made red-hot else they cannot be used again for permissible food including Passover. The reason is that whatever has penetrated the pores of the metal will not contract and come out by any other process. After you have heard that the forbidden particles do not resurface except by the application of a reverse process of how they penetrated in the first place, you may ask why the Torah writes concerning such a vessel ישבר, “it shall be broken,” using the third person, indirect speech. When speaking of the need to wash the vessel in verse 20, the Torah used direct speech writing תכבס i.e. ”you shall wash.” The difference is that the procedure of breaking the vessel consists of breaking it into several pieces to ensure it cannot be used again for its original purpose. Had the Torah employed the form תשבר, we would have concluded that it must be broken into such small fragments that it is unfit for further use of any kind. The form תשבר in that sense occurs in Psalms 48,7 תשבר אניות תרשיש, a reference to ships bound for Tarshish which would or did break up utterly to frustrate their attempt to invade the land of Israel. On the other hand, when a relatively minor fracture is described such as in Judges 7,20 where the earthenware broke as a result of sound waves, the author speaks of וישברו הכדים instead of ותשברו הכדים, to tell us that all that happened was that these jars could no longer hold water or wine as a result of becoming fragmented. The shards could be used for other functions. When the Torah writes in Leviticus 11,33: כל אשר בתוכו יטמא ואותו תשבורו, “all that is contained therein becomes defiled, and the vessel itself you shall break,” and it did not say תשברו, “shall be broken,” this means (Keylim 2,1) that the act of their becoming broken purifies the shards for further use. Our sages mean that as soon as the vessel has been broken it no longer bears its original “name,” i.e. connotation, and as such its constituent parts may be used freely. When the Torah writes in connection with eating the Passover in Egypt, (Exodus 12,46) “you must not break a bone of it,” this means that the bones must not even be broken in half. It is typical of free people not to consider the bones as valuable once they have finished eating the meat attached to them. Only slaves, destitute people, try to get at the marrow inside the bones. Our sages (Yuma 21) explained that the shards of such earthenware vessels which had become defiled became miraculously absorbed by the floor of the עזרה, the courtyard of the Tabernacle/Temple. Had this miracle not occurred the floor would have become so filled with these shards as to make walking there impossible. This was also one of the eighteen miracles which we mentioned earlier as occurring regularly in connection with the Temple. Here is a list of all these eighteen miracles: 1) no pregnant woman ever lost her fetus prematurely on account of the smell of the sacrificial meat being burned up. 2) This sacrificial meat never exuded an unpleasant odor. 3) The High Priest was never incapacitated on Yom Kippur due to involuntary emission of semen. 4) There never was found a fly in the area designated for slaughtering and dressing the animals. 5) No blemish which would disqualify the offering of the first two loaves of the new barley harvest (Omer) or the first two loaves of the new wheat harvest (Shtey Halechem) ever occurred. The same applied to the “show-breads” offering presented in the Temple every Sabbath. These three offerings were considered as one in the count of the miracles which occurred. 6) The rains never extinguished the flames on the woodpile of the Altar (which had no roofing). 7) Even the strongest wind would never deflect the column of smoke rising from the offerings being burned. The reference is, of course, to the fire contributed by man, not to that which descended from heaven. The Priests were commanded to contribute their own fire in Leviticus 1,7. Although fire descended from heaven, it was a positive commandment for the Priests to contribute fire of their own (Sifra Vayikra 4 [5,10].The reason for this was that the heavenly fire did not leave behind a trail of smoke, as pointed out in Yuma 21, where five peculiarities of the heavenly fire on the wooodpile of the Altar are listed. This fire is described as: “crouching like a lion, disappearing like the sun, its flame being tangible, consuming the wet and the dry alike, not producing smoke.” Rabbi Chaninah there claimed that when he saw this fire it was not crouching like a lion but like a dog. The Talmud answers this by saying that the fire which descended from heaven during the first Temple crouched like lion; the fire which descended during the second Temple crouched like a dog. 8) Although people stood very close together so that they had to touch one another (during the festivals), when the ritual called for them to prostrate themselves on the ground, they miraculously found adequate room for this. [An aspect of the extra-terrestrial nature of the Temple Mount, as was evident also concerning the size of the wings of the cherubs in the Temple which according to their description could not fit into the terrestrial dimensions described there. Ed.] 9) No scorpion or snake ever bit anybody within Jerusalem. 10) No one was ever heard to complain that there were no lodgings in Jerusalem so that he had to spend the night outside the city. The foregoing are the ten miracles listed in the fifth chapter of Pirke Avot. The remaining eight miracles were as follows: 11) the shards of earthenware vessels which served as pots to boil the remains of the sin-offerings and which had to be burned or destroyed as the tiny fraction absorbed by the walls became נותר, “leftover,” and as such forbidden, were absorbed by the floor of the courtyard of the Temple. 12) The Altar for the burnt-offering (the one in the courtyard) which had a woodpile on it which was kept aflame and which stood on a thin copper overlay, never melted the copper nor damaged the wooden beams underneath it. (Tanchuma Terumah 11). 13) All seven lights of the candlestick in the Sanctuary were constantly at the same level of oil, none burning faster or slower than its counterpart. None of them ever went out before dawn (Shabbat 22). During the long winter nights there was never insufficient oil, nor was there an excess of oil during the short summer nights. The light in the centre shaft had the same amount of oil as those on either side of it. It would be the first one to be lit in the evenings and the last one to be cleaned in the morning. 14) A tongue of red colored wool would be hung at the entrance of the Sanctuary at the beginning of Yom Kippur; this would turn white by evening of the day (Yuma 67). 15) The scapegoat which was thrown off a cliff would break up in innumerable pieces before it ever hit the bottom of the valley into which it was thrown. Not a single of its limbs would remain intact by that time. 16). Concerning the Menorah procedure I have seen the following comment in Tanchuma Tetzaveh 3: When the lights of the Menorah in the Sanctuary were kindled in the evening, every courtyard in Jerusalem made use of the illumination provided by it. This is the mystical dimension of Exodus 27,20: “they shall take for you pure olive oil, pressed, to provide illumination.” 17) As soon as Solomon had built the Temple he planted in it all kinds of confections made of gold which would produce fruit at the appropriate seasons. This is what we have been told in Yuma 21. 18) Another miracle related there is that the show-breads which were placed on the Table in the Temple every Sabbath retained their warmth at the same level as when they had come from the oven for the entire week. This is based on Samuel I 21,7 לשום לחם חם ביום הלקחו, “to place bread which was still hot on the day it was shared out” (8 days after it had been baked). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that a great miracle occurred with the show-breads, i.e. that it was as hot and fresh when it was removed from the Sanctuary as when it was introduced there. He quotes the verse from Samuel in support of this. The question is raised there: “were there then no other miracles?” Did not Levi say that the place where the Holy Ark stood did not consume terrestrial space, and Samuel (the Amora) said that the cherubs stood by means of a miracle!” The answer given is that only miracles which were visible to the people, i.e. the ones which were manifest outside the actual Sanctuary were included in the count. This does not mean that there were no additional miracles inside the Sanctuary.

And an earthen vessel wherein it is boiled shall be broken, etc. Rashi explains that this applies to all holy offerings. Nevertheless, the matter requires explanation as to why the Torah specifically wrote this law regarding the sin offering that comes for atonement. According to the simple interpretation, we can say that since the Torah testifies about earthenware vessels that they never release what they absorb from its surfaces (Pesachim 30b), one might have thought that this only applies to lesser holy offerings that are eaten for two days and one night, where the food remains in the pot for a long time and therefore absorbs so much that it never releases its absorption from its surfaces. But for the most holy offerings that are only eaten for one day and one night, one might have thought that in such a short time it does not absorb so much and there would be a remedy even for an earthenware vessel through rinsing. Therefore, the Torah teaches us [that this is not the case]. And on the level of allusion, it is reasonable to understand that the purification of vessels bears a resemblance to the purification of the sinner who brings a sin offering. Just as with vessels, there are those that absorb much of the prohibited substance and cannot be purified through rinsing, and their only remedy is breaking, while there are others that do not absorb much of the prohibited substance and can be remedied through rinsing — similarly, there are sinners who absorb much of the prohibited matter and find it difficult to abandon their habit, and their only remedy is through the breaking of their heart, for it is the vessel in which that which was prohibited was cooked. And there are people who do not absorb much and can be remedied with minimal effort, as our Sages said (Arachin 15b): What is the remedy for one who speaks lashon hara? If he is a Torah scholar, he should engage in Torah study, as it says, A healing tongue is a tree of life (Proverbs 15:4). And if he is an am ha’aretz [unlearned person], he should humble himself, as it says, And perversion in it breaks the spirit (Proverbs 15:4). And from the sin of lashon hara, one can derive [a principle] for every sin and iniquity: that in times when the Temple does not exist, there is no remedy for the am ha’aretz except through the breaking of his heart, the vessel in which the sin was cooked; but for the Torah scholar, there is a remedy for every sin through Torah study. And the sin of the sons of Eli proves this, as it is not atoned for through sacrifice and meal offering, but it is atoned for through Torah study (Rosh Hashanah 18a). Therefore, the Torah wrote the law of vessels next to the sin offering, to tell you that in a time when there is no sacrifice or meal offering, then the purification of the sinner is like the purification of vessels. For every unlearned person [am ha-aretz] is compared to an earthenware vessel and cannot release his blemish except through the breaking of his heart. And every Torah scholar [talmid chacham] has the status of a copper vessel, which can be remedied through rinsing and washing inside and out. Similarly, every Torah scholar has a remedy through the Torah, which is compared to water that purifies him inside and out, for through the Torah his inside will be like his outside, as it says, you shall overlay it with gold, inside and out (Exodus 25:11), as was explained there in Parashat Terumah. And this is what we said, that every person resembles some kind of vessel. There is proof from what our Sages said (Sanhedrin 52b): “How does a Torah scholar appear to an unlearned person? At first, like a golden pitcher; once he conversed with him, like a silver vessel; once he derived benefit from him, like an earthenware vessel, etc.” And it seems that this is what is meant by The precious children of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how they have come to be considered as earthen pitchers, the work of a potter’s hands (Lamentations 4:2). He was lamenting over the exceptional people who were compared to gold, fine gold, and holy stones, who would frequently feast everywhere at the head of every street with the unlearned, until they caused exile for themselves and their children. As it is said, “Whoever feasts excessively everywhere will eventually destroy his house, etc.” And it concludes there in the chapter of “These Transgress” (49a, see there): “He will eventually be exiled, etc.” And about this it says, The holy stones are poured out at the head of every street, for they would feast excessively everywhere with the unlearned. And immediately it says, The precious children of Zion, as it says And lips of knowledge are a precious vessel (Proverbs 20:15), comparable to fine gold, for initially they were compared to golden vessels, but because they are poured out at the head of every street, how have they come to be considered as earthen pitchers, those perfect ones who were called the work of the hands of the Creator of everything, for everything was created with one hand except for the perfect ones who were created with two hands (Midrash Tehillim 139:26). And how did they fall from this level to such a low state? And with this explanation, it seems to me to resolve what our Sages of blessed memory said (Shabbat 105b): “Anyone who is lazy in eulogizing a Torah scholar deserves to be buried while still alive, as it is stated: And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnat-Serah, which is on the north side of Mount Gaash (Joshua 24:30), teaching that the mountain raged [gaash] against them to bury them.” But how do they know to say this? Perhaps some other sin caused the mountain to rage against them. Now, regarding Timnat-Serah, Rashi explains it as “the image of the sun” [temunat cheres], and in Judges (2:9) it is written as Cheres instead of Serah. Following Rashi’s approach, it seems to me that Timnat refers to “image,” but Cheres seems to mean “earthenware vessel [kli cheres].” This suggests that they did not treat Joshua with the respect due to a Torah scholar by eulogizing him properly, but rather buried him in the manner of an unlearned person [am haaretz], who is compared to a broken earthenware vessel that can never be cleansed of its filth from his blemish. Therefore, in Judges it says Cheres instead of Serah, because the Serach, meaning the filth [sirachon] of his deeds, makes him comparable to an earthenware vessel that cannot be purified of its blemish and filth except through breaking. But this is not the case with Torah scholars, for our Sages said (Berachot 19a): “If you see a Torah scholar committing a sin at night, do not think ill of them the next day, for they have certainly repented.” This is because they presumably engage in Torah study, which serves as their atonement to cleanse their sin, and it is “scoured and rinsed” inside and out with the waters of Torah. Although a typical Torah scholar is compared to a gold vessel, which can easily have a bit of dust and slight blemish removed from it, nevertheless, when they sin and follow the counsel of the serpent, they are compared to a copper vessel, for the word [nachash — serpent] corresponds to the word [nechoshet — copper]. This is because their forehead became like copper in their brazenness toward their Creator, and then it must be scoured and rinsed as mentioned. And from this verse we also learn the laws of purging vessels — that its purification corresponds to how it was used.

Every male among the priests may eat it; it is most holy.

כל זכר בכהנים יאכלנה ALL MALES AMONG THE PRIESTS SHALL EAT THEREOF — Thus you learn that the statement “[the priest] that offers it for a sin-offering [shall eat it]” made above (v. 19) is not intended to exclude other priests (i. e. such as did not actually perform the rites of that sacrifice), but only to exclude from eating it those priests who were at that time unfit to bring it as a sin-offering (cf. Rashi on v. 19).

The sense of "most holy is it" together with "every male" — it is not fitting to eat the sin-offering that was brought to make atonement except by those who are unblemished, and the unblemished male [takes precedence] over the female; even a minor male is called 'male,' and the male who is thirteen years old [is the standard], as our fathers transmitted.

And any sin-offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to effect atonement in the sanctuary shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire.

'וכל חטאת וגו AND NO SIN OFFERING [WHEREOF ANY OF THE BLOOD IS BROUGHT INTO THE TENT OF MEETING SHALL BE EATEN] — This means, that if the priest brought any of the blood of an “external” sin-offering (one the blood of which has to be sprinkled on the outer altar) into the Interior it becomes invalid and must be burnt. וכל AND ALL — The word “all” serves to include in this law other sacrifices too (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 8 1; Zevachim 81b).

AND EVERY SIN-OFFERING, WHEREOF ANY OF THE BLOOD IS BROUGHT INTO THE TENT OF MEETING etc. “This means that if the priest brought any of the blood of ‘an outer sin-offering’ into the interior of the Sanctuary it becomes invalidated, [and the offering may not be eaten, and must be burnt].” Thus the language of Rashi. According to this opinion, the phrase to atone in the holy place which Scripture says [in continuation], is not to be understood in its simple sense, since this blood does not [in fact] bring atonement, for it became invalidated as soon as it was brought into the Sanctuary, and it is on account of that very invalidation that it is to be burnt. Rather, the expression to atone means [according to Rashi] that if he brought it into the interior “with the intent to atone,” [namely] to sprinkle there of its blood as is done with the blood of “the inner sin-offerings,” even though he has not [in fact] atoned with it, meaning that he has not sprinkled any of its blood, it is nonetheless invalidated from the moment of entry, and [the offering] is to be burnt. It is possible according to this that if he brought it in with the intent of not sprinkling thereof at all [in the Sanctuary], that the offering remains valid. According to the words of Rabbi Shimon, it only becomes invalidated if he “atoned” with the blood, meaning that he actually sprinkled thereof in the same manner as is done in the case of “the inner sin-offerings” [i.e., in front of the Veil and on the comers of the golden altar]. It is for this reason that Scripture states to atone — not [meaning] that he actually effected atonement, but that he brought of its blood to atone with it, and, according to his thinking, effected atonement. The meaning of the term “into the interior” [which Rashi mentioned above] is “into the Sanctuary.” The same [is also the meaning of the phrase] “if he brought into the ‘interior of the interior’ [i.e., the Holy of Holies]” of the bullock of the anointed priest, or that of “forgetting a matter of law,” or of the goats brought for worshipping the idols, namely that if he brought their blood into a more interior place than that designated for them, [since in these cases of sin-offering the blood is to be brought into the Sanctuary proper to effect atonement], then the offerings become invalidated. Scripture states ‘of’ the blood in order to indicate that even bringing in part of the blood invalidates the offering. Thus if the priest received the blood in two cups, and brought only one of them into the interior, the offering is invalidated. By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse speaks only with reference to “the inner sin-offerings,” concerning the burning of which He had already commanded, and here Scripture came to add a negative commandment against eating them, for this section is intended to complete the laws of sin-offerings. This is the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean in the Torath Kohanim and in Tractate Zebachim.

"And every sin-offering of which [some] of its blood is brought... to make atonement in the sanctuary" — the space of the curtain is called 'the sanctuary,' for the courtyard — even though it is holy relative to the Tent of Meeting — is [considered] ordinary [by comparison]. And that which is inside the curtain is also called 'sanctuary' relative to the Tent of Meeting, as in: "With this shall Aaron come into the sanctuary." This sin-offering is the sin-offering of the High Priest or of the congregation.

וכל חטאת אשר יובא מדמה, “any of the types of sin-offering whose blood brought into the Sanctuary, etc.” Rashi comments that if the priest brought blood from a sin offering whose blood was not destined for sprinkling on the corners of the golden altar, such as the blood of the sin-offerings Aaron offered on the Day of Atonement, into the Sanctuary, then the offering is retroactively invalid. According to this the meaning of the words לכפר בקודש in our verse cannot be understood literally, as the wording assumes that it is capable of securing atonement. On the contrary, it even nullifies what otherwise would have been atonement. The meaning of the words לכפר בקודש must then be “with the intention of achieving atonement in the Sanctuary.” There is a sage who holds that the sin offering of which our verse speaks becomes invalidated only if the priest had sprinkled some of that blood on the golden altar, not if he had merely brought it within the confines of the Sanctuary. There is yet another sage who understands our verse as speaking of the type of sin offering whose blood is meant to be sprinkled inside the Sanctuary on the golden altar in the Sanctuary, and that the Torah merely informs us that it is forbidden for the priests to consume any parts of that type of sin offering. We can therefore understand the meaning of the words לכפר בקודש as quite literally: “the one that requires to be brought into the Sanctuary in order to achieve atonement, etc.’

וכל חטאת אשר יובא מדמה אל אהל מועד, the following comprise the sin offerings included in the verse we are discussing. 1) The bull offered as a sin offering by the High Priest; 2) the bull offered on behalf of the people who had become inadvertent victims of a faulty ruling by the High Court, known as פר העלם צבור in Talmudic parlance. 3) Both the bull and the male goat offered as sin offering on the Day of Atonement. 5) The male goats which are offered as sin offerings for inadvertent sins involving idolatry. Concerning all the above 5 sin offerings the Torah requires the blood to be offered inside the sanctuary, either on the dividing curtain or the golden altar. This is the plain meaning of the text.