צו את אהרן, “command Aaron;” whenever the expression tzav is used, it is a commandment to be performed with alacrity, without delay, and is meant to apply indefinitely, not only for a limited period, i.e. one time. The reason we know that it is meant to encourage the person so commanded to fulfill the order without delay, is because the Torah wrote in Deuteronomy 1,16: “I will charge (command) your judges, etc.” In Numbers 5,2 the Torah wrote: (concerning the people afflicted with tzoraat, the dreaded skin disease, that such people must be removed forthwith from the camp of the Israelites. The Torah there adds, that this order was carried out without delay (Numbers 5,4). The fact that this is not a formulation used with commands valid only on a single occasion, is that in Numbers 15,23, the Torah writes concerning a number of commandments that they apply for all future generations for sins committed inadvertently. Seeing that such tasks were removing last night’s ash from the altar, or making sure that there was always an adequate supply of wood at hand on the altar, it is human nature not to relate to this with exceptional haste, the Torah, when legislating this command, employed a term implying haste, the need to perform that task without delay. Rashi, quoting Rabbi Shimon, is on record as saying that all commandments which involve expense to the person commanded to do so need reminders not to delay, as it is only human to seek to delay having to spend one’s money when it is not for making a profit from the transaction. What he means is that if the first person charged with doing something has not performed his task, then another person has to substitute for him, something called חסרון כיס, being out of pocket. In our age the correct term would be: “because time is money.”

את אהרן, up until now we read about the sons of Aaron having to perform certain chores, as for instance in chapter 1 verse 11, and verse 8. At this point, according to Vayikra rabbah, Moses turned to G-d and said: “how can a well which is in disgrace produce water that is welcome and pure? What he meant was that if Aaron was in disgrace because of the sin of the golden calf, how could his sons be fit to perform the duties in the Tabernacle? [I find this somewhat difficult to accept as the commands in our chapter were addressed to both Aaron, and his sons (6,2). Ed.] We have learned in Mishnah 3 of Tamid at the beginning of chapter 2, that all manner of wood is suitable as firewood for the sacrifices with the exception of olive wood and the wood of grape vines. The reason is that the wood of the olive tree is of a higher status as the oil of the lamps candlestick is made from the olives that grew on an olive tree, and the wine used in libations is used in Temple. The Mishnah immediately preceding that one reports the fact that none of the priests charged with removing the ash had ever been late in the performance of his duties. We see that the trunk of the olive tree was honoured on account of its fruit, so that the sons of Aaron should be honoured because of their father. When G-d heard Moses’ reasoning He immediately changed the wording of the commandment by including Aaron in it.

זאת תורת העולה, “these are the instructions pertaining to offering any burnt offering;” up until now we had not known from which hour in the morning this communal daily sacrifice could be offered. Neither had we known at what hour its counterpart in the evening was to be presented. This is why this verse was preceded by the words: זאת תורת העולה, ”this is the instruction concerning the burnt offering,” i.e. this burnt offering is subject to special rules. The rules for any burnt offerings mentioned in the Book of Leviticus have been reiterated here.

היא העולה, even though this burnt offering is burned up by day, (as opposed to most other offerings). This point is underlined once more when the Torah wrote in Leviticus 7,16: ביום הקריבו את זבחו, “on the day when he offered his meat offering, its fat parts and its limbs are permitted for consumption all night long.”

ואש המזבח, but the fire on the golden altar within the Sanctuary,

תוקד בו, “shall be fed and kept going all night long; you are to light it by taking fire from the copper altar,” (the altar on which the burnt offerings were offered and burned up. (compare Torat kohanim on our verse.)

בו, “from it;” the letter ב here is substituting for the letter מ which we would have expected. We find something similar in Exodus 30,26: ומשחת בו את אהל מועד, “you are to anoint from it (from the oil of anointing) the Tent of Meeting.” You find this use of the word בו again in verse 13 of our chapter: where the words: ביום המשח אותו, mean “from the day he had anointed him.”Whence do we know that the fire for Aaron’s coalpan and the fire for kindling the candlestick in the Sanctuary were also taken from the altar for the animal sacrifices? This is simple logic. If the fire for the golden altar had to be provided from the fire on the altar in front of the Tabernacle, the same must be true for the fire of the priest’s coalpan (for incense) and for lighting the lamps on the candlestick. (Sifra)

מדו בד, “in a garment made of linen;” the letter ו at the end of the word: מדו is superfluous, just as the second letter ו in וחיתו ארץ in Genesis 1,24, and the letter ו in Numbers 24 in the word: .בנו

מדו בד, these are the cap, tunic, and belt worn by the ordinary priest, all of which are made of linen. The reason that they are all mentioned in the singular mode, is that whenever worn by the priest, all of them are worn simultaneously. The reason why the pants are mentioned separately, as we find already in Exodus 28,42, after the garments worn by the High Priest and the ordinary priests have been listed. The pants are mentioned separately, as both the High Priest and the ordinary priest wear the same kind of pants. According to Torat Kohanim, (Sifra on our verse) this is hinted at in the apparently extraneous word: ילבש, the four letters hinting that the ordinary priests wore four garments when on duty. The repetition both here and Exodus 28 that the pants must be worn on his skin, על בשרו, suggest that these pants must always be also the first garment the priest dons in order to cover his private parts. [The plural mode מכנסים is similar to the English language where “pants” or “trousers” are in the plural mode because they refer to a single garment covering both legs. Ed.]

על בשרו, a delicate description of the priest’s private parts (see Lev. 15.2).

והרים את הדשן, “he shall lift up the ashes;” the plain meaning of the verse is that in order to remove the ashes the priest must first put on the priestly garments described here. He is not allowed to wear street clothes even for performing this procedure.

את הדשן, “at least a fistful of ashes.”

והוציא, same as להוציא, “in order to remove the ashes.” The absence of the word “the priest,” here is an indication that even a priest who is disqualified from performing other procedures in the Temple due to physical blemishes, may perform this procedure.

אל מקום טהור,”a ritually pure location” seeing that these ashes had originated in sacred precincts. This is distinct from the stones of a house whose stones were afflicted with tzoraat, which have to be removed to a ritually unclean location, a location which people carrying objects that require ritual purity may not be brought to. (Leviticus 14,41)

והאש על המזבח, “and the fire on the altar, etc.;” the Torah reverts now to a statement made by Rabbi Yehudah in the Talmud Yuma folio 45 according to which the wood used for kindling may be burned only on the top part of the altar, i.e. על המזבח. This was used to kindle the major stack of wood that burned around the clock on the altar. (This is the way Rashi explains the word .(אליתא

וערך עליה, to the question where on the altar all the parts of the burnt offering are to burned up, the Torah answers with the word: עליה; to the question where the relevant parts of the sin offerings and peace offerings are to be burned up, the Torah adds the words: חלבי השלמים, “the best parts of the peace offerings.” [fat parts listed previously, mainly above the kidneys and liver of the animal. Ed.] To the question where the fistful of meal offerings and frankincense, and libations etc. are to be burned up, the Torah answers with the word: והקטיר. To make sure that we do not get the impression that the incense is also to be burned up on the large altar in front of the Temple, the Torah adds: ובער עליה וערך את העצים, “that the priest is to set a special fire on the golden altar where the incense will be burned up.”

אש תמיד, “a perpetual fire;” it will be kept burning even on the Sabbath, even if for some reason it became ritually impure.

לא תכבה, “where it will not go out.” Even while the Israelites were journeying through the desert, G-d’s honour demanded that precautions be taken that this flame be kept going. According to Rabbi Yehudah in the Sifra. they used a kind of metal dome fixed above it to insure that it was kept going. [Seeing that the clouds of glory kept the people protected from rain, sandstorms and other inclemency of weather, this does not sound so exceptional. Ed.]

אל פני המזבח, “In front of the altar.” There was no need to present it on the altar, as explained already on Leviticus 2,1. (Compare also B’chor shor)

והרים ממנו, “he will remove some of it,” (the gift offering) it has been written in the masculine mode (although the word מנחה is feminine) We find a similar grammatically incorrect construction in Leviticus 27,9: כל אשר יתן ממנו לה' יהיה קודש, where according to the grammar the Torah could have been expected to write ממנה instead of ממנו. There are numerous such incongruous constructions in different parts of the Torah.

והנותרת ממנה, “and what is left of it;” the Torah here repeats itself seeing that it had written in Leviticus 2,3: that the leftover from the minchah offering was to be given to Aaron and his sons. If the Torah had not stated this at this point, we might have thought that the entire left over was to be given to be burnt. The word: ממנה from it, makes it clear that this is not so.

מצות תאכל, “it must be consumed as unleavened cakes;” seeing that up until now, i.e. before it had been sanctified the flour was permissible to be eaten by anyone either leavened or unleavened, the Torah had to make clear that though it is “leftovers,” it did not revert now to its original status. We find something similar in the legislation of the levirate marriage. (Deuteronomy 25,5) The Torah writes that even though prior to the marriage of this woman to her late husband she was free to marry any Jews, now she is limited to her brother-in-law who must perform the levirate marriage.

חלקם נתתי אותה מאשי, “I have given it as their share of My offerings by fire;” The Torah explains here why it must not be baked with leavening, having first been part of the offerings brought to Hashem. Of these offerings we had been told in Leviticus 2,11: 'כל שאור וכל דבש לא תקטירו ממנו אשה לה, “you are not to burn up as a fire offering to Hashem anything leavened or anything containing honey.”

קדש קדשים היא, “it is most holy;” it is of the same status as all holy things.

כחטאת, “just as the sin offering;” just as the sin offering originally had been secular, i.e. the person presenting it used money to purchase the animal without first sanctifying that money. This had to be done by day and with the right hand.

כל זכר, “every male; the content of this paragraph had already been written Leviticus 2,10. It was repeated here for three reasons. 1) Unleavened bread. 2) had to be eaten on sacred ground. 3) Any male priest could eat it.

Anyone or anything coming into contact with it would become out of bounds unless such a person had first ritually purified himself.

ביום המשח אותו, “on the day when he is anointed;” the prefix letter ב in the word ביום was used here instead of the prefix letter מ, “from.” From that day on the high Priest has to present this daily offering. We find another example of the use of the letter ב in the same sense as here, in chapter 7, verse 36: ביום משחו אותם, “from the day they were anointed.” (Ibn Ezra) Also in chapter 8, verse 32, והנותר בבשר ובלחם, the correct translation is: “and that which is left over from the meat and the bread.”

מחציתם בבקר ומחציתם בערב, “half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening.” How is the High Priest to perform the procedure? He brings a whole tenth of an eyfah in the morning, and proceeds to divide that quantity in half, proceeding to offer the first half in the morning and the remaining half in the evening. If, in the interval, the half reserved for offering in the evening has becoming ritually contaminated, or has somehow been lost, the priest will bring the full eyfah in the evening to compensate for what was lost or has been contaminated. He will do so by dividing it into two halves, but only offering one of the two halves, so that a whole eyfah will have been offered and a whole eyfah will have been lost. (Sifra)

תעשה מרבכת, “it will be presented after having been prepared with oil on a griddle.” The only time in the Torah that we hear about such a procedure, is here and in connection with the קרבן תודה, mandatory thanksgiving offering, and during the consecration rites of the priests when the Tabernacle was consecrated. (Menachot 78)

תפיני, “in broken pieces;” the expression means that it has not been baked thoroughly, and is neither raw nor cooked.

כליל תהיה, “it shall be offered whole.” Seeing that no one will eat part of it, how miserly would it be if he only offered part of a fistful, קומץ to the Lord, as is done with the minchah offering of the ordinary Israelites, of which only this partial fistful will be burnt up symbolically, the remainder being eaten by the priests in their capacity of servants of Hashem? It can also not be compared to sin offerings or guilt offerings offered by the priests (on their own behalf). Seeing that they themselves are the servants of the Lord, the whole offering had become a gift to Hashem. What do the priests lose by offering the entire minchah offering to Hashem? We can also not make a comparison with the sin offerings and guilt offerings of the priests for their own sins or guilt, as in wither event at least the entrails are burned up on the altar, and the skin is distributed among the priests of that particular watch. Logic also dictates that the whole minchah be burned up as it is the priest who has presented it, and it would not make sense that he present part of his offering to Hashem to other priests. We find an example of this reasoning being practiced in the bulls offered by the priests during the consecration rites, which are burned up completely. (Leviticus 8,17)

במקום אשר תשחט העולה, “at the site where the burnt offering will be slaughtered;” the reason why the Torah repeats this is because when it wrote about it the first time (4,24) we did not know that the rule applies to all sin offerings to be slaughtered at the same site as the burnt offering.

אשר יזה עליה תכבס, “the one (part) which he has splashed upon you shall wash;” only that part has to be washed, not the whole garment.

תכבס, it is necessary to wash off the blood because it is the blood of an offering which is destined to be eaten within the Sanctuary; if the officiating priest would leave the holy precincts with these bloodstains on his garments, the offering would have become disqualified retroactively.

במקום קדוש, “in the sacred precinct.” This includes (in Solomon’s temple) the offices adjoining the Sanctuary, even those built outside the Sanctuary, as long as their doors led directly to the sacred precinct. (Sifra) [There were none such in the Tabernacle. Ed.]

וכל כלי חרש תשבר, “Just as the washing (ritual cleansing) of garments when required had to take place inside the sacred precincts, so the breaking of earthen vessels (which had become ritually contaminated because the blood had been washed in it) had to take place inside the sacred precincts, if that vessel had to be broken (made useless).”

בכלי נחושת, “if, however such garment as we discussed was washed in a copper vessel, (or any metal vessel),

ומרק ושוטף, ”it requires scouring and rinsing out with water (only).” The condition is that this scouring takes place during the period that the remains of that sacrifice were allowed to be eaten by the priests. Otherwise, it would be subject to the laws of נותר, sacrificial meat left uneaten, and it would have to be destroyed by fire. (Sifra) The “washing” i.e. ritual cleansing did not have to be done in a ritual bath containing a minimum of 40 seah of water (approx 530000 ccm). The Torah added the word: במים, to tell us that the quantity of water was immaterial.