## Tur HaArokh, Leviticus

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

**צו את אהרן ואת בניו לאמר.**כתב הרמב"ן בפרשת ויקרא אומר דבר אל בני ישראל כי שם יצוה בהבאת הקרבנות וישראל מביאין אותם וכאן אומר צו את אהרן כי ידבר במעשה הקרבנות והכהנים עושים אותם. במדרש יש אמר משה לפני הקב"ה כלום מצינו הבאר שנוי והמים היוצאים ממנו חביבין שהרי בכל הקרבנות כתיב למעלה בני אהרן ולא אהרן אמר הקב"ה חייך שאני מקדימו לבניו על כן אמר צו את אהרן ואת בניו. ומה שהביא רש"י דברי ר' שמעון ביותר צריך לזרז במקום שיש בו חסרון כיס פי' הרמב"ן לאו אהכא קאי שאין כאן חסרון כיס לאהרן ובניו אלא אדרבה ריוח יש להם בקרבנות אלא משום דקאמר ת"ק אין צו אלא במה שיצוה שינהוג מיד ולדורות בא ר' שמעון לחלוק שלפעמים יבא זה הלשון אף בדבר שאינו מיד ולדורות אלא שיש בו חסרון כיס כגון צוואה האמורה בשמן המאור וכגון מה שאמר הכתוב צו את בני ישראל ונתנו ללוים. אי נמי איכא למימר שיש בצוואה זו חסרון כיס לכהנים בעבור קרבן אהרן ובניו הנמשך על צוואה זו. וי"מ כיון שיש להם טורח לאהרן ובניו בצווא' זו חשו' כמו חסרון כיס:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
צו את אהרן ואת בניו לאמר, “command Aaron and his sons to say”. Nachmanides writes that whereas in *Parshat Vayikra* Moses had been directed to issue laws to the Children of Israel, here the directives are addressed to the priests. The reason is that in *Vayikra* the subject is the offering of sacrifices, which are brought on behalf of the Israelites at large. Here the people who act as the Israelites’ executives in this matter, i.e. the priests, are addressed.
 In the *Midrash* we find Moses being quoted as saying to G’d: “where do we ever find that when the well, i.e. the source of the water is despised and hated that the water it produces is beloved?” Moses had referred to the fact that in all the sacrifices mentioned thus far the sons of Aaron were addressed and not Aaron himself. When G’d heard this, He immediately changed the format of the directives and included Aaron personally in them so as no to leave the impression that Aaron himself was less beloved by G’d.
 *Rashi,* quoting the words of Rabbi Shimon says that whenever fulfilling one of G’d’s commandments involves expense to the party fulfilling it, the Torah must use language which is designed to spur on the party concerned to fulfill the directive. Nachmanides writes that this *Rashi* has been printed in the wrong place seeing that here no expense is involved for the addressees, the sons of Aaron. On the contrary, the sons of Aaron benefit from all the sacrifices, including even that of the burnt offering where the priests share in the skin of the animal that is offered up on the altar. The reason why Rabbi Shimon is quoted by *Rashi* at this point, must be in order to draw attention to the difference of opinion between him and the opinion expressed in the Talmud (*Kidushin* 29) before that, that the wording is intended to teach that the directive is effective immediately and in subsequent generations. Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the principle that the wording used here generally means that the directive becomes effective immediately and remains if force throughout the generations; he only claims that in some instances this is not the reason why the Torah employed this wording, and then the reason has to do with the expense involved in carrying out G’d’s directive. One such example is the oil to be provided for lighting the *Menorah.* (Exodus 27,20) a directive that could not be fulfilled until at least 8 or nine months later after the Tabernacle had been constructed and inaugurated. Similarly, in Numbers 35,2 where the Israelites are instructed to cede to the Levites certain cities including a strip of land around these cities. Seeing that the directives of the Torah were issued before the Israelites had even crossed the Jordan, and they had certainly not yet taken possession of their own lands, the directive could not have been intended to be carried out immediately.
 Alternatively, it is possible to argue that even carrying out the present directive involved expense to the priests, seeing that immediately following this, we hear about the offerings that Aaron and his sons had to bring on their own behalf, paying out of their own pockets. (compare 12-15)
 Still another approach to the meaning of the wording of our verse is that seeing Aaron and his sons would experience considerable personal inconvenience in carrying out the instructions following, this is considered as if they had been asked to spend their own funds in performing this commandment.


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

**זאת תורת העולה.**כתב ר' אברהם קרויה עולה בשביל שעולה כולה למזבח ואין לכהנים בה חלק:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
זאת תורת העולה, “this is the law concerning the burnt offering.” Ibn Ezra explains the term עולה as justified, seeing the entire animal is burnt up on the altar and the smoke rises heavenwards. The priests do not share in any of the meat of this offering.


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

**היא העולה על מוקדה על המזבח כל הלילה.**בא ללמד על העולה שאינה קרבה בלילה אלא אם שחטה וזרק דמה ביום מקטיר האיברים בלילה ופי' היא העולה כמו תהיה העולה על מוקדה כל הלילה וכתב בלשון היא. וקשה דלא איירי באיברים של עולה שיעלם על המזבח בלילה דמקרא אחרינא שמעינן לה דכתיב לא ילין חלב חגי עד בוקר למטה אלא מעלהו למזבח אלא מיירי באיברים שהעלם מבעוד יום ועשה להם אש בלילה להקטירם ע"ז אמר היא העולה מה שהי' כבר על המזבח וגם משום ג' מעוטין שדרש זאת היא העולה לאסור על מקצת שאם עלו ירדו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
היא העולה על מוקדה על המזבח כל הלילה, “it is the burnt offering that stays on its firewood on the altar the whole night long, etc.” The Torah’s purpose in giving us this detail is to teach that this offering [as all others. Ed.] must not be slaughtered, etc., after nightfall. If it has been slaughtered, and its blood sprinkled on the altar as long as it was still daylight, the burning of the remains may take place during the whole night. Interestingly, the Torah refers to these parts of the burnt offerings a היא, i.e. “she.” in the feminine mode.
 There is a problem here for we have another verse from which we derive that the remains of the flesh of burnt offering are burnt up at night, seeing that the Torah writes: (Exodus 23,18) ולא ילין חלב חגי עד בוקר, “and the fat of My festive offering may not remain on the altar until morning.” This means that the fat must not remain below the altar until morning but must be burned up at night, but the pieces must be placed on the altar during the night. We must therefore conclude that our verse here speaks of אברים, remains left for being burned up, which though they had been placed on the altar still by day, had not been placed on the fire until after it had become night. Concerning such remainders of a burnt offering, [generally one offered on weekdays, not like the example in Exodus Ed.], the Torah writes the somewhat superfluous word היא. In other words, the Torah refers to something that had already been on the altar, but had not yet had the final procedure performed upon it. We must also consider that the Torah uses three (זאת, היא, העולה) expressions known as מיעוטין, words or letters that limit the applicability of something previously understood to apply generally. In this instance, the word היא forbids the throwing back onto the altar of any parts of the bones or flesh that had fallen off the altar while they were burning up.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 6:2:3
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 6:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/6:2:3)

**ואש המזבח תוקד בו.**פי' הרמב"ן מצוה הכתוב שתוקד האש כל הלילה כי מצוה שישימו שם ביום עצים הרבה כדי שלא יתאכלו לגמרי וירבה האש ממנו. ומה שאמר אש תמיד תוקד על המזבח לא תכבה מצוה על הכהנים בקיום האש שחוזר על מה שאמר וביער עליה הכהן עצים וציוה שיזהרו בזה ויערכו עליה אש הרבה בענין שתוקד כל היום וכל הלילה והזהיר בלאו שלא תכבה לעולם שאם נתעצלו הכהנים וכבה האש עברו בלאו ומפני זה אמרו רבותי' שהיתה מערכה שנייה לקיום האש. ומה שאמר והאש על המזבח דרשו רבותינו בכל אדם שכל המכבה עובר בלא תעשה ואפי' כבה גחלת אחת לוקה. וכמדומה לי שאינו עובר אלא בלאו אחד:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ואש המזבח תוקד בו, “and the fire of the altar should be kept burning on it.” According to Nachmanides the Torah here issues a command that the fire on the altar be kept going all night long, seeing that it commands that a great deal of firewood be put on the pile by day so that there is no danger that all of this wood will be consumed by the fire during the daylight hours. As to the words ואש תמיד המזבח לא תכבה, “that the fire on the altar not go out,” (6,5 and 6,6) this means that it must be kept going on a year round basis, and it is the task of the priests to see to it that it is kept going. The Torah simply repeats, in order to underline what it had said in verse 5 ובער עליה הכהן עצים בבוקר בבוקר, “the priest shall kindle it every morning,” this is a reminder to see to it that enough firewood is always on hand on the large מערכת, woodpile, to ensure that the fire on the altar never goes out completely. Our sages derive from the impersonal styling of this command, i.e. the Torah warns of what should not happen, not only instructing the priest what to do, that if any person would extinguish a single coal of that fire it would be considered a violation of a negative commandment. [a *Midrash* even makes a calculation that this fire, started in the second year of the Israelites in the desert was kept going without interruption for 116 years. Ed.] The whole reason why there was a secondary smaller woodpile on the altar was to act as insurance in the event that due to some negligence by some priest, the primary woodpile had been allowed to become extinguished. The sages derive the negative commandment here from the words [not really needed. Ed] והאש על המזבח “and the fire on the altar.” Although they say that this results in the penalty of lashes when committed deliberately, I do not believe that there are separate lashes on account of each coal that was allowed to go out or was extinguished deliberately.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 6:3:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 6:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/6:3:1)

**ולבש הכהן מדו בד ומכנסי בד.**הזכיר הכתוב בתרומת הדשן כתונת ומכנסים והה"נ שצריכה כל ד' בגדים שאין עבודה הצריכה בגדים פחות מד' ואלו הב' נכתבו בשביל דברים שנתחדש בהם שדורש ממדו שיהיה כמידתו לא קצרין ולא נגררין וממכנסי בד יהיו על בשרו דורש שלא יהא דבר חוצץ בין הבגדים לבשרו. וכתב הרמב"ן אנקלוס תירגם מדו לבושין נראה שר"ל כי מדו יכלול כל בגדיו כאלו אמר ולבש הכהן בגדו בד וכן מדיו קרועים שיורד על פי מדותיו פי' על מלבושיו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ולבש הכהן מדו בד ומכנסי בד, “the priest is to don his linen tunic and his linen trousers.” The Torah mentions the tunic and trousers in connection with the procedure of removing the ashes, although according to Nachmanides, [alluded to here by the author not by name but uncharacteristically as “ה'הג” הרב הגאון, Ed.] needs to wear all four of his priestly garments as there is no kind of Temple service that may be performed with fewer than four garments. The reason why only two of these garments were mentioned here is, that they both have a feature we did not hear about previously. The Torah, by writing מדו, indicates that these garments were not of standard measure but were fitted according to the size of the individual priest who would wear them, both the tunic and the trousers. It was important that nothing should separate the garments from the skin of the wearer.
 Nachmanides refers to Onkelos who translates מדו, as לבישין, writes: it appears that he understood the word as the name of a comprehensive garment, something we would refer to nowadays as the “uniform” worn by liveried people, for instance. The expression מדיו, in Samuel I 17,28 where Saul gave David his uniform also refers to a uniform tailored for him especially, [which because David was much shorter would have been a hindrance rather than a help to David in his fight against Goliath. Ed.] In Samuel I 4,12 we read about ומדיו קרועים ואדמה על ראשו, “the torn uniform and the earth on his head described the state of mourning of its wearer who brought news of the capture of the Holy Ark by the Philistines”, not to mention the thirty thousand men who had fallen in that battle.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 6:4:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 6:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/6:4:1)

**ופשט את בגדיו.**פירש"י אינה חובה וכו'. וכתב הרמב"ן לא ידעתי למה אינו חובה כי יראה שמצוה על הכהן שלא יוציא אחשן (הדשן) בבגדים שיעשה בהן העבודה וגם בבגדי' שיעש' בהם הרמת הדשן כי גם עבודה היא אלא ילבוש בגדי כהונה פחותים. ואיכא מ"ד אחרים ממש בגדי חול שהוצאת הדשן לאו עבוד' היא וכשרה בבגדי חול:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ופשט את בגדיו ולבש בגדים אחרים, “the priest will divest himself of his clothes and shall don other garments.” *Rashi* writes that this language does not make this procedure obligatory. (although it is good manners to do so, so as not to soil the special garments he wears during performing other duties)
 Nachmanides writes that he does not know of any reason that would indicate that what is written here is not obligatory. Surely it is a duty for the priest not to wear the regular priestly garments while engaged in a task that would soil those garments, such as when he removes the ashes. Even when engaged in just הרמת הדשן, the removal of the ash, or incompletely consumed incense, from the golden altar in the Sanctuary itself, an activity that is rated as part of the Temple service, priestly garments must be worn, though they may be of an inferior quality.
 There is an opinion according to which the word אחרים that we understood as “alternate, others,” but sacred garments, does not refer to inferior priestly garments, but to ordinary garments such as the ones worn by non-priests. The carrying of the ashes outside the Temple precincts was simply not considered as part of the Temple service.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 6:10:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 6:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/6:10:1)

**חלקם נתתי אותה מאשי.**לומ' שאין לכהנים חלק עד לאחר שיקטירו הקומץ ומכאן למדנו לכל הקדשים דכתי' כי קדש קדשים היא:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
חלקם נתתי אותה מאשי, “I have presented it as their share from My fire-offerings.” The meaning of the entire verse, which on the face of it contains nothing new, is that none of the remains becomes the property of the priests until all the parts of the sacrifice slated for burning up have done so. From this verse we derive the rule that what applies to the three fingers full of the *minchah* offering applies to all the offerings, seeing that the Torah adds the words קודש קדשים היא כחטאת וכאשם, i.e. the meal offering is just as holy of holies to G’d as are the sin and guilt offerings.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 6:16:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 6:16:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/6:16:1)

**וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהי'.**פי' הרמב"ם הטעם לפי שהכהן מקריב קרבנו בעצמו ואם יקריב מנחה יקריבנה בעצמו ויאכלנה ונמצא כאלו לא הקריב כלום שאין למזבח ממנה אלא הקומץ והלבונה ולא דמיא לחטאת שיש בה אימורין למזבח לכך ציוה הכתוב שתהא כולה כליל שיהא נראה הקרבתו. וקשה לזה הטעם מחטאת העוף שאין למזבח אלא דמה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה, “and every meal offering offered by a priest must be complete, (not just the three fingers full) none of it may be consumed by the priests. 
 Maimonides (*Moreh Nevuchim,* 3,46*)* explains that the reason for the above is simple, i.e. that the priest cannot consume his own offering. Were he allowed to partake of it, the impression would be created that he had in fact not brought an offering to G’d at all. After all, the altar receives only three fingers full of any meal offering, pus a small amount of frankincense. By legislating that the entire meal/oil mixture is to be burned, the priest will be seen to have brought an offering of his own. The treatment by the Torah of the meal offering differently from the sin offering, for instance, is that in the case of the latter, substantial parts of the sacrificial animal are burned up on the altar in addition to the parts that the priests may consume.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 6:18:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 6:18:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/6:18:1)

**וזאת תורת החטאת.**כתב הרמב"ן הציווי בסדר ויקרא עולה ומנחה וזבח השלמים וחטאת ואשם כי מתחלה דבר בקרבנות נדבה ואחר כך בקרבנות חובה הבאים על חטא אבל כאן הזכיר עולה ומנחה ואחר כך חטאת ואשם כי רצה לבאר תחלה דיני כל קדשי קדשים כי משפט אחד להם כמו שאמר במנחה קדש קדשים היא כחטאת וכאשם ואחר כך מפרש דין קדשים קלים. והרבה דינין נתחדשו בפרשה זו ואני לא באתי לפרש כל דיני הקרבנות אלא חדושי טעמי הפסוקים:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
וזאת תורת החטאת, “and this is the law of the sin offering.” Nachmanides points out that in *Parshat Vayikra* the order in which the various sacrifices are listed is: עולה-מנחה-זבח שלמים חטאת, אשם, the reason being that the Torah first wanted to deal with all the voluntary offerings, followed by the list of mandatory sacrifices, offered in order to expiate various types of sins, transgressions. In our *Parshah* the Torah first lists all the sacrifices described as קדשי קדשים, holy of holies, before listing sacrifices known in the Talmud as קדשים קלים, “sacred things of a lower level of holiness.” Many additional rules have been revealed in this *Parshah,* so that we do not only deal with the same list of sacrifices presented in a different sequence. I have not set myself the task of explaining the rationales behind the various sacrifices; I only attempt to explain what is behind the order in which these various verses have been recorded in the written Torah.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 6:23:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 6:23:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/6:23:1)

**וכל חטאת אשר יובא מדמה.**פירש"י שאם הכניס מדם חטאת חיצונה לפנים פסולה. ולפי זה מה שאומר הפסוק לכפר בקודש אינו כמשמעו שהרי אינה מכפרת אדרבה פסולה היא אלא פי' הכניסה על דעת לכפר. ואיכא מ"ד שאינה פסולה אלא א"כ הזה מדמה ודריש לי' מלכפר שעשה בה מעשה חטאת הפנימית ופי' לכפר לפי מחשבתו שלפי דעתו מכפר. ואיכא למ"ד שהכתוב מספר בחטאת הפנימית שצוה כבר בשרפתו ובא כאן ליתן לא תעשה על אכילתן לומר שאם הכניסם כדינן לפנים לכפר שלא תאכל:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
וכל חטאת אשר יובא מדמה, “any of the types of sin-offering whose blood brought into the Sanctuary, etc.”
 *Rashi* comments that if the priest brought blood from a sin offering whose blood was not destined for sprinkling on the corners of the golden altar, such as the blood of the sin-offerings Aaron offered on the Day of Atonement, into the Sanctuary, then the offering is retroactively invalid. According to this the meaning of the words לכפר בקודש in our verse cannot be understood literally, as the wording assumes that it is capable of securing atonement. On the contrary, it even nullifies what otherwise would have been atonement. The meaning of the words לכפר בקודש must then be “with the intention of achieving atonement in the Sanctuary.”
 There is a sage who holds that the sin offering of which our verse speaks becomes invalidated only if the priest had sprinkled some of that blood on the golden altar, not if he had merely brought it within the confines of the Sanctuary. 
 There is yet another sage who understands our verse as speaking of the type of sin offering whose blood is meant to be sprinkled inside the Sanctuary on the golden altar in the Sanctuary, and that the Torah merely informs us that it is forbidden for the priests to consume any parts of that type of sin offering. We can therefore understand the meaning of the words לכפר בקודש as quite literally: “the one that requires to be brought into the Sanctuary in order to achieve atonement, etc.’