Emor אמור

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

אמר אל הכהנים SAY UNTO THE PRIESTS [… AND THOU SHALT SAY UNTO THEM] — “Say" and again “thou shalt say unto them" — this repetition is intended to admonish the adults about their children also — that they should teach them to avoid defilement (Yevamot 114a).

בני אהרן THE SONS OF AARON — One might think that חללים (priests who have lost their priestly status for reasons connected with their birth or marriage) also may not defile themselves by the dead, Scripture therefore states, "Say unto the priests", — thus only those sons of Aaron are included who have not lost their priestly character; consequently חללים are excluded (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 1) .

בני אהרן THE SONS OF AARON — This implies also those of Aaron's sons who have a bodily blemish;

בני אהרן THE SONS OF AARON — but not the daughters of Aaron (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 1).

לא יטמא בעמיו THERE SHALL NONE BE DEFILED BY THE DEAD AMONG HIS PEOPLES — This means, as long as the dead is among his peoples (i. e. so long as there are some of his people — Jews — who can occupy themselves with his burial) thus excluding the case of a מת מצוה (a corpse of a person whose relatives are unknown or which lies in a place where there are no Jews, nor are there any in the near vicinity; cf. Nazir 43b) in which case the priest is allowed to make himself unclean by handling the corpse (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 3).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כי אם לשארו BUT FOR HIS KIN [THAT IS NEAR TO HIM] — שאר here denotes his wife (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 4; Yevamot 22b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

הקרובה [AND FOR HIS SISTER A VIRGIN] THAT IS NIGH UNTO HIM — This is intended to include the sister who was only betrothed and has therefore not yet left her father's house and who is consequently still near to him (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 1; Yevamot 60a), for it continues

אשר לא היתה לאיש, WHO HATH HAD NO HUSBAND — i. e. who has not yet entered into marital relations with him:

לה יטמא — This is a command, [and the translation is: FOR HER HE SHALL DEFILE HIMSELF, not, “he may defile himself”] (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 12; Zevachim 100a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לא יטמא בעל בעמיו להחלו This means: he shall not defile himself for his wife if she is really unfitted to be his wife (because he is a כהן) and through whom he consequently becomes profaned as a priest, so long as she remains with him (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 15). The following, therefore, is the literal exposition of the verse: לא יטמא בעל, a husband shall not defile himself for his wife's corpse while it is among its people, which means that there are persons who can bury her so that she is not a מת מצוה (cf. Rashi’s explanation of בעמיו on v. 1). And with reference to what kind of wife do I say this? With reference to such a one who להחלו, i. e. who leads to his being profaned and therefore disqualified from his priestly duties so long as she remains with him (cf. Sifra, Emor, Section 1 15; Yevamot 90b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לא יקרחו קרחה THEY SHALL NOT MAKE BALDNESS [UPON THEIR HEAD] for the dead. But were not the ordinary Israelites also forbidden in respect of this? Why then is this law especially stated with reference to the priests? But because in the prohibition addressed to the ordinary Israelites it is stated, (Deuteronomy 14:1) “[Ye shall not make anybaldness] between your eyes [for the dead]”, I might think that one is not liable to punishment for making baldness on any other part of the whole head, Scripture therefore states here: “upon their heads”; and now that we have both commands, the law regarding the Israelites may be derived from that addressed to the priests from a similarity of terms used in both prohibitions: the term “קרחה” is used here, and in the prohibition regarding the Israelites it also uses the term “קרחה”; what is the case here? The prohibition applies to the whole head! So, also, there the whole head is included in the prohibition. And, on the other hand, how is the case there? The prohibition is limited to making baldness for the dead! So here too it applies only to such baldness as is made for the dead (Makkot 20a; Kiddushin 36a).

ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו NEITHER SHALL THEY RAZE THE CORNER OF THEIR BEARD — Because it is written in the prohibition addressed to the ordinary Israelites, (Leviticus 19:27) “thou shalt not destroy (תשחית) [the corners of thy beard]”, I might think if one took it (the hair) off with a מלקט or a רהיטני, tweezers or plane-like or file-like tools that may be used for destroying the hair, he is guilty of violating the law! Scripture therefore states here "they shall not raze off (לא יגלחו) the corner of their beard", the two statements supplementing each other, thus teaching that one is liable only for the use of an instrument the employment of which is termed גילוח (razing), and ,which at the same time, involves the destruction of the hair, and this results only from the use of a razor (Makkot 21a).

ובבשרם לא ישרטו שרטת NOR SHALL THEY MAKE ANY INCISION IN THEIR FLESH — This is stated in addition to the law in Leviticus 19:28 for the following reason: Because it is said there of the ordinary Israelites “and ye shall not make a cutting in your flesh for the dead”, I might think that if one made five incisions at the same time he is liable to the punishment of lashes only once, Scripture therefore states here: לא ישרטו שרטת “they shall not incise an incision" to make one liable for each and every incision — for this word (שרטת) would be redundant if it added nothing to the previous prohibition and must therefore have been added for the purpose of deriving an Halacha, since it ought to have written only לא ישרטו and I would then have known that it refers to making incisions and consequently the intention of Scripture by using the term "they shall not incise an incision" is to make one liable to punishment for each incision (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 1 4).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

קדשים יהיו THEY SHALL BE HOLY — even against their will — the court shall force them to remain holy in respect to this (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 1 6).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

זנה is a woman who had sexual intercourse with an Israelite who is forbidden to her as a husband, for instance, with those whom she may not marry under the penalty of excision, or a Gibeonite or a ממזר (that is, a man born from the union of a couple who are liable to excision for such a union) (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 1 7; Yevamot 61b).

חללה — This is a woman born from a marriage which is forbidden to the priesthood alone (Kiddushin 77a), e. g., the daughter of a widow and a high priest, or the daughter of a divorced woman [or one released from levirate marriage by the appropriate ceremony (cf. Deuteronomy 25:9)] and an ordinary priest. So also it denotes a woman who became profaned in respect to the priesthood (who lost the right of marrying a priest) through her having previously entered into a union with one of those priests a marriage with whom comes under the term: "marriages forbidden to the priesthood alone”.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וקדשתו THOU SHALT SANCTIFY HIM — even against his will; it means that if he is not willing to divorce the woman whom he had illegally married flog him (מלקות ארבעים) and chastise him (מכות מרדות) until he divorces her (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 1 13; Yevamot 88b).

קדש יהיה לך HE SHALL BE HOLY UNTO THEE — holy unto thee: treat him with sanctity (as someone holy) — that he should be the first in all holy matters (e. g., the reading of the law) and that he should have the first right to recite the benedictions at a meal (המוציא and ברכת המזון) (Gittin 59b; cf. Rashi on Nedarim 62b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כי תחל לזנות means, if she profanes herself through unchastity, i. e. that a marriage-tie of some kind applied to her and she nevertheless prostituted herself either after betrothal (which constituted a kind of marriage-tie, since she would require a bill of divorce to enable her to marry someone else) or after marriage (having left her father's house for her husband’s). Our Rabbis are of different opinions regarding this (whether Scripture speaks here of an ארוסה or a נשואה), but all agree that Scripture is not speaking of a פנויה (a woman who is neither betrothed nor married) (cf. Sanhedrin 51b).

את אביה היא מחללת SHE PROFANETH HER FATHER — i. e. she profanes and makes light of his honor by her conduct (מחללת does not mean she causes him to become a חלל, one unfit for priestly service), in that people say about him, "Cursed be he who has engendered this woman; — cursed be he who has reared this woman” (Sanhedrin 52a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לא יפרע [THE HAIR OF HIS HEAD] SHALL HE NOT DISARRANGE — i.e. he shall not let his hair grow wild on account of ritual mourning for the death of a near relative (Sifra). And what is called "letting the hair grow wild”? Leaving it uncut for more than 30 days (Sanhedrin 22b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

'ועל כל נפשת מת וגו‎‎ means, he shall not go into a tent wherein is a corpse.

נפשת מת — The word נפשת, which appears redundant, is intended to include a quarter of a log of the blood of a corpse — to intimate that even this, as a corpse itself, makes men and vessels unclean through being in a "tent” in which it happens to be (Sanhedrin 4a).

לאביו ולאמו לא יטמא NOR SHALL HE DEFILE HIMSELF FOR HIS FATHER OR FOR HIS MOTHER — By these words which appear redundant, since אביו ואמו are included in כל נפשת מת, Scripture has no other intention than to permit him to defile himself for a מת מצוה (cf. v. 1) (Sifra, Emor, Section 2 4; Nazir 47b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ומן המקדש לא יצא NEITHER SHALL HE GO OUT FROM THE SANCTUARY — This means that he must not follow the bier (attend the funeral of his father or mother) (Sanhedrin 18a). Our Rabbis further derived from this (Sanhedrin 84a) the Halacha that the High Priest may perform the sacrificial rites when an “Onan”. The following is how this is implied: even if his father or his mother died he is not required to leave the Sanctuary as may be assumed, but may perform the service;

ולא יחלל את מקדש means because he does not thereby (by remaining in the Sanctuary) profane the sacred service, since Scripture permits him to remain and to perform it; it follows therefore that an ordinary priest who officiated when an "Onan" did profane the service (Zevachim 16a; Sanhedrin 84a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וחללה OR A PROFANE [SHALL HE NOT TAKE] — i. e. a woman born from marriages forbidden to the priesthood alone (cf. v.7) (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 2 3).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ולא יחלל זרעו NEITHER SHALL HE PROFANE HIS SEED — ,thus if he marries one of these women disqualified for a union with him his offspring (זרעו) from her becomes “profaned" (חלל) being exempted from the general law of holiness that applies to the priestly status (cf. Kiddushin 77a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לחם אלהיו THE BREAD OF HIS GOD — This means, any food of his God (not “bread” only); any meal is termed לחם, as e. g., (Daniel 5:1) “he made a great banquet (לְחַם)” (cf. Rashi on Genesis 31:54).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כי כל איש אשר בו מום לא יקרב FOR ANY MAN THAT HATH A BLEMISH SHALL NOT APPROACH — This means: it is not right that he should approach; It expresses the same idea as (Malachi 1:8) “[And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame or sick, is it not evil?] offer it now unto thy governor! [will he be pleased with thee?]”.

חרם A FLAT-NOSED MAN — one whose nose is sunk between his two eyes so that he is able to paint both his eyes (for medical or cosmetic purposes) with one stroke (Sifra, Emor, Section 3 7; Mishna Bekhorot 7:3).

שרוע HE THAT HATH A LIMB TOO LARGE — i.e. one of whose limbs forming a pair is larger than the other, e. g. one of his eyes is large and the other small, or, one of his legs is longer than the other (Bekhorot 40b; cf. Sifra, Emor, Section 3 9).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

או גבן — sourcils in O. F. — is one whose eye-brows have their hair long so that they lie over his eyes (Bekhorot 43b)

או דק — one who has in his eye a membrane which is called “toile” (web) in old French The word is similar in meaning to (Isaiah 40:22) “It is He that stretcheth out the heavens like a web (כַּדֹּק) (Bekhorot 48a).

או תבלל — (from בלל "to mingle") denotes anything that causes a mingling in the eye, e. g., a white line which extends from the white of the eye and intersects the סירא (the iris), which is the ring that encloses the black of the eye which is called prunelle in old French This white line intersects the circle and runs into the black (so that the white and the black of the eye mingle). The Targum rendering of תבלל is חילוז, connected in meaning with חלזון (a kind of worm); he translates it thus because that line resembles a worm. Thus, too, the Sages of Israel name it (the while line) among the blemishes of first-born animals: חלזון נחש עינב (worm, snake, wart) (cf. Bekhorot 38a,b).

גרב וילפת — These are kinds of boil; גרב is identical with חרס (mentioned in Deuteronomy 28:27) — a boil which is dry both inside and on the surface. ילפת is identical with the Egyptian lichen, (חזזית) (Sifra, Emor, Section 3 15). Why is it called ילפת (root לפת “to embrace")? Because it continues to cling to the body until the day of death. It is wet on the surface and dry inside. In another passage, however, Scripture gives the name גרב to a boil which is wet on the surface and dry inside, as it is said (Deuteronomy 28:27) "[The Lord will smite thee…] ובגרב ובחרס”, where גרב necessarily denotes a wet boil since חרס (identical with חרש, potsherd) denotes the dry species. But the explanation is as follows: חרס always denotes the dry skin disease, ילפח always the wet one; as to גרב it depends: When Scripture mentions גרב together with חרס it is calling a ילפת by the term ,גרב and when it mentions it (גרב) together with ילפת (as is the case here) it is calling a חרס by the term גרב. Thus is it explained in Bekhorot 41a.

מרוח אשך, according to the Targum, מרס פחדין, which signifies one whose פחדין are מרוססין, i. e., one whose testicles are crushed. פחדין has the same meaning as (Job 40:17) “and the sinews of his stones (פחדיו) are wrapped together”.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כל איש אשר בו מום NO MAN THAT HATH A BLEMISH… [SHALL COME NEAR] — This is intended to include in the prohibition (besides the blemishes expressly mentioned in vv. 18—20) also other bodily blemishes (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 1).

מום בו HE HATH A BLEMISH — These apparently redundant words imply: so long as he has the bodily blemish he is unfit for priestly service; (the translation is: מום בו while the blemish is in him, '‎לא יגש וכו‎ he shall not approach to offer); consequently, if his blemish disappears, he becomes again fit for it (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 6).

לחם אלהיו THE BREAD OF HIS LORD — any food is called לחם (cf. Rashi on v. 17).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

מקדשי הקדשים OF THE MOST HOLY — These are what are technically known as קדשי קדשים — of them he may eat.

ומן הקדשים יאכל AND OF THE HOLY HE MAY EAT — these are what are technically known as קדשים קלים. But if קדשי קדשים are mentioned as being permitted to him as food, why are קדשים קלים also mentioned? Could this not be inferred by a conclusion a fortiori? But the explanation is as follows: If קדשים קלים were not expressly mentioned as being permitted, I might have said: of the sacrifices holy in the highest degree the priest with a bodily blemish may eat — because we find that these had on one occasion been permitted to be eaten even by a non-priest, for Moses (who was not a priest) ate the flesh of the installation offering (cf. Leviticus 8:29; and this was holy in the highest degree since Scripture continues there: “Seethe the flesh at the entrance of the appointed tent… etc., a law that only applies to קדשי קדשים) — but he (a priest who is בעל מום) must not eat of the breast and the shoulder of sacrifices holy in a minor degree, since we do not find that a non-priest ever took a share in them. On this account sacrifices holy in a minor degree are expressly stated as permitted to be eaten. Thus it is explained in Treatise Zevachim 101b (cf. also Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 8-9).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

אך אל הפרכת ONLY [HE SHALL NOT GO IN] UNTO THE PARTITION VEIL for the purpose of applying the seven sprinklings which are to be made upon the partition vail (cf. Leviticus 16:17).

ואל המזבח [NOR SHALL HE COME NIGH] UNTO THE ALTAR — i. e. the outer altar. Both (פרכת and מזבח) must be mentioned here and the reason is explained in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 10).

ולא יחלל את מקדשי THAT HE PROFANE NOT WHAT IS HOLY TO ME — Consequently, if he performs the service it is profaned and thus becomes invalid (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 11).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וידבר משה AND MOSES TOLD this command,

אל אהרן ואל בניו ואל כל בני ישראל UNTO AARON AND UNTO HIS SONS AND UNTO ALL THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — He told it to the Israelites although they were not directly concerned with these commands in order to admonish the court regarding the priests (i. e. that the authorities should watch over the sanctity of the Sanctuary and prevent priests with a bodily blemish from officiating) (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 12).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וינזרו THAT THEY KEEP AWAY [FROM THE HOLY THINGS etc.] — The term נזר always denotes “keeping aloof". Similarly it is said (Ezekiel 14:7) "and he separates himself (וינזר) from following Me”; (Isaiah 1:4) "They are gone away (נזורו) backward”. The meaning of this verse therefore is: they (the priests) shall keep aloof from the holy things during the time of their uncleanness (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 1).

וינזרו מקדשי בני ישראל אשר הם מקדשים לי. ולא יחללו את שם קדשי — Invert the words of the verse in the order here set forth and explain it accordingly.

אשר הם מקדשים לי WHICH THEY HALLOW UNTO ME — This is intended to include in the prohibition the holy things of the priests themselves (i. e. הם refers to אהרן ובניו not to ‎‎בני ישראל‎) (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 1).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

‎כל איש אשר יקרב WHOSOEVER HE BE THAT GOETH UNTO [THE HOLY THINGS… SHALL BE CUT OFF etc.] — This “approaching" unto the holy things signifies nothing else but eating of them. Similarly we find that the prohibition of eating holy things in a state of uncleanness is expressed by the term נגע, (which means, as does קרב, “approaching”): (Leviticus 12:4) “she shall approach near to nothing that is holy" — which is explained as a prohibition addressed to one who would eat of the holy things (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 12:4). And our Rabbis derived it (the fact that לא תגע means: she shall not eat) from a verbal analogy. It is indeed impossible to say that one is punishable for touching holy things in a state of uncleanness, because the penalty of excision for eating holy things in such a state is mentioned in the section commencing צו את אהרן (Leviticus 7:20, 21) — twice is the punishment of כרת mentioned there, one immediately after the other; and if one really becomes liable to punishment for the mere touching of holy things it is unnecessary to pronounce him liable to punishment for eating them! In this sense also is it (our passage) expounded in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 7): But is a priest who merely touches holy things when he is unclean really liable to the punishment of excision? Surely not, since Scripture expressly states in the following verse that an unclean priest who eats of the holy things is liable to excision and this latter statement would be unnecessary since eating without touching is impossible. But if this be so, why does Scripture use the term יקרב and not יאכל which means "eating”? It is in order to intimate that this law applies only when an unclean priest eats of it after it becomes fit לקרב, “to be offered” — that one does not become liable on account of his uncleanness until its מתירין (its “permitting portions”) have been offered, and he then eats of it. And if you ask, “Why are three mentions of the כרת-punishment (Leviticus 7:21 and here) necessary in respect to priestly uncleanness? then I reply, they have already been interpreted in Treatise Shevuot 7a, one as being intended as a generalisation, the other as a specification, etc. (see Rashi on Leviticus 7:20).

וטומאתו עליו means, AND THE MAN'S UNCLEANNESS IS UPON HIM (the first word meaning "and his uncleanness”). I might, however, think that Scripture is speaking of the flesh — "the uncleanness of the flesh is upon it” (the first word meaning “and its uncleanness, the word בשר being implied in the term הקדשים that precedes) and that Scripture is thus speaking of a clean person who ate holy things which have become unclean! You must needs admit that from what is implied in it (in the phrase) you must learn that Scripture is speaking of one whose state of uncleanness can fly (pass) away therefrom (since the phrase implies: “whilst the טומאה is still present", presupposing that there is a possibility of the טומאה passing away), and this can only refer to a human being who has a means of purification through immersion in a ritual bath whilst unclean food can never again become clean (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 8; Zevachim 43b).

ונכרתה [THAT SOUL] SHALL BE CUT OFF — I might think that this implies merely that he will be removed from one region (lit., side) to another region — that he will be cut off from his native place but may settle down in another place! Scripture however states, “[that soul shall be cut off from My presence] I am the Lord” — I am everywhere (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 6; cf. Rashi on Exodus 12:15.)

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

בכל טמא נפש [AND WHOSO TOUCHETH] ANY טמא נפש — This means: who touches a person who has become defiled by a corpse.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

בכל שרץ אשר יטמא לו [OR WHOSOEVER TOUCHETH] ANY PROLIFIC CREATURE BECAUSE OF WHICH (לו) HE MAY BE MADE UNCLEAN — This means: who touches any שרץ of the minimum size that is capable of communicating uncleanness, viz., a particle of the size of a lentil (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 4 4; Chagigah 11a).

או באדם OR A HUMAN BEING — a dead person (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 4 4).

אשר יטמא לו BY WHOM HE MAY BE MADE UNCLEAN - i. e. by touching the minimum size of a portion of the dead person which is capable of transmitting uncleanness, and this is, a portion as large as an olive (Mishnah Oholot 2:1).

לכל טמאתו WHATSOEVER UNCLEANNESS HE HATH — This is intended to include in the prohibition of eating holy things one who has touched a man or a woman who has an issue, or who has touched a נדה or a woman in childbirth (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 4 4).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

נפש אשר תגע בו THE SOUL WHICH HATH TOUCHED IT — i. e. who touches any one of these unclean persons or things (enumerated in the second half of v. 4 and in v. 5).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ואחר יאכל מן הקדשים [AND WHEN THE SUN IS DOWN HE SHALL BE CLEAN] AND MAY AFTERWARDS EAT OF HOLY THINGS — This is interpreted in Treatise Jebamoth (74b) to have reference to the heave-offering (not to holy things of every description): that he (a priest who was unclean and has bathed) is permitted to eat it as soon as the sun has set.

מן הקדשים accordingly means: some OF THE HOLY THINGS, but not all holy things (the word מן having a partitive meaning: “some of”).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל לטמאה בה CARRION, OR THAT WHICH IS TORN HE SHALL NOT EAT TO BECOME UNCLEAN THEREBY — It is with regard to the defilement that Scripture lays down this prohibition: that if he (the priest) eats the carrion of a clean bird — which has no defiling effect through being touched or carried but has a defiling effect only when eaten, as soon as it is in the gullet — he is forbidden to eat holy things (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12 6). And it was necessary for Scripture to mention טרפה also, in order to define what נבלה is here intended, viz., one that can have a טרפה amongst the individuals of its class: therefore the נבלה of an unclean bird is excluded, for in its class a טרפה can never occur (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 17:15).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ושמרו את משמרתי THEY SHALL THEREFORE KEEP MY CHARGE — not to eat the heave-offering (as mentioned in v. 7) whilst they are in a state of bodily uncleanness (Sanhedrin 83a).

ומתו בו LEST THEY DIE THEREBY — This phrase teaches us that this means death through Heaven (not through the sentence of the court) (cf. Sanhedrin 83a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לא יאכל קדש [THERE SHALL] NO [LAYMAN] EAT OF THE HOLY THINGS — Scripture is speaking here of the heave-offering (i. e., the word קדש means here תרומה only, and not any holy food) because the whole section (cf. Rashi on v. 7 and 9) is speaking of this.

תושב כהן ושכיר A SOJOURNER WITH THE PRIEST OR A HIRED SERVANT [SHALL NOT EAT OF THE HOLY THINGS] — These words mean: the תושב of a כהן and his שכיר (not a כהן who is a תושב or a שכיר); on this account this word תושב here is punctuated with a Patach, because it is in the construct state. What is a תושב? One (a Hebrew servant) whose ear has been pierced (cf. Exodus 21:6), who thereby becomes his (the master’s) possession until the Jubilee year. And what is a שכיר? One (a Hebrew servant) who has been acquired as his possession for a limited number of years only — who goes free at the end of six years (cf. Exodus 21:2). Scripture intends to teach you here that it is not his body (that of the תושב or the שכיר), but only his labour for a term of years that has been acquired by his master that he should become entitled to eat of his heave-offering (as is the case with the קנין כספו, with “a person obtained as a property with money”, mentioned in the next verse) (Sifra, Emor, Section 5 17; Yevamot 70b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וכהן כי יקנה נפש BUT IF THE PRIEST BUY ANY SOUL… [HE MAY EAT OF IT] — This refers to a Canaanitish servant who has been acquired even in respect to his body (not only as regards his work).

ויליד ביתו AND THEY THAT ARE BORN IN HIS HOUSE — This refers to the children of his maid-servants. A priest's wife may eat תרומה as may be derived from this verse, for she, too, is “an acquisition obtained by his money” (Ketuvot 57b; cf. Mishna Kiddushin 1:1… ‎'האשה נקנית בכסף וכו‎‎‎, one of the ways in which a marriage may be contracted is by the passing of money or its equivalent from the man to the woman. A wife is therefore a קנין כסף). But it may also be derived from another verse (Numbers 18:11) "[the heave-offering…] everyone that is clean in thy house may eat of it”. Thus is it expounded in Sifrei Bamidbar 117 2.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לאיש זר TO A LAYMAN — to a Levite or an ordinary Israelite (i. e. to any non-priest) (Sifra, Emor, Section 5 7).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

אלמנה וגרושה [BUT IF A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER BE] A WIDOW OR DIVORCED WIFE of the layman mentioned in the preceding verse,

וזרע אין לה AND SHE HATH NO DESCENDANTS — from him (from the layman) (Sifra; Yevamot 87a),

ושבה THEN SHE MAY RETURN [UNTO HER FATHER'S HOUSE AS IN HER YOUTH AND MAY EAT OF HER FATHER’S BREAD] — if, however, she has descendants from him she is forbidden to eat as long as the descendants (cf. Yevamot 87a) are alive.

וכל זר לא יאכל בו BUT THERE SHALL NO LAYMAN EAT THEREOF — The repetition of the prohibition already mentioned in v. 10 intends nothing else than to exclude from it the אונן — i. e. that he (the אונן) is permitted to eat תרומה. [Scripture, as it were, says here:] The status of being a non-priest, I tell you, debars one from eating תרומה but not that of being an אונן (Yevamot 68b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כי יאכל קדש AND IF [A MAN] EAT OF HOLY THINGS — the heave-offering.

ונתן לכהן את הקדש THEN SHALL HE GIVE UNTO THE PRIEST THE קדש — i. e. a thing capable of becoming קדש, thus implying that he does not pay him money but fruits of a non-sacred character (חולין), which then become תרומה (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 6 5; Pesachim 32b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

'‎ולא יחוללו וגו‎‎ AND THEY SHALL NOT PROFANE [THE HOLY THINGS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] — by giving them to non-priests to eat of them.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

והשיאו אותם means, and they (the priests) would burden themselves with sin, באכלם את קדשיהם WHEN THEY (the non-priests) EAT THEIR HOLY THINGS which have been set apart for the purpose of heave-offering and have thereby become holy and forbidden to them. [Onkelos who translated באכלם את קדשיהם by “when they (the priests) eat them in their uncleanness” has translated it thus quite unnecessarily] (But cf. Rashi on Sanhedrin 90b).

והשיאו אותם — This (the word אותם) is one of the three cases of את with a pronominal suffix occurring in the Torah which R. Ishmael explained as speaking of (referring to) the person himself who is the subject of the sentence (i. e. as being reflexive and not accusative pronouns). In the same sense did he explain (Numbers 4:13) “[And this is the law of the Nazarite] when the days of his Nazaritehood are fulfilled, יביא אותו [to the entrance of the appointed tent]” as meaning: he shall bring himself (i. e. present himself) to the entrance etc. Similarly he explained (Deuteronomy 34:6) “ויקבור אותו in the glen” as meaning: he (Moses) buried himself (i. e. he went into a cave and died there cf. Avot 5:9 and יד משה on Shemot Rabbah 10). Thus is it explained in the Sifrei Bamidbar 32 (on Numbers 6:3).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

נדריהם THEIR VOWS — [An animal is termed נדר when an obligation is entered into by the words:] Behold, I take it upon myself [to bring a burnt-offering].

נדבותם THEIR FREE-WILL OFFERINGS — [it is a נדבה when one states:] Behold, this animal [shall be a burnt-offering] (Megillah 8a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לרצנכם — The meaning is: bring such a thing (animal) as is fitted to cause רצון, propitiation for you before Me. The word לרצנכם means: so that it may be to you for propitiation; apaisement in old French And which animal is it that is fitting to effect propitiation?

תמים זכר בבקר בכבשים ובעזים A MALE WITHOUT BLEMISH OF THE CATTLE, OF THE SHEEP, OR OF THE GOATS — but in the case of a burnt-offering that consists in a bird, the unblemished condition and the male sex are not essential, and it does not become unfit for sacrifice by reason of a mere blemish (a bodily defect), but only by reason of the loss of a limb (Sifra, Emor, Section 7 2).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לפלא נדר means, expressing it by speech (not expressing it mentally,‎ בלב).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

‎עורת is a noun denoting the blemish of blindness (עִוָּרֹן), being, however, a feminine form of the latter. The text therefore means that there shall not be the defect of blindness in it (in the sacrifice).

או שבור nor shall it be a broken animal.

חרוץ CHAPPED — an eye-lid that is split or has a piece cut out of its edge; and similarly, its (the animal’s) lip that is split or has a piece cut out of its edge (Sifra, Emor, Section 7 12; Bekhorot 38a).

יבלת is called verrue in old French, (English = wart).

גרב is a kind of lichen and so too is ילפת. The word ילפת is connected in meaning with (Judges 16:29) “And Samson took hold (וילפת) [of the two middle pillars]”. The blemish is so called because it keeps its grasp on him (the sick person) until the day of his death, since there is no cure for it (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 21:20).

לא תקריבו YE SHALL NOT OFFER — Three times is the expression לא תקריבו used in this section (here and in v. 20 and 24), in order to lay down a separate prohibition regarding designating them (blemished animals) as sacrifices, slaughtering them and sprinkling their blood (cf. Temurah 6b).

ואשה לא תתנו YE SHALL NOT MAKE A FIRE-OFFERING [OF THEM] — This contains the prohibition of burning them on the altar (Temurah 6b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

שרוע is an animal that has one limb larger than its fellow-limb (Bekhorot 40a).

וקלוט is an animal which has uncloven hoofs (the sign of uncleaness; cf. Leviticus 11:4—6. It is a שור or a שה which, being a clean animal, is fitted to be sacrificed, but abnormally its hoofs are uncloven) (Bekhorot 40a).

נדבה תעשה אתו THOU MAYEST DESIGNATE IT FOR A FREE-WILL OFFERING for the purpose of repairing the breaches in the Temple from the proceeds of its sale,

ולנדר BUT AS A VOW — i. e. as an animal vowed for the altar (for sacrifice), it shall not be accepted.

לא ירצה [BUT AS A נדר] THERE SHALL NOT BE PROPITIATION — What dedicated thing is it that is intended to effect propiation? You must admit that it is something dedicated to the altar. Consequently נדר can only mean a sacrifice for the altar (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 7 6).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ומעוך וכתות ונתוק וכרות are forbidden as sacrifices whether the mutilation be in the testicles or the membrum.

מעוך means, one whose testicles have been pressed by hand.

כתות CRUSHED — it implies more severely crushed than מעוך.

נתוק — they have been torn off by the hand, so that the threads on which they hang have snapped but they are still in the scrotum, the scrotum itself not having been torn off.

וכרות — they have been cut away by an instrument but are still in the scrotum (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 7 9; Bekhorot 39b).

[ומעוך — Its translation in the Targum is, ודי מריס; this is its exact translation in Aramaic, because this Aramaic root has the meaning of pounding.

וכתות, however, is translated by the Targum ודי רסיס “and that which is smashed”, (a stronger term than מרס), similar to, Amos 6:11) “The great house shall be smitten into רסיסים‎” i. e. into small fragments; similar is the Talmudical expression (Shabbat 80b) a reed crushed to pieces (מרוסס‎‎‎‎)].

ובארצכם לא תעשו NEITHER SHALL YE DO IN YOUR LAND this thing — to castrate any cattle or beast even if it be unclean. That is why Scripture adds “in your land” — to include every animal that is in your land under this law (cf. Chagigah 14b and Tosafot there). For it is impossible to say that they are here commanded to abstain from mutilating animals in the Land of Israel only, (and that the word must be translated: “In your land you must not do this”, implying, but you may do it elsewhere) for surely the command regarding mutilation is a personal duty and any personal duty has to be practiced both in the Land and outside the Land (Kiddushin 36b; cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 7 11).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ומיד בן נכר AND FROM ANY STRANGER’S HAND who has brought a sacrifice through the agency of a priest to offer it to the Lord, לא תקריבו YOU SHALL NOT OFFER a blemished animal on his behalf. And though blemished animals are not forbidden as sacrifices of the “Sons of Noah” (the non-Israelite world) except such as lack one of their limbs (as derived from the text: Genesis 6:19; cf. Avodah Zarah 5b) — this rule applies only to animals offered to God by the “Sons of Noah” themselves on a Bamah (an altar, lit., an elevated place) in the open field, but on the altar in the Tabernacle shall you not offer blemished animals on their behalf (cf. Temurah 7a). An animal, however, that has no blemish you may accept from them as an offering on your altar. It is for this reason that Scripture says above (v. 18): איש “Any man… who offers”, in order to include in this law the heathens also — that they, too, are permitted to undertake to bring vowed animals (נדרים) and free-will offerings (נדבות) just the same as the Israelites (Chullin 13b).

משחתם THEIR CORRUPTION — Translate this as the Targum does: חבולהון, their wound (defect).

לא ירצו לכם THEY SHALL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR YOU — i. e. to atone for you.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כי יולד WHEN [ANY OX etc.] IS BORN… [FROM THE EIGHTH DAY, AND THENCEFORTH, IT SHALL BE FAVOURABLY ACCEPTED AS A FIRE OFFERING…] — The expression יולד “that is born” excludes the case of an animal delivered through the abdominal wall (i. e. by Caesarian section) (Chullin 38b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

אתו ואת בנו [AND WHETHER IT BE AN OX OR A SHEEP YE SHALL NOT SLAUGHTER] IT AND ITS YOUNG [BOTH IN ONE DAY] — This law applies only to the female parent, although Scripture uses the masculine term אתו — that it is forbidden to slaughter the dam and its male or female young in one day, but it does not apply to the male parent, and it is permissible to slaughter the father animal and its young whether male or female in one day (Chullin 78b; cf. also Onkelos).

אתו ואת בנו IT AND ITS YOUNG — The prohibition of slaughtering the young first and then it (the dam) in one day is also implied (Chullin 82a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לרצנכם תזבחו‎ ‎ [AND WHEN YE WILL SLAUGHTER A SACRIFICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT UNTO THE LORD], SLAUGHTER IT SO THAT IT MAY EFFECT PROPITIATION FOR YOU — i. e. take care from the very outset of your slaughtering that it should effect acceptance for you; and wherein consists the assurance of its acceptance?

ביום ההוא יאכל in the intention that IT SHALL BE EATEN ON THE SAME DAY — Scripture intends by these words only to express the warning that the slaughtering shall be made with this intention: — do not slaughter it with the intention of eating it on the morrow, because if you then harbour any intention which will lead to its disqualification it shall not be favourably accepted for you. Another explanation of לרצנכם is: sacrifice it wittingly (with full knowledge of what you are doing); hence we may derive that if one is “handling” the sacrifices when slaughtering them (i. e. when he does the act of שחיטה without the intention of doing this) they become invalid (Chullin 13a). And (referring again to the first explanation) though Scripture has already specifically stated this (the fact that the slaughtering must be made with the clear intention not to eat the flesh beyond the prescribed time) with regard to such offerings that may be eaten during two successive days (cf. Leviticus 7:18), it specifically states here again of those sacrifices which are permitted to be eaten on one day only that their slaughtering must take place with the clear intention to eat them within the time prescribed for them.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ביום ההוא יאכל IT SHALL BE EATEN ON THE SAME DAY — Scripture only intends by these words to express the warning that the slaughtering shall be done with this in mind (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 9 2), for if it intended to fix the time for eating it they would be redundant, since it is already stated (Leviticus 7:15) “And the flesh of the sacrifice of his feast offerings for acknowledgment [shall be eaten the same day that it is offered]”.

אני ה׳ I AM THE LORD — Know Who it is that has decreed this matter, and let it, therefore, not be a light thing in your eyes!

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ושמרתם — This implies the study of the commandments,

ועשיתם, the doing of them (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 9 3).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ולא תחללו YE SHALL NOT PROFANE [MY HOLY NAME], by transgressing My commands willfully. Having regard to what is implied in the statement: You shall not profane [My holy name] (viz., that it must be hallowed), what is the meaning of ונקדשתי? But, this implies a positive act of sanctification: Abandon yourself to martyrdom and hallow My name! I might think that this command applies even to the Israelite when he is alone (i. e., when no other Israelites are present when the heathen bids him transgress a Divine command)! Scripture, however, states: בתוך בני ישראל [AND I SHALL BE SANCTIFIED] AMIDST THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. — And when offering oneself to martyrdom, one should offer himself with the firm determination (lit., under the condition) to die if necessary, for he who abandons himself on condition (i. e. cherishing the hope) that God will not exact the sacrifice and that a miracle will happen to save him will have no miracle wrought for him; for thus we find in the case of Chananyah, Mishael and Azariah that they did not offer themselves for martyrdom expecting a miracle, as it is said (Daniel 3:17, 18) “[And God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace and He will deliver us out of thy hand, O king]. But if not, be it known unto thee that we will not serve thy gods etc. — Whether He saves us or whether he does not save, “be it known unto thee etc.” (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 9 5)

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

המוציא אתכם THAT HATH BROUGHT YOU OUT [OF THE LAND OF EGYPT] — for the sake of this (that you should hallow His name).

'אני ה‎‎ I AM THE LORD — Who is faithful in paying you your reward (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 9 6).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

'דבר אל בני ישראל, מועדי ה‎‎ SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL [AND DECLARE UNTO THEM] THE APPOINTED FESTIVALS OF THE LORD — This means, Regulate the festive seasons in such a manner that all Israel should become practised in them (their observance). Hence we derive the law that they (the Sanhedrin) proclaim a leap-year (i. e. intercalate a second Adar) for the sake of those living in the diaspora who have already left their homes in order to go up for the festival but have not yet arrived in Jerusalem (Sifra, Emor, Section 9 1; cf. Sanhedrin 11a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ששת ימים SIX DAYS [MAY WORK BE DONE BUT THE SEVENTH DAY IS THE SABBATH OF STRICT REST] — What relation is there between the Sabbath (the day that is invariably fixed by God as the holy day) and the festive seasons (the times of which are variable, being dependent upon the proclamation of the Sanhedrin)? But by putting both into juxtaposition Scripture intends to teach you that he who desecrates the festivals is regarded as though he had desecrated the Sabbath, and that he who keeps the festivals is regarded as though he had kept the Sabbath (Sifra, Emor, Section 9 7).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

'אלה מועדי ה THESE ARE THE APPOINTED FESTIVALS OF THE LORD [EVEN CONVOCATIONS OF HOLINESS WHICH YE SHALL PROCLAIM] — Above (v. 2), where similar words are used, Scripture is speaking of proclaiming the year to be a leap-year, here it is speaking of the קדוש החדש, sanctification of the month (a technical expression denoting proclaiming when is the New Moon — the beginning of a month) (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 10 1).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

בין הערבים AT EVENTIDE — i. e. the period from six hours onwards (reckoning from six o’clock in the morning) (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 11 1; cf. Rashi on Exodus 12:6).

פסח לה׳ [AT EVENTIDE] IS THE פסח OF THE LORD — i. e. the offering of the sacrifice which bears the name פסח‎.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

'והקרבתם אשה וגו‎‎ BUT YE SHALL OFFER A FIRE-OFFERING etc. — This is identical with the additional offerings due on the first day of Passover which are mentioned in the section of פנחס (Numbers 28:19). But why are these referred to here? In order to intimate that the additional offerings do not impede one another (i. e. that if a particular animal of these מוספים cannot be sacrificed, it is still lawful to bring the others) (Menachot 49a), because it states: —

‎'והקרבתם אשה לה‎ YE SHALL BRING THE FIRE-OFFERING OF THE LORD — bring it under any circumstances — if there are no bullocks available as prescribed, offer the prescribed rams; and if there are neither bullocks nor rams, offer the lambs (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 11 5).

שבעת ימים SEVEN DAYS — Wherever the term שבעת is used it is a noun (not a cardinal numeral), so that the words here mean a septaine of days (a period of seven days), in old French Similar is the meaning of all the expressions שמנת ,ששת ,חמשת ,שלשת.

מלאכת עבדה [YOU SHALL DO NO] SERVILE WORK — Not even such labors as are regarded by you as an obligation and a necessity, the neglect of which involves loss of money, as, for instance, a matter that may become lost (that cannot be postponed without irretrievable loss). I understand this (that the above is the meaning of מלאכת עבדה) from Torat Cohanim (on .v 36 of this chapter), since it states there: I might think from what Scripture states (vv. 36, 37) כָּל מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ אֵלֶּה מוֹעֲדֵי‎ that‎ מלאכת עבדה is forbidden also on the intermediate days of Passover and Tabernacles (lit., the week-days of the festivals). Scripture, however, states, “it (the eighth day) is a festival and ye shall do no מלאכת עבדה” thus intimating that on a day which is not a festival such work is permitted. The intermediate days are not regarded as a festival and the rule is that דבר האבד may be attended to. Hence the very question: “may מלאכת עבדה be done on the intermediate days?”, implies that the term denotes דבר האבד.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ראשית קצירכם THE FIRST FRUITS OF YOUR HARVEST — This means that it (the Omer) shall be the first thing to be harvested (cf. Sifra, Emor, Section 10 3).

עמר — The tenth part of an Epha; this was its name (i. e. עמר has not the meaning of a sheaf here as is the meaning of the word e. g., in Deuteronomy 24:19: ושכחת עמר — but it denotes a certain measure), as we find (Exodus 12:18) “And they did measure it with the Omer”.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

והניף AND HE SHALL WAVE [THE OMER] — Every form of the root נוף used in connection with sacrifices signifies that one moves the latter about both horizontally (מוליך ומביא) and upwards and downwards (מעלה ומוריד); he moves it about horizontally to prevent (i. e. the act was symbolical of preventing) destructive winds, he moves it about upwards and downwards to keep away injurious dews (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:24) (Menachot 62a).

לרצנכם TO BE ACCEPTED FOR YOU — If you offer it according to this precept it shall effect favourable acceptance for you.

ממחרת השבת ON THE MORROW AFTER THE DAY OF REST [THE PRIEST SHALL WAVE IT] — This must mean on the morrow of the first day of the Passover festival (on the 16th of Nisan); for if you say that it means on the morrow of the weekly Sabbath (i. e. on a Sunday) you do not know which particular Sabbath Scripture is referring to (Menachot 66a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ועשיתם... כבש AND YE SHALL OFFER… A LAMB — This came (was brought) as an obligatory sacrifice in connection with the Omer.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ומנחתו AND THE MEAL OFFERING THEREOF — i. e. the usual meal-offering that was brought together with its drink-offering,

שני עשרנים TWO TENTHS DEALS OF FLOUR — It was double as much as was usually required with a lamb (cf. Numbers ch. 28).

ונסכו רביעית ההין AND THE DRINK OFFERING THEREOF OF WINE SHALL BE THE FOURTH PART OF HIN — Although its meal-offering was twice as much as usual its drink-offering was not double (Menachot 89b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וקלי means flour made out of tender ears (כרמל); this is called קלוי because they dry them in the oven and so become scorched.

וכרמל — these are ears themselves which are called grenailles in old French (Menachot 66a, b).

בכל משבתיכם IN ALL YOUR HABITATIONS — The Sages differ in their opinions regarding this (the meaning of these words). Some learn from here (taking the words בכל משבתיכם in the sense "wherever you may live") that the law concerning the new crop applies also outside the Land of Israel; others, hold that it (the phrase) denotes “in all your settlements” and is only intended to teach that they did not become subject to the command concerning the new crop until after the land had become their inheritance and place of settlement (ישיבה) i. e. after they had subjugated the land and had parcelled it out amongst the tribes (Kiddushin 37a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ממחרת השבת FROM THE MORROW AFTER THE DAY OF REST — i. e. from the morrow after the first day of the Passover festival (Menachot 65b).

תמימת תהיינה [SEVEN WEEKS] SHALL BE COMPLETE — This teaches that one has to begin counting in the evening, for otherwise they would not be complete (Menachot 66a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

השבת השביעת — Translate this as the Targum does שבועתא שביעתא THE SEVENTH WEEK.

עד ממחרת השבת השביעת תספרו EVEN UNTIL THE MORROW AFTER THE SEVENTH WEEK SHALL YE NUMBER — until, but not including the day until which you count: thus there are 49 days (the seven complete weeks spoken of in the preceding verse).

'חמשים יום והקרבתם מנחה חדשה לה‎… FIFTY DAYS — AND YE SHALL OFFER A NEW OBLATION UNTO THE LORD — i. e. on the fiftieth day ye shall offer it. This, I say, is a Midrashic explanation, but the literal sense is: “Even unto the morrow of the seventh week which is the fiftieth day shall ye number”: the text has its phrases inverted.

מנחה חדשה A NEW MEAL OFFERING — It was the first meal-offering that was offered from the new crop. And if you ask, “But surely the meal-offering of the Omer has already been offered on the 16th of Nisan”?! Then I reply: It (the Omer) was not like all the other meal-offerings — which, with one exception (cf. Numbers 5:15), were all brought of wheat — since it was brought of barley and therefore it is not taken into account (cf. Menachot 84b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

מושבתיכם [YE SHALL BRING] OUT OF YOUR HABITATIONS [TWO WAVE LOAVES] — but not from outside the Land of Canaan (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 13 1; Menachot 83b).

לחם תנופה WAVE LOAVES — i. e. heave loaves that have been heaved in honour of the Lord. It is these which constitute the “new meal-offering” mentioned above (v. 16).

בכורים [THEY ARE] THE FIRSTLINGS — the first of all meal-offerings offered, the first even in relation to the “meal-offering of jealousy” (cf. Numbers 5:15) which was brought of barley; even that must not be offered of the new crop previous to the two loaves, although a barley offering had already been brought, viz., the Omer which was offered on Passover (Menachot 84b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

על הלחם means, on account of the bread — as an obligation connected with the bread (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 13 4; Menachot 45b).

ומנחתם ונסכיהם WITH THEIR MEAL OFFERINGS AND THEIR DRINK OFFERINGS — according to the law of the meal offerings and the drink offerings which are distinctly set forth with reference to all animal sacrifices in the chapter dealing with drink offerings: (Numbers 28:12—14) “three tenth deals of flour for one bullock, two tenth deals of flour for one ram, and one tenth deal of flour for one lamb”: — this is the meal-offering. The drink-offerings were: “half a hin of wine for a bullock, the third part of a hin of wine for a ram, and the fourth part of a hin of wine for a lamb”.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ועשיתם שעיר עזים THEN YE SHALL SACRIFICE ONE KID OF THE GOATS — I might think that the seven lambs (cf. v. 18) and the goat mentioned here are identical with the seven lambs and one goat mentioned in the Book of Numbers (28:27—30). — This is, however, not the case, for when you come to the bullocks and the rams you will find that they are not identical (here, v. 18. we have one bullock and two rams, whilst there you have two bullocks and one ram). Consequently you must admit that these (the lambs and the goats mentioned here) form a group for themselves and the others form a group for themselves: these were offered on account of the loaves and the others as additional offerings for the day (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 13 6; Menachot 45b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

והניף הכהן אתם... תנופה AND THE PRIEST SHALL WAVE THEM [WITH THE BREAD OF THE FIRSTLINGS] FOR A WAVE OFFERING — This teaches us that they (the offerings) require the waving whilst they are still living. One might think that all of them (the seven lambs mentioned in v. 18) have to be waved! It, however, states על שני כבשים “[and the priests shall wave them… upon the two lambs]” (cf. Menachot 62a).

קדש יהיו THEY SHALL BE HOLY [TO THE LORD FOR THE PRIEST] — Because festival-offerings offered by a private person are holy only in a minor degree, Scripture was compelled to state of the festival-offerings of the community that they are holy in the highest degree.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ובקצרכם AND WHEN YE REAP [THE HARVEST OF YOUR LAND, THOU SHALT NOT MAKE CLEAR RIDDANCE OF THE CORNER OF THE FIELD] — Scripture repeats the prohibition here (although it has already been mentioned above, 19:9) in order to make one who transgresses this law infringe two negative commands. R. Abdima the son of R. Joseph said: What reason had Scripture to place it (the law concerning the corner of the field) amidst those regarding the festival-sacrifices — those of Passover and Pentecost on this side of it, and those of the New Year, Day of Atonement and “the Feast” (Tabernacles) following on that side of it? To teach you that he who leaves the gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and the corner of the field to the poor as it ought to be, is regarded as though he had built the Temple and offered his sacrifices therein (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 13 11).

תעזב THOU SHALT LEAVE [THEM UNTO THE POOR] — leave these in front of them and they shall gather: you are not allowed to assist one of them to the injury of another poor man (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 3 5; Mishnah Peah 5:6).

אני ה' אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD, Who am faithful to pay you your reward.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

זכרון תרועה [THERE SHALL BE UNTO YOU] A זכרון OF SOUNDING THE CORNET — a mention (זכרון) of Biblical verses which speak of the Divine remembrance and Biblical verses which have reference to the blowing of the Shofar (a ram’s horn) on the occasion of important historical events (Sifra; Rosh Hashanah 32a) that I may recall to memory (זכרון) for you the offering (lit., the “Binding”) of Isaac in whose stead a ram was offered (cf. Rosh Hashanah 16a) having been caught by its horn (שופר‎).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

אשה‎ והקרבתם‎ AND YE SHALL OFFER A FIRE OFFERING — i. e. the additional offerings prescribed in the Book of Numbers (29:2 ff.).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

אך — The words אך and רק wherever they occur in Scripture have a limitative force; here the word implies: it (Yom Kippur) makes expiation for those who repent, but it does not make expiation for those who do not repent (אך... יום הכפורים הוא — in a limitative sense it is Yom Kippur) (Shevuot 13a; cf. Rashi on Exodus 34:7).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

והאבדתי I WILL DESTROY — This expression “destroying” is employed here because Scripture uses everywhere in similar cases the term כרת, “cutting off” without clearly defining it, so that I do not know exactly what it implies; but when it states here והאבדתי, it teaches in respect of the term כרת that it implies nothing else than becoming lost” (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 14 4).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

'‎‎כל מלאכה וגו‎ [YE SHALL NOT DO] ANY WORK — This is repeated (cf v. 30) in order to make one who does work on Yom Kippur transgress several negative commands. Or, it is repeated, in order to prohibit working in the night of Yom Kippur, just as well as working during the day itself (Yoma 81a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

מקרא קדש — This means: Hallow it (make it different from other days) by wearing fine clothes, and through appropriate prayer. In the case of other Festivals of which the same words are used, the expression מקרא קדש implies: Hallow them (distinguish them from other days) by your food and drink, by your fine clothes and appropriate prayers (cf. Sifra, Emor, Section 12 4).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

עצרת הוא — The word is derived from the root עצר “to hold back” and suggests: I keep you back with Me one day more. It is similar to the case of a king who invited his children to a banquet for a certain number of days. When the time arrived for them to take their departure he said, “Children, I beg of you, stay one day more with me; it is so hard for me to part with you!” (cf. Rashi on Numbers 29:36 and Sukkah 55b).

כל מלאכת עבדה ANY WORK THAT IS AN עבדה — i. e. even such work which rests as an obligation (עבודה) upon you because if it is left undone it involves monetary loss (cf. Rashi v. 8),

לא תעשו YE SHALL NOT DO: — One might think that it is forbidden to do such urgent work (מלאכת עבדה) also on the intermediate days of Passover and Tabernacles (which are Half-festivals)! Scripture, however, states: עצרת] הוא], “it (i. e. the eighth day) forms a restriction: [ye shall do no urgent work]” — but on the intermediate days such work is not forbidden (Sifra, Emor, Section 12 6).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

עלה ומנחה A BURNT OFFERING AND A MEAL OFFERING — This means the מנחת נסכים (the meal-offering due with the drink-offering) that is brought together with the‎ עולה (Menachot 44b)‎.

‎‎ביומו‎ ‎יום‎ ‎דבר EVERYTHING UPON ITS DAY (lit., the thing of the day, on its day) — the quantity definitely assigned to each day in the Book of Numbers (cf. Rashi on Exodus 16:4).

דבר יום ביומו EVERYTHING UPON ITS DAY (which may mean the matter of the day shall be on its day) — consequently if its day (the day on which some particular one of these sacrifices is due) be past, it's (the day’s) offering is past (cf. Sifra, Emor, Section 12 9).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

אך בחמשה עשר יום... תחגו BUT ON THE FIFTEENTH DAY… YE SHALL OFFER A חג — i. e., a sacrifice of peace-offerings as a חגיגה (the pilgrims’ sacrifice on the Festivals) (Chagigah 9a). Since it states that this has to be brought on the fifteenth day of the month, one might think that it (the offering of קרבן חגיגה) shall set aside the Sabbath (supersede the Sabbath law, if that day be the fifteenth of the month)! Scripture, however, uses the word אך (the particle that implies a limitation; cf. Rashi on v. 27): suggesting that it must not be offered on Sabbath because it has a supplementary period consisting of all the seven days of the Festival.

באספכם את תבואת הארץ [ON THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF THE SEVENTH MONTH] WHEN YE GATHER IN THE INCREASE OF THE LAND — This tells us that this seventh month (in which סכות occurs) must be at the time of the ingathering. Hence we learn that they are enjoined to intercalate the years if necessary (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 15 6), because if there be no such intercalation it (the seventh month) would sometimes fall in the middle of the summer or of the winter.

תחגו YE SHALL CELEBRATE (OFFER) the peace-offerings of the חגיגה.

שבעת ימים SEVEN DAYS (during seven days), meaning that if one has not brought them on one he may bring them on another of the seven days. But I might think that the meaning is that one has to offer them on each of the seven days! Scripture, however, states (v. 41): וחגתם אתו, “and ye shall make it the day of the חגיגה” — this implies one day and no more. Why, then, does Scripture say “seven”? In reference to the supplementary period (Chagigah 9a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

פרי עץ הדר THE FRUIT OF THE TREE HADAR — a tree the wood of which (עץ) has the same taste as its fruit (פרי) (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 16 4; Sukkah 35a).

הדר — It is called הדר because it is the tree whose fruit remains (הַדָּר) on the tree from one year to another (several years) — and this is the “Ethrog”.

כפת תמרים A BRANCH OF PALM TREES — The word כפת is written defective (without ו, not כפות) to intimate that only one branch is intended (Sukkah 32a).

וענף עץ עבת AND BOUGHS OF THE TREE עבת — i. e. of a tree whose boughs are, as it were, plaited (intertwined one with another) like ropes (עבתות) and cords; this is the myrtle plant which is indeed formed as a plait (three leaves issuing from one point of the branch and covering it) (Sukkah 32b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

האזרח THE NATIVE — Since this word means native-born, the word בישראל, ANYONE IN ISRAEL, serves to include the proselytes (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 17 9).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כי בסכות הושבתי THAT I MADE [THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] ABIDE IN BOOTHS — This does not mean literally “booths” but, “the clouds of Glory" by which they were sheltered (cf. Onkelos; Sifra, Emor, Chapter 17 11; Mekhilta; Sukkah 11b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

צו את בני ישראל COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL [THAT THEY BRING UNTO THEE CLEAR OLIVE OIL, BEATEN, FOR THE LIGHT] — This is the section containing the commandment concerning the lamps, whilst the section beginning with ואתה תצוה (Exodus 27:20 ff.) which also deals with the lamp is only mentioned there for the sake of giving an orderly account of the work of the Tabernacle, to explain what the purpose of the candlestick was — for thus do those words ואתה תצוה imply: “and thou wilt at some future time command the Children of Israel” about this.

שמן זית זך CLEAR OLIVE OIL — Three different qualities of oil come forth (are extracted) from the olive tree, the first of which is called זך, “clear”. They are all fully explained in Treatise Menachot 86a and in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Emor, Section 13 1-3).

תמיד (continually not continuously) here implies from night to night. It has the same meaning as in עולת תמיד a “continual” burnt offering which was only sacrificed from day to day (cf. Rashi on Exodus 27:20).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לפרכת העדת [WITHOUT] THE PARTITION VAIL OF THE TESTIMONY — i. e. the Partition Vail which is before the Ark which on account of its contents (the Tablets, termed לחות העדות in Exodus 37:15) is called “Testimony”. Our Rabbis, however, explained it (the word העדות) as referring to the western light of the candlestick which was a testimony (עדות) to mankind that the Shechinah dwelt in Israel through the miracle wrought in connection with it; for he (the priest) put only as much oil into it as was the quantity put into the other lamps and yet he began the lighting of the other lamps in the evening by it and finished the work of cleaning with it [since it continued to burn miraculously until the following evening] (Sifra, Emor, Section 13 9; Shabbat 22b; Menachot 86b).

יערך אתו אהרן מערב עד בקר AARON SHALL SET IT IN ORDER FROM EVENING UNTO MORNING — The meaning is not that he shall occupy himself the whole night with setting the lights in order, but he shall arrange it in such a manner (lit., by such an arrangement) that will prove adequate for the length of the whole night. Our Rabbis by experiment (cf. Menachot 89a) fixed the quantity at a half log oil for each lamp, ascertaining that this would suffice also in the long nights of the Teveth quarter; and this quantity therefore became to them the fixed measure [for all the seasons of the year].

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

המנרה הטהרה THE PURE CANDELABRUM — It was so called because it was made of pure gold. Another explanation is: he shall set the lights in order upon the purity of the candlestick, implying that he must first purify (cleanse) it and remove its ashes beforehand (the words therefore mean: on a clean candlestick; cf., however, Sifra, Emor, Section 13 12 where the word is explained differently).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

שש המערכת SIX ON A ROW — i. e. six cakes shall form one row.

השלחן הטהר THE PURE TABLE — i. e. the table of pure gold (cf. Rashi on v. 4). Another explanation is that על השלחן הטהר means: immediately upon the טהר of the table (i. e. its top and they must not rest upon something else that is placed on the table-top) — i. e. that the supporting pillars (cf. Rashi on Exodus 25:29) must not raise the bread (i. e. the lowest loaves) above the top of the table (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 18 4; Menachot 97a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ונתת על המערכת AND THOU SHALT PUT UPON THE ROW — i. e. upon each of the two rows [PURE FRANKINCENSE]; there were two bowls for this frankincense, each filled with a handful of it.

והיתה THAT IT — this frankincense — MAY BE

ללחם לאזכרה ON THE BREAD FOR A MEMORIAL — because of the bread itself nothing was offered to the Lord, but the frankincense was burnt when the former was removed from the golden table every Sabbath. It (the frankincense) thus served as a memorial for the bread, because through it, it (the bread) was recalled to memory Above (the bread itself was not offered) just as the “handful” of flour and of oil (Leviticus 2:2) was “the memorial portion” of the meal offering being the only part offered, while the remainder was eaten by the priests just as this bread was.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

והיתה AND IT SHALL BE — this meal-offering shall be — [AARON’S AND HIS SONS’]; (although the word מנחה is not mentioned in the text it is implicitly contained in the word לחם) because anything that is brought (offered) of grain comes under the term of ‎מנחה.

ואכלהו‎ AND THEY SHALL EAT IT; the suffix which is masc. refers to לחם which is masculine.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ויצא בן אשה ישראלית AND THE SON OF THE ISRAELITISH WOMAN WENT OUT — Whence did he go out? Surely not from the camp, since Scripture states “and they strove in the camp”! Rabbi Levi said, “He went out from (by his blasphemous utterance he lost) his eternal life (עולמו; R. Levi evidently connects ויצא with the last word of v. 8; “the everlasting covenant, ברית עולם”). R. Berachya said, “He set forth (יצא) (started his argument) from the above section. He said sneeringly: “Every Sabbath he shall set it in order!? Surely it is the way of a king to eat fresh (lit., warm) bread every day; is it perhaps his way to eat bread nine days old (lit., cold bread of nine days)?! (The Hebrew word בתמיה “Say this in the intonation of a question” means nothing other than our question mark) (Midrash Tanchuma 38 23). A Baraitha states that ויצא means, he came out of the judicial court of Moses where he had been pronounced to be in the wrong in the following matter: although his father was an Egyptian he had gone to pitch his tent in the camp of the tribe of Dan to whom his mother belonged (cf. v. 11). They (the men of Dan) said to him, “What have you to do here" (lit., what is your character that gives you the right to come here?). He replied. “I am one of the children of the tribe of Dan”. Thereupon they said to him, “Scripture states: (Numbers 2:2) “Every man [of the children of Israel shall encamp] by his own standard, that bears the signs of their father’s house”! He thereupon went in to the judicial court of Moses to have the matter decided and came forth (יצא) declared to be in the wrong. He then stood up and blasphemed (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1; Leviticus Rabbah 32 3).

בן איש מצרי THE SON OF AN EGYPTIAN MAN — It was the Egyptian whom Moses had killed (Leviticus Rabbah 32 4; cf. Exodus 2:11 where Scripture also uses the expression “איש מצרי”; cf. also Rashi thereon).

בתוך בני ישראל AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — This teaches us that he had become a proselyte (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1).

וינצו במחנה THEY QUARRELLED IN [or CONCERNING] THE CAMP, about matters connected with the camp (i. e. as to where was his proper place in the camp; Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1; cf. Rashi on ית‎ישראל‎ אשה ‎ויצא בן‎‎).

‎הישראלי‎ ואיש THE ISRAELITISH MAN — this was his opponent (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1) who had prevented him from pitching his tent in the camp of Dan.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ויקב — Translate this as the Targum does: ופרש “and he pronounced”, thus ויקב … ויקלל means that he uttered the Tetragrammaton and by so doing blasphemed. It was the “Proper Name” which he had heard on Mount Sinai (cf. Sifra, Emor, Section 14 2 and Jeremiah Targ.).

ושם אמו שלמית בת דברי AND HIS MOTHER’S NAME WAS SHELOMITH, THE DAUGHTER OF DIBRI, [THE TRIBE OF DAN] — it is to tell how praiseworthy Israel was that Scripture publicly mentions her name (exposes her), telling us implicitly that of all the women of Israel she alone was a harlot (Leviticus Rabbah 32 5).

שלמית (connected with שלום “peace”) — she was so called because she was always babbling: “Peace be with thee”, “peace be with thee”, “peace be with you” — she used to continually babble with many words (she was a בת דברי) — she enquired after the health of everybody (Leviticus Rabbah 32 5).

בת דברי (from the root דבר “to speak”) — she was talkative — talking with any man, and in consequence of this she got into trouble.

למטה דן OF THE TRIBE OF DAN — This mention also of the parent and tribe of the woman teaches us that the wrong doer brings shame upon himself, shame upon his parent, shame upon his whole tribe. Similarly we find the name of the tribe Dan mentioned to express praise; (Exodus 31:6) “Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan”, where the details of Oholiab’s descent imply praise for him, praise for his father and praise for his tribe (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 4).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ויניחהו AND THEY PLACED HIM [IN WARD] — him by himself — and they did not place the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day with him (Numbers 15:34), because both of whom happened to be (i. e. to commit an offense) at the same period, but they knew that the stick-gatherer was to be punished with the death-penalty, only it had not been explained to them by what kind of death he was to be punished — it is for this reason that it is stated in his case (Numbers 15:33) “[and they placed him in ward] because it was not explained what should be done to him”. In the case of the blasphemer, however, it states “[and they placed him in ward] that [the proper penalty] might be shown to them”; this was because they did not know whether he is at all liable to the death-penalty or not (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 5; Sanhedrin 78b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

השמעים THEY THAT HEARD — This refers to the witnesses.

כל ALL [THOSE THAT HEARD] — 'all' serves to include the judges also (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 1).

את ידיהם [AND ALL THAT HEARD HIM SHALL LAY] THEIR HANDS [UPON HIS HEAD] — They said to him: your blood is upon your head; we do not deserve punishment on account of your death, for it was you yourself who brought it about (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 2).

כל העדה ALL THE CONGREGATION [SHALL CERTAINLY PELT HIM WITH STONES] — (This means: the witnesses shall stone him), all the congregation standing by (because it cannot possibly mean that all the 600,000 men comprising the whole of the congregation should stone him). From here, we may derive the legal principle that a man’s agent is as himself (i. e. that his actions are legally of the same effect as though they were carried out by those for whom he acts the order) (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 23).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ונשא חטאו [WHOSOEVER EXECRATETH HIS GOD] SHALL BEAR HIS SIN — i. e. shall be punished with excision if there was no legal warning preceding the offence (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 6; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 20:27).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ונקב שם AND HE THAT UTTERETH BLASPHEMOUSLY THE NAME [OF THE LORD SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — He is not liable to the death-penalty at the hand of the judges unless he utters the Divine Tetragrammaton blasphemously, but not if he execrateth the Lord by only mention of one of the substitutes for the Divine name (e. g., רחום, חנון, אל etc.), (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 5; Sanhedrin 56a).

ונקב here is an expression denoting “cursing”, like (Numbers 23:8) “How shall I curse (אקב) [when God hath not cursed]” (Sanhedrin 56a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ואיש כי יכה AND HE THAT KILLETH [ANY MAN SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — Because it is said (Exodus 21:12) “Whosoever smiteth a man so that he die [shall surely be put to death]” I might say that I have here only the law that if one kills a man he is punishable with death; whence, however, do I know that this is also the case if he kills a woman or a child? Because Scripture states here: “[and he that killeth] any person (more lit., the soul of any human being)” (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 20 1; cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:12).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כן ינתן בו [AND IF A MAN CAUSES A BLEMISH IN HIS COMPANION…] SO SHALL IT BE DONE TO HIM — Our Rabbis explained that this does not mean the actual infliction of a blemish but that it means monetary compensation — that we estimate his (the injured man’s) value as a slave and the offender has to pay the difference between his value as an unmaimed man and that which he represents after the infliction of the injury. It is for this reason that the term נתן “to give” is written here referring to something that is given (passed) from hand to hand viz., money (Ketubot 32b; Bava Kamma 84a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ומכה בהמה ישלמנה AND HE THAT SMITETH A BEAST, HE SHALL PAY FOR IT — Above (v. 18) Scripture was speaking of one who kills a beast, whilst here it speaks of one who inflicts a wound up on it (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:12).

ומכה אדם יומת AND HE THAT SMITETH A MAN SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH — although he has not killed him but only inflicted a wound upon him, because Scripture does not state מכה] נפש] (as it does in v. 17 which implies “smiting of the soul” — killing). Scripture is speaking here of one who smites his father or his mother when he is punishable with death for mere smiting without fatal result (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:15). It is true that the punishment for this offence has already been stated (Exodus 21:17) but Scripture intends by putting this case in juxtaposition with מכה בהמה to put it in some respect on a level with the case of one who smites a beast. How is it in the case of one who smites a beast? He is subject to the law only if he smote it while it was alive! So, too, is one who smites his father (or his mother) punishable only if he smites them whilst they are alive, thus excluding from the death penalty one who smites them after their death. Because we find that he who curses him (the father; — the same applies to the mother) after death is liable to the death penalty (cf. Rashi Leviticus 20:9), Scripture was compelled to state with reference to one who smites his parents that he is exempt from the death penalty if he does this after their death (as stated above). And there is another point of comparison: How is it in the case of a beast? The law speaks only of smiting resulting in a wound! — for if there is no wound resulting no compensation can be claimed — so, too, he who smites his father is not liable to the death penalty unless he inflicts a wound upon him (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 8; Sanhedrin 84a, 85b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

‎'אני ה אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — your God — the God of all of you. Just as I attach My Name to you, so do I attach it to the strangers.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ובני ישראל עשו AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DID [AS THE LORD COMMANDED MOSES] every prescription mentioned in respect to the stoning-penalty in another place, viz., the casting down of the culprit from a height, the heaping of stones upon him, and the hanging him after the execution has taken place (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 10; Sanhedrin 43a).