Vayikro
Book 3: Leviticus


TZAV - NOTES ON RASHI COMMENTARY


Chapter 06 - Text Notes

1 Rashi is concerned with the unusual use of the introductory word {Hebrew Ref} , "command," instead of the more common dabbeir, "speak"(Levush).

2 As in Devorim 3, 28, when Moshe was told to "command Yehoshua and strengthen him"; the addition of the word "and strengthen him"clearly shows that this is an expression of "urging."

3 As in 24, 2 below: "Command the children of Israel and let them take pure olive oil," where the next verse stipulates "for your generations." From this we learn that a mitzvoh which is prefaced with the word "command" may imply that the mitzvoh is valid for the future as well as the present; see Kiddushin 29a.

4 Either because the kohanim did not receive any of the meat of a burnt-offering, receiving only the skin (D.D.), or because this paroshoh prescribes the bringing of a daily meal-offering by the Kohein G-dol (see 6, 23 below, Ramban); Sifra Tzav 1, 1, Kiddushin 29a. B.Y. points out that since the {Hebrew Ref} treasury had to make good on sacrifices which became invalid, it was necessary to urge the kohanim to be especially careful in matters which involved a loss to the Temple.

5 Since other laws regarding burnt-offerings were already set forth above in chapter 1.

6 As those which are totally invalid from the beginning, such as those animals which were used in a sinful activity (see Rashi to 1, 2 above).

7 Where they were valid to begin with, but developed a disqualification after having been designated as burnt-offerings; once they have the name of a "burnt-offering," they are not taken down from the altar.

8 Since torah refers to a set of teachings, and not just a single halachah, use of the term implies that there is more than what is explicitly stated in the paroshoh, and so comes to include these details (Malbim).

9 Sifra Tzav, par. 1, 7.

10 See Rashi to 1, 2 above.

11 Sifra Tzav, par. 1, 8.

12 See Shemos 28, 39--40.

13 Why use the word {Hebrew Ref} for "garment" instead of the more usual {Hebrew Ref} ?

14 Sifra Tzav, per. 2, 1. {Hebrew Ref} relates to the root {Hebrew Ref} , "to measure," while {Hebrew Ref} does not.

15 Literally, "on his flesh."

16 Arochin 3b, see Yomo 23a,b. Otherwise, why mention the need to wear the pants over his skin? Where else should they be worn?

17 While most of the ashes remained on the altar; see Yomo 20a. This offering of a panful of ashes should not be confused with the removal of ashes from the altar described in the next verse, which only took place occasionally (M.).

18 An offering, similar to the {Hebrew Ref} offered from a person's crops.

19 As Rashi explained in his last comment.

20 That is, the burnt-offering must remain on the altar as long as it can be called a burnt-offering---while it is not yet consumed. L.B. explains this derash somewhat differently: "on the altar" is unnecessary, since the altar was mentioned above; it therefore comes to include this requirement of returning unconsumed limbs to the altar. Rashi's comment here is bracketed because it is not found in the first printing of the commentary.

21 Sifra Tzav, per. 2, 6. Rashi seems to hold that the clothes used to take out the ashes are nevertheless priestly garments, since he only specifies "of lesser worth" but not "ordinary garments." Why then is this change of clothes not obligatory, but merely "good manners"? (Ramban). Why not assume that this change is obligatory as is the Kohein G-dol's repeated change from the "white" (plain) priestly garments to the full set ("the gold") on Yom Kippur? The difference is that here he does not change from his full uniform to his "whites," but from a more expensive set to a less expensive one---of the same importance. Therefore, this must be a matter of "good manners" (M., see G.A.).

22 Since the buildup of ashes on the altar shows the offerers' concern for keeping the altar occupied, and is thus a matter of giving due honor to the Service of the Beis Hamikdash.

23 Mentioned in the last verse.

24 Yomo 20a.

25 In verse 2 above.

26 In our verse.

27 In the next verse.

28 45a. Rabbi Yehudoh maintains that there must be two ordinarily and three on Yom Kippur, Rabbi Yose---that there are ordinarily three, and four on Yom Kippur, while Rabbi Meir (or Rabbi Yehudoh HaNosi) holds four and five, respectively.

29 Menochos 49a. See Rashi's next comment.

30 Sifra Tzav, par. 2, 1. Two burnt-offerings were brought every day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, and between these two set points all the other sacrifices were offered; see Bemidbor 28, 1--8.

31 Shemos 27, 20.

32 Yomo 45b.

33 Since the prohibition of extinguishing is mentioned twice,once here and once in the previous verse. Even though the Sifra takes one of them to refer to the altar in the desert, and we prefer to attribute apparent duplications in the Torah to different situations, if at all possible (see Pesachim 24a-b),Rashi assumes that that prohibition also functions for later generations (M.L.).

34 A non-kohein.

35 Sifra Tzav, par. 2, 2. The word {Hebrew Ref} implies that there is an additional rule which is not stated explicitly (see n. 8 above). The simplest additional rule ("inclusion") we might have thought to include from {Hebrew Ref} is that all five types of meal-offering listed in chapter 2 require frankincense, which is only mentioned in connection with the first type, the fine meal-offering (Vayikro 2, 1--3). But our section here is in any case devoted to all the meal-offerings, since it does not specify any one of them, and so the inclusionary word {Hebrew Ref} must have a different purpose. That purpose is, according to Rashi, to include the kohein's meal-offering (see verse 15) specifically in the requirement of oil and frankincense---a meal-offering which is not mentioned in chapter 2 (M., G.A.).

36 And not actually offering the sacrifice, i.e., burning it,which is mentioned in verse 8.

37 Sifra Tzav, par. 2, 4.

38 Facing the entrance of the Tent, which was in the eastern wall. Since the outer altar was in the courtyard opposite the entrance, it was east of the entrance, and therefore its western side faced the entrance.

39 The Hebrew word {Hebrew Ref} , here translated "before" (its usual sense), literally means "in the face of."

40 Sotoh 14b. Since the kohein approaches the altar from the ramp, and thus faces the altar, that direction constitutes the altar's "face." Thus, the verse refers to the southwestern corner of the altar.

41 Sifra Tzav, par. 2, 5. Since the verse uses the masculine "from it," it cannot refer either to the flour ( {Hebrew Ref} ) mentioned afterwards or the meal-offering ( {Hebrew Ref} ) mentioned in the previous verse, since they are feminine nouns. It must then refer to the "tenth" ( {Hebrew Ref} ), which is masculine (Malbim).

42 Sifra Tzav, par. 2, 5. Since it does not state "the full fistful," as in 2, 2 above, it must mean that he must take it by hand and not by measure.

43 Since the oil is not evenly distributed through the flour. This, Rashi derives from the mention of oil altogether, since it is clear that the meal-offering's flour has been mixed with oil. This frees the word for an inclusionary teaching; see Sotoh 14b.

44 Sifra Tzav, par. 2, 5. "The" meal-offering implies that there must be only one; if two are mixed together, they are invalid.

45 See 2, 2 above.

46 Menochos 55a. Since the word {Hebrew Ref} , "their portion" is adjacent to the prohibition of chometz, it too is included in the prohibition by a hekesh.

47 That is, for the sake of the meal-offering offered as a sin-offering.

48 Since a sin-offering sacrificed for the sake of another offering is not valid (see Mishnoh Zevochim 1, 1), so too this meal-offering, which is considered to be a sin-offering; see 4,33 above, where "he shall slaughter it as a sin-offering" is specified.

49 Which still has validity even if offered for the sake of another sacrifice, since Vayikro 5, 6 above does not contain the phrase "it is a guilt-offering."

50 Sifra Tzav, per. 3, 4.

51 That is the significance of the word kol, "every."

52 See Vayikro 21, 22.

53 Sifra Tzav, per. 3, 5.

54 Sifra Tzav, per. 3, 6. That is, for but one day and night, and within the Temple courts (verse 9), and by males only (verse 11).

55 In the continuation of this verse.

56 Verse 15 below. There is an apparent contradiction between the first half of our verse (verse 13), which implies that both the Kohein G-dol and ordinary kohanim ("Aharon and his sons") bring this offering only once, while the end of the verse implies that it is brought "always." Thus, the proper interpretation is that both Aharon and his sons should bring this offering, but while Aharon brings it every day ("half in the morning, half in the evening"), ordinary kohanim only bring it once, when they begin their term of service (N.Y.).

57 Sifra Tzav, per. 4, 5. Since this {Hebrew Ref} is distinguished from others in that it contains a large quantity of oil (see 2, 4 above), this implies that oil is added after the scalding. "As much as needed" refers to the water, which must be actively boiling.

58 Literally, "and return."

59 Menochos 75b.

60 Only the son who actually succeeds his father, not every son of the Kohein G-dol. G.A. suggests that since both "anointed one" and "of his sons" refer to the same person, it is more fitting for them to be together, and that is why Rashi changes the order of words from "the anointed one in his stead of his sons" to "the anointed one of his sons in his stead."

61 For the derivation of this law see Rashi below on verse

62 Verse 22 below; See Zevochim 99a.

63 Sifra Tzav, par. 3, 6. That is, whenever the time period for eating the sin-offering expires, so too the food which has touched it or absorbed some of it cannot be eaten after that time.

64 Rashi emphasizes the passive meaning of this verb. The form {Hebrew Ref} , a {Hebrew Ref} , means "to sprinkle [somthing else]" while {Hebrew Ref} is a passive, "to be sprinkled." The dotted zayin indicates that the nun has dropped out. So too in the case of {Hebrew Ref} , to which Rashi compares our verb immediately below (L.B.).

65 Iyyov 15, 29.

66 Indicating that the root of {Hebrew Ref} is n-t-h, similar to {Hebrew Ref} in our verse.

67 Meat left overnight and is therefore invalid; it must therefore be burnt.

68 And the reason the halochoh is stated in reference to a sin-offering rather than any other sacrifice is that the period during which it may be eaten is the shortest of all. If even its absorptions can become {Hebrew Ref} in a day and a night, all the more so other sacrifices (K.Y.).

69 Megillas Esther 2, 12.

70 Avodoh Zoroh 34a. That is why they must be broken and can never be cleaned.

71 In verse 19.

72 This is the source of the rule mentioned by Rashi in his comments to verse 19 above, d.h. {Hebrew Ref} .

73 The usual sin-offering, whose blood is sprinkled "outside"the Holy of Holies, as contrasted to the bull of the Kohein G-dol brought on Yom Kippur, which is sprinkled "within."

74 Sifra Tzav, par. 4, 2. As usual, {Hebrew Ref} , "all," marks an inclusion or extension.


Chapter 07 - Text Notes

75 That is, no animal exchanged for an {Hebrew Ref} (see Vayikro 27,9--10) may be brought as a sacrifice in the place of the {Hebrew Ref} , but it must be left to graze until it develops a blemish. In other cases, when an offerer chooses another animal, whether better or worse than the one he intended to offer, in place of the original one, both become holy (Sifra Tzav, par. 4, 2, see Temuroh 18a). The reason for the difference between the {Hebrew Ref} sacrifice and other sacrifices is that here "it is most holy" is stipulated for the second time, apparently unnecessarily, since the phrase also appears in verse 6 below, which limits the {Hebrew Ref} consumption to male kohanim within the Temple courts. Why then is it used here, before any details of the {Hebrew Ref} are given? It must therefore refer to an important aspect of the {Hebrew Ref} , either to its essence or to a detail regarding its selection, and not merely to one of the details of its {Hebrew Ref} , or sacrificial rite. And since "it" (hu') is an exclusion, the limitation must relate to the essence or initial selection of the {Hebrew Ref} , as explained (see M., end).

76 This follows the suggested emendation of the Maharshal, and is based on the Sifra. Printed texts of Rashi have "Because we have found," which is impossible, since there are no communal guilt-offerings, {Hebrew Ref} , in the Torah, as the Gemoro in Temuroh 14a notes. Some editions omit this comment entirely, and some include it in brackets.

77 In Sifra Tzav, par. 4, 3.

78 Since much of the first part of Parshas Tzav serves as a supplement for the laws of Parshas Vayikra (R. D.Z. Hofmann).

79 Literally, "comes."

80 And not a goat, as a peace-offering may.

81 In 3, 9 above.

82 By another sacrifice when this animal was first lost. It was later found after the replacement animal was slaughtered. The rule in this case is that the animal is let out to pasture until it develops a blemish, at which point it may be redeemed. The money is used as Rashi explains.

83 That is, an animal bought from the proceeds of its sale.

84 When there were not enough sacrifices donated to keep the altar fully in use, the deficit was made up by Temple-funded sacrifices. This money is used to buy such "summer sacrifices"(see Rashi in Sukkoh 68a d.h. {Hebrew Ref} ).

85 That is, as long as the owners or their representatives do not hand it over to the Temple shepherd to be kept until it develops a blemish,it is still considered to be an {Hebrew Ref} , even though its worth will eventually be used to bring an {Hebrew Ref} for keitz ha-mizbe'ach (B.Y.,D.H.).

86 "It is a guilt-offering."

87 But for another sacrifice. See 4, 24 above.

88 Vayikro 4, 24; see Rashi there.

89 Since it is the blood which accomplishes the atonement. Rather, the phrase "it is a guilt-offering" comes to teach us the law that Rashi enumerates at the beginning of this comment.

90 Sifra Tzav, par. 4, 2. But Rashi does not quote these expositions because they are far from the plain meaning of the verse (L.B.).

91 That is, the law set forth in the next part of the verse.

92 One who has entered a {Hebrew Ref} , a ritual bath, but who has to wait for sunset to become ritually clean.

93 One who has entered a ritual bath but whose complete atonement requires that he bring a sacrifice the next day, as in the case of a {Hebrew Ref} who has become cured but is not yet purified.

94 Sifra Tzav, per. 9, 1. One whose close relative has died but is not yet buried; his obligation to bury his dead relative takes precedence over all else. All three of these are not yet "fit to [accomplish] atonement," and are therefore excluded.

95 Sifra Tzav, per. 10, 3.

96 See chapter 2, verses 1, 4, 5, 7.

97 Brought in the case of a husband who suspects his wife of adultery, and who brings his wife to the Temple to the trial described in Bemidbor 5.

98 Brought up for the moment from later in Rashi. Rashi's sentence, while in excellent Hebrew style, is difficult to translate in flowing English syntax. We have therefore broken it up into two sentences.

99 As Rashi explains in the following lines.

100 Literally, "those who go down to the sea."

101 Tehillim 107, 21.

102 Literally, "and are not eaten but for a day and a night."

103 In the next verse.

104 Thus making four in all.

105 77a.

106 Literally, "their amount is...."

107 "Tenths," see Menochos 76b. Three "desert" se'in = one ephoh = 10 {Hebrew Ref} ("tenths"). However, these were increased in size by a fifth, so that five "Jerusalemite" se'in weighed as much as six of the "desert" ones. A se'oh has been estimated as about 10 ("desert") or 12 ("Jerusalemite") liters, though such estimates must not be used for halachic purposes.

108 And then baked; see Rashi on 6, 14 above.

109 It is holy only so far as its monetary value is concerned, unlike {Hebrew Ref} which cannot be redeemed for its monetary equivalent.

110 One who has entered a {Hebrew Ref} , a ritual bath, but who has to wait for sunset to become ritually clean.

111 Sifra per. 11, 10. This is learned from the apparent redundancy of {Hebrew Ref} , "his sacrifice." The bread does not become a "sanctified sacrifice" and so is not subject to these restrictions until the animal is slaughtered.

112 Menochos 77b.

113 And thus the same rules apply to it.

114 Since the verse could easily have stated: {Hebrew Ref} , "and its thanksgiving may be eaten in its day,"the further specifications included in the phrase {Hebrew Ref} , "and the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings," come to include some other sacrifice under the rule of a day and a night; see Rashi on Zevochim 36a.

115 In Devorim 16, 4, Rashi explains that the festal offering for the fourteenth of Nisan may be eaten for two days and the night between---according to the view of the Sages (Pesachim 71b),while here he adopts the view of Ben Teima (Pesachim 70a). It is Rashi's method to explain each verse in a way which is most appropriate for that context (see M. on Bereishis 3, 8) or when he is in doubt as to the proper interpretation (see G.A. on Shemos 21, 36).

116 Sifra Tzav, per. 12, 1.

117 That is, a day and a night.

118 Sifra Tzav, per. 12, 5. Tosafos (Zevochim 57b d.h. {Hebrew Ref} ) notes that this {Hebrew Ref} did not have to be instituted for those sacrifices which may be eaten for two days and the night between, because it is easy to tell when the day ends (at sunset), while the end of night (dawn) is not so easy to determine (D.H.).

119 That is, this verse does not contrast a {Hebrew Ref} which comes as a vow ("I obligate myself to bring a {Hebrew Ref} ") or voluntary offering ("This animal will be brought as a {Hebrew Ref} ") to one which does not, since all {Hebrew Ref} are either vows or voluntary offerings, but rather to distinguish between a {Hebrew Ref} brought as thanks for a miraculous deliverance (as in recovery from an illness, etc.) and other kinds (M.).

120 On the second, since the next verse makes it clear that it is only on the third day that the flesh is forbidden as nosor,"left overs" (L.B.).

121 I.e., that of {Hebrew Ref} .

122 Bereishis 36, 24.

123 Doniel 8, 13.

124 Literally, "and eaten if it be eaten."

125 When the sacrifice is actually performed, and not later.

126 To eat of it on the third day.

127 Even if in the end it is eaten properly, during its time limit, just the improper thought of eating it after its time limit is enough to make the sacrifice an abomination.

128 Literally, "of which its part."

129 From wherever it may properly be eaten, whether from the Temple courts, in the case of most holy sacrifices, such as sin-offerings, or from Jerusalem altogether, in the case of peace-offerings, which may be eaten only within the city of Jerusalem.

130 Which remained within its proper geographic limits.

131 Devorim 12, 27.

132 If it were not for our verse, I might have thought that only the owners may eat of it, since in Devorim 12, 27 the Torah addresses the owners directly, saying "you may eat," thus perhaps excluding anyone else. See Sifra par. 9, 8.

133 Sifra par. 9, 6. Our verse, which now reads "And [as for] the flesh which touches anything unclean may not be eaten, it must be burnt in fire; and [as for] the flesh, every ritually clean person may eat it" could easily have been combined into one sentence, thus omitting the second mention of {Hebrew Ref} , "and [as for] the flesh." This extra {Hebrew Ref} , is thus the source of the inclusionary rule Rashi cites.

134 6, 9 above.

135 This comment of Rashi's is not included in the first printing of his commentary, and many editions include it in parentheses. Furthermore, many commentators (e.g., M., G.A.,M.L., B.Y., among others) do not include it either. The problem is that the rule that peace-offerings are eaten within the entire city of Jerusalem is derived from Vayikro 10, 14 in Zevochim 55a, and not from our verse, and Rashi does include it in its proper place; why then the unnecessary repetition? (D.H.).

136 I.e., while theoretically the phrase {Hebrew Ref} can refer to unclean meat, "whose uncleanness is on it," our Rabbis already discounted this possibility, since that situation was already discussed in the last verse (L.B.).

137 Being cut off, dying at age fifty without surviving descendants.

138 That is, the prohibition involves the negative commandment included in this verse, and {Hebrew Ref} , a whipping, for its violation, but not {Hebrew Ref} . See next Rashi.

139 {Hebrew Ref} is the second of the thirteen principles,or {Hebrew Ref} , handed down at Sinai, by means of which the Torah is interpreted. It involves the use of identical (or, in a few cases, similar) words or phrases in two parts of the Torah, thus hinting that the conditions or stipulations regarding the one apply to the other. In this case, the word {Hebrew Ref} appears here and in Bemidbar 19, 13; the {Hebrew Ref} teaches that just as in Bemidbar there was a warning before punishment was imposed, so too here; see Makkos 14b (G.A.). It is a generally accepted rule in regard to prohibitions and punishments in Vayikro that every punishment must be accompanied by a warning in another verse.

140 Plural of {Hebrew Ref} . The three kerisos are mentioned here, in verses 20, 21, and finally, in 22, 3 below in Parshas Emor. As Rashi explains, based on the Gemoro, each comes to teach us a separate halachah.

141 7a.

142 I.e., a peace-offering. Another one of the rules of Torah interpretation handed down at Sinai (along with the {Hebrew Ref} mentioned above) is that of {Hebrew Ref} , "something that was included in the general rule, and [then] departed from that rule, did not depart to teach about itself [alone], but [rather] to teach about that general rule." In other words, an exception to a general rule will also affect our understanding of the rule. In this case, peace-offerings need not have been mentioned separately, since they are usually included in the general category of holy things; why then are they mentioned as a separate category here? According to the rule of {Hebrew Ref} , this teaches us that only sacrifices brought to the altar---similar to peace-offerings---are included in this rule which decrees {Hebrew Ref} on one who eats sacrificial flesh while in a state of impurity. What then is excluded? Animals dedicated to the Temple upkeep. Thus, the two {Hebrew Ref} mentioned here (in verses 20 and 21) are needed for this {Hebrew Ref} (M., see Shevu'os 7a and Rashi there).

143 One which is prescribed for people who cannot afford the more expensive sin-offerings; see Vayikro 5, 7--14.

144 That is, the third mention of {Hebrew Ref} in connection with a peace-offering refers not to peace-offerings but rather to a sliding-scale sacrifice. The case concerns an unclean person who enters the Temple or eats clean sacrificial meat unknowingly; the point is that such a sliding-scale sacrifice (see 5, 2 above) applies to such a case only under the circumstances which apply to sin-offerings---when the prohibition is violated unknowingly, and when the prohibition, when violated intentionally, results in the punishment of {Hebrew Ref} . See also Rashi on 22, 3.

145 I.e., an animal which has been slaughtered improperly. That is, the fat of such an animal, though it comes from a ritually unclean carcass, does not cause further uncleanness, and may be used for oiling the hides of even sacrificial animals. This is because the meat of a neveiloh has already been permitted for any use except human consumption by Devorim 14, 21;our verse must therefore come to serve another purpose, and since there are two redundancies--- {Hebrew Ref} ("for all") and {Hebrew Ref} ("work, purpose") these are taken to refer to any animal skin which may be oiled, and furthermore, even to the skins of sacrificial animals; see Pesachim 23a (G.A.).

146 An animal which died of natural causes, or would have died of such causes if it had not been slaughtered.

147 I.e., prohibited fat.

148 Zevochim 70a.

149 No matter where he is, whether in Eretz Yisrael or outside; examples are tefillin, mezzuzoh and the like.

150 I.e., a prohibition limited to the land of Israel, such as {Hebrew Ref} and {Hebrew Ref} .

151 37b.

152 It is explained there that this phrase comes to correct an erroneous impression; we might think that this prohibition applies only when there is a {Hebrew Ref} , since it is included within the general discussion of sacrifices, so the phrase "in all your habitations" comes to teach us that these prohibitions apply to all times.

153 Which have no blood; see Kerisos 21a.

154 "His" presumably refers to the owner, since he is the subject of the verse (G.A.).

155 I.e., the kohein's hand should be beneath the hands of the owner.

156 Menochos 61b; since the waving is considered an essential part of the sacrificial service, the kohein must direct it (G.A.).

157 The fats and the breast, as the verse enumerates (L.B.).

158 I.e., the first kohein.

159 Since when the first kohein places the fat and breast into the hands of the kohein who does the waving the fat and breast reverse positions, with the breast now on top, as Rashi explains in the following lines.

160 Vayikro 10, 15.

161 Vayikro 9, 20,

162 62b.

163 But not to burn.

164 I.e., before they are put on it and burned; see Sifra Tzav, per. 16, 4.

165 Chullin 134b. The animal's leg has three sections, which include four bones: from the hoof to the knee, from the knee to the thigh, and from there to the animal's body; it is the middle of the three that is referred to here. This is the view of R.Yehudoh, which Rashi adopts. The other tanna, the {Hebrew Ref} , holds that this middle section is made up of two bones, the lower middle bone and the one above that.

166 Zevochim 98b, Sifra Tzav, per. 16, 7.

167 Menochos 62a, Sukkoh 37b; see Rashi on Shemos 29, 27. Both the breast and the thigh are both waved and raised (and lowered), even though our verse calls the breast "the breast of waving" and the thigh "the thigh of raising."

168 Shemos 28, 41.


Chapter 08 - Text Notes

169 This paroshoh actually belongs in Shemos 40, but it is placed here. However, Rashi does not give a reason for the Torah's departure from chronological order, which he often does; see for example his comments to Bemidbar 9, 1. Among the reasons proposed is that of G.A., who suggests that the placement of this paroshoh here is the beginning of a continuous narrative stretching from 8, 1 to 10, 20, which describes G-d's instructions for the installation, the installation itself and the resting of the Shechinoh on the Tabernacle, the death of Aharon's sons, which also sanctified it (see 10, 3, and Rashi there). The Torah placed chapter 8 here in order that the fulfillment of G-d's instructions and the resting of His Presence on the Tabernacle should follow the preparations. Furthermore, Vayikro, chapters 1--7 could not follow them because they were given before the deaths of Nodov and Avihu; moreover, as the Ramban mentions, the laws of the sacrifices given there applied to the installation offerings as well, and so these chapters also prepared the way for what follows.

170 Shemos 29.

171 See notes to Rashi above, under the heading of "Take Aharon" (first paragraph).

172 Vayikro Rabbo 10. That is, that the small area at the entrance to the Tabernacle nevertheless held "the entire congregation" (B.M.H.).

173 Shemos, chapter 29.

174 Yomo 73b. The {Hebrew Ref} (=Explicit Name) is one of the Names of G-d whose pronunciation alone carries tremendous power. In discussing the Torah's description of the Urim VeTumim in Shemos 28, 30, Rashi notes that it was placed in the folds of the Kohein G-dol's breastplate, "by which its words would light up and make its words clear."

175 See Rashi on Shemos 28, 37 for an exact description of the diadem and the turban.

176 Clearly Moshe did not do this on his own, as Rashi remarked in his comments on verse 5. The Ramban suggests that the source of this command is Shemos 40, 10: "Sanctify the altar so that the altar becomes holy of holies," which indicates that some additional sanctification was necessary for the altar,beyond that for other vessels. G.A. suggests, among other explanation, that this additional need of sanctification was necessary because the altar was filled with earth, and so sprinkling as well as anointing was done.

177 Horayos 12a, Kerisos 5b.

178 As in "he saddled his donkey" of Bereshis 22, 3, i.e., he tied the saddle on his donkey.

179 Any contact with a person or substance forbidden to touch it.

180 This too may hint at the sprinklings required for the altar (G.A.).

181 This phrase is not found in better printings, since the "lobe of the liver" is indeed separate from the liver; that is why in Shemos 29, 13 this part of the ceremony is described as involving the "lobe on the liver" = the lobe along with the liver (L.B.).

182 As G.A. explains, this cannot refer to peace-offerings,which relate to the word {Hebrew Ref} , "peace," but to {Hebrew Ref} and {Hebrew Ref} , "full" and "whole." This is why the days of installation were called {Hebrew Ref} , "fullness."

183 {Hebrew Ref} , from {Hebrew Ref} , "full."

184 The verb {Hebrew Ref} , "complete, perfect," which is related to {Hebrew Ref} , "full." Though it is also related to {Hebrew Ref} , "peace,"and thus to {Hebrew Ref} , "peace-offerings," it is not this aspect of the sacrifice which is being emphasized here (L.B.). The Ramban suggests that this ram, as the final offering, finalized the installation of Aharon and his sons.

185 See Rashi on 7, 12 above, d.h. {Hebrew Ref} .

186 78a. See also Rashi to Shemos 29, 2.

187 Avodoh Zoroh 34a. Rashi waited to explain this here because we might otherwise think that Moshe served as a kohein only on the first day (M., G.A.). Ordinarily, a kohein may not perform the Temple service without his priestly garments, and if he does, the service is invalid; but Moshe was given a special honor, both to serve, though not a kohein, and to serve in a white garment, as the Kohein G-dol does when entering the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur (G.A.).

188 Literally, "on."

189 Brought to purify those who have become ritually unclean through contact with a dead body; see Bemidbar, chapter 19.

190 See below, chapter 16. {Hebrew Ref} , "to atone" is related to {Hebrew Ref} , "the Day of Atonement."

191 Yomo 3a.

192 Mechilta deMillu'im, par. 1, 37.

193 However, rather than state that one who violates this prohibition is liable to the death penalty, the Torah prefered to state this indirectly so as not to employ a negative expression on this joyous occasion (M.).

194 Not in action or thought (G.A.).


Return to Main Search Form
Sources