## Ramban on Leviticus Chapter 6

###### Ramban on Leviticus 6:2:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 6:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/6:2:1)

אָמַר הַכָּתוּב בְּפָרָשַׁת וַיִּקְרָא "דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל", כִּי שָׁם יְצַוֶּה בַּהֲבָאַת הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת וְיִשְׂרָאֵל מְבִיאִים אוֹתָם. וְכָאן אָמַר **צַו אֶת אַהֲרֹן** כִּי יְדַבֵּר בְּמַעֲשֵׂה הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת וְהַכֹּהֲנִים יַעֲשׂוּ אוֹתָם. וְכָתַב רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא ו':ב') אֵין צַו אֶלָּא זֵרוּז, מִיָּד וּלְדוֹרוֹת, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּיוֹתֵר הָיָה צָרִיךְ הַכָּתוּב לְזָרֵז בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס. וּמִדְרָשׁוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵינוֹ עַל זוֹ הַצַּוָּאָה, כִּי כָּאן אֵין בּוֹ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס לִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַמְּצֻוִּין בָּהּ, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהֶם רֶוַח וְשָׂכָר בְּכָל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת גַּם בָּעוֹלָה, אֲבָל אָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא אֵין צַו אֶלָּא זֵרוּז מִיָּד וּלְדוֹרוֹת, לוֹמַר שֶׁהַפָּרָשִׁיּוֹת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה הַכָּתוּב לְזָרֵז בָּהֶם וְלוֹמַר שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מִיָּד וְיִנְהַג הַדָּבָר לְדוֹרוֹת יֹאמַר בָּהֶן "צַו", וּבִשְׁאָר הַפָּרָשִׁיּוֹת יֹאמַר "דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" אוֹ "אֱמֹר לָהֶם". וּבָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לַחְלֹק וְלוֹמַר שֶׁפְּעָמִים יָבֹא הַלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִיָּד וּלְדוֹרוֹת, בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס, כְּגוֹן הַצַּוָּאָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמָּאוֹר, וּכְגוֹן שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב "צַו אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתְנוּ לַלְוִיִּם עָרִים לָשָׁבֶת". וְיִתָּכֵן שֶׁנֹּאמַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּצַו זֶה חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס לַכֹּהֲנִים בַּעֲבוּר "זֶה קָרְבַּן אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו" הַנִּמְשָׁךְ בְּצַוָּאָה זוֹ. אֲבָל בִּתְחִלַּת סִפְרֵי בְּעִנְיַן מַחְלֹקֶת הִיא שְׁנוּיָה שָׁם:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
TZAV’ (COMMAND) AARON. In the [preceding] section of *Vayikra*, Scripture stated, *Speak unto the children of Israel*,¹ for there He gave the command about the bringing of the offerings, and it is upon the Israelites to bring them. But here He states, *Command Aaron and his sons*,² for He now speaks of the rites of the offerings and these are performed by the priests.
Now Rashi wrote: “*Command Aaron*. The expression ‘command …’ always implies urging [to fulfill the command] at once, and also for future generations. Rabbi Shimon said: Scripture found it especially necessary to urge, in cases where fulfillment of a command involves monetary loss.”³], preceded it by the expression, *‘command’ Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt-offering*, in order to urge them on to fulfill the commandment. — Ramban, however, argues that even from the burnt-offering the priests do derive a personal benefit, namely, the hide (further, 7:8). Accordingly he will interpret Rabbi Shimon’s statement as referring to another matter, as he explains further on. But the explanation of Rabbi Shimon was not [said] with reference to this command, for here there is no monetary loss involved to the priests to whom this command was given. Indeed, they gain profit and reward from all the offerings,⁴, Verse 9). even the burnt-offering.⁵) [when a Mishnah or a Beraitha cites a number of different authorities, and the first authority is mentioned annonymously, that opinion generally is referred to that of the *Tanna Kamma*] who said that the expression “command …” is mentioned here because it is a commandment binding at once and also for future generations, while Rabbi Shimon holds that this is not the reason for its use; instead, the reason for the expression “command …” is because in attending to the burnt-offering the priests suffer a monetary loss, and hence they have to be urged on. Ramban, however, argues that even in the case of burnt-offerings the priests incur no monetary loss, since they keep the hides, hence Rabbi Shimon also agrees with the First Sage that the reason for the use of the expression “command …” in this context is because it is a command binding at once and for future generations. Ramban then continues by saying that Rabbi Shimon’s statement has no bearing on our subject of the burnt-offering, but its meaning is as will be explained further on. Rather, the intention of the First Sage [whom Rashi quoted] in saying, “the expression ‘command …’ always implies urging [to fulfill the command] at once and also for future generations,” was to say that in those sections of the Torah where Scripture wanted to urge fulfillment, saying that they should be fulfilled immediately and that they apply throughout the generations, it uses this expression of “command …” But in other sections it will say, “speak” to the children of Israel, or “say” unto them. With this [generalization] Rabbi Shimon differed, saying that sometimes⁶ this expression [“command … “] occurs in a matter which is not to be fulfilled immediately and throughout the generations, but it is used because the command involves a monetary loss. Such [a use of the word] “command” is that found in the case of the oil of the lighting⁷ … [where, according to Rabbi Shimon, the expression “command …” is used because it applies immediately and for all generations, as well as for the reason that it involves a monetary loss], and that which Scripture states, *Command the children of Israel, that they give unto the Levites of the inheritance of their possession cities to dwell in*,⁸ [which is a case where the use of the expression “command” can only be because monetary loss is involved, since it did not apply at once, but only after they had taken possession of the Land].
It is possible that we say that our command does involve a monetary loss to the priests, as a result of that which it says further on [in this section], *This is the offering of Aaron and his sons*,⁹ to that of the First Sage as to why the expression “command …” is mentioned here. However, etc. (see text). which is a continuation of this command. However, at the beginning of the Sifre,¹⁰. See in *Seder Vayikra* Note 121. the opinions [of the First Sage and that of Rabbi Shimon] are taught in a manner indicating that they hold opposing views.¹¹ with the opinion of the First Sage. [It must be noted though that the Sifra text that *we* have has: “Said Rabbi Shimon,” which vindicates that there is no difference of opinion between the two Sages. Ramban’s Sifra text perforce must have had the reading: “Rabbi Shimon says …” A similar reading is found in the Sifre *Naso* 1: “Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says … “]

footnotes:
¹ Above, 1:2.
² Thus the question arises: Why are these two sections addressed differently?
³ Since Rashi understood Rabbi Shimon’s statement as referring to the burnt-offering, it must be understood as follows: In the case of all other offerings, the priest eats part of the meat and thus derives some personal benefit, therefore he does not have to be urged on to perform their rites. In the case of the burnt-offering, however, he derives no benefit, since it is completely burnt on the altar; hence Scripture [speaking here of the law of the burnt-offering
⁴ The meat of the sin-offering and the guilt-offering is eaten completely by the priests. They are also given a share of the peace-offering (further, 7:34). The residue of the meal-offering after the handful was burnt on the altar, was eaten by the priests (ibid.
⁵ This is a reference to the hide of the animal which belongs to the priest (further, 7:8). — Rashi, however, considered this share of little value and hence he understood Rabbi Shimon’s statement as applying to the burnt-offering, and that this was why the expression “command …” is mentioned here, namely, because the priests incur a monetary loss, and hence they had to be urged on to fulfill the command. — Thus according to Rashi, Rabbi Shimon differs with the First Sage, (Tanna Kamma
⁶ I.e., in other places. But here [in the case of the burnt-offering] Rabbi Shimon agrees with the reason stated by the First Sage. See Note 5 above.
⁷ Further, 24:2: Command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil beaten for the light
⁸ Numbers 35:2.
⁹ Further, Verse 13. This is interpreted by the Sages to mean that the High Priest is to bring a meal-offering every day, half of it in the morning and half thereof in the evening. The ordinary priest brought such a meal-offering at his installation into the priestly office, and it was known as the “meal-offering of initiation.” Since the money for these meal-offerings does not come from the public treasury but from the priests themselves, there is thus a monetary loss incurred by them, and hence the expression “Command Aaron and his sons …” with which this section opens. If this is so, Rabbi Shimon’s statement does refer to this section and Rashi was therefore correct in citing his words here — as being an additional reason
¹⁰ “Sifre.” This is the version found in all texts of Ramban — but it should be “Sifra,” as it is found here in Torath Kohanim at the beginning of the Seder
¹¹ Ramban’s intent is as follows: When in a Tannaitic text the opinion of a second Sage is mentioned in the words: “Rabbi … says,” it indicates that he differs with the opinion of the First Sage. Where, however, it states: “Said Rabbi …” it usually means that he agrees with the former opinion, but he makes an additional point to strengthen it further. Here, however, [in the text of the Sifra before Ramban] it states: “Rabbi Shimon says,” and hence indicates that he differs


###### Ramban on Leviticus 6:2:2
[Ramban on Leviticus 6:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/6:2:2)

**זֹאת תּוֹרַת הָעוֹלָה** הֲרֵי הָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה בָּא לְלַמֵּד עַל הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים וְאֵבָרִים שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר כָּל הַלַּיְלָה, וּלְלַמֵּד עַל הַפְּסוּלִים אֵיזֶה מֵהֶם אִם עָלָה יֵרֵד וְאֵיזֶה מֵהֶם אִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד, שֶׁכָּל "תּוֹרַת" לְרַבּוֹת הוּא, תּוֹרָה אַחַת לְכָל הָעוֹלִים וַאֲפִלוּ פְּסוּלִים שֶׁאִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא ו':ב'). וְאֵין הַתּוֹרָה הַזּוֹ לְכָל הָעוֹלִים אֶלָּא לְכָל הָעוֹלוֹת, שֶׁהַנְּסָכִים אִם עָלוּ יֵרְדוּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ נְסָכִים כְּשֵׁרִים וְהַזֶּבַח פָּסוּל אוֹ הַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר וּנְסָכִים פְּסוּלִים וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִים, בְּכֻלָּן הַזֶּבַח לֹא יֵרֵד וּנְסָכִים יֵרְדוּ, שֶׁזֶּהוּ רִבּוּיוֹ שֶׁל מִקְרָא, "תּוֹרַת הָעוֹלָה" - תּוֹרָה אַחַת לְכָל הָעוֹלוֹת וְלֹא לַנְּסָכִים וְלֹא לַדָּם, כְּדִבְרֵי ר' יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (בת"כ ובזבחים ט א). וְהִנֵּה הַכָּתוּב הַזֶּה מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא נַקְרִיב הָעוֹלָה בַּלַּיְלָה, אֲבָל אִם נִשְׁחֲטָה וְזָרַק דָּמָהּ בַּיּוֹם נַקְטִיר אֵיבָרֶיהָ כָּל הַלַּיְלָה וְכֵן חֶלְבֵי הַשְּׁלָמִים. וּפֵרוּשׁ "הִיא הָעוֹלָה" כְּמוֹ תִּהְיֶה הָעֹלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כָּל הַלַּיְלָה, וְאָמַר "הִיא" לַמִּעוּט שֶׁדָּרְשׁוּ בּוֹ, וּכְפִי הַמִּדְרָשׁ (בת"כ כאן) אֵין הַכָּתוּב מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנַּעֲלֶה הָאֵבָרִים מִן הָאָרֶץ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ בַּלַּיְלָה, שֶׁכְּבָר לָמְדוּ זֶה מִפָּסוּק אַחֵר (שמות כג יח), "לֹא יָלִין חֵלֶב חַגִּי עַד בֹּקֶר", כִּי מִשָּׁם יִלְמְדוּ (מכילתא משפטים כ יח) שֶׁיִּהְיוּ פְּסוּלִין בְּלִינָה עַל גַּבֵּי הָרִצְפָּה וּמַעֲלָן כָּל הַלַּיְלָה, וְכָאן יְדַבֵּר בָּאֵבָרִים שֶׁהֵן כְּבָר עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בַּיּוֹם שֶׁמְּהַפְּכִין בָּהֶן כָּל הַלַּיְלָה עַד הַבֹּקֶר. וּלְכָךְ אָמַר "הָעוֹלָה", שֶׁכְּבָר עוֹלָה עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְלִמֵּד עוֹד שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ פְּסוּלִין לֹא יֵרְדוּ וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהוּ פְּסוּלָן בַּקֹּדֶשׁ, וְשֶׁהַנְּסָכִים יֵרְדוּ וְכֵן הַדָּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַבְתִּי:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
THIS IS ‘TORATH’ (THE LAW OF) THE BURNT-OFFERING. “This text is intended to teach us that the burning of the fats and limbs of offerings is valid [if performed anytime] during the whole night [following the day on which they were slaughtered]. It is also intended to teach us which of the disqualified offerings, although already brought up on to the altar, must be taken down, and which of them if already brought up need not be taken down. For all expressions of *torath*¹². [introducing a group of laws] denote inclusion — one law for all offerings that are brought up on to the altar, including some disqualified ones, namely that if they are already brought up on to the altar, they need not be taken down.” This is Rashi’s language.
But this law does not [in fact] apply to *everything* that has already been brought up on to the altar, but only to all offerings proper, for if drink-offerings¹³ are brought on to the altar [when they are not supposed to be] they must be taken down; and even if the libations are correctly offered up and the offering is disqualified, or the offering is correctly offered up and the libations disqualified, and definitely where both are disqualified — in all these cases, the offering itself is not to be taken down again, and the libations are to be taken down! For such is the sense of the inclusive term *torath ha’olah* (*the law of the burnt-offering*), teaching, “one law for all that goeth up [as the due of the altar-fires]” but not for the drink-offerings [since they are not poured on the fires, but into a silver bowl placed at the south-west corner of the altar],¹⁴ Note 219). “The bowl to the west was for water and that to the east was for wine” (*ibid.*, 48 b). nor for the blood [which was sprinkled on the sides of the altar], in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yehoshua.¹⁵
Now this verse [also] teaches that we should not *offer* the burnt-offering at night, but if it was slaughtered and its blood sprinkled [on the altar] during the daytime, we may burn its limbs all night, the same law applying to the fats of the peace-offering. And the explanation of the expression ‘*hi ha’olah*’ is as if it said: ‘*tiheyeh’ ha’olah* (the burnt-offering “shall be”) *on the firewood upon the altar all night*. He uses the word *hi* [literally: “she”] in order to exclude¹⁶ (law) denotes inclusion (one law for all things), so does the word *hi* (“she” or “it”) denote exclusion, implying that the law under consideration does not apply to everything but is limited in its scope. It is the Sages who in their interpretation of the law determine in which cases it applies and in which it does not. those things which the Rabbis have specified in the interpretation thereof. Now according to the [Rabbinical] interpretation this verse does not teach us that we are to bring up the limbs [of the offerings] from the ground to the altar at night, for this [principle] they have already derived from another verse, *Neither shall the fat of My feast remain all night until the morning*,¹⁷ [which the Sages interpreted¹⁸. See also Ramban there. to mean, “*Neither shall the fat of My feast remain* on the stone pavement of the Court below, *all night until the morning*, but you should bring it up to the altar”]. For it is from that verse that the Rabbis have derived the law that [fats and limbs of the offerings] become disqualified [for the altar] if they remained upon the pavement [until the morning], but they may be brought up to the altar at any time during the night. Here Scripture speaks of those limbs which had already been brought up during daytime, [to teach] that the priest turns them over on the altar during the whole night until the morning. It is for this reason that He says *hi ha’olah* [using the definite article], meaning: “the one which has already come up” on the altar. It also teaches us that even those that are invalid, are not to be brought down again, [once they were taken up onto the altar], provided they became invalid in the Court of the Sanctuary [such as where they had remained overnight or had been unclean, etc.; but if they became invalid before reaching the Sanctuary Court, such as an animal that had been set apart for idolatry, or had been worshipped etc., these must be brought down].¹⁹ It also teaches that [invalid] drink-offerings¹³ must come down [since they do not go upon the fires on the altar],¹⁴ Note 219). “The bowl to the west was for water and that to the east was for wine” (*ibid.*, 48 b). and so also the blood [which had become invalidated], as I have written.

footnotes:
¹² In our Rashi text: torah
¹³ See Numbers 15:3-12 for the command that burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings had to be accompanied by an offering of wine.
¹⁴ Succah 48a. There were two such bowls there, one for the wine-libation and the other for the special water-libation on the Festival of Succoth (see in Seder Vayikra
¹⁵ Zebachim 83 a.
¹⁶ For just as the term torah
¹⁷ Exodus 23:18.
¹⁸ Mechilta ibid
¹⁹ See Zebachim 84a for full discussion of these cases.
¹³ See Numbers 15:3-12 for the command that burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings had to be accompanied by an offering of wine.
¹⁴ Succah 48a. There were two such bowls there, one for the wine-libation and the other for the special water-libation on the Festival of Succoth (see in Seder Vayikra


###### Ramban on Leviticus 6:2:3
[Ramban on Leviticus 6:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/6:2:3)

**וְאֵשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תּוּקַד בּוֹ** יֹאמַר שֶׁתּוּקַד בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ כָּל הַלַּיְלָה, כִּי מִצְוָה שֶׁיָּשִׂימוּ בַּיּוֹם עֵצִים הַרְבֵּה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְאַכְּלוּ לְגַמְרֵי וְיִכְבֶּה הָאֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ. וּלְפִי דַּעְתִּי מַה שֶׁאָמַר (ויקרא ו':ו') "אֵשׁ תָּמִיד תּוּקַד עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לֹא תִכְבֶּה" מִצְוָה לַכֹּהֲנִים בְּקִיּוּם הָאֵשׁ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר (ויקרא ו':ה') "וּבִעֵר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן עֵצִים", וְצִוָּה שֶׁיִּזָּהֲרוּ בָּזֶה וְיַעַרְכוּ אֵשׁ וְעֵצִים הַרְבֵּה שֶׁתּוּקַד הָאֵשׁ תָּמִיד כָּל הַיּוֹם וְכָל הַלַּיְלָה, וְהִזְהִיר בְּלָאו שֶׁלֹּא תִּכְבֶּה לְעוֹלָם. וְהִנֵּה אִם נִתְעַצְּלוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים וְכָבְתָה הָאֵשׁ עָבְרוּ בְּלָאו. וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה אָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (יומא מה) שֶׁהָיְתָה מַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה לְקִיּוּם הָאֵשׁ. וּמַה שֶׁאָמַר (ויקרא ו':ה') "וְהָאֵשׁ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תּוּקַד בּוֹ לֹא תִכְבֶּה" מִקְרָא יָתֵר, וְנִדְרָשׁ לְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ (תורת כהנים פרק ב ז) בְּכָל אָדָם, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכָּל הַמְּכַבֶּה עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה, וַאֲפִילּוּ כִּבָּה מִן הַמַּעֲרָכָה גַּחֶלֶת אַחַת לוֹקֶה, בֵּין שֶׁכִּבָּה אוֹתָהּ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ בֵּין שֶׁהוֹרִידָהּ וְכִבָּה אוֹתָהּ לְמַטָּה, וְכִמְדֻמֶּה לִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר אֶלָּא בְּלָאו אֶחָד:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND THE FIRE OF THE ALTAR SHALL BE BLAZING IN IT. Scripture is stating that it should burn on the altar during the whole night, it being a positive commandment that the priests should put on at daytime a lot of wood in order that it should not be burnt up completely and the fire [should not] become extinguished from it [during the night]. In my opinion, that which He said, *Fire shall be kept burning upon the altar continually; it shall not go out*,²⁰ is a commandment directed to the priests to keep fire burning continually upon the altar, just as He said, *and the priest shall kindle wood upon it*,²¹, 5. commanding them that they should be careful about this — to set fire in order and put enough wood on it to keep the fire burning continually, all day and all night. He gave an additional caution by means of a negative commandment, [*it shall not go out*],²⁰ meaning that it should never be allowed to become extinguished. Thus if the priests were careless and the fire became extinguished they would transgress this negative commandment.²²’ (*it shall not go out*) which appears both in Verse 5 and Verse 6. Consequently Ramban writes here “in my opinion,” alluding to the fact that this is not in consonance with Rashi’s interpretation. It is for this reason that our Rabbis have said²³ that [in addition to the large wood-stack burning on the altar] there was a second wood-stack solely for the purpose of keeping up the fire. And that which Scripture states, *And the fire upon the altar shall be blazing in it; it shall not go out*,²¹, 5. is a redundant verse, and is therefore interpreted by our Rabbis²⁴ 2:7. as having reference to all people, teaching that whoever extinguishes the fire, transgresses a negative commandment. Even if he extinguishes only one of the live coals of the wood-stack, he is liable to whipping, whether he put it out on top of the altar, or whether he extinguished it below [on the pavement of the Court] after he had taken it down. It appears to me that he violates only one negative commandment.²⁵ negative commandments” [i.e., ‘*lo thichbeh*’ (*it shall not go out*) mentioned in Verse 5 and again in Verse 6]. According to Ramban, however, as explained above, the second *lo thichbeh* is a special prohibition to the priests who look after the altar not to be careless in permitting the fire to be extinguished. Hence there is only one verse [5] referring to *any* person who extinguishes the fire on the altar. Hence Ramban’s expression, “It appears to me that he violates only one negative commandment.”

footnotes:
²⁰ Further, Verse 6. Ramban thus explains the impersonal language [“shall be kept burning”] as a command addressed to the priests.
²¹ Ibid.
²⁰ Further, Verse 6. Ramban thus explains the impersonal language [“shall be kept burning”] as a command addressed to the priests.
²² See further, Note 25 where Ramban differs with Rashi in interpreting the expression ‘lo thichbeh
²³ Yoma 22 b.
²¹ Ibid.
²⁴ Torath Kohanim, Tzav
²⁵ Ramban’s intent is to allude to Rashi who wrote [in Verse 6]: “One who extinguishes the fire on the altar transgresses two


###### Ramban on Leviticus 6:3:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 6:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/6:3:1)

**וְלָבַשׁ הַכֹּהֵן מִדּוֹ בַד** הִיא הַכֻּתֹּנֶת, וּמַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "מִדּוֹ", שֶׁתְּהֵא כְּמִדָּתוֹ. **עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ** שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא דָּבָר חוֹצֵץ בֵּינְתַיִם, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא ו':ג'). וְהִנֵּה תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן צְרִיכָה בִּגְדֵי כְּהֻנָּה וְאֵין עֲבוֹדָה בִּשְׁנֵי הַבְּגָדִים מֵהֶם, אֲבָל הִזְכִּיר אֵלֶּה הַשְּׁנַיִם לְדָבָר שֶׁנִּתְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהֶם כָּאן, לוֹמַר שֶׁתְּהֵא הַכֻּתֹּנֶת כְּמִדָּתוֹ, וְהָעִנְיָן לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם הָיוּ מְסֻלָּקִין, קְצָרִים וְאֵינָן מַגִּיעִין עַד רַגְלָיו וְעָבַד בָּהֶן עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה, וְלִמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא בֵּינוֹ וְלֹא בֵּין הַמִּכְנָסַיִם לִבְשָׂרוֹ כְּלוּם, וְהוּא הַדִּין שֶׁצְּרִיכָה כָּל בִּגְדֵי כְּהֻנָּה, כִּי כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִזְכִּיר הַכָּתוּב שֶׁהִיא צְרִיכָה בְּגָדִים לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהִיא צְרִיכָה אַרְבָּעָה לְהֶדְיוֹט וּשְׁמֹנֶה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. וְכֵן מְפֹרָשׁ בְּמַסֶּכֶת יוֹמָא בְּפֶרֶק שֵׁנִי (כג) וּבְתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (צו ב א), מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "יִלְבָּשׁ", לְהָבִיא אֶת הַמִּצְנֶפֶת וְאֶת הָאַבְנֵט. וְאוּנְקְלוֹס (תרגום אונקלוס על ויקרא ו':ג') תִּרְגֵּם "מִדּוֹ" - "לְבוּשִׁין", וְנִרְאֶה כִּי אֶצְלוֹ "מִדּוֹ" - שֵׁם יִכְלֹל כָּל בְּגָדָיו, כְּאִלּוּ אָמַר וְלָבַשׁ הַכֹּהֵן בִּגְדֵי בַּד, וְכֵן "מַדָּיו קְרוּעִים" (שמואל א ד יב), "שֶׁיֹּרֵד עַל פִּי מִדּוֹתָיו" (תהלים קלג ב), עַל פִּי מַלְבּוּשָׁיו, "חָגוּר מִדּוֹ לְבוּשׁוֹ" (שמואל ב כ ח), וְיִהְיֶה זֶה כְּדַעַת הָאוֹמֵר אַבְנֵטוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט לֹא זֶהוּ אַבְנֵטוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל (יומא יב):

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND THE PRIEST SHALL PUT ON ‘MIDO’ (HIS GARMENT OF) LINEN. “This is a reference to the *k’toneth* (tunic). Why then does Scripture here call it *mido* [which means ‘his measure’]? It is to indicate that the tunic is to be made to his measure. AND HIS LINEN BREECHES SHALL HE PUT UPON HIS FLESH — that there should be nothing interposing between them.” This is Rashi’s language.
Now the [daily] removal of the ashes [from the altar, which is the subject-matter of this verse], must be done with the priest wearing the [four] garments of priesthood,²⁶ as no Service can be performed with only two of the [four] garments! However, He mentioned only these two garments because of new points that are added here to them, namely, that the tunic must be made to the priest’s measure. This means to say that if it was raised [above his feet], being so short that it did not reach his feet, and he performed therein one of the acts of offering, his Service is invalid. It further teaches that there must be nothing intervening between the breeches and his flesh. But the law requires equally that the priest who removes the ashes from the altar should wear all [four] priestly garments, for since Scripture mentioned that the removing of the ashes must be done with priestly garments, we know [automatically] that it requires four for the common priest and eight for the High Priest.²⁶ So also is it explained in the second chapter of Tractate Yoma²⁷ and in Torath Kohanim:²⁸ 2:1. “Why does Scripture repeat the term *yilbash* [‘he shall put on’ — ‘*V’lavash hakohein*’ (*and the priest shall put on*) *his linen garment, and his linen breeches ‘yilbash’* (*he shall put*) *upon his flesh*]? It is to include the turban and the belt” [which the priest is also to put on for the removing of the ashes].
Now Onkelos translated the word *mido* as *levushin* [“garments” — as opposed to Rashi’s interpretation, according to which it refers only to one garment, the tunic]. It would appear then that according to Onkelos, the word *mido* is a term which includes all of the priest’s garments, as if the verse were stating, “and the priest shall put on linen garments.” Similarly we are to understand the expressions: ‘*madav*’ (*his clothes*) *rent;*²⁹ *that cometh down upon the collar ‘midothav’*,³⁰ which means upon the edge of his garments; *girded with ‘mido’* (*his apparel*) *of war*,³¹ which means his garments. This then will be in accordance with the opinion of the Sage who says³² (Exodus 39:28, Vol. II, p. 614). that the belt of the common priest was unlike the belt of the High Priest.³³ as an inclusive term for “all” the priest’s garments, and the verse states, *and the priest shall put on ‘mido’* (*his ‘garments’ of*) *linen*, Onkelos accordingly must agree with Rabbi Dosa that the belt of the common priest was unlike that of the High Priest, as the belt of the common priest was only of linen. Hence it states that the common priest shall put on *all* his garments of linen which includes the belt.

footnotes:
²⁶ The ordinary priest ministered in four garments: the tunic, breeches, turban, and the belt. To these the High Priest added four more pieces of raiment: the breastplate, the ephod, the robe and the frontlet. — The question then appears: since removing the ashes from the altar had to be done by a priest, why does Scripture here single out only two of the garments, the tunic and the breeches? — The taking up of the ashes was the very first act in the day’s Service in the Sanctuary. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 38-39.
²⁶ The ordinary priest ministered in four garments: the tunic, breeches, turban, and the belt. To these the High Priest added four more pieces of raiment: the breastplate, the ephod, the robe and the frontlet. — The question then appears: since removing the ashes from the altar had to be done by a priest, why does Scripture here single out only two of the garments, the tunic and the breeches? — The taking up of the ashes was the very first act in the day’s Service in the Sanctuary. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 38-39.
²⁷ Yoma 23b.
²⁸ Torath Kohanim, Tzav
²⁹ I Samuel 4:12.
³⁰ Psalms 133:2.
³¹ II Samuel 20:8.
³² Rabbi Dosa (Yoma 12 b). See Ramban in Seder Pekudei
³³ The belt of the High Priest was made of blue, purple, scarlet [all wool] and twined linen. This is expressly stated in the Torah. The question appears as to how the belt for the common priests was made. Rabbi Dosa is of the opinion that it was made only of linen; Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi differs, holding that it was like that of the High Priest. Now since Onkelos, as explained by Ramban, explains the word mido


###### Ramban on Leviticus 6:4:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 6:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/6:4:1)

**וּפָשַׁט אֶת בְּגָדָיו** אֵין זֶה חוֹבָה אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, שֶׁלֹּא יְלַכְלֵךְ בְּגָדִים שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁמֵּשׁ בָּהֶם בְּהוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן, בְּגָדִים שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל בָּהֶן קְדֵרָה לְרַבּוֹ אַל יִמְזֹג בָּהֶן כּוֹס לְרַבּוֹ, לְכָךְ אָמַר "וְלָבַשׁ בְּגָדִים אֲחֵרִים" - פְּחוּתִים מֵהֶם, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא ו':ד'). וְהַכַּוָּנָה לְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ בָּזֶה לוֹמַר שֶׁהוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן צְרִיכָה בִּגְדֵי כְּהֻנָּה, וְאֵין "בְּגָדִים אֲחֵרִים" בִּגְדֵי חוֹל, אֲבָל לֹא יָדַעְתִּי מִנַּיִן אָמַר הָרַב שֶׁאֵינָהּ חוֹבָה, כִּי נִרְאֶה שֶׁמִּצְוָה הִיא עַל הַכֹּהֵן שֶׁהַבְּגָדִים שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בָּהֶם הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת גַּם הֲרָמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן יִהְיוּ בְּגָדִים נְקִיִּים, לֹא יְשַׁמֵּשׁ בְּאוֹתָן אֲשֶׁר הוֹצִיא הַדֶּשֶׁן. וְהַמִּצְוָה מִדֶּרֶךְ מוּסַר הָעֶבֶד לְרַבּוֹ, וּלְכָךְ יִהְיוּ לַכֹּהֲנִים הַבְּגָדִים הַחֲמוּדוֹת לָעֲבוֹדוֹת וְהַפְּחוּתִים לְהוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן. וְכָל זֶה לְפִי הַסְּבָרָא הַזּוֹ שֶׁכְּתָבָהּ הָרַב, אֲבָל יֵשׁ מֵרַבּוֹתֵינוּ שָׁם בְּמַסֶּכֶת יוֹמָא (יומא כ"ג) אוֹמֵר שֶׁאֵין הוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן צְרִיכָה בִּגְדֵי כְּהֻנָּה, וְיֹאמַר "וְלָבַשׁ בְּגָדִים אֲחֵרִים" - בִּגְדֵי חוֹל. וּפְשׁוּטוֹ שֶׁל מִקְרָא בְּכָךְ הוּא שֶׁיְּצַוֶּה עָלָיו שֶׁלֹּא יְלַכְלֵךְ בִּגְדֵי הַבָּד בִּגְדֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ בְּהוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן אֲבָל יִלְבַּשׁ בִּגְדֵי חוֹל:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND HE SHALL PUT OFF HIS GARMENTS, [AND PUT ON OTHER GARMENTS, AND CARRY FORTH THE ASHES WITHOUT THE CAMP UNTO A CLEAN PLACE].³⁴ the ashes from upon the altar. This was done from time to time when there was a need for it. when so much accumulated that there was no more room on the woodpile, then it was removed to a place outside the camp or Jerusalem. It is this latter subject which is the theme of the present verse. “This was not compulsory for him to do so, but it would be a matter of propriety, so that he should not soil the garments in which he regularly ministers at the altar, by the removal of the ashes to a place without the camp. Garments worn when boiling the pot for one’s master, one should not wear when pouring out a glass of wine for him. That is why He said, *and he shall put on other garments* — of [a quality] inferior [to those in which he ministers at the altar].” This is Rashi’s language. Now the intent of our Rabbis in this remark was to state that the taking of the ashes [to a place outside the camp] must be done with the priests wearing the priestly garments, and thus the *other garments* [mentioned in the verse] are not ordinary clothes. Thus I do not know the source for that which the Rabbi [Rashi] said, that “it was not compulsory” [that he remove the garments in which he performs the regular Divine Service, and put on other garments when taking out the ashes to a place outside the camp]. For it would appear that it is a positive commandment to the priest, that the garments in which he performs the acts of offering, including the [daily] lifting up of the ashes, be clean ones, and that he must not perform the regular Divine Service with those garments in which he takes the ashes [outside the camp]. This commandment [of the changing of the garments] is of the nature of a servant’s etiquette towards his master. Therefore the priests should have more expensive garments for performing the acts of offering, and ones of inferior quality for removing the ashes [to a place outside the camp or city of Jerusalem].
All this is in accordance with this reasoning which the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote [i.e., that the removal of the ashes must be done in priestly garments]. But there are some of our Rabbis mentioned there in Tractate Yoma³⁵ who say that the taking out of the ashes did not have to be done in priestly garments. Thus the verse stating, *and he shall put on other garments* means “ordinary clothes,” and this is also the plain meaning of the verse, commanding the priest that he should not soil *the linen garments, which are the holy garments*,³⁶ with the taking out of the ashes; instead he is to put on ordinary clothes.

footnotes:
³⁴ The subject-matter of this verse [4] should be clearly distinguished from that of the preceding verse. In Verse 3 the Torah commanded the priests to remove the ashes daily from the altar. This involved the priest’s taking a silver pan and going up to the top of the altar, and afterwards “he cleared away the cinders on either side and he scooped up the ashes in the center. He then descended, and when he reached the pavement he turned his face to the north and went along the east side of the ascent for about ten cubits, and then made a heap of the cinders on the pavement three handbreadths away from the ascent” (Tamid 28 b). This process of course did not remove all
³⁵ Yoma 23 b. See my Hebrew commentary p. 29, that the Sage holding this opinion is Rabbi Eliezer.
³⁶ Further, 16:32.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 6:7:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 6:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/6:7:1)

**וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה** הוֹסִיפָהּ הַפָּרָשָׁה הַזּוֹ כְּפִי פְּשׁוּטָהּ אַרְבַּע מִצְוֹת בַּמִּנְחָה, שֶׁתְּהֵא נֶאֱכֶלֶת מַצּוֹת (ויקרא ו':ט'), וְשֶׁתְּהֵא נֶאֱכֶלֶת בַּחֲצַר אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד (שם), וְשֶׁיֹּאכַל אוֹתָהּ כָּל זָכָר בִּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן (ויקרא ו':י"א), וְשֶׁיִּקְדַּשׁ כָּל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בָּהֶן (שם). וּכְפִי מִדְרָשׁוֹ דְּבָרִים הַרְבֵּה מְחֻדָּשִׁים בָּהּ, שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִקְמֶצֶת טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה, וְשֶׁיַּגִּישׁ אוֹתָהּ לִפְנֵי ה' שֶׁהוּא קֶרֶן מַעֲרָבִית וְאֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁהוּא קֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית, וְנִמְצָא שֶׁטְּעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה לְקֶרֶן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית (זבחים סג), "וְהֵרִים מִמֶּנּוּ" - מִן הַמְחֻבָּר, שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן אֶחָד בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים (מנחות כד), וְשֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶֹה מִדָּה לַקֹּמֶץ (שם יט), וְאָמַר "לֹא תֵאָפֶה חָמֵץ" לְהַקִּישׁ כָּל הַמְּלָאכוֹת לָאֲפִיָּה, שֶׁאַף לִישָׁתָהּ וַעֲרִיכָתָהּ וְכָל מַעֲשֶׂה וּמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּהּ עוֹבֵר בְּלָאו וְלוֹקֶה עָלָיו בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ (מנחות נה):

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND THIS IS THE LAW OF THE MEAL-OFFERING. This section, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, adds [to Chapter 2 above where the law of the meal-offering was discussed] four commandments about the meal-offering: that [the residue be] eaten unleavened, that it be eaten *in the Court of the Tent of Meeting*,³⁷ that *every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it*,³⁸ and that whatever touches it becomes holy.³⁹
Now according to the Rabbinical interpretation thereof, there are many new teachings added [in this section, among them being the following]: that even of a meal-offering brought by priests the handful is taken out [and burnt on the altar, in the same way as the residue which must be burnt on the altar];⁴⁰ burnt (further, Verse 16). The question appears: is it necessary that a handful thereof be taken by a priest and be burnt separately on the altar, or that the whole meal-offering should be burnt at the same time as a unit? According to the text in Ramban before us, the answer is clearly in the affirmative. Scholars, however, have pointed to the Talmud (in Menachoth 72 b) where the conclusion is contrary to this text. The suggestion has therefore been made that the text here is faulty, and should be emended to read: “that even a meal-offering of priests requires ‘oil and frankincense’” (mentioned in Verse 8). See my Hebrew commentary, p. 29. that the priest must bring it near *before the Eternal*⁴¹ which means to the western corner [of the altar, since the Tent of Meeting where the ark of the covenant stood, was to the west of the altar, and therefore nearest to it], and *in front of the altar*⁴¹ which means to the southern corner [since the ramp of the altar which is its “front,” was on the south side thereof]. Thus you find that it had to be “presented” [i.e., brought near] to the southwestern corner of the altar. [And this section further teaches:] *And he shall take up from it*⁴² a handful — “from it” as one joined mass, meaning that he is not to bring one tenth of an ephah of flour [which is the amount brought for a meal-offering] in two receptacles [but it must be a full tenth of an ephah in one receptacle], nor is he to make a fixed measure that holds as much as his handful [to remove the amount of flour for the altar, but he must do it with his hand]. He also states, *It shall not be baked as anything leavened*.⁴³ This is to liken all the stages of work [in the preparation of the meal-offering] to baking, thus teaching that one is also liable for kneading and rolling it if it be leavened, and that for each and every such act he transgresses a negative commandment and is liable to whipping on each count.

footnotes:
³⁷ Verse 9.
³⁸ Verse 11.
³⁹ “So that it becomes exactly like the meal-offering — that if it had become disqualified to be eaten, the food which touched it is also disqualified. And if the meal-offering was fit to be eaten, the other food must also be eaten under the same stringency as the meal-offering” (Rashi, Verse 11).
⁴⁰ If a meal-offering is brought by a non-priest, a handful of it is taken off by a priest and burnt on the altar, while the residue is eaten by the priests. Now the Torah specifies, however, that if the meal-offering is brought by a priest, it is to be wholly
⁴¹ In Verse 7 before us.
⁴¹ In Verse 7 before us.
⁴² Verse 8.
⁴³ Verse 10.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 6:10:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 6:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/6:10:1)

**חֶלְקָם נָתַתִּי אֹתָהּ מֵאִשָּׁי** שֶׁאַף לְחַלֵּק אֵינָם רַשָּׁאִין אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מַתְּנוֹת הָאִשִּׁים, וּמִכָּאן לָמַדְנוּ לְכָל הַקֳּדָשִׁים, דִּכְתִיב "קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הִיא" (תורת כהנים פרק ג ב). וְלֹא תֵאָפֶה חָמֵץ חֶלְקָם, שֶׁאַף הַשִּׁירַיִם אֲסוּרִים בְּחִמּוּץ (מנחות נה), וְכַחַטָּאת וְכָאָשָׁם לִמֵּד מַה חַטָּאת מִן חֻלִּין בַּיּוֹם וּבְיַד יְמָנִית אַף זוֹ מִן הַחֻלִּין בַּיּוֹם וּבְיַד יְמָנִית (תורת כהנים פ"ג ג). וְכָל זָכָר בִּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן - שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין בַּמַּחְלֹקֶת (זבחים צח), וְהוֹסִיפָה בַּכֹּהֲנִים "וְכָל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל" (ויקרא ו':ט"ז), וְאָמַר הָרַב בַּמּוֹרֶה הַנְּבֻכִים (ג מו) כִּי הַטַּעַם בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁכָּל כֹּהֵן מַקְרִיב קָרְבָּנוֹ הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ, וְאִם יַקְרִיב מִנְחָה וְיֹאכְלֶנָּה הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ כְּאִלּוּ לֹא הִקְרִיב דָּבָר, כִּי מִנְחַת יָחִיד לֹא יַקְרִיב מִמֶּנָּה כִּי אִם הַלְּבוֹנָה וְהַקֹּמֶץ, וְלֹא דַּי מִעוּט זֶה הַקָּרְבָּן אֶלָּא שֶׁיֹּאכְלֶנּוּ וְיִדְמֶה שֶׁלֹּא הִקְרִיב קָרְבָּן כְּלָל, וְלָכֵן יִשְׂרְפוּ אֶת כֻּלָּהּ:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
I HAVE GIVEN IT AS THEIR PORTION OF MY OFFERINGS. Even to apportion it [i.e., the residue of the meal-offering which the priests are to eat] they are not permitted to do until after the parts given to the fire [i.e., the handful] have gone up on the altar. It is from here that we learn that the same law applies to all hallowed offerings, as it is written, *I have given it as their portion of My offerings; it is most holy*.⁴⁴
*It shall not be baked as anything leavened. Their portion* …⁴⁵ … The juxtaposition of the word *chelkam* (their portion) to the word *chametz* (leavened) is the reason for the Rabbis’ interpretation that the portion the priests receive from the meal-offering, neither may be baked with leaven. — even the residue [which the priests receive as their share of the meal-offering] may not be baked with leaven. *As the sin-offering, and as the guilt-offering* — this teaches that just as the sin-offering must come from ordinary money,⁴⁶ (further, 16:6), that is, from the money which belongs to him. Sacred money, on the other hand, is not completely his to dispose of as he wishes. and can be offered only at daytime, and the priest performs all its acts with his right arm — so also this meal-offering must come from ordinary money, and be brought at daytime, and its acts must be performed with the priest’s right hand. *Every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it*³⁸ — it may be apportioned even amongst those priests who have a bodily blemish [such as are mentioned further in Chapter 21:16-21 as disqualifying them from performing the acts of offering, but they may eat the residue of the meal-offering].
Now with regards to the meal-offering of the priests He added [this command]: *And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten*.⁴⁷ On this the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim⁴⁸ that the reason [for the meal-offering of the priest being entirely burnt] is because every priest offered up his own meal-offering himself, and if he were to offer it and eat the residue of it himself, it would appear as if he had brought no offering. For nothing was offered of an ordinary individual’s meal-offering⁴⁹ (the meal-offering of the individual). except the frankincense and the handful of the flour. If then, in addition to the fact that the whole offering was small, he who offered it were to eat it himself, he would imagine⁵⁰ (and he will imagine).” Such is the text in Al Charizi’s translation of the Moreh Nebuchim, which Ramban follows. The intent would seem to be that the priest who is offering his own meal-offering will imagine that he has performed no Divine Service, and therefore he might violate the laws regarding the eating of the residue. Hence the Torah prohibited him from eating it. In Ibn Tibbon’s translation, however, the reading is: “*V’lo yeira’eh* (and it will not appear),” that is, to others, that a Service has been performed, and therefore they will hold the priest in disregard for eating it. That is why the Torah commanded that it be wholly burnt. that he had brought no offering at all. Therefore [the Torah required] that it be entirely burnt.

footnotes:
⁴⁴ The verse thus says that the reason, why the priests are not permitted even to apportion the residue of the meal-offering amongst themselves until the altar’s share has gone up as a fire offering, is because the meal-offering is most holy, therefore it follows that the same principle applies to all offerings, since they are all holy.
⁴⁵ The Hebrew text reads: lo thei’apheh chametz chelkam
⁴⁶ One who is required to bring a sin-offering because of a transgression committed, cannot use sacred money [such as money of the Second Tithe, and the like]; but he must take some of his ordinary money and buy the offering with it. This principle is derived from the verse, And Aaron shall offer the bull of the sin-offering ‘which is his’
³⁸ Verse 11.
⁴⁷ Verse 16.
⁴⁸ Guide of the Perplexed III, 46.
⁴⁹ The meal-offerings which accompanied the Daily and Additional Offerings brought in the name of all Israel, were wholly burnt on the altar (Menachoth 73 b). Hence Rambam speaks of the minchath yachid
⁵⁰ “V’yidmeh


###### Ramban on Leviticus 6:18:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 6:18:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/6:18:1)

**זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַחַטָּאת** הָיָה הַצִּוּוּי בְּסֵדֶר וַיִּקְרָא עוֹלָה וּמִנְחָה וְזֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים וְהַחַטָּאת וְהָאָשָׁם, כִּי בַּתְּחִלָּה דִּבֵּר בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַנְּדָבָה וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַחוֹבָה עַל חֵטְא. אֲבָל בְּכָאן הָיָה הַבֵּאוּר לָעוֹלָה וְלַמִּנְחָה וְאח"כ בַּחַטָּאת וּבָאָשָׁם, כִּי רָצָה לְבָאֵר דִּינֵי קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים כִּי הַמִּשְׁפָּט אֶחָד לָהֶם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר בַּמִּנְחָה (ויקרא ו':י') "קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הִיא כַּחַטָּאת וְכָאָשָׁם", וְאַחֲרֵי כֵּן יְבָאֵר דִּין קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים. וְהִנֵּה יְחַדֵּשׁ בְּפָרָשָׁה זוֹ דְּבָרִים רַבִּים, "זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַחַטָּאת" - תּוֹרָה אַחַת לְכָל הַחַטָּאוֹת, שֶׁאַף חַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת דָּמָן טָעוּן כִּבּוּס, יָכוֹל אַף חַטַּאת הָעוֹף, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "זֹאת". וְאָמַר "בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר תִּשָּׁחֵט הָעֹלָה תִּשָּׁחֵט הַחַטָּאת לִפְנֵי ה'" - שֶׁכָּל הַחַטָּאוֹת לֹא תְּהֵא שְׁחִיטָתָן אֶלָּא בַּצָּפוֹן (שם מח), לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר כֵּן בְּפָרָשַׁת וַיִּקְרָא אֶלָּא בְּחַטַּאת נָשִׂיא (ד כד) וְיָחִיד (ד כט), וְכָאן נִתְרַבּוּ כֻּלָּן, חַטֹּאות הַצִּבּוּר וְחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת. עוֹד דָּרְשׁוּ (תורת כהנים פרשה ג ב) "קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים" - לְרַבּוֹת שַׁלְמֵי הַצִּבּוּר שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא שְׁחִיטָתָן אֶלָּא בַּצָּפוֹן, לְפִי שֶׁבְּכָל קָדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים הִטְעִין צָפוֹן. "הִיא" - פְּרָט לְתוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר. וְעוֹד נָתַן עַתָּה בְּשַׂר הַחַטָּאוֹת לִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן (ויקרא ו':כ"ב), וְצִוָּה שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּהָ בַּחֲצַר אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד (ויקרא ו':י"ט) הַזְּכָרִים מֵהֶן וְלֹא בְּנוֹת אַהֲרֹן, וְחִדֵּשׁ דִּינִין הַרְבֵּה בַּנִּבְלָעִים מִן הַחַטָּאת (ויקרא ו':כ'-כ"א):

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SIN-OFFERING. In *Seder Vayikra* He commanded concerning [the offerings in the following order]: the burnt-offering, the meal-offering, the peace-offerings, the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, [the reason for this order being] that at first He spoke about the freewill offerings [namely the burnt-offering, the meal-offering and the peace-offerings], and afterwards He mentioned those offerings which are obligatory upon the sinner. Here, however, [in *Seder Tzav*] the explanation is given first in connection with the burnt-offering and meal-offering, and only then about the sin-offering and guilt-offering, because He wished to explain the laws of the most holy offerings [in one group], since there is one law for them all, as He said [above in Verse 10] with reference to the meal-offering, *it is most holy, as the sin-offering and the guilt-offering*, and only afterwards He explains the law of those offerings which are less holy [namely, the peace-offerings].
Now in this section [dealing with the sin-offering] He added many new laws. [The verse] *This is the law of the sin-offering* teaches that there is one law for all sin-offerings,⁵¹ or *torath* (“law” or “law of”) at the beginning of a section, denotes inclusion, while *hi* denotes exclusion. So also the word *zoth* (this), as it says here in this case, *zoth torath* … (*this is the law of* …), means exclusion. meaning that even the blood of “the inner sin-offerings”⁵² sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [*zoth*] *‘torath’ hachatath* (*this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering*), and the word *torath* denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering. [if sprinkled upon a garment] must be washed off [*in a holy place*]. I might think that this applies also to a sin-offering brought from a bird, Scripture therefore says *zoth* [*‘zoth’ torath hachatath* (*‘this’ is the law of the sin-offering*) — and the word *zoth* denotes exclusion]. He also states here [in the verse before us], *in the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered shall the sin-offering be slaughtered before the Eternal*, thus indicating that all sin-offerings must be slaughtered only on the northern side of the altar, since in the section of *Vayikra* this was stated only with reference to the sin-offering of the prince⁵³ and of the individual;⁵⁴, Verses 29, 33. therefore here [in this section] they are all included — the sin-offerings of the public and “the inner sin-offerings.”⁵² sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [*zoth*] *‘torath’ hachatath* (*this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering*), and the word *torath* denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering.
The Rabbis have further interpreted: *Most holy*, this comes to include the peace-offerings of the public,⁵⁵, and they were considered of a lesser degree of holiness. Only once a year, namely, on the Festival of Shevuoth, were peace-offerings brought by the public (see further, 23:19). These were considered among “the most holy offerings.” Offerings which were most holy were slaughtered on the north side of the altar, and could be eaten only by male priests, within the Court of the Sanctuary, during the same day and night; those that were holy to a lesser degree were slaughtered in any part of the Court, and could be eaten by any person, within the enclosed city of Jerusalem, for two days and the intervening night. The thanks-offering and the Nazirite’s ram, though holy to a lesser degree, could be eaten only the same day and the ensuing night. teaching that they may only be slaughtered on the northern side of the altar, as all offerings of the most holy degree are required to be slaughtered on the northern side. *Hi* (it is) — *‘it is’ the most holy*, comes to exclude the thanks-offering⁵⁶ and the ram of the Nazirite⁵⁷). [thus teaching that they may be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple Court, as their holiness is of a lesser degree]. He further commanded here to give the meat of the sin-offerings to the sons of Aaron⁵⁸ — that is, to the males and not the daughters of Aaron — and commanded them to eat it *within the Court of the Tent of Meeting*.⁵⁹ In addition He mentioned [in this section] many new laws concerning absorption [of the taste of] the sin-offerings [by the vessels in which they are boiled].⁶⁰

footnotes:
⁵¹ See Note 16 above, that the term torah
⁵² Sin-offerings were of two kinds: (a) those whose blood was sprinkled on the outer altar, and are therefore referred to as the “outer sin-offerings.” These included most of the sin-offerings. After the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats, the meat was eaten by the priests, (b) The second group was called “the inner sin offerings,” because their blood was taken into the interior of the Sanctuary to be sprinkled in front of the Veil overhanging the Holy of Holies, as well as on the golden altar (see above, 4:6-7; 17-18), and on the Day of Atonement also in front of the ark (further, 16:14-15). These sin-offerings were wholly burnt outside the camp [and later, after the Sanctuary was built, they were burnt outside the city of Jerusalem]. — Now here in Verse 20 Scripture states the law regarding “the outer
⁵³ Above, 4:24.
⁵⁴ Ibid.
⁵² Sin-offerings were of two kinds: (a) those whose blood was sprinkled on the outer altar, and are therefore referred to as the “outer sin-offerings.” These included most of the sin-offerings. After the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats, the meat was eaten by the priests, (b) The second group was called “the inner sin offerings,” because their blood was taken into the interior of the Sanctuary to be sprinkled in front of the Veil overhanging the Holy of Holies, as well as on the golden altar (see above, 4:6-7; 17-18), and on the Day of Atonement also in front of the ark (further, 16:14-15). These sin-offerings were wholly burnt outside the camp [and later, after the Sanctuary was built, they were burnt outside the city of Jerusalem]. — Now here in Verse 20 Scripture states the law regarding “the outer
⁵⁵ Peace-offerings could be brought only by an individual
⁵⁶ Further, 7:12. The thanks-offering is a form of peace-offering, and is therefore holy to a lesser degree.
⁵⁷ Numbers 6:14. The ram of the Nazirite is a peace-offering (ibid.
⁵⁸ Verse 22.
⁵⁹ Verse 19.
⁶⁰ Verse 21.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 6:20:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 6:20:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/6:20:1)

**תְּכַבֵּס בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ** הֶחְמִיר הַכָּתוּב בַּדָּם הַנִּבְלָע בַּבֶּגֶד לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר הָיָה קֹדֶם הַזָּיָה שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים. וְאָמַר "וּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר תְּבֻשַּׁל בּוֹ יִשָּׁבֵר" וְאַף הוּא בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ הוּא נִשְׁבָּר וְהַחֲרָסִים נִבְלָעִין בִּמְקוֹמָם, וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין בּוֹ מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה כְּלָל. וְכֵן הַמְּרִיקָה וְהַשְּׁטִיפָה בִּכְלִי נְחֹשֶׁת בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ הוּא, כִּי כָל הַכְּתוּבִים נִמְשָׁכִים אֶל "מָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ" שֶׁהִזְכִּיר:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
THOU SHALT WASH IT IN A HOLY PLACE. Scripture laid down a strict law in connection with the blood [of a sin-offering] which became absorbed by a garment, giving it the law it [the blood] had before it was sprinkled [on the garment, namely] that it may not be taken outside the curtains⁶¹ [and therefore it must be washed within the Court]. He states, *and the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken*.⁶⁰ This too is to be broken in the holy place [i.e., within the Court], and the pieces of pottery are swallowed up in the place [where they are broken],⁶² and there does not have to be any scouring and rinsing at all [as required if it was boiled in a copper pot]. Similarly, the scouring and rinsing required if [the meat of the sin-offering] was boiled in a copper pot⁶⁰ have to be done in a holy place, for all the verses [i.e., Verses 20-21] are connected with “the holy place” mentioned [above in Verse 19: *in ‘a holy place’ shall it be eaten, in the Court of the Tent of Meeting*].

footnotes:
⁶¹ The Court of the Tabernacle was enclosed by curtains (see Exodus 27:9-16). In the Sanctuary at Jerusalem it was surrounded by a wall. The sense of the expression is thus identical in both cases, namely, the Temple Court.
⁶⁰ Verse 21.
⁶² Yoma 21 a. This was one of the regular miracles which occurred in the Sanctuary.
⁶⁰ Verse 21.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 6:23:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 6:23:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/6:23:1)

**וְכָל חַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר יוּבָא מִדָּמָהּ** שֶׁאִם הִכְנִיס מִדַּם חַטָּאת הַחִיצוֹנָה לִפְנִים פְּסוּלָה, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא ו':כ"ג). וּכְפִי הַדַּעַת הַזּוֹ מַה שֶׁאָמַר "לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ" אֵינוֹ כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, שֶׁזּוֹ אֵינָהּ מְכַפֶּרֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי נִפְסְלָה בַּהֲבָאָה זוֹ, וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה הַפְּסוּל שֶׁלָּהּ הִיא נִשְׂרֶפֶת. אֲבָל אָמַר "לְכַפֵּר" שֶׁאִם הִכְנִיסָהּ לִפְנִים עַל דַּעַת לְכַפֵּר, שֶׁיַּזֶּה מִמֶּנָּה שָׁם כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת פְּנִימִית, אע"פ שֶׁלֹּא כִּפֵּר בָּהּ, כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא הִזָּה מִדָּמָהּ כְּלוּם, נִפְסְלָה מִשְּׁעַת כְּנִיסָה וְתִשָּׂרֵף. וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁאִם הִכְנִיסָהּ עַל דַּעַת שֶׁלֹּא לְהַזּוֹת מִמֶּנָּה כְּלָל, שֶׁתְּהֵא כְּשֵׁרָה. וּכְדִבְרֵי ר' שִׁמְעוֹן (זבחים פב) אֵינָהּ פְּסוּלָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן כִּפֵּר בְּדָמָהּ, שֶׁעָשָׂה בָּהּ הַזָּאוֹת כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת פְּנִימִית, וּלְכָךְ אָמַר הַכָּתוּב "לְכַפֵּר", לֹא שֶׁכִּפְּרָה אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא הֵבִיא מִדָּמָהּ לְכַפֵּר בָּהּ וְכִפֵּר כְּפִי מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ. וּפֵרוּשׁ "לִפְנִים" שֶׁהִכְנִיס הַדָּם לַהֵיכָל. וְכֵן אִם הִכְנִיס מִדַּם פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ וְהֶעְלֵם דָּבָר וּשְׂעִירֵי ע"ז לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים, שֶׁכֻּלָּן לִפְנִים מִמְּקוֹמָן הִכְנִיסָן וּפְסוּלִין. וְאָמַר "מִדָּמָהּ" שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ מִקְצָת דָּמָהּ פּוֹסֵל, שֶׁאִם קִבֵּל דָּמָהּ בִּשְׁנֵי כּוֹסוֹת וְהִכְנִיס אֶחָד מֵהֶן לִפְנִים פְּסוּלָה (שם). וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ הַפְּשָׁט אֵין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בַּחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת שֶׁצִּוָּה כְּבָר בִּשְׂרֵפָתָן וּבָא כָּאן לִתֵּן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתָן, כִּי הַפָּרָשָׁה לְהַשְׁלִים דִּינֵי הַחַטָּאוֹת. וְזֶהוּ מִדְרָשׁוֹ שֶׁל רַ' יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (פרק ח ח) וּבִזְבָחִים (שם):

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND EVERY SIN-OFFERING, WHEREOF ANY OF THE BLOOD IS BROUGHT INTO THE TENT OF MEETING etc. “This means that if the priest brought any of the blood of ‘an outer sin-offering’⁵² sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [*zoth*] *‘torath’ hachatath* (*this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering*), and the word *torath* denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering. into the interior of the Sanctuary it becomes invalidated, [and the offering may not be eaten, and must be burnt].” Thus the language of Rashi. According to this opinion, the phrase *to atone in the holy place* which Scripture says [in continuation], is not to be understood in its simple sense, since this blood does not [in fact] bring atonement, for it became invalidated as soon as it was brought into the Sanctuary, and it is on account of that very invalidation that it is to be burnt. Rather, the expression *to atone* means [according to Rashi] that if he brought it into the interior “with the intent to atone,” [namely] to sprinkle there of its blood as is done with the blood of “the inner sin-offerings,”⁵² sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [*zoth*] *‘torath’ hachatath* (*this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering*), and the word *torath* denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering. even though he has not [in fact] atoned with it, meaning that he has not sprinkled any of its blood, it is nonetheless invalidated from the moment of entry, and [the offering] is to be burnt. It is possible according to this that if he brought it in with the intent of not sprinkling thereof at all [in the Sanctuary], that the offering remains valid. According to the words of Rabbi Shimon,⁶³ it only becomes invalidated if he “atoned” with the blood, meaning that he actually sprinkled thereof in the same manner as is done in the case of “the inner sin-offerings” [i.e., in front of the Veil and on the comers of the golden altar].⁶⁴ It is for this reason that Scripture states *to atone* — not [meaning] that he actually effected atonement, but that he brought of its blood to atone with it, and, according to his thinking, effected atonement. The meaning of the term “into the interior” [which Rashi mentioned above] is “into the Sanctuary.” The same [is also the meaning of the phrase] “if he brought into the ‘interior of the interior’ [i.e., the Holy of Holies]” of the bullock of the anointed priest,⁶⁵, Verses 4-7. or that of “forgetting a matter of law,”⁶⁶, Verses 13-18. or of the goats brought for worshipping the idols,⁶⁷ namely that if he brought their blood into a more interior place than that designated for them, [since in these cases of sin-offering the blood is to be brought into the Sanctuary proper to effect atonement], then the offerings become invalidated. Scripture states *‘of’ the blood* in order to indicate that even bringing in part of the blood invalidates the offering. Thus if the priest received the blood in two cups, and brought only one of them into the interior, the offering is invalidated.
By way of the plain meaning of Scripture,⁶⁸ outer *sin-offering whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the holy place*, according to the priest’s intent which was not, however, in accordance with the law — since the blood of an outer sin-offering is to be sprinkled upon the outer altar — that offering *shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire*.” Ramban is now to suggest a totally different interpretation, namely, that the verse is not speaking of *outer* sin-offerings wrongly brought in, but establishes the principle that all “*inner* sin-offerings” [as enumerated in the text: “the bullock of the anointed priest etc.”] the blood of which *is* regularly brought into the interior, are not to be eaten by the priests, unlike that of “the outer sin-offerings,” whose meat is eaten by the priests (see Note 52 above). Ramban will conclude by saying that this is the interpretation of one of the Sages in the Torath Kohanim and Talmud. the verse speaks only with reference to “the inner sin-offerings,” concerning the burning of which He had already commanded,⁶⁹ and here Scripture came to add a negative commandment against eating them,⁷⁰ for this section is intended to complete the laws of sin-offerings.⁷¹ sin-offerings [which are eaten], Scripture wished to complete here all laws pertaining to all sin-offerings, and thus we may interpret Verse 23 as indeed referring to *inner* sin-offerings (see note 68 above). This is the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean in the Torath Kohanim⁷² 8:5. and in Tractate Zebachim.⁷³

footnotes:
⁵² Sin-offerings were of two kinds: (a) those whose blood was sprinkled on the outer altar, and are therefore referred to as the “outer sin-offerings.” These included most of the sin-offerings. After the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats, the meat was eaten by the priests, (b) The second group was called “the inner sin offerings,” because their blood was taken into the interior of the Sanctuary to be sprinkled in front of the Veil overhanging the Holy of Holies, as well as on the golden altar (see above, 4:6-7; 17-18), and on the Day of Atonement also in front of the ark (further, 16:14-15). These sin-offerings were wholly burnt outside the camp [and later, after the Sanctuary was built, they were burnt outside the city of Jerusalem]. — Now here in Verse 20 Scripture states the law regarding “the outer
⁵² Sin-offerings were of two kinds: (a) those whose blood was sprinkled on the outer altar, and are therefore referred to as the “outer sin-offerings.” These included most of the sin-offerings. After the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats, the meat was eaten by the priests, (b) The second group was called “the inner sin offerings,” because their blood was taken into the interior of the Sanctuary to be sprinkled in front of the Veil overhanging the Holy of Holies, as well as on the golden altar (see above, 4:6-7; 17-18), and on the Day of Atonement also in front of the ark (further, 16:14-15). These sin-offerings were wholly burnt outside the camp [and later, after the Sanctuary was built, they were burnt outside the city of Jerusalem]. — Now here in Verse 20 Scripture states the law regarding “the outer
⁶³ Zebachim 83 a.
⁶⁴ See above, 4:6-7.
⁶⁵ Ibid.
⁶⁶ Ibid.
⁶⁷ Numbers 15:24.
⁶⁸ Thus far we have followed the interpretation of Rashi which is based upon sources in the Talmud, which was as follows: “and every
⁶⁹ Above, 4:12, 21.
⁷⁰ The command in Chapter 4 is a positive one; Ramban is saying that the verse here adds to this a negative command, not to eat of the flesh, in addition to the positive one to burn it. There is thus an additional penalty for one who eats of it.
⁷¹ Ramban means to say that although Verses 17-22 clearly speak of outer
⁷² Torath Kohanim, Tzav
⁷³ Zebachim 82 a.