Tzav צו

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

צו את אהרן COMMAND AARON — The expression “Command …!” always implies urging on to carry out a command, implying too, that it comes into force at once, and is binding upon future generations (cf. Rashi on this passage in Kiddushin 29a). R. Simeon said: Especially must Scripture urge on the fulfilment of the commands in a case where monetary loss is involved (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 1; Kiddushin 29a).

‎ 'וגו‎‎ ‎זאת תורת העולה THIS IS THE LAW OF THE BURNT OFFERING: [SUCH BURNT OFFERING SHALL REMAIN ON THE FIRE-PLACE UPON THE ALTAR ALL NIGHT] — This paragraph (vv.1—2) is intended to teach, with reference to the burning of the fat-portions and limbs of sacrifices that it is permissible during the whole night (Megillah 21a); and to teach regarding disqualified sacrifices, which of them, if already brought up on the altar, must be taken down, and which, if brought up, need not be taken down. The latter case may happen, because the term, תורה wherever it occurs in Scripture as an introduction to a group of laws (cf. Leviticus 6:7, 18; 7:1,11 etc.) is intended as an all-inclusive term (to include all of the class mentioned); here it is intended to tell us: One law applies to all animals that may be brought up on the altar, even certain disqualified ones — that if these have once been brought up on the altar they shall not be taken down again (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 7; Zevachim 27b).

הוא העולה — is intended to exclude from the general law of עולה male and female cattle with which sexual sin had been committed and the like (i. e. that even if they were put on the altar they must be taken down again), because their disqualification did not occur in the Holy Place, since they were dis-qualified before they came into the forecourt (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 8).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

מדו בד HIS LINEN ROBE — this is what is elsewhere termed the כתונת, the undercoat; and why then is it here called מדו? To intimate that it (the כתונת) must be made to his measure (מדו from מדד to “measure”) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 2 1; Yoma 23b).

על בשרו [AND LINEN DRAWERS HE SHALL PUT] UPON HIS FLESH — This implies that nothing should interpose between them (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 2 3; Zevachim 19a).

והרים את הדשן AND HE SHALL TAKE UP THE ASHES — He raked a full pan of ashes from the innermost consumed mass of ashes and deposited them at the east side of the כבש (the inclined plane leading up to the altar) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 4 Yoma 20a; cf. Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 2:1).

העולה‎ את ‎‏ אשר תאכל האש‎הדשן ‎ [HE SHALL TAKE OUT] THOSE ASHES INTO WHICH THE FIRE HATH CONSUMED THE BURNT OFFERING — and thus has made it into ashes; from those ashes he shall take out a תרומה, a portion, ושמו אצל המזבח AND PUT IT BESIDE THE ALTAR.

[על המזבח [THE BURNT OFFERING] ON THE ALTAR — This implies that if he (the priest) finds any limbs of the burnt offering that were not yet consumed he shall put them back on the altar after having raked the coals hither and thither and having taken from the innermost ashes, because it states, העולה על המזבח ‎את ‎which implies: the burnt offering (i.e.so long as it can be called an עולה and not דשן) must be ‎on the altar] (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 5; Yoma 45b; cf. Rashi there s. v. ‎אשר תאכל ‎ את העולה‎).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

‎ ופשט את בגדיו ‎ AND HE SHALL PUT OFF HIS GARMENTS — This is not compulsory (cf., however, Nachmanides) but it is a matter of decency so that he should not, through removing the ashes, soil the garments in which he has regularly to minister at the altar; in the clothes he wore when he boiled the pot for his master (a menial task) he should not pour out a glass of wine for him (an honourable office). On this account it states: And he shall put on other garments — inferior to those in which he ministers at the altar (Yoma 23b; Shabbat 114a).

והוציא את הדשן AND HE SHALL BRING OUT THE ASHES that were heaped upon the ash-heap (not the ashes mentioned in v. 3). When it accumulated and there was no more room on the wood-pile (מערכה) he carried it out; this was not compulsory every day, whilst the תרומת הדשן (the taking out of the pan of ashes commanded in v. 3) was a daily duty (Yoma 20a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

והאש על המזבח תוקד בו AND THE FIRE ON THE ALTAR SHALL BE BLAZING IN IT — Scripture uses here (in this section) many expressions from the root יקד “to ignite”: (Leviticus 6:2) “on the fire-place (מוקדה); (Leviticus 6:2) “and the fire upon the altar shall be blazing (תוקד) on it”; (Leviticus 6:5) “and the fire upon the altar shall be blazing (תוקד) on it”; (Leviticus 6:6) “a continual fire shall be blazing (תוקד) upon the altar” — all these passages have been expounded in Treatise Yoma 45b where our Rabbis state their different opinions as to the number of מערכות (wood-piles — fire-places) that were there (on the altar).

וערך עליה העלה AND HE SHALL SET THE BURNT OFFERING IN ORDER UPON IT — The morning continual burnt offering had to come first (Menachot 49a; cf. also Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 2 10 and Rashi on Leviticus 3:5).

‎‎‏ השלמים‎חלבי [AND HE SHALL CAUSE TO ASCEND IN FUMES THERÈON] THE FAT OF THE PEACE OFFERINGS — if people are bringing peace offerings there that day (this is no command that peace offerings must be placed on the altar after the daily burnt offering; if, however, any are being sacrificed on a particular day, it must be done at this point of the day’s work). — Our Rabbis, however, derived from here the following Halacha, taking the word השלמים in the sense of השלם “to complete”, “to finish”: עליה upon it — upon the continual burnt offering of the morning — complete the offering of all sacrifices; it follows therefore that no thing should be offered later than the continual burnt offering brought in the afternoon (Yoma 33a; Pesachim 58).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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

‎‎תכבה‏ ‎לא‎ IT SHALL NEVER GO OUT — One who extinguishes the fire on the altar transgresses two negative commands (this and that contained in v. 5).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וזאת תורת המנחה AND THIS IS THE LAW OF THE MEAL OFFERING — one law for all meal-offerings (cf. Rashi on v. 2) — making requisite for them “oil” and “frankincense” which are prescribed in the previous section (Leviticus 2:1). This had to be intimated in some way here because I might think that there I have the law that meal offerings require oil and frankincense only if they belong to an ordinary Israelite since it is that alone of which a fistful (קומץ) had to be taken, (for the command to take the קומץ is preceded by the words ויצק עליה שמן ונתן עליה לבונה cf. Leviticus 2:1 and 2)! Whence can I know that the same applies to the meal-offering of priests which was entirely burnt (and of which therefore no קומץ was taken; cf. Rashi on v. 15)? Because Scripture states, תורת — “this is the general law of the meal-offering” (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 3).

הקרב אתה [AARON AND HIS SONS SHALL] BRING IT — This means bringing near (not offering, i. e. burning, for this is mentioned later in v. 8) to the south-west corner of the altar.

לפני ה׳ BEFORE THE LORD — This is the west side of the altar which faced the direction of the “tent of meeting” in which the Lord revealed himself.

אל פני המזבח — This again implies the south side of the altar, because that was the ‎‎‎ אל פני המזבח, the front of the altar, since the ascent leading up to it was situated on that side (the combination therefore of both locations:'לפני ה and אל פני המזבח describes the south-west corner of the altar, as stated above) (Sotah 14b; Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 4).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

והרים ממנו‎ AND HE SHALL TAKE UP FROM IT [IN HIS GRASP] — From it — from it as a united mass) — that there should be a full tenth part of an ephah at the same time in the vessel when he takes the fistful (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 5; Menachot 24a).

בקמצו WITH HIS GRASP — This implies that he shall not make a measure for the קומץ (he must not use a measure that holds as much as his fist and in that remove the flour) (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 5; Yoma 47a).

ומשמנה‎ מסלת המנחה‎ OF THE FLOUR OF THE MEAL OFFERING AND OF THE OIL THEREOF — From here we may derive that he takes the “fistful” (קומץ) from that spot where there is plenty of oil in it (Sotah 14b).

המנחה THE MEAL-OFFERING — This implies that it shall not be mixed up with another meal-offering (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 5).

‎‏‎‎‏ הלבנה אשר על המנחה והקטיר‎ואת כל AND ALL THE FRANKINCENSE WHICH IS UPON THE MEAL OFFERING HE SHALL CAUSE TO ASCEND IN FUMES — This means that the picks the frankincense off the meal-offering after the fistful has been taken from the latter and burns it (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 2:1). And because Scripture has stated this specifically only in the case of one of the meal offerings mentioned in ויקרא (Leviticus 2:2; viz., in the case of מנחת סולת, and it might therefore be applied to that special case only), it was compelled to state this paragraph here in order to include in a general rule all kinds of meal offerings as to all the regulations applicable to them.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לא תאפה חמץ חלקם IT SHALL NOT BE BAKEN AS ANYTHING LEAVENED FOR THEIR PORTION — The remains of the meal-offering which become the portion of the priests, are also forbidden to be baked in the form of leavened (Menachot 55a).

כחטאת וכאשם [IT IS MOST HOLY] AS THE SIN OFFERING OR THE GUILT OFFERING — the meal-offering of the sinner (v. 11) is as the sin-offering, therefore if he (the priest) takes the fistful out of it not as such (not having in mind that offering) it is invalid as is the sin-offering under such circumstances (cf. Rashi on 5:12); a free-will meal-offering (i.e. any of the other meal-offerings mentioned in ויקרא), however, is as the guilt-offering, therefore if he takes the fistful out of it not doing it as such, it is still valid (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 3 3; Zevachim 11a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כל זכר ALL THE MALES [AMONG THE CHILDREN OF AARON SHALL EAT OF IT] — all the males: even one with a bodily blemish. But why is this stated at all? If you say: for the purpose of permitting the eating of the meal-offering to such a priest, then it is redundant, for you see, this has already been stated, (Leviticus 21:22) “He (the priest with a blemish) may eat of the bread of his God, both of the most holy [and of the holy]”! But it is intended to include the priests with bodily blemishes in the right of apportionment alluded to in the preceding verse: I have given it to them as their portion (i.e. that they may not only eat holy food if such is given to them by their fellow priests, but they are entitled to participate in the apportionment) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 3 5; Zevachim 102a).

כל אשר ‎'יגע וגו‎‎‏ WHATEVER TOUCHETH THEM — i. e. sacrifices holy in a minor degree or non-consecrated flesh (חולין) which touch it (the meal-offering) and absorb anything of it (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 3 6; Zevachim 97b),

יקדש SHALL BECOME HOLY so as to be exactly like it (the מנחה) — that if it (the meal-offering) has become disqualified (as when e. g. it was not offered as such, לשמה), they (the holy things touching it) shall also become similarly disqualified, and if it is fit for eating they must be eaten only under the same stringency as the meal-offering (i.e., they must be eaten in a holy place (v. 9) and by males only; v. 11, etc.) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 3 6; Zevachim 97b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

מרבכת means, scalded with hot oil to saturation (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 4 6).

תפיני means, many times baken: after it has been scalded he bakes it in the oven and then again fries it in a pan (cf. Menachot 50b).

מנחת פתים THE BROKEN PIECES — This teaches that it requires breaking into pieces (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 4 6; Menachot 75b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

המשיח תחתיו מבניו is the same as המשיח מבניו תחתיו THE PRIEST THAT IS ANOINTED FROM AMONGST HIS SONS IN HIS STEAD.

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

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

המחטא אתה means the priest who performs those rites connected with it (i. e. those connected with the sprinkling of the blood), he is called the מחטא because it is through him that it becomes a sin-offering.

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

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כל אשר יגע בבשרה WHATSOEVER SHALL TOUCH THE FLESH THEREOF [SHALL BECOME HOLY] — any article of food that shall touch it and absorb anything of it (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Section 4 5; Zevachim 97a and Rashi on v. 11),

יקדש SHALL BE HOLY, so as to become exactly like itself: if it (the sin-offering) has become invalid, it (the food touching it) also becomes disqualified, and if that be fit for eating this may be eaten only under the same stringency applying to it (the sin-offering).

ואשר יזה מדמה על הבגד means, and if there is splashed of the blood thereof on a garment, that blood-stained spot in the garment whereon it was splashed shalt thou wash in the forecourt (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 6 3).

אשר יזה means, shall be splashed. It is the same as the verb in (Job. 15:29) “and their substance shall not be spread (יטה) on earth” (cf. Rashi on that verse).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ישבר [BUT AN EARTHEN VESSEL WHEREIN IT IS SODDEN] SHALL BE BROKEN — because the substance absorbed in it becomes what is known as נותר (the technical term for any portion of a sacrifice not eaten by the time prescribed for this) (cf. Avodah Zarah 76a). That, too, is the regulation applicable to all sacrifices (i. e. that an earthen vessel wherein they have been cooked must be broken).

ומרק — of the same root and meaning as the noun in (Esther 2:12) “the things for purifying (תמרוקי) women”; escourement in old French; English, scouring.

ומרק ושטף [AND IF IT BE SODDEN IN A COPPER POT] IT SHALL BE BOTH SCOURED AND RINSED [IN WATER] — in order that it should give out what it has absorbed: but as far as an earthen vessel is concerned Scripture teaches you that it can never get rid of its taint (lit., can never leave the grasp which its taint has on it) (Avodah Zarah 34a; Pesachim 30b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

‎'וכל חטאת וגו‎ AND NO SIN OFFERING [WHEREOF ANY OF THE BLOOD IS BROUGHT INTO THE TENT OF MEETING SHALL BE EATEN] — This means, that if the priest brought any of the blood of an “external” sin-offering (one the blood of which has to be sprinkled on the outer altar) into the Interior it becomes invalid and must be burnt.

וכל AND ALL — The word “all” serves to include in this law other sacrifices too (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 8 1; Zevachim 81b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

קדש קדשים הוא [THIS THE LAW OF THE GUILT OFFERING] IT IS MOST HOLY — “It is most holy”; it may be offered, but an animal that is exchanged for it (cf. Leviticus 27:34) may not be offered (Sifra, Tzav, Section 5 2).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

שחטו THEY SHALL SLAUGHTER — By using the plural ישחטו Scripture speaks of “several slaughterers” in connection with the עולה ‎‎‎‎(ישחטו את עולה)‎ ” in order to include also the communal burnt-offering under the law that an עולה must be slaughtered on the north side of the altar. — Since we do not find a guilt-offering in the case of the whole community, the term ישחטו in the plural is used here (ישחטו את האשם) because Scripture brings it in connection with the עולה (i. e. since the plural is used of the עולה it balances it by the same expression in the next phrase) (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Section 5 3).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ואת ‎'כל חלבו וגו‎ [HE SHALL OFFER OF IT] ALL THE FAT etc. — So far the fat portions of the guilt offering that have to be offered have not yet been mentioned as having to be burnt (though the אשם itself has already been dealt with in Leviticus 5:15), Scripture therefore was compelled expressly to specify them here. So far, however, as the sin-offering is concerned, it (the burning of their fat) has already been mentioned in the Sedrah ויקרא (Leviticus ch. 4), therefore it was unnecessary to mention it in 6:18—23.

את האליה THE FAT TAIL — Because only a ram or a lamb can be offered as a guilt-offering and the altar’s share in the case of a ram and lamb has been augmented by the fat tail (cf. Leviticus 3:9), therefore it is here naturally mentioned as having to be burnt.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

אשם הוא IT IS A GUILT OFFERING — it remains (הוא) a guilt offering until its appelation is removed from it. This teaches regarding a guilt-offering the owner of which has died, or the owner of which has been atoned for by another sacrifice, (e.g. if that originally destined for that purpose was lost and afterwards found), — that although its value (i. e. the animal bought from the proceeds of its sale) is destined to become a burnt-offering for the unemployed altar (lit., for the altar's summer time when there were not sufficient obligatory sacrifices for the altar), yet if one slaughtered it without a special designation) before it was condemned to pasture) it is not fit to become a burnt offering. — Scripture does not, by these words, intend to intimate concerning a guilt-offering that it becomes invalid if slaughtered not as such (but as some sacrifice other than a guilt offering — שלא לשמו) i. e., in the same sense as they (the Rabbis) explained the word הוא that is stated of a חטאת (Leviticus 4:24; cf. Rashi thereon), because in the case of אשם the limiting words אשם הוא are used only after mention of the burning of the fat pieces (not as in the case of חטאת, where חטאת הוא is stated after the command of slaughtering) and could therefore at most be taken as limitating the act of הקטרה in the sense that if this has been done שלא לשמה the sacrifice is invalid; this, however, is not a fact because הקטרה is not essential, and it itself (the אשם), even though the fat pieces have not been burnt at all, is nevertheless valid (Zevachim 5b; Menachot 4a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

קדש קרשים הוא IT IS MOST HOLY — In Torath Cohanim these words which appear to be a mere repetition of those in v. 1, are expounded (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 9 10).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

תורה אחת להם [AS THE SIN OFFERING IS SO IS THE GUILT OFFERING:] THERE IS ONE LAW FOR THEM in this (the following) respect:

that הכהן אשר יכפר בו THE PRIEST WHO MAKETH EXPIATION THEREWITH — i.e., who is fitted to effect expiation, shall have a share in it, thus excluding an unclean person who has bathed on a particular day but is awaiting sunset to be perfectly clean, one who lacks atonement (an unclean person who has bathed but has to await the next day to bring the sacrifice requisite for his complete restoration to cleanness), and one who is in the state of mourning during the period between the death and the burial of a near relative (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 9 1).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

עור העלה אשר הקריב לכהן לו יהיה [AND THE PRIEST THAT OFFERETH ANY MAN’S BURNT OFFERING] EVEN THE PRIEST SHALL HAVE TO HIMSELF THE SKIN OF THE BURNT OFFERING WHICH HE HATH OFFERED — thus excluding the טבול יום, the מחוסר כפורים and the אונן (cf. Rashi on v. 7) — that these have no share in the skins of burnt offerings (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 9 5; Zevachim 103b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לכהן המקריב אתה וגו'‏‎‎‏‎‎ [AND EVERY MEAL OFFERING …] SHALL BE THE PRIEST’S THAT OFFERETH IT etc. — One might think it shall be his exclusively! Scripture, however, states (v. 10) לכל בני אהרן תהיה IT SHALL BELONG TO ALL THE SONS OF AARON; — one might think then, that it shall belong to all of them, which is, however, impossible, for Scripture states “[it shall be] the priest’s (that offereth it”! How then can these apparently contradictory passages be reconciled? By referring the text to the “family”) officiating on that day on which it (the מנחה) is offered (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 10 2).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

בלולה בשמן [AND EVERY MEAL OFFERING] MINGLED WITH OIL — This is the free-will meal-offering (Leviticus 2:1, 4, 5, 7);

וחרבה OR DRY — this is the meal-offering of the sinner (Leviticus 5:11) and the “meal-offering of jealousy” (Numbers 5:15) in which there was no oil.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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)

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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”.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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)].

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

'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.”

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

‎'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).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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