And this is the law of the guilt-offering: it is most holy.
verse value 2636
Insights
Verse structure: 6 words, 23 letters. The shortest word is "holy·of" (קֹ֥דֶשׁ, 3 letters) and the longest is "holies" (קׇֽדָשִׁ֖ים, 5 letters). 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "holy·of" (root קדש, 101x in Leviticus); "the·reparation·offering" (root אשם, 38x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·reparation·offering', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְזֹ֥את [and·this] (414) + תּוֹרַ֖ת [instruction·of] (1006) + הָאָשָׁ֑ם [the·reparation·offering] (346) + קֹ֥דֶשׁ [holy·of] (404) + קׇֽדָשִׁ֖ים [holies] (454) + הֽוּא [it] (12) = 2636.
Onkelos
This is the law of the guilt-offering: it is most holy.
Rashi
קדש קדשים הוא [THIS THE LAW OF THE GUILT OFFERING] IT IS MOST HOLY — “It is most holy”; it may be offered, but an animal that is exchanged for it (cf. Leviticus 27:34) may not be offered (Sifra, Tzav, Section 5 2).
Ibn Ezra
"This is the law of the guilt-offering." I have already informed you of the distinction between a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, even though Scripture sometimes uses the word guilt (asham) for a sin-offering and the word sin (chata't) for a guilt-offering. The reason this passage is stated is to mention the fats, which are not mentioned in the law of the sin-offering.
In the place where they kill the burnt-offering shall they kill the guilt-offering: and its blood shall be dashed against the altar round about.
verse value 3623
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 51 letters. The shortest word is "which" (אֲשֶׁ֤ר, 3 letters) and the longest is "upon·the·altar" (עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 333: they·shall·slaughter, they·shall·slaughter. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "the·reparation·offering" (אֶת־הָאָשָׁ֑ם), "he·shall·dash" (יִזְרֹ֥ק). The root שחט appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "upon·the·altar" (root מזבח, 95x in Leviticus); "and·its·blood" (root דם, 81x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·reparation·offering', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 4 words. Full calculation: בִּמְק֗וֹם [in·place·of] (188) + אֲשֶׁ֤ר [which] (501) + יִשְׁחֲטוּ֙ [they·shall·slaughter] (333) + אֶת־הָ֣עֹלָ֔ה [the·burnt-offering] (511) + יִשְׁחֲט֖וּ [they·shall·slaughter] (333) + אֶת־הָאָשָׁ֑ם [the·reparation·offering] (747) + וְאֶת־דָּמ֛וֹ [and·its·blood] (457) + יִזְרֹ֥ק [he·shall·dash] (317) + עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ [upon·the·altar] (162) + סָבִֽיב [surrounding] (74) = 3623.
Onkelos
In the place where they slaughter the burnt-offering they shall slaughter the guilt-offering, and its blood shall be dashed against the altar all around.
Rashi
שחטו THEY SHALL SLAUGHTER — By using the plural ישחטו Scripture speaks of “several slaughterers” in connection with the עולה (ישחטו את עולה) ” in order to include also the communal burnt-offering under the law that an עולה must be slaughtered on the north side of the altar. — Since we do not find a guilt-offering in the case of the whole community, the term ישחטו in the plural is used here (ישחטו את האשם) because Scripture brings it in connection with the עולה (i. e. since the plural is used of the עולה it balances it by the same expression in the next phrase) (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Section 5 3).
And he shall offer of it all the fat of it: the fat tail, and the fat that covers the inwards,
verse value 2703
Insights
Verse structure: 7 words, 43 letters. The shortest word is "from·it" (מִמֶּ֑נּוּ, 4 letters) and the longest is "and·all·its·fat" (וְאֵ֥ת כׇּל־חֶלְבּ֖וֹ, 9 letters). Words sharing gematria 452: the·fat·tail, and·the·fat. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "the·fat·tail" (אֵ֚ת הָֽאַלְיָ֔ה). The root חלב appears 2 times in this verse. 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "he·shall·bring" (root קרב, 112x in Leviticus); "and·all·its·fat" (root חלב, 49x in Leviticus); "from·it" (root מן, 41x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'from·it', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְאֵ֥ת כׇּל־חֶלְבּ֖וֹ [and·all·its·fat] (503) + יַקְרִ֣יב [he·shall·bring] (322) + מִמֶּ֑נּוּ [from·it] (136) + אֵ֚ת הָֽאַלְיָ֔ה [the·fat·tail] (452) + וְאֶת־הַחֵ֖לֶב [and·the·fat] (452) + הַֽמְכַסֶּ֥ה [that·covers] (130) + אֶת־הַקֶּֽרֶב [the·entrails] (708) = 2703.
Onkelos
And all its fat he shall set apart from it: the fat tail and the fat that covers the entrails,
Rashi
ואת 'כל חלבו וגו [HE SHALL OFFER OF IT] ALL THE FAT etc. — So far the fat portions of the guilt offering that have to be offered have not yet been mentioned as having to be burnt (though the אשם itself has already been dealt with in Leviticus 5:15), Scripture therefore was compelled expressly to specify them here. So far, however, as the sin-offering is concerned, it (the burning of their fat) has already been mentioned in the Sedrah ויקרא (Leviticus ch. 4), therefore it was unnecessary to mention it in 6:18—23. את האליה THE FAT TAIL — Because only a ram or a lamb can be offered as a guilt-offering and the altar’s share in the case of a ram and lamb has been augmented by the fat tail (cf. Leviticus 3:9), therefore it is here naturally mentioned as having to be burnt.
and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the lobe above the liver, which he shall take away by the kidneys.
verse value 5919
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 64 letters. The shortest word is "which" (אֲשֶׁ֣ר, 3 letters) and the longest is "upon·the·loins" (עַל־הַכְּסָלִ֑ים, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 501: which, which. The root כליה appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "upon·them" (root על, 127x in Leviticus); "and·the·fat" (root חלב, 49x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'upon·the·loins', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְאֵת֙ שְׁתֵּ֣י [and·the·two] (1117) + הַכְּלָיֹ֔ת [the·kidneys] (465) + וְאֶת־הַחֵ֙לֶב֙ [and·the·fat] (452) + אֲשֶׁ֣ר [which] (501) + עֲלֵיהֶ֔ן [upon·them] (165) + אֲשֶׁ֖ר [which] (501) + עַל־הַכְּסָלִ֑ים [upon·the·loins] (265) + וְאֶת־הַיֹּתֶ֙רֶת֙ [and·the·lobe] (1422) + עַל־הַכָּבֵ֔ד [upon·the·liver] (131) + עַל־הַכְּלָיֹ֖ת [upon·the·kidneys] (565) + יְסִירֶֽנָּה [he·shall·remove·it] (335) = 5919.
Onkelos
and the two kidneys and the fat that is on them, which is on the flanks, and the lobe that is over the liver — together with the kidneys he shall remove it.
And the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar for an offering made by fire to Hashem; it is a guilt-offering.
verse value 1633
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 33 letters. The shortest word is "them" (אֹתָ֤ם, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·he·shall·turn·into·smoke" (וְהִקְטִ֨יר, 6 letters). 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·Hashem', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 2 words. Full calculation: וְהִקְטִ֨יר [and·he·shall·turn·into·smoke] (330) + אֹתָ֤ם [them] (441) + הַכֹּהֵן֙ [the·priest] (80) + הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חָה [the·altar] (67) + אִשֶּׁ֖ה [fire·offering] (306) + לַיהֹוָ֑ה [to·Hashem] (56) + אָשָׁ֖ם [a·reparation·offering] (341) + הֽוּא [it] (12) = 1633.
Onkelos
And the priest shall cause them to go up in smoke on the altar as an offering before Hashem; it is a guilt-offering.
Rashi
אשם הוא IT IS A GUILT OFFERING — it remains (הוא) a guilt offering until its appelation is removed from it. This teaches regarding a guilt-offering the owner of which has died, or the owner of which has been atoned for by another sacrifice, (e.g. if that originally destined for that purpose was lost and afterwards found), — that although its value (i. e. the animal bought from the proceeds of its sale) is destined to become a burnt-offering for the unemployed altar (lit., for the altar's summer time when there were not sufficient obligatory sacrifices for the altar), yet if one slaughtered it without a special designation) before it was condemned to pasture) it is not fit to become a burnt offering. — Scripture does not, by these words, intend to intimate concerning a guilt-offering that it becomes invalid if slaughtered not as such (but as some sacrifice other than a guilt offering — שלא לשמו) i. e., in the same sense as they (the Rabbis) explained the word הוא that is stated of a חטאת (Leviticus 4:24; cf. Rashi thereon), because in the case of אשם the limiting words אשם הוא are used only after mention of the burning of the fat pieces (not as in the case of חטאת, where חטאת הוא is stated after the command of slaughtering) and could therefore at most be taken as limitating the act of הקטרה in the sense that if this has been done שלא לשמה the sacrifice is invalid; this, however, is not a fact because הקטרה is not essential, and it itself (the אשם), even though the fat pieces have not been burnt at all, is nevertheless valid (Zevachim 5b; Menachot 4a).
Or HaChaim
אשם הוא, it is a guilt-offering. Rabbi Eliezer and the other rabbis disagree in Torat Kohanim whether the extraneous word הוא is intended to teach that if this offering was not slaughtered on the northern side of the altar that it is invalidated. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the word הוא means that if the guilt-offering was slaughtered while the priest entertained the wrong thoughts i.e. assumed that the animal in question was a different kind of offering, it is invalid. According to his reasoning, the words אשם הוא emphasise the need for the guilt-offering mentioned in verse 1 of our chapter to have been slaughtered for that purpose in order to be acceptable. We find in Zevachim 10 that Rabbi Yehoshua challenged Rabbi Eliezer's exegesis and that thereupon Rabbi Eliezer retracted and derived his ruling that the אשם must be slaughtered as such in order to be valid from the words כחטאת כאשם in verse 7 of our chapter. Considering this, we must ask what Rabbi Eliezer learns from the extraneous word הוא? Perhaps if the word הוא had not been written here I would have made the comparison made in Zevachim 11 between the guilt-offering and the sin-offering described in verse 7 as not applying to the need to perform סמיכה on the guilt-offering just as on the sin-offering, but I would have applied it to the need to slaughter either offering with the right intent in order for it to be acceptable. In order to prevent us from making such an error, the Torah wrote the word הוא next to the word אשם to inform us that this word tells us something about the אשם itself. The Torah wrote the words כחטאת כאשם in verse 7 in order to tell us that both these offerings require סמיכה as something mandatory. The other rabbis, the ones who disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer who used the word הוא to invalidate the guilt-offering unless it had been slaughtered on the northern side of the altar, understand that word to refer back to verse 2 where the principle of slaughtering the guilt-offering in the same place as the burnt-offering has first been mentioned. Repeating this by means of the word הוא indicates that the requirement is mandatory. Although one could challenge these rabbis with similar queries as the ones used by Rabbi Yehoshua to get Rabbi Eliezer to retract, the fact that they did not arrive at a new הלכה by dint of a סברה, a process of reasoning, but applied a rule applicable to other sacrifices also to the guilt-offering by their methodology, it is absolutely acceptable that the word הוא was intended by the Torah to make the site of the slaughtering mandatory. This is all the more so since in the case of the burnt-offering the Torah had spelled this law out in so many words. The contribution of those rabbis is that if we had only had verse 1 in our chapter, I would have reasoned that while it is a desired requirement, failure to slaughter the guilt-offering on the northern side of the altar would not have invalidated it.
Chizkuni
אשם הוא, “it is an guilt offering.” according to Rashi, these two, at first glance superfluous words, seeing that the subject in this paragraph is the guilt offering, teach something about the guilt offering about a person who died before he had a chance to present this offering; alternately, it speaks of a guilt offering whose owner had attained atonement for his guilt before it was offered up through another means. For instance: normally, if the original animal had been sanctified and been lost before the priest appointed by its owner could slaughter it, so that he had substituted another animal for the lost one and performed all the ritual with it, the Torah teaches what is to be done with such an animal when it was found. Normally, the rules for disposition of such an animal are that it is to be offered as sacrifice on the altar when the altar “has summer vacation,” i.e. is not very busy with offerings that are mandatory for people to present. If such an animal had been entrusted to a shepherd to graze, in order to keep it alive until needed, and it was slaughtered without any specific designation, it is fit to be offered as a burnt offering. According to Rashi (in the Talmud Sukkah folio 56a the expression “summer vacation,” is to be understood as something similar to “dessert;” it is consumed in order to tickle one’s palate, not to still one’s hunger.
Every male among the priests may eat of it; it shall be eaten in a holy place; it is most holy.
verse value 2050
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 41 letters. Verse gematria: 2050 is divisible by 50, the years to the Jubilee (yovel). The shortest word is "holy·of" (קֹ֥דֶשׁ, 3 letters) and the longest is "in·the·priests" (בַּכֹּהֲנִ֖ים, 6 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "he·shall·eat·it" (יֹאכְלֶ֑נּוּ). The root אכל appears 2 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "in·the·priests" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "he·shall·eat·it" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root קדוש ("holy") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'he·shall·eat·it', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 6 words. Full calculation: כׇּל־זָכָ֥ר [all·male] (277) + בַּכֹּהֲנִ֖ים [in·the·priests] (127) + יֹאכְלֶ֑נּוּ [he·shall·eat·it] (117) + בְּמָק֤וֹם [in·place] (188) + קָדוֹשׁ֙ [holy] (410) + יֵאָכֵ֔ל [shall·be·eaten] (61) + קֹ֥דֶשׁ [holy·of] (404) + קׇֽדָשִׁ֖ים [holies] (454) + הֽוּא [it] (12) = 2050.
Onkelos
Every male among the priests may eat it; it shall be eaten in a holy place — it is most holy.
Rashi
קדש קרשים הוא IT IS MOST HOLY — In Torath Cohanim these words which appear to be a mere repetition of those in v. 1, are expounded (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 9 10).
Chizkuni
כל זכר, “every male (priest).” This is meant to include priests, who because of a physical blemish, are not allowed to perform service in the Temple. קדש קדשים הוא, “is it;” This expression is meant to include communal offerings that may not be eaten except by male members of the priesthood. הוא, “it is most holy.” (the offering) this excludes such offerings as the ram brought by the Nazarene at the end of his term of abstentions, and the mandatory thanksgiving offerings, known as תודה, whose status is not “the most holy.”
As is the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering; there is one law for them; the priest that makes atonement with it, he shall have it.
verse value 2859 — ל֥וֹ = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 38 letters. Notable word values: "to·him" (ל֥וֹ) = 36, double chai. The shortest word is "to·him" (ל֥וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "makes·atonement·with·it" (יְכַפֶּר־בּ֖וֹ, 6 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "like·the·guilt·offering" (כָּֽאָשָׁ֔ם), "instruction" (תּוֹרָ֥ה), "makes·atonement·with·it" (יְכַפֶּר־בּ֖וֹ). 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "who" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root חטאת ("like·the·purgation·offering") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·them', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 5 words. Full calculation: כַּֽחַטָּאת֙ [like·the·purgation·offering] (438) + כָּֽאָשָׁ֔ם [like·the·guilt·offering] (361) + תּוֹרָ֥ה [instruction] (611) + אַחַ֖ת [one] (409) + לָהֶ֑ם [to·them] (75) + הַכֹּהֵ֛ן [the·priest] (80) + אֲשֶׁ֥ר [who] (501) + יְכַפֶּר־בּ֖וֹ [makes·atonement·with·it] (318) + ל֥וֹ [to·him] (36) + יִהְיֶֽה [it·shall·be] (30) = 2859.
Onkelos
As the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering — one law governs them both; the priest who effects atonement with it, it shall belong to him.
Rashi
תורה אחת להם [AS THE SIN OFFERING IS SO IS THE GUILT OFFERING:] THERE IS ONE LAW FOR THEM in this (the following) respect: that הכהן אשר יכפר בו THE PRIEST WHO MAKETH EXPIATION THEREWITH — i.e., who is fitted to effect expiation, shall have a share in it, thus excluding an unclean person who has bathed on a particular day but is awaiting sunset to be perfectly clean, one who lacks atonement (an unclean person who has bathed but has to await the next day to bring the sacrifice requisite for his complete restoration to cleanness), and one who is in the state of mourning during the period between the death and the burial of a near relative (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 9 1).
Sforno
there is a common denominator between the chatat and the asham sacrifice. While the former atones for inadvertently committed sins for which the karet penalty would be in place if the sin had been committed deliberately, the asham, although not atoning for this kind of sin, does have a similar place in the pyramid of offerings, seeing the sin it atones for involves careless behaviour vis a vis matters that are holy, something that one needs to be more than usually careful about. Symbolically speaking, i.e. as to their “Torah,” they have much in common, תורה אחת.
And the priest that offers any man's burnt-offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt-offering which he has offered.
verse value 3030 — וְהַ֨כֹּהֵ֔ן = 86 (Elohim)
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 44 letters. Notable word values: "and·the·priest" (וְהַ֨כֹּהֵ֔ן) = 86, equal to Elohim. The shortest word is "to·him" (ל֥וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "who·brings" (הַמַּקְרִ֖יב, 6 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "burnt-offering·of" (אֶת־עֹ֣לַת). The root כהן appears 2 times in this verse. 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "and·the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root איש ("person") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'person', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 7 words. Full calculation: וְהַ֨כֹּהֵ֔ן [and·the·priest] (86) + הַמַּקְרִ֖יב [who·brings] (357) + אֶת־עֹ֣לַת [burnt-offering·of] (901) + אִ֑ישׁ [person] (311) + ע֤וֹר [skin·of] (276) + הָֽעֹלָה֙ [the·burnt-offering] (110) + אֲשֶׁ֣ר [which] (501) + הִקְרִ֔יב [brought] (317) + לַכֹּהֵ֖ן [to·the·priest] (105) + ל֥וֹ [to·him] (36) + יִהְיֶֽה [it·shall·be] (30) = 3030.
Onkelos
And the priest who presents a man's burnt-offering — the hide of the burnt-offering that he presents shall belong to that priest; it shall be his.
Rashi
עור העלה אשר הקריב לכהן לו יהיה [AND THE PRIEST THAT OFFERETH ANY MAN’S BURNT OFFERING] EVEN THE PRIEST SHALL HAVE TO HIMSELF THE SKIN OF THE BURNT OFFERING WHICH HE HATH OFFERED — thus excluding the טבול יום, the מחוסר כפורים and the אונן (cf. Rashi on v. 7) — that these have no share in the skins of burnt offerings (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 9 5; Zevachim 103b).
Ramban
AND THE PRIEST THAT OFFERETH ANY MAN’S BURNT-OFFERING, EVEN THE PRIEST SHALL HAVE TO HIMSELF THE SKIN OF THE BURNT-OFFERING. This law applies to all offerings, and although Scripture mentions only the burnt-offering, it holds good of the sin-offering and guilt-offering mentioned above. Such is not the case, however, in reference to the peace-offerings [the skin of which belongs to the owner]; therefore Scripture mentioned the law of the priests’ due in the middle of the offerings, before it speaks of the peace-offerings [further on in Verses 11-21].The interpretation of the Rabbis as found in the Torath Kohanim is as follows: “[From the verse here] I know only that the skin of the burnt-offering [belongs to the priest]. Whence do I know that the same law applies to the skins of [the other] most holy offerings? Scripture therefore says, that offereth. Or perhaps I might think that I am to include [also] the skins of the offerings which are holy to a lesser degree [such as the peace-offering etc.]; Scripture therefore says, burnt-offering, thus teaching that just as the burnt-offering is distinguished by being of the most holy degree of offerings, [so also this law holds good of all most holy offerings], thus excluding those which are holy in a minor degree.”By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, it was not necessary to state this law [that the skin of the animal belongs to the priest] in connection with the sin-offering and guilt-offering, since they are part of the gifts given to the priests, and the priests thus are entitled to the meat and also the skin, but in the case of the burnt-offering [where the priests do not receive any of the meat, since it is wholly burnt on the altar], it was necessary for Scripture to say that they do acquire the skin. This is the interpretation of Rabbi [Yehuda Hanasi] who says, “Essentially we need this verse only for the skin of the burnt-offering [to teach that it belongs to the priest], since the skin always follows the meat” [and here Scripture tells us that it is not to be burnt with the meat]. So also is it explained in the Torath Kohanim.
Ibn Ezra
"The burnt-offering of a man" — the word is accented on the first syllable (mil'eil), because the primary stress falls at the beginning of the last word, as is the rule. As for "it shall be his" — after Scripture said "to the priest," it adds a further clarification: that the hide is not to be given to a different priest.
Chizkuni
והכהן המקריב, “and the priest who offers, etc.” The singular mode used here for “the priest,” is misleading, as it includes all the priests belonging to this particular watch, i.e.doing service on that day. All of them are described by the Torah as כהן. (Karney Or)
Rabbeinu Bahya
והכהן המקריב את עולת איש, “and the Priest who offers a person’s burnt-offering, etc.” the word: “the Priest” does not apply exclusively to one individual Priest, suggesting that his colleagues on duty on that day do not have a share in that hide. The word has to be understood in the same vein as the word המחטא in 6,19 where we already explained that the Priest in question is not the only one eating of that sacrifice. The words הכהן המקריב apply to any Priest who is in a fit state to perform the service at that time, i.e. the Priests of that roster. [There were a total of 24 rosters of Priests who performed the Temple Service in rotation. Ed.] Anyone of that roster who was ritually impure at the time was excluded from participating even in receiving part of the hide. The reason that the Torah adds the words אשר הקריב, “which he had offered,” words which appear superfluous, is that the entitlement to the hide does not begin until after the procedures of offering the animal have been completed, not at the time when the hide was removed from the carcass. If, for argument’s sake, it was discovered after the animal in question was slaughtered that it was diseased and not fit for burning up on the altar, the Priest has no claim to the hide. The same holds true if other errors occurred in the procedure such as the blood being spilled, etc. (compare Zevachim 103). Our sages say that all the animals underwent a physical examination prior to being slaughtered in order to minimize the chance of blemishes being found later. Even minor blemishes in the eye of animal were minutely examined at that time [to determine if this was a temporary or permanent blemish. Ed.] This is alluded to in the words “which he had offered,” meaning that after the examination the Priest had thought himself as entitled to that hide (Compare Maimonides’ comments on Erchin 2,5).
Tur HaArokh
עור העולה אשר הקריב, לכהן לו יהיה, “the skin of the burnt offering which he presented shall belong to the priest who performed this procedure.” Although this legislation is spelled out only in connection with the burnt offering, the same rule applies to the skins of sin-offerings or guilt-offerings. However, the skin of peace-offerings,זבחי שלמים, belong to the respective owners of the sacrificial animals, not to the priest. Some sages claim that there had been no need for the Torah to spell out that the skins of sin and guilt offerings also belong to the officiating priest, seeing that even a substantial part of the meat of these offerings belongs to the priests. It is natural that the skin, something secondary, always belongs to the party to whom the flesh belongs. Seeing that no meat of the burnt offering belongs to the priest, the Torah had to specifically state that at least the skin does belong to the officiating priest.
And every meal-offering that is baked in the oven, and all that is dressed in the stewing-pan, and on the griddle, shall be the priest's that offers it.
verse value 5115 — ל֥וֹ = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 58 letters. Notable word values: "to·him" (ל֥וֹ) = 36, double chai. The shortest word is "to·him" (ל֥וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·all·grain·offering" (וְכׇל־מִנְחָ֗ה, 7 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·all·that·is·prepared" (וְכׇל־נַעֲשָׂ֥ה), "in·the·pan" (בַמַּרְחֶ֖שֶׁת), "and·upon·griddle" (וְעַֽל־מַחֲבַ֑ת). 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "to·the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'and·upon·griddle', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 5 words. Full calculation: וְכׇל־מִנְחָ֗ה [and·all·grain·offering] (159) + אֲשֶׁ֤ר [which] (501) + תֵּֽאָפֶה֙ [shall·be·baked] (486) + בַּתַּנּ֔וּר [in·the·oven] (658) + וְכׇל־נַעֲשָׂ֥ה [and·all·that·is·prepared] (481) + בַמַּרְחֶ֖שֶׁת [in·the·pan] (950) + וְעַֽל־מַחֲבַ֑ת [and·upon·griddle] (556) + לַכֹּהֵ֛ן [to·the·priest] (105) + הַמַּקְרִ֥יב [who·brings] (357) + אֹתָ֖הּ [it] (406) + ל֥וֹ [to·him] (36) + תִֽהְיֶֽה [it·shall·be] (420) = 5115.
Onkelos
And every meal-offering that is baked in an oven, and every one made on a flat pan or on a griddle — it shall belong to the priest who presents it; it shall be his.
Rashi
לכהן המקריב אתה וגו' [AND EVERY MEAL OFFERING …] SHALL BE THE PRIEST’S THAT OFFERETH IT etc. — One might think it shall be his exclusively! Scripture, however, states (v. 10) לכל בני אהרן תהיה IT SHALL BELONG TO ALL THE SONS OF AARON; — one might think then, that it shall belong to all of them, which is, however, impossible, for Scripture states “[it shall be] the priest’s (that offereth it”! How then can these apparently contradictory passages be reconciled? By referring the text to the “family”) officiating on that day on which it (the מנחה) is offered (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 10 2).
Ramban
AND EVERY MEAL-OFFERING THAT IS BAKED IN THE OVEN, [AND EVERYTHING MADE IN THE BOILING POT, AND IN THE PAN, SHALL BE THE PRIESTS THAT OFFERETH IT]. The simple explanation of this verse is apparent, namely that He is commanding here that if one vows to bring one of the three kinds of meal-offering — the one baked in the oven, or made in the boiling pot, or in the pan — that they should all be given exclusively to the priest who offered them. Then He states concerning all the other meal-offerings, — such as if a person vowed to bring a meal-offering without specification of which kind, in which case he brings it of fine flour, and the meal-offering of first-fruits, which are both mixed with oil; and the meal-offering of the sinner and of the suspected adulteress which are dry [without oil and without frankincense] — that they should be divided among all the sons of Aaron, that is to say, among all priests of their Father’s House. The meaning of the expression, and every meal-offering, mingled with oil, or dry — is that a meal-offering which is of fine flour only, whether it be mixed with oil or dry, which is not one of these [three] mentioned above [the one baked in the oven, or made in the boiling pot, or in the pan — belongs to all priests who were ministering on that day, and not exclusively to the priests who offered them]. The reason for the difference between them is because [in the case of the three meal-offerings mentioned above] the priest took pains in baking them, and therefore he deserves to be given a greater reward. [All this is in accordance with the plain meaning of Scripture].Our Rabbis, however, did not want to explain the verses in this way because Scripture said, and every meal-offering, mingled with oil or dry, which includes all possible meal-offerings, since they are all either mingled with oil or dry. Therefore the Rabbis understood the expression it shall be the priest’s that offereth it [mentioned here in Verse 9 in connection with the three meal-offerings: the one baked in the oven, etc.] as meaning that it shall belong to all pure priests who are present there. Similarly, when He said, And the priest that offereth any man’s burnt-offering, and the priest that maketh atonement therewith, he shall have it, these verses are only intended to say that they do not belong to the owners who brought them, but that in reward for offering them they belong to the pure priests who are present there, for all of them are engaged in offering them, whether physically or by command, since any individual priest or two or three of them who offered up [the particular offering], did so with the permission of all of them and acting as their deputy, and all of them would stand by the offering. As is the share of him that goeth down to the battle, so shall be the share of him that tarrieth by the baggage; they shall share alike. After He had said [in general terms] that they shall belong to the priests as a reward for their service, He explai...
Ibn Ezra
"And every one that is made" — the adjective is in the feminine form, as in "no stone was seen" (I Kings 6:18), even though the noun is masculine in gender; and [the masculine form] is found in "that which was being made for that day" (Nehemiah 5:18).
Or HaChaim
וכל מנחה אשר תאפה בתנור, and every meal-offering which is baked in the oven, etc. The Torah mentions five separate categories of meal-offerings to exclude five matters. 1) The sons of Aaron do not divide the meal-offering according to the formula employed when animal offerings are shared out, i.e. that portions of one offering may be traded off against portions of another offering; rather every priest of the group performing service on that day receives his share of each of the meal-offerings presented on that day. 2) Bird-offerings are not shared out in the same way as the meal-offerings. One could have argued that the bird-offerings and the meal-offerings were both offerings presented by the poor and the very poor respectively. This factor does not have a bearing on the method employed in sharing out the meat of the bird-offerings, however. 3) The distribution of the meat of bird-offerings did not parallel that of the offerings consisting of four-legged animals, even though in both cases their blood is sprinkled on the altar. 4) The criteria applicable to the distribution of the parts of one kind of meal-offering are not identical to those of the sharing out of another kind of meal-offering, even though they all consist of flour of some kind. 5) Meal-offerings consisting of baked goods baked in one kind of pan or another kind are not shared out according to the same criteria as other meal-offerings prepared in a similar manner when these meal-offerings served different purposes. Although these five exclusions all concern different kinds of meal-offerings, the exegesis from which we derived these halachic differences is based on what is called אם אינו ענין, i.e. that if the Torah records certain information which is superfluous in its context, such information may be applied to supplement information lacking in a different context. I have seen that Maimonides in chapter 10, ruling 15 of his Ma-asseh Hakorbanot explains the exclusions in our two verses along different lines (other than Torat Kohanim which is similar to our author). He bases his exegesis on the fact that the Torah did not include the five kinds of meal-offerings mentioned here in the section dealing with מנחת סלת in 6,7-11 but records it in a different context. This is remarkable seeing that in the case of the meal-offerings which are baked as well as in the meal-offering consisting of fine flour mixed with oil and frankincense the Torah speaks of the offering belonging to the officiating priest. Maimonides reasons that we could have made a case for sharing out the meal-offering consisting of fine flour according to the same criteria as those applicable to some other meal-offering but we do not do so. It is clear from Maimonides' reasoning that he employs the words לכל בני אהרון "to all the priests" in 7,10 as the basis for his exegesis. This is not what we learned in the Baraitha (Torat Kohanim ). Maimonides also stresses the fact that the laws of the meal-offering do not all ...
Rabbeinu Bahya
לכהן המקריב אותה, “to the Priest who offers it.” Seeing that I might have thought that this meal-offering is exclusively that of the Priest who has offered it, the Torah adds in verse 10 “it shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, every man alike.” What precisely is meant by these words? The words mean that the members of the roster for that day are all equally entitled to participate in the edible parts of that meal-offering. The arrangement of these rosters is already referred to in Kings II 11,9 “The chiefs did as Yehoyadah (High Priest) ordered, each took his men-those who were on duty that week and those who were off duty that week- etc.” Whatever accrued to the roster of the priests during the week they would share equally. This is what the Torah wrote in Deut. 18,8 חלק כחלק יאכלו, “portion for portion they shall eat it.” The Torah here mentions each category of meal-offering separately by name first and afterwards added the words איש כאחיו, “each man alike,” to make sure that each Priest receives equal shares of each category of meal-offering, not that one Priest gets a share of the meal-offering baked in the oven whereas his colleague is compensated by getting his share from a meal-offering made in a deep pan. Even if the meal-offering consists of a mixture of fine flour and oil, מנחת הסולת, something not ready for immediate consumption as it is raw, the Priests also share in this alike. The reason the Torah teaches us this rule in connection with the most inexpensive type of offering, the meal-offering, is to make it clear that a similar rule applies to the sharing of the more expensive offerings, i.e. animal offerings. The compensation for performing the various duties in the Temple is the entitlement to the parts of the offering designated for the Priests. All Priests in a state of ritual purity belonging to the roster of the week (day) are entitled to share equally. [The week’s roster was divided into the six week days, each “roster” or משמר, being further divided into what are called בתי אבות, family groups, of which each performed the service on one of the weekdays, all participating on the Sabbath. Ed.] Although some Priests performed their part of the service individually whereas others did so in groups of two or three, each one qualified equally for the parts to be shared out. Even Priests whose duties did not require them to perform manual tasks were entitled (Taanit 26). The procedure followed was similar to the sharing of the spoils of war where the people of the “home-front” also shared equally with the soldiers who had gone into battle. (Based on Nachmanides interpreting Samuel I 30,24).
Tur HaArokh
וכל מנחה אשר תאפה בתנור, “and any meal-offering that is baked in the oven, etc.” Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text it appears that our verse speaks of someone who had made a vow to bring one of three types of meal offerings, anyone of which is baked in an oven, תנור, a deep pan, מרחשת, or in a shallow pan, מחבת. Either of these meal offerings would belong totally and exclusively to the priest who performs the procedure. In order to avoid errors, the Torah continues with other types of meal-offerings saying that these are shared out equally among the roster, בית אב, of priests performing their duties on that day or during that week.
And every meal-offering, mingled with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another.
verse value 2019
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 43 letters. The shortest word is "man" (אִ֥ישׁ, 3 letters) and the longest is "mixed·in·the·oil" (בְלוּלָֽה־בַשֶּׁ֖מֶן, 9 letters). 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "mixed·in·the·oil" (בְלוּלָֽה־בַשֶּׁ֖מֶן), "and·dry" (וַחֲרֵבָ֑ה), "to·all·sons·of" (לְכׇל־בְּנֵ֧י). 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "man" (root איש, 93x in Leviticus); "to·all·sons·of" (root כל, 88x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root חרב ("and·dry") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root אח ("as·his·brother") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'and·dry', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 5 words. Full calculation: וְכׇל־מִנְחָ֥ה [and·all·grain·offering] (159) + בְלוּלָֽה־בַשֶּׁ֖מֶן [mixed·in·the·oil] (465) + וַחֲרֵבָ֑ה [and·dry] (221) + לְכׇל־בְּנֵ֧י [to·all·sons·of] (142) + אַהֲרֹ֛ן [Aaron] (256) + תִּהְיֶ֖ה [it·shall·be] (420) + אִ֥ישׁ [man] (311) + כְּאָחִֽיו [as·his·brother] (45) = 2019.
Onkelos
And every meal-offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, each man as his brother.
Rashi
בלולה בשמן [AND EVERY MEAL OFFERING] MINGLED WITH OIL — This is the free-will meal-offering (Leviticus 2:1, 4, 5, 7); וחרבה OR DRY — this is the meal-offering of the sinner (Leviticus 5:11) and the “meal-offering of jealousy” (Numbers 5:15) in which there was no oil.
Ibn Ezra
"And dry" — like the meal-offering of him who comes down [in poverty] and the meal-offering of jealousy.
Tur HaArokh
וכל מנחה בלולה בשמן וחריבה, “and any meal-offering that is mixed with oil, or that is dry, etc.” this refers to a meal offering consisting only of fine flour mixed with oil, or even a totally dry meal offering, one that does not fit into any of the three categories mentioned in the earlier verse. The reason why the three categories of meal offering mentioned in verse nine belong exclusively to the officiating priest is that the preparation of such baked goods requires a great deal more work on the part of the priest, and the Torah rewards him for that work. However, our sages do not accept this kind of reasoning, as they interpret the statement וכל מנחה בלולה בשמן, וחריבה as including every possible category of meal offering baked or not, seeing that every meal offering is either mixed with oil or is dry, and the Torah writes that all the male priests may share in it equally. They therefore understand the words לכהן המקריב אותה לו יהיה to mean that any priests who are qualified to present such an offering, i.e. they are not in a state of ritual impurity are called מקריבים, as they always act as the appointees of the owners, the ones who themselves, personally, are prevented from performing this service due to their not being priests. What is written here concerning who participates in the consuming of the meal offerings, applies equally to the priests who may partake of the meat offerings, i.e. the members of the roster of priests on duty on that day.
Rashbam
וחרבה, the minchah of a sinner and that of the woman suspected of marital infidelity, Sotah. [the term minchah does not always mean “gift,” but may define the ingredients of the offering brought by a person in poor economic circumstances. Ed.]
And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which one may offer to Hashem.
verse value 2741
Insights
Verse structure: 7 words, 30 letters. The shortest word is "sacrifice·of" (זֶ֣בַח, 3 letters) and the longest is "the·well-being" (הַשְּׁלָמִ֑ים, 6 letters). 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "he·shall·bring" (root קרב, 112x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·well-being', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְזֹ֥את [and·this] (414) + תּוֹרַ֖ת [instruction·of] (1006) + זֶ֣בַח [sacrifice·of] (17) + הַשְּׁלָמִ֑ים [the·well-being] (425) + אֲשֶׁ֥ר [that] (501) + יַקְרִ֖יב [he·shall·bring] (322) + לַיהֹוָֽה [to·Hashem] (56) = 2741.
Onkelos
This is the law of the peace-offering that one brings before Hashem.
Sforno
וזאת תורת זבח השלמים, here we are told that although the common denominator between these offerings is that they share the heading sh’lamim inasmuch as these offerings are categorized in the Talmud as קדשים קלים, ”holy things of a minor degree of sanctity,” there are differences, nuances between one type of such קדשים קלים and other types. For instance, if they involve thanksgiving the animals offerings are accompanied by breads, some of which are leavened. Granted that the underlying reason for the need to offer thanks is what our sages call the שאור שבעיסה, “the element of ego in the ‘dough,’” the aspiring human personality, by consisting predominantly of unleavened loaves this element becomes subordinate. [it must be remembered that basically, no other offering consisting of baked goods is allowed to be leavened. The author feels that if a person finds himself in an unexpectedly dangerous situation requiring a miracle to save him, this indicates that had his conduct been beyond reproach he would not first have become exposed to that danger. On a national rather than an individual level, the Purim story is an illustration of what the author means. Ed.] One of the reasons the Torah requires so many individual loaves of bread as part of the Todah sacrifice, is to enable as many people as possible to become aware of someone having been miraculously saved. The period during which these breads can be eaten is the same as the period holy things of the higher order may be eaten, i.e. only one day and one night, not like ordinary sh’lamim which may be eaten two days and one night.
Rabbeinu Bahya
וזאת תורת זבח השלמים, “and this is the law of the peace-offerings, etc.” There were two types of peace-offerings, the one called תודה and the one simply referred to as שלמים. The תודה offering was accompanied by both unleavened bread and leavened bread. There were a total of 40 loaves, of which ten were leavened. The technical names for each group of ten loaves were: Matzah, Chametz, Rekikim, and Revuchim. This is all spelled out in verse 12, i.e. that these loaves be mixed with oil, unleavened wafers smeared with oil and scalded fine flour mixed with oil. The Torah there continues with verse 13: “With loaves of leavened bread shall he bring his offering, with his feast thanksgiving-offering.” In verse 14 we are told that -one of each of these types of loaves be offered “as a portion to the Lord; it shall belong to the Priest.” In other words, the Priest’s function here is to receive a tithe from the offering, 10%. It is very similar to the gift called תרומת מעשר which the Priest receives from the Levites in respect of the tithes the Levites had received from the Israelite farmers. Our sages (Menachot 77) explain that the total weight of the ten loaves of leavened bread was equivalent to the total weight of the other 30 leaves consisting of three types of unleavened wafers, etc., so that in effect there was an equal amount of leavened bread and unleavened bread which constituted the meal-offering part of the תודה. This can be deduced from the syntax of our verses seeing that the 30 loaves of unleavened wafers, etc., are all mentioned in a single verse, whereas the Torah devotes a separate verse to the ten loaves of leavened breads. This suggests that the quantity of what is mentioned in verse 12 is equal to the quantity (weight) of material mentioned in verse 13. The offering called שלמים without the word תודה, is not occasioned by the need to express one’s gratitude to Hashem for His having rescued one from danger of one kind or another, but is a free-willed offering called either נדבה or נדר, depending on the wording of one’s vow to donate such an offering. This is why the Torah introduces the legislation pertaining to such an offering with the words: “if his feast-offering (peace-offering) is for a vow or donation, etc.” (verse 16). Anyone bringing this kind of שלמים does not have to add the loaves of leavened and unleavened bread associated with the thanksgiving offering, תודה. [Seeing that it was mandatory to bring such an offering in Jerusalem on the three festivals requiring every male Jew to make this pilgrimage, the translation “feast-offering” as an alternative for “peace-offering” is quite appropriate. Ed.]. There appears to be a contradiction here in the regulations concerning the תודה offering and the fact that it was made up partially of leavened loaves, seeing the Torah had stated elsewhere (Leviticus 2,11) that “no manner of leavened material or honey is to be offered up on the Altar.” The fact is that these loaves of the תודה offering were not put on the Altar at all. Hence there is no contradiction with what the Torah wrote in Leviticus 2,11. The loaves were only “waved” above the Altar not deposited or burned up on it.
Kli Yakar
And this is the law of the peace offering which one will bring to the Lord. The phrase which one will bring to the Lord is not stated regarding all offerings, only regarding the peace offerings, which are accepted without sin, because they are closer to the Lord than all the offerings that come for sin. For this reason, it is written subsequently (7:29–30): He who brings his peace offering to the Lord shall bring his offering to the Lord. His hands shall bring the fire offerings of the Lord. In all of these, [the Torah] mentions to the Lord, for in these I desire, says the Lord. And look to the right and see that it does not mention for any offering that the owner should bring the portion for the Almighty with his own hands, except for peace offerings — his hands shall bring it. This is because anyone who has incurred the king’s anger and wants to appease and wipe away his wrath sends the offering ahead of him through a messenger, as Jacob said: I will appease his face with the gift that goes before me, and afterward I will see his face (Genesis 32:20). But one who brings the king a gift as a tribute and honor brings the offering with his own hands and not through a messenger. This is the difference between sin offerings and guilt offerings, which come for sins of action, and the burnt offering, which comes for sinful thoughts, versus the peace offerings. For those offerings that come to remove God’s anger, it is not appropriate that his hands shall bring them, as it would appear as impudence toward Heaven; therefore, he sends them through the priests. But the peace offerings, which are a gift and tribute, his hands shall bring them. And there are those who explain the verse: He who offers his peace-offering to the Lord shall bring his offering to the Lord from his peace-offering. [This means] that it is appropriate that they should bless him and say, “May it be Your will that all the offerings he brings to the Lord should be from his peace-offerings, not sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, and burnt-offerings.” But regarding the burnt-offering, it says, This is the law of the burnt-offering; it is the burnt-offering, meaning he should bring it alone and not repeat his folly by bringing another burnt-offering for the sin of impure thoughts, but rather [he should bring] peace-offerings when there is peace between him and his Creator. And by way of allusion, it is possible to explain the five times this is the law that are stated in this portion, corresponding to the five books of the Torah. One who engages in them [in Torah study] is considered as if they have offered these five types of sacrifices: the burnt offering, the meal offering, the sin offering, the guilt offering, and the peace offering. However, the inauguration offerings were only for that time and not for future generations. And in this way, we find five instances of this is the law in the portion about the leper, because there too our Sages said (Arachin 15b): “What is the remedy for one who speaks lashon hara? If they are a Torah scholar, they should engage in Torah study, etc.” If so, the Torah protects from lashon hara which causes these five types of leprosy, and one who engages in the five books of the Torah is saved from them, as explained in the Akedah [a commentary by Rabbi Isaac Arama] that in each book [of the Torah] the punishment for the sin of the tongue is mentioned. Similarly with these sacrifices, one who engages in these five books is considered as if they have offered these five types of sacrifices. For one who engages in the book of Genesis, it is as if he offered a burnt offering. This is the law of the burnt offering, because in it is explained the law of the burnt offering, as Abel offered a burnt offering from the firstborn of his flock (Genesis 4:4). Similarly, regarding Noah it is written, he offered burnt offerings on the altar (Genesis 8:20). And likewise with Abraham, He took the ram and offered it as a burnt offering instead of his son (Genesis 22:13). And also with Jacob, he offered sacrifices to the God of his father Isaac (Genesis 46:1). And one who engages with the book of Exodus, it is as if he offered a meal offering. Because all meal offerings come as unleavened bread, and in this book are explained all the laws of matzah, its instruction, and its combination with the Passover sacrifice that is eaten with matzah. And it is written: You shall not slaughter My sacrificial blood with leaven (Exodus 34:25). And one who engages in the book of Leviticus, it is as if he offered a sin offering. Although all the sacrifices are explained in this book, nevertheless, the main focus of the book is the law of the sin offering. Because after the Israelites sinned with the Golden Calf, which was the beginning of all sin and iniquity, God provided a way for sinners to achieve atonement through sacrifice. And along with this, all the sacrifices are mentioned, all of which contain an aspect of sin, except for the peace offerings. And one who engages with the book of Numbers, it is as if he offered a guilt offering. For in it is stated the entire law of the guilt offering in the portion of Naso (Numbers 5:6): A man or woman who commits any of the sins against man, betraying the Lord, and that person shall become guilty, etc. And even though the law of the guilt offering was already stated in the portion of Vayikra (Leviticus 5:14), nevertheless it is repeated there [in Numbers] to introduce something new, as Rashi explains there. Thus, through studying that portion along with the new element introduced in it, one completes the entire law of the guilt offering. And one who engages in the book of Deuteronomy, it is as if he offered peace offerings. Because in the portion of Ki Tavo (27:7) it says, And you shall sacrifice peace offerings and eat there, etc. And similarly in the portion of Re’eh all the laws of peace offerings, which are of lesser sanctity, are stated, as it says (ibid. 12:27), And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out on the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the meat. And there the laws of peace offerings were completed due to several new matters that were introduced in them. Therefore it says, This is the law, these five times, for one who engages in each specific book receives great reward as if he offered that type of sacrifice which is explained in that book. And the wise will explain to many this precious concept, for it is clear and correct.
Daat Zkenim
זבח השלמים, “the sacrifice of the peace-offering;” why is it called thus? It is meant to restore peace between us down here and G–d our Father in heaven. This is also described in these terms in Psalms 50 23, when the psalmist says: זובח תודה יכבדנני, “he who sacrifices a thank offering honours Me; the reason the word יכבדנני is spelled with the letter נ repeated, is to hint that G–d will feel honoured both in our world down here and in the heavenly regions.
If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour soaked.
verse value 7842
Insights
Verse structure: 19 words, 88 letters. The shortest word is "if" (אִ֣ם, 2 letters) and the longest is "he·shall·bring·it" (יַקְרִיבֶ֒נּוּ֒, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 536: unleavened, unleavened. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "for·thanksgiving" (עַל־תּוֹדָה֮), "the·thanksgiving" (הַתּוֹדָ֗ה), "and·choice·flour" (וְסֹ֣לֶת). The root שמן appears 3 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "he·shall·bring·it" (root קרב, 112x in Leviticus); "in·the·oil" (root שמן, 42x in Leviticus); "if" (root אם, 41x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root תודה ("for·thanksgiving") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·the·oil', dividing the verse into phrases of 14 and 5 words.
Onkelos
If he brings it for a thanksgiving, he shall offer along with the thanksgiving peace-offering: unleavened cakes mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and fine flour soaked in oil — cakes mixed with oil.
Rashi
אם על תודה יקריבנו IF HE OFFER IT FOR A THANKSGIVING — i.e., if he brings it on account of (על) a matter that requires thanksgiving (תודה): on account of a miraculous deliverance that was wrought for him, as being, for instance, one of those who have made a sea-voyage. or travelled in the wilderness, or had been kept in prison, or if he had been sick and was now healed, all of whom are bound to offer thanks-giving, since it is written with reference to them, (Psalms 107:8, 15, 21, 31) “Let them offer thanksgiving to the Lord for His goodness, and for His wonderful works to the children of men!” (cf. Rashi on those vv. and on vv. 4, 10, 17 and 23 of that chapter; see also Berakhot 54b) — if it is on account of one of these things that he vowed those peace offerings, they are “peace offerings for acknowledgement” and require the offering of bread that is mentioned in the section, and may not be eaten beyond a period of one day and one night as it is here set forth (v. 15) [whilst other שלמים may be eaten at any time during two days and the intervening night]. והקריב על זבח התודה [IF HE OFFER IT FOR AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT] THEN HE SHALL OFFER WITH THE SACRIFICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT four sorts of bread: cakes, wafers and cakes of flour saturated with oil — these being three kinds of unleavened bread; it further states (v. 13), “together with cakes of leavened bread [he shall offer his offering etc.]”, thus making four. Each kind consisted of ten cakes; thus is it explained in Treatise Menachoth 77a. And their total measure was five Seahs according to the Jerusalem standard, these being equal to six Seahs of the “wilderness” standard (i.e. in force at the period when the Israelites were in the wilderness) comprising 20 tenths of an ephah) (Menachot 76b). מרבכת — bread scalded with oil, as much as is needed to saturate it.
Ramban
THEN HE SHALL OFFER ‘AL’ THE OFFERING OF THANKSGIVING. The commentators have explained the word al as meaning “with” — with the offering of thanksgiving. Similarly, ‘al’ the cakes of leavened bread means “with them.” The correct interpretation appears to me that the word al is here to be understood in its ordinary sense [i.e., “upon”], meaning that he should add bread “upon” the offering. Similarly, ‘al’ the cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering, means that he is to bring cakes of leavened bread, and adding “upon” them he is to bring his offering, which is the unleavened bread mentioned [in Verse 12 before us] — all these breads [thirty unleavened cakes and ten leavened ones] he is to bring upon the offering [of thanksgiving]. Scripture thus made the leavened bread the chief part of the offering, “adding” upon it the rest of the bread [i.e., the unleavened bread, by stating “upon the cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering,” which means “his unleavened bread”], because the unleavened breads are more than all the other kinds. Scripture changed the expression, stating, [he shall present his offering] of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving [while here in Verse 12 it merely says, the offering of thanksgiving], in order to allude to the Rabbis’ interpretation regarding it, namely that the bread does not become holy in itself [in the sense that it cannot be redeemed, or that it becomes invalid if carried outside the wall of the city, etc.] until the offering is slaughtered, and [also] that it should be slaughtered “upon” it [the bread], that is to say, with the intention that the bread should become holy with it [the offering].Now Rashi wrote: “Then he shall bring with the offering of thanksgiving four sorts of bread: cakes, wafers, and cakes mingled with oil — these three kinds being of unleavened bread. And it further states, with cakes of leavened bread, [thus making four kinds], and each kind consisted of ten cakes. Thus it is explained in Tractate Menachoth. And their total measure was five Jerusalem seahs, which are six measures according to the Wilderness measure, or twenty tenths [of the ephah].” Now the Rabbi [Rashi] did not mention in connection with these twenty tenths [of flour] that ten of them were for the leavened cakes, a tenth for each one, and the other ten tenths for the unleavened ones, thus making three unleavened cakes to each tenth of flour. The Rabbis interpreted that this is so on the basis of the verse, ‘al’ cakes of leavened bread, [which they explained as meaning]: “‘Corresponding to’ [the amount of flour used in the preparation of the ten] leavened cakes, use the same amount to bring therefrom [the thirty] unleavened cakes. Thus there were twenty tenths [of an ephah of flour], ten for the leavened cakes and ten for the unleavened. Ten tenths were used for the leavened ones, thus making one tenth of flour for each of [the ten] leavened cakes, and ten tenths for the unleavened ones, thus maki...
Ibn Ezra
"If for a thanksgiving" — its meaning is that he gives thanks to Hashem for having been delivered from distress. "Unleavened loaves" — as many as he wishes, but no fewer than two; and likewise "unleavened wafers." "Murbekevet" — in my view the best interpretation is that it refers to a choice, fine [type of preparation]; but the unleavened loaves, the wafers that are baked, and the loaves of the murbekevet are not of that same kind.
Chizkuni
אם על תודה יקריבנו, “If he offers this offering as a thanksgiving offering;” it does require placing his weight on it with his hands before slaughtering, and elevating it, i.e. swinging it, after the slaughtering; (Sifra) והקריב על זבח, “he will offer with the meat offering, etc;” the word על meaning “with” also in על חלת לחם, is also to be understood as meaning: “with”; we have an example of this in Leviticus 25, 31 על שדה הארץ, “it will be considered as belonging with the field of the earth.” וסלת מורכבת, “and fine flour mixed in well soaked oil.” This teaches that the cakes the Torah speaks of must be soaked well in oil. חלות בלולות בשמן, wafers mixed with oil. Here we have one addition followed by another addition, (חלות and רקיקות) something unusual. It suggests that actually it is meant to be a limitation, i.e. that this is not to be treated like other gift offerings in which a whole log of oil is used, whereas here only half a log of oil is used. (Compare Rashi on Menachot 89)
Tur HaArokh
והקריב על זבח התודה, “he shall offer with the meat part of the thanksgiving offering, etc.” The thanksgiving offering consists of several parts, a peace offering described as זבח השלמים, breads, both unleavened and leavened. He will bring it all to the (side of) the altar and the leavened loaves will be considered the major component [although they are 10 loaves out of a total of forty loaves. Ed.] The reason that the Torah uses the word עליו, “in addition to it,” stressing that the leavened loaves are the principal component, is because the unleavened loaves outnumber the leavened loaves and we would otherwise have thought that they outrank the leavened loaves in that offering. Nachmanides writes that he is amazed that the Torah did not exclude the thanksgiving offering as one to which the prohibition of bringing it to the altar is applied, just as it did state this in connection with bringing of the בכורים, the first fruit offerings. [I suppose the references are to Leviticus 2,12 where no mention of exceptions are made at all, and Leviticus 23,17 where the Torah specifically exempts this offering by writing it is to consist of leavened loaves. I have not yet found where Nachmanides writes what our author attributes to him. Maybe Nachmanides’ comment on verse 14 is meant. Ed.] Nachmanides poses a problem that is no problem at all, seeing that in the prohibition of leavened products for the altar, the Torah stresses that bringing leavened products to the altar is prohibited. Seeing that the loaves of these offerings mentioned here are not presented on the altar, they are in a different category and cannot be lumped together with the firstling offerings mentioned elsewhere. The loaves of the thanksgiving offering are only heaved by the priest, but not deposited on the altar. Seeing they are all being consumed, what would be the point in depositing them on the altar where things are deposited for burning up? Nachmanides also suggests that seeing that the ריח ניחוח, pleasant fragrance, enjoyed by G’d, is not an issue in these offerings, the donor not having to restore himself in G’d’s grace, there was no need at all to refer to the admissibility or not of leavened products. Perhaps there was not even any cause for the Torah to mention any of this dispensation of the restriction on offering leavened products on the altar, seeing that this offering was accompanied by animal sacrifices which achieved the ריח ניחוח status through the parts of it which were burned up on the altar. At any rate, -Nachmanides- speaking, I have already pointed out earlier that the need for ריח ניחוח is not an issue in voluntary offerings at all, as the people presenting those had not fallen out of grace with G’d, and would not regain their grace except by presenting something described as ריח ניחוח.
Rashbam
אם על תודה, if a person had made a vow using the expression תודה instead of using the expression שלמים to describe what he vowed to bring. The most common occasion when people make such a vow is when they have been saved from imminent danger. The sages in Berachot 54 described the four types of dangers which qualify for the party who has been saved to offer such a “thanksgiving” offering, תודה. The total number of challot which this offering consists of are 40. Here we are told all the details.
With cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering with the sacrifice of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving.
verse value 2747
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 35 letters. The shortest word is "bread·of" (לֶ֣חֶם, 3 letters) and the longest is "upon·cakes·of" (עַל־חַלֹּת֙, 5 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "upon·cakes·of" (עַל־חַלֹּת֙). 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "he·shall·bring" (root קרב, 112x in Leviticus); "his·offering" (root קרבן, 40x in Leviticus); "his·well-being·sacrifice" (root שלם, 33x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'his·offering', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 3 words. Full calculation: עַל־חַלֹּת֙ [upon·cakes·of] (538) + לֶ֣חֶם [bread·of] (78) + חָמֵ֔ץ [leavened] (138) + יַקְרִ֖יב [he·shall·bring] (322) + קׇרְבָּנ֑וֹ [his·offering] (358) + עַל־זֶ֖בַח [upon·sacrifice] (117) + תּוֹדַ֥ת [thanksgiving·of] (810) + שְׁלָמָֽיו [his·well-being·sacrifice] (386) = 2747.
Onkelos
Along with cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering with the thanksgiving peace-offering.
Rashi
יקריב קרבנו על זבח [WITH THE CAKES OF LEAVENED BREAD] HE SHALL OFFER HIS OFFERING WITH THE SACRIFICE — The word קרבנו is redundant (it would have sufficed to say על חלת לחם חמץ יקריבנו), it intimates that the bread is not holy as such (קדוש קדושת הגוף), that it should become invalid by being carried forth from the forecourt, or by the touch of טבול יום (see v. 7) and so as to become incapable of going forth from its holy status to that of non-holy (ordinary) food (as is the case with a sacrifice that is קדוש קדושת הגוף), before the sacrifice is slaughtered (Menachot 78b)
Ibn Ezra
"Upon" (al) loaves — like "and the men came upon the women" (Exodus 35:22); the meaning is: together with loaves.
And of it he shall present one out of each offering for a gift to Hashem; it shall be the priest's that dashes the blood of the peace-offerings against the altar.
verse value 2974 — אֶחָד֙ = 13 (echad/ahavah)
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 54 letters. Notable word values: "one" (אֶחָד֙) = 13, the value of echad ('one') and ahavah ('love'). The shortest word is "to·him" (ל֥וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "from·all·offering" (מִכׇּל־קׇרְבָּ֔ן, 7 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "from·all·offering" (מִכׇּל־קׇרְבָּ֔ן), "who·dashes" (הַזֹּרֵ֛ק). 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "to·the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·Hashem', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 6 words. Full calculation: וְהִקְרִ֨יב [and·he·shall·bring] (323) + מִמֶּ֤נּוּ [from·it] (136) + אֶחָד֙ [one] (13) + מִכׇּל־קׇרְבָּ֔ן [from·all·offering] (442) + תְּרוּמָ֖ה [a·gift] (651) + לַיהֹוָ֑ה [to·Hashem] (56) + לַכֹּהֵ֗ן [to·the·priest] (105) + הַזֹּרֵ֛ק [who·dashes] (312) + אֶת־דַּ֥ם [blood·of] (445) + הַשְּׁלָמִ֖ים [the·well-being] (425) + ל֥וֹ [to·him] (36) + יִהְיֶֽה [it·shall·be] (30) = 2974.
Onkelos
And from it he shall present one from each offering as a separation-offering before Hashem; it shall belong to the priest who dashes the blood of the peace-offering — it shall be his.
Rashi
אחד מכל קרבן [AND OF IT SHALL HE OFFER] ONE OUT OF EACH OFFERING [FOR A HEAVE OFFERING UNTO THE LORD] — one bread (piece) of each of these different kinds shall he take as a heave offering for the priest who performs the rite connected with it (the קרבן), and the rest may be eaten by the owner (Menachot 77b). The flesh of the sacrifice also belongs to the owner with the exception of the breast and the shoulder of it, just as the waving of the breast and the shoulder is expressly prescribed later on, (Leviticus 7:31 Leviticus 7:32) in the case of the “peace offerings”, thus making them become the portion of the priests (cf. Leviticus 7:31 Leviticus 7:32), and the sacrifice of acknowledgement comes under the term שלמים (Zevachim 4a).
Ramban
AND OF IT HE SHALL PRESENT ONE OUT OF EACH OFFERING — one whole cake [for a heave-offering unto the Eternal]. Thus he takes as a heave-offering four cakes [and gives them to the priest].But I wonder! When Scripture excluded [first-fruits] from the prohibition against burning leaven [on the altar], by stating, as an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them [which means that “the two loaves” of the Festival of Shevuoth were to be brought of leavened dough, as clearly mentioned further on in Scripture], why did it not say that [the ten leavened cakes of] the thanks-offering [are also an exception]? But this is not really a question. For Scripture states, and unto the altar they [i.e., leaven and honey] shall not come up for a sweet savor, and of the [forty] breads of the thanks-offering, none came up on the altar at all, for they require only waving. Even though in the case of the showbread He did say that one commits a transgression if one brought it in a leaven state [although there too none of the loaves are burnt on the altar], that is because of the frankincense that was on it which was to the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the Eternal. But of the bread of the thanks-offering, nothing at all came up on the altar [hence the Torah permitted the ten loaves to be leavened]. Perhaps Scripture only had to mention that exception [as an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them] because of the honey, since it was not clearly stated concerning the first-fruits [which were brought of “the seven kinds”] that they may be brought from honey [and it therefore had to be explicitly stated in that verse], and thus He also included leaven with it, saying of both of them, as an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them. With reference to leaven, however, since it is clearly explained in its correct place [that the “two loaves” of the Festival of Shevuoth constitute an exception to the usual negative commandment], there was no need any more to mention it as an exception [when mentioning the general negative commandment], just as Scripture has not specified the exception to the rule about the Sabbath, when stating every one that profaneth it shall be put to death, [by saying] “except for the Service of the offerings” [which may be done on the Sabbath], or in the case of thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife, [by saying] “except for a brother’s childless wife” [whom he is to marry].
Ibn Ezra
"He shall offer from it one" — one from each type of offering. Thus there are [at minimum] four loaves; but the truth is that they are ten.
Chizkuni
תרומה לה, “as a gift to the Lord;” (author questions rhetorically why no measurements are given) I do not know the measurements of this gift; the Sifra writes that we might derive it from a similar verse in Numbers 18 where the תרומת מעשר is described as being one tenth of the regular tithe, i.e. slightly less that 1% of the total. לכהן הזורק את דם השלמים לו יהיה, “it shall belong to the priest who sprinkles the blood of it.” The remainder may be eaten by the owners.
And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his offering; he shall not leave any of it until the morning.
verse value 2819
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 44 letters. The shortest word is "sacrifice·of" (זֶ֚בַח, 3 letters) and the longest is "he·shall·not·set·aside" (לֹֽא־יַנִּ֥יחַ, 6 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "he·shall·not·set·aside" (לֹֽא־יַנִּ֥יחַ). 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "in·day·of" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus); "shall·be·eaten" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus); "and·flesh·of" (root בשר, 56x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root נוח ("he·shall·not·set·aside") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'shall·be·eaten', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 3 words. Full calculation: וּבְשַׂ֗ר [and·flesh·of] (508) + זֶ֚בַח [sacrifice·of] (17) + תּוֹדַ֣ת [thanksgiving·of] (810) + שְׁלָמָ֔יו [his·well-being·sacrifice] (386) + בְּי֥וֹם [in·day·of] (58) + קׇרְבָּנ֖וֹ [his·offering] (358) + יֵאָכֵ֑ל [shall·be·eaten] (61) + לֹֽא־יַנִּ֥יחַ [he·shall·not·set·aside] (109) + מִמֶּ֖נּוּ [from·it] (136) + עַד־בֹּֽקֶר [until·morning] (376) = 2819.
Onkelos
And the flesh of his thanksgiving peace-offering shall be eaten on the day of its offering; he shall not leave any of it over until morning.
Rashi
ובשר זבח תורת שלמיו AND THE FLESH OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE PEACE OFFERING FOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT [SHALL BE EATEN THE SAME DAY] — There are here many apparently redundant words (רבויין); they are intended to include in this law the sin-offering, the guilt-offering, the Nazarite’s ram and the חגיגה (the festive offering of the pilgrims) brought on the fourteenth of Nisan — that these should be eaten only during one day (the day of slaughtering) and the following night, just as the תודה, and not two days and the intervening night as is the period assigned for שלמים - Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 12 1; Zevachim 36a) ביום קרבנו יאכל [AND THE FLESH …] SHALL BE EATEN ON THE DAY THAT HIS OFFERING IS EATEN — and as the period prescribed for eating its flesh is the period during which its bread may be eaten (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 12 1). לא יניח ממנו עד בקר HE SHALL NOT LEAVE ANY OF IT TILL THE MORNING, but during the whole night he may eat of it. But if this be so why have they (the Rabbis) said, (Zevachim 55a) “The sacrifice of acknowledgement etc. … may only be eaten during the day and the following night till midnight”? As a precaution to keep people far from the possibility of sinning (cf. Berakhot 2a).
Ramban
AND THE FLESH OF THE OFFERING OF HIS PEACE-OFFERINGS FOR THANKSGIVING SHALL BE EATEN ON THE DAY OF HIS OFFERING. “There are here many terms of amplification [all the seemingly redundant words thus being intended to widen the scope of the law]. Thus they include in this law the sin-offering and guilt-offering, the Nazirite’s ram, and the Festal-offering of the fourteenth day of Nisan, that they may all be eaten for a day and a night.” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct, for the Festal-offering of the fourteenth day of Nisan may be eaten for two days and the one intervening night, like the rest of the peace-offerings. So also we have been taught in Tractate Pesachim: “Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou offerest on the first day at even, remain all night until the morning. Scripture speaks here of the Festal-offering of the fourteenth day of Nisan, teaching that it may be eaten for two days and the one intervening night, and when Scripture states on the first day … until the morning, it means the second morning.” Rashi himself wrote this in the Seder R’eih Anochi. Here, however, the Rabbi [Rashi] follows the words of Ben Teima, who says that the Festal-offering of the fourteenth of Nisan which comes with the Passover-offering, is like the Passover-offering, and may be eaten [only] on that day [the fourteenth of Nisan] and the following night, and may be eaten only roasted and until midnight, [like the Passover-offering] which is eaten only at night [but not on the fourteenth day]. But according to Ben Teima, these amplifications [referred to by Rashi] only come to indicate that it [the Festal-offering accompanying the Passover-offering] is like the Passover-offering in every respect, coming only from the sheep, a male of the first year, since it is written, Neither shall the offering of the feast of the Passover be left unto the morning, [which Ben Teima interpreted to mean: “the offering of the feast, namely the Festal-offering; of the Passover, namely the Passover-offering,” the same law thus applying to both], as it is stated there. But that which the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote here [namely, that the terms of amplification of the verse teach that the Festal-offering is to be eaten only for a day and a night] is on the basis of a Beraitha taught in the Torath Kohanim, which states as follows: “And the flesh of the offering of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving, shall be eaten on the day of his offering. This verse comes to teach that those offerings which Scripture states are to be eaten for one day [and the following night] may only be eaten during that time [and not for two days and the intervening night, as is the period assigned for the peace-offering]. I would only know that such is the law for the thanks-offering [i.e., the offering itself, which is mentioned explicitly in the verse]. Whence do I know to include the breads thereof? Scripture therefore says, his offering. Whence do I know to include the offspring of the tha...
Ibn Ezra
"On the day of his offering it shall be eaten" — meaning: the one who brought it, his household, and anyone who is ritually pure shall eat it; for the peace-offerings too are holy, even though they are minor holy things.
Sforno
I just explained that ordinary sh’lamim may be eaten for two days and a night.
But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a freewill-offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he offers his sacrifice; and on the morrow that which remains of it may be eaten.
verse value 3168
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 60 letters. Verse gematria: 3168 is divisible by 18, the value of chai ('life'). The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·if·vow" (וְאִם־נֶ֣דֶר, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 61: freewill·offering, shall·be·eaten, shall·be·eaten. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·if·vow" (וְאִם־נֶ֣דֶר), "his·sacrifice" (אֶת־זִבְח֖וֹ). The root זבח appears 2 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "in·day·of" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus); "his·bringing·of·it" (root קרב, 112x in Leviticus); "shall·be·eaten" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root נדר ("and·if·vow") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root נדב ("freewill·offering") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'shall·be·eaten', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְאִם־נֶ֣דֶר [and·if·vow] (301) + א֣וֹ [or] (7) + נְדָבָ֗ה [freewill·offering] (61) + זֶ֚בַח [sacrifice·of] (17) + קׇרְבָּנ֔וֹ [his·offering] (358) + בְּי֛וֹם [in·day·of] (58) + הַקְרִיב֥וֹ [his·bringing·of·it] (323) + אֶת־זִבְח֖וֹ [his·sacrifice] (424) + יֵאָכֵ֑ל [shall·be·eaten] (61) + וּמִֽמׇּחֳרָ֔ת [and·from·next·day] (694) + וְהַנּוֹתָ֥ר [and·what·remains] (667) + מִמֶּ֖נּוּ [from·it] (136) + יֵאָכֵֽל [shall·be·eaten] (61) = 3168.
Onkelos
But if the offering of his sacrifice is a vow or a freewill-offering, it shall be eaten on the day he presents his offering, and on the next day what remains of it may be eaten.
Rashi
ואם נדר או נדבה BUT IF [THE SACRIFICE OF HIS OFFERING BE] A VOW OR A FREE WILL OFFERING — i. e., that he does not bring it as an acknowledgement of some miraculous deliverance (cf. Rashi v. 12), then it does ‘not require the offering of bread and may be eaten during two days as is set forth in the section. וממחרת והנותר ממנו AND ON THE MORROW ALSO THE REMAINDER OF IT — i. e. what remained on the first day, יאכל MAY BE EATEN; — this ו (that of והנותר) is redundant (the text being equivalent to וממחרת הנותר ממנו יאכל); there are many similar examples in Scripture: (Genesis 36:24) “And these are the sons of Zibean: And Ajah (ואיה) and Anah”; (Daniel 8:13): “to give and the Sanctuary (וקדש) and the host to be trampled under foot”.
Ramban
AND ON THE MORROW ‘V’HANOTHAR’ (AND THAT WHICH REMAINETH) OF IT SHALL BE EATEN. “The letter vav [in the word v’hanothar — ‘and’ that which remaineth] is redundant [thus the meaning of the verse is: “and on the morrow, that which remaineth of it shall be eaten”]. There are many examples of this in Scripture, such as: and these are the children of Zibeon: ‘v’ayah’ (and Ajah) and Anah. So also: to give ‘v’kodesh’ (‘and’ the Sanctuary) and the host to be trampled upon.” This is Rashi’s language, and so did Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra interpret the verse. In my opinion the meaning of the verse is as follows: Since He said, it shall be eaten on the day that he offereth his offering, and on the morrow, this might imply that it is a commandment that it [the peace-offering] be eaten in two days, [namely] that he should eat part of it on the first day, and should leave part of it to be eaten on the morrow. Therefore He explained again, ‘and’ that which remaineth is to be eaten on the first day and also on the morrow [if by chance it was not all eaten on the first day]. But he is not to leave some over intentionally, nor is he permitted to leave it all over to be eaten on the second day. Rather, it is a commandment that he should eat it on the first day, and that which is left over by chance, should be eaten on the morrow previously mentioned. This matter we have learned from the words of our Rabbis, who have said in the Torath Kohanim: “On the day that he offereth it, shall it be eaten. It is a commandment that it be eaten thereof during the first day. I might think that he is commanded to eat the whole of it; Scripture therefore says, and on the morrow. I might then think that it is a commandment to eat it in two days; Scripture therefore states, and that which remaineth — if it remains, it remains [i.e., it may still be eaten]. If [we are to go by the expression] and that which remaineth, I might think that if he left it all over for the second day it is invalid [since that does not come under the term “remaineth” which indicates only a part thereof]; Scripture therefore says [that which remaineth of it] shall be eaten, even all of it.” And even if you hold the vav in v’hanothar (and that which remaineth) to be redundant, [as Rashi explained], the verse can also be explained to mean: “and on the morrow that which remained of it [from the first day] may be eaten,” but not that he is to leave it over intentionally. But I do not know why Rashi held the vav of the verse, to give ‘v’kodesh’ (‘and’ the Sanctuary) and the host to be trampled upon to be redundant, since the meaning of the verse is that [the angel] is asking: “How long shall the transgression give appalment, and how long shall the Sanctuary and the host be trampled underfoot?”
Ibn Ezra
"And if a vow" — meaning he articulated it with his lips when in distress. "Or a freewill-offering" — his spirit moved him to bring an offering to Hashem, not as a vow and not as a thanksgiving. "On the day he brings it" — this is a verbal noun from the augmented heavy conjugation (hifil). "And the remainder of it" — the vav [of 'and the remainder'] is like an unaspirated fa in Arabic usage, and similarly in "and he left his servants" (Exodus 9:21), and likewise "and the earth was without form and void" (Genesis 1:2).
Chizkuni
ואם נדר, “but if the sacrifice is fulfillment of a vow by the donor, etc.;” the donor had made the vow while he had been in distress.(Ibn Ezra) ביום הקריבו את זבחו יאכל, “his meat offering must be eaten on the day that he offered it and the day following;” immediately after the priest had completed his ritual.
Tur HaArokh
ויאכל, וממחרת, והנותר ממנו יאכל, “it shall be consumed, and on the day following; any leftovers may be consumed;” Rashi writes that the letter ו in the word והנותר is superfluous. Nachmanides, on the other hand, writes that he understands as follows: Seeing that the Torah had written that the thanksgiving offering may (or must) be eaten on the same day or the day following, I might have thought that it is a mitzvah to spread the eating of this sacrifice over two days, i.e. the donor eats some of it on each of these days. This is why the Torah refers to the נותר, to any part that had not yet been eaten as a “leftover,” so that we understand that permission to eat the leftover on the second day has been given, but it is certainly not mandatory to keep some of that meat for the second day. At the end of the second day, if there is still some leftover it must be burned.
Rashbam
ואם נדר או נדבה, if the formula used in uttering the vow included the word שלמים, an expression which refers to making payment for favours received, as I explained on 2,1, etc. In other words the expression תודה did not feature in the wording of the vow. ביום הקריבו, on the day of his having sacrificed it, it may be eaten already, as soon as the necessary procedures have been completed.
But that which remains of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire.
verse value 2837
Insights
Verse structure: 7 words, 31 letters. The shortest word is "in·the·fire" (בָּאֵ֖שׁ, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·what·remains" (וְהַנּוֹתָ֖ר, 6 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "from·flesh·of" (מִבְּשַׂ֣ר), "the·sacrifice" (הַזָּ֑בַח). 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "in·the·day" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus); "from·flesh·of" (root בשר, 56x in Leviticus); "the·sacrifice" (root זבח, 32x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·sacrifice', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְהַנּוֹתָ֖ר [and·what·remains] (667) + מִבְּשַׂ֣ר [from·flesh·of] (542) + הַזָּ֑בַח [the·sacrifice] (22) + בַּיּוֹם֙ [in·the·day] (58) + הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֔י [the·third] (655) + בָּאֵ֖שׁ [in·the·fire] (303) + יִשָּׂרֵֽף [shall·be·burned] (590) = 2837.
Onkelos
And what remains of the flesh of the offering on the third day shall be burned in fire.
Ramban
AND THAT WHICH REMAINETH OF THE FLESH OF THE OFFERING ON THE THIRD DAY SHALL BE BURNT WITH FIRE. The verse does not mean to say that that which is left over on the third day must be burnt, but it may be eaten during the preceding night, for our Rabbis have already derived from the verse in the section of Kedoshim Tih’yu — and if aught remain until the third day, it shall be burnt with fire, that whatever remains after any part of the two days, must be burnt [and thus may not be eaten on the night preceding the third day]. But the expression, on the third day, is not connected with that which remaineth, but with shall be burnt with fire [the sense of the verse thus being as follows: “and that which remaineth of the flesh of the offering, shall be burnt with fire on the third day”]. The verse thus states that that which was left over of the flesh of the offering which was not eaten on the day when it was offered nor on the morrow, shall be burnt with fire on the third day in the morning. It is this which the Rabbis intended when saying [of the peace-offerings] that “they are eaten for two days and the one intervening night,” for on the second night [preceding the third day] they are neither eaten nor burnt, for Scripture required that the burning of invalidated hallowed offerings should be at daytime, just as the offering of the valid ones can only be at daytime.
Ibn Ezra
"Shall be burned in fire" — as the sacrificial portions (eimurim) were burned, except that it is not burned on top of the altar.
Chizkuni
ביום השלישי באש ישרף, “anything remaining of it on the morning of the third day must be burned.” Our sages derive from the apparently superfluous words: “it (the leftover) has to be burned on the third day,” that any leftovers of any sacrificial meat must be burned by day after it may no longer be eaten. (Sifra).
Tur HaArokh
והנותר מבשר הזבח ביום השלישי באש ישרף. “And what is left over of the meat of the sacrifice on the third day must be burned.” This does not mean that this meat is permitted to be eaten during the night between the second and the third day, seeing that the Torah had already said that it must be eaten during the day on which it was slaughtered or the day following. (verse 16) The meaning of the directive is simply that any sacrificial meat from that offering which has not been consumed during the permitted time must be burned on the third day. The reason the Torah had to be so specific is to teach us that the burning of sacred meats that have not been consumed must only take place by day, not by night. This is so, in spite of the fact, that those remains no longer are fit to be eaten.
And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed to him that offers it; it is pigul, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity.
verse value 5323 — ל֖וֹ = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 21 words, 85 letters. Notable word values: "for·him" (ל֖וֹ) = 36, double chai. The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֣א, 2 letters) and the longest is "from·flesh·of·sacrifice·of" (מִבְּשַׂר־זֶ֨בַח, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 31: not, not. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "she·shall·bear" (תִּשָּֽׂא). The root אכל appears 3 times in this verse. 16 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "in·the·day" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root חשב ("be·accounted") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'it·shall·be', dividing the verse into phrases of 16 and 5 words.
Onkelos
And if any of the flesh of his peace-offering is indeed eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted for the one who presents it; it shall not be counted to his credit — it is rejected, and the person who eats of it shall bear his guilt.
Rashi
אם האכל יאכל וגו' AND IF ANY [OF THE FLESH] SHOULD BE EATEN AT ALL [ON THE THIRD DAY) — Scripture is speaking of one who has the intention whilst slaughtering thė sacrifice to eat it (the flesh) on the third day. One might think that what the text really means is, that if one has eaten of it on the third day it becomes disqualified retrospectively (i. e., that it is regarded as having been invalid from the moment that it was offered)! Scripture, however, states, “As for him that offereth it, there shall be no מחשבה to him” implying that at the time when it is offered it can become disqualified, and that it cannot become disqualified on the third day (Sifra, Tzav, Section 8 1). And the following is its meaning (that of the text): At the time when it is offered, this shall not enter the mind of any priest performing a rite with it, to eat of it on the third day, and if he does harbour such a thought, it becomes פגול, an abominable thing, והנפש האכלת ממנו AND THE SOUL THAT EATETH OF IT even within this period (of three days), עונה תשא SHALL BEAR ITS INIQUITY.
Ibn Ezra
"It shall bear its iniquity" — that is, its punishment, which Scripture does not specify in this verse. Note: an impure person who eats holy flesh is liable to karet.
Rashbam
ואם האכול יאכל, our sages ignored the plain meaning of this verse, interpreting it as referring to the owner planning to eat of the sacrificial meat on the third day [not provided for in the Torah. Ed.] or planning not to perform any of the 4 basic procedures during the time frame designated by the Torah. (Zevachim 29)
And the flesh that touches any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. And as for the flesh, every one that is clean may eat of it.
verse value 3530
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 48 letters. The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֣א, 2 letters) and the longest is "that·touches" (אֲשֶׁר־יִגַּ֤ע, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 513: and·the·flesh, and·the·flesh. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "all·pure" (כׇּל־טָה֖וֹר). The root בשר appears 3 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "in·all·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "be·eaten" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'shall·be·burned', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְהַבָּשָׂ֞ר [and·the·flesh] (513) + אֲשֶׁר־יִגַּ֤ע [that·touches] (584) + בְּכׇל־טָמֵא֙ [in·all·impure] (102) + לֹ֣א [not] (31) + יֵֽאָכֵ֔ל [be·eaten] (61) + בָּאֵ֖שׁ [in·the·fire] (303) + יִשָּׂרֵ֑ף [shall·be·burned] (590) + וְהַ֨בָּשָׂ֔ר [and·the·flesh] (513) + כׇּל־טָה֖וֹר [all·pure] (270) + יֹאכַ֥ל [he·shall·eat] (61) + בָּשָֽׂר [flesh] (502) = 3530.
Onkelos
And holy flesh that touches anything impure shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire. And as for the holy flesh, anyone who is clean may eat the holy flesh.
Rashi
והבשר AND THE FLESH of the sacred animals constituting peace-offerings (not that of פגול mentioned in v. 18, for this may not be eaten even though it does not touch an unclean thing), אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל THAT TOUCHETH ANY UNCLEAN THING SHALL NOT BE EATEN. והבשר — The word והבשר the second time it occurs in this verse is redundant (it should have stated: כל טהור יאכל בשר) but it is intended to include in the law mentioned here, the limb of a sacrifice that went forth (was brought out) in part from the place where it had to be eaten (in the case of שלמים, from Jerusalem, in that of קדשי קדשים, from the forecourt) — that the part that remained inside is permitted to be eaten (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Section 9 6). כל טהור יאכל בשר ALL THAT ARE CLEAN MAY EAT FLESH — Why is this stated? Why should it not be assumed that a clean person may eat of the sacrifices? But, since it is stated, (Deuteronomy 12:27) “and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured upon the altar …, but the flesh thou mayest eat”, I might have thought, that as it speaks of thy sacrifices and states “thou mayest eat”, only the owner of the sacrifices may eat the peace-offerings! For this reason it is stated here: “all that are clean may eat flesh” (Sifra, Tzav, Section 9 7). [והבשר כל טהור יאכל בשר AND AS FOR THE FLESH ALL THAT ARE CLEAN MAY EAT FLESH — This is as much as to say: all that I have told thee (some editions read: שאסרתי לך, — “that I have forbidden thee”), is only in the case of the sin-offering and a guilt-offering: that if these went forth (were carried forth) without the hangings of the forecourt they are forbidden (נפסלים ביוצא), as it is said, (Leviticus 6:19) “in the enclosure of the tent of meeting”) shall they eat it”; but with regard to this flesh (that of שלמים) I tell thee, “all that are clean may eat flesh” even amidst all the people (some editions read: בכל העיר, “in the whole city”, which is what “amidst all the people” is intended to mean)].
Sforno
Even though these offerings are of a subordinate level of sanctity, if the meat comes into contact with ritual impurity it is to be burned, and anyone eating thereof is guilty of the same karet penalty as if he had eaten from sacrificial meat of a higher level of sanctity that had become ritually defiled.
Chizkuni
כל טהור יאכל בשר, “everyone that is ritually clean may eat of the meat.” The verse refers, of course, to meat of sacrificial offerings, as ordinary meat may be eaten also by ritually unclean people.
But the soul that eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain to Hashem, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people.
verse value 4810
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 62 letters. Verse gematria: 4810 is divisible by 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "flesh" (בָּשָׂ֗ר, 3 letters) and the longest is "who·eats" (אֲשֶׁר־תֹּאכַ֣ל, 7 letters). The root נפש appears 2 times in this verse. 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "who" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "upon·him" (root על, 127x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root כרת ("and·shall·be·cut·off") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'upon·him', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְהַנֶּ֜פֶשׁ [and·the·person] (441) + אֲשֶׁר־תֹּאכַ֣ל [who·eats] (952) + בָּשָׂ֗ר [flesh] (502) + מִזֶּ֤בַח [from·sacrifice·of] (57) + הַשְּׁלָמִים֙ [the·well-being] (425) + אֲשֶׁ֣ר [who] (501) + לַיהֹוָ֔ה [to·Hashem] (56) + וְטֻמְאָת֖וֹ [and·his·impurity] (462) + עָלָ֑יו [upon·him] (116) + וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה [and·shall·be·cut·off] (681) + הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ [the·person] (435) + הַהִ֖וא [that] (17) + מֵעַמֶּֽיהָ [from·her·kin] (165) = 4810.
Onkelos
But a person who eats flesh from the peace-offering that is before Hashem while his impurity is upon him — that person shall be cut off from his people.
Rashi
וטמאתו עליו [BUT THE SOUL THAT EATETH OF THE FLESH OF THE SACRIFICES …] HAVING ITS (or HIS) UNCLEANNESS UPON IT (or HIM) — Scripture is speaking here of the uncleanness of the person (i.e., the words mean: And the soul (person) that eateth of the flesh of the שלמים whilst his uncleanness is upon him; it does not mean: the person who eateth the flesh whilst its uncleanness is upon it) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 14 3; Zevachim 43b; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 22:3). But a clean person who eats unclean sacrificial flesh is not punished with excision, as is the case here, but only for transgressing the prohibition in v. 19:“And the flesh, that toucheth any unclean thing [shall not be eaten]”, for which the punishment is lashes. The prohibition referring to the case of “an unclean person who eats holy things” for which our text states the punishment is not expressly mentioned in the Torah but the Sages derived it by means of a verbal analogy (ג"ש) (Makkot 14b). — Three times is the punishment of excision stated in the Torah with reference to people eating holy sacrifices in a state of bodily uncleanness, (here, in v. 21 and in Leviticus 22:3), and our Rabbis explained them in Treatise Shevuot 7a as follows: one is intended as a general statement, the other as referring to a particular case and the third is intended to teach about the קרבן עולה ויורד (the sacrifice of higher or lesser value according to monetary circumstances of him who offers it; Leviticus 5:2, 3), that it is prescribed only as an atonement for communicating uncleanness to the Temple or sacred food by entering the former or eating the latter in a state of uncleanness (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 22:3 and Note thereon).
Ibn Ezra
"And the meaning of 'his impurity'" — whether he is impure through himself, as a zav or a metzora, or also on account of a nocturnal occurrence, as it is written, for it says [it is] an occurrence (mikreh) — or whether he became impure through another, such as the impurity of a dead person, or from a living person who is a zav or metzora, or from an impure animal that is not eaten, or an impure flying creature, or a creeping thing. Once a certain Sadducee came to me and asked me whether the fat tail (alyah) is forbidden by the Torah. I answered and said: it is true that the fat tail is called chelev, for it is written "its chelev — the entire fat tail" (Leviticus 3:9); but our ancestors permitted it, and they forbade all other chelev. He then replied: but is not all chelev forbidden by the Torah, for it is written: "all chelev and all blood you shall not eat" (Leviticus 3:17), and before this it is written: "an everlasting statute throughout your generations"? I answered him that this verse is connected to the sacrifice of the peace-offerings, and the phrase "an everlasting statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling-places" is not a conclusive proof — for it is also written: "and bread and parched grain and fresh grain you shall not eat until this very day, until you bring the offering of your God" (Leviticus 23:14), and there too it says "an everlasting statute"; yet by that reasoning we would never eat bread in exile, since we have not brought the omer-offering. He then replied: "All the chelev of ox and sheep and goat you shall not eat" (Leviticus 7:23). I replied to him as well that this verse too is connected to the sacrifice of peace-offerings, as the proof is: "for whoever eats chelev from the animal from which one brings [an offering] to Him" (Leviticus 7:25) — to exclude the fat of any flesh that is not brought as a peace-offering, that is, non-consecrated meat. Therefore the Torah stated in this passage: "and the chelev of a carcass and the chelev of a torn animal may be put to any use, but you shall not eat it" — and it is well known that the meat of a carcass and a torn animal is forbidden, so the prohibition is on the meat; but since the chelev is not offered on the altar, one might think it is permitted, and therefore it warned: "but you shall not eat it." For this reason it did not mention the blood [of the carcass or torn animal] there. And this passage comes to explain the punishment of one who eats the chelev of consecrated flesh. Likewise, "all blood" — he added the bird; hence the chelev of a bird is permitted. The decisive proof is that in Deuteronomy (12:15), regarding meat of desire, which is non-consecrated, Scripture says it may be eaten entirely, and excluded only its blood alone, in three places — with no mention whatsoever of chelev. At that point the Sadducee opened his eyes and parted his lips with an oath that he would no longer rely on his own opinion in interpreting the commandments, but would depend instead on the received transmission of interpretations.
Or HaChaim
ונפש אשר תאכל בשר וטומאתו עליו, And a person who eats of sacrificial meat….while he is ritually unclean, etc. Both this and the following verse are interpreted by Torat Kohanim as speaking of personal ritual impurity [as opposed to the meat having become impure, as suggested by the masculine pronoun עליו which does not fit the subject נפש which is feminine. Ed.]. Zevachim 43 states that any verse which has not been interpreted by Rabbi Yitzchak son of Avdimi in this fashion cannot be interpreted in this way. Rabbi Yitzchak son of Avdimi had stated that only if a verse commences with a subject which is feminine and concludes with a subject which is feminine and in between we encounter a masculine pronoun may we interpret that the masculine pronoun refers to the original subject and not to the object which is masculine. Rashi explains that seeing that the verse following displays the same pattern and it is clear in that verse that the person who is the subject of the word ואכל, "and he eats," is a human being, verse 20 must be understood in the same sense. Rashi's words help us understand why the word וטומאתו "while he is impure," do not have to refer to the word בשר, which is the only masculine noun in that verse seeing that we thought that the laws about the meat being impure had already been concluded as Rashi explained in his commentary in Zevachim 43 where the verse is examined. Torat Kohanim also cites a gezeyrah shavah comparing the word טומאתו, mentioned here with the word טומאתו mentioned in Numbers 19,13. However, I have decided to concentrate on the reason the Torah saw fit to contravene the rules of grammar in our two verses. If the Torah had simply written the word וטומאתה in verse 20 instead of writing וטומאתו, we would not have had to resort to the exegetical use of the gezeyrah shavah in Numbers 19,13 at all. Also, why did the Torah not write verse 21 in a more straighforward manner? I believe that when the Torah wrote וטומאתו עליו in verse 20, it wanted to teach us something different altogether. The words refer to someone who had already undergone the purification process of seven days for someone who has become impure through contact with the dead, but had not yet experienced sunset on his seventh day; alternatively, it may refer to a person impure through contact with some kind of four-legged creeping animal who has not yet undergone ritual immersion. It is important to appreciate that such residual impurity as we have just mentioned is not so serious that it affects the soul of the person concerned. It is more like a veil of impurity which envelops only the outside of the body of a person. This is the reason why ritual immersion is sufficient to remove the last vestiges of such impurity although for the previous seven days such a ritual immersion would have been quite ineffective seeing the impurity had penetrated also the inside of the body. When the Torah wrote והנפש אשר תאכל…וטומאתו עליו, it informed us that not only is s...
Chizkuni
וטומאתו עליו, “while he is still ritually unclean;” Rashi explains here that we did not find a specific warning that ritually unclean people must not eat sacrificial meat, (although the penalty has been spelled out, something most unusual) but that it can be derived from a גזרה שוה, when two laws contain similar expressions to clarify each other. In this instance we find three times that the Torah decrees the karet penalty for people eating sacrificial things while in a state of physical ritual impurity. (Compare Talmud tractate Shavuot, folio 7 where the three verses are spelled out) [Our author devotes a whole page to this complicated manner of deriving such laws by linking it to the written Torah. Since, unfortunately, the subject is not applicable until we will have a Temple again I have decided to delete these details. Ed.]
And when any one shall touch any unclean thing, whether it be the uncleanness of man, or an unclean beast, or any unclean detestable thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which pertain to Hashem, that soul shall be cut off from his people.
verse value 5149
Insights
Verse structure: 20 words, 89 letters. The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "from·flesh·of·sacrifice·of" (מִבְּשַׂר־זֶ֥בַח, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 7: or, or. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "when·she·shall·touch" (כִּֽי־תִגַּ֣ע), "in·all·something·detestable" (בְּכׇל־שֶׁ֣קֶץ). The root טמא appears 3 times in this verse. 16 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "in·all·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root שקץ ("in·all·something·detestable") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·Hashem', dividing the verse into phrases of 16 and 4 words.
Onkelos
And a person who touches any impurity — whether the impurity of a human being, or an impure animal, or any impure detestable thing — and eats of the flesh of the peace-offering that is before Hashem, that person shall be cut off from his people.
Ramban
OR AN UNCLEAN BEAST. Scripture speaks here briefly, mentioning only some of the unclean objects. But the same law applies to all [sources of uncleanness], for even if he touched the carcass of a clean animal and then ate holy food, he is liable to this [punishment of] excision. The nature of this excision I will explain in the section of forbidden marriages, with the help of G-d.
Verse structure: 4 words, 18 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה, 4 letters) and the longest is "and·spoke" (וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר, 5 letters). 4 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "saying" (root אמר, 79x in Leviticus); "and·spoke" (root דבר, 76x in Leviticus). Full calculation: וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר [and·spoke] (222) + יְהֹוָ֖ה [Hashem] (26) + אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה [to·Moses] (376) + לֵּאמֹֽר [saying] (271) = 895.
Speak to the children of Israel, saying: You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat.
verse value 2606
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 39 letters. The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֥א, 2 letters) and the longest is "to·sons·of" (אֶל־בְּנֵ֥י, 5 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "or·sheep" (וְכֶ֛שֶׂב), "or·goat" (וָעֵ֖ז). 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "to·sons·of" (root בן, 143x in Leviticus); "you·shall·eat" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'saying', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 6 words. Full calculation: דַּבֵּ֛ר [speak] (206) + אֶל־בְּנֵ֥י [to·sons·of] (93) + יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל [Israel] (541) + לֵאמֹ֑ר [saying] (271) + כׇּל־חֵ֜לֶב [all·fat·of] (90) + שׁ֥וֹר [ox] (506) + וְכֶ֛שֶׂב [or·sheep] (328) + וָעֵ֖ז [or·goat] (83) + לֹ֥א [not] (31) + תֹאכֵֽלוּ [you·shall·eat] (457) = 2606.
Onkelos
Speak to the children of Israel, saying: You shall eat no fat of ox, sheep, or goat.
Chizkuni
כל חלב שור, “any of the fat parts above the kidneys and liver of the four legged animals fit for sacrifices on the altar, are forbidden to be eaten.” Contrary to verse 20, where we encountered the penalty for eating while in a state of ritual impurity, though we had not heard about the warning not to do so, here we hear the warning, but must search for where the penalty has been spelled out. We find it in verse 25. The reason why the law has been repeated is to teach us that the law forbidding to eat these fat parts from animals which the Torah has forbidden us to eat, anyway does not apply. [In practice this means that when someone eats an animal that is forbidden to be eaten, he is not penalised additionally for eating those parts of the animal. Ed.] (Sifra)
And the fat of that which dies of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of beasts, may be used for any other service; but you shall in no wise eat of it.
verse value 1584
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 40 letters. Verse gematria: 1584 is divisible by 18, the value of chai ('life'). The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֥א, 2 letters) and the longest is "to·all·work" (לְכׇל־מְלָאכָ֑ה, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 46: and·fat·of, and·fat·of. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "torn·animal" (טְרֵפָ֔ה), "to·all·work" (לְכׇל־מְלָאכָ֑ה), "eat·it" (תֹאכְלֻֽהוּ). The root חלב appears 2 times in this verse. 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "and·to·eat" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus); "shall·be·made" (root עשה, 94x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root טרפה ("torn·animal") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·all·work', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְחֵ֤לֶב [and·fat·of] (46) + נְבֵלָה֙ [carcass] (87) + וְחֵ֣לֶב [and·fat·of] (46) + טְרֵפָ֔ה [torn·animal] (294) + יֵעָשֶׂ֖ה [shall·be·made] (385) + לְכׇל־מְלָאכָ֑ה [to·all·work] (176) + וְאָכֹ֖ל [and·to·eat] (57) + לֹ֥א [not] (31) + תֹאכְלֻֽהוּ [eat·it] (462) = 1584.
Onkelos
The fat of an animal that died of itself and the fat of an animal torn by beasts may be put to any other use, but you shall not eat it.
Rashi
יעשה לכל מלאכה [AND THE FAT OF CARRION AND THE FAT OF THAT WHICH IS TORN] MAY BE USED IN ANY WORK — Scripture comes and teaches you with regard to חלב (the forbidden fat) of carrion that it does not acquire the “uncleanness of carrion” (טומאת נבלות), i.e. that whilst the flesh is unclean (cf. Leviticus 11:39) the fat (חלב) does not acquire this uncleanness (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Section 10 5; Pesachim 23a, b). תאכלוה לא ואכל[AND THE FAT OF CARRION … MAY BE USED IN ANY WORK] BUT YE SHALL IN NO WISE EAT OF IT — By these words it is not intended to forbid the eating of the חלב of a נבלה and טרפה because it is חלב for this has already been forbidden in Leviticus 3:17, but the Torah in effect says here: The prohibition of eating נבלה or טרפה shall come and fall upon (shall form an additional prohibition to) that of חלב — that if one eats it (the חלב of נבלה or of טרפה) he becomes liable to the punishment for transgressing the prohibition of נבלה also, (or of טרפה also), and you should not say: No prohibition can be super-imposed upon another prohibition already existing (Zevachim 70a).
Targum Yonatan
but the fat of an animal which corrupteth in the hour of sacrifice, or which dieth a dead thing by death, or the fat of a beast that is torn, may be used in any work; but the fat of an animal that is in a right (condition) shall be burned upon the altar, and shall in no wise be eaten.
For whosoever eats the fat of the beast, of which men present an offering made by fire to Hashem, even the soul that eats it shall be cut off from his people.
verse value 3375
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 57 letters. The shortest word is "if" (כִּ֚י, 2 letters) and the longest is "from·the·cattle" (מִ֨ן־הַבְּהֵמָ֔ה, 7 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "anyone·who·eats" (כׇּל־אֹכֵ֣ל). The root אכל appears 2 times in this verse. 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "he·shall·bring" (root קרב, 112x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·Hashem', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 4 words. Full calculation: כִּ֚י [if] (30) + כׇּל־אֹכֵ֣ל [anyone·who·eats] (101) + חֵ֔לֶב [fat] (40) + מִ֨ן־הַבְּהֵמָ֔ה [from·the·cattle] (147) + אֲשֶׁ֨ר [which] (501) + יַקְרִ֥יב [he·shall·bring] (322) + מִמֶּ֛נָּה [from·it] (135) + אִשֶּׁ֖ה [fire·offering] (306) + לַיהֹוָ֑ה [to·Hashem] (56) + וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה [and·shall·be·cut·off] (681) + הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ [the·person] (435) + הָאֹכֶ֖לֶת [who·eats] (456) + מֵֽעַמֶּֽיהָ [from·her·kin] (165) = 3375.
Onkelos
For whoever eats the fat of an animal from which an offering is brought before Hashem — the person who eats shall be cut off from his people.
Ramban
FOR WHOSOEVER EATETH THE FAT OF THE BEAST, OF WHICH MAN PRESENTS AN OFFERING … SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE. It is impossible that the explanation of the phrase: of the beast [of which man presents an offering], is that this beast is itself an offering, so that an unconsecrated animal be excluded from this prohibition, since in the section of Vayikra, Scripture has already prohibited all fat in an unqualified manner, without any condition or exception. Here too it prohibited at first all fat of ox, or sheep, or goat, and it further decreed against eating the fat of that which dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of beasts, and these cannot be brought as offerings to G-d. Besides, He said there [in the section of Vayikra], It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, and the expression in all your dwellings is never found in any matter connected with offerings. In speaking of the gifts of the priests He says many times, a statute forever, but does not mention “in all your dwellings,” because the offerings are not “a statute forever in all your dwellings,” as they only apply in the Tabernacle and in the place which the Eternal shall choose. Let not the eyes of him who is mistaken be blinded by the verse, And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this selfsame day, until ye have brought the offering of your G-d; it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. For it is eating of the new crop that is forbidden by law of the Torah in all places, and Scripture is saying that we are not to eat bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears forever in all our dwelling places, until that same day on which we bring the offering of the new barley in the Sanctuary. If the offering is not brought [as when the Sanctuary is destroyed], it does not become forbidden henceforth to eat of the new crop [i.e., after the end of the sixteenth day of Nisan], for He did not say, “ye shall not eat until ye have brought the offering of your G-d,” but instead the prohibition extends until this selfsame day only. Rather, the meaning of until this selfsame day is the one on which you bring the offering when you are in a position to do so, the reason being that the offering should be a new meal-offering [but when you are not able to bring the offering, as when the Sanctuary is destroyed, the prohibition is only until this selfsame day]. It is possible that the word hayom (the day) is connected also with [the latter part of the verse:] “until this selfsame day, until the day ye have brought the offering of your G-d,” [thus clearly indicating that the prohibition depends on the day the offering is brought, and not on the actual bringing thereof].The complete proof that the explanation of the phrase [in the verse before us] the beast of which man presents an offering, is “of the kind of beast from which man presents an offering,” [and not “of the beast which is itself an a...
Or HaChaim
מן הבהמה, from the beast, etc. This apparently superfluous word is interpreted by Torat Kohanim as including the fat of animals each one of which would have been suitable as a sacrifice, and which have been crossbred, such as the product of a billy-goat mating with a ewe or vice versa; the fat of animals which are the product of such crossbreeding is unfit to eat on pain of the Karet penalty. The apparently extraneous word כל in the sequence כל חלב refers to an animal called כוי which is the product of a male goat mating with a gazelle. In my book פרי תואר in which I have commented on the טור יורה דעה טז you will find more about this subject. כל אוכל חלב, anyone eating such fat, etc. The word כל is interpreted by Torat Kohanim as including the fat of animals which are not intended to become sacrificial offerings. We should not err and conclude from the words אשר יקריב ממנו אשה לה׳ that only חלב of such sacrificial animals is prohibited; therefore the Torah adds the word כל אוכל חלב. Seeing this inclusive word is not required to warn those who would eat it, it may be applied to the parts of the animal subject to being eaten. It seems rather difficult to understand why I would have made such an error and would have thought that without the word כל the Torah's injunction would have applied only to בשר קדשים, sacrificial animals. After all, the Torah mentioned specifically that the fat of a נבלה an animal which died by causes other than ritual slaughter may be used for the performance of all kinds of work but may not be eaten (24)? Besides, since when are the remnants of sacrificial animals permitted for use by non-priests? Does the Talmud not state specifically in Pessachim 82 that if an animal intended as a sacrifice was found to be treyfah after it has been slaughtered, such an animal has to be removed to a place called בית השרפה, to be burned there? We derive this from Leviticus 6,23 בקדש באש תשרף. This teaches that all sacrificial animals which have become unfit for the altar have to be destroyed. In view of this the words וחלב נבלה וחלב טרפה in verse 24 must refer to animals not intended as sacrificial offerings. Why then did the Torah have to write the words כל אוכל חלב to prevent me from making an error as to the prohibition of חלב applying to ordinary animals? We believe the main point Torat Kohanim wanted to make with its למוד from the words כל אוכל חלב is that the penalty of Karet applies both to someone who partakes of fat from sacrificial animals and to someone who partakes from the fat of ordinary animals. If not for the words כל חלב, I would have assumed that the prohibition is an ordinary negative commandment punishable by 39 מלקות lashes. כל חלב שור וכשב ועז לא תאכלו "You shall not eat any fat of ox, sheep or goat. Torat Kohanim on this verse comments that the list of these animals is intended to exclude the prohibition of חלב from animals not suitable for consumption by Jews, בהמות טמאות, as well as free-roaming animals and fowl...
Chizkuni
מן הבהמה אשר יקריב ממנה, “who eats (fat) from the beast which people use to present as offerings;” from that species of beast, although it had never been sanctified as a potential sacrifice. This teaches that fat parts not used exclusively for the altar may be eaten.
Tur HaArokh
כי כל אוכל חלב מן הבהמה אשר יקריב ממנה קרבן לה', “for any one who eats of the fat parts of the animal which he offers to Hashem as a sacrifice, etc.” The verse does not refer to the actual animal that has been offered as a sacrifice, so that it would exclude animals that have not been sanctified as offerings from this prohibition, but to the categories of animals which may potentially be offered as sacrifices on the altar. The fact that the fat of an animal that has already been offered as a sacrifice is forbidden on pain of the karet penalty when it is done deliberately, certainly does not need to be mentioned here. Even in Parshat Vayikra (3,17) the verse כל חלב... לא תאכלו would not have been necessary seeing that the Torah had already commanded that it be burned up on the altar. The principal reason for our verse here is to indicate that the fat parts of free roaming animals such as gazelles, deer, etc., which basically are allowed to be eaten, although capturing them unblemished may be difficult, are excluded from the prohibition. We might have thought that the categories of animals referred to as חיה that is a sub category of the ruminants described by the Torah as בהמה are included in this prohibition. By ”repeating” something we knew already, the Torah by emphasizing the words בהמה and יקריב, makes clear that free-roaming ruminants that do not qualify for יקריב are also not subject to the restriction of חלב. In order for us not to think that the חלב of an animal that died of causes other than ritual slaughter, i.e. a נבלה or an animal that died from some disease or injury, i.e. טרפה, is excluded from the legislation mentioned here, the Torah writes that although these carcasses may be used, they must not be eaten. (verse 24) The complete meaning of our verse is: the חלב of any category of animal from which a sacrifice on the altar may be presented to Hashem, including those which have become disqualified before reaching the altar, must not be eaten on pain of the severe penalty known as karet.
Rashbam
מן הבהמה אשר יקריב, from the category of animal one may bring a sacrifice, even if in this instance the animal remained secular, had not been designated as a sacrifice.
And you shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of birds or of beast, in any of your dwellings.
verse value 1732
Insights
Verse structure: 7 words, 33 letters. The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֣א, 2 letters) and the longest is "your·settlements" (מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶ֑ם, 8 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "of·the·bird" (לָע֖וֹף), "or·of·the·animal" (וְלַבְּהֵמָֽה). The root כל appears 2 times in this verse. 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "you·shall·eat" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus); "and·all·blood" (root כל, 88x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'your·settlements', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 2 words. Full calculation: וְכׇל־דָּם֙ [and·all·blood] (100) + לֹ֣א [not] (31) + תֹאכְל֔וּ [you·shall·eat] (457) + בְּכֹ֖ל [in·all] (52) + מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶ֑ם [your·settlements] (818) + לָע֖וֹף [of·the·bird] (186) + וְלַבְּהֵמָֽה [or·of·the·animal] (88) = 1732.
Onkelos
And you shall eat no blood whatsoever in any of your dwelling places, whether of birds or of animal.
Rashi
בכל מושבתיכם [YE SHALL EAT NO BLOOD …] IN ALL YOUR HABITATIONS — Since this is a personal duty (חובת הגוף) and not a duty depending upon Palestinian soil it applies wherever Israelites are settled). In Treatise Kiddushin, first chapter, (Kiddushin 37b) it is explained why it is necessary to use this term (i. e. to add בכל משבתיכם). לעוף ולבהמה Excluded [from this prohibition is] the blood of fish and locusts.
Chizkuni
וכל דם לא תאכלו, “but you must not eat any kind of blood. We have heard the warning here, now we have to search for the penalty if this law is contravened. It is found in verse 27 in this chapter: כל נפש אשר תאכל כל דם ונכרתה הנפש ההיא, “the soul of any person eating any blood will be cut off (from his people).” בכל מושבותיכם, “in all your dwellings;” even though any animal outside of the Holy Land is by definition only secular.
Rabbeinu Bahya
וכל דם לא תאכלו בכל מושבותיכם לעוף ולבהמה, “You shall not eat any blood in any of your settlements, be it the blood of birds or of a four-legged animal.” The precise wording of the restriction makes it clear that the “blood” of fish or grasshoppers may be eaten. Similarly, blood found in eggs is not subject to a Biblical prohibition (Keritut 20). Blood found in eggs is forbidden due to a Rabbinic decree and even then only if it is found in the yellow part of the egg, the yolk. If blood is found in the albumen, the white part of the egg, one has to throw out that part of the egg but may eat the yolk. This is the opinion of Rav Alfassi (Chulin 22 and Maimonides Maachalot Assurot 3,9). However the Tossaphists on Chulin 64 claim that when such blood is found at the junction of the yolk and the albumen it is subject to a Biblical prohibition as this is the area where the chick begins to form. The reason that all scholars agree that blood found in the yolk is prohibited is the uncertainty about whether the chick begins to develop there, in which case the blood is considered already as part of the “flesh.” Seeing that the entity is not yet a bird, anyone eating of that egg would transgress the prohibition of eating שרץ השורץ על הארץ, (Leviticus 11,41-42).
Rashbam
בכל מושבותיכם, even though, seeing the Torah speaks of areas other than Jerusalem, these animals are most certainly secular;
Whosoever it be that eats any blood, that soul shall be cut off from his people.
verse value 2824
Insights
Verse structure: 7 words, 35 letters. The shortest word is "all·blood" (כׇּל־דָּ֑ם, 4 letters) and the longest is "who·eats" (אֲשֶׁר־תֹּאכַ֣ל, 7 letters). The root נפש appears 2 times in this verse. 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "who·eats" (root אכל, 106x in Leviticus); "all·blood" (root כל, 88x in Leviticus); "from·her·kin" (root עם, 65x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'all·blood', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 4 words. Full calculation: כׇּל־נֶ֖פֶשׁ [any·person] (480) + אֲשֶׁר־תֹּאכַ֣ל [who·eats] (952) + כׇּל־דָּ֑ם [all·blood] (94) + וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה [and·shall·be·cut·off] (681) + הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ [the·person] (435) + הַהִ֖וא [that] (17) + מֵֽעַמֶּֽיהָ [from·her·kin] (165) = 2824.
Onkelos
Any person who eats any blood — that person shall be cut off from his people.
Verse structure: 4 words, 18 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה, 4 letters) and the longest is "and·spoke" (וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר, 5 letters). 4 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "saying" (root אמר, 79x in Leviticus); "and·spoke" (root דבר, 76x in Leviticus). Full calculation: וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר [and·spoke] (222) + יְהֹוָ֖ה [Hashem] (26) + אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה [to·Moses] (376) + לֵּאמֹֽר [saying] (271) = 895.
Speak to the children of Israel, saying: He that offers his sacrifice of peace-offerings to Hashem shall bring his offering to Hashem out of his sacrifice of peace-offerings.
verse value 3609
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 63 letters. The shortest word is "speak" (דַּבֵּ֛ר, 3 letters) and the longest is "his·offering" (אֶת־קׇרְבָּנ֛וֹ, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 386: his·well-being·sacrifice, his·well-being·sacrifice. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "sacrifice·of" (אֶת־זֶ֤בַח). The root שלם appears 2 times in this verse. 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "to·sons·of" (root בן, 143x in Leviticus); "who·brings" (root קרב, 112x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'saying', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 9 words. Full calculation: דַּבֵּ֛ר [speak] (206) + אֶל־בְּנֵ֥י [to·sons·of] (93) + יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל [Israel] (541) + לֵאמֹ֑ר [saying] (271) + הַמַּקְרִ֞יב [who·brings] (357) + אֶת־זֶ֤בַח [sacrifice·of] (418) + שְׁלָמָיו֙ [his·well-being·sacrifice] (386) + לַיהֹוָ֔ה [to·Hashem] (56) + יָבִ֧יא [he·shall·bring] (23) + אֶת־קׇרְבָּנ֛וֹ [his·offering] (759) + לַיהֹוָ֖ה [to·Hashem] (56) + מִזֶּ֥בַח [from·sacrifice·of] (57) + שְׁלָמָֽיו [his·well-being·sacrifice] (386) = 3609.
Onkelos
Speak to the children of Israel, saying: Whoever presents his peace-offering before Hashem shall bring his offering before Hashem from his peace-offering.
Chizkuni
המקריב את זבח שלמיו, “he who offers his sacrifice of peaceofferings.” These types of offerings require to be accompanied by libations, need that the weight of the donor be placed on their head with his hands, and they need תנופה, physically being lifted up, the right thigh and breast being given to the officiating priest.
His own hands shall bring the offerings of Hashem made by fire: the fat with the breast shall he bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave-offering before Hashem.
verse value 3641 — יְהֹוָ֑ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 65 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֑ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "it" (אֹת֛וֹ, 3 letters) and the longest is "they·shall·bring" (תְּבִיאֶ֔ינָה, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 26: Hashem, Hashem. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "his·hands" (יָדָ֣יו), "they·shall·bring" (תְּבִיאֶ֔ינָה), "upon·the·breast" (עַל־הֶֽחָזֶה֙). The root בוא appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "to·face·of" (root פנים, 102x in Leviticus); "they·shall·bring" (root בוא, 81x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root חזה ("upon·the·breast") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root נוף ("to·wave") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Hashem', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 9 words. Full calculation: יָדָ֣יו [his·hands] (30) + תְּבִיאֶ֔ינָה [they·shall·bring] (478) + אֵ֖ת אִשֵּׁ֣י [fire·offerings·of] (712) + יְהֹוָ֑ה [Hashem] (26) + אֶת־הַחֵ֤לֶב [the·fat] (446) + עַל־הֶֽחָזֶה֙ [upon·the·breast] (125) + יְבִיאֶ֔נּוּ [he·shall·bring·it] (79) + אֵ֣ת הֶחָזֶ֗ה [the·breast] (426) + לְהָנִ֥יף [to·wave] (175) + אֹת֛וֹ [it] (407) + תְּנוּפָ֖ה [a·wave·offering] (541) + לִפְנֵ֥י [to·face·of] (170) + יְהֹוָֽה [Hashem] (26) = 3641.
Onkelos
His own hands shall bring the offerings of Hashem: the fat together with the breast he shall bring — the breast to wave it as a wave-offering before Hashem.
Rashi
'ידיו תביאינה וגו HIS OWN HANDS NAMELY SHALL BRING [THE FIRE OFFERINGS OF THE LORD] — This means that the owner’s hand shall be above and the fat and the breasts shall be lying in it, and the priest’s hand shall be beneath (i. e. beneath the hand of the owner) — and thus does he wave them (Menachot 61b). 'את אשי ה THE FIRE OFFERINGS OF THE LORD — and what are these fire-offerings that he shall bring? החזה יביאנו את החלב עלTHE FAT UPON THE BREAST SHALL HE BRING — When he (the first priest; see below) brings it from the slaughtering-place he places the fat upon the breast, and when he afterwards transfers it into the hand of the priest who is to do the waving it follows that the breast is on top and the fat beneath; — that is what Scripture states in another passage, (Leviticus 10:15) “The heave shoulder and the wave breasts shall they bring upon (על) the fire-offerings of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering etc.” (i. e. during the waving the חזה ושוק shall be on top). After the waving he (that priest) transfers it to the priest who is to burn it on the altar, when consequently the breast is again beneath; — that is what Scripture states, (Leviticus 9:20) “And they put the fat upon the breasts, and he burnt the fat at the altar”. Thus we learn that three priests are required for it (for the rite of waving). Thus is it explained in Treatise Menachot 62a. את החלב על החזה יביאנה THE BREAST WITH THE FAT, IT SHALL HE BRING — And to what end does he bring the breast? This is stated in the words that follow: “[As for the breast], להניף אותו for the purpose of waving it” shall he bring it, and not that it, too, should become part of the fire offerings. But because it states את אשי ה' את החלב על החזה "the fire-offerings of the Lord — the fat with the breast”, I might think that the breast also belongs to the fire-offerings, Scripture therefore continues: 'את החזה להניף וגו, “he brings the breast to wave it, etc.”
Ramban
THE FAT UPON THE BREAST. It appears from this verse according to its plain meaning that the breast was waved with the fat, but not the thigh. Thus the verse which states, And the breasts and the right thigh Aaron waved for a wave-offering, means that afterwards [after he had waved the fats with the breasts], he waved them [i.e., the breasts and the thigh] by themselves. But our Rabbis have said that the priest placed the fats upon the hand of the owner of the offering, with the breast and thigh above them, [and waved them]. According to their opinion, the reason why waving is mentioned only in connection with the breast, is in order to serve the basis for the interpretation which they have said: “If [the parts which are to be waved] became unclean, but one of them was left [which remained clean], whence do we know that it needs waving? Scripture therefore says, that the breast may be waved.”
Sforno
'ידיו תביאנה את אישי ה, seeing that the remainder of the animal belongs to the owners who had brought the offering, the owner together with the priest officiating on his behalf, presents this “waving” to G’d, this symbolic action indicating that basically the entire offering is G’d’s even if only the fat on the chest is offered on the altar, the chest itself belonging to the priest. The main reason for the “waving” is on account of that chest, to signal that actually it too belongs to G’d. There was no need to wave the fat, seeing we all know that the fat of every sacrificial animal always belongs to G’d via the altar on which it is burned up.
Chizkuni
ידיו תביאנה, “he shall bring it with his own hands;” Rashi adds that this means that he (the priest) is to carry it by supporting the hand of the donor while transporting it from the hall in which it is slaughtered. This is why Rashi adds that three priests are needed to do all this. את החלב על החזה, “the fat with the breast.”
Rabbeinu Bahya
את החזה להניף אותו תנופה לפני ה, “the breast in order to wave it as a wave-service before the Lord.” According to the plain meaning of the text the Priest would wave only the breast and not the thigh, seeing that in connection with he thigh the Torah writes:” the right thigh you shall give as a heave-offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 10,15), and no mention is made there about it being waved. However we find the expression: “the thigh of the heave-offering and the breast of the waving of the fire-offerings’ fat parts as a wave-service before the Lord.” This line creates the impression as if both the thigh and the breast were to be waved, and that after the waving the Priest would burn up the fat parts just like in the case of 7,31 where the Torah writes: “the Priest shall turn the fat into smoke on the Altar and the breast and the thigh shall be given to Aaron and his sons.” The Torah writes there (verse 32) “and the right thigh from your peace-offerings you shall present to the Priest.” According to Maimonides Maasseh Hakorbanot 9,6-7 the procedure of “waving” was as follows: The Priest would first place the fat parts on the hands of the owners of the sacrifice and the breast and thigh above them. He would then “wave” them together in front of the Altar. This “waving” of the thigh and breast was a motion similar to the motion performed when we shake the Lulav on Sukkot, i.e. in all six possible directions, forward and backward or upward and downward as the case may be. By doing this the owner acknowledges symbolically that the entire globe belongs to Hashem. I believe that the reason that just the thigh and the breast were the parts of the animal selected for this procedure is because both in man and in animal these two parts of the body symbolise our movements, i.e. the impetus to move originates in the breast, i.e. in the heart, whereas the execution of the will to move is carried out by the leg, the thigh. The Talmud Sukkah 37 describes the reason for shaking the Lulav as symbolising our recognition that G’d owns all parts of the universe. Another allusion present in the upward and downward motion of these parts of the animal which after all represents its owner, is the concept of exile and redemption. The term מוליך used in the Talmud for the forward motion is reminiscent of the verse in Lamentations 1,6 וילכו בלא כח לפני רודף, “they could only walk feebly before the pursuer.” The backward motion symbolises redemption as the motion called מביא in the Talmud is reminiscent of the verse in Jeremiah 31,8: “here I will bring them in from the northland.” The reason upward and downward motions are performed also is to symbolise the One who raises His holy Presence Shechinah away from the Jewish people, reminding us of the verse in Ezekiel 11,23: “The Presence of the Lord ascended from the midst of the city.” The downward motion symbolises that this Shechinah will return to the Jewish people, i.e. descend to rest over us as promised in Isaiah 31,4 ”so the Lord will descend to make war against the mount and the hill of Zion (ushering in the final redemption). Finally, there is also an allusion to the resurrection of the dead in this procedure of the “waving.” The expression מוליך is reminiscent of Kohelet 12,7 where Solomon speaks of the resurrection saying רוח הולך, “the spirit is walking,” whereas also the word מביא is reminiscent of a similar connotation as it occurs as ותבא בהם הרוח ויחיו, “as soon as the spirit entered them (the bones and the skin and flesh) they revived” (Ezekiel 37,10). The word מעלה also is featured in connection with resurrection in Kohelet 12,7, where Solomon writes והרוח תשוב אל האלו-הים אשר נתנה, “and the spirit returns to the Lord Who had provided it;” Finally, the word מוריד also appears in such a connotation in Ezekiel 37,9: “and blow into these slain ones that they may live.”
And the priest shall make the fat smoke upon the altar; but the breast shall be Aaron's and his sons'.
verse value 1364 — וְהָיָה֙ = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 41 letters. Notable word values: "and·it·shall·be" (וְהָיָה֙) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "the·priest" (הַכֹּהֵ֛ן, 4 letters) and the longest is "and·he·shall·turn·into·smoke" (וְהִקְטִ֧יר, 6 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "the·breast" (הֶֽחָזֶ֔ה). 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "and·it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "and·to·his·sons" (root בן, 143x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·altar', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְהִקְטִ֧יר [and·he·shall·turn·into·smoke] (330) + הַכֹּהֵ֛ן [the·priest] (80) + אֶת־הַחֵ֖לֶב [the·fat] (446) + הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חָה [the·altar] (67) + וְהָיָה֙ [and·it·shall·be] (26) + הֶֽחָזֶ֔ה [the·breast] (25) + לְאַהֲרֹ֖ן [to·Aaron] (286) + וּלְבָנָֽיו [and·to·his·sons] (104) = 1364.
Onkelos
And the priest shall cause the fat to go up in smoke on the altar, and the breast shall belong to Aaron and his sons.
Rashi
והקטיר הכהן את החלב AND THE PRIEST SHALL CAUSE THE FAT TO ASCEND IN FUMES [AT THE ALTAR] and only afterwards, והיה החזה לאהרן SHALL THE BREAST BE AARON’S [AND HIS SONS] — This teaches us that the flesh of the sacrifices may not be eaten so long as the fat portions are below the altar (have not yet been placed upon it and burnt) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 16 4; Pesachim 59b).
And the right thigh shall you give to the priest as a separation-offering out of your sacrifices of peace-offerings.
verse value 3047
Insights
Verse structure: 7 words, 35 letters. The shortest word is "you·shall·give" (תִּתְּנ֥וּ, 4 letters) and the longest is "and·the·thigh·of" (וְאֵת֙ שׁ֣וֹק, 6 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "your·well-being·sacrifices" (שַׁלְמֵיכֶֽם). 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "from·sacrifices·of" (root מזבח, 95x in Leviticus); "you·shall·give" (root נתן, 86x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root שוק ("and·the·thigh·of") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root ימין ("the·right-hand·side") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·the·priest', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 2 words. Full calculation: וְאֵת֙ שׁ֣וֹק [and·the·thigh·of] (813) + הַיָּמִ֔ין [the·right-hand·side] (115) + תִּתְּנ֥וּ [you·shall·give] (856) + תְרוּמָ֖ה [a·separation·offering] (651) + לַכֹּהֵ֑ן [to·the·priest] (105) + מִזִּבְחֵ֖י [from·sacrifices·of] (67) + שַׁלְמֵיכֶֽם [your·well-being·sacrifices] (440) = 3047.
Onkelos
And the right thigh you shall give as a separation-offering to the priest from your peace-offerings.
Rashi
שוק is that limb of the right rear-leg extending from the knee-joint, the bone and blesh of which are usually sold as offal together with the head, unto the middle joint which is what is known as the סובך of the leg (the סובד is the small bone between that middle joint and the thigh-bone; consequently the שוק spoken of in connection with שלמים is the middle one of the three limbs that form an animal’s leg) (Chullin 134b).
Sforno
ואת שוק הימין תתנו תרומה לכהן, from the part which belongs to the owners; we may view the priest in this instance as similar to the King’s minister who, when someone who comes to offer a gift to the king, accepts a smaller gift meant for the king’s servant in order to secure an audience with the king by the person bearing the larger gift.
Targum Yonatan
And the right shoulder of your hallowed sacrifice from the side unto the extremity (deroa, arm) you shall give as a separation unto the priest.
He among the sons of Aaron, that offers the blood of the peace-offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion.
verse value 3139 — ל֧וֹ = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 49 letters. Notable word values: "to·him" (ל֧וֹ) = 36, double chai. The shortest word is "to·him" (ל֧וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·the·fat" (וְאֶת־הַחֵ֖לֶב, 7 letters). 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "from·sons·of" (root בן, 143x in Leviticus); "who·brings" (root קרב, 112x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Aaron', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 5 words. Full calculation: הַמַּקְרִ֞יב [who·brings] (357) + אֶת־דַּ֧ם [blood·of] (445) + הַשְּׁלָמִ֛ים [the·well-being] (425) + וְאֶת־הַחֵ֖לֶב [and·the·fat] (452) + מִבְּנֵ֣י [from·sons·of] (102) + אַהֲרֹ֑ן [Aaron] (256) + ל֧וֹ [to·him] (36) + תִהְיֶ֛ה [it·shall·be] (420) + שׁ֥וֹק [thigh·of] (406) + הַיָּמִ֖ין [the·right-hand·side] (115) + לְמָנָֽה [to·portion] (125) = 3139.
Onkelos
He among the sons of Aaron who presents the blood of the peace-offering and the fat — the right thigh shall belong to him as his portion.
Rashi
'וגו השלמים דם את המקריב [HE AMONG THE SONS OF AARON] THAT OFFERETH THE BLOOD OF THE PEACE-OFFERINGS [AND THE FAT SHALL HAVE THE SHOULDER OF THE RIGHT SIDE FOR HIS PART] — “He that offereth the blood” means: he who is fitted to perform the sprinkling of it and to burn the fat portions, — thus excluding a priest who was unclean at the time when the blood was sprinkled, or the fat portions were burnt — that he does not share in the flesh (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 16 8; Zevachim 98b).
Ibn Ezra
"The right thigh" — to the one who sprinkles the blood; and the breast to all the priests.
For the breast of waving and the thigh of heaving have I taken of the children of Israel out of their sacrifices of peace-offerings, and have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as a due for ever from the children of Israel.
verse value 7246
Insights
Verse structure: 19 words, 92 letters. The shortest word is "for" (כִּי֩, 2 letters) and the longest is "sons·of·Israel" (בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 441: from, them, from. 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "breast·of" (אֶת־חֲזֵ֨ה), "I·took" (לָקַ֙חְתִּי֙), "their·well-being·sacrifices" (שַׁלְמֵיהֶ֑ם). The root בן appears 3 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "sons·of·Israel" (root בן, 143x in Leviticus); "from·sacrifices·of" (root מזבח, 95x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'their·well-being·sacrifices', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 9 words.
Onkelos
For the wave-breast and the separation-thigh I have taken from the children of Israel out of their peace-offerings, and I have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as an everlasting due from the children of Israel.
Rashi
תנופה … .תרומה WAVE [BREAD AND] HEAVE [SHOULDER] — This implies that he (the priest) moved them to and fro in a horizontally direction (תנופה) and moves them up and down (תרומה) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 16 3; cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:27 and Note thereon).
This is the anointing-portion of Aaron, and the anointing-portion of his sons, out of the offerings of Hashem made by fire, in the day when they were presented to minister to Hashem in the priest's office;
verse value 3588 — יְהֹוָ֑ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 49 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֑ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. Verse gematria: 3588 is divisible by 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "this" (זֹ֣את, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·anointing-portion·of" (וּמִשְׁחַ֣ת, 5 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·anointing-portion·of" (וּמִשְׁחַ֣ת). The root משח appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "to·act·as·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "his·sons" (root בן, 143x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Hashem', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 5 words. Full calculation: זֹ֣את [this] (408) + מִשְׁחַ֤ת [anointing-portion·of] (748) + אַהֲרֹן֙ [Aaron] (256) + וּמִשְׁחַ֣ת [and·anointing-portion·of] (754) + בָּנָ֔יו [his·sons] (68) + מֵאִשֵּׁ֖י [from·fire·offerings·of] (351) + יְהֹוָ֑ה [Hashem] (26) + בְּיוֹם֙ [in·day·of] (58) + הִקְרִ֣יב [brought] (317) + אֹתָ֔ם [them] (441) + לְכַהֵ֖ן [to·act·as·priest] (105) + לַיהֹוָֽה [to·Hashem] (56) = 3588.
Onkelos
This is the anointing-portion of Aaron and the anointing-portion of his sons from the offerings of Hashem, from the day he brought them near to minister before Hashem.
Ibn Ezra
"This" — this is the allotment (reward) of the anointing of Aaron, or of the anointing of his sons; the word mishchat means leadership.
Chizkuni
זאת משחת אהרן, “this is the consecrated portion of Aaron, etc.” They have been consecrated as reward for performing these tasks. Another interpretation of the word: משחה: “to be anointed with that oil is a mark of distinction for them.” (compare Exodus 29,29 למשחה בהם)
Rashbam
ואת משחת אהרן ומשחת בניו, the reward for being anointed; they receive the hide of the burnt offerings, the meat of the ordinary sin offerings and guilt offerings. They receive the breads of the תודה offerings as well as the thigh and chest of the שלמים offerings as well as the part of the minchah not destined for the altar.
Targum Yonatan
This pertaineth to the consecration of Aharon and to the consecration of his sons over all the Levites their brethren, that they may eat of the Lord's oblations in the day that they present them to minister before the Lord;.
which Hashem commanded to be given them of the children of Israel, in the day that they were anointed. It is a due for ever throughout their generations.
verse value 4758 — יְהֹוָ֜ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 14 words, 50 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֜ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. Verse gematria: 4758 is divisible by 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "which" (אֲשֶׁר֩, 3 letters) and the longest is "Israel" (יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל, 5 letters). Words sharing gematria 441: them, from. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "his·anointing" (מׇשְׁח֣וֹ). 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "sons·of" (root בן, 143x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Israel', dividing the verse into phrases of 11 and 3 words. Full calculation: אֲשֶׁר֩ [which] (501) + צִוָּ֨ה [commanded] (101) + יְהֹוָ֜ה [Hashem] (26) + לָתֵ֣ת [to·give] (830) + לָהֶ֗ם [to·them] (75) + בְּיוֹם֙ [in·day·of] (58) + מׇשְׁח֣וֹ [his·anointing] (354) + אֹתָ֔ם [them] (441) + מֵאֵ֖ת [from] (441) + בְּנֵ֣י [sons·of] (62) + יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל [Israel] (541) + חֻקַּ֥ת [regulation·of] (508) + עוֹלָ֖ם [eternity] (146) + לְדֹרֹתָֽם [to·their·generations] (674) = 4758.
Onkelos
Which Hashem commanded to be given to them on the day He anointed them from among the children of Israel — an everlasting statute throughout their generations.
Ramban
WHICH THE ETERNAL COMMANDED TO BE GIVEN THEM IN THE DAY THAT THEY WERE ANOINTED. The order of the verse is as follows: “Which the Eternal commanded, on the day that they were anointed, to be given them from the children of Israel, by a statute forever.” And the explanation of the phrase in the day that they were anointed, is “at the time of the anointment.” Similarly, in the day when they were presented to minister means: “at that time when He separated them” [to minister as priests]. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that “‘b’yom’ (in the day) that they were anointed means mi’yom (from the day) that they were anointed. Similarly, and that which remaineth ‘babasar ubalachem’ [literally: “in the meat and in the bread”] means mibasar umilechem (“of the meat and of the bread”).
Ibn Ezra
"On the day of his anointing" — meaning: from the day [of his anointing onward]; and similarly [the expression is used] with regard to flesh and bread.
Chizkuni
ביום משחו אותם, “on the day that they were anointed.” The prefix letter ב has been used here instead of the more common prefix מ the meaning being: “from the day they were anointed. From this day on, these portions of the sacrificial animals were perpetually given to the priests.
Tur HaArokh
אשר צוה ה' לתת להם ביום משחו אותם, “which Hashem has commanded to give to them on the day of His having anointed them, etc.” The meaning of the words is: “which on the day He ordered them to be anointed, He made their appointment permanent, hereditary, throughout the ages.” Ibn Ezra understands the words ביום משחו as if the Torah had written מיום משחו, “from the day He had anointed them onwards.”
This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the consecration-offering, and of the sacrifice of peace-offerings;
verse value 2764
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 47 letters. The shortest word is "this" (זֹ֣את, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·for·the·ordination·offering" (וְלַ֨מִּלּוּאִ֔ים, 8 letters). 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·for·the·purgation·offering" (וְלַֽחַטָּ֖את), "and·for·the·reparation·offering" (וְלָאָשָׁ֑ם), "and·for·the·ordination·offering" (וְלַ֨מִּלּוּאִ֔ים). 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·the·burnt-offering" (root עלה, 74x in Leviticus); "and·for·the·reparation·offering" (root אשם, 38x in Leviticus); "to·the·grain·offering" (root מנחה, 36x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'and·for·the·reparation·offering', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 3 words. Full calculation: זֹ֣את [this] (408) + הַתּוֹרָ֗ה [the·instruction] (616) + לָֽעֹלָה֙ [to·the·burnt-offering] (135) + לַמִּנְחָ֔ה [to·the·grain·offering] (133) + וְלַֽחַטָּ֖את [and·for·the·purgation·offering] (454) + וְלָאָשָׁ֑ם [and·for·the·reparation·offering] (377) + וְלַ֨מִּלּוּאִ֔ים [and·for·the·ordination·offering] (163) + וּלְזֶ֖בַח [and·to·sacrifice·of] (53) + הַשְּׁלָמִֽים [the·well-being] (425) = 2764.
Onkelos
This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the ordination-offerings, and of the peace-offering —
Rashi
ולמלואים AND FOR THE CONSECRATION OFFERING that was offered on the day that they were installed in the priestly office (cf. Exodus 28:41).
Ibn Ezra
"And for the inaugural offerings" — as it is written in the portion of "And you shall command."
Or HaChaim
זאת התורה לעולה למנחה ולחטאח, This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering and of the sin-offering. It is not clear what this verse wants to tell us. In Torat Kohanim we read that just as the details of the consecration rites of the Tabernacle which are discussed in the next chapter have all been handed down at Mount Sinai, so the details of permanent offerings have also been handed down at Mount Sinai. Seeing that the consecration rites consisted of public offerings, how do we know that the legislation concerning private offerings was also handed down from Sinai in all its details? Answer: This is why the Torah included the guilt-offering in our verse, an offering which is always a private offering. I have already said repeatedly such as at the beginning of Parshat Mishpatim what I have to contribute on the subject (compare page 689). Torat Kohanim as well as Zevachim 97 also derive from this verse that all the meat-offerings need to be slaughtered with a knife, same as the burnt-offering. It also teaches that all public peace-offerings are to be consumed by the male priests just like the meal-offerings. A more homiletical message contained in this verse may be the thought expressed by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in Menachot 110 that anyone studying the laws of the burnt-offering is as if he had actually offered such a sacrifice. I plan to follow the same approach. Let me first preface my remarks by recalling that numerous Kabbalists who have engaged in a study of these matters have said that the principal purpose of Torah and its study is to recapture sparks of sanctity which have "fallen" and as a result are being held captive. We are dealing with two separate aspects of fallen sparks of sanctity here. One refers to the sparks of sanctity which descended into the world of chaos for reasons which are well known. The term "sparks" of sanctity is enough for these students of Kabbalah to know what we are talking about. The second aspect of that term is that it refers to souls which are being oppressed by cruel humans ever since the time Adam sinned in גן עדן. At that time Adam provided the negative elements in our world with a great deal of spiritual loot. The only way such souls can be rescued from the clutches of the spiritually negative forces which hold them captive is the study of Torah in such a way that Torah becomes the mainstay of our lives. Torah is the only effective antidote to the forces of Samael (the evil urge) as we know from Kidushin 30: "If Samael attacks you drag him to the hall of Torah study. If he had been as hard as stone before you dragged him to the house of Torah study you will find that he melts; if he had been as tough as iron he will explode." In our verse the Torah has revealed the marvellous properties of our Torah. When the Torah writes: "This is the Torah," this is an introduction to the description of its powers. The Torah continues: לעולה, to tell us that by means of Torah study the Jewish people c...
Chizkuni
זאת התורה לעולה, “this is the law for the burnt offering;” this is a reference to the skin of the burnt offering which has not been burned up;” ולמנחה, “and for the gift offering;” this is a reference to the part of this offering that has not been consumed. ולחטאת ולאשם, “and for the sin offering, and for the guilt offering; the meat of which is to be consumed by the priests. ולמלואים, and for the consecration offerings which we learned about earlier in Exodus chapter 29. ולזבח השלמים, and for the sacrifice known as peaceofferings. This is a reference to the breast, right thigh, and the parts given to the priests of the mandatory thanksgiving offerings.
Rabbeinu Bahya
זאת התורה לעולה, למנחה ולחטאת ולאשם, ולמלואים ולזבח השלמים, “This is the law for the burnt-offering, the meal-offering, the sin-offering, the guilt-offering, the consecration offerings and the peace-offerings.” You will note that the order in which the categories of offerings are listed in this verse corresponds to the order in which they appear in the respective paragraphs in the Torah. The Torah commences in Vayikra with the rules of the burnt-offering, which are followed by the rules for the meal-offering, and so on. Why does the Torah in our verse suddenly insert the words: “and the offering of the consecration rites, smack in between the guilt-offering and the peace-offerings, whereas in the earlier paragraphs dealing with the sacrifices no mention is made of the מלואים, “consecration offerings” at all? This presents a problem. If we were to say that the words קח את אהרן ואת בניו in 8,2 is the reference to the consecration offerings, then our entire order has been thrown out of gear. If, on the other hand, the consecration rites offerings are the ones mentioned in Parshat Tetzaveh (Exodus 29,35-42) the order listed in our verse here would also not be parallel to what the Torah had written thus far. Actually, the order is perfectly fine as the offerings listed in Parshat Tetzaveh as being offered by the Priests when they were consecrated do not represent a separate category of offering at all. You cannot compare these offerings to such sacrifices as the sin-offering, the guilt-offering, etc. If you will review the offerings listed in connection with the consecration rites you will find that they include such diverse sacrifices as the sin-offering, burnt-offering as well as peace-offerings. The very expression מלואים in the plural indicates that we are speaking of multiple categories of offerings here. All of the categories of offerings which formed part of the consecration rites have already been described by the Torah in detail before now. Our verse here mentioned the burnt-offering first, concluding with the peace-offerings. The reason that the burnt-offering deserves to be mentioned first is that it is the choicest of the offerings. The reason why the peace-offering deserves to be the one with which the Torah concludes the list is that as indicated by its very name it brings about peace in the world which ensures the continued existence of the universe. Our sages (the men of the Great Assembly) who are responsible for finalizing the wording of our liturgy have made the blessing of peace the final benediction in the central prayer עמידה, as without this blessing all the other blessings are ultimately worthless seeing that they will not endure. Solomon similarly concluded his Song of Songs (8,10) with the words: “so I became in his eyes like someone who finds an abundance of peace.” Our sages (Menachot 110) state that peace is a blessing which is indispensable even in the celestial regions. They base this insight on Job 25,2: “Dominion and strength are His, He imposes peace in His heights.” On the words of our verse: “this is the law of the burnt-offering, etc.,” our sages in Menachot 110 say that anyone who studies the laws of these offerings is considered as if he had personally offered them on the Altar. What the sages mean is that once one has familiarized himself with the deeper meaning of each type of offering, it enables the student of these laws to gain new insights which in turn will strengthen his resolve to meticulously observe all the precepts of the Torah. Seeing that offering the sacrifices is also meant to bring us closer to G’d, it is no more than reasonable that studying these laws will have a similar effect. Such study and new resolve to observe the Torah will result in the sins of such people being forgiven, similar to their having performed the actual procedure of offering the relevant sacrifices. It is certainly unreasonable to suppose that the sages meant that the mere mouthing of the words of the oral Torah listing the detailed laws of the sacrificial rites would have such an elevating effect. There is a somewhat similar statement by the sages in Berachot 4 concerning people who recite Psalm 145 every day qualifying for a place in the hereafter. They certainly did not mean to imply that all that is necessary to ensure for one his place in the hereafter is a mindless recital of the words in that Psalm. What the sages meant was that by reflecting on the words in this Psalm and by understanding the allusions contained in them, the reader (student) will emerge with a newly strengthened belief in G’d and His loving care for mankind. This will trigger his serving G’d with greater intensity than before he had studied this Psalm. This in turn will result in that person earning or retaining his share in the world to come. It is because of such reasoning that the men of the Great Assembly have included in our daily prayers such sections as the fifth chapter of Zevachim and they added that G’d said that when this chapter is being recited “I will account it for you as if you had offered the sacrifices listed therein (all of them).” A Midrashic approach to our verse: “anyone studying the Torah with a view to performing it (עוסק) is considered as if he had offered a burnt-offering as well as all the other offerings mentioned in our verse.” Remember that the offerings are divided into nine different categories when you include the fact that different offerings had to be offered at different locations such as the ones which had to be slaughtered on the northern side of the Altar, the ones which could be slaughtered anywhere within the courtyard (עזרה), etc.; The nine types include: עולה, מנחה, חטאת, אשם, תודה, שלמים, בכור, מעשר,פסח.You are aware already that the number nine represents the highest number of emanations and what they represent which can be attained by mortal man. The reason that the Torah provides for nine different categories of offerings is to keep the thought alive in our minds that all the offerings have to be addressed to what is beyond the ninth emanation, i.e. exclusively to Hashem. and not to any spiritual force or attribute of His below that level. This idea has also been spelled out in Torat Kohanim (Sifra Vayikra 2,5) whose author stresses that we never find any lower attributes of G’d mentioned in connection with offerings, such as אל, אלהים or אלוהיך, for instance, but only the tetragram, i.e. the attribute known as י-ה-ו-ה. The reason for this is not to enable anyone to claim subsequently that he had offered his offering to a different attribute. Our sages (Sanhedrin 60) also stated that the meaning of the words בלתי לה' לבדו in Exodus 22,19 is that all sacrificial offerings must be directed to G’d’s attribute י-ה-ו-ה exclusively. Anyone dedicating his offering to a subordinate attribute even of G’d is guilty of a major trespass. The sacrifice was presented on the Altar. The Altar was ten cubits high as we know from Chronicles II 4,1 “its height was ten cubits.” Seeing that according to the Torah (Exodus 27,1) the height of the Altar was three cubits high, we have to understand that the Torah referred only to the area on which the woodpile was prepared and lit. (the reference is to the “upper” cube, above the סובב, “rampart” on which the Priest walked around the Altar). The measurement given in Chronicles referred to the Altar in the Holy Temple, not the Tabernacle. Its location was never changed. This is the meaning of Chronicles I 22,1: “and this is the Altar for the burnt-offering.” The site is the place where G’d created first man, Adam (Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 7,2). This is based on the statement there that “Man was created in the very place whence his atonement occurs, (the Altar).” This was also the site where both Adam, and Kayin and Hevel his sons offered their respective sacrifices, the ones described in Genesis. This is also where Noach offered is thanksgiving offerings after the deluge. It is also the site where Yitzchak was bound and where Avraham offered the ram in Yitzchak’s place. From all of these historical facts we can see that this was a very special place and serves for the offerings of the righteous and pious in all ages. Seeing that there is such a special site for all the nine types of offerings we described earlier you will find that in connection with the patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov this site was described in the Torah as מקום, as we note in Genesis 22,3 “he (Avraham) arose and went to the מקום; (Genesis 22,4) “he raised his eyes and saw the מקום from a distance.” Genesis 22,9: “they (Avraham and Yitzchak) arrived at the מקום.” Genesis 22,14 again mentions this מקום, this time as the site named by Avraham “the Lord will see.” In Genesis 28,11 the same site is referred to as the מקום where Yaakov spent the first night on his way towards Charan. In verse 16 of that same chapter Yaakov refers to that מקום as one at which G’d’s presence is manifest. In verse 15 there he is overwhelmed and awestruck by this מקום, so that in verse 17 he erects an Altar in that מקום there and in verse 19 he names this Altar as the forerunner of “the house of G’d.” If you will bother to count, you will find that the word מקום occurs nine times, an allusion to the nine kinds of offerings which we listed earlier and which are to be offered by the Jewish people on that site, (מקום). When the first Temple was destroyed, this מקום was “swallowed” up by the earth [another manifestation of extra-terrestrial measurements occurring in connection with the Temple, the Holy Ark and the cherubs, as we mentioned earlier. Ed.] This is what the prophet Jeremiah referred to in Lamentations 2,9: טבעו בארץ שעריה, “its gates sunk into the earth.” If you will look at the text you will find that the letter ט in the word טבעו, “they sunk,” is written in a smaller script than the other letters. This is an allusion to the fact that the site, מקום, was swallowed up, not just the gates of the Temple. The letter ט, i.e. 9, referred also to the nine kinds of offerings which could no longer be offered on that site, מקום.
which Hashem commanded Moses in mount Sinai, in the day that He commanded the children of Israel to present their offerings to Hashem, in the wilderness of Sinai.
verse value 4864 — יְהֹוָ֛ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 69 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֛ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "which" (אֲשֶׁ֨ר, 3 letters) and the longest is "their·offerings" (אֶת־קׇרְבְּנֵיהֶ֛ם, 9 letters). Words sharing gematria 130: Sinai, Sinai. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "his·commanding" (צַוֺּת֜וֹ), "their·offerings" (אֶת־קׇרְבְּנֵיהֶ֛ם). The root צוה appears 2 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "sons·of" (root בן, 143x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root הר ("in·mountain·of") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root סיני ("Sinai") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Sinai', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 9 words.
Onkelos
which Hashem commanded Moses on Mount Sinai, on the day He commanded the children of Israel to bring their offerings before Hashem in the wilderness of Sinai.
Ramban
WHICH THE ETERNAL COMMANDED MOSES IN MOUNT SINAI. According to our Rabbis all the commandments were expressly told to Moses on Mount Sinai, in their general rules, their specific regulations and their minute details, and some of them were repeated in the Tent of Meeting. Thus [all] the commandments in the Book of Vayikra (Leviticus) [which is prefaced by the verse stating it was made known in the Tent of Meeting], are repetitions [of those said on Sinai, which is the sense of the verse before us]. By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, the meaning of the verse is: “Which the Eternal commanded Moses in Mount Sinai, and in the day that he commanded the children of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai to present their offerings unto the Eternal,” for He gave the commandment about the consecration-offerings [of the priests] in Mount Sinai, as also in the case of the burnt-offering and sin-offering [which were part of the consecration], and He commanded concerning the meal-offering, guilt-offering, and peace-offerings, in the wilderness of Sinai, in the Tent of Meeting. It is possible that the expression in Mount Sinai means “in this place in front of Mount Sinai,” which is in the Tent of Meeting. Similarly, It is a continual burnt-offering, which was offered in Mount Sinai, does not mean on the mountain itself, for the continual burnt-offering [i.e., the Daily Whole-offering brought for all Israel] began only in the Tent of Meeting, as it is written, Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar: two lambs of the first year day by day continually. So also: And they set forward from the Mount of the Eternal [which means “from before the Mount of the Eternal”]; ye have dwelt long enough in this mountain [which means “in front of this mountain”]. The sense of all these verses is that Israel had encamped before Mount Sinai nearby, as it is written, and there Israel encamped before the Mount. There [in the wilderness of Sinai] they stayed until they journeyed from there to the wilderness of Paran. Thus they made the Tent of Meeting and erected it before the Mount on its east side, and it was there that they began offering the Daily Whole-offering. In the second year [after the exodus] they were commanded concerning the standards, and they set the Tent of Meeting in the midst of the camps when they journeyed. It is for this reason that Scripture says here that this is the law of the burnt-offering and of all the offerings which G-d commanded [Moses] in Mount Sinai, in the day that he commanded [the children of Israel] … in the wilderness of Sinai. Scripture thus states that it was in Mount Sinai and in the desert of Sinai, in order to inform us that it was not on the mountain itself, in the place of the Glory where G-d told to Moses the Ten Commandments, nor in the desert of Sinai after they had journeyed from before the Mount. Rather, it was in the wilderness of Sinai, in front of the mountain within its environs and nearby, and there was the ...
Ibn Ezra
"To offer their offerings to Hashem in the wilderness of Sinai" — for they did not bring any offering until they arrived at Mount Sinai. I have already shown you that the altar which Moses built after the defeat of Amalek was at Horeb, which is Mount Sinai, and Israel camped there for one year less ten days, as it is written. In the wilderness they did not bring burnt-offerings, as the prophet said: "Did you bring Me sacrifices and meal-offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?" (Amos 5:25). They also did not perform Passover except in Egypt and a second time at Mount Sinai, for in the wilderness they had no flocks; and after they journeyed from Mount Sinai they did not circumcise [their children] along the way, so that most of them were uncircumcised — and it was on account of the eating of the Passover-offering that Joshua circumcised them.
Chizkuni
להקריב את קרבניהם לה׳ במדבר סיני, “to present their offerings to the Lord in the desert of Sinai. The reason why this line is necessary, although most of us would have understood the chapter without it being repeated, is because until the Israelites had made camp at Mount Sinai they had not offered a single offering (Exodus 24,5) The altar which Moses had built after the battle with Amalek was located at Mount Sinai. (Exodus 17,15) “Mount Chorev” and “Mount Sinai” are two names describing the same Mountain or group of peaks. The Israelites encamped around there for a period of 10 days less than a year from the first day of Sivan (in the first year) to the twentieth day of iyar of the second year. (Numbers 10,11) During the remainder of their journeys, for almost 39 years they did not offer any sacrifices as stated by the prophet Amos 5,25: הזבחים ומנחה הגשתם לי בני ישראל במדבר, “did you offer to Me any sacrifices or oblations in the forty years in the desert?” Even the Passover offering was presented only in Egypt and in the following year, before the Israelites had broken camp.” According to our author, offerings were brought on the Day of Atonement of the second year, but we do not know his source for this.
Rabbeinu Bahya
אשר צוה ה' את משה בהר סיני , “which the Lord commanded Moses at Mount Sinai.” Our sages in Sotah 37 explained that all of the Torah’s commandments were commanded to Moses on Mount Sinai, both in their general outlines and in all their minute details. Here we have confirmation that the laws contained in the Book of Leviticus date back to the revelation at Mount Sinai but were repeated once more. According to the plain meaning of our text the reason that the Torah in our verse gives two locations, i.e. “Mount Sinai,” and “the desert of Sinai,” means that the verse has to be understood as follows: “this is the law of the burnt-offerings and the other offerings which the Lord commanded at Mount Sinai, and on that same day He instructed him to offer these sacrifices in the desert of Sinai.” The reason the location “in the desert of Sinai” was given is to ensure that we do not think that this entire legislation was given on the Mountain itself where Moses received the Ten Commandments. Another reason why the words “in the desert of Sinai” were needed as clarification is that we should not think that this legislation was not given until after the people had started their journey away from beneath the mountain. The words בהר סיני do not mean literally “on Mount Sinai,” but “at Mount Sinai,” within sight of the mountain. It was in “the desert of Sinai,” i.e. close enough to the mountain to be considered as within the confines of the mountain itself. This is where the Tabernacle was located (afterwards). This is what is meant in Leviticus 1,1, “He called to Moses and Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting.” At this point the Torah tells us where precisely the Tent of Meeting was located when G’d issued these instructions (at least ten months after the giving of the Ten Commandments). When the Torah (Numbers 28,6) speaks about the “daily burnt-offering prepared at Mount Sinai,” the meaning is “facing Mount Sinai,” not literally “at” or “on” Mount Sinai. No offerings were ever presented immediately on or next to Mount Sinai. (compare Nachmanides on verse 38). ביום צותו את בני ישראל להקריב את קרבניהם לה' במדבר סיני, “on the day He commanded the Children of Israel to offer their sacrifices to Hashem in the wilderness of Sinai.” In this verse we have clear evidence that G‘d commanded the bringing of these sacrifices. Seeing that this is so, how could Jeremiah 7,22 say: “for when I freed your fathers from the land of Egypt, I did not speak with them or command them concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifice?” The fact is that G’d did most certainly command the offering of sacrifices; in fact it was one of the great acts of kindness on G’d’s part, seeing that man is flesh and blood and hence subject to sin, that G’d instituted the system of different sacrifices in order to facilitate our atonement and rehabilitation from unintentional sin. When He sees our penitence and sacrifices, G’d may reconsider His intention to punish us, etc. However, the premise underlying the legislation of sacrificial offerings is that we should pay heed to His voice and not continue to become guilty of sins. When the prophet spoke about G’d not commanding us to bring animal sacrifices he meant that the animal sacrifices were not meant to be in lieu of penitence and proper conduct on our part. This is what Samuel had already said many hundreds of years previously to King Saul (Samuel I 15,22) “heeding My commands is much preferable than to offer Me good meat-offerings.” We have another very explicit verse on this subject in Psalms 40,7: “(You gave me to understand that) You do not desire sacrifice and meal-offering; You do not ask for burnt-offering and sin-offering.” What did G’d desire instead? (same verse) “Ears You have given me;” i.e. You made it plain that I should use my ears to heed Your words rather than to offer sacrifices. It is quite clear therefore that the sacrificial service is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. The “end” is obedience to (and love) of G’d. The sacrificial offering by the owner is acceptable only if he submits to G’d’s will. This concept is also reflected in Psalms 4,5: “so tremble and sin no more; ponder it on your bed, and sigh.” In the very next verse David writes: “offer sacrifices in righteousness and trust in the Lord.” The meaning of the entire sequence is: “ensure that you offer the kind of sacrifices that result in your not sinning again.” If someone offers a sacrifice without undertaking to heed G’d’s instructions such a sacrifice is not only not welcome but is called זבח רשעים, “a meat-offering by the wicked,” concerning which Solomon has said in Proverbs 15,8 that “the meat-offering of the wicked is an abomination to G’d, whereas the prayer of the upright is pleasing to Him.” Solomon repeats a similar message in Kohelet 4,17: ”more acceptable is obedience to G’d than the offerings of fools, for they know nothing but to do wrong.” In other words, prayer by the righteous unaccompanied by offerings is preferable to G’d to sacrifices offered by fools. The prophet Isaiah also addresses the subject of the wicked offering animal sacrifices believing them to be an end in itself, as if they could “fool” G’d with their actions. In Isaiah 66,3 the prophet writes: “as for those who slaughter oxen and slay humans, who sacrifice sheep and immolate dogs; who present as oblation the blood of swine.....and take pleasure in their abominations;” what the prophet means is that when a wicked person such as those mentioned slaughter oxen as a sacrifice then this is equivalent to their slaying humans in the eyes of the Lord. If a wicked person sacrifices a sheep, it is no better than immolating a dog. If such an individual presents a meal-offering then this is in the same category as if he had offered swine’s blood. Both the swine and the dog are impure animals although each one of them possesses one of the two properties required for a domestic animal to be pure and hence suitable for the altar. The dog, though it does not chew the cud, has split paws (though not hooves). The swine has perfectly split hooves but also does not chew the cud. The reason the prophet used these animals as examples of offerings which are totally unacceptable is that it is the nature of the wicked to display the part of him which does correspond to the requirements of the Torah while concealing properties such as whether it chews the cud [for who can see this by merely looking at the animal?]. In essence Isaiah’s message is identical to the one mentioned by other prophets, i.e. G’d asks obedience not superficial gestures of compliance such as offering sacrifices on His Altar.
Tur HaArokh
אשר צוה את משה בהר סיני, “that He had commanded Moses at Mount Sinai.” Nachmanides writes that this is to be understood in accordance with the view of our sages that all commandments had been commanded to Moses at Mount Sinai, but that some of them had been repeated to him when G’d spoke to him from above the Holy Ark in the Tent of Testimony. It is possible that the reason why the Torah emphasized “at Mount Sinai,” especially in this instance, is that on this occasion, when the Israelites were still camped around the mountain, speaking to Moses in the Tent of Testimony was basically equivalent to speaking to him from Mount Sinai. This is not the only time when the Torah uses the expression בהר סיני when it does not literally man that the command was (only) issued while Moses was on the mountain. In Numbers 28,6 we find the line עולת תמיד העשויה בהר סיני, “the permanent, (daily) burnt offering presented at Mount Sinai.” [This verse follows the appointment of Eleazar as his father Aaron’s successor as high Priest and a report of his having performed his duties for the first time. well into the 40th year of the Israelites in the desert. Ed.] Performance of this offering could not have commenced at the time Moses received the Torah at Mount Sinai, as it was offered in the Tent of Testimony only close to eleven months after the revelation. The Tent of Testimony had not begun operating until the month of Nissan in the second year. The reason why this slightly misleading wording was chosen, was that at the time when this offering was first introduced as a daily offering the Israelites were still encamped around Mount Sinai [until the 20th of the month following. Ed.] The people were commanded to divide their encampments according to the “flags” of the various army groups of three tribes each in the second year, and only then was the Tabernacle, Tent of Meeting, moved from a location close to where they had encamped ever since the time they arrived near the Mountain, between 3 and 6 days before the revelation. In order to make this distinction even clearer, the Torah writes: (7,37) זאת התורה לעולה, למנחה, ולחטאת ולאשם ולמלואים ולזבח השלמים אשר צוה ה' את משה בהר סיני ביום צוותו את בני ישראל להקריב את קרבניהם לה' במדבר סיני. “This is the law of the burnt offerings, the meal offerings, the sin offering, and the guilt offering, and the inauguration offerings, and the peace offerings on festivals, which Hashem commanded Moses on Mount Sinai, on the day He commanded the Children of Israel to bring their offerings to Hashem, in the wilderness of Sinai.” The Torah makes the point that the location of the Children of Israel at the time was the desert of Sinai, after they had moved away some distance from Mount Sinai. The tent of Meeting therefore was located in “the desert of Sinai,” not next to Mount Sinai. When the Book of Leviticus had commenced with the words: “the Lord spoke to Moses from the Tent of Testimony,” the meaning is that this conversation took place not at Mount Sinai but in the desert not far from Mount Sinai. We had not known the precise location of the Tabernacle at that time until we came to this verse
Onkelos
Rashi
Ibn Ezra