## Tur HaArokh, Leviticus

###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:1:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:1:1)

**ויקרא אל משה.**כתב הרמב"ן לאחר שסיים בענין אהל מועד וכבוד ד' מלא את המשכן צוהו בקרבנות ובשמירת המשכן שיהיו הקרבנות כפרה להם ולא יגרמו העוונות לסלוק השכינה וציום בכהנים שיתקדשו ויזהרו בטומאת מקדש וקדשיו ולא יהרסו לעלות אל ה' כמו שנאמר דבר אל אהרן ואל יבא בכל עת וגו' ואחר כן הגביל המשכן בהגבלת הר סיני בעת היות שם כבוד ה'. ורוב הספר בתורת הקרבן והמקריבין ובמקום שיתקרב בו ויבואו בו קצת מצות נגררות עם אלה כי מתחלה צוה בקרבנות הנדבה ואיסור החלב והדם בעבורם ואחר כן בקרבנות החטא ונגרר אחר זה להזכיר המאכלים האסורים בעבור שהם מטמאים והאוכל או הנוגע בהם בכל קודש לא יגע ואל המקדש לא יבא והוצרך להזכיר תורת המצות (המצורע?) ומשפט היולדת והזב והזבה לחייב אותם בקרבן ולהזהיר עוד בטומאתם ונגרר אחר זה שיזהיר על העריות כי משכבם מטמא ועונם יקרא טומאה וגורם לסלוק השכינה ועוד כי השוגג בהם מחויב חטאת שהזכיר כבר בואם נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה ואחרי כן מצות שבת ומועדי ד' בעבור הקרבן שמקריבין בהם ורוב הפרשיות בענין זה ידבר עם הכהנים דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו. צו את אהרן ואת בניו. ובפ' קדושים קצת מצות לבני ישראל רובם נגררין על עניין הקרבנות או בדומים להם. ולא אמר ויקרא ה' אל משה משו' דקאי אלעיל דכתיב וכבוד ה' מלא וגו' ועלה קאי ויקרא. כתב הרמב"ן דר"זל דלכל האמירות והצוויין קדמה קריאה ולא כתב אותו אלא כאן שהוא תחלת הדבור שהי' אליו מאהל מועד לומר שזה היה משפטו כל הימים בכל התורה. ולדעתם מאהל מועד הוא מוקדם ופירושו ויקרא אליו מאהל מועד וידבר אליו באהל כי משה שם היה. ולפי פשוטו בעבור שכבוד ה' מלא את אהל מועד לא היה משה רשאי לבא בענן עד שקורא לו כמו בהר סיני שנאמר ויקרא אל משה ביום הז' מתוך הענן. וי"א דהיינו דאמרינן בפרק אין דורשין דכל דבור ודבור שיצא מפי הקב"ה נעשה מלאך כאדם השולח מלאכו לפניו לקרוא למי שירצה ואחר כך מדבר עמו וזהו ויקרא על ידי מלאך ואחר כך וידבר אליו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ויקרא אל משה, “He called to Moses, etc.” Nachmanides, explaining the sequence of the portions in the Torah, writes that after having concluded with the construction of the Tabernacle, a subject which dominated the last four portions with the exception of *Parshat Ki Tissa,* the Torah now turns its attention to the legislation governing the sacrificial offerings to be brought in the Tabernacle. This is the logical corollary after we have been told that G’d’s glory manifested itself and enveloped the Tabernacle.
 Part of the legislation about the offerings, are the laws governing who has access to the Tabernacle, and who, even if basically entitled to perform service in the Tabernacle, is temporarily forbidden to do so due to his being in a state of ritual impurity or due to his being drunk. Even the High Priest himself, without being drunk or impure, is forbidden to enter certain parts of the Tabernacle except for a specific purpose on a specific day. (Leviticus,16,2). The priests not only must not be ritually impure when entering the Tabernacle, but they must sanctify themselves prior to performing their service. This additional requirement is based on the presence of the “glory of G’d” in the Tabernacle.
 Most of the Book of Leviticus deals with sacrificial offerings, the kind of people who present these sacrifices, either voluntary or mandatory, as well as the precise location where these sacrifices are to be offered. There is also a relatively short list of commandments which in one way or another are directly linked to such sacrifices, i.e. which bring in their wake the need to present such sacrifices by the individuals concerned. For instance, the Book opens with voluntary offerings by individuals, and the laws pertaining to them, necessitating the recording of the prohibition for certain fat parts of the animals, as well as all blood, to be forbidden to be eaten.
 Afterwards, as a corollary of the sin offering, parts of which are consumed by the priests, this brings in its wake the need to inform us generally about which animals may and which may not be eaten. These animals, or even basically “kosher” animals, that have not been killed by ritual slaughter, bring in their wake ritual uncleanness, and confer such on people in contact with them. We read about certain diseases that have a religious background, and therefore are not subject to treatment by physicians, but require the offering of sacrifices upon their termination. Women who have given birth are required to offer certain sacrifices, and are subject to varying degrees of ritual uncleanness for a period of time after they have given birth. The subject of ritual purity is enlarged upon by the laws about incest, and forbidden sexual unions. Women who are menstruating become ritually unclean even to their husbands, until, in due course, they have purified themselves in a ritual bath. The majority of the portions of this Book address themselves specifically to the priests in one way or another.
 *Parshat Kedoshim* contains a number of laws applying to all Israelites equally, especially laws governing inter-personal relationships, laws designed to ensure a civilization that functions with minimum inequalities.
 If the Book commences with the words “Someone called to Moses,” instead of the customary “G’d called to Moses, or similar, this is to remind us that though we are dealing with a separate Book, the train of thought with which the Book of Exodus concluded, i.e. that the glory of *Hashem* filled and enveloped the Tabernacle is continued here without a break, the Torah now detailing the service to be performed in that Tabernacle. In other words, the subject of the word ויקרא is the כבוד ה' described in Exodus
 Nachmanides also writes that our sages derive from this introductory word ויקרא, that all conversations initiated by G’d were preceded by a call to prepare Moses that he was about to be addressed by the *Shechinah.* The word appears only here, as this was the first time Moses was being addressed by a dimension of *Hashem* in His terrestrial domain, the Tabernacle. Henceforth, this was the standard procedure all the time the Israelites remained in the desert. According to our sages’ understanding, the words מאהל מועד in our context actually have to be understood as if they had been written in an earlier part of our verse, i.e. ויקרא אליו מאהל מועד וידבר אליו באהל כי משה היה שם, “He called to him from the Tent of Meeting and spoke to him because Moses was there.” 
 According to the plain meaning of the text, the meaning is slightly different. Seeing that the glory of G’d filled the Tabernacle, Moses was unable to enter it until he would be invited in, (Exodus 40,35) just as had happened at the revelation at Mount Sinai seven months earlier, when he had been invited to ascend the Mountain. Our verse then describes that on the seventh day of the inaugural rites, the day preceding the first of *Nissan,* G’d called to Moses out of the Tabernacle, the voice appearing to come out of the cloud.
 Some commentators believe that what is described here is the basis of the statement in the Talmud *Chagigah* 14 that every utterance of the Almighty creates an angel that (allegorically speaking) walks in front of Him, as would the page or standard bearer of a terrestrial king. After this angel had alerted Moses to the approach of G’d, He would commence to speak to him directly, or to anyone else whom G’d wished to speak to.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:1:2
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:1:2)

**אליו.**למעט את אהרן ובכל מקום שנאמר וידבר ד' אל משה ואל אהרן פי' שיאמר אותו לאהרן להיותו שליח בדבר כמותו ובשליחות הדבור לישראל הושוו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
אליו, “to him;” This apparently superfluous word is meant to alert us to the fact that G’d addressed Moses exclusively, and that Aaron was not included in this communication. Whenever, elsewhere, the Torah writes: “G’d spoke to Moses and Aaron,” the meaning is that Moses was to inform Aaron of what G’d had communicated to him at that time. Aaron was to be a go between, שליח, from that moment on, equal to Moses in carrying out G’d’s instructions.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:2:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:2:1)

**מן הבהמה וגו'.**בשביל שחיה בכלל בהמה פרט אחר כך דוקא מן הבקר ומן הצאן ולא חיה שלא רצה הקב"ה להטריח את ישראל להביא קרבן מדבר שאינו מצוי בידם. אי נמי לכך לא צוה להביא קרבן מן החיה לפי שאינה בכלל ברכה במעשה בראשית שלא בירך לחיות בשביל הנחש ולכך הותר חלב החיה לפי שאינו קרב וציוה לכסות דמה כיון שאינו נזרק על המזבח:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
מן הבהמה, “from a category of animals,” seeing that free-roaming beasts that have the distinguishing marks that make them fit for consumption by Jews are also referred to as בהמה on occasion, [although they are generally described as חיה, or חית השדה, Ed.] the Torah had to narrow down the description further, adding the words: מן הבקר ומן הצאן, from either the category of cattle (בקר), or flock, (צאן). The reason why G’d did not include the free-roaming beasts that are listed in chapter 11 as fit to eat, to also serve as potential sacrifices, was to save the Israelites the tiresome work of catching these animals without inflicting the kind of injury on them that would disqualify them on account of their being blemished.
 Alternatively, the reason why the Torah did not command us to bring sacrifices from the free-roaming types of animals is that during the period of creation these animals had not received a special blessing. If they had received such a special blessing the serpent would have been included. That animal certainly did not qualify for a blessing. [after the statement that G’d saw that what He had created on the sixth day before reporting the creation of man was good, the blessing which followed at the end of the creative activity on the fourth day is noticeably absent. Ed.]
 The practical result of this is that the חלב, certain fat parts covering the kidneys, etc., are not included in the prohibited parts of the free-roaming beasts, and may be eaten. [King Solomon served gazelles, roebucks, etc. as a part of what he served his guests on a regular basis. He and his guests did not need to remove this part of the gazelle. Ed.] (compare Kings I 5,3). Seeing that the blood of these animals could not be sprinkled on the altar, the Torah commanded that upon slaughtering them, their blood be covered with earth, a symbolic kind of funeral. (Leviticus 17,13)


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:2:2
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:2:2)

**מן הבקר.**להוציא את הטרפה ואיצטריך למעוטה היכא דהוקדשה ולבסוף נטרפה דאילו נטרפה תחלה פשיטא דלא קדשה דאפי' לישראל אסורה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
מן הבקר, “from the cattle;” to exclude “*treifah*” animals, i.e. animals injured to the point where they are not expected to live for 12 months. The reason why a special word had to be written to exclude such animals, was in the event that at the time when said animal had been sanctified as a sacrifice it had been in completely good health we might have thought that the donor of the animal had discharged his duty when the animal he selected had been healthy at the time he dedicated it, The Torah teaches that what is forbidden for the Israelite to eat is likewise forbidden to tender to G’d as an offering (unless specially permitted.)


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:3:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:3:1)

**אל פתח אהל מועד וגו'.**שלא יאמר לכהן קח בהמה שבבית ועשה אותה קרבן שאין זה דרך כבוד של מעלה אלא הוא בעצמו יטפל בה להביאה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
אל פתח אהל מועד, “to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” The Torah needs to tell us that the donor cannot ask the priest to come to his house and pick up the animal he designated as a sacrificial offering. The owner or his messenger has to bring it.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:4:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:4:1)

**וסמך ידו.**פי' שתי ידיו כמו שמצינו במקום אחר וסמך אהרן שתי ידיו וכתב ידו בשביל הדרש שדרשו בו ידו ולא יד שלוחו אע"ג דבעלמא שלוחו של אדם כמותו הכא ממעט שליח:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
וסמך ידו, “He shall lean his hand on it with all his strength.” Although the word ידו is spelled in the singular mode, the meaning is: “his hands.” We find elsewhere that the Torah spells this out, for instance in Leviticus The reason that here the word is spelled in the singular mode is to enable us to derive the *halachah* that the owner of the sacrificial animal personally must do this and not anyone whom he has deputized. This is an exception to the rule that normally שלוחו של אדם כמותו, “a person’s designated messenger has the same legal status as the person himself.”


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:4:2
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:4:2)

**ונרצה לו לכפר עליו.**פירש"י על מה הוא מרצה א"ת על כריתות ומיתות ב"ד או מיתה בידי שמים ומלקות הרי עונשן אמור. והקשה הרמב"ן היכן אמור כי הקרבנות בשוגגין הם מרצין ונוכל לומר שיכפר על חייבי מיתה בידי שמים שוגגין ועל חייבי מלקות שוגגין וכן על חייבי מיתות ב"ד שוגגין באותן שאין חייבים עליהם חטאת כגון מכה אביו ואמו שכשם שחטאת מכפרת בחייבי מיתות ב"ד (כריתות ?) שוגגין כך תכפר עולה בחייבי מלקות ומיתות בידי שמים שוגגין וכן על חייבי מיתות ב"ד שוגגין באותן שאין בהם חטאת. ותירץ אולי בעבור שפירש הכתוב בחייבי מיתות ובחייבי כריתות עונשן במזיד ובשוגג ופירש עונש האחרים במזיד ולא פירש אותו בשוגג לומר שהוא חייב עליהן עולה לכך אמר שאין בחייבי מיתה בידי שמים ובחייבי מלקות אלא עונש המפורש בהן במזיד אבל בשוגג אין עליהם שום נשיאות חטא וזהו שאמר הרי ענשן אמור שכל העונש שרצה להטיל עליהן כבר אמרו הכתוב אבל על עשה ולא תעשה הניתק לעשה המזידין שלא הוזכר בהן שום עונש ואי אפשר שלא יענש בהן בזה העולה מרצה אם יביאנה בנדבת נפשו. ויתכן לומר בעבור שלא הזכיר בקרבנות הנדבה לכפר על שגגתו אשר שגג כאשר אמר בקרבנות החטאת אלא אמר ונרצה לכך דרשו כך שמשמעו שמכפר על המזידים שאין רצון לפניו כי השוגג אע"פ שחטא רצוי השם הוא אם כן אי אפשר לה לכפר על מזידין זולתי על עשה ועל לא תעשה הניתק לעשה שלא נזכר בהן עונש אלא שאינן רצוין למלך בעבור שעברו על מצותו. ואע"ג דאמרינן בעשה ולא תעשה הניתק לעשה דאם עשה תשובה אינו זז משם עד שמוחלין לו ואם לא עשה תשובה זבח רשעים תועבה יש לומר אע"ג דעשה תשובה ומוחלין לו מכופיא אין לו כפרה גמורה עד שיביא העולה. ולפי הפשט פעמים בא לכפר העון שאכל חלב וסבר שהוא שומן שאלו נודע שחלב הי' מביא חטאת ואלו הי' לו ספק הי' מביא אשם תלוי ועתה שסבור ששומן הי' מרצה העולה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ונרצה לו לכפר עליו, “and it shall become acceptable for him to afford him atonement.” *Rashi* already questions where the idea of the donor requiring “atonement” suddenly comes from. He argues that surely, if the guilt of the donor to be atoned for involves capital sins for which execution or death at the hands of heaven is in order, there should have been a warning somewhere spelling out which sin this donor had committed! Even if the sin had “only” been one warranting 39 lashes as penalty, it should have been spelled out somewhere. He concludes that the only sins such a sacrifice could atone for is omission to fulfill some positive commandment, or a negative commandment which is inextricably involved with a positive commandment so that non-observance is not punishable by lashes. *Rashi* is supported by a *baraitha* in *Torat Kohanim.*
 Nachmanides questions “whence do we know that the sacrifice atones for all inadvertently committed sins which when committed intentionally carry the penalty of 39 lashes or death at the hands of heavenly decree altogether?” Perhaps we may assume that this sacrifice atones for sins that are subject to premature death by heavenly decree when committed intentionally, but which have been committed inadvertently, and the Torah had not provided atonement in such a case by a sin offering or guilt offering. as a way of atonement. Striking father or mother are an example of such sins committed inadvertently for which the Torah did not provide explicit penalties when these sins were committed inadvertently. Nachmanides suggests as a possible solution to our query that seeing that in some cases the Torah lists penalties for deliberately committed capital crimes, as well as methods of atonement when these crimes were committed inadvertently, it is reasonable to suppose that where the Torah fails to be specific on that point, the burnt offering, עולה, may well be the vehicle through which such atonement can be secured. This would make the wording of *Rashi’s* commentary more intelligible. The absence of a procedure to secure atonement for such inadvertently committed sins in cases where the Torah failed to spell this out, might otherwise have led us to believe that there is no mechanism for such inadvertently committed sins to be forgiven. *Rashi* picked the two categories of sin by omission for which the Torah had failed to specify a specific path to atonement, i.e. failure to observe a positive commandment [when it is the type which we must look for opportunities to perform, such as the *lulav* on *Sukkot,* as opposed to the building of a protective railing on one’s roof, a commandment only applicable to people who own a house. Ed.] 
 It is further possible that seeing that when the Torah lists specific voluntary offerings, without the wording specifying that such offering atones for a specific sin committed [וכפר על חטאתו אשר חטא, “it will atone for his sin which he had committed unintentionally (or similar as in Leviticus 42, and 5,2),” Ed.], it is clear that the “atonement” mentioned in our verse is for sins of omission (מצות עשה) committed inadvertently. The expression ונרצה, “it will be received with grace,” implies that the person offering this burnt offering had lacked grace in the eyes of the Lord prior to his presenting this offering. If our sages in *Torat* Kohanim interpreted the verse as the offering conferring atonement for intentionally committed sins when the sinner had repented, their reasoning is that anyone who committed inadvertent sins has not fallen out of grace with *Hashem*, so that he does not need to be reinstated in a state of grace, as is suggested by our verse. If that is so, the only deliberate sins that these burnt offerings could atone for are sins of omission, and sins of omission directly involving the transgression of a negative commandment, rather than sins of commission. [seeing, as *Rashi* pointed out, the Torah had spelled out the penalties for violating negative commandments deliberately].
 Even though we have a principle according to which if someone commits a sin of omission or one involving a sin of omission involving also a negative commandment, that repentance achieves atonement immediately, without the offering, or the act of leaning on the animal to be sacrificed, (*Yuma* 86), whereas if he offers the sacrifice without repenting, his offering is rejected as זבח רשעים, the offering of a wicked individual, we need to say that the “forgiveness” mentioned in *Yuma* is not complete until the person concerned has also offered the burnt offering discussed in our verse.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:5:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:5:1)

**ושחט את בן הבקר.**בן משמע שלא יהא זקן. וכן: **בני אהרן.**משמע שיהו בנים ולא זקנים דזקן פסול לעבודה: אי נמי לפי שחטא אהרן במעשה העגל אינו מזכיר שום ציווי בזו הפרשה במעשה הקרבנות לאהרן אלא לבניו והתפלל אהרן ובקש רחמים על זה ונענה ולכך הזכיר בסדר שלאחריו צו את אהרן:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ושחט את בן הבקר, “He will slaughter the young bull, etc.” the word בן means that the bull must not be over age. The word בן is used in a similar way when the Torah refers to בני אהרן in our verse, i.e. over aged priests are not fit to perform this service in the Tabernacle.
 Alternately, the meaning of the word בן here could be that seeing that Aaron personally, as opposed to his sons, had had some active part in the disastrous affair of the golden calf, he is not now charged personally with performing this sacrificial service, and it is reserved for his sons. This led to a prayer by Aaron asking for G’d’s mercy on him. This accounts for the fact that the next portion addresses G’d’s command specifically to Aaron himself, and instructs him as well as his sons to perform the rites involving the burnt offering (as well as others).


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:6:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:6:1)

**והפשיט את העולה.**לפי שמצינו בפ' הנשרפין שנשרפין בעורן פי' בכאן אע"פ שכולה כליל אין העור נשרף וצריכה הפשט:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
והפשיט את העולה, ”he is to skin the burnt offering.” The reason the Torah spelled this out is that other sacrificial offerings that are totally burned up on the altar, do not have their skin removed before their carcass is being burned. (*Zevachim* 5,2)


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:6:2
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:6:2)

**והפשיט. ונתח.**על הבעלים קאי כמו וסמך ושחט כי הפשט ונתוח כשרים בזר ולכך חזר אחר כן:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
והפשיט ונתח, “after he skins it he cuts the carcass into its pieces.” This verse addresses itself to the owners of this offering, just as the verse speaking about the owner leaning on the animal prior to its being slaughtered is addressed to the owner, not to the priest. Seeing that this could cause some confusion, the Torah repeats in verse 7 that the functions described there are to be performed by the young priests.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:7:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:7:1)

**ונתנו בני אהרן.**ואמר לשון רבים ונתנו וערכו כי כן דרך הפסוק בכל מצות כהונה בעבור שהכהנים רבים ומתאספים בבית השם לעשות העולה וברוב עם הדרת מלך:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ונתנו בני אהרן, ”the sons of Aaron are to place the blood, etc.” The reason why the Torah uses the plural mode, -as if one priest by himself could not perform this task- is that it is customary for the Torah when describing the functions performed by the priests in the Tabernacle, to use the plural mode. There used to be numerous priests milling around in the Temple precincts, seeing that there they would be in the proximity of the *Shechinah.* We have the principle of ברוב עם הדרת מלך, when the king is surrounded by a multitude of his subjects this reflects positively on the degree of his glory.” [*Menachot* 62 (et al) where a function is distributed amongst 3 priests although a single one could easily have performed it by himself. Ed.]


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:7:2
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:7:2)

**והפשיט ונתח ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן אש.**כתב הרמב"ן אין זה הסדר שתחלה מערכין המערכה ואחר כן מנתחין העולה וכן הי' סדר המערכה תמיד וכן מה שאמר וערכו בני אהרן הכהנים את הנתחים ואחרי כן והקרב והכרעים ירחץ אין זה צוואה שיעשה כסדר הזה כי העריכה היא הקטר הנתחים שצוה למטה והקטיר הכהן את הכל וא"כ אין הסדר שיעלה הנתחים והראש והפדר על האש שבמזבח ואחרי כן הקרב והכרעים ויקטירם אלא תחלה ונתח וירחץ ואח"כ יעלה הכל על האש ויקטיר. אלא ענין הכתוב שהקדים זריקת הדם ללמד שהיא קודמת לכל דבר ואחר כן צוה בהקטרת האיברים ואמר שיפשיט וינתח אותם להעריך אותם על האש אחר רחיצת הקרב והכרעים ואז יקטירו הכל כאחד וזהו שאמר הכתוב והקטיר הכהן את הכל והכוונה ששנה הכתוב באיברים לומר וערכו על האש וכתב פעם אחרת והקטיר ללמד לאחר שיסדרם על האש לא יניחם עד שיבער בהם האש ויאכל אותם ותעלה מהם הקטורת וכן מה שהקדים הפשט ונתוח למערכת האש ללמד שאין בעולת הנדבה חובה להקדים לה מערכה כעולת תמיד שחובה להקדימה לכל כדכתיב ובער עליה הכהן עצים בבקר בבקר:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
והפשיט ונתח ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן על האש, “after skinning it, the sons of Aaron are to cut it up and place fire on the altar.” Nachmanides points out that the Torah does not describe these procedures in their traditional sequence. The first step in the procedure was the arranging of the woodpile on the altar on which the remains of the animal would be burned. Only after this had been put in place, was the carcass of the burnt offering cut up into pieces.
 Similarly, when the Torah, in verse 8, describes the priests as arranging the pieces in the following order: the head, the fat parts, followed by (verse 9) the innards and the feet, after the latter two have first been washed. This is incorrect, seeing that as soon as the carcass has been cut up the parts that need to be washed are being washed. The sequence reported here is not one that is mandatory. Our verse (5) was only concerned with the sprinkling of the blood being the first step in the various procedures necessary to complete the offering. The final step was the burning up of the *eyvarim,* (Talmud *Tamid 30)*. The Torah hints at this when it adds the words והקטיר הכהן את הכל, “the priest is to burn it all.” 
 The reason why the Torah repeated the command to burn up the various pieces, having first mentioned some parts being placed on the fire, is to teach that after being placed on the fire the priest must not wait until the fire has consumed it all before placing the other parts on the fire to be burned up. When dealing with a burnt offering that is a voluntary offering, there was no need to first arrange the fire properly before proceeding with other steps of the procedure. On the other hand, the daily *tamid* burnt offering, a mandatory public offering both in the morning and evening, paid for by public funds as it represented the whole nation, had to follow the sequence outlined by the Torah in every detail. The woodpile for consuming that offering was arranged meticulously every morning. (Leviticus 6,5)


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:8:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:8:1)

**ואת הפדר.**כתב הרמב"ן תרגם אונקלוס תרבא ואינו שם לחלבים כולם רק לחלב הדק הפרוס ומבדיל בין הקרבים והמלה מן המהפכים מופרד שמפריד בין הקרבים התחתונים לעליונים ולכך אמרו רבותינו שיהא פורס הפדר על בית השחיטה שהחלב ההוא ראוי לפרוס ולכסות בו וכן נהגו חשובי האומות לפרסו על הצלי. ואם הוא שם לכל החלבים נקרא החלב כן בשביל שהוא שומן הנפרד מן הבשר. וכתב הרמב"ם טעם הקרבנות עבור שהמצרים והכשדים שהיו ישראל ביניהם היו עובדים לבקר ולצאן המצרים לטלה והכשדים לשדים אשר ידמו להם כדמות שעירים ואנשי הודו עד היום לא ישחטו בקר ע"כ צוה השם לשחוט ג' מינים האלו לשמו הגדול לידע שהדבר אשר הם חשבו כי הם בתכלית העבודה הוא אשר יקריבו לבורא ית' ובו יתכפרו העונות והאמונות הרעות שהם מדוי הנפש כי כל מדוי וחולי לא יתרפא אלא בהפכו. והרמב"ן כתב כי הם דברי הבאי וכתב כי יותר יש לשמוע הטעם שאומר כי מעשה בני אדם נגמרין במחשבה ובדבור ובמעשה וצוה השם שכאשר יחטא יביא קרבן ויסמוך ידו עליו כנגד המעשה ויתודה בפיו כנגד הדבור וישרוף באש הקרב והכרעים והכליות שהם כלי המחשבה והתאוה והכרעים כנגד ידיו ורגליו ויזרוק הדם על המזבח כנגד דמו שיחשב האדם בעשותו כל אלה שחטא לאלקיו בגופו ונפשו וראוי לו שישפך דמו ותשרף נפשו לולי חסדי השם שלקח ממנו תמורה הקרבן הזה שיהי' דמו תחת דמו ונפשו תחת נפשו ראשי איבריו כנגד ראשי איבריו והמנות להחיות בהם מורי התורה שיתפללו עליו וקרבן (תמיד. כצ"ל) יכפר בעבור שלא ינצלו הרבים מן החטא תמיד. והוא החזיר אותו סוד ואינו מגלה סוד:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ואת הפדר, “and the fats.” Nachmanides in commenting on Onkelos translating the word פדר as meaning ”fat,” writes that this is not a generic term for all the various fat parts of the animal, but refers only to a thin fatty membrane separating between different parts of the innards. The origin of the word פדר is that it is one of the words which appear in forward and backward spelling, i.e. פרד, the same root, spelled in a different order of the letters means “to separate.” The membrane in question separates upper from lower parts within the innards of the ruminants. This is why our sages have said that the priest is to spread out this membrane above the place where the knife made the incision when it slaughtered the animal. This is a way of showing respect for the animal that becomes the instrument of the donor’s achieving atonement for his sin. Dignitaries among the nations of the world were in the habit of spreading this membrane over the part of it that they roasted. If the name פדר were to apply to fatty parts of the animal in general, this would be because the fat parts separate the flesh from the bones, etc.
 Maimonides (*Moreh*, *Nevuchim* third part chapter 46*)* writes that the underlying reason of the legislation involving animal sacrifices is connected to the practices of the Egyptians and the Sumerians. (inhabitants of Mesopotamia, the competing civilization of that of the Egyptians.) Jews who had lived within either civilization observed these people actually deifying cattle and sheep, the Egyptians worshipping sheep, and the Chaldaeans male goats, (satyrs) whereas the Indians worship cows to this day, believing them to be their reincarnated ancestors. It is forbidden to slaughter cows in India, as it is considered equivalent to murdering a god. G’d, in order to instill in us an abhorrence of such forms of paganism, demanded from us to sacrifice these animals, in order to demonstrate that we had been weaned from such mistaken beliefs. By means of these animals being sacrificed as gifts to G’d, we are absolved from deviant philosophical and theological thoughts. False philosophies represent a disease of the soul and therefore the personality, and just like any other disease, can be cured only by applying a medicine that represents the opposite of the harmful substance that causes the disease.
 Nachmanides writes that Maimonides’ writing concerning this subject are worthless, believing that if we are to look for a rationale for animal sacrifice at all, it is better to accept the view that seeing that man’s deeds are the final result of the brain’s thought, the spoken intention to do certain things, and finally, the carrying out in practice of what had been planned and discussed, G’d commanded that in order to rid ourselves of all vestiges of sin we must reverse the process, by first sanctifying the sacrificial animal in our mind, then leaning on it and expressing our remorse with words, and finally, by utterly destroying the symbol of our sin through sprinkling its blood on the altar and burning up the physical remains by fire, we rid ourselves of our having been involved in the sin that led to this process of expiation. During the procedures involving these activities of the priest with the sacrificial animal, the owner is to reflect on all that he had done wrong, as well as on the mercy of the Lord Who accepts the animal’s blood instead of the sinner’s blood. The bodily remains of the animal are accepted by G’d in lieu of our own body, and the animal’s blood is accepted in lieu of our own contaminated soul. Burning of the innards and kidneys are symbolic of the seat of the thoughts of man (according to our tradition). The gifts to the priests performing these procedures are designed to inspire them to pray on our behalf so that the bulk of the Jewish people will be spared and not become enmeshed in sin.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:10:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:10:1)

**ואם מן הצאן.**דינה כדין עולת בקר לכך קיצר בה ולא הזכיר בה וסמך ונרצה. והוסיף בה צפונה ללמד על לפני ה' דבן בקר שהוא בצפון וכתב כאן וערך הכהן ללמד שדי בכהן אחד:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ואם מן הצאן , “and if from the category of flocks, etc.” Seeing that the *halachic* procedures when offering a member of the category known as “flocks,” is the same as that for offering bulls, the only thing emphasised here is that the slaughtering will take place on the northern side of the altar. The use of the singular mode וערך הכהן, as opposed to the normal plural mode וערכו הכהנים, indicates that from an *halachic* point of view a single priest is enough to perform all the procedures listed.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:14:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:14:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:14:1)

**מן התורים או מן בני היונה.**כתב הרמב"ן בחר הכתוב בשני מינין האלה בשביל שהן מצויין יותר כאשר אמרו רבותינו בשור כשב או עז שיקריב מן הגדלים על אבוסו ולא יצטרך לשאת כליו תליו וקשתו לצוד ציד להביא ורצה בתורים הגדולים בעבור פרישותם והדבקם במינם שכיון שאבד בן זוגו לא ידבק באחר לעולם וכן ישראל דבקים בד' אלהיהם ולא ידבקו באל אחר לעולם אבל היונים קנאים מאוד ובקנאתם יתפרדו ויחליפו על כן לא בחר בהם אלא הקטנים קודם שיזדווגו כי היונה בקטנותה אז תופסת אהבה בקן גידוליה יותר מן העופת. והזכירו רבותינו כי כל העופות אם יגע אדם בקן שלהם לקחת משם אפרוח או ביצים יעזבוהו ולא יקננו בו לעולם והיונה לא תעזבוו בשום ענין לכן ישראל לא יחליפו בוראם ותורתם לעולם אלא או יהודי או צלוב ולא בחר בתרנגולים לעומת זנותם:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
מן התורים או מן היונים, “from the turtledoves or from young doves.” Nachmanides writes that the reason the Torah selected only these two birds as suitable for bird-offerings, out of a vast amount of biologically suitable birds, [there being only 24 categories of predatory birds which are disqualified by their inherent unsuitability, the Torah referring to them as “impure,” Ed.] is that they have a degree of domesticity in common with the three categories of ruminants which are suitable for sacrifice. Any of the species mentioned can be raised by man in his backyard quite easily, and he does not have to hunt for them when he is in need of offering them as a sacrifice. (*Vayikra Rabbah* 27,6)
 The reason why, apparently, G’d prefers the fully grown turtledoves as sacrificial birds, is that these have demonstrated a degree of chastity in their sex lives, and if one loses its mate, it is a well known fact that it does not mate again ever. In this example of undying loyalty to a life’s partner, they resemble the Jewish people, who, having chosen G’d as their “partner,” will never consider trading Him for another.
 On the other hand, the young doves, יונים, are very jealous by nature, as a result of which they frequently exchange mates, more so even than other species of birds. None of the members of this species are acceptable as sacrificial birds, except the very young, ones that have not yet had a chance to display their indiscriminate sexual habits. While very young, these doves display exceptional patience in staying in their nests, not feeling the urge to explore the world around them. Chickens, though also domesticated, as they cannot fly, are rejected as potential sacrifices due to their promiscuity.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:15:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:15:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:15:1)

**והקריבו הכהן המזבחה.**הקרבה זו היא העלאה שמעלה אותו למזבח כדי למולקו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
והקריבו הכהן אל המזבח, “ the priest will present it to the altar.” This “הקרבה” consists of the priest raising the bird onto the altar before nipping its head.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:15:2
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:15:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:15:2)

**ומלק. והקטיר. ונמצה.**אי אפשר לפרשו כפשטי' שיקטיר הראש וימצה ואחר כך יקטיר הגוף שאין שום הקטרה קודם כפרת הדם לכך דרשו שלא בא הכתוב אלא להקיש מליקה להקטרה מה הקטרה הראש בעצמו והגוף בעצמו אף מליקה הראש בעצמו והגוף בעצמו. ולפי פשוטו יש לפרש ומלק את ראשו והקטיר הראש המזבח אחר כך כמו שמקטיר הגוף. ואמר בכאן והקטיר אותו הכהן ולא אמר והקטיר את הכל כמו שאמר בעולת בן בקר לפי שלא הי' מקטיר הכל כאחד כי שתי הקטרת הן תחלה מקטיר הראש ומסיר המוראה ושסע אותו ואחר כך יקטיר הגוף:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ומלק, “and he will nip,” והקטיר, “and cause it to go up in smoke,” ונמצה דמו, “and squeeze out its blood.” It is impossible to explain this verse in the sequence the procedures are described, i.e. to cause the head of the bird to go up in smoke and to squeeze out its blood after that, followed by the burning up of the rest of its body. We find no instance in which atonement is effected through burning up the body parts before the blood has been utilized in that process.
 Therefore, our sages (*Zevachim* 65) interpreted this verse as only drawing a conceptual link, הקש, between the performance of the nipping of the bird’s head and the procedure known as הקטרה, burning it up so that it goes up in smoke. Just as the burning up of the head of the bird and the rest of its body are two independent procedures, so the nipping of the head and the squeezing out of the blood from the rest of the body are two separate independent procedures.
 According to the plain meaning of the text, we have to understand that the nipping of the bird’s head and the burning up of it on the altar, precede one another, as the priest had already burned up the rest of the bird’s body.
 The reason why the Torah writes here: (verse 17) והקטיר אותו הכהן, [where the word הכהן appears completely redundant, Ed.] instead of writing והקטיר את הכל, as the Torah did when describing the parallel procedure for four legged beasts (verse 9), is because in this instance the parts that were to be burned up were in fact not all burned up at the same time. After having burned up the head, the priest proceeded to remove the bird’s crop with its feathers, for instance.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:15:3
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:15:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:15:3)

**ונמצה דמו.**ולא אמר לקבל אותו בכלי לפי שהדם הוא מעט ואם יקבלנו במזרק ידבק בו ולא יהא בו כדי לזרקו לכך צוה למלוק על המזבח ויתמצה הדם מיד על המזבח:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ונמצה דמו, “having pressed out its blood.” As opposed to the burnt offerings of the ruminants, no mention is made here of the blood from the area where the slaughtering had been performed being caught up in a special pan. The reason is that the quantity of blood involved was too miniscule to be usefully accumulated within such a pan. On the contrary, this blood would stick to the walls of the pan, and there would not be any blood left to sprinkle on the wall of the altar


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:16:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:16:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:16:1)

**והסיר את מוראתו.**פירש"י לפי שאכלה מן הגזל אבל לא צוה להשליך כל המעיים לפי שכבר נתעכל מה שבתוכו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
והסיר את מוראתו, “he shall remove its crop;”*Rashi* explained that seeing that this bird had consumed food which was basically stolen, [as opposed to the ruminants, which feed on grass owned by its owners or in areas which are ownerless, Ed.] this had to be removed prior to the bird being able to serve as a vehicle for its owner’s atonement. The reason why not the whole entrails had to be removed for the same reason, is that the food in it had already been digested and could not be identified as such.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:17:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 1:17:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/1:17:1)

**ושסע אותו בכנפיו.**פירש"י אינו צריך למרוט כנפי נוצתו כנפיו נוצה ממש. וכתב הרמב"ן אינו נכון שא"כ לא פירש מאיזה מקום ישסע אותו מלפניו או מגבו אלא פירושו ושסע אותו במקום כנפיו ואין כנפים נוצה אלא ככל כנפים שבכתוב צפור כל כנף ונוצה הוא השיער שעל גוף העיפות:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ושסע אותו בכנפיו, “he is to split it with its wings (feathers);” *Rashi* explains that the priest need not tear out the feathers from the wings, literally.
 Nachmanides writes that *Rashi’s* interpretation is not correct, for if it were, he did not give us an indication of where precisely the wings were to be torn off, whether at the front or at the back. Therefore, he claims that the correct interpretation of the words ושסע אותו is that the priest is to tear off the wings at the place where the feathers grow out of them. The word כנפים therefore is not another word describing the נוצה, the plume. The word means the same as every time we read about birds in the Torah when the Torah describes birds as צפור כנף, a winged bird, [one that is capable of flying. Ed.] The word נוצה describes the skin of the birds.