ויקרא אל משה, “He called out to Moses;” seeing that the Torah had concluded the end of the Book of Exodus with the words: ‘the glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle so that Moses was unable to enter the Sanctuary,” it was necessary to let us know now that He called out to him, i.e. gave him permission to enter the Sanctuary. In order to make this clear to the reader, the Torah, instead of writing: “the Lord called out to Moses,” omitted to tell us who it was that called out to him, so that the reader will know that this is not really a new paragraph but a continuation of what had been told us at the end of the Book of Exodus. In other words, we need to understand this opening line of the Book of Leviticus as follows: “the glory of the Lord which had been reported at the end of the Book of Exodus as filling the Tabernacle, now spoke to Moses.”This is also how the Jerusalem Targum translates this verse. (Compare Torah shleymah on our verse page 235, where the full text of the Jerusalem Targum appears, in Aramaic, of course) Once Moses had entered the Sanctuary, he heard G-d’s voice emanating from between the two cherubs on top of the lid of the Holy Ark as reported in Parshat Nasso, 7,89.

אליו, “to him.” On this word Rashi explains that we might have thought that people outside had heard G-d’s voice speaking to Moses; in order to disabuse us of this, the Torah emphasized: אליו, “to him,” i.e. audible only to Moses. The point is made once more in the Book of Numbers 7,89, where the Torah writes that Moses heard the voice of the Lord talking to him, מדבר אליו, followed by וידבר אליו. Instead of writing מדבר לו, the word אליו stresses the exclusivity of that voice, i.e. audible only to Moses. Rashi stresses this also in his commentary on the Talmud in tractate Yuma folio 4.

לאמור, “saying” [in order to relay to the Israelites. Ed.] The author refers the reader to his commentary on Genesis 8,15 on the word: לאמור, where Rash’bam is given as the source of this interpretation of this word. A well known example of the meaning of this kind of repetition is found in verse 2 of our chapter: דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם, “speak to the Children of Israel and say to them;”

אדם, “anyone;” this ambiguous description is intended to convey that what follows applies not only also to converts to Judaism, but even to people who are gentiles, although in this paragraph only Israelites are addressed. The exclusive meaning of the word: אדם, here is made plain when the Torah adds the restrictive word: מכם, “from amongst you.” This means that what follows applies only to members of the Jewish people. However, seeing that we have a rule that “whenever the Torah writes two successive restrictive clauses, this is meant to include someone or something, not to exclude it,” the sages understood our verse as the Torah including even gentiles, as qualified to offer sacrifices to Hashem, i.e. using the facilities offered by the priests, but paying for the animals they authorize to be offered on their behalf. (Talmud, tractate Nazir, folio 62) This is based also on when the Torah writes: איש, איש, i.e. “any man,” including idolaters, who vow to offer a sacrifice to the G-d of the Israelites.

כי יקריב, “who brings” (close); the word introduces the manner in which G-d wishes to be served now that He has taken up residence among His people.

מכם, “from amongst you.” The prefix letter מ reminds us that not all of us are addressed here. On the one hand, even absolute gentile idolaters are welcome to present an offering to Hashem which will be burnt up on the altar in the Temple, as we do not wish to alienate gentiles that are seeking for a religion of truth. On the other hand, by the same token, Jewish renegades who wish to offer such sacrifices in the Temple are rebuffed by the Torah, as what they do would be akin to blasphemy, seeing they demonstrate by their daily conduct that they do not believe in the power of our G-d.

מכם “to you” I gave you these commandments and no to the other nations. It is proper to receive an offering even from a completely wicked Jew in order to facilitate his returning to G-d. אדם כי יקריב מכם, the verse has been inverted, it’s meaning is as if it had read: אדם מכם כי יקריב, “when someone amongst you wishes to draw close to G-d;”

כי יקריב, same as כי יקדיש, “who wishes to sanctify.”

קרבן לה, a sacrifice in honour of the Lord. This is a heading, followed by specifics. מן הבהמה, מן הבקר ומן הצאן, “from a category of domestic beasts, it must be either from cattle or flocks.” These are the details. תקריבו את קרבנכם, “you may offer your sacrifice.” The generalization has been repeated once more, i.e. “your sacrifice.” It teaches us that as a rule the details spelled out after a general statement has been made, do not contain surprises, i.e. no matters that could not have been understood as included in the general statement already. In our case, we find that no free roaming beasts are included as potential sacrifices, even though such beasts may qualify to be eaten, such as deer, for instance. Our sages see in this another example of G-d’s “humility;” He does not ask us to do things which are too difficult, such as hunting deer in order to offer them as sacrifices, even though King Solomon had a stable of them and offered such delicacies as venison to his guests. He only asks for animals that are within the average person’s ability to obtain. This is what the prophet (Michah, 6,3) referred to when he said, quoting G-d: עמי מה הלאיתיך ענה בי?, “in which way did I inconvenience you My people? Testify against me!”An alternate explanation: I only ask you to offer Me animals as sacrifices, not human beings!” The Canaanites were in the habit at that time to offer some of their own children as sacrifices to their deities. (Midrash Tanchuma on Bechukotai, 5; compare also Torah shleymah item 56 on our verse, (who points out that Yiftach could have saved the life of his daughter had he made such a stipulation).

אם עולה קרבנו, “if his offering consists of an animal to be burned up completely,” (the priests not eating any parts of it). What is meant is that the donor had stipulated this prior to handing the animal to the priest to slaughter on his behalf. The reason why the burnt offering is the first example of animal offerings mentioned in the Torah is that it is the type of offering most welcomed by Hashem.

יקריבנו, “he will be able to offer it,” after the building of the Tabernacle has been completed; the owner must first sanctify it, i.e. add when handing over the sacrificial animal: “this I have vowed to offer as a burnt offering for the Lord.”

אל פתח אהל מועד, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting;” the Torah stresses this as the donor is not allowed to invite the officiating priest to come to his home and slaughter the beast in question in the donor’s or the priest’s yard, and perform the rituals connected with it. This would be disrespectful to Hashem . Imagine a donor of a gift to a mortal king inviting the King to come and pick it up at the donor’s home!”

לרצונו, “in order to find favour in His eyes.” The reason is that this is a voluntary offering, not a thanksgiving offering or a guilt or sin offering, all of which are mandatory offerings.

לפני ה, “in the presence of the Lord.” Even though the donor may not enter the sacred precincts of the Temple, his gift is described as “in the presence of the Lord,“ seeing it is not his personal fault that he could not enter these precincts. According to Sifra, after having placed his hands on the sacrificial animal outside those precincts, he is allowed to do this once more inside the sacred precincts.

וסמך ידו, according to the plain meaning of the text, [this is not a commandment but the Torah describes the norm when people offer such an animal. It describes a preparatory activity, Ed]

ידו, this does not have to refer to a single hand, but the verse excludes a son or servant performing this procedure. The Torah does not allow the donor to delegate these acts.

ידו על ראש, “his hand on the head;” not one hand above the other, or placing his hands on any other part of the animal.

על ראש העולה, “on the head of the burnt offering;” Rashi understands this as referring to when this burnt offering is a mandatory as distinct from a voluntary burnt offering. He quotes Torat Kohanim in support of his interpretation. It is stated there that if a voluntary burnt offering requires the above procedure as introductory step, then it is obvious that a mandatory burnt offering does not require less. The fact that the Torah writes simply: עולה, without specifying which type of עולה, the voluntary one or the mandatory one, is taken as proof that this placing of the owner’s hands on the head of the animal refers to both types. It also means that regardless of whether the animal is a sheep, or a bull, the same rule applies. On the other hand, only burnt offerings belonging to an individual require this procedure, not animals representing a group of people. Animals belonging to women or to gentiles do not require this procedure either. All of them require an accompanying libation, however, even animals belonging to gentiles. We know this from a baraitah in Menachot 29, commencing with the words; “when a gentile has sent his burnt offering, etc.”

לכפר עליו, “to serve as his atonement.”

The use of the word: עליו in this sense is also found in Psalms 44,23, עליך, where it clearly means: “for your sake.” The same is true of Psalms 69,8.

וסמך ושחט, “he will place his hands and slaughter;” up until this point the owners, not being priests, are basically permitted to perform these procedures, provided that they are ritually clean; from this point on the commandment applies only to the priests. The reason the two words are followed in both instances with the words: “in the presence of the Lord,” is that both procedures are carried out at the same location.

את בן הבקר, this term describes the animal as being in its youth, not diseased, in accordance with the maxim expressed in Maleachi 1,8: הקריבהו לפחתך, “would you offer such (diseased animal) to your Governor?”

את בן הבקר לפני ה, “the bullock before the Lord;” the one who slaughters it should be doing so in the name of the Lord, even if he has a long knife and himself stands outside consecrated earth. Shimon the Yemenite, disagreeing and understanding the words “before the Lord,” has been quoted as saying: whence do I derive the rule that the hand of the slaughterer should be within the foreleg of the animal being slaughtered, i.e. while he is on consecrated ground? You must read the words: 'את בן הבקר לפני ה, as one phrase (without comma) [not supported by the cantillation marks. Ed.]

בני אהרן, “the sons of Aaron.” To exclude elderly priests whose hands might tremble. Our sages in the Talmud tractate Chulin, folio 24 stated that the age or appearance of age, when a priest becomes disqualified from slaughtering is when his hands begin to tremble.

אהרן, who, age notwithstanding [he was 85 at this time, Ed.] was still without physical blemish.הכהנים, the priests, who had not forfeited their status due to having committed acts that would disqualify them, from Temple service.

והפשיט את העולה, “he shall flay the burnt offering;” seeing that in the case of rams and bulls that needed to be burnt completely, the skin had to be removed first at any rate as it would be given to the officiating priest. But with regards to the burnt offerings the Torah states that they had to be flayed and cut up into pieces even though afterwards everything was burnt completely.

עצים על האש, “wood (in order) on the fire.” The fire had to be placed there first.

וערכו בני אהרן, “and Aaron’s sons shall arrange” on the pieces of the burnt offering;” seeing that it is of the category of cattle, big animals, the Torah uses the plural mode whereas with sheep or goats the Torah uses the singular mode for this procedure. (compare verse12)

וקרבו וכרעיו ירחץ, “but its innards and its legs he shall wash;” seeing these parts are being served at the “King’s” table, they had to be prepared as if being served at the table of a mortal king. The animals that were going to be burned without having had their skin flayed were not treated in the same fashion as they represented reminders of the donor’s sins, not his desire to “donate” something to his G-d.

ירחץ במים, “he will wash with water;” the translation (in Aramaic) of washing of human beings is יסחי, as it always refers to the immersion of the whole body in a ritual bath. As for instance in Isaiah 25,11: כאשר יפרש השוחה לשחות, “as the swimmer who spreads out his hands in order to swim.” The “washing” of which the Torah speaks in connection with the sacrificial animals is rendered as יחליל, by the Targum. The meaning of that word is more the flushing out of excrements, etc.

ירחץ במים, I might have thought that the quantity of water required is like in the case of a ritual bath, a minimum of 40 saah; therefore the Torah writes במים to indicate that it does not stipulate a minimum amount of water, i.e. any amount of water is sufficient if it accomplishes its purpose.

את הכל, “everything;” this includes bones sinews, horns, and hooves, wool of the head of the sheep and the beard of the goats, as long as they are still attached to their bodies.

ואם מן הצאן קרבנו, “and if the donor chose to offer an animal from his herd;” the following rules do not apply to animals stolen by the donor.

מן הכבשים או מן העזים, “either from his sheep or his goats;” according to the Sifra this excludes animals born from crossbreeding.

ושחט אותו וגו, “he is to slaughter it, etc.;” the word אותו implies that the animal which is a burnt offering is to be slaughtered on the northern side of the altar, whereas offerings such as peace offerings, or bird offerings or firstborn animals, tithed animals, and the Passover, cannot be slaughtered on the north side of the altar. (Menachot 56)

על ירך המזבח, near the side of the altar; the word: על is to be understood as in Exoduss 40,3: וסכות על הארון, “you will use it as a screen (next to it) for the Holy Ark.”

ירך המזבח צפונה, “the side of the altar must be to the north of it, in other words: the front of the altar is to the south of it. This teaches that the ramp leading up to the altar was on the south side of the Tabernacle. (Compare Zevachim 62)

צפונה לפני ה, the northern side of the Tabernacle did not have any part of the altar facing it. This rule also applied to the burnt offering of the species of cattle, as the expression: 'לפני ה, is used there also. If the priest had slaughtered that animal on the south side of the altar, this could not properly be described as “facing the Lord,” as no part of the southern part the altar faced the Tabernacle. [only the ramp leading up to it. Ed.] Seeing that the northern part of the Tabernacle was not impeded by priests walking by there, it could be described as פנוי, “always exposed to view.” When slaughtering animals which required to be done on the north side of the altar, this part of the altar faced the Holy of Holies, or 'לפני ה. [The length of the ramp alone proceeding from the southern side of the Tabernacle, was 32 cubits before it reached the altar itself. Ed.] This is based on the Torah having written: במקום אשר תשחט העולה תשחט את החטאת, “ (Leviticus 6,18) It is also written: כי כחטאת האשם, “for the sin offering is treated like the guilt offering.” (Leviticus 14,13.) The principal purpose of these sacrifices was for the sake of heaven. On the other hand, sacrifices known under the heading of kodoshim kalim, sacred gifts of a lower level of holiness, the Torah did not specify the exact location where these had to be slaughtered. [These included thanksgiving offerings, the Passover lamb, the ram offered by a Nazarene at the conclusion of his term, peace offerings, firstling animals etc. The reason is that the greater part of the offering was consumed by the donor and the priests. Ed.]

ונתח אותו, “after it has been cut up;” This had to be stated explicitly in order that we do not think that only the large animals, i.e. bullocks, require to be cut up. No mention is made of these animals being flayed, as it was taken for granted by the Torah that the reader understands this.

והקריב הכהן את הכל, “the priest is to offer up the whole;” the phrase refers to the priest carrying all the various pieces to be burned up on the ramp to the altar.

ואם מן העוף, if the offering consists of a bird or birds; the word מן “from,” here means that not every part of a bird is fit to be offered up. If the bird in question is missing one of its limbs it is not fit to be offered up as a sacrifice. (Sifra)

העוף עולה, a bird does not qualify as a peace offering, i.e. a creature which is partially consumed by the donor or the priest. (Sifra)

העוף עולה קרבנו, the personal pronoun at the end of the word קרבנו, “his,” teaches that birds may only be offered by individuals, not by a group of individuals. (Sifra)

והקריב, “then he shall bring;” the connective letter ו at the beginning of this word indicates that the Torah speaks of two people having shared in paying for this offering. [Two partners are not considered a group which the Torah had stated as unable to share in the cost of one bird. Ed.]

מן התורים, “from the turtledoves;” even if these have already fully matured. The reason that the Torah uses the word התורים in the plural mode, is that when the mate of one of the turtledoves has died, the surviving dove is not suitable as a sacrifice anymore as it will not mate with another dove of the gender to the dead dove. (Talmud tractate Eyruvin, folio 100)

או מבני היונה, “or from immature pigeons.” Seeing that a fully mature pigeon is gullible, it does not have a “heart” so that if its mate dies it does not mind mating with another member of its species. Hence the Torah permits only very young pigeons to be offered as a sacrifice. Seeing that these two categories of birds are more persecuted than any other creature, G-d selected them to serve as sacrifices on behalf of man. (Compare Talmud tractate Baba Kamma, folio 93.)

ומלק, “and he will pinch off;” the priest himself, i.e. with his own hands, on the top of the altar; he was not to use a tool such as a knife. This is in consonance with the commandment that in building the altar, no iron tool, sword, knife, was to be used, as the altar is designed to prolong man’s life, whereas the knife or sword is used to shorten man’s life. [What makes sense when building an altar makes even better sense in the procedures to be performed on the altar. Ed.] Just as the act of pinching mentioned in chapter5,8, was performed at the neck, so here too the Torah refers to the bird’s neck being pinched off. (Sifra there) The head is not to be completely severed, however.

ראשו והקטיר, just as find that the delivering the head to be burned on the altar was performed by the priest’s hands, no other instrument or container, and the bird’s body was placed on the altar by the priest’s hands, so the “slaughtering” of the two vital tubes that lead to the head was also performed by the priest’s hands. This had to be done in this way in order to prevent the head being accidentally severed from its body by a knife.

ונמצה דמו, “and its blood shall be drained;” all of its blood. How could this be accomplished? The priest would hold the bird’s body by it skin to ensure it would not be cut in half completely; in this way the blood would seep out from either side of where the priest held the skin in his hands. We have a tradition that anything that disqualifies a four legged animal from becoming an acceptable sacrifice, does so also if its counterpart on the bird is defective, i.e. improperly treated by the priest. On the other hand, anything that does not invalidate the sacrifice of a fourlegged animal, for instance the skin, does not invalidate the bird offering either if it had been treated incorrectly.

ונמצה דמו על קיר המזבח, “and the blood thereof shall be drained out on the side of the altar.” Seeing that if this procedure would be performed by the priest holding a bowl, the amount of blood secured would be minimal, there would not be enough to pick it out of that bowl and to perform the sprinkling of the blood on the top of the altar, the Torah decreed the method described. (B’chor shor)

אל מקום הדשן, “in the place for the ashes.” Chanina, son of Antignos, says (Sifra) that there were two such locations. The first one was situated east of the ramp leading to the altar, and the second one was situated east of the altar itself. The one that was located east of the ramp was used for the remainders of the bird offerings, as well as the ashes of the altar inside the Sanctuary, and the ashes from the candlestick, whereas the one east of the altar was used for ashes that originated from the burning of the remains of sacrificial animals that had become disqualified by a faulty procedure, or because the owners had not eaten all of their parts in the time allocated for it.

לא יבדיל, “he must not completely detach the wings;” the reason is that the bird is so small anyways; if he were to detach all of its parts, head and wings there would not be much left of it, if he were to offer it as a gift to a mortal king. Hence it is not appropriate to do so with a gift to the King of Kings.