פרשת צו — שני (Aliyah 2)
Parashat Tzav | Leviticus 6:12–7:10 | Aliyah 2 of 7
קלאוד על הפרשה
The second aliyah of Parashat Tzav opens with a new divine address to Moses, introducing the daily meal offering of Aaron and his sons — the chavitin (Leviticus 6:12-16). This offering, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour prepared with oil on a griddle, was brought half in the morning and half in the evening. Rashi, drawing on Sifra and Menachot 51b, clarifies an important distinction embedded in the verse: while ordinary priests bring this offering only once, on the day of their inaugural service, the High Priest brings it every single day as a perpetual obligation. The word “tamid” (continual) signals this elevated duty. The preparation method — scalded, baked, then fried, and finally broken into pieces — reflects the meticulous care the Torah demands for offerings that are entirely consumed on the altar. Unlike standard meal offerings where the kometz (handful) is burned and the remainder eaten by priests, a priest’s own meal offering is burned in its entirety, as the Torah declares: “it shall not be eaten” (6:16). Ibn Ezra notes the logic: it would be unseemly for a priest to consume his own offering, for how can the one seeking atonement also be the one who benefits from eating the sacrifice?
The aliyah then transitions to the law of the chatat, the sin offering (6:17-23), introduced with the words “zot torat ha-chatat” — “this is the ritual of the sin offering.” The Torah emphasizes that this sacrifice is “kodesh kodashim,” most holy, and must be slaughtered in the same location as the burnt offering, on the north side of the altar. The officiating priest who performs the blood service eats the flesh in the sacred precinct, the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. Rashi explains that the phrase “ha-kohen ha-mechatte otah” does not restrict consumption exclusively to the priest who sprinkled the blood, but rather to any priest who is ritually fit to perform the service — thereby excluding a priest who was tamei (impure) at the time of the blood sprinkling. This reading is confirmed by the subsequent verse (6:22), which broadens the permission: “All the males in the priestly line may eat of it.”
The passage then addresses the extraordinary sanctity that radiates outward from the chatat’s flesh. Whatever touches its meat absorbs its status — if the offering is valid, the food that touched it may be eaten only under the same stringent conditions; if the offering is disqualified, so too is whatever absorbed from it (6:20). Blood splattered on a garment must be laundered in a sacred precinct, and cooking vessels must be purified according to their material: earthenware vessels, which permanently absorb flavors, must be broken, while copper vessels can be scoured and rinsed. Rashi, citing Avodah Zarah 34a, explains the underlying principle: earthenware can never fully expel what it has absorbed, a halakhic concept that reverberates through the laws of kashrut to this day. Sforno adds a further dimension, noting that sin offerings of such gravity that their blood is brought inside the sanctuary — specifically the sin offering of the High Priest or the congregation — may not be eaten at all but must be burned entirely.
The aliyah’s final section turns to the asham, the guilt offering (7:1-10), which shares the chatat’s status as kodesh kodashim and is likewise slaughtered on the north side. Here the Torah specifies the fat portions — the broad tail, the fat covering the entrails, the two kidneys with their fat, and the diaphragm above the liver — details that had not been enumerated for the guilt offering in its earlier treatment in Parashat Vayikra. Rashi explains this was a necessary supplement, since the sin offering’s fat portions had already been detailed in Leviticus 4 but the guilt offering’s had not. The declaration “asham hu” — “it is a guilt offering” — generated significant discussion in the Talmud (Zevachim 5b), with Rabbi Eliezer and the other Sages debating whether the word “hu” teaches that the offering is invalidated if slaughtered with the wrong intent or if slaughtered outside the designated northern location.
The aliyah concludes by establishing a unifying principle: “As the sin offering, so is the guilt offering — one law for them” (7:7). The priest who performs the atonement rite receives the flesh, excluding those unfit for service. The Torah then addresses priestly entitlements more broadly: the officiating priest keeps the hide of a burnt offering, while baked, fried, and griddled meal offerings belong to the priest who offers them. Dry meal offerings and those mixed with oil, however, are distributed equally among all of Aaron’s sons. Rashi reconciles the apparent tension between the singular “the priest who offers it” and the plural “all the sons of Aaron” by explaining that the reference is to the priestly family (beit av) serving on that particular day. This careful delineation of priestly portions reflects the Torah’s broader concern with maintaining order, equity, and sanctity within the sacrificial system.
Leviticus 6:12–7:10 · ויקרא ו:יב–ז:י
פסוק ו:יב · 6:12
Hebrew:
וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃
English:
יהוה spoke to Moses, saying:
פסוק ו:יג · 6:13
Hebrew:
זֶ֡ה קׇרְבַּן֩ אַהֲרֹ֨ן וּבָנָ֜יו אֲשֶׁר־יַקְרִ֣יבוּ לַֽיהֹוָ֗ה בְּיוֹם֙ הִמָּשַׁ֣ח אֹת֔וֹ עֲשִׂירִ֨ת הָאֵפָ֥ה סֹ֛לֶת מִנְחָ֖ה תָּמִ֑יד מַחֲצִיתָ֣הּ בַּבֹּ֔קֶר וּמַחֲצִיתָ֖הּ בָּעָֽרֶב׃
English:
This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer to יהוה on the occasion of his*his Or “their.” anointment: a tenth of an ephah of choice flour as a regular meal offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening,
The Torah introduces the daily meal offering (chavitin) of Aaron and his sons: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour, brought half in the morning and half in the evening. Rashi explains that ordinary priests bring this offering only on their inaugural day of service, while the High Priest brings it every day as a perpetual obligation.
רש״יRashi
זה קרבן אהרן ובניו. אַף הַהֶדְיוֹטוֹת מַקְרִיבִין עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה בַּיּוֹם שֶׁהֵן מִתְחַנְּכִין לָעֲבוֹדָה, אֲבָל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּכָל יוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מִנְחָה תָּמִיד וְגוֹ' וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו וְגוֹ' חָק עוֹלָם:
זה קרבן אהרון ובניו THIS IS THE OFFERING OF AARON AND HIS SONS — The ordinary priests, too, offer a tenth part of an ephah of flour on the day they are installed into the priestly service; the High Priest, however, offers one every day, as it is said, "a continual meal-offering, [half of it in the morning, and half thereof in the evening] etc. And the priest amongst his sons that is anointed in his stead (i. e. every high priest) [shall offer it]; it is a statute for ever" (Sifra, Tzav, Section 3 1-4; Menachot 51b).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
זה קרבן אהרן. או אחד מבניו תחתיו: ביום המשח אותו. אשר יוצק על ראשו שמן המשחה ורבים אמרו כי זה בי״ת תחת מ״ם והטעם כי מיום המשח אותו הנה זה חייב להקריב תמיד מנחתו:
THIS IS THE OFFERING OF AARON. Or one of his sons who takes his place. IN THE DAY WHEN…ANOINTED. When the anointing oil is poured upon his head. Some say that the bet of be-yom (in the day) is in place of a mem.29In other words, be-yom (in the day) should be interpreted as from the day. Its meaning is, from the day that he is anointed he has to regularly bring his meal offering.30This is the opinion of the rabbis. See Rashi.
פסוק ו:יד · 6:14
Hebrew:
עַֽל־מַחֲבַ֗ת בַּשֶּׁ֛מֶן תֵּעָשֶׂ֖ה מֻרְבֶּ֣כֶת תְּבִיאֶ֑נָּה תֻּפִינֵי֙ מִנְחַ֣ת פִּתִּ֔ים תַּקְרִ֥יב רֵֽיחַ־נִיחֹ֖חַ לַיהֹוָֽה׃
English:
shall be prepared with oil on a griddle. You shall bring it well soaked, and offer it as a meal offering of baked*baked Meaning of Heb. tuphine uncertain. slices, of pleasing odor to יהוה.
The meal offering is to be prepared with oil on a griddle, well soaked, and offered as baked slices as a pleasing odor to God. Rashi explains the multi-step preparation: the flour is first scalded with hot oil, then baked in an oven, then fried again in a pan, and finally broken into pieces.
רש״יRashi
מרבכת. חֲלוּטָה בְּרוֹתְחִין כָּל צָרְכָּהּ (שם): תפיני. אֲפוּיָה אֲפִיּוֹת הַרְבֵּה — אַחַר חֲלִיטָתָהּ אוֹפָהּ בַּתַּנּוּר וְחוֹזֵר וּמְטַגְּנָהּ בַּמַּחֲבַת (מנחות נ'): מנחת פתים. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנָה פְּתִיתָה:
מרבכת means, scalded with hot oil to saturation (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 4 6). תפיני means, many times baken: after it has been scalded he bakes it in the oven and then again fries it in a pan (cf. Menachot 50b). מנחת פתים THE BROKEN PIECES — This teaches that it requires breaking into pieces (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 4 6; Menachot 75b).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
מרבכת. אין לו אח ויש מי שאומרים רכה ויש מי שאומרים במהרה. ותי״ו תביאנה סימן לאהרן וכן תי״ו תקריב. ועל דעתי כי כן הוא תי״ו תפיני וטעמו תקון ואין ריע לו והקדמונים אמרו שהיא שתי מלות תאפה נא. ויאמר רבי יונה המדקדק שהוא על משקל דוכיפת וזה המשקל מעקל:
WHEN IT IS SOAKED. Murbekhet (when it is soaked) has no brother.31The word is not found again in Scripture. Some say it means soft.32Murbekhet being a variant of murkhekhet. Others say that murbekhet means quickly. The tav33The tav serves as a second person masculine imperfect prefix. of tevi'ennah (thou shalt bring it) is directed at Aaron.34Mentioned in the previous verse. Similarly the tav of takriv (thou shalt offer).35Takriv is directed to Aaron. I believe that this is also true of the tav of tufine (in broken pieces).36It is an imperfect prefix directed at Aaron. It means to fix.37That is, bake. According to I.E. tufine means you shall bake. See Rashi. It has no neighbor.38The word is not found again in Scripture. The ancients39See Sifra on this verse. said that tufine is a combination of the two words, te'afeh and na (it shall be baked raw).40It shall not be fully baked. Rabbi Jonah the grammarian41Rabbi Jonah ibn Janach. says that tufine follows the paradigm of dukhifat (hoopoe) (Lev. 11:19).42According to Rabbi Jonah tufine comes from the root tav, peh, nun. See Sefer Ha-Rikmah, Vol. 1, p. 137, ed. by M. Wilinsky, Jerusalem, 1964. This is a distorted form.43Not all the words in this form (po'il) are vocalized with a cholem. See Sefer Ha-Rikmah, Ibid.
פסוק ו:טו · 6:15
Hebrew:
וְהַכֹּהֵ֨ן הַמָּשִׁ֧יחַ תַּחְתָּ֛יו מִבָּנָ֖יו יַעֲשֶׂ֣ה אֹתָ֑הּ חׇק־עוֹלָ֕ם לַיהֹוָ֖ה כָּלִ֥יל תׇּקְטָֽר׃
English:
And so shall the priest, anointed from among his sons to succeed him, prepare it; it is יהוה’s—a law for all time—to be turned entirely into smoke.
The anointed priest who succeeds his father shall prepare this offering as a perpetual statute. Unlike other meal offerings, the kometz is not separated; it is entirely burned on the altar. The Talmud (Menachot 51) derives from this verse that if a High Priest dies before a successor is appointed, one of his sons must bring this daily offering in the interim.
רש״יRashi
המשיח תחתיו מבניו. הַמָּשִׁיחַ מִבָּנָיו תַּחְתָּיו: כליל תקטר. אֵין נִקְמֶצֶת לִהְיוֹת שְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין אֶלָּא כֻּלָּהּ כָּלִיל, וְכֵן כָּל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁל נְדָבָה כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה:
המשיח תחתיו מבניו is the same as המשיח מבניו תחתיו THE PRIEST THAT IS ANOINTED FROM AMONGST HIS SONS IN HIS STEAD. כליל תקטר IT SHALL WHOLLY ASCEND IN FUMES — The קמץ (the altar's share) is not taken off from it so that there can be any remaining of it to be eaten by the priests, but the whole of it is burnt entire. Similarly the next verse points out that every free-will meal-offering of a priest (i. e. such offering in general) shall be wholly burnt (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 5 3).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
כליל. כמו כלה כליל תהיה לשם:
WHOLLY. The word kalil means wholly. It shall be wholly sacrificed unto God.
אור החייםOr HaChaim
והכהן וגו'. תחתיו מבניו. בפרק התכלת (נא) דרשו שבא לכהן גדול שמת ועדיין לא מינו אחר תחתיו שבנו של מת יביאנה במקומו, והוא אומרו תחתיו מבניו. ודרשו מ"ם של מבניו לדרשא אחרת, דתניא שם בניו אלו כהנים הדיוטים, או אינו אלא כהנים גדולים, כשהוא אומר והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו הרי כהן גדול אמור מה אני מקיים בניו בהדיוטים, ומסיק שם בגמרא דמאומרו מבניו דורש כן. ובהוריות פרק ג' (יא) אמרו עוד כהן גדול בן כהן גדול טעון משיחה מנלן דכתיב והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו נימא קרא והכהן מתחתיו מבניו מאי המשיח וכו' ע"כ. וקשה והלא צריך לומר המשיח ללמד על בניו האמורים בתחלה שהם הדיוטות כמאמר התנא בפרק התכלת. ויש לומר שללמד על בניו האמורים בתחלה שהם הדיוטות שפיר נשמע הגם שלא היה אומר המשיח, כי ב' כתובים בכהן א' למה לי, אלא ודאי שבניו דרישא בהדיוטים בניו דסיפא בגדולים, ולא היה צריך לומר המשיח אלא לדרשא למשוח כהן גדול בן כהן גדול. ועדיין קשה בכתוב למה אמר תחתיו מבניו שהיה צריך לומר מבניו תחתיו. ואולי שיכוין להסמיך בניו ליעשה אותה לכוין דרשת פרק התכלת שאם מת כהן גדול ועדיין לא מינו אחר במקומו בנו יביא במקומו, וזה שיעור הכתוב והכהן המשיח תחתיו יעשה, ואם עדיין לא נתמנה, מבניו של מת יעשה אותה, ואם היה אומר הכתוב הכהן המשיח מבניו תחתיו אז תהיה הכוונה שאין חיוב על בנו להביא אלא אם יהיה תחתיו שכן משמע דוקא תחתיו פירוש שנתמנה או שהוא ראוי לעמוד תחתיו, ומאומרו מבניו יעשה משמע כל יורש יביא. ולר"ש שחולק וסובר שאם לא מינו אחר תחתיו באה משל ציבור אמר תחתיו מבניו, לסמוך מבניו ליעשה, לומר כי אין ראוי לשום אדם אחר ליכנס תחת הכהן זולת בנו. אחר שפירשתי זה מצאתי שכן דרשוה בתורת כהנים למבין משמעות הברייתות על נכון:
והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו, and one of his sons, the priest who will be anointed in his stead, etc. The sages in Menachot 51 explain that this verse teaches that if a High Priest has died and no successor has as yet been appointed, that one of his sons must offer the daily meal-offering which is mandatory for the High Priest. They derive this הלכה from the words מבניו תחתיו, "one of his sons in his stead." The same sages use the letter ם in the word מבניו for a different exegetical purpose. The Talmud on that folio quotes a Baraitha according to which the word בניו means that the High Priest's sons enjoy the status of ordinary priests; to the query that may be the Torah intended them to have the status of High Priests (pl)? The sages point to the words והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו as proof that only one of the sons may be anointed as High Priest in place of their father. It seems clear that this conclusion is derived from the word מבניו, i.e. from amongst his sons, not all his sons. On this subject the Talmud Horiot 11 adds that even a High Priest who is the son of a High priest needs to undergo anointing with the oil of anointing. They derive this from the words: והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו; if anointment of the son were not required all the Torah would have had to write was והכהן מתחתיו מבניו the extraneous word המשיח teaches that even if the High Priest's own son is his successor he has to be anointed. This seems difficult. The word המשיח is essential to teach us that the sons who up until then were only ordinary priests, as per We could answer this query by saying that we did not need the word המשיח to enable us to allow the sons to offer the meal-offering in the absence of a newly appointed High Priest, for why else would the Torah write two verses dealing with the ordinary priest offering a meal-offering. It is clear therefore that on the first occasion the Torah mentions the meal-offering brought by an ordinary priest that the regular priest is meant, whereas on the second occasion the Torah refers to an ordinary priest who happens to be the son of a High Priest. The word המשיח did not have to be mentioned unless the Torah wished us to derive an additional lesson from that word. The Talmud concluded therefore that the word teaches that even if a High Priest is succeeded by his son he needs to be anointed for his new office. There remains the problem why the Torah had to write תחתיו מבניו, an inverted way of saying מבניו תחתיו, "from amongst his sons as his replacement." Perhaps the Torah was especially interested in the word תחתיו appearing next to the person whom he replaced in order for the Talmud in Menachot to be able to arrive at the conclusion that one of the High Priest's sons must offer the meal-offering normally offered by the High Priest pending appointment of a new High Priest. The whole verse may then be understood as follows: והכהן המשיח תחתיו יעשה, "and the priest who will be anointed in his place will carry out (the functions of that Office);" however, if a replacement has not yet been appointed, מבניו יעשה, "one of his sons may carry it out." Had the Torah written הכהן המשיח מבניו תחתיו, the meaning would have been that only if the son had already been appointed in place of his father, i.e. had been appointed or was considered fit to be appointed, would he be obligated to offer the meal-offering his father used to offer; seeing that the Torah reversed the words מבניו תחתיו and wrote תחתיו מבניו יעשה, we derive the law that any of the High Priest's heirs may bring the meal-offering. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that as long as no replacement for the High Priest has been appointed the meal-offering in question has to be paid for by the public purse (instead of by the High Priest or his estate). The significance of the sequence of the words תחתיו מבניו then is that no one other than the son of the deceased High Priest is entitled to replace him. After having given this explanation I have found that Torat Kohanim already preceded me in explaining these Baraithot in the same spirit.
פסוק ו:טז · 6:16
Hebrew:
וְכׇל־מִנְחַ֥ת כֹּהֵ֛ן כָּלִ֥יל תִּהְיֶ֖ה לֹ֥א תֵאָכֵֽל׃ {פ}
English:
So, too, every meal offering of a priest shall be a whole offering: it shall not be eaten.
A general principle is stated: every meal offering of a priest must be entirely burned and may not be eaten. Since a priest cannot logically consume his own offering brought for atonement, the entire offering belongs to God. This stands in contrast to an Israelite's meal offering, where the remainder after the kometz is eaten by the priests.
רש״יRashi
כליל. כֻּלָּהּ שָׁוָה לְגָבוֹהַּ:
כליל (connected with כל, all) means, all of it belongs alike to the Most High God (i. e. no part of it is given to the priests).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
לא תאכל. ככל המנחות כי איך יאכל הכהן מנחתו או חטאתו. מקום שחיטת כל חטאת צפונה:
IT SHALL NOT BE EATEN. As all the meal offerings are, for how can a kohen eat his meal or sin offering.44It is illogical. The place of the slaughter of all the sin offerings was in the north.45See Lev. 1:11.
פסוק ו:יז · 6:17
Hebrew:
וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃
English:
יהוה spoke to Moses, saying:
פסוק ו:יח · 6:18
Hebrew:
דַּבֵּ֤ר אֶֽל־אַהֲרֹן֙ וְאֶל־בָּנָ֣יו לֵאמֹ֔ר זֹ֥את תּוֹרַ֖ת הַֽחַטָּ֑את בִּמְק֡וֹם אֲשֶׁר֩ תִּשָּׁחֵ֨ט הָעֹלָ֜ה תִּשָּׁחֵ֤ט הַֽחַטָּאת֙ לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה קֹ֥דֶשׁ קׇֽדָשִׁ֖ים הִֽוא׃
English:
Speak to Aaron and his sons thus: This is the ritual of the sin offering: the sin offering shall be slaughtered before יהוה, at the spot*the spot Cf. 1.11. where the burnt offering is slaughtered: it is most holy.
The Torah introduces the law of the chatat (sin offering): it must be slaughtered at the same spot where the olah (burnt offering) is slaughtered -- on the north side of the altar -- and it bears the status of kodesh kodashim (most holy). Sforno notes that for especially grave sin offerings whose blood is brought inside the sanctuary, the flesh is not eaten but burned entirely.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
קדש קדשים. כי הוא כאחד הקדשים:
IT IS MOST HOLY. It is like one of the other holy things.46According to I.E. kodesh kodashim (it is most holy) does not mean it is most holy but is to be interpreted as if written, kodesh ke-ha-kodashim (holy like the holy; that is, it is one of the holy things).
ספורנוSforno
והזכיר תורה בחטאת, ואמר שאותו החטאת, אשר לכובד ענינו לא יכופר זולתי בהכנס דמו אל הקדש פנימה לא תהיה בו כפרה באכילת כהנים כשאר חטאות אבל תהיה בשרפתו.
now the "Torah" of the sin offering, חטאת, is mentioned. If the sin offering is meant to atone for a serious sin, its blood has to offered in side the sanctuary, and none of the offering is allocated to the priests to eat. The parts normally eaten by the priests will also be burned.
פסוק ו:יט · 6:19
Hebrew:
הַכֹּהֵ֛ן הַֽמְחַטֵּ֥א אֹתָ֖הּ יֹאכְלֶ֑נָּה בְּמָק֤וֹם קָדֹשׁ֙ תֵּֽאָכֵ֔ל בַּחֲצַ֖ר אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד׃
English:
The priest who offers it as a sin offering shall eat of it; it shall be eaten in the sacred precinct, in the enclosure of the Tent of Meeting.
The priest who performs the sin offering's blood service may eat of its flesh, and it must be eaten in a sacred precinct -- the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. Rashi clarifies that this does not mean only the specific priest who sprinkled the blood, but rather any priest who is ritually fit to perform the service, thereby excluding one who was impure at the time of the blood sprinkling.
רש״יRashi
המחטא אתה. הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדוֹתֶיהָ — שֶׁהִיא נַעֲשֵׂית חַטָּאת עַל יָדוֹ: המחטא אתה יאכלנה. הָרָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה; יָצָא טָמֵא בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק בַּבָּשָׂר; וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר שֶׁאוֹסֵר שְׁאָר כֹּהֲנִים בַּאֲכִילָתָהּ חוּץ מִן הַזּוֹרֵק דָּמָהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר לְמַטָּה כָּל זָכָר בַּכֹּהֲנִים יֹאכַל אֹתָהּ (זבחים צ"ט):
המחטא אתה means the priest who performs those rites connected with it (i. e. those connected with the sprinkling of the blood), he is called the מחטא because it is through him that it becomes a sin-offering. המחטא אתה יאכלנה THE PRIEST THAT OFFERETH IT MAY EAT IT — i. e., the priest who is fitted to carry out the rite (so that the words denote: Any priest who may offer it as a sin-offering may eat of it; they do not refer to that priest alone who offered it). Thus there is excluded a priest who is unclean (and therefore unfitted) when the blood is sprinkled — that he has no share in the flesh. One cannot say that Scripture here forbids the eating of it to ANY priests (i. e. even to clean priests) except him who sprinkles the blood, because, you see, it is stated later on (v. 22), "All the males among the priests may eat thereof" (cf. Zevachim 99a).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
הכהן המחטא. טעמו הזורק דם כאילו אמר המסיר חטא החוטא ורבי המפרשים אמרו כי טעם המחטא רוחץ או מטהר וכן תחטאני באזוב ואטהר:
THE PRIEST THAT OFFERETH IT FOR SIN. Ha-kohen ha-mechatte (the priest that offereth it for sin) means the kohen who sprinkles the blood. Ha-kohen ha-mechatte is another way of saying the kohen that removes the sin of the sinner.47The word mechatte literally means "removes sins." Many of the commentaries say that ha-mechatte means who washes or cleans. The word techatteni (purge me) in Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean (Ps. 51:9) is similar.
פסוק ו:כ · 6:20
Hebrew:
כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־יִגַּ֥ע בִּבְשָׂרָ֖הּ יִקְדָּ֑שׁ וַאֲשֶׁ֨ר יִזֶּ֤ה מִדָּמָהּ֙ עַל־הַבֶּ֔גֶד אֲשֶׁר֙ יִזֶּ֣ה עָלֶ֔יהָ תְּכַבֵּ֖ס בְּמָק֥וֹם קָדֹֽשׁ׃
English:
Anything that touches its flesh shall become holy; and if any of its blood is spattered upon a garment, you shall wash the bespattered part in the sacred precinct.
Whatever touches the flesh of the sin offering absorbs its sanctity and assumes its halakhic status: if the offering is valid, the food may be eaten under the same strict conditions; if disqualified, the food is also disqualified. Blood splattered on a garment must be laundered in a sacred precinct, reflecting the extreme sanctity of the chatat.
רש״יRashi
כל אשר יגע בבשרה. כָּל דְּבַר אֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע וְיִבְלַע מִמֶּנָּה: יקדש. לִהְיוֹת כָּמוֹהָ — אִם פְּסוּלָה תִּפָּסֵל, וְאִם הִיא כְּשֵׁרָה, תֵּאָכֵל כַּחֹמֶר שֶׁבָּהּ: ואשר יזה מדמה על הבגד. וְאִם הֻזָּה מִדָּמָהּ עַל הַבֶּגֶד, אוֹתוֹ מְקוֹם הַדָּם שֶׁבַּבֶּגֶד אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה עָלֶיה, תְּכַבֵּס בְּתוֹךְ הָעֲזָרָה: אשר יזה. יְהֵא נִזֶּה, כְּמוֹ וְלֹא יִטֶּה לָאָרֶץ מִנְלָם (איוב ט"ו) — יְהֵא נָטוּי:
כל אשר יגע בבשרה WHATSOEVER SHALL TOUCH THE FLESH THEREOF [SHALL BECOME HOLY] — any article of food that shall touch it and absorb anything of it (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Section 4 5; Zevachim 97a and Rashi on v. 11), יקדש SHALL BE HOLY, so as to become exactly like itself: if it (the sin-offering) has become invalid, it (the food touching it) also becomes disqualified, and if that be fit for eating this may be eaten only under the same stringency applying to it (the sin-offering). ואשר יזה מדמה על הבגד means, and if there is splashed of the blood thereof on a garment, that blood-stained spot in the garment whereon it was splashed shalt thou wash in the forecourt (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 6 3). אשר יזה means, shall be splashed. It is the same as the verb in (Job. 15:29) "and their substance shall not be spread (יטה) on earth" (cf. Rashi on that verse).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
כל אשר יגע. בבשר החטאת יהיה קדש לשם והכהן יאכלנו לכן חלק הזורק כחלק כל אחיו: יזה. א״ר משה הכהן שהוא כמו יטה מבנין קל ובפתחו׳ היו״ד מהכבד והאות המובלע נו״ן וכן ויז מדמ׳ אל הקיר בחיר״ק עם ויז בפתח רק במלת נטה מראה על הקיר בחיר״ק עם ויז הוא בצר״י בבנין הקל וכן מצאנו ויז נצחם מבנין הקל ויפה דקדק. ובעבור שהחטאת קדש צוה השם לכבס המקום שנפל מדמה על הבגד במקום קדוש הוא חצר אהל מועד כי יש הפרש בין קדוש וטהור: אשר יזה עליה. יחסר מקום או. והטעם או אם יזה אחר עליה שהוא הבשר יכבס הבשר הכהן ואחר כך יאכלנו או פירושו המקום אשר יזה מהדם תכבס ויהיה בגד לשון נקבה וזכר וכמוהו אשר תשיג ידו ותי״ו תכבס לכהן:
WHATSOEVER SHALL TOUCH. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh of the sin offering will be holy unto God, and the kohen shall eat it. The portion of the kohen who sprinkles the blood of the sin offering is therefore48For the sprinkling "removes" the sin from the sinner. This comment relates to the previous verse. It is to be understood as follows: The kohen who sprinkles the blood removes the sin from the sinner…the portion of the kohen who sprinkles the blood is therefore equal to the portion of all the other kohanim. (Filwarg). like49Is equal to. the portion of all his brothers.50The other kohanim. According to I.E. the kohen who sprinkles the blood of the sin offering receives half of its flesh. The remainder is shared by the other kohanim (Filwarg). IS SPRINKLED. Rabbi Mosheh Ha-Kohen says that yizzeh (is sprinkled)51From the root nun, zayin, heh. is similar to the word yitteh52From the root nun, tet, heh. (shall…bend) (Job 15:29).53It drops the nun in the imperfect and is similarly vocalized. It is a kal. When the yod54The yod prefixed to the word in the imperfect. is vocalized with a pattach it is a hifil.55Literally, from the heavy [conjugation] yazzeh or yatteh. The swallowed letter56The letter swallowed by the dagesh. is a nun.57The first root letter. In other words, the nun of the root nun, zayin, heh is swallowed by the dagesh. Hence the word yizzeh. We similarly find the word va-yiz (and…was sprinkled) in and some of her blood was sprinkled (II Kings 9:33) vocalized with a chirik, and vayaz with a pattach.58The word appears both in the kal and the hifil in shortened forms. Va-yiz in place of va-yizzeh and va-yaz in place of va-yazzeh. However, the word natah (turned) is vocalized with a tzereh in the kal.59In the kal imperfect. Compare, yet (stretched) in va-yet moshe et yado (and Moses stretched forth his hand) (Ex. 10:22). We similarly find ve-yez nitzcham (and their lifeblood is dashed) (Is. 63:3).60I.E.'s point is that the root nun, zayin, heh can be vocalized with a chirik or a tzereh in the kal imperfect. He explained it very well.61We have followed the reading Vat. Ebr. 38. The reading in the Mikra'ot Gedolot is very difficult to explain and is apparently corrupt (see Filwarg, Weiser, Meijler, Krinsky). It reads, "However, the word natah (turned) in natah mareh el ha-kir is vocalized with a chirik. We find it vocalized with a tzereh in the kal. Compare, ve-yez in ve-yez nitzcham (and their lifeblood is dashed) (Is. 63:3), wherein ve-yez is in the kal. He [Rabbi Mosheh HaKohan] explained it very well." There is no verse that reads, natah marehah el ha-kir. The above can only be explained by emending the text. For a proposed emendation, see Meijler. The Lord commanded that the place where some of the blood of the sin offering fell on the garment be washed because the sin offering is holy. [IN A HOLY PLACE.] The reference is to the courtyard of the tent of meeting, for there is a difference between holy and clean.62A clean place is a place that is ritually clean. Thus if Scripture had read "in a clean place," it could have referred to any place that is ritually clean. It would not necessarily have meant the courtyard of the tent of meeting. THAT WHEREON IT WAS SPRINKLED.63Hebrew, asher yizzeh alehah, literally (that is sprinkled upon it). The word "place" or the word "or" is missing.64So Krinsky. The verse literally reads: And when (asher) there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, that (asher) it is sprinkled upon it, you shall wash in a holy place. The aforementioned is repetitious and ambiguous. I.E. suggests two possible interpretations. One, our verse is to be interpreted: And when (asher) there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, or if one (asher) sprinkles upon it (the flesh of the sin offering), you shall wash it in a holy place. Two: And when (asher) there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, the place where (makom asher) something is sprinkled upon it (the garment), you shall wash in a holy place. It means: Or if someone shall sprinkle upon it, that is, upon the flesh, then the kohen shall wash the flesh and then eat it. On the other hand, its meaning might be, the place where the blood is sprinkled shall be washed. In this case the word beged (garment) is both masculine and feminine.65The word beged (garment) is usually masculine. The word aleha (it) is feminine. Thus if "it" refers to beged (garment) then beged is also a feminine noun. The word yado (his hand) in even as his hand can afford (Lev. 14:31)66Translated according to I.E. is similar.67The word yad is treated as both masculine and feminine. It is treated as feminine in Lev. 13:21, for the noun governing it (tasig) is in the feminine. However, it is treated as masculine in Ex. 17:12, where Scripture employs a masculine adjective to describe the hands of Moses. The tav68The tav of tekhabbes is a second person imperfect prefix. of tekhabbes (thou shalt wash) is directed to the kohen.69In other words, the term thou in thou shalt wash is directed to the kohen.
פסוק ו:כא · 6:21
Hebrew:
וּכְלִי־חֶ֛רֶשׂ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תְּבֻשַּׁל־בּ֖וֹ יִשָּׁבֵ֑ר וְאִם־בִּכְלִ֤י נְחֹ֙שֶׁת֙ בֻּשָּׁ֔לָה וּמֹרַ֥ק וְשֻׁטַּ֖ף בַּמָּֽיִם׃
English:
An earthen vessel in which it was boiled shall be broken; if it was boiled in a copper vessel, [the vessel] shall be scoured and rinsed with water.
An earthenware vessel used to cook the sin offering must be broken because it permanently absorbs flavors and the absorbed flesh would become notar (leftover past the permitted time). A copper vessel, however, can be purged by scouring and rinsing with water. This distinction between porous and non-porous materials became foundational to the laws of kashering vessels.
רש״יRashi
ישבר. לְפִי שֶׁהַבְּלִיעָה שֶׁנִּבְלַעַת בּוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה נוֹתָר, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכָל הַקֳּדָשִׁים: ומרק. לְשׁוֹן תַּמְרוּקֵי הַנָּשִׁים (אסתר ב'), אשקור"מנט בְּלַעַז: ומרק ושטף. לִפְלֹט אֶת בְּלִיעָתוֹ, אֲבָל כְּלִי חֶרֶס לִמֶּדְךָ הַכָּתוּב כָּאן שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִידֵי דָּפְיוֹ לְעוֹלָם (עבודה זרה ל"ד):
ישבר [BUT AN EARTHEN VESSEL WHEREIN IT IS SODDEN] SHALL BE BROKEN — because the substance absorbed in it becomes what is known as נותר (the technical term for any portion of a sacrifice not eaten by the time prescribed for this) (cf. Avodah Zarah 76a). That, too, is the regulation applicable to all sacrifices (i. e. that an earthen vessel wherein they have been cooked must be broken). ומרק — of the same root and meaning as the noun in (Esther 2:12) "the things for purifying (תמרוקי) women"; escourement in old French; English, scouring. ומרק ושטף [AND IF IT BE SODDEN IN A COPPER POT] IT SHALL BE BOTH SCOURED AND RINSED [IN WATER] — in order that it should give out what it has absorbed: but as far as an earthen vessel is concerned Scripture teaches you that it can never get rid of its taint (lit., can never leave the grasp which its taint has on it) (Avodah Zarah 34a; Pesachim 30b).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
תבשל בו. גם בשלה ומורק ושוטף מבנין שלא נקרא שם פועלו ובא ומורק בחול״ם בעבור הרי״ש שלא תדגש כי אם במקומות מועטים במשקל לא זורק עליו מגזרת מרקו הרמחים כי המ״ם שרש:
WHEREIN IT IS SODDEN. Bushalah (sodden), morak (scoured), and shuttaf (rinsed) are all pu'als. Morak is vocalized with a cholam70Rather than with a kubbutz, as is the case in the pu'al. because of the resh which, except in a few places,71The massorah records seven instances in Scripture when a dagesh is placed in the resh (Krinsky). does not receive a dagesh.72A dagesh is placed in the middle root letter in the pu'al. However, the resh does not receive a dagesh. Hence the vowel changes from a kubbutz to a cholam. Morak follows the paradigm of zorak (dashed)73A pu'al. in was not dashed against him (Num. 19:13). Morak is related to the word mirku (furbish) in Furbish the spears (Jer. 46:4), for the mem of morak is a root letter.
פסוק ו:כב · 6:22
Hebrew:
כׇּל־זָכָ֥ר בַּכֹּהֲנִ֖ים יֹאכַ֣ל אֹתָ֑הּ קֹ֥דֶשׁ קׇֽדָשִׁ֖ים הִֽוא׃
English:
Only the males in the priestly line may eat of it: it is most holy.
All male priests may eat of the sin offering, confirming its status as kodesh kodashim. Rashi explains that this verse resolves any misunderstanding from verse 19: the earlier statement that the officiating priest eats it was not meant to exclude other priests, but only to exclude those who are ritually unfit for the service.
רש״יRashi
כל זכר בכהנים יאכל אתה. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁהַמְחַטֵּא אוֹתָהּ הָאָמוּר לְמַעְלָה לֹא לְהוֹצִיא שְׁאָר הַכֹּהֲנִים, אֶלָּא לְהוֹצִיא אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְחִטּוּי:
כל זכר בכהנים יאכלנה ALL MALES AMONG THE PRIESTS SHALL EAT THEREOF — Thus you learn that the statement "[the priest] that offers it for a sin-offering [shall eat it]" made above (v. 19) is not intended to exclude other priests (i. e. such as did not actually perform the rites of that sacrifice), but only to exclude from eating it those priests who were at that time unfit to bring it as a sin-offering (cf. Rashi on v. 19).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
וטעם קדש קדשים הוא. עם כל זכר שאין ראוי לאכול החטאת שהקריבו ממנה והובא לכפר כי אם התמימים והזכר תמים מהנקבה ואפילו קטן יקרא זכר והזכר שהוא בן שלש עשרה שנה כאשר העתיקו אבותינו:
[IT IS MOST HOLY.] Scripture states it is most holy with regard to every male74Scripture states that the sin offering is most holy in verse 18. The question thus arises, Why repeat it again in our verse? because only the perfect may eat from a sin offering whose organs are offered and is brought for atonement for sins.75Scripture repeats it is most holy with regard to all male kohanim in order to teach us that only the "perfect" may eat from the sin offering because it is most holy. Males are more perfect76I.E. believed that males are superior to females. than females.77No female may eat from the sin offering. Even a small child is called a male.78In other words, a male under the age of 13 may eat of the flesh of a burnt offering. A male who is thirteen years old [is considered an adult] as our fathers have transmitted.
פסוק ו:כג · 6:23
Hebrew:
וְכׇל־חַטָּ֡את אֲשֶׁר֩ יוּבָ֨א מִדָּמָ֜הּ אֶל־אֹ֧הֶל מוֹעֵ֛ד לְכַפֵּ֥ר בַּקֹּ֖דֶשׁ לֹ֣א תֵאָכֵ֑ל בָּאֵ֖שׁ תִּשָּׂרֵֽף׃ {פ}
English:
But no sin offering may be eaten from which any blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting for expiation in the sanctuary; any such shall be consumed in fire.
A critical exception: any sin offering whose blood is brought inside the Tent of Meeting for atonement in the inner sanctuary may not be eaten and must be burned in fire. This applies to the sin offerings of the High Priest and the congregation (Leviticus 4). Rashi adds that even an outer sin offering becomes invalid if its blood is mistakenly brought inside.
רש״יRashi
וכל חטאת וגו'. שֶׁאִם הִכְנִיס מִדַּם חַטָּאת הַחִיצוֹנָה לִפְנִים פְּסוּלָה: וכל. לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר קָדָשִׁים (ספרא):
'וכל חטאת וגו AND NO SIN OFFERING [WHEREOF ANY OF THE BLOOD IS BROUGHT INTO THE TENT OF MEETING SHALL BE EATEN] — This means, that if the priest brought any of the blood of an "external" sin-offering (one the blood of which has to be sprinkled on the outer altar) into the Interior it becomes invalid and must be burnt. וכל AND ALL — The word "all" serves to include in this law other sacrifices too (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 8 1; Zevachim 81b).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
וכל חטאת אשר יובא מדמה וגו׳ לכפר בקדש. והנה מקום הפרכת יקרא קדש כי החצר ואם היא קדש כנגד אהל מועד חול והנה גם יקרא לפנים הפרכת קדש כנגד אהל מועד כמו בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקדש וזאת החטאת היא חטאת כהן הגדול או הקהל:
AND NO SIN-OFFERING, WHEREOF ANY OF THE BLOOD IS BROUGHT INTO…THE HOLY PLACE. Note, the place of the "veil"79The curtain (parokhet) separating the "holy" from the "most holy." See Ex. 26:33. is called holy,80The room containing the menorah, the table, and the altar of incense is called the holy. for the courtyard,81The courtyard of the tent of meeting. even though it is holy, is not holy in comparison to the tent of meeting.82The room containing the menorah, the table, and the altar of incense is called the holy in comparison with the courtyard of the tent of meeting. It is not called holy in regard to the room containing the ark of the covenant. Observe, the inside of the curtain is called holy in comparison to the tent of meeting. Compare, Herewith shall Aaron come into the holy place (Lev. 16:3).83The room containing the ark of the covenant. The sin offering spoken of in our verse is the sin offering of the kohen gadol or of the congregation.84For blood of a sin offering of a kohen gadol or of the congregation is brought into the tent of meeting. See Lev. 4:3-5; 13-16.
פסוק ז:א · 7:1
Hebrew:
וְזֹ֥את תּוֹרַ֖ת הָאָשָׁ֑ם קֹ֥דֶשׁ קׇֽדָשִׁ֖ים הֽוּא׃
English:
This is the ritual of the guilt offering: it is most holy.
The Torah introduces the law of the asham (guilt offering), declaring it kodesh kodashim (most holy) like the sin offering. Ibn Ezra explains that although the Torah already addressed the guilt offering in Parashat Vayikra, it returns to the subject here in order to specify the fat portions that must be burned on the altar, which were not previously detailed.
רש״יRashi
קדש קדשים הוא. הוּא קָרֵב וְאֵין תְּמוּרָתוֹ קְרֵבָה (ספרא):
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).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
וזאת תורת האשם. כבר הודעתיך ההפרש בין חטאת ואשם אף על פי שהכתוב יאמר בחטאת אשם ובאשם חטאת. וטעם להזכיר זאת הפרשה להזכיר החלבים שאין להם זכר בתורת החטאת:
AND THIS IS THE LAW OF THE GUILT-OFFERING. I have previously1See I.E. on Lev. 5:17. explained to you the difference between a sin offering2Hebrew, chattat. and a guilt offering.3Asham. [There is a difference between the two] even though Scripture employs the term guilt when referring to a sin offering4See Lev. 5:6, And he shall bring his forfeit (ashamo)…for his sin. Also Lev. 4:13, 14, And are guilty (ve-ashemu)…then the assembly shall offer…a sin-offering. and the word sin when referring to a guilt offering.5See Lev. 5:17,18, And if any one sin…And he shall bring a ram…for a guilt-offering. Scripture records this section6The section dealing with the law of the guilt offering (verses 1-7). because it wants to make mention of the fat,7Of the guilt offering. to which no reference is made when Scripture earlier records the law of the sin offering.8In the previous Torah portion, Va-Yikra. There the Torah deals with sin and guilt offerings.
פסוק ז:ב · 7:2
Hebrew:
בִּמְק֗וֹם אֲשֶׁ֤ר יִשְׁחֲטוּ֙ אֶת־הָ֣עֹלָ֔ה יִשְׁחֲט֖וּ אֶת־הָאָשָׁ֑ם וְאֶת־דָּמ֛וֹ יִזְרֹ֥ק עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ סָבִֽיב׃
English:
The guilt offering shall be slaughtered at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered, and the blood shall be dashed on all sides of the altar.
The guilt offering must be slaughtered in the same location as the burnt offering -- on the north side of the altar -- and its blood is dashed on all sides of the altar. Rashi notes that the plural form of the verb (yishchatu) serves to include communal burnt offerings under the same rule of northward slaughter.
רש״יRashi
ישחטו. רִבָּה לָנוּ שְׁחִיטוֹת הַרְבֵּה; לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ אָשָׁם בְּצִבּוּר, נֶאֱמַר "יִשְׁחֲטוּ" — רַבִּים, וּתְלָאוֹ בְּעוֹלָה, לְהָבִיא עוֹלַת צִבּוּר לַצָּפוֹן:
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).
פסוק ז:ג · 7:3
Hebrew:
וְאֵ֥ת כׇּל־חֶלְבּ֖וֹ יַקְרִ֣יב מִמֶּ֑נּוּ אֵ֚ת הָֽאַלְיָ֔ה וְאֶת־הַחֵ֖לֶב הַֽמְכַסֶּ֥ה אֶת־הַקֶּֽרֶב׃
English:
All its fat shall be offered: the broad tail; the fat that covers the entrails;
The Torah enumerates the fat portions of the guilt offering that must be offered on the altar: the broad tail (alyah), and the fat covering the entrails. Rashi explains that since the guilt offering can only be a ram or a lamb, both of which require the fat tail to be burned, this detail is specifically mentioned here.
רש״יRashi
ואת כל חלבו וגו'. עַד כָּאן לֹא נִתְפָּרְשׁוּ אֵמוּרִין בָּאָשָׁם, לְכָךְ הֻצְרַךְ לְפָרְשָׁם כָּאן, אֲבָל חַטָּאת כְּבָר נִתְפָּרֵשׁ בָּהּ בְּפָרָשַׁת וַיִּקְרָא: את האליה. לְפִי שֶׁאָשָׁם אֵינוֹ בָּא אֶלָּא אַיִל אוֹ כֶּבֶשׂ, וְאַיִל וְכֶבֶשׂ נִתְרַבּוּ בְּאַלְיָה:
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.
פסוק ז:ד · 7:4
Hebrew:
וְאֵת֙ שְׁתֵּ֣י הַכְּלָיֹ֔ת וְאֶת־הַחֵ֙לֶב֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עֲלֵיהֶ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־הַכְּסָלִ֑ים וְאֶת־הַיֹּתֶ֙רֶת֙ עַל־הַכָּבֵ֔ד עַל־הַכְּלָיֹ֖ת יְסִירֶֽנָּה׃
English:
the two kidneys and the fat that is on them at the loins; and the protuberance on the liver, which shall be removed with the kidneys.
פסוק ז:ה · 7:5
Hebrew:
וְהִקְטִ֨יר אֹתָ֤ם הַכֹּהֵן֙ הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חָה אִשֶּׁ֖ה לַיהֹוָ֑ה אָשָׁ֖ם הֽוּא׃
English:
The priest shall turn them into smoke on the altar as an offering by fire to יהוה; it is a guilt offering.
The priest burns the specified fat portions on the altar as a fire offering to God. The declaration 'it is a guilt offering' (asham hu) generated Talmudic debate (Zevachim 5b): the Sages derive from the word 'hu' that slaughtering outside the north side invalidates the offering, while Rabbi Eliezer initially understood it as invalidating a guilt offering slaughtered with wrong intent.
רש״יRashi
אשם הוא. עַד שֶׁיִּנָּתֵק שְׁמוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ, לִמֵּד עַל אָשָׁם שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלָיו אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְכַּפְּרוּ בְּעָלָיו, אַעַ"פִּי שֶׁעוֹמֵד לִהְיוֹת דָּמָיו עוֹלֶה לְקַיִץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אִם שְׁחָטוֹ סְתָם, אֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לְעוֹלָה קֹדֶם שֶׁנִּתַּק לִרְעִיָּה; וְאֵינוֹ בָּא לְלַמֵּד עַל הָאָשָׁם שֶׁיְּהֵא פָּסוּל שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ — כְּמוֹ שֶׁדָּרְשׁוּ הוּא הַכָּתוּב בַּחַטָּאת — לְפִי שֶׁאָשָׁם לֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ אָשָׁם הוּא אֶלָּא לְאַחַר הַקְטָרַת אֵמוּרִין, וְהוּא עַצְמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הֻקְטְרוּ אֵמוּרָיו כָּשֵׁר (זבחים ה'):
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).
אור החייםOr HaChaim
אשם הוא. נחלקו רבנן ורבי אליעזר (ת"כ כאן), רבנן אמרו הוא למעט אם לא שחטו בצפון לעיכובא, ר' אליעזר אומר למעט אם שחטו שלא לשמו והנה לסברת ר' אליעזר ידוייק אשם הוא שחוזר הוא לאשם שצריך שיהיה לשם אשם. והגם שבזבחים (י) מצינו שהקשה ר' יהושע לר' אליעזר וחזר ר' אליעזר ולמד דין זה דשלא לשמו מפסוק (ז) כחטאת כאשם שהשוה אותם הכתוב, אם כן תיבת הוא למה צריכה, ואולי כי זולת הוא הייתי אומר שההקש בא לענין שצריך סמיכה כמו שדרשו חכמים (שם יא) לזה אמר הוא סמך לאשם לומר שצריך לשם אשם, ולצד שנקשה מה שהקשה שם אמר כחטאת כאשם. ולרבנן הוא למעט שחיטה שלא בצפון שהוזכרה בפרשה (פסוק ב) ובא לעכב, והגם שיש להקשות מעין קושיות שהקשה ר' יהושע לר' אליעזר גם לדברי חכמים, כיון שלא חדשו דין זר מהשכל בדרשתם אלא דבר שישנה בכל הקרבנות, וגם הוזכר בפירוש, אלא שמפסוק א' הייתי אומר שאינו מעכב, יכולין לדרוש הוא שבא לעכובא מה שאין כן ר' אליעזר שהוליד דין חדש שאין לו דמיון, לזה הוקשה כל הקשיות הרשומות שם:
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.
פסוק ז:ו · 7:6
Hebrew:
כׇּל־זָכָ֥ר בַּכֹּהֲנִ֖ים יֹאכְלֶ֑נּוּ בְּמָק֤וֹם קָדוֹשׁ֙ יֵאָכֵ֔ל קֹ֥דֶשׁ קׇֽדָשִׁ֖ים הֽוּא׃
English:
Only the males in the priestly line may eat of it; it shall be eaten in the sacred precinct: it is most holy.
Only male priests may eat the guilt offering, and it must be consumed in a sacred precinct. The Torah reiterates that it is kodesh kodashim (most holy), reinforcing both the restriction on who may eat it and the sanctity of the location where it is consumed.
רש״יRashi
קדש קדשים הוא. בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים הוּא נִדְרָשׁ:
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).
פסוק ז:ז · 7:7
Hebrew:
כַּֽחַטָּאת֙ כָּֽאָשָׁ֔ם תּוֹרָ֥ה אַחַ֖ת לָהֶ֑ם הַכֹּהֵ֛ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר יְכַפֶּר־בּ֖וֹ ל֥וֹ יִהְיֶֽה׃
English:
The guilt offering is like the sin offering. The same rule applies to both: it shall belong to the priest who makes expiation thereby.
The Torah establishes a unifying principle: the guilt offering follows the same law as the sin offering regarding priestly entitlements. The priest who performs the atonement receives the flesh, which excludes those unfit for service -- such as a tevul yom (one who immersed but awaits nightfall), one who lacks atonement, or an onen (mourner before burial).
רש״יRashi
תורה אחת להם. בְּדָבָר זֶה: הכהן אשר יכפר בו. הָרָאוּי לְכַפָּרָה חוֹלֵק בּוֹ, פְּרָט לִטְבוּל יוֹם וּמְחֻסַּר כִּפּוּרִים וְאוֹנֵן (ספרא):
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).
ספורנוSforno
ושהאשם, אף על פי שאינו על חטא מחייבי כריתות כמו החטאת, הנה להיות חטאו מעילה בקדש תורה אחת להם.
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.
פסוק ז:ח · 7:8
Hebrew:
וְהַ֨כֹּהֵ֔ן הַמַּקְרִ֖יב אֶת־עֹ֣לַת אִ֑ישׁ ע֤וֹר הָֽעֹלָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הִקְרִ֔יב לַכֹּהֵ֖ן ל֥וֹ יִהְיֶֽה׃
English:
So, too, the priest who offers another person’s burnt offering shall keep the skin of the burnt offering that was offered.
The priest who offers a person's burnt offering keeps its hide as his priestly entitlement. Rashi notes that, as with the flesh of other offerings, a tevul yom, one lacking atonement, or an onen is excluded from sharing in the skins. Ibn Ezra explains that the seemingly redundant phrase 'to himself' emphasizes that the skin may not be given to another priest.
רש״יRashi
עור העלה אשר הקריב לכהן לו יהיה. פְּרָט לִטְבוּל יוֹם וּמְחֻסַּר כִּפּוּרִים וְאוֹנֵן שֶׁאֵין חוֹלְקִים בָּעוֹרוֹת (שם):
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).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
עולת איש. מלעיל בעבור היות הטעם בראשית המלה האחרונה כמשפט: וטעם לו. אחר שאמר לכהן תוספת ביאור שלא ינתן העור לכהן אחר:
ANY MAN'S BURNT-OFFERING. The word olat (burnt offering) is penultimately accented9It is usually ultimately accented. Hence I.E.'s comment. in accordance with the rules of Hebrew grammar.10When a word that is ultimately accented is connected to a word that is penultimately accented, it too is penultimately accented. It is so accented because the word that follows11Ish (man). has the accent on the first part of the word. Scripture reads to himself even though it earlier stated even the priest12Our verse reads, even the priest shall have to himself. To himself appears redundant. Hence I.E.'s comment. because it wants to further explain that the skin not be given to another kohen.
פסוק ז:ט · 7:9
Hebrew:
וְכׇל־מִנְחָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֤ר תֵּֽאָפֶה֙ בַּתַּנּ֔וּר וְכׇל־נַעֲשָׂ֥ה בַמַּרְחֶ֖שֶׁת וְעַֽל־מַחֲבַ֑ת לַכֹּהֵ֛ן הַמַּקְרִ֥יב אֹתָ֖הּ ל֥וֹ תִֽהְיֶֽה׃
English:
Further, any meal offering that is baked in an oven, and any that is prepared in a pan or on a griddle, shall belong to the priest who offers it.
Every meal offering that is baked in an oven, prepared in a pan, or made on a griddle belongs to the priest who offers it. Rashi reconciles this with the next verse by explaining that the reference is to the priestly family (beit av) serving on that day, not to a single individual priest exclusively.
רש״יRashi
לכהן המקריב אתה וגו'. יָכוֹל לוֹ לְבַדּוֹ, תַּ"ל לכל בני אהרן תהיה, יָכוֹל לְכֻלָּן, תַּ"ל לכהן המקריב, הָא כֵּיצַד? לְבֵית אָב שֶׁל יוֹם שֶׁמַּקְרִיבִין אוֹתָהּ (שם):
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).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
וכל נעשה. שם התאר לשון נקבה כמו אין אבן נראה כי לשון זכר ואשר היה נעשה ליום אחד:
AND ALL THAT IS DRESSED. The word na'asah (dressed) is an adjective13I.E. refers to participles as adjectives. in the feminine. It is like the word nirah (seen) in there was no stone seen (I Kings 6:18). The masculine form of the word is found in Now that which was prepared (na'aseh) (Neh. 5:18).
אור החייםOr HaChaim
וכל מנחה וגו'. אמר הכתוב זכרון ה' מנחות למעט ה' דברים א' שלא יחלקו בני אהרן פירוש בית אב זבחים כנגד מנחות אלא כל אחד יטול חלקו במנחה. ב' שלא יחלקו עופות כנגד מנחות הגם שישנם בהשוואה בענין אחד שמצינו שהעוף בא בדלות והמנחה קמה תחתיהם בדלי דלות. ג' שלא יחלקו עופות כנגד זבחים הגם ששניהם מיני דמים. ד' שלא יחלקו מנחות כנגד מנחות הגם שהם מיני קמחים. ה' שלא יחלקו אפילו מחבת כנגד מחבת ומרחשת כנגד מרחשת הגם שמעשיהם שוים. והגם שהמעוטים הם מנחות, דרשום באם אינו ענין. אלא שראיתי לרמב"ם (הל' מעשה קרבנות פ"י טו) שכתב באופן אחר, כי ממה שחלק הכתוב בין מנחות האפויות ומנחת הסולת שהרי באפויות הוא אומר כל המנחה לכהן המקריב וגו' ובמנחת סולת הוא אומר וכל מנחה לכל בני אהרן וגו', לומר לך שאפילו מנחת סולת שהיה עולה על הדעת שיחלקוה מנחה כנגד מנחה לצד שאם יחלקוה ביניהם מגיע לזה מלא כפו וכו' שאינו דאוי לא ללוש ולא לאפות אף על פי כן לכל בני אהרן יחלקוה בפני עצמה, מכאן אמרו חכמים אין חולקין מנחה כנגד מנחה ע"כ. נמצאת אומר לדבריו שהלימוד הוא מאומרו לכל בני אהרן במנחת סולת מזה אנו לומדים לכל המנחות, ומן הברייתא אינו נשמע כן: ועוד דקדק הרב בלשונו שהלימוד הוא ממה שחלקם הכתוב, משמע שאם לא חלקם לא היינו שומעים זה, ודלא כהברייתא. ואולי כי סובר רמב"ם כי ממה שחלק הכתוב בין מנחות האפויות וכו' בזה גילה לנו הכתוב כוונתו שבא לומר שלא יחלקו ביניהם אחת כנגד אחת אפילו במנחת סולת, ומזה למדו לכל המנחות, כי במרחשת ומחבת לא הוזכר בה חילוק לכל אלא שלא יטלוה זולת בית אב של אותו יום, ומנין אתה אומר שלא יטלו מחבת כנגד מרחשת אם לא הוזכר בה סדר חלוקתה אם לכולם יחד אם לאחד מהם. ומה שלמדו כל הה' פרטים מה' מיעוטים אסמכתא היא, ולעולם עיקר לימודם הוא ממה שחלק הכתוב. ומעתה צריך לדעת למה פרט הכתוב כל המנחות כיון שלימודנו הוא ממה שחלק לא היה לו לומר אלא כל מנחה לכהן המקריב וגו' וכל מנחה חרבה לכל בני וגו'. ואולי שאחר שירד הכתוב לפרט מאפה וחרבה חש שיטעה אדם לחלק ביניהם לבין שאר מנחות, גם מצינו שדרשו ז"ל (תו"כ מנחות סג) וכל נעשה במרחשת ועל מחבת שעל שם כליין נקראו ונפקה מינה האומר הרי עלי מרחשת כלי שרת נדר, והוא דבר שנחלקו בו (שם) בית שמאי ובית הלל לזה אמר הכתוב וכל נעשה במרחשת ועל מחבת לגלות לך שעל שם כליין נקראו, ואומרו אשר תאפה בתנור דרש גם כן רבי יוסי ב"ר יהודה שבאה ללמוד על עצמו מהסמיכות של כל נעשה במרחשת ועל מחבת מה מרחשת ומחבת הם ב' גם מאפה תנור הם ב', ולא יביא מחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין, וגם ללמד על מרחשת ומחבת בא לומר מה תנור כלי גם מחבת ומרחשת כלי כאמור שם בתורת כהנים. ונשאר אומר כל מנחה בלולה בשמן וחרבה למה הוצרך לומר ב': ונראה כי כוונת רבי יוסי ב"ר יהודה שלמד כל מנחת מאפה שהוא ב' מיני מנחות לא למדה אלא ממה שאמר הכתוב ב' פעמים כל אחרי כן והם ב' ב', ולזה דייק בלשונו תלמוד לומר וכל מנחה וכל נעשה וגו' וכל מנחה בלולה וגו' מה כל וכל האמורים למטה ב' מינים וכו', ולזה אם היה אומר הכתוב וכל מנחה בלולה לבד או כל מנחה חרבה לבד אין מקום ללמוד ויש לבעל הדין לחלוק ולומר כל מנחה חרבה תוכיח שאמר כל ואין בה אלא מין אחד אף כל מאפה תנור מין אחד לזה הוצרך לומר כל האמור בכתוב:
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 appear in a single paragraph. This teaches that unless the Torah had separated the laws of one kind of meal-offering (the מנחת סלת) which was not baked from the five categories mentioned in our chapter all of which are baked, we could not have used these verses exegetically and we would not have arrived at the conclusions derived by Torat Kohanim. Perhaps Maimonides thought that the fact that the Torah artificially separated the legislation pertaining to the offering of the meal-offerings is proof that it did not want us to assume that the formula of trading off by the priest of parts of one meal-offering against parts of another type of meal-offering is acceptable. Having arrived at this principle, it is applied to all the meal-offerings. You may find proof in the fact that in the case of מנחת מרחשת and מנחת מחבת the Torah does not mention a word about all the priests sharing in it equally. All that is mentioned is that priests not officiating on that day are not entitled to share in it. [the Torah phrases it positively, saying: "it belongs to the priest who offers it which means to the group of priests officiating on that day. Ed.] Whence does Maimonides know then that a meal-offering offered in a pan may not be traded off against a meal-offering offered in a stewing-pan seeing not a word is said about how these meal-offerings are to be shared out? Actually, the five exclusions we cited earlier as the basis of our exegesis are only of the type known as אסמכתא, a "lean-to." This type of exegesis is not binding but serves as a reminder of halachot with which we are already familiar. The principal exegetical tool is the fact that the Torah saw fit not to record all six examples of meal-offerings in the same paragraph. We are now left with the problem of why the Torah gave many details repeatedly when all it had to write was that "every meal-offering belongs to the officiating priest, and is to be shared by all the priests officiating on that day." Perhaps -in view of the fact that the Torah already entered into details of different kinds of baked meal-offerings- the Torah was afraid that we would apply totally different criteria to the מנחת סלת and others which were not baked. We find, for instance, in Menachot 63 that the Talmud explains the words וכל נעשה במרחשת ועל מחבת in 7,9 to mean that these meal-offerings and the rules pertaining to them are governed by the type of container they are offered up in and not so much by their composition. The practical significance of this becomes evident when a person vows to bring a meal-offering and he merely identifies the kind of meal-offering he undertakes to bring by naming the vessel it is to be brought in. For instance, he said: "I am obligated to a certain kind of baking pan" [one of the ones which existed in the Temple. Ed]. According to the school of Hillel such a vow is valid seeing the kind of pan he mentioned is a sacred vessel and can be used for the meal-offering and the Torah wrote: "anything prepared in either of these kinds of pans, etc." According to the school of Shammai it is doubtful what this person had in mind. His "offering" would need to remain untouched until the coming of Elijah the prpohet who would resolve our doubts about its validity. Rabbi Yossi the son of Rabbi Yehudah holds that all these meal-offerings are separate categories. Therefore, one may not bring less than a minimal quantity of a meal-offering על המחבת and add to it less than a minimal quantity of a meal-offering במרחשת in order to combine these quantities into a single meal-offering of minimal acceptable quantity. The words אשר תאפה תנור, teach that one cannot combine part of a meal-offering baked on a griddle with part of a meal-offering baked in an oven. The only extraneous words which have not yet been explained exegetically are the ones in verse 10 seeing what is written there is also a duplication. Perhaps Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Yehudah who holds that the words מאפה תנור mean two types of meal-offerings derived his ruling from the fact that the Torah employed the word כל both in verse 9 and in verse 10. As a result we have a double duplication. First of all there was no need for the extra verse; secondly, if you already had the extra verse, the word כל did not need to appear in both verses. This is why Rabbi Yossi is careful to mention the source of his ruling, i.e. וכל מנחה,…וכל נעשה במרחשת, ובל מנחה בלולה. He adds: "Just as the word וכל in verse 10 clearly refers to two separate meal-offerings, i.e. one containing a great deal of oil and one a dry one, so the word וכל in the previous verse also refers to two different categories of meal-offering. It follows from the above that if the Torah had only written the words מנחה בלולה, or כל מנחה חרבה, I would not have had an exegetical tool with which to derive the various halachot we have derived from the repeated use by the Torah of the word וכל. In fact, one could have argued that if the Torah had written כל מנחה חרבה this would furnish proof that the word כל applied to a single kind of meal-offering, [in spite of the Torah using the word כל meaning each or every. Ed.] and that when the Torah spoke about this kind of meal-offering without using the word כל such as in Leviticus 2,4: מנחה מאפה תנור (Leviticus 2,4), it also referred to only a single category of offering. The Torah had to write all the verses which appear to contain some duplication in order to teach us the various halachot we just described.
פסוק ז:י · 7:10
Hebrew:
וְכׇל־מִנְחָ֥ה בְלוּלָֽה־בַשֶּׁ֖מֶן וַחֲרֵבָ֑ה לְכׇל־בְּנֵ֧י אַהֲרֹ֛ן תִּהְיֶ֖ה אִ֥ישׁ כְּאָחִֽיו׃ {פ}
English:
But every other meal offering, with oil mixed in or dry, shall go to the sons of Aaron all alike.
All other meal offerings -- whether mixed with oil (voluntary offerings) or dry (such as the sinner's meal offering or the meal offering of jealousy, which contain no oil) -- are distributed equally among all the sons of Aaron. This ensures equitable sharing of priestly entitlements across the entire serving family.
רש״יRashi
בלולה בשמן. זוֹ מִנְחַת נְדָבָה: וחרבה. זוֹ מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן שֶׁמֶן:
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.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
וחרבה. כמנחת היורד ומנחת הקנאות:
OR DRY. As in the case of the "descending" meal offering14A meal offering substituted for an animal offering by someone of lesser means. See Lev. 5:11. and a meal offering brought about because of jealousy.15A meal offering brought by a woman suspected of adultery. See Num. 5:11-31.
Navigation
Last updated on