Chumashחומש

ויקרא אל משה. לְכָל דִּבְּרוֹת וּלְכָל אֲמִירוֹת וּלְכָל צִוּוּיִים קָדְמָה קְרִיאָה, לְשׁוֹן חִבָּה, לָשׁוֹן שֶׁמַּלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְקָרָא זֶה אֶל זֶה (ישעיהו ו'), אֲבָל לִנְבִיאֵי אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם נִגְלָה עֲלֵיהֶן בִּלְשׁוֹן עֲרָאִי וְטֻמְאָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיִּקָּר אֱלֹהִים אֶל בִּלְעָם (במדבר כ"ג):

ויקרא אל משה AND [THE LORD] CALLED UNTO MOSES — All oral communications of the Lord to Moses whether they are introduced by דבר or by אמר or by צו were preceded by a call (to prepare him for the forthcoming address) (cf Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 1 1-2). It is a way of expressing affection, the mode used by the ministering angels when addressing each other, as it is said (Isaiah 6:3) “And one called unto another [and said, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts]”. To the prophets of the nations of the world, however, God revealed himself in a manner which Scripture describes by an expression ordinarily used for denoting events of a casual character and of uncleanness, as it is said, (Numbers 23:4) “and God happened to meet (ויקר) Balaam” (the term ויקר, from the root ,קרה, is connected with מִקְרֶה which denotes “chance”, “occurrence”, and has also the meaning of “uncleanness”, by analogy with Deuteronomy 23:11: ‎לא יהיה טהור מקרה לילה) (cf. Bereishit Rabbah 52:5).

ויקרא אל משה. הַקּוֹל הוֹלֵךְ וּמַגִּיעַ לְאָזְנָיו וְכָל יִשְֹרָאֵל לֹא שׁוֹמְעִין; יָכוֹל אַף לְהַפְסָקוֹת הָיְתָה קְרִיאָה, תַּ"ל וַיְדַבֵּר — לְדִבּוּר הָיְתָה קְרִיאָה וְלֹא לְהַפְסָקוֹת, וּמֶה הָיוּ הַפְסָקוֹת מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת? לִתֵּן רֶוַח לְמֹשֶׁה לְהִתְבּוֹנֵן בֵּין פָּרָשָׁה לְפָרָשָׁה וּבֵין עִנְיָן לְעִנְיָן; קַ"וָ לְהֶדְיוֹט הַלּוֹמֵד מִן הַהֶדְיוֹט:

ויקרא אל משה AND HE CALLED UNTO MOSES — This implies that the Voice went on and reached his (Moses’s) ears only but all the other Israelites did not hear it). One might think that for the subsections there was also such a call! It, however, states, “[And the Lord called unto Moses] and spake (וידבר) [to him]”, thus intimating that a דבור, a complete section had (was preceded by) a call (e. g., in our text chapters 1—4), but not the subsections. And what purpose did these subsections serve (i. e., why are the larger sections broken up into smaller ones)? To give Moses an interval for reflection between one division and another and between one subject and another — something which is all the more necessary for an ordinary man receiving instruction from an ordinary man (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 1 9).

אליו. לְמַעֵט אֶת אַהֲרֹן; רַ' יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר י"ג דִּבְּרוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בַּתּוֹרָה לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְאַהֲרֹן וּכְנֶגְדָּן נֶאֶמְרוּ י"ג מִעוּטִין, לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁלֹּא לְאַהֲרֹן נֶאֶמְרוּ אֶלָּא לְמֹשֶׁה שֶׁיֹּאמַר לְאַהֲרֹן, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן י"ג מִעוּטִין: לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ, מִדַּבֵּר אֵלָיו, וַיְדַבֵּר אֵלָיו (במדבר ז'), וְנוֹעַדְתִּי לְךָ (שמות כ"ה) — כֻּלָּן בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים. יָכוֹל יִשְׁמְעוּ אֶת קוֹל הַדִּבּוּר תַּ"לֹ קוֹל לוֹ, קוֹל אֵלָיו, מֹשֶׁה שׁוֹמֵעַ וְכָל יִשְֹרָאֵל לֹא שָׁמְעוּ:

אליו TO HIM — This is intended to exclude Aaron. Rabbi Judah said, “Thirteen communications in the Torah are stated, according to the wording of the text, to have been spoken to Moses and Aaron together; but corresponding to these there are thirteen which include expressions with a limitative force to teach you that they were spoken not to Aaron but to Moses only, with the view that he should communicate them to Aaron. The following are the thirteen limitations: (Numbers 7:89) “[And when Moses had come into the appointed tent] that He might speak with him, [then he heard the Voice] speaking unto him … [from between the two cherubim]: and he spoke unto him”; (Exodus 25:22) “and there I will be met by thee”; — all the thirteen instances you will find in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 1. — I might, however, think that they (Aaron and all Israel) heard at least the sound of the Divine utterance (הדבור), even though they could not distinguish the words! However, in the text, Numbers 7:89: וישמע את הקול מדבר אליו,where it might have said לו‎...‎ ה]קול], it says אליו‎‎… ‎ה]קול], “And he heard the voice (הקול) uttering itself (מדבר) right up to him (אליו)” — consequently Moses alone heard the utterance, and all Israel did not hear it) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 8).

מאהל מועד. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיָה הַקּוֹל נִפְסָק וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹצֵא חוּץ לָאֹהֶל; יָכוֹל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַקּוֹל נָמוּךְ, תַּ"ל אֶת הַקּוֹל, מַהוּ הַקּוֹל? הוּא הַקּוֹל הַמְפֹרָשׁ בִּתְהִלִּים קוֹל ה' בַּכֹּחַ קוֹל ה' בֶּהָדָר קוֹל ה' שֹׁבֵר אֲרָזִים (תהילים כ"ט), אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר מֵאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד? מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיָה הַקּוֹל נִפְסָק. כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ וְקוֹל כַּנְפֵי הַכְּרוּבִים נִשְׁמַע עַד הֶחָצֵר הַחִיצֹנָה (יחזקאל י'), יָכוֹל שֶׁהַקּוֹל נָמוּךְ תַּ"ל כְּקוֹל אֵל שַׁדַּי בְּדַבְּרוֹ, אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר עַד הֶחָצֵר הַחִיצֹנָה? שֶׁכֵּוָּן שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ שָׁם הָיָה נִפְסָק:

מאהל מועד FROM THE APPOINTED TENT — This teaches us that the Voice broke off and did not issue beyond the appointed tent. One might think that this was so because the Voice was a very low one! Scripture, however, states, (Numbers 7:89) “[when he entered the tent he heard] the Voice”. What does it mean by the Voice? It was the Voice that is so minutely described in Psalms, (29:4, 5) “The voice of the Lord is powerful; the voice of the Lord is full of majesty. The voice of the Lord breaketh the cedars. But if this be so (that it was a very powerful voice), why does Scripture state, “[and the Lord spoke to him] from the appointed tent” (מאהל מועד and does not state באהל מועד)? Because it intends to tell us that the Voice broke off and that it was heard only in the tent). A similar case we have in Ezekiel that a powerful sound uttered within the Temple was not heard outside: (Ezekiel 10:5) “And the sound of the cherubims’ wings was heard up to the outer court”. One might think then that the sound was a very low one! Scripture, however, continues “as the Voice of the Almighty God when He speaketh”! If this was so why, then, does Scripture state, “[it was heard] up to the outer court only”? Because when it (the sound) reached there it broke off (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 10-11).

מאהל מועד לאמר. יָכוֹל מִכָּל הַבַּיִת, תַּ"ל מֵעַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת, יָכוֹל מֵעַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת כֻּלָּהּ, תַּ"ל מִבֵּין שְׁנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים:

מאהל מועד לאמר [AND THE LORD … SPOKE UNTO HIM] OUT OF THE APPOINTED TENT, SAYING — One might think from this that the Lord spoke to him from the entire house (i.e. from any part of the appointed tent)! Scripture, however, states, (Numbers 6:89) “[and he heard the Voice speaking unto him] from off the covering”. From this, again, one might think that he heard the Voice coming from off the entire covering (from any part of it)! Scripture, however, continues, “from between the two cherubim”. Consequently the words מאהל מועד cannot denote the place from which the Lord spoke to Moses, but the area within which the Voice was heard (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 12).

לאמר. צֵא וֶאֱמֹר לָהֶם דִּבְרֵי כִּבּוּשִׁין — בִּשְׁבִילְכֶם הוּא נִדְבָּר עִמִּי; שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ שֶׁכָּל ל"ח שָׁנָה שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְֹרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר כִּמְנֻדִּים, מִן הַמְרַגְּלִים וָאֵילַךְ, לֹא נִתְיַחֵד הַדִּבּוּר עִם מֹשֶׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיְהִי כַאֲשֶׁר תַּמּוּ כָּל אַנְשֵׁי הַמִּלְחָמָה לָמוּת … וַיְדַבֵּר ה' אֵלַי לֵאמֹר (דברים ב'), אֵלַי הָיָה הַדִּבּוּר. דָּ"אַ צֵא וֶאֱמֹר לָהֶן דְּבָרַי וַהֲשִׁיבֵנִי אִם יְקַבְּלוּם, כְּמָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיָּשֶׁב מֹשֶׁה אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָעָם וְגוֹ' (שמות י"ט):

לאמר SAYING — This implies “Go and speak to them words that will bring them to a subdued frame of mind):‘It is for your sake that He communicates with me’!” And indeed we find this was so; for all the thirty — eight years during which Israel in the wilderness were placed, as it were, under excommunication — from the time of the incident of the spies and onwards — there was no intimate conversation of God with Moses, for it is said, (Deuteronomy 2:16, 17) “So it came to pass, when were consumed all the men of war (i. e. the men who had waged war immediately after the return of the spies; cf. Numbers 14:40—45. It was they and their generation who wandered in the wilderness as though excommunicated) … that the Lord spake unto me, saying, …” — only then was a divine communication again made to me (Sifra). Another explanation of לאמר is that it means “to speak to God”: it implies, “Go and tell them My commands and bring Me back word whether they will accept them, as it is said, (Exodus 19:8) “And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 13).

אדם כי יקריב מכם. כְּשֶׁיַּקְרִיב; בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת נְדָבָה דִּבֵּר הָעִנְיָן:

אדם כי יקריב מכם IF A MAN OF YOU OFFER [AN OFFERING] — This means, when he offers: Scripture is speaking here of free — will offerings (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 4).

אדם. לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? מָה אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן לֹא הִקְרִיב מִן הַגָּזֵל — שֶׁהַכֹּל הָיָה שֶׁלּוֹ — אַף אַתֶּם לֹא תַּקְרִיבוּ מִן הַגָּזֵל (ויקרא רבה):

אדם — Why is this term for “man” employed here? Since אדם also means Adam, its use suggests the following comparison: what was the characteristic of the first man (אדם הראשון)? He did not offer sacrifice of anything acquired by way of robbery, since everything was his! So you, too, shall not offer anything acquired by way of robbery (Leviticus Rabbah 2:7).

הבהמה. יָכוֹל אַף חַיָּה בִּכְלָל, תַּ"לֹ בָּקָר וָצֹאן:

הבהמה [OF] THE BEASTS — One might think that wild beasts are also included! Scripture, however,’ goes on to state, “even of cattle or of sheep” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 6).

מן הבהמה. וְלֹא כֻּלָּהּ — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הָרוֹבֵעַ וְאֶת הַנִּרְבָּע:

מן הבהמה OF THE BEASTS — but not all of them: the phrase, “some of the beasts”) is used in order to exclude male and female animals with which sexual sin has been committed (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 7).

מן הבקר. לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנֶּעֱבָד:

מן הבקר OF THE CATTLE — This serves to exclude an animal which has been worshipped as a god (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 9).

מן הצאן. לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַמֻּקְצָה:

מן הצאן OF THE SHEEP — This serves to exclude an animal set aside for the purpose of being offered to an idol (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 11).

ומן הצאן. לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנּוֹגֵחַ שֶׁהֵמִית; כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לְמַטָּה מִן הָעִנְיָן מִן הַבָּקָר — שֶׁאֵין תַּ"ל — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה (ספרא):

ומן הצאן AND OF THE SHEEP — The ו prefixed to the word is intended to exclude a goring ox that has killed a man. — When Scripture again says lower down in the section, (v. 3) מן הבקר, “of the cattle”, — which word מן it was unnecessary to use, (it would have sufficed to say: 'אם עולה קרבנו זכר וכו) — it is intentionally used to exclude a טרפה (an animal afflicted with a fatal organic disease) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 11).

תקריבו. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁשְּׁנַיִם מִתְנַדְּבִים עוֹלָה בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת:

תקריבו YE SHALL OFFER [YOUR OFFERING] — The plural תקריבו teaches us that two (or more) persons may bring a burnt offering as a free — will gift in partnership (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 3 1).

קרבנכם. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהִיא בָּאָה נִדְבַת צִבּוּר, הִיא עוֹלַת קַיִץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, הַבָּאָה מִן הַמּוֹתָרוֹת (שבועות י"ב):

קרבנכם YOUR OFFERING — This teaches us) that it (the עולה) may also be offered as a free-will gift of the community (not of individuals only). This was the burnt offering bearing the name of “the summer - fruit offering”) of the altar which had to be supplied from the surplus of the levy upon the people (cf. Shevuot 12a, Shevuot 12b).

זכר. וְלֹא נְקֵבָה; כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר זָכָר לְמַטָּה — שֶׁאֵין תַּ"לֹ — זָכָר וְלֹא טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס:

זכר A MALE, but not a female. When Scripture mentions again lower down. (v. 10) that the sacrifice shall be זכר, a male, — which appears unnecessary to state, — it intends to say: a male, but not an animal whose sex is indeterminate or which is a hermaphrodite (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 3 9; Bekhorot 41b).

תמים. בְּלֹא מוּם:

תמים means WITHOUT BLEMISH,

אל פתח אהל מועד. מְטַפֵּל בַּהֲבָאָתוֹ עַד הָעֲזָרָה; מַהוּ אוֹמֵר יַקְרִיב יַקְרִיב? אֲפִלּוּ נִתְעָרְבָה עוֹלַת רְאוּבֵן בְּעוֹלַת שִׁמְעוֹן יַקְרִיב כָּל אֶחָד לְשֵׁם מִי שֶׁהוּא, וְכֵן עוֹלָה בְּחֻלִּין, יִמָּכְרוּ הַחֻלִּין לְצָרְכֵי עוֹלוֹת, וַהֲרֵי הֵן כֻּלָּן עוֹלוֹת, וְתִקְרַב כָּל אֶחָד לְשֵׁם מִי שֶׁהוּא; יָכוֹל אֲפִלּוּ נִתְעָרְבָה בִּפְסוּלִין אוֹ בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ" (ספרא):

אל פתח אהל מועד [HE SHALL BRING IT NEAR] UNTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE APPOINTED TENT — He himself must attend to bringing it right up to the forecourt (where it is handed over to the priests). What is the force of Scripture using the term יקריב twice (יקריבנו and יקריב אתו; it might suffice to say:‎תמים זכר ‎'יקריבנו אל פתח אהל מועד לרצונו וכו‎)?! It is intended to intimate that even in case the burnt offering of Reuben has become mixed up with that of Simeon so that they cannot be identified, nevertheless each must bring one of the animals to the forecourt on behalf of him to whom it really belongs). Similarly if a burnt offering has been mixed up with non-consecrated animals, the non — consecrated ones must be sold for עולה purposes (they are sold to people who have voluntarily undertaken to offer an עולה), and thus all of them become burnt offerings and each is now brought on behalf of him to whom it belongs (cf. Mishna Zevachim 8:1). One might think that this must also be done if it (an animal intended to be a burnt offering) became mixed up with animals unfit for sacrifice (with those mentioned above as excluded from the category of sacrifices) or with a different kind of sacrifices (e.g., peace — offerings)! Scripture. however, states,יקריבנו, “he shall bring it) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 3 13).

יקריב אתו. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ, יָכוֹל בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "לִרְצוֹנוֹ", הָא כֵּיצַד? כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר רוֹצֶה אֲנִי (שם):

יקריב אתו HE SHALL OFFER IT — This apparently superfluous word (אתו) teaches us that they (the בי"ד) must put pressure upon him to bring it if he is remiss in bringing the sacrifice he had promised. One might think that this means that they shall force him against his will! Scripture, however, states, לרצונו “[he must bring it] so that it shall be favourably accepted for him”. How is this possible? They press him until he says, “I wish to do it” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 3 15).

לפני ה' וסמך. אֵין סְמִיכָה בְּבָמָה (שם):

‎'לפני ה‎ וסמך [HE SHALL OFFER] IT …] BEFORE THE LORD (4) AND HE SHALL LAY [HIS HAND UPON THE HEAD OF THE SACRIFICE] - This implies that there is no "laying of hands" upon an animal sacrifice on a private "high place" (במה; at the time when sacrifice was permissible on such) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 1)

על ראש העלה. לְהָבִיא עוֹלַת חוֹבָה לִסְמִיכָה וּלְהָבִיא עוֹלַת הַצֹּאן (שם):

על ראש העולה UPON THE HEAD OF THE BURNT OFFERING — This is intended to include an obligatory burnt offering also in the law of סמיכה (laying hands on the head of the sacrifice) as well as to include a sheep that is offered as a free — will burnt offering (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 3-5).

העלה. פְּרָט לְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף (שם):

העלה THE BURNT OFFERING — This implies the exclusion of a bird offered as a burnt offering (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 7).

ונרצה לו. עַל מָה הוּא מְרַצֶּה לוֹ? אִם תֹּאמַר עַל כָּרֵתוֹת וּמִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין אוֹ מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם אוֹ מַלְקוּת, הֲרֵי עָנְשָׁן אָמוּר, הָא אֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה אֶלָּא עַל עֲשֵֹה וְעַל לָאו שֶׁנִּתַּק לַעֲשֵֹה (שם):

‎ ונרצה לו AND PROPITIATION SHALL BE EFFECTED FOR HIM — For what kind of sins does it (the עולת נדבה) effect propitiation for him? Should you say, “for such as make him liable to excision, or to execution by the court, or to the death penalty through the Heavenly Judge, or to lashes, surely, you see that the punishment for those sins is expressly stated and it is that and not the sacrifice which effects propitiation! Consequently it can only propitiate for the neglect of a positive command and for the transgression of “a prohibition transformed into a positive command” (לאו הניתק לעשה, a prohibitive law the transgression of which can be repaired by a succeeding act) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 8).

ושחט והקריבו, הכהנים. מִקַּבָּלָה וָאֵילַךְ מִצְוַת כְּהֻנָּה — לִמֵּד עַל הַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁרָה בְּזָר (שם):

הכהנים …‎ושחט …והקריבו AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER … AND THE PRIESTS SHALL OFFER [THE BLOOD] — All the rites from “receiving the blood in a vessel” (which is implied in והקריבו) and onwards are the duty of the priesthood. This teaches about the slaughtering that it is valid even if performed by a layman (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 2; Zevachim 32a).

לפני ה'. בַּעֲזָרָה:

'‎לפני ה‎‎‎ means in the forecourt.

והקריבו. זוֹ קַבָּלָה, שֶׁהִיא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וּמַשְׁמָעָהּ לְשׁוֹן הוֹלָכָה, לָמַדְנוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן:

והקריבו AND [THE PRIESTS] SHALL OFFER [THE BLOOD] — This must refer to “receiving the blood in a vessel”, since this is the first rite mentioned after the slaughtering of the animal, but really it implies the bringing of the blood to the altar; we thus learn that both of them (receiving of the blood and bringing it to the altar) as well as all the succeeding rites are priestly duties (cf. Zevachim 4a):

בני אהרן. יָכוֹל חֲלָלִים, תַּ"ל הַכֹּהֲנִים:

בני אהרן — One might think that these duties may be performed also by חללים (priests who have lost their priestly status for reasons connected with their birth or marriage)! Scripture, however, adds הכהנים, the priests (i.e. they must not only be descendants of Aaron but also “priests” — fit for priesthood, and חללים are excluded from priestly functions) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 6).

את הדם וזרקו את הדם. מַה תַּ"ל דָּם דָּם שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים? לְהָבִיא אֶת שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמִינוֹ אוֹ בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ, יָכוֹל אַף בִּפְסוּלִים אוֹ בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת אוֹ בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנִיּוֹת, שֶׁאֵלּוּ לְמַעְלָה וְהִיא לְמַטָּה, תַּ"ל בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר דָּמוֹ (זבחים פ"א):

את הדם …וזרקו את הדם [AND THE PRIESTS … SHALL OFFER] THE BLOOD AND SHALL SPRINKLE THE BLOOD — Why does Scripture use the word דם twice (instead of saying והקריבו את הדם וזרקוהו)? In order to include in the command of sprinkling also the blood of an עולה which has been commingled with blood of the same kind of sacrifice (i. e. with the blood of another burnt offering) or with that of a different kind (that of a peace — offering or a guilt — offering). One might think that this law applies also if it has been commingled with that of sacrifices unfit for sacrifice or with that of sin — offerings whose blood has to be sprinkled in the “Interior’ (the Holy Place) or with that of sin — offerings whose blood has to be sprinkled outside (in the court), although these (i. e., the blood of the (חטאות פנימיות וחיצוניות) has to be sprinkled above the red line (that marks the division between the upper and the lower halves of the altar) and it (the blood of the עולה) below! Scripture, however, states of an עולה in another place (v. 11) ‘‘[and he shall sprinkle] its blood (דמו)” (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 7-8; Zevachim 81).

וזרקו. עוֹמֵד לְמַטָּה וְזוֹרֵק מִן הַכְּלִי לְכֹתֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְמַטָּה מִחוּט הַסִּקְרָא כְּנֶגֶד הַזָּוִיּוֹת, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר סָבִיב — שֶׁיְּהֵא הַדָּם נָתוּן בְּאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ; אוֹ יָכוֹל יַקִּיפֶנּוּ כְּחוּט, תַּ"ל וְזָרְקוּ וְאִי אֶפְשַׁר לְהַקִּיף בִּזְרִיקָה, אִי וְזָרְקוּ יָכוֹל בִּזְרִיקָה אַחַת, תַּ"ל סָבִיב, הָא כֵּיצַד? נוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע (ספרא):

וזרקו AND [THE PRIESTS] … SHALL DASH [THE BLOOD ROUND ABOUT] — He (the priest) stands below and dashes the blood from the vessel upon the altar wall below the red line over against the two diagonally opposite corners (the north — east and the south — west corners so that there is blood on the four sides). That is what Scripture means when it says, סביב, “round about” — that the blood shall be put upon all the four sides of the altar. Or I might think that it means he (the priest) shall place it (the blood) right round the altar as a line! Scripture, however, states, וזרקו, “and they shall dash [the blood]” (i. e. fling it; cf. Exodus 9:8; thus implying that he must be standing some distance away), and it is impossible to put it right round the altar by flinging it against it. — The explanation given above as to how it was actually done is arrived at by the following argument: If we go only by the meaning of the word וזרקו alone, one might have thought that it would suffice with one “flinging” only (that we need merely fling the blood against one side of the altar)! Scripture, however, adds סביב, “round about”! How then can this be done? He makes two flingings but in such a manner that they virtually constitute four, as stated above). (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 9)

אשר פתח אהל מועד. וְלֹא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מְפֹרָק (שם):

אשר פתח אוהל מועד {AND THEY SHALL SPRINKLE THE BLOOD ROUND ABOUT THE ALTAR} THAT IS BY THE ENTRANCE OF THE APPOINTED TENT — but not at times when it (the appointed tent) had already been dismantled, even though the altar itself were still in position, for then it is not by the entrance of the appointed tent (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 14).

והפשיט וגו'. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר הָעוֹלָה? לְרַבּוֹת אֶת כָּל הָעוֹלוֹת לְהֶפְשֵׁט וְנִתּוּחַ:

'‎והפשיט וגו‎ AND HE SHALL FLAY [THE BURNT OFFERING] — Why does it state “the burnt offering” (instead of merely saying, והפשיטה, “and he shall flay it”)? In order to include all burnt offerings (i. e. all עולות בהמה, whether they be free — will or obligatory, whether they are taken מן הבקר or מן הצאן, whether brought by a man or by a woman, by a free Israelite or by an Israelite עבד) in the law of flaying and dismembering (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 2; cf. Note 3 on העולה v. 4).

אתה לנתחיה. וְלֹא נְתָחֶיהָ לִנְתָחִים (ספרא):

אתה לנתחיה AND HE SHALL SEVER IT INTO ITS PIECES — he shall sever it etc. but not its pieces again into smaller pieces (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 7).

ונתנו … אש. אַעַ"פִּי שֶׁהָאֵשׁ יוֹרֶדֶת מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם מִצְוָה לְהָבִיא מִן הַהֶדְיוֹט (שם):

אש … ‎ונתנו AND [THE SONS OF AARON …] SHALL PUT FIRE [ON THE ALTAR] — Although the fire descended from heaven, it was nevertheless a religious duty to bring also some fire of profane origin (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 10; Yoma 21b; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 10:2 and Note thereon).

בני אהרן הכהן. כְּשֶׁהוּא בְּכִהוּנוֹ, הָא אִם עָבַד בְּבִגְדֵי כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה:

בני אהרן הכהן THE SONS OF AARON THE PRIEST — They shall place the fire on the altar as sons of Aaron the priest: implying that Aaron should always minister in his priestly dignity (i. e. when attired in his priestly garments), consequently if he officiated in the garments of an ordinary priest his service is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 9; Zevachim 18a).

בני אהרן הכהנים. כְּשֶׁהֵם בְּכִהוּנָם, הָא כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁעָבַד בִּשְׁמוֹנָה בְּגָדִים עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה (זבחים י"ח):

בני אהרן הכהנים THE SONS OF AARON THE PRIESTS — i e. only as priests : when they are ministering in their priestly dignity; but if an ordinary priest officiates in the eight garments of the High Priest his service is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 9; Zevachim 18a).

את הנתחים את הראש. לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הָרֹאשׁ בִּכְלַל הֶפְשֵׁט, שֶׁכְּבָר הֻתַּז בִּשְׁחִיטָה, לְפִיכָךְ הֻצְרַךְ לִמְנוֹתוֹ לְעַצְמוֹ (חולין כ"ז):

את הראש את הנתחים [AND THE PRIESTS … SHALL SET] THE PIECES, THE HEAD etc. [IN ORDER] — Since the head was not included in the law prescribing flaying (v. 6) as it was already as good as cut off by the act of slaughter, it therefore was necessary to enumerate it separately here since Scripture wishes every part of the animal to be put on the altar (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 3; Chullin 27a).

ואת הפדר. לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁמַּעֲלֵהוּ עִם הָרֹאשׁ וּמְכַסֶּה בּוֹ אֶת בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה, וְזֶהוּ דֶּרֶךְ כָּבוֹד שֶׁל מַעְלָה (שם):

ואת הפדר AND THE FAT — Why is this mentioned separately (is it not included in the word הנתחים)? In order to teach you that he must bring it up on the altar together with the head, and that with it he must cover the throat of the animal (בית השחיטה, lit., the place where the act of slaughter was performed). This (covering the cut in the throat) was done in way of regard for God on high (Chullin 27a).

אשר על המזבח. שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ הַגְּזִירִין יוֹצְאִין חוּץ לַמַּעֲרָכָה (ספרא):

אשר על המזבח WHICH IS UPON THE ALTAR — upon the altar: this implies that the logs of wood must not project beyond the woodpile (מערכה) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 5).

עלה. לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה יַקְטִירֶנּוּ:

עלה [AND THE PRIEST SHALL CAUSE ALL TO ASCEND IN FUMES ON THE ALTAR, TO BE] A BURNT OFFERING — i. e. only with the intention that it should be an עולה shall he burn it (and not that it should be an offering of another class. The words are to be translated: he shall burn it as an עולה) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 10).

אשה. כְּשֶׁיִּשְׁחֲטֶנּוּ יְהֵי שׁוֹחֲטוֹ לְשֵׁם הָאֵשׁ; וְכָל אִשֶּׁה לְשׁוֹן אֵשׁ, פוש"ייר בְּלַעַז:

אשה AS A FIRE OFFERING — When he slaughters it he shall slaughter it with the intention of making a fire of it (i. e. having in mind the fact that it is to become a prey to the flames, not that it will become charred flesh) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 10). The word אשה wherever it occurs, is connected with אש, feuchère in O. F.

ניחוח. נַחַת רוּחַ לְפָנַי, שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי וְנַעֲשָֹה רְצוֹנִי (שם):

ניחוח (of the root נוח, “to repose”, “to draw satisfaction from …”) — an odour of ניחוח: one that causes satisfaction to Me by the knowledge that I gave commands and that My will was executed (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 10; Zevachim 46b).

ואם מן הצאן. וי"ו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן, וְלָמָּה הֻפְסַק? לִתֵּן רֶוַח לְמֹשֶׁה לְהִתְבּוֹנֵן בֵּין פָּרָשָׁה לְפָרָשָׁה (שם):

ואם מן הצאן AND IF [HIS OFFERING BE] OF THE SHEEP — The ו (of אם) adds something to the former subject (i. e. shows that this is a continuation of it). Why, then, is there a break between the two paragraphs (i. e. why does the following form a separate paragraph)? In order to give Moses an interval between the one section and the next section to reflect upon what has already been said (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 5 1).

מן הצאן, מן הכשבים, מן העזים. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ ג' מִעוּטִין — פְּרָט לְזָקֵן וּלְחוֹלֶה וְלִמְזֹהָם (שם):

מן הצאן, מן הכבשים, מן העזים — You have here these three words of limitating force (the three — fold “מן”; cf. Note on v. 1); they serve respectively to exclude an old, a sick and a malodorous animal from those that may be sacrificed (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 5 2; Bekhorot 41a).

על ירך המזבח. עַל צַד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:

על ירך המזבח means ON THE SIDE OF THE ALTAR (cf. Rashi on Exodus 40:22).

צפנה לפני ה'. וְאֵין צָפוֹן בְּבָמָה (שם):

'צפנה לפני ה NORTHWARD BEFORE THE LORD — but the law of slaughtering northward is not necessarily applicable in the case of a “Bamah” (i. e. an animal offered on a “Bamah” as an עולה need not be slaughtered at its north side, for it states here: northward before the Lord, the last words being used only of the Tabernacle and the Temple; cf. Zevachim 119b and Rashi on 'לפני ה‎ וסמך, v. 3).