Daf Yomi (Hebrew for "daily page") is a daily regimen of learning the Babylonian Talmud. The program covers one folio (daf) each day over approximately 7.5 years, completing the entire Talmud in one cycle.

How do I start learning Daf Yomi?

You can start learning Daf Yomi by following the daily schedule and using resources like our site which provides English summaries, ELI5 explanations for beginners, Gemara breakdowns, and visual guides for each daf.

What is today's Daf Yomi?

The current Daf Yomi cycle (Cycle 14) is studying Masechet Menachot. Visit our homepage to see today's exact daf and access its summary and resources.

Can I learn Daf Yomi in English?

Yes! Our site provides free English summaries, translations, and explanations for every daf. We also offer ELI5 (Explain Like I'm 5) sections for beginners.

פרשת צו — שלישי (Aliyah 3)

Parashat Tzav | Leviticus 7:11–7:38 | Aliyah 3 of 7

קלאוד על הפרשה

The third aliyah of Parashat Tzav completes the Torah’s presentation of the sacrificial system by detailing the laws of the shelamim, the peace or well-being offering, before closing with a comprehensive summary of all the korbanot discussed in Parashat Vayikra and Tzav. The shelamim occupies a unique position among the sacrifices: unlike the olah, which is entirely consumed on the altar, or the chatat and asham, which address specific transgressions, the shelamim is an expression of fellowship between God, the kohen, and the one who brings the offering. Its very name — from the root sh-l-m, connoting wholeness, peace, and completion — reflects the harmony it seeks to establish. The Torah here distinguishes three motivations for bringing shelamim: the todah (thanksgiving), the neder (vow), and the nedavah (freewill offering), each carrying distinct regulations about the time permitted for consumption.

The todah offering receives the most elaborate treatment. Rashi, drawing on the Talmud (Berakhot 54b), identifies four categories of individuals obligated to give thanks: those who have crossed the sea, traversed a desert, been released from imprisonment, or recovered from illness. The todah is accompanied by forty loaves of bread — ten each of four varieties, three unleavened and one leavened — and both the meat and the bread must be consumed by the following morning. Sforno explains that the unusually large quantity of bread ensures that many people will share in the meal, thereby publicizing the miracle that occasioned the offering. The compressed eating period, identical to that of the most sacred offerings (kodshei kodashim), further amplifies this publicity: the owner must invite many guests to finish the food in time, turning a private act of gratitude into a communal celebration of divine providence.

The aliyah then introduces two prohibitions of fundamental importance to the sacrificial order. The law of notar (leftover) mandates that any meat remaining beyond its designated time must be burned, not eaten. More significantly, the concept of pigul (improper intent) is articulated: if the officiating kohen harbors the intention at the time of slaughter to eat the meat beyond its permitted period, the entire offering is retroactively invalidated, and anyone who eats from it bears the penalty of karet (spiritual excision). Rashi emphasizes that pigul operates at the moment of sacrifice, not at the moment of consumption — it is the thought that corrupts, not the act. This principle, extensively developed in Tractate Zevachim, underscores the Torah’s insistence that sacrificial worship demands not merely correct physical procedure but proper mental intention.

The passage then turns to two eternal prohibitions addressed to all of Israel: the consumption of chelev (the hard, forbidden fat surrounding the kidneys and other internal organs) and blood. The severity of these prohibitions is marked by the penalty of karet for their violation. Ibn Ezra offers a remarkable extended discussion in which he argues that the prohibition of chelev applies specifically to the fat of animals eligible for sacrifice — the ox, sheep, and goat — and records a debate with a Karaite scholar who ultimately conceded the necessity of rabbinic tradition for understanding the Torah’s commandments. The discussion of chelev and blood transitions naturally into the kohen’s designated portions from the shelamim: the chazeh (breast), which is waved (tenufah) before God and given to the priestly family collectively, and the shok ha-yamin (right thigh), presented as terumah to the individual kohen who performs the blood service. Rashi, citing Menachot 61b, describes the choreography of the tenufah: the owner’s hands are placed above holding the fat and breast, while the kohen’s hands support from below, and together they wave the offering horizontally and vertically.

The aliyah concludes with a grand summation (7:37-38) that recapitulates every offering type discussed across Vayikra and Tzav — the olah, minchah, chatat, asham, miluim (consecration offering), and shelamim — affirming that all were commanded to Moses at Sinai. The Or HaChaim reads this closing verse homiletically, citing Resh Lakish’s teaching (Menachot 110a) that whoever studies the Torah of an offering is considered as though they had actually offered it, and sees in the enumeration of sacrifices a mystical allusion to the Torah’s power to elevate sparks of holiness and restore cosmic harmony. On the peshat level, this conclusion serves a critical structural function: it frames the entire sacrificial legislation as a unified divine communication, anchoring every detail — from the todah’s forty loaves to the kohen’s right thigh — in the authority of Sinaitic revelation.

Leviticus 7:11–7:38 · ויקרא ז:יא–ז:לח

פסוק ז:יא · 7:11

Hebrew:

וְזֹ֥את תּוֹרַ֖ת זֶ֣בַח הַשְּׁלָמִ֑ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר יַקְרִ֖יב לַיהֹוָֽה׃

English:

This is the ritual of the sacrifice of well-being that one may offer to יהוה:

This verse introduces the laws of the shelamim (peace offering), establishing it as a distinct category of sacrifice offered to God. The shelamim is unique among offerings in that portions are shared between God (the fat burned on the altar), the kohen, and the owner.

ספורנוSforno

ואמר וזאת תורת זבח השלמים. והודיע שאף על פי שכל השלמים קדשים קלים, מכל מקום יש חלוק ביניהם שאם הם על אודות הודאה, יהיה עמהם לתת בתוכו מין חמץ. כי אמנם סבת הסכנה אשר עליה ההודאה הוא שאור שבעיסה, מכל מקום מיני המצות רבות עליו, וברבות הלחם יתפרסם הנס לאוכלים רבים, וכלם נאכלים בזמן קדשי קדשים שהם ליום ולילה.

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.

פסוק ז:יב · 7:12

Hebrew:

אִ֣ם עַל־תּוֹדָה֮ יַקְרִיבֶ֒נּוּ֒ וְהִקְרִ֣יב ׀ עַל־זֶ֣בַח הַתּוֹדָ֗ה חַלּ֤וֹת מַצּוֹת֙ בְּלוּלֹ֣ת בַּשֶּׁ֔מֶן וּרְקִיקֵ֥י מַצּ֖וֹת מְשֻׁחִ֣ים בַּשָּׁ֑מֶן וְסֹ֣לֶת מֻרְבֶּ֔כֶת חַלֹּ֖ת בְּלוּלֹ֥ת בַּשָּֽׁמֶן׃

English:

One who offers it for thanksgiving shall offer, together with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, unleavened cakes with oil mixed in—unleavened wafers spread with oil—and cakes of choice flour with oil mixed in, well soaked.

If the shelamim is brought as a thanksgiving offering (todah), it must be accompanied by four types of bread: three varieties of unleavened cakes mixed or spread with oil, and leavened bread. Rashi identifies four categories of people obligated to bring a todah: seafarers, desert travelers, released prisoners, and those healed from illness.

רש״יRashi

אם על תודה יקריבנו. אִם עַל דְּבַר הוֹדָאָה עַל נֵס שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה לוֹ, כְּגוֹן יוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם וְהוֹלְכֵי מִדְבָּרוֹת וַחֲבוּשֵׁי בֵּית הָאֲסוּרִים וְחוֹלֶה שֶׁנִּתְרַפֵּא — שֶׁהֵן צְרִיכִין לְהוֹדוֹת, שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהֶן יוֹדוּ לַה' חַסְדּוֹ וְנִפְלְאוֹתָיו לִבְנֵי אָדָם וְיִזְבְּחוּ זִבְחֵי תוֹדָה (תהילים ק"ז) — אִם עַל אַחַת מֵאֵלֶּה נָדַר שְׁלָמִים הַלָּלוּ, שַׁלְמֵי תּוֹדָה הֵן, וּטְעוּנוֹת לֶחֶם הָאָמוּר בָּעִנְיָן, וְאֵין נֶאֱכָלִין אֶלָּא לְיוֹם וְלַיְלָה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁמְּפֹרָשׁ כָּאן: והקריב על זבח התודה. אַרְבָּעָה מִינֵי לֶחֶם — חַלּוֹת וּרְקִיקִין וּרְבוּכָה, שְׁלוֹשָׁה מִינֵי מַצָּה, וּכְתִיב עַל חַלֹּת לֶחֶם חָמֵץ וְגוֹ'; וְכָל מִין וָמִין עֶשֶׂר חַלּוֹת, כָּךְ מְפֹרָשׁ בִּמְנָחוֹת, וְשִׁעוּרָן חָמֵשׁ סְאִין יְרוּשַׁלְמִיּוֹת, שֶׁהֵן ו' מִדְבָּרִיּוֹת, כ' עִשָּׂרוֹן (מנחות ע"ו): מרבכת. לֶחֶם חָלוּט בְּרוֹתְחִין כָּל צָרְכּוֹ:

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.

אבן עזראIbn Ezra

אם על תודה. טעמו שיתן תודה לשם שנמלט מצרה: חלות מצות. כרצונו אך לא פחותים משנים וכן רקיקי מצות: מרבכת. הנבחר בפירושים בעיני שהיא מובחרת וחלות מצות ורקיקים אפויים וחלת המרבכת אינה כן:

IF HE OFFER IT FOR A THANKSGIVING. Its meaning is, if he offers it because he wants to give thanks to God for escaping from some trouble. UNLEAVENED CAKE.16Hebrew, challot (literally cakes). As many as he desires.17He may offer as many cakes as he wishes. However, he cannot bring fewer than two.18For Scripture employs the plural. The same applies to the unleavened wafers.19Hebrew, rekike matzot. SOAKED. I believe that the best interpretation of solet murbekhet (fine flour soaked) is chosen flour. The unleavened cakes20The challot. and the wafers21The rekike matzot. were baked. The cakes made from chosen flour were not so treated.22According to the rabbis of the Talmud they were scalded with oil until they were saturated. See Menachot 76b.

פסוק ז:יג · 7:13

Hebrew:

עַל־חַלֹּת֙ לֶ֣חֶם חָמֵ֔ץ יַקְרִ֖יב קׇרְבָּנ֑וֹ עַל־זֶ֖בַח תּוֹדַ֥ת שְׁלָמָֽיו׃

English:

This offering, with cakes of leavened bread added, shall be offered along with one’s thanksgiving sacrifice of well-being.

In addition to the three types of matzah, the todah offering must include cakes of leavened bread. Rashi explains that the bread does not become sanctified until the animal is slaughtered, meaning it cannot become disqualified before that point.

רש״יRashi

יקריב קרבנו על זבח. מַגִּיד שֶׁאֵין הַלֶּחֶם קָדוֹשׁ קְדֻשַּׁת הַגּוּף — לִפָּסֵל בְּיוֹצֵא וּטְבוּל יוֹם וּמִלָּצֵאת לְחֻלִּין בְּפִדְיוֹן — עַד שֶׁיִּשָּׁחֵט הַזֶּבַח (ספרא):

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)

אבן עזראIbn Ezra

על חלת. כמו ויבאו האנשים על הנשים והטעם עם חלות:

WITH CAKES. The meaning of al challot is with cakes.23In other words, the word al should be here rendered as with. The word al usually has the meaning of on. Hence I.E.'s comment. Similarly And they came, both men and (al) women (Ex. 35:22).24Here too the word al has the meaning of with.

פסוק ז:יד · 7:14

Hebrew:

וְהִקְרִ֨יב מִמֶּ֤נּוּ אֶחָד֙ מִכׇּל־קׇרְבָּ֔ן תְּרוּמָ֖ה לַיהֹוָ֑ה לַכֹּהֵ֗ן הַזֹּרֵ֛ק אֶת־דַּ֥ם הַשְּׁלָמִ֖ים ל֥וֹ יִהְיֶֽה׃

English:

Out of this the person shall offer one of each kind*kind Lit. “offering.” as a gift to יהוה; it shall go to the priest who dashes the blood of the offering of well-being.

One loaf from each of the four types of bread is separated as terumah (a gift) for God and given to the kohen who performs the blood service. The remaining loaves, along with most of the meat, are eaten by the owner and his guests.

רש״יRashi

אחד מכל קרבן. לֶחֶם אֶחָד מִכָּל מִין וָמִין יִטֹּל תְּרוּמָה לַכֹּהֵן הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָתוֹ, וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָל לַבְּעָלִים (מנחות ע"ז); וּבָשָׂר לַבְּעָלִים חוּץ מֵחָזֶה וְשׁוֹק שֶׁבָּהּ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁמְּפֹרָשׁ לְמַטָּה תְּנוּפַת חָזֶה וְשׁוֹק בִּשְׁלָמִים, וְהַתּוֹדָה קְרוּיָה שְׁלָמִים:

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).

אבן עזראIbn Ezra

והקריב ממנו. אחד מכל קרבן. הנה ארבע חלות בפחותים והאמת שהם עשרה:

AND OF IT HE SHALL PRESENT ONE OUT OF EACH OFFERING. Note, there had to be a minimum of four unleavened cakes.25A minimum of four unleavened cakes is to be offered by the celebrant, for Scripture says, And…he shall present one out of each (of the four types of unleavened cakes mentioned in verse 12)…for a gift unto the Lord. However, in truth there were ten.26Of each kind of bread, and one of each was presented for a gift unto the Lord. This is the opinion of the rabbis in Menachot 77a.

פסוק ז:טו · 7:15

Hebrew:

וּבְשַׂ֗ר זֶ֚בַח תּוֹדַ֣ת שְׁלָמָ֔יו בְּי֥וֹם קׇרְבָּנ֖וֹ יֵאָכֵ֑ל לֹֽא־יַנִּ֥יחַ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ עַד־בֹּֽקֶר׃

English:

And the flesh of the thanksgiving sacrifice of well-being shall be eaten on the day that it is offered; none of it shall be set aside until morning.

The meat of the todah must be eaten on the same day it is offered; nothing may be left until morning. Rashi explains that the Sages further restricted the eating period to midnight as a precautionary fence to prevent transgression. The compressed time frame encourages inviting many guests, thereby publicizing the miracle.

רש״יRashi

ובשר זבח תודת שלמיו. יֵשׁ כָּאן רִבּוּיִין הַרְבֵּה, לְרַבּוֹת חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם וְאֵיל נָזִיר וַחֲגִיגַת אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁיִּהְיוּ נֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם וְלַיְלָה (ספרא): ביום קרבנו יאכל. וְכִזְמַן בְּשָׂרָהּ זְמַן לַחְמָהּ: לא יניח ממנו עד בקר. אֲבָל אוֹכֵל הוּא כָּל הַלַּיְלָה, אִם כֵּן לָמָּה אָמְרוּ עַד חֲצוֹת? כְּדֵי לְהַרְחִיק אָדָם מִן הָעֲבֵרָה (שם):

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).

אבן עזראIbn Ezra

ביום קרבנו יאכל. שיאכלנו המקריב אותו וביתו ומי שהוא טהור כי גם השלמים קדש ואם הם קדשים קלים:

SHALL BE EATEN ON THE DAY OF HIS OFFERING. The one who offers the sacrifice, his family, and all who are clean shall eat it, for the peace offerings are also holy27Hence only those who are clean may eat of it. even though they are lesser holy offerings.

ספורנוSforno

אבל כשהם שלמים פשוטים שלא לתודה, זמנן לשני ימים ולילה אחד

I just explained that ordinary sh'lamim may be eaten for two days and a night.

פסוק ז:טז · 7:16

Hebrew:

וְאִם־נֶ֣דֶר ׀ א֣וֹ נְדָבָ֗ה זֶ֚בַח קׇרְבָּנ֔וֹ בְּי֛וֹם הַקְרִיב֥וֹ אֶת־זִבְח֖וֹ יֵאָכֵ֑ל וּמִֽמׇּחֳרָ֔ת וְהַנּוֹתָ֥ר מִמֶּ֖נּוּ יֵאָכֵֽל׃

English:

If, however, the sacrifice offered is a votive or a freewill offering, it shall be eaten on the day that one offers the sacrifice, and what is left of it shall be eaten on the morrow.

Unlike the todah, a shelamim brought as a vow (neder) or freewill offering (nedavah) may be eaten for two days and the intervening night. These offerings do not require accompanying bread. Ibn Ezra distinguishes between a neder, made under duress, and a nedavah, prompted by spontaneous generosity of spirit.

רש״יRashi

ואם נדר או נדבה. שֶׁלֹּא הֱבִיאָהּ עַל הוֹדָאָה שֶׁל נֵס, אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם, וְנֶאֱכֶלֶת לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁמְּפֹרָשׁ בָּעִנְיָן: וממחרת והנותר ממנו בָּרִאשׁוֹן יאכל. וי"ו זוֹ יְתֵרָה הִיא, וְיֵשׁ כָּמוֹהָ הַרְבֵּה בַּמִּקְרָא, כְּגוֹן וְאֵלֶה בְנֵי צִבְעוֹן וְאַיָּה וַעֲנָה (בראשית ל"ו), תֵּת וְקֹדֶשׁ וְצָבָא מִרְמָס (דניאל ח'):

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".

אבן עזראIbn Ezra

ואם נדר. שבטא בשפתיו בצר לו: ונדבה. שנדבה רוחו אותו להביא זבח לשם לא לנדר ולא לתודה: ביום הקריבו. שם הפעל מהבנין הכבד הנוסף וממחרת אותו היום. וי״ו והנותר ממנו. כפ״א רפ״ה בלשון ישמעאל וכמוהו ויעזב את עבדו גם והארץ היתה תהו ובהו:

A VOW. A vow uttered by the lips when in trouble. OR A FREEWILL-OFFERING. His sprit moved him to bring a sacrifice to God, not because he had made a vow, or for thanksgiving. ON THE DAY THAT HE OFFERETH HIS SACRIFICE. The word hakrivo is an infinitive28With a pronominal suffix. in the hifil. [AND ON THE MORROW.] On the morrow of that day.29That he offered the sacrifice. [THAT WHICH REMAINETH.] The vav of ve-ha-notar (that which remaineth)30Literally, and that which remaineth. has the same meaning as an unaspirated fa in Arabic.31It does not mean "and" but rather is a particle introducing the principal part of a sentence. In other words, ve-ha-notar is to be rendered, that which remaineth, not and that which remaineth. So too Rashi. The same applies to the vav in va-ya'azov (left) in left his servants (Ex. 9:21)32Va-ya'azov is to be rendered left, not and he left. and the vav in ve-ha-aretz (now the earth) in Now the earth was unformed and void (Gen. 1:2).33See I.E. on Gen. 1:2 (Vol. 1, p. 30) and the notes thereto.

פסוק ז:יז · 7:17

Hebrew:

וְהַנּוֹתָ֖ר מִבְּשַׂ֣ר הַזָּ֑בַח בַּיּוֹם֙ הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֔י בָּאֵ֖שׁ יִשָּׂרֵֽף׃

English:

What is then left of the flesh of the sacrifice shall be consumed in fire on the third day.

Any meat remaining from a neder or nedavah shelamim on the third day must be burned. This is the law of notar (leftover), which ensures that sacred meat is not treated casually or allowed to spoil, but is disposed of respectfully by fire.

אבן עזראIbn Ezra

באש ישרף. כאשר נשרפו האימורים רק לא ישרף על גבי המזבח:

SHALL BE BURNT WITH FIRE. Like the parts of a sacrifice which Scripture designates for burning. However, it should not be burned on the altar.

פסוק ז:יח · 7:18

Hebrew:

וְאִ֣ם הֵאָכֹ֣ל יֵ֠אָכֵ֠ל מִבְּשַׂר־זֶ֨בַח שְׁלָמָ֜יו בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי֮ לֹ֣א יֵרָצֶה֒ הַמַּקְרִ֣יב אֹת֗וֹ לֹ֧א יֵחָשֵׁ֛ב ל֖וֹ פִּגּ֣וּל יִהְיֶ֑ה וְהַנֶּ֛פֶשׁ הָאֹכֶ֥לֶת מִמֶּ֖נּוּ עֲוֺנָ֥הּ תִּשָּֽׂא׃

English:

If any of the flesh of the sacrifice of well-being is eaten on the third day, it shall not be acceptable; it shall not count for the one who offered it. It is an offensive thing, and the person who eats of it shall bear the guilt.

This verse introduces the concept of pigul (improper sacrificial intent). Rashi explains that if the kohen intends at the time of slaughter to eat the meat on the third day, the entire offering is retroactively invalidated. Anyone who eats from a pigul offering -- even within the normally permitted time -- bears the penalty of karet (spiritual excision).

רש״יRashi

ואם האכל יאכל וגו'. בִּמְחַשֵּׁב בַּשְּׁחִיטָה לְאָכְלוֹ בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר; יָכוֹל אִם אָכַל מִמֶּנּוּ בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי יִפָּסֵל לְמַפְרֵעַ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר הַמַּקְרִיב אֹתוֹ לֹא יֵחָשֵׁב — בִּשְׁעַת הַקְרָבָה הוּא נִפְסָל וְאֵינוֹ נִפְסָל בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי; וְכֵן פֵּרוּשׁוֹ: בִּשְׁעַת הַקְרָבָתוֹ לֹא תַּעֲלֶה זֹאת בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה, וְאִם חִשֵּׁב פִּגּוּל יִהְיֶה (זבחים כ"ט): והנפש האכלת ממנו. אֲפִלּוּ בְּתוֹךְ הַזְּמַן עונה תשא:

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.

אבן עזראIbn Ezra

וטעם המקריב אותו לא יחשב. אחר שיהיו האימורים קרבים לגבוה הנה כל הנשאר קדש וכן אבני המזבח שאחר שהם קדושים אין ראוי שישאר ממנו לחול על כן אבנים שלימות: פגול. כדברי המתרגם ארמית וכן ומרק פגולים כליהם. ויש שואלים אחר שעלה ריח ניחוח איך לא יחשב והטעם על המחשבה כי משפט השלמים להיות קדש והפגול איננו קדש ועוד בעבור שלא שמר את המצוה יצא שכרו בהפסדו אם הוא שלמים ואם נדר תתחדש עליו עון כנגד הראשון אם לא ישלם נדרו: עונה תשא. עונש ולא הזכירו הכתוב וכרת על טמא שיאכל בשר קדש:

[NEITHER SHALL IT BE IMPUTED UNTO HIM THAT OFFERETH IT.] Its meaning is, since Scripture designates that specific parts of the sacrifice be offered to God, all that remains of the animal is holy. Similarly the stones of the altar.34The stones used in constructing the altar. Since they are holy, it is unfit that anything that remains from them be used in a non-sacred way. Scripture therefore reads, of unhewn stones (Deut. 27:6).35The stones used for building the altar were not to be hewn, because when stones are hewn the chips that fall might be employed for non-sacred purposes or might be cast into a filthy place. See I.E. on Ex. 20:22 (Vol. 2, pp. 443-445). ABHORRED. The word piggul (abhorred) is to be rendered as the Aramaic translator does.36Onkelos renders piggul by merachak (removed). Similarly the word piggulim (abominable things) in And broth of abominable things is in their vessels (Is. 65:4). Some ask, "Since the sweet savor ascended,37When the sacrifice was first offered. how can it not be accepted?"38In other words, since the sacrifice was properly offered, how can it be disqualified three days later? The answer is that it depends on his intention. According to the law, the peace offerings must be holy. However that which is abhorred is not holy.39The slaughterer of the sacrifice disqualified the offering by intending during the slaughter to eat of the sacrifice on the third day. Thus the sacrifice never "ascended." See Rashi. Furthermore,40Even if he did not disqualify the sacrifice by intending to eat of it on the third day when he slaughtered it. the celebrant's gain41For offering the sacrifice. disappears in his loss42By eating the sacrifice after the proscribed time. with regard to a peace offering. In the case of a vow offering, there is a new sin43Not fulfilling his vow. corresponding to the first44Eating the sacrifice after the proscribed time. if he does not fulfil his vow.45By bringing another animal. SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY. His punishment.46According to I.E. the word avon (iniquity) at times has the meaning of punishment. See I.E. on Gen 4:18 (Vol. 1, p. 84). Scripture does not mention the punishment.47For eating of the flesh of a sacrifice after the proscribed time. One who is unclean and eats sacred flesh is punished with karet (excision).48In verse 20.

פסוק ז:יט · 7:19

Hebrew:

וְהַבָּשָׂ֞ר אֲשֶׁר־יִגַּ֤ע בְּכׇל־טָמֵא֙ לֹ֣א יֵֽאָכֵ֔ל בָּאֵ֖שׁ יִשָּׂרֵ֑ף וְהַ֨בָּשָׂ֔ר כׇּל־טָה֖וֹר יֹאכַ֥ל בָּשָֽׂר׃

English:

Flesh that touches anything impure shall not be eaten; it shall be consumed in fire. As for other flesh, only one who is pure may eat such flesh.

Sacrificial meat that comes into contact with anything ritually impure must be burned and may not be eaten. Conversely, any ritually pure person -- not only the owner -- may eat from the shelamim. Rashi explains that the repeated word 'the flesh' teaches that even if only part of a limb left its designated area, the portion remaining inside is still permitted.

רש״יRashi

והבשר. שֶׁל קֹדֶשׁ שְׁלָמִים אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל: והבשר. לְרַבּוֹת אֵבֶר שֶׁיָּצָא מִקְצָתוֹ — שֶׁהַפְּנִימִי מֻתָּר (ספרא): כל טהור יאכל בשר. מַה תַּ"ל? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ וְגוֹ' וְהַבָּשָֹר תֹּאכֵל (דברים י"ב), יָכוֹל לֹא יֹאכְלוּ שְׁלָמִים אֶלָּא הַבְּעָלִים, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר כָּל טָהוֹר יֹאכַל בָּשָֹר (ספרא): (והבשר כל טהור יאכל בשר. כְּלוֹמַר, כָּל מַה שֶּׁאָסַרְתִּי לְךָ בְּחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם, שֶׁאִם יָצְאוּ חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים אֲסוּרִין — כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּחֲצַר אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד יֹאכְלוּהָ (ויקרא ו') — בְּבָשָׂר זֶה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לְךָ כָּל טָהוֹר יֹאכַל בָּשָׂר אֲפִלּוּ בְּכָל הָעִיר):

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)].

ספורנוSforno

ועם היות כלם קדשים קלים, נאסרה הטומאה באוכלים ובנאכלים, וחיוב הכרת הוא בטמא שאכל את הטהור, הקרב לאכול מהקדש הטהור וטמאתו עליו, שהוא מחלל את הקדש:

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.

פסוק ז:כ · 7:20

Hebrew:

וְהַנֶּ֜פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר־תֹּאכַ֣ל בָּשָׂ֗ר מִזֶּ֤בַח הַשְּׁלָמִים֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לַיהֹוָ֔ה וְטֻמְאָת֖וֹ עָלָ֑יו וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִ֖וא מֵעַמֶּֽיהָ׃

English:

But the person who, in a state of impurity, eats flesh from יהוה’s sacrifices of well-being, that person shall be cut off from kin.

A person who is ritually impure and eats from the shelamim incurs the penalty of karet (being cut off from the community). Rashi clarifies that this verse addresses impurity of the person's body, not of the meat. The Torah states three karet penalties for eating sacred food while impure, which the Sages interpret in Shevuot 7a as covering general, specific, and variable-offering cases.

רש״יRashi

וטמאתו עליו. בְּטֻמְאַת הַגּוּף הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אֲבָל טָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּמֵא אֵינוֹ עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת אֶלָּא אַזְהָרַת והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא וגו'; וְאַזְהָרַת טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּהוֹר אֵינָהּ מְפֹרֶשֶׁת בַּתּוֹרָה, אֶלָּא חֲכָמִים לְמָדוּהָ בִּגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה; שָׁלוֹשׁ כָּרֵתוֹת אֲמוּרוֹת בְּאוֹכְלֵי קָדָשִׁים בְּטֻמְאַת הַגּוּף, וּדְרָשׁוּם רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בִּשְׁבוּעוֹת אַחַת לִכְלָל, וְאַחַת לִפְרָט, וְאַחַת לְלַמֵּד עַל קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא עַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו:

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).

אבן עזראIbn Ezra

וטעם וטומאתו. להיותו טמא מעצמו כזב ומצורע גם בעבור מקרה לילה כי כן כתוב כי אמר מקרה הוא או שיהיה טמא בעבור אחר כטומאת אדם מת או חי והוא זב ומצורע או בבהמה טמאה שאינה נאכלת ושקץ טמא מהעוף והשרץ. ופעם אחת בא אלי צדוקי אחד ושאלני אם האליה אסורה מן התורה ואען ואומר אמת כי האליה תקרא חלב כי כן כתוב חלבו האליה תמימה רק קדמונינו התירוה ואסרו כל חלב אז ענה הלא כל חלב אסור מן התורה כי כן כתוב כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו ובתחלה כתוב חקת עולם לדורותיכם גם אני עניתיו כי זה הפסוק דבק עם זבח השלמים ואין מלת חקת עולם לדורותיכם בכל מושבותיכם ראיה גמורה כי הנה כתוב ולחם וקלי וכרמל לא תאכלו עד עצם היום הזה עד הביאכם את קרבן אלהיכם ושם כתוב חקת עולם ואם כן לא נאכל לחם בגלות כי לא הקרבנו קרבן העומר וגם הוא השיב כל חלב שור וכשב וען לא תאכלו גם אני השיבותי כי גם זה הפסוק דבק עם זבח השלמים והעד כי כל אוכל חלב מן הבהמה אשר יקריבו ממנה להוציא חלב כל בשר שאיננו קרב לשלמים והכלל בשר חול על כן הזכיר בפרשה הזאת וחלב נבלה וחלב טרפה יעשה לכל מלאכה ואכול לא תאכלוהו וידוע כי בשר הנבלה והטרפה אסורות והאסור הוא הבשר ובעבור שאין החלב קרב לגבי המזבח שמא יחשוב אדם שהוא מותר על כן הזהיר ואכול לא תאכלוהו ובעבור זה לא הזכיר הדם ובאה זאת הפרשה לבאר עונש האוכל חלב בשר קדש וכן כל דם הוסיף לעוף על כן חלב העוף מותר והראיה הגמורה שאמר בספר אלה הדברים בבשר תאוה שהוא חול שיאכלנו כלו ולא הוציא רק את דמו לבדו בשלשה מקומות ואין זכר לחלב כלל אז פקח הצדוקי עיניו ופצה בשפתיו שבועה שלא יסמוך על דעתו בפירוש המצות רק ישען על העתקת הפירושים:

[HAVING HIS UNCLEANLINESS.] This means if his uncleanliness comes from his body, as in the case of a flux49Hebrew, zav. or a leper.50Hebrew, metzora. Also because of uncleanliness caused by a nocturnal emission, as Scripture states, for he thought: Something51A nocturnal emission. hath befallen him52And rendered him unclean. (I Sam. 20:26). It also applies to uncleanliness that comes from contact with an outside source53Coming into contact with an outside unclean source. such as a dead body, or a living person who experienced a flux or is a leper, or an unclean beast which may not be eaten, or a detestable thing from among the fowl and that which swarms.54Lev. 1-31. A Sadducee55A Karaite. once came to me and asked, "Does the Torah prohibit the fat tail?"56The fat of the tail (Hebrew, alyah). I answered that it is true that the fat tail is called "fat" (chelev),57Fat is proscribed by Jewish law. for the Torah states, the fat thereof, the fat tail entire (Lev. 3:9). However, while our sages prohibited all fat, they permitted the fat tail.58This statement was disconcerting among Biblical commentaries, for according to the Talmud all fat is prohibited by the Torah (not the sages), and the violator incurs the penalty of karet. Nahmanides charged that Ibn Ezra's position is more heretical than that of the Karaites. Luzzato claimed that I.E. did not really believe that fat (chelev) is permitted. He was merely playing devil's advocate. However, Nahmanides correctly interpreted Ibn Ezra. I.E. held that biblically speaking only the fat of an animal actually offered on the altar is prohibited. Other fat is prohibited by the rabbis. See I.E. on Deut. 12:15. The importance of I.E.'s comment on this verse for understanding Ibn Ezra's approach to the halakhah is discussed in the introduction to this volume. The Sadducee then replied, "Does not the Torah prohibit all fat? Indeed it is written, that ye shall eat neither fat nor blood (Lev. 3:17). The latter is preceded by Scripture's statement, It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations (Ibid.)."I once again answered him that this verse59Lev. 3:17. relates to the peace offering. Also, the clause It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations60This clause may be taken to imply that the fat of animals not sacrificed is prohibited, for throughout the generations implies even in a time when the sanctuary no longer exists. does not provide complete proof, for we see that Scripture states, And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this selfsame day, until ye have brought the offering of your God (Lev. 23:14).61The omer. Now Scripture there writes, it is a statute for ever (Ibid.). Shall we then not eat bread in the Diaspora? For we have not brought the omer offering.62Thus for ever means as long as the sanctuary exits. Similarly a perpetual statute. He, on his part, replied, "Ye shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat (v. 23)."63The Karaite assumed that this verse applies to all animals forever. I again answered that this verse too refers to a peace offering. For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men present an offering (v. 25) is proof, for the latter excludes the fat of all flesh which is not offered as a peace offering, that is, all secular meat.64All non-sacrificed flesh. Scripture therefore states in our section, And the fat of that which dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of beasts, may be used for any other service; but ye shall in no wise eat of it (v. 24). It is known65From earlier Biblical passages. See Ex. 22:30. that the flesh of that which dies of itself and that which is torn of beasts is prohibited. It is the flesh that is prohibited.66Ex. 22:30 speaks only of the flesh. The latter may be taken to imply that the fat of carrion or of an animal that dies of itself is permitted. Now since the fat67Of an animal that dies or is torn by another animal. is not offered on the altar, one might think that it is permitted. Hence Scripture warns,68In verse 24. but ye shall in no wise eat of it.69The fat (chelev) of an animal that dies or is torn by another animal. It is for this reason that Scripture does not mention the blood.70In verse 24, for Scripture earlier prohibited the eating of blood. This section71Verses 20-25. was written in order to explain the punishment incurred by one who eats the fat of sacred flesh. The verse relating to any blood (v. 27) was similarly written to add that the blood of fowl is prohibited.72Otherwise there would be no need for this verse, for Scripture earlier prohibited the blood of animals. The fat of fowl is therefore permitted.73Only the blood of fowl is spoken of in verse 27. Fat is not mentioned. Scripture's statement in the Book of Deuteronomy (Deut. 1:1)74In other words, Scripture's statement in Deuteronomy. with regard to meat eaten out of desire, that is, non-sacred meat (Deut. 12:15-25), is total proof of what I say,75That only the fat of sacred meat is prohibited. for Scripture states that non-sacred meat may be eaten in its entirety.76For there Scripture says that non-sacred meat may be eaten, as of the gazelle, and as of the hart (Deut. 12:15). The fat of the latter is permitted. Only its blood is excluded in three places.77Deut. 12:23-25. Fat is totally unmentioned.78For it is permitted according to Torah law. However, the rabbis prohibited it. The Sadducee's eyes opened and he uttered an oath with his lips to the effect that he will never rely on his judgment when it comes to explaining the commandments. He will rely only on the tradition transmitted by the Pharisees.79One of the leitmotifs of I.E.'s commentary is that when it comes to religious practice we must rely on Rabbinic tradition. He offers the concession of the Karaite as proof of this position. See I.E.'s introduction (Vol. I, pp. 3-10; 18,19).

אור החייםOr HaChaim

והנפש אשר וגו' וטומאתו וגו'. פסוק זה ושלאחריו בטומאת הגוף פירשוהו בתורת כהנים ובזבחים דף מ"ג אמרו כל קרא שלא פירשו רבי יצחק בר אבדימי וכו' לא מפרשא הכי אמר רבי יצחק בר אבדימי הואיל ופתח הכתוב בלשון נקבה וסיים בלשון נקבה ולשון זכר באמצע בטומאת הגוף הכתוב מדבר ע"כ. ופירש"י הואיל וכו' פירוש פסוק נפש כי תגע שהוא פסוק ב' ושם בהכרח לומר שעל טומאת הגוף הוא אומר הגם ששינה באמצע גם בפסוק ראשון והנפש אל תתמה עליו שדיבר תחלה לשון נקבה והנפש ולבסוף ונכרתה ובאמצע וטומאתו שאין הכוונה על הבשר אלא על הגוף ע"כ. דבריו ז"ל הועילו שלא להכריח ממה ששינה באמצע לומר שנתכוון לומר שבטומאת בשר הוא אומר, אבל להכריח שעל טומאת הגוף הוא אומר הוא ממשמעות הכתוב, שנראה שכבר נגמרו הלכות טומאת בשר כמו שפירש"י שם בזבחים. ועוד בתורת כהנים למדו גזירה שוה טומאתו טומאתו האמורה בביאת מקדש (בפ' חוקת), אלא נתתי לבי למה שינה הכתוב בב' פסוקים אלו, בפסוק אחד שינה לכתוב וטומאתו וסמך ללמוד בגזירה שוה והיה לו לכתוב וטומאתה ולא היינו צריכין לגזירה שוה, גם בפסוק ב' למה לא אמר לשון ישר כל הכתוב בסדר אחד: ונראה כי טעם אומרו וטומאתו עליו בא להעיר ענין אחר, שהגם שעברו ז' ימי טומאה לטומאת מת או הערב שמש לטומאת שרץ כל עוד שלא טבל הרי הוא בטומאתו, ויש לך לדעת כי טומאה זו אינה בפנימיות הנפש אלא מסוה הטומאה המסכך על הגוף מבחוץ ולא בפנים, ולצד זה הוא שמועיל לו טבילה להסיר מסוכת הטומאה מה שלא יועיל לו במשך ימי הטומאה שהטומאה גם בפנים, וזה שיעור הכתוב נפש אשר תאכל וגו' וטומאתו עליו פירוש לא מבעיא וטומאתה עליה שהוא במשך ז' לטומאת מת ובמשך יום מגעו לטומאת שרץ, אלא אפילו טומאתו של גוף לבד היינו שעבר עליו שבעה ימי טומאה ואינו חסר אלא טבילה להעביר מעל גופו אפילו הכי ונכרתה. וטעם אומרו בפסוק ב' לשון זכר באמצע הגם שאין טעות בדבר לא היה לו לומר אלא סדר אחד בכל הכתוב. ונראה כי טעם אומרו ונפש כי תגע לשון נקבה ולא אמר איש כי יגע לשון זכר, שנתכוון לומר שצריך שיגע לדעתו ולא בהעלם, שאינו חייב כרת אלא בידיעת טומאה, וגם אומרו בפסוק אחד והנפש אשר תאכל שהיתה אכילת בשר בידיעה, כי הנפש יורה אל ההרגש ולמניעת ההעלמות, ולטעם זה תמצא שאמר בפרשת השגגות (לעיל ד וה') ונפש לומר טעם המחייב חטאת ואשם על השוגג הוא לצד היותה נפש שהיא בחינת ההערה והידיעה ושגגה, לזה תתחייב קרבן, ולעולם שם נפש יורה על בחינת שלילת ההתעלמות, ולזה אמר בב' כתובים נפש כי תגע הרי ידיעת הנגיעה, והנפש אשר תאכל הרי ידיעת המאכל, ומעתה אין מקום לקושיא למה אמר לשון זכר באמצע, שאין צורך לשנות סדר הרגיל לומר על העושה לשון זכר, וטעם אומרו ונכרתה הנפש ההיא, בא גם כן להשמיענו חידוש שגם נפש החוטאת תמות ולא גוף לבד: וחוץ מדרכם ז"ל נראה ליישב כפל הכתובים על דרך מה שאמרו בזבחים דף ק"ו במשנה, הטמא שאכל בין קודש טמא בין קודש טהור חייב ורבי יוסי הגלילי אומר טמא שאכל טמא פטור, ואמרו בגמרא (שם קח) כל היכי דנטמא הגוף ואחר כך נטמא הבשר דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דחייב, ולזה אמר ב' כתובים, האחד אשר תאכל בשר מזבח השלמים זה טמא האוכל בשר שלמים טהור, והב' אמר ואכל מבשר זבח וגו' זה כנגד טמא האוכל מבשר שלמים שנטמא. ואולי כי לזה דקדק הכתוב לומר בפסוק אחד תאכל בשר מזבח השלמים, פסוק הבשר הוא מזבח השלמים שהוא עדיין במדרגתו שלא נטמא, והב' אמר מבשר זבח השלמים פירוש ממין בשר שלמים הגם שעכשיו אינו בשר שלמים שבא בו יעוד האכילה, והוא אומרו מבשר ששם זבח שלמים עליו, כי לא קשר הבשר עם זכרון זבח השלמים לרמון כי אינו בגדר סתם זבח שלמים הטהור ודו"ק ולא יפנה לבבך לטעות אחר המ"ם באופן אחר:

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 someone guilty of the Karet penalty when the impurity he is suffering from is עליה, envelops his soul, but even if the impurity has already been reduced to a state where it is only עליו on the outside of his body, the same penalty still applies if he eats sacrificial meat before having become totally pure. Similar considerations apply to someone who has not yet shed the relatively lighter impurity absorbed through his having contacted a dead creeping animal. Why then does the Torah use the masculine form ואכל in the middle of verse 21, when the correct term would have been ואכלה seeing that I could not have mistaken its meaning and it would have been so much simpler to have a uniform text in both of these verses? I believe that the reason the Torah chose to write נפש כי תגע, a feminine way of describing the contact instead of writing איש כי יגע the parallel masculine form, is to inform us that such contact with the source of impurity had to be intentional not merely accidental in order for the person to become culpable of the penalty mentioned. The word נפש alludes to such an intentional act. This is also the reason why the Torah chose the word נפש instead of איש in verse 20. The word איש would not have conveyed the fact that the act was committed intentionally. Keeping in mind the thought that the word נפש alludes to the awareness of the sinner of what he is doing will help us understand the recurrent use of the word נפש in chapter four and five which deals with inadvertently committed sins. This word explains the need for the sinner to offer sin-offerings or guilt-offerings in those situations. Had the sinner been totally unaware of committing a wrong the Torah would not have required these offerings from him so that he could atone for his mistakes. We may summarise that the word נפש indicates that the person who committed the trespass cannot claim unawareness of doing something wrong. In our two verses here the word נפש implies that the guilty party was aware of touching something he should not have touched (verse21) or he was aware that he ate something he should not have eaten (verse 20). We cannot therefore question why the Torah used a masculine term in the middle of both verses as there was no need to depart from the norm in describing the perpetrator of the sin as being a male. The reason the Torah wrote ונכרתה הנפש ההיא, "this soul will be exterminated," is to teach us that G'd will not only punish the body of the sinner by premature death or something like it, but that He will also punish his soul by death. In addition to the approach of our sages in the Talmud, we may find still another reason to justify the repetition of our verses by referring to the Mishnah in Zevachim 106. We learn there that a person who is ritually impure and eats sacrfificial meat is guilty regardless of whether that meat had already been defiled or not. Rabbi Yossi Haglili disagrees saying that if said meat had already been defiled, the person who ate it is not guilty. In discussing this problem on folio 108, the Talmud concludes that if the person became defiled before the meat became defiled there is a concensus that the person who ate from that meat is guilty. The disagreement between the majority opinion and Rabbi Yossi Haglili concerns only a situation when the meat became defiled before the person eating it became impure. This is why the Torah had to write two verses The first verse i.e. והנפש אשר תאכל describes a situation in which a person who is ritually unclean ate sacrificial meat of a peace-offering which was ritually pure; the second verse which writes ואכל מבשר זבח השלמים, speaks of a ritually impure person who ate sacrificial meat which had already become defiled. Perhaps the reason the Torah described the meat in the first verse as תאכל בשר מזבח שלמים, meat of a peace-offering, is that the meat in question had not yet become defiled; in the following verse the Torah changed this description by writing מבשר זבח שלמים, meaning the meat was of a category which qualifies as a meat-offering, but it had been defiled in the meantime and does no longer qualify for being eaten. It is no longer בשר שלמים. The letter מ in the word מבשר indicates that it is no longer wholly a meat-offering, זבח שלמים. The letter מ is therefore not exegetically available for some other למוד, halachah, to be derived from it.

פסוק ז:כא · 7:21

Hebrew:

וְנֶ֜פֶשׁ כִּֽי־תִגַּ֣ע בְּכׇל־טָמֵ֗א בְּטֻמְאַ֤ת אָדָם֙ א֣וֹ ׀ בִּבְהֵמָ֣ה טְמֵאָ֗ה א֚וֹ בְּכׇל־שֶׁ֣קֶץ טָמֵ֔א וְאָכַ֛ל מִבְּשַׂר־זֶ֥בַח הַשְּׁלָמִ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֣ר לַיהֹוָ֑ה וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִ֖וא מֵעַמֶּֽיהָ׃ {פ}*(אין פרשה בספרי ספרד ואשכנז)

English:

When a person touches anything impure, be it human impurity or an impure animal or any impure creature,*creature Heb. sheqeṣ, lit. “abomination”; several mss. and ancient versions read shereṣ “swarming things.” and eats flesh from יהוה’s sacrifices of well-being, that person shall be cut off from kin.

פסוק ז:כב · 7:22

Hebrew:

וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃

English:

And יהוה spoke to Moses, saying:

פסוק ז:כג · 7:23

Hebrew:

דַּבֵּ֛ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר כׇּל־חֵ֜לֶב שׁ֥וֹר וְכֶ֛שֶׂב וָעֵ֖ז לֹ֥א תֹאכֵֽלוּ׃

English:

Speak to the Israelite people thus: You shall eat no fat*fat I.e., hard, coarse fat (suet); cf. 3.3–5. of ox or sheep or goat.

פסוק ז:כד · 7:24

Hebrew:

וְחֵ֤לֶב נְבֵלָה֙ וְחֵ֣לֶב טְרֵפָ֔ה יֵעָשֶׂ֖ה לְכׇל־מְלָאכָ֑ה וְאָכֹ֖ל לֹ֥א תֹאכְלֻֽהוּ׃

English:

Fat from animals that died or were torn by beasts may be put to any use, but you must not eat it.

The forbidden fat (chelev) of an animal that died naturally or was torn by beasts may be used for other purposes such as crafts, but may never be eaten. Rashi explains that this verse teaches that chelev from a nevelah does not carry the impurity of carrion, and that the prohibition of nevelah is superimposed upon the existing prohibition of chelev.

רש״יRashi

יעשה לכל מלאכה. בָּא וְלִמֵּד עַל הַחֵלֶב שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא טֻמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת: ואכל לא תאכלהו. אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה, יָבֹא אִסּוּר נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה וְיָחוּל עַל אִסּוּר חֵלֶב, שֶׁאִם אֲכָלוֹ יִתְחַיֵּב אַף עַל לָאו שֶׁל נְבֵלָה, וְלֹא תֹּאמַר אֵין אִסּוּר חָל עַל אִסּוּר (זבחים ע'):

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).

פסוק ז:כה · 7:25

Hebrew:

כִּ֚י כׇּל־אֹכֵ֣ל חֵ֔לֶב מִ֨ן־הַבְּהֵמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר יַקְרִ֥יב מִמֶּ֛נָּה אִשֶּׁ֖ה לַיהֹוָ֑ה וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הָאֹכֶ֖לֶת מֵֽעַמֶּֽיהָ׃

English:

If anyone eats the fat of animals from which offerings by fire may be made to יהוה, the person who eats it shall be cut off from kin.

Anyone who eats chelev from an animal species eligible for sacrifice (ox, sheep, or goat) incurs the penalty of karet. The Or HaChaim explains that the Torah specifies these three species to exclude the fat of impure animals, wild game, and fowl from this particular prohibition, while also including crossbred animals and those with physical blemishes.

אור החייםOr HaChaim

מן הבהמה. דרשו ז"ל בתורת כהנים לרבות כלאים מתיש ורחל או להפך, ומאומרו כל חלב ריבה כוי שהוא הבא מתיש וצביה, ועיין מה שכתבתי בחבורי פרי תואר על טור יורה דעה סימן טז: כל אוכל חלב. בתורת כהנים דרשו לרבות חלב בהמת חולין, שלא תטעה לומר אשר יקריב ממנה אשה לה' אמר הכתוב דוקא חלב קדשים תלמוד לומר כל חלב, ורבוי זה אם אינו ענין לאוכלין תנהו ענין לנאכלין. וקשה לי איך נטעה לומר דוקא חלב קדשים והלא אמר וחלב נבלה יעשה לכל מלאכה אימורי קדשים מי מותרים להדיוט, והלא אמרו בכיצד צולין דף פ"ב נשחטה ונמצאת טריפה הרי זה תצא לבית השרפה מדכתיב (לעיל ו כג) בקדש באש תשרף לימד על כל פסולים שבקדש בשרפה, ואם כן מאומרו וחלב נבלה וחלב טריפה יעשה לכל מלאכה אתה יודע כי לא של קדשים לבד אסר הכתוב, ולא היה צריך לומר כל אוכל, ויש לומר דעיקר לימוד התנא מכל אוכל חלב הוא על חיוב כרת, וזולת כל הגם שהייתי למד מפסוק יעשה לכל מלאכה ואכול לא תאכלוהו, הייתי אומר לאו דוקא, ולא כרת, ולא בא הכרת אלא על חלב קדשים. ואומרו שור כבש ועז דרשו בתורת כהנים שבא למעט בהמה טמאה וחיה ועוף. ובחולין דף קי"ו אמר ליה רב מרי לרב זביד אי אליה אקרי חלב תתסר באכילה אמר ליה עליך אמר קרא חלב שור וכשב ועז דבר השוה בשור וכשב ועז ע"כ. וקשה והלא אצטריכו שור וכשב ועז למעט בהמה טמאה ועוף וחיה שהיו באים בקל וחומר לאסור כאמור שם בתורת כהנים תלמוד לומר שור וכשב ועז. ואולי כי שלשה אלה ממועטים הם מאומרו אשר יקריב ממנה אשה לה' יצתה חיה, יצתה בהמה טמאה, יצא עוף שאין כולו נקרב. או שאחר שמיעט הכתוב בהמה טמאה וחיה הרי גילה הכ' שאין לדון קל וחומר מדם שהרי בהמה טמאה וחיה יוכיחו. וכן תמצא שכתב רש"י בחולין (קיז) בפירוש המשנה שאמרה אינו נוהג אלא בטהורים דכתיב אשר יקריב ממנה אשה לה', ועיין בפסוק שאחר זה: מן הבהמה. דרשו בתורת כהנים להביא חולין בעלי מומין, שלא תאמר חולין דומיא דקדשים תלמוד לומר מן הבהמה לרבות אפילו בעלי מומין. והגם שאסר הכתוב בפירוש חלב נבילה וטריפה הגם שאסורים למזבח, בשלמא טריפה נוכל לומר כדעת רמב"ם (איסורי מזבח פ"ב) שאין בה איסור למזבח מן התורה אלא משום (מלאכי א) הקריבהו נא לפחתך, והגם שבתורת כהנים (סימן א פ"ב) דרשו לאסור מן הכתוב אינו אלא אסמכתא וכמו שכתב שם הכסף משנה, אלא נבילה פיסול המזבח הוא כי ושחט כתיב בכל הקרבנות. ויש לומר שלענין כרת מחזר התנא וכמו שכתבתי למעלה: אשר יקריב. אמרו בתורת כהנים מה תלמוד לומר אשר יקריב, חלב שכמותו כשר ליקרב על גבי המזבח, יצא חלב דפנות שאין כשר ליקרב ע"כ. הנה לסברא זו שהוציא מיעוט בהמה טמאה וחיה ועוף מאומרו שור וכשב ועז לא היה צריך לומר אשר יקריב, והוצרך למעט חלב דפנות. וקשה לרב זביד שדרש שור וכשב ועז לאליה שמותרת, ואשר יקריב למעט בהמה טמאה וחיה ועוף מנין להתיר חלב דפנות, גם לתנא שדרש שור וכשב ועז למעט טמאה וחיה ועוף היתר האליה מנא ליה ויש לומר לרב זביד אומרו אשר יקריב ימעט בהמה חיה ועוף וכו' גם חלב דפנות, כי כל שאינו קרב לה' הרי הוא בכלל המיעוט, ותנא דתורת כהנים גם כן ימעט גם כן מאומרו שור וכשב ועז את האליה, שאם לא בא הכתוב אלא לבהמה טמאה וחיה ועוף לא היה לו לומר אלא שור ושה, וכשנתמעט דבר שישנו באיסור דם תו לא עבדינן קל וחומר, וכלום למה איצטריך למעט משום שהייתי דן קל וחומר מדם, במיעוט אחד שיתמעט בהמה טמאה או חיה או עוף נסתר קל וחומר, ולא איצטריך אלא ללמד על האליה שאינה שוה בכולן שמותרת. אלא שעדיין אין הדעת מתישבת בזה, למה יחלוק רב זביד על תנא דתורת כהנים דממעט טמאה וחיה ועוף משור וכשב ועז והוא ימעטם מאשר יקריב ממנה לה'. ועוד הרי התנא גילה דעתו כי אומרו אשר יקריב וגו' לא יספיק לדרוש ממנו למעט בהמה טמאה וחיה ועוף וחלב הדפנות ממה שחלקם לב' מיעוטים. אשר על כן הנכון בעיני הוא כי גם לכולי עלמא מיעוט בהמה טמאה חיה ועוף אינו אלא מאומרו שור וכשב ועז, ודרשה זו היתה צודקת הגם שהיה אומר שור ושה, וממה שפרט כשב ועז למעט האליה, ואומר אשר יקריב בא למעט חלב הדפנות, ולא כמו שפירש"י שכתבתי למעלה:

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. In Chulin 116 Rabbi Mori is reported as having asked Rabbi Zvid if the fat-tail אליה of the sheep was considered חלב and therefore prohibited. Rabbi Zvid answered: "because of people who ask questions such as you have just asked the Torah wrote the verse כל חלב שור וכשב ועז לא תאכלו, to make clear that the term חלב applies only to the kind of fat which these three categories of animals have in common." How could Rabbi Zvid give such an answer seeing we have already used the animals mentioned in that verse for a different למוד, namely to exclude three other categories of animals? If the Torah had not written verse 23 to exclude the three categories of animals mentioned by Torat Kohanim, we would have learned a קל וחומר, i.e. used logic to arrive at the opposite conclusion as explained by Torat Kohanim on that verse. Perhaps we could have derived the exclusion of those three categories of animals from the words אשר יקריב ממנה אשה לשם. These words would already have excluded both fowl (of which only two species may be used as an offering) and impure animals which are totally unfit as offerings, as well as free-roaming animals which are not suitable as offerings for different considerations although they may be consumed by Jews if ritually slaughtered, etc. Alternatively, once the Torah had specifically excluded impure animals and free-roaming beasts, the Torah made it plain that the קל וחומר which was based on the comparison with the prohibition to eat blood which applies to all of the three categories of animals alike although certain other disqualifications do not apply to it, is not to be applied here. You will find that Rashi's commentary on the Mishnah in Chulin 117 follows a similar path. It is important to take a good look at the next verse. מן הבהמה, from the beasts; Torat Kohanim derives from this expression also that animals not intended to serve as sacrifices due to a physical blemish are nevertheless included in the legislation forbidding the consumption of their חלב, the fat parts offered on the altar, if they had been used as sacrifices. Although the Torah had already specifically prohibited the חלב of animals which have not been slaughtered ritually or of animals which were found defective after slaughtering (although these animals too were unfit for the altar and I could have used that fact to apply the legislation to said חולין בעלי מומין), this would not have been conclusive. According to Maimonides there is no biblical prohibition against a treyfah animal being offered on the altar (Issurey Mizbeach chapter 2). This prohibition is based only on Maleachi 1,8 that "G'd would reject an offering which does not reflect our high regard for Him seeing we would not dare offer something inferior to our governor." Accordingly, a special verse was needed to include treyfah animals. It is true that Torat Kohanim on the same two words in Leviticus 1,2 mentions the exclusion of treyfah animals; however, this is only an אסמכתא a "lean to;" it is not the kind of exegesis which is binding as has been explained in that connection by the author of Kesef Mishneh. At any rate, seeing that a נבלה is prohibited as an offering by a biblical injunction because the Torah wrote the word ושחט, "he must slaughter the animal," in connection with every sacrifice, why was there a need to use the words מן הבהמה to include the categories mentioned by Torat Kohanim? We have to answer again that what Torat Kohanim had in mind was that the same penalty Karet which applies to someone who partakes of the fat of the sacrificial animal also applies to someone eating the fat parts of an ordinary animal which had become unfit as a sacrifice. אשר יקריב ממנה אשה לשם, from which he will offer a sacrifice to the Lord; Torat Kohanim, which zeroes in on the apparently extraneous words אשר יקריב, concludes that the Torah refers to the type of חלב which is suitable for burning up on the altar; it excludes the kind of חלב of the walls of the animal's cavities and fat on the ribs which is not suitable for the altar. According to this reasoning which uses the words כל חלב שור וכשב ועז to exclude application of the prohibition to eat the fat of impure animals and the like, the words אשר יקריב were not needed, and they were therefore available to exclude such fats as is on the ribs of the animal from the application of the prohibition to eat חלב. From where does Rabbi Zvid who used the words שור וכשב ועז to permit eating of the fat on the אליה, the fat part of the tail of the sheep, derive permission to eat also from the fat on the ribs, etc.? At the same time we may ask where the sage who derives permission to eat the fat of the אליה from the words שור וכשב ועז, finds a source for permitting consumption of such fat as that on the ribs, etc.? We may have to conclude that Rabbi Zvid holds that the words אשר יקריב exclude not only such animals as impure beasts, free-roaming animals and fowl from the prohibition of חלב, but also exempt fat on such parts of the animal as the ribs from the application of this law. The reasoning is simply that not only any animal but any part of an animal not burned up on the altar is excluded from this injunction. The author of Torat Kohanim also arrives at the same exclusion using the words שור וכשב ועז as excluding also the אליה from this injunction. If the verse had wanted to exclude only impure animals, birds and wild-roaming animals, it would have had to mention only שור וכשב. As soon as we would exempt even a single type of animal from the prohibition of eating חלב though the prohibition of eating of its blood still applied to it, the whole basis for the קל וחומר which Torat Kohanim wanted to refute by the Torah's use of the extraneous words מן הבהמה had already disappeared. We would have excluded such animals as חיה ועוף automatically. If the Torah nonetheless wrote extra words, such words may be used exegetically, i.e. to exclude the fat on the ribs. The three words שור כשב and עז would between them have excluded only the fat of the אליה from the prohibition of eating חלב. Why then did Rabbi Zvid disagree with the author of Torat Kohanim who derived the exclusion of the fat of impure animals, free-roaming animals, and birds from the words שור וכשב ועז? The author concludes that the principal exclusion of such animals as the impure, the free-roaming ones, and the birds is derived from the words שור וכשב ועז. He does not therefore accept the view of Rashi on the Mishnah in Chulin 117 which he quoted earlier.

פסוק ז:כו · 7:26

Hebrew:

וְכׇל־דָּם֙ לֹ֣א תֹאכְל֔וּ בְּכֹ֖ל מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶ֑ם לָע֖וֹף וְלַבְּהֵמָֽה׃

English:

And you must not consume any blood, either of bird or of animal, in any of your settlements.

The Torah prohibits consuming any blood of birds or domesticated animals, in all Israelite settlements. Rashi notes that the phrase 'in all your settlements' indicates this is a personal obligation not tied to the Land of Israel, and that the specification 'of bird or animal' excludes the blood of fish and locusts from the prohibition.

רש״יRashi

בכל מושבתיכם. לְפִי שֶׁהִיא חוֹבַת הַגּוּף וְאֵינָהּ חוֹבַת קַרְקַע נוֹהֶגֶת בְּכָל מוֹשָׁבוֹת, וּבְמַסֶּכֶת קִדּוּשִׁין בְּפֶרֶק א' מְפֹרָשׁ לָמָּה הֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר: לעוף ולבהמה. פְּרָט לְדַם דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים (כריתות כ'):

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.

פסוק ז:כז · 7:27

Hebrew:

כׇּל־נֶ֖פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר־תֹּאכַ֣ל כׇּל־דָּ֑ם וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִ֖וא מֵֽעַמֶּֽיהָ׃ {פ}*(אין פרשה בספרי תימן)

English:

Anyone who eats blood shall be cut off from kin.

פסוק ז:כח · 7:28

Hebrew:

וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃

English:

And יהוה spoke to Moses, saying:

פסוק ז:כט · 7:29

Hebrew:

דַּבֵּ֛ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר הַמַּקְרִ֞יב אֶת־זֶ֤בַח שְׁלָמָיו֙ לַיהֹוָ֔ה יָבִ֧יא אֶת־קׇרְבָּנ֛וֹ לַיהֹוָ֖ה מִזֶּ֥בַח שְׁלָמָֽיו׃

English:

Speak to the Israelite people thus: The offering to יהוה from a sacrifice of well-being must be presented by the one who offers that sacrifice of well-being to יהוה:

פסוק ז:ל · 7:30

Hebrew:

יָדָ֣יו תְּבִיאֶ֔ינָה אֵ֖ת אִשֵּׁ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה אֶת־הַחֵ֤לֶב עַל־הֶֽחָזֶה֙ יְבִיאֶ֔נּוּ אֵ֣ת הֶחָזֶ֗ה לְהָנִ֥יף אֹת֛וֹ תְּנוּפָ֖ה לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃

English:

one’s own hands shall present יהוה’s offerings by fire. The offerer shall present the fat with the breast, the breast to be elevated as an elevation offering before יהוה;

The owner must personally bring the fat and breast of the shelamim, placing them in his own hands with the kohen's hands supporting from below, and together they perform the tenufah (waving) before God. Rashi describes a choreography involving three kohanim: one brings the portions from the slaughter area, one performs the waving, and one burns the fat on the altar.

רש״יRashi

ידיו תביאינה וגו'. שֶׁתְּהֵא יַד הַבְּעָלִים מִלְּמַעְלָה, וְהַחֵלֶב וְהֶחָזוֹת נְתוּנִין בָּהּ, וְיַד כֹּהֵן מִלְּמַטָּה וּמְנִיפָן (מנחות ס"א): את אשי ה'. וּמָה הֵן הָאִשִּׁים? את החלב על החזה יביאנו. כְּשֶׁמְּבִיאוֹ מִבֵּית הַמִּטְבָּחַיִם נוֹתֵן חֵלֶב עַל הֶחָזֶה, וּכְשֶׁנּוֹתְנוֹ לְיַד הַכֹּהֵן הַמֵּנִיף נִמְצָא הֶחָזֶה לְמַעְלָה וְהַחֵלֶב לְמַטָּה, וְזֶהוּ הָאָמוּר בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר שׁוֹק הַתְּרוּמָה וַחֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה עַל אִשֵּׁי הַחֲלָבִים יָבִיאוּ לְהָנִיף וְגוֹ' (ויקרא י'), וּלְאַחַר הַתְּנוּפָה נוֹתְנוֹ לַכֹּהֵן הַמַּקְטִיר, וְנִמְצָא הֶחָזֶה לְמַטָּה, וְזֶהוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיָּשִֹימוּ אֶת הַחֲלָבִים עַל הֶחָזוֹת וַיַּקְטֵר הַחֲלָבִים הַמִּזְבֵּחָה (שם ט'), לִמְּדָנוּ שֶׁשְּׁלוֹשָׁה כֹּהֲנִים זְקוּקִין לָהּ, כָּךְ מְפֹרָשׁ בִּמְנָחוֹת: את החלב על החזה יביאנו. וְאֶת הֶחָזֶה לָמָּה מֵבִיא? לְהָנִיף אוֹתוֹ הוּא מְבִיאוֹ וְלֹא שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא מֵהָאִשִּׁים: לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר את אשי ה' את החלב על החזה יָכוֹל שֶׁיְּהֵא אַף הֶחָזֶה לָאִשִּׁים, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר את החזה להניף וגו':

'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."

ספורנוSforno

ידיו תביאנה את אשי ה'. לפי שהשאר לבעלים, הנה הבאתם תורה שהבעלים נותנים לה' את הכל החלב והחזה, וכהנים משלחן גבוה קא זכו: את החזה להניף אותו. אף על פי שנותן החלב על החזה בשעת תנופה מכל מקום עיקר התנופה היא בשביל החזה להודיע שהוא נתון לגבוה. אמנם החלב כבר ידוע הוא שהוא לה', שהרי הוא קרב על גבי המזבח:

'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.

פסוק ז:לא · 7:31

Hebrew:

וְהִקְטִ֧יר הַכֹּהֵ֛ן אֶת־הַחֵ֖לֶב הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חָה וְהָיָה֙ הֶֽחָזֶ֔ה לְאַהֲרֹ֖ן וּלְבָנָֽיו׃

English:

the priest shall turn the fat into smoke on the altar, and the breast shall go to Aaron and his sons.

After the waving ceremony, the kohen burns the fat on the altar, and only then does the breast become permitted for consumption by Aaron and his sons. Rashi derives from this sequence that the sacrificial meat may not be eaten until the fat portions have been placed on the altar.

רש״יRashi

והקטיר הכהן את החלב. וְאַחַ"כַּ והיה החזה לאהרן, לִמְּדָנוּ שֶׁאֵין הַבָּשָׂר נֶאֱכָל בְּעוֹד שֶׁהָאֵמוּרִים לְמַטָּה מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ (ספרא):

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).

פסוק ז:לב · 7:32

Hebrew:

וְאֵת֙ שׁ֣וֹק הַיָּמִ֔ין תִּתְּנ֥וּ תְרוּמָ֖ה לַכֹּהֵ֑ן מִזִּבְחֵ֖י שַׁלְמֵיכֶֽם׃

English:

And the right thigh from your sacrifices of well-being you shall present to the priest as a gift;

In addition to the breast, the right thigh (shok ha-yamin) of the shelamim is given to the kohen as terumah (a priestly gift). Rashi defines the shok as the middle section of the hind leg, from the knee joint to the ankle, while Sforno compares the kohen's portion to a gift given to a king's attendant as a mark of honor.

רש״יRashi

שוק. מִן הַפֶּרֶק שֶׁל אַרְכֻּבָּה הַנִּמְכֶּרֶת עִם הָרֹאשׁ עַד הַפֶּרֶק הָאֶמְצָעִי שֶׁהוּא סֹבֶךְ שֶׁל רֶגֶל (חולין קל"ד):

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).

ספורנוSforno

ואת שוק הימין תתנו תרומה לכהן. מחלק בעלים כמקדמים פני המשרת במנחה, לכבוד המלך:

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.

פסוק ז:לג · 7:33

Hebrew:

הַמַּקְרִ֞יב אֶת־דַּ֧ם הַשְּׁלָמִ֛ים וְאֶת־הַחֵ֖לֶב מִבְּנֵ֣י אַהֲרֹ֑ן ל֧וֹ תִהְיֶ֛ה שׁ֥וֹק הַיָּמִ֖ין לְמָנָֽה׃

English:

he from among Aaron’s sons who offers the blood and the fat of the offering of well-being shall get the right thigh as his portion.

The right thigh is specifically assigned to the kohen who performs the blood dashing and fat burning. Rashi explains that this excludes a kohen who was ritually impure at the time of the blood service from receiving a share of the meat, even if he later became pure.

רש״יRashi

המקריב את דם השלמים וגו'. מִי שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לִזְרִיקָתוֹ וּלְהַקְטִיר חֲלָבָיו, יָצָא טָמֵא בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקַת דָּמִים אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק בַּבָּשָׂר (ספרא):

‎'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).

אבן עזראIbn Ezra

שוק הימין. לזורק הדם והחזה לכל הכהנים:

THE RIGHT THIGH. Is to be given to the kohen who sprinkles the blood, and the breast to all the kohanim.

פסוק ז:לד · 7:34

Hebrew:

כִּי֩ אֶת־חֲזֵ֨ה הַתְּנוּפָ֜ה וְאֵ֣ת ׀ שׁ֣וֹק הַתְּרוּמָ֗ה לָקַ֙חְתִּי֙ מֵאֵ֣ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל מִזִּבְחֵ֖י שַׁלְמֵיהֶ֑ם וָאֶתֵּ֣ן אֹ֠תָ֠ם לְאַהֲרֹ֨ן הַכֹּהֵ֤ן וּלְבָנָיו֙ לְחׇק־עוֹלָ֔ם מֵאֵ֖ת בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

English:

For I have taken the breast of elevation offering and the thigh of gift offering from the Israelites, from their sacrifices of well-being, and given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as their due from the Israelites for all time.

God declares that He has taken the breast (chazeh ha-tenufah) and the thigh (shok ha-terumah) from the Israelites' shelamim offerings and given them to Aaron and his sons as an eternal priestly due. Rashi explains that tenufah involves horizontal waving back and forth, while terumah involves vertical lifting up and down.

רש״יRashi

תנופה, תרומה. מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא מַעֲלֶה וּמוֹרִיד (מנחות ס"ב):

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).

פסוק ז:לה · 7:35

Hebrew:

זֹ֣את מִשְׁחַ֤ת אַהֲרֹן֙ וּמִשְׁחַ֣ת בָּנָ֔יו מֵאִשֵּׁ֖י יְהֹוָ֑ה בְּיוֹם֙ הִקְרִ֣יב אֹתָ֔ם לְכַהֵ֖ן לַיהֹוָֽה׃

English:

Those shall be the perquisitesperquisites Lit. “anointment,” i.e., accruing from anointment. of Aaron and the perquisites of his sons from יהוה’s offerings by fire, once they have been inductedinducted Lit. “brought forward.” to serve יהוה as priests;

The breast and thigh are described as the 'consecrated portion' (mishchat) of Aaron and his sons from the fire offerings, granted to them from the day they were inducted into priestly service. Ibn Ezra interprets mishchat as denoting leadership, meaning these portions are the reward for holding the office of kohen.

אבן עזראIbn Ezra

זאת. זאת שכר משחת אהרן או משחת בניו נגידות:

THIS IS THE CONSECRATED PORTION. This is the reward of the consecration of Aaron or of the consecration of his sons. The word mishchat (consecrated portion) means leadership.80According to I.E. our verse should be explained, this is Aaron's (or his sons') reward for holding the office of leadership, i.e., kohen.

פסוק ז:לו · 7:36

Hebrew:

אֲשֶׁר֩ צִוָּ֨ה יְהֹוָ֜ה לָתֵ֣ת לָהֶ֗ם בְּיוֹם֙ מׇשְׁח֣וֹ אֹתָ֔ם מֵאֵ֖ת בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל חֻקַּ֥ת עוֹלָ֖ם לְדֹרֹתָֽם׃

English:

these יהוה commanded to be given them, once they had been anointed, as a due from the Israelites for all time throughout the ages.

This verse reinforces that God commanded these priestly portions to be given from the day of the kohanim's anointing, as an eternal statute for all generations. Ibn Ezra interprets 'in the day' (be-yom) as meaning 'from the day,' indicating the gifts apply from the moment the priesthood was inaugurated onward.

אבן עזראIbn Ezra

ביום משחו. מיום וכן בבשר ובלחם:

IN THE DAY THAT THEY WERE ANOINTED. Be-yom (in the day) is to be rendered, from the day.81In other words, the bet of be-yom has the meaning of a mem. The priestly gifts mentioned in verse 34 were given to kohanim from the day that they commenced to minister. Hence I.E.'s interpretation. Similarly ba-basar82Here too the bet has the meaning of "from" (of), not "in." u-va-lachem (of the flesh and of the bread) (Lev. 8:32).

פסוק ז:לז · 7:37

Hebrew:

זֹ֣את הַתּוֹרָ֗ה לָֽעֹלָה֙ לַמִּנְחָ֔ה וְלַֽחַטָּ֖את וְלָאָשָׁ֑ם וְלַ֨מִּלּוּאִ֔ים וּלְזֶ֖בַח הַשְּׁלָמִֽים׃

English:

Such are the rituals of the burnt offering, the meal offering, the sin offering, the guilt offering, the offering of ordination, and the sacrifice of well-being,

This grand summary verse recapitulates the entire sacrificial system: the olah (burnt offering), minchah (meal offering), chatat (sin offering), asham (guilt offering), miluim (consecration offering), and shelamim (peace offering). It serves as a colophon for the legislation spanning Vayikra and Tzav, affirming the divine origin of each offering type.

רש״יRashi

ולמלואים. לְיוֹם חִנּוּךְ הַכְּהֻנָּה:

ולמלואים AND FOR THE CONSECRATION OFFERING that was offered on the day that they were installed in the priestly office (cf. Exodus 28:41).

אבן עזראIbn Ezra

ולמלואים. ככתוב בפרשת ואתה תצוה:

AND OF THE CONSECRATION-OFFERING. As written in the Torah portion And Thou Shalt Command (Ex. 27:20).

אור החייםOr HaChaim

זאת התורה לעולה. לא נודע כוונת פסוק זה. ובתורת כהנים דרשו לומר לך מה מילואים נאמרו כללותיהן ודקדוקיהן מסיני אף כל נאמרו וכו'. וכבר כתבתי במקומות אחרים (ריש פ' משפטים) מה שיש להעיר בדבר זה. עוד דרשו ז"ל (תו"כ זבחים צז:) ללמד על הזבחים כולן שטעונין סכין כעולה, וללמד על שלמי ציבור שנאכלין לזכרי כהונה כמנחה וכו'. ובדרך רמז נראה על דרך אומרם במנחות (קי.) אמר ריש לקיש מאי דכתיב זאת התורה וגו' כל העוסק בתורת עולה כאילו הקריב כו' ע"כ, גם אנו נאמר בדרך זה: וקודם אקדים דברי רז"ל אנשי אמת שונים בש"ע נהורים אשר אמרו כי תכלית עסק התורה הוא לברר ניצוצי הקדושה אשר נפלו ואשר נאנסו מהקדושה ולהחזירם ביחוד שלם לכמות שהיו, והם שני בחינות, האחד ניצוצי הקדושה שירדו בעולם התהו לסיבה ידועה לו והמושג ליודעי דעת יספיק לטעם נכון, והשני הם נפשות העשוקות אשר עשק אדם בליעל מאדם הראשון בחטאו אשר שלל שלל רב, כידוע הפלגת הנשמות אשר הרבה לעשוק, ואין לך דבר שפוקד עליו להוציא בולעו מפיו זולת אמצעות עסק התורה יעשה כל דבר עיקר. יעלה ניצוצי הקדושה שנפלו קודם עולם התיקון, ויוציא מס"מ בולעו מפיו ומפוצצו וממחה כוחו עד אשר יקיא חיל בלע, והוא מאמרם ז"ל (קדושין ל:) אם פגע וכו' אם אבן הוא נימוח ואם ברזל מתפוצץ. ובפסוק זה גילה הכתוב פלאי התורה ותעצומיה, ואמר זאת התורה תועלותיה אשר תסובב קריאתה, לעולה פירוש שבאמצעותה תתעלה השכינה שהיא בחינת כנסת ישראל, ב' למנחה תיבה זו סובלת כמה פירושים וכולן צודקין, לשון מנוחה ולשון נחת, ולשון הנחה, וזה הפירוש הוא סוד (חולין צא:) עלי יניח צדיק זה את ראשו, והוא סוד (ב"ר פ"י) באה שבת באה מנוחה כי יניח עליה צדיק יסוד עולם, והוא סוד (שה"ש ב') שמאלו תחת לראשי וימינו תחבקני והבן: לחטאת ולאשם הם שני בחינות הברורין, האחד חלקי הקדושה שירדו למטה ממדרגתם בתחילה בעולם התהו כנגדם אמר לחטאת, והשניה חלקי הנשמות שנעשקו מאדם בחטאו כנגדם אמר לאשם, כי התורה תועיל לשני בחינות אלו לבררם ממקום ירידתם. ולא בירור לבד אלא גם יכוננם במקום שנחסרו ממנו, והוא אומרו ולמלואים למלאותם במקומם, זה כנגד ניצוצות שירדו וכנגד חלקי נשמות שאנס ס"מ מאדם הראשון אמר ולזבח השלמים, על דרך אומרו (תהלים נ) זובח תודה יכבדנני ודרשו ז"ל (סנהדרין עג:) זה הזובח יצרו. והזביחה הוא שינצחהו ובבחינת הנצחון הוא בורר ממנו בחינת הטוב אשר אנס מאדם הראשון. והנה בחינה זו היא מעלה גדולה אשר יתעצם לזבוח יצרו כמעשה דוד שאמר (תהלים קט) ולבי חלל בקרבי ודבר זה עושה פעולה גדולה בבחינה שאנו משתדלים עליה, ואין מציאות להשגה זו זולת באמצעות התורה כאומרם (קדושין ל:) אם פגע בך מנוול זה משכהו לבית המדרש, וכן אמרו (שם) אמר הקב"ה בראתי לכם יצר הרע בראתי לו תבלין שהיא התורה: עוד ירמוז באומרו ולזבח השלמים כי תכלית הבירור יהיה באמצעות הזבח דכתיב (ישעי' לד) כי זבח לה' בבצרה, ואמרו ז"ל עתיד הקב"ה לשחוט את השטן, ופירוש שחיטה זו היא שיסיר ממנו בחינה המחייהו שהוא ניצוץ הקדושה ובזה השלמים נשלמו כל הבירורים, והודיע הכתוב כי גם הדבר הזה יושג באמצעות עסק התורה כי בזכות עסק התורה שעוסקים הצדיקים בעולם הזה יהיה הדבר, ולזה רמזו ז"ל (שם) בדבריהם כי השחיטה הלז תהיה על זה הדרך הקב"ה מצד אחד וכל הצדיקים תופסין הסכין מצד אחר לזבוח זבח ההוא כי בכחם היה המושג, הא למדת זאת התורה לכל הדברים הנפלאים, לעולה למנחה כנגד העלאת השכינה ויחודה עם הקב"ה, לחטאת ולאשם לברר ב' בחינות הברורים שהם עיקר העולם, ולמלואים ולזבח השלמים ליחד ניצוצות היורדות למלאותם במקומם, ולזבוח יצרו זביחה שאין אחריה קיום, גם יעמוד חי לפני ה' לשלוח יד במבקשי רעתו לזבוח זבח, והיה ה' למלך וגו' יהיה ה' אחד ושמו אחד, והוא אומרו השלמים פירוש שנשלמו כל בחינות הקדושה ונתיחדו יחד. ואומרו אשר צוה ה' וגו' חוזר לסיבה שהיא התורה שהזכיר בראש הפסוק, כאילו אמר זאת התורה אשר צוה ה' וגו' שצריכין ללמוד התורה על מנת כן לא לתכלית אחר זולתו, ואומרו ביום צוותו כי דבר זה נאמר להם במעמד הר סיני דכתיב במדבר סיני, ואמר להקריב את קרבניהם כאן רמן בתוספת ביאור מה שפירשתי שמקריבין כל חלקי הקדושה שהם מיוחסים לישראל שהם הם הדרגת הקדושה וכל חלקי הקדושה להם יתיחסו ובאמצעות התורה יקריבו את קרבניהם ויתיחדו כל בחינות הקדושה כנזכר למעלה:

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 can elevate themselves to be the vehicle of G'd's Presence. The Torah goes on to say למנחה. This word may be translated in several ways all of which are correct. The word reflects the concept of מנוחה, rest; it reflects the concept נחת, calm, tranquillity; it also reflects the concept of הנחה, deposit, repose. This latter meaning is most likely the principal meaning of the word מנחה. In Chulin 91 the stones upon which Jacob placed his head when he went to sleep after having been surprised by an early sunset, are described as having merged in order that the righteous Jacob should be able to use all of them as his pillow, for his repose. In his commentary on Genesis 2,2 Rashi writes בא שבת בא מנוחה, "the arrival of the Sabbath brings with it a sense of repose." This is because the righteous, the foundation of the world, uses the Sabbath as his pillow (allegorically speaking). This is also the mystical dimension of Song of Songs 2,6: שמאלו תחת לראשי וימינו תחבקני. "His left hand is under my head and His right arm embraces me." ולתטאת ולאשם, and for the sin-offering and the guilt-offering. These words clarify two separate aspects of the descent of the sparks of sanctity into the nether regions which we referred to earlier. The sparks of sanctity which descended at the time the world was still in chaos, Tohu Vavohu [before the period which commenced with G'd creating light at the beginning of the Torah's report in Genesis 1,3 Ed.], are here referred to as לחטאת, i.e. "the Torah of the sin-offering," whereas the sparks of sanctity which descended into the realm of Satan after Adam sinned are referred to as לאשם, i.e. "the Torah of the guilt-offering." The Torah had to inform us of this division in order for us to appreciate that not only can it help us locate and isolate i.e. identify these sparks of sanctity in an environment inherently hostile to sanctity, but Torah can also be the instrument of rescuing these sparks of sanctity from their exile. The Torah alludes to this when it writes: ולמלואים, i.e. "to make them fill their original places." The word למלואים refers to the original place assigned to the sparks of sanctity which descended into chaos before G'd created order in the physical universe. The words ולזבח השלמים refer to the sparks of sanctity which descended into the clutches of the spiritually negative forces rampant in our world after Adam's sin. The expression זבח in this connection reminds us of Psalms 50,23: זובח תודה יכבדני אראנו בישע אלוקים, "he who offers a thank-offering honours Me….and I will show him salvation." Sanhedrin 43 comments on this verse that the person the Psalmist refers to sacrifices his evil urge. Slaughtering, זובח, means vanquishing that which one slaughters. By vanquishing one's evil urge one can again isolate the realm of good which had been inextricably fused with the forces of evil while that soul had been in the clutches of Satan, i.e. of the evil urge. This is a tremendous spiritual accomplishment as commented upon by David in Psalms 109,22 who viewed himself as לבי חלל בקרבי, "my heart was slain inside of me." David refered to having killed the evil urge within him. This is a very great spiritual accomplishment but it cannot be achieved except through Torah as we mentioned when we quoted the Talmud in Kidushin 30. The Talmud there also quotes G'd as saying: "whereas I have created the evil urge within you I have also given you a remedy to overcome it, i.e. the Torah." Another homiletical message is contained in the words ולזבח השלמים which tell us that the whole purpose of identifying and isolating these lost sparks of sanctity is to do so by means of the זבח, the sacrifice; Isaiah 34,6 speaks of כי זבח לה׳ בבצרה, "for the Lord holds a sacrifice in Bozrah;" our sages comment on these words that in the future G'd will slaughter Satan. The meaning of the word "slaughter" [when applied to a spiritual being such as Satan. Ed.] is that G'd will deprive Satan of the component which enables it to live, i.e. the spark of sanctity. This then will be the peace-offering שלמים alluded to in our verse which is a reference to the "happy ending" of human history. Our verse tells us that even the slaughtering of Satan will be accomplished by means of preoccupation with the Torah. Torah. It is the merit acquired by the righteous through preoccupation with Torah which will bring all this about. Our sages in Sukkah 52 alluded to this when they described the slaughter of Samael as being carried out jointly by G'd and the righteous, each one holding the knife from one end. This is meant to teach us that it is within the power of the righteous to contribute their share in the elimination of Samael-Satan. We have already stated that the words זאת התורה are to remind the reader of all the marvellous things which can be accomplished by means of the Torah. לעולה למנחה; these words allude to the elevation of the שכינה and its unification with the essence of G'd. The words לחטאת ולאשם allude to the respective identification and isolation of the sparks of sanctity which are the essential part of the living universe. The words ולמלואים ולזבח השלמים describe the unification of the sparks of sanctity which had gone astray with their erstwhile source, and the slaughtering of the evil source which enabled such a going astray of sanctity to have occurred in the first place. This will also deny that source the basis for any future existence. The word שלמים, perfection, completion, alludes to the fact that when that stage will have been reached all the challenges life on earth presents will have been met successfully. This is the time when G'd will be proclaimed king in this world for ever more and He and His name will be One. אשר צוה ה׳ את משה, which G'd commanded Moses, etc.; the Torah here reverts to the cause for all this, i.e. the Torah, as had been mentioned by the words וזאת התורה. It is as if the Torah had written in verse 37: "This is the Torah which G'd commanded Moses, etc." ביום צוותו את בני ישראל, on the day He commanded the children of Israel, etc. This ordinance was commanded to them at Mount Sinai seeing G'd said: "in the desert of Sinai." The Torah added: להקריב את קרבניהם, "to offer up their sacrifices." This is an allusion to what I have written previously that all particles of sanctity which exist are an integral part of Israel and that Israel will be able to reunite all these various "sparks" of sanctity by means of the Torah.

פסוק ז:לח · 7:38

Hebrew:

אֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֧ה יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֖ה בְּהַ֣ר סִינָ֑י בְּי֨וֹם צַוֺּת֜וֹ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל לְהַקְרִ֧יב אֶת־קׇרְבְּנֵיהֶ֛ם לַיהֹוָ֖ה בְּמִדְבַּ֥ר סִינָֽי׃ {פ}

English:

with which יהוה charged Moses on Mount Sinai, when commanding that the Israelites present their offerings to יהוה, in the wilderness of Sinai.

The concluding verse anchors all the sacrificial laws at Mount Sinai, confirming they were commanded there in the wilderness. Ibn Ezra notes that Israel did not offer sacrifices before arriving at Sinai, and that in the forty years of desert wandering after departing Sinai they largely did not sacrifice, as the prophet Amos (5:25) attests.

אבן עזראIbn Ezra

להקריב את קרבניהם לה׳‎ במדבר סיני. כי לא הקריבו קרבן עד שבאו אל הר סיני וכבר הראיתיך שהמזבח שבנה משה על חלושת עמלק הוא בחורב והוא הר סיני ושם ישבו ישראל שנה פחות עשרה ימים כי כן כתוב ובמדבר לא הקריבו עולות כי כן אמר הנביא הזבחים ומנח׳‎ הגשתם לי במדבר ארבעים שנה בית ישראל גם לא עשו פסח כי אם במצרים ושנית בהר סיני כי במדבר לא היו להם מקנה ואחר שנסעו מהר סיני לא מלו בדרך והנה רובם ערלים ובעבור אכילת פסח מל אותם יהושע:

TO PRESENT THEIR OFFERINGS UNTO THE LORD, IN THE WILDERNESS OF SINAI. For Israel did not offer sacrifices until they came to Mount Sinai. I have previously shown you that the altar which Moses built after defeating Amalek was built in Horeb, which is Mount Sinai.83See I.E. on Ex 17:15 (Vol. 2, p. 341). Israel camped there for a year minus ten days.84Israel came to Sinai on the first day of Sivan (Ex. 19:1). They left Sinai on the twentieth day of the following Iyyar (Num. 10:11). See I.E. on Ex. 19:1 (Vol. 1, p. 370); and on Num. 10:11 (Vol. 4, p. 70). The latter is clearly stated in Scripture. They did not offer sacrifices in the wilderness, for the prophet clearly states, Did ye bring unto Me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? (Amos 5:25). Israel similarly only offered the Passover sacrifice in Egypt, and for a second time at Mount Sinai,85Num. 9:1-5. for they had no cattle in the wilderness. They did not circumcise on the way after they journeyed from Mount Sinai. Most of them were thus uncircumcised.86And were proscribed from offering the Passover sacrifice (Ex. 12:48). Joshua circumcised them87After entering the Land of Israel. so that they could partake of the Passover sacrifice.88Josh. 5:2-10.

← Aliyah 2 — שני | Aliyah 4 — רביעי →

Back to Parashat Tzav | Back to Parashat HaShavua

פרשת צו — שלישי (Aliyah 3)

קלאוד על הפרשה

Leviticus 7:11–7:38 · ויקרא ז:יא–ז:לח

פסוק ז:יא · 7:11

פסוק ז:יב · 7:12

פסוק ז:יג · 7:13

פסוק ז:יד · 7:14

פסוק ז:טו · 7:15

פסוק ז:טז · 7:16

פסוק ז:יז · 7:17

פסוק ז:יח · 7:18

פסוק ז:יט · 7:19

פסוק ז:כ · 7:20

פסוק ז:כא · 7:21

פסוק ז:כב · 7:22

פסוק ז:כג · 7:23

פסוק ז:כד · 7:24

פסוק ז:כה · 7:25

פסוק ז:כו · 7:26

פסוק ז:כז · 7:27

פסוק ז:כח · 7:28

פסוק ז:כט · 7:29

פסוק ז:ל · 7:30

פסוק ז:לא · 7:31

פסוק ז:לב · 7:32

פסוק ז:לג · 7:33

פסוק ז:לד · 7:34

פסוק ז:לה · 7:35

פסוק ז:לו · 7:36

פסוק ז:לז · 7:37

פסוק ז:לח · 7:38

Navigation