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