'לקח פר אחד וגו, “take one young bullock, etc.” take one ram on its left side and one ram on its right side and place the bullock in the middle. Why was Moses commanded to take these three animals? They were to symbolise the three founding fathers of the Jewish nation. The bullock symbolised Avraham, who had been described as “running to the stables containing the cattle,” when he was about to prepare a meal for the three angels, one of whom predicted the birth of Yitzchok (Genesis18,7). The two rams represented Yitzchok and Yaakov. The unleavened breads in verse 23 accompanying these sacrifices symbolised Hagar and Sarah. Avraham had told Sarah to hurry and to prepare bread at the time. According to Rav Hunna son of Abba, one measure of wheat would be taken to be milled, and by the time the owner came home he found that he had one measure of fine flour and one measure of average quality of flour and one measure of coarse grain. He now brought only a little more than one measure of fine flour. The purpose of the libations accompanying the animal sacrifices was to ensure that the grape harvest would enjoy G–d’s blessing. The Talmud relates the following story. A certain Torah student left Jerusalem, and he was recognised as such by people whom he encountered (who apparently did not have a Torah scholar living in their town) They offered him three major gold coins in order for him to change his place of residence and to take up residence in their town. He declined the money and the offer accompanying it. He explained that he owned a vineyard that was more valuable than all the gold that they could offer him, as it yielded him more than six hundred barrels of wine annually which he could sell at a good price. He recounted that he had an orchard which was similarly generous in the yield of fruit it provided him with. He attributed his good fortune to his meticulously observing the commandment of bringing the first ripe fruit of each category to the Temple in Jerusalem each year, as an offering to G–d (via the priest) Another story is related about a certain Yonathan son of Elazar, who witnessed while sitting under his fig-tree when the dew descended on that tree as a result of which he harvested great amounts of honey so much so that that when the wind mixed it with earth a female goat materialised and gave an abundance of milk. This Yonathan told his students that he wanted to show them a phenomenon which reflected the world to come in miniature. The moment he had finished saying this to his students all the aforementioned examples of material wealth on this earth vanished, in accordance with the prophet Chagai 1,6 who had said: זרעתם הרבה והבא מעט, אכול ולא לשבעה, שתו ואין לשכרה, לבוש ולא לחום לו, “you have sown much and brought in little; you eat without being satisfied; you drink without getting your fill; you clothe yourselves without getting warm.” [Yonathan then realised that he had erred greatly when boasting about material blessings he had enjoyed, and using these as a reason why not moving to a town that did not have a resident Torah scholar. Ed.] We find a similar message in Jeremiah 8,13. These blessings were all denied the Jewish people when they saw in them rewards for fulfillment of certain commandments in the Torah. We are not to observe the Torah for such a reward, although fulfillment of the commandments is accompanied by a certain amount of material blessings encouraging us to continue to do so. Our author quotes more sayings of the prophets on this subject, (Chabakuk 3,17; Ezekiel 36,8;) Tanchuma 13 on our portion.

ולחם מצות, “and unleavened bread;” Rashi explains this as a mixture of flour and oil. In the Talmud, tractate Menachot, folio 89, this is based on our verse speaking both of לחם מצות and immediately afterwards of “challot matzot, mixed with oil”.

וסמכו אהרן ובניו את ידיהם, “and Aaron and his sons are to lay their hands, etc.: according to our author’s version of the Torah, the name of Aaron is spelled here with the letter ו which never occurs elsewhere. (Minchas shay) [The fact is that in our versions of the Torah it is spelled in the usual way, without that letter. Ed.] Our author raises another question concerning the word וסמכו, i.e. a plural mode, whereas in verse 10 it is spelled in the singular mode as we expected. [In both instances only one animal is being sacrificed, so why would Aaron and his sons all place their hands on that one ram? Ed.] Also in verse 19 the Torah again reverts to using the singular mode for that word although the subjects are both Aaron and his sons. It appears that according to the Midrash on verse 15 the word Aaron has also been spelled with the additional letter ו; according to Rashi, commenting on a similar anomaly of the spelling of the word לטוטפות once with the plural letter ו and once without, (Exodus 13,16, Deuteronomy 6,7 and 11,18 respectively). [In our editions it is not spelled with the letter ו on the last two occasions. The versions quoted and discussed in the Talmud are not binding for us nowadays. There is therefore no point in translating the speculations of our author on the subject. A comment by the author of minchass shy a well known exegete of the 17th century is not relevant as our author lived about 4-500 years earlier. Ed.]

ולקחת מן הדם, “you are to take from the blood;” it is not clear if seeing that the blood of that animal had already been sprinkled on the altar as reported in verse 20, he had to take from the same blood and sprinkle it on Aaron and his sons’ garments.

כל הנוגע, “anything which touches, etc;” according to Rashi the word כל here, if taken at face value, means: that even if an animal that was not fit as a sacrificial animal under any circumstances and had by mistake come into contact with the altar, it would have been disqualified for any further use, that it must not be removed from the altar. [Sanctification is used here in the negative sense of the word, out of bounds for anyone else. Ed.]. In order to forestall our getting the wrong impression, the verse following spelling out an example of an animal qualified as a sacrifice, teaches that was meant in verse 37 were only animals basically qualified as sacrifices, which had incurred a disqualification after being on the sacred grounds of the Temple. It is worth examining why in this verse the burnt offering has not been mentioned by name. Presumably, the Torah thought that the reader would understand that the verse speaks of a burnt offering, the name “burnt offering” having been spelled out in verse 44 of our chapter. Our author feels that this is a somewhat forced answer and that there is no need for such a forced answer. He suggests instead that seeing that our verse speaks of an offering tendered twice on each day, that the reader surely knows that this could only refer to a burnt offering. The details about this offering have been spelled out in Numbers 28,3. Our author raises a question involving a commentary by Rashi on the portion dealing with the daily burnt offerings. (Numbers 28,4) On the words: את הכבש האחד תעשה בבוקר, “you shall present the one sheep in the morning,” he writes: that this has been repeated there although it has already been recorded here, as here it referred to a one time event, the consecration of Aaron and his sons as priests, [subsequent priests being born as such to their respective fathers and not needing consecration; Ed.] The paragraph in Numbers refers to legislation that is permanent, and remained in force as long as a Temple functioned. [This editor refers the reader to an interesting comment by K’lee yakar on why in the one verse the Torah speaks about אחד, “one,” whereas in the other portion dealing with the basically same sacrifice the Torah used the prefix ה, i.e. האחד, “the one.”] Our author feels that there was another occasion when the priests had to be consecrated in the time of Ezra when the second Temple had been consecrated and the claim of someone being a priest had to be documented anew due to the seventy years of exile the Jews had endured when not all could prove their ancestry beyond doubt. It will again become necessary to do so when the messiah will come, hopefully soon in our time. Our author feels that this is why Rashi in referring to the consecration rites never mentions a word about these being unique in Jewish history.