AND THIS IS THE LAW OF THE GUILT-OFFERING. I have previously¹ explained to you the difference between a sin offering². and a guilt offering.³. [There is a difference between the two] even though Scripture employs the term guilt when referring to a sin offering⁴ (ashamo)…for his sin. Also Lev. 4:13, 14, And are guilty (ve-ashemu)…then the assembly shall offer…a sin-offering. and the word sin when referring to a guilt offering.⁵. Scripture records this section⁶ because it wants to make mention of the fat,⁷ to which no reference is made when Scripture earlier records the law of the sin offering.⁸. There the Torah deals with sin and guilt offerings.

footnotes: ¹ See I.E. on Lev. 5:17. ² Hebrew, chattat ³ Asham ⁴ See Lev. 5:6, And he shall bring his forfeit ⁵ See Lev. 5:17,18, And if any one sin…And he shall bring a ram…for a guilt-offering ⁶ The section dealing with the law of the guilt offering (verses 1-7). ⁷ Of the guilt offering. ⁸ In the previous Torah portion, Va-Yikra

ANY MAN’S BURNT-OFFERING. The word olat (burnt offering) is penultimately accented⁹ in accordance with the rules of Hebrew grammar.¹⁰ It is so accented because the word that follows¹¹ (man). has the accent on the first part of the word.

footnotes: ⁹ It is usually ultimately accented. Hence I.E.’s comment. ¹⁰ When a word that is ultimately accented is connected to a word that is penultimately accented, it too is penultimately accented. ¹¹ Ish

Scripture reads to himself even though it earlier stated even the priest¹² appears redundant. Hence I.E.’s comment. because it wants to further explain that the skin not be given to another kohen.

footnotes: ¹² Our verse reads, even the priest shall have to himself. To himself

AND ALL THAT IS DRESSED. The word na’asah (dressed) is an adjective¹³ in the feminine. It is like the word nirah (seen) in there was no stone seen (I Kings 6:18). The masculine form of the word is found in Now that which was prepared (na’aseh) (Neh. 5:18).

footnotes: ¹³ I.E. refers to participles as adjectives.

OR DRY. As in the case of the “descending” meal offering¹⁴ and a meal offering brought about because of jealousy.¹⁵

footnotes: ¹⁴ A meal offering substituted for an animal offering by someone of lesser means. See Lev. 5:11. ¹⁵ A meal offering brought by a woman suspected of adultery. See Num. 5:11-31.

IF HE OFFER IT FOR A THANKSGIVING. Its meaning is, if he offers it because he wants to give thanks to God for escaping from some trouble.

UNLEAVENED CAKE.¹⁶ (literally cakes). As many as he desires.¹⁷ However, he cannot bring fewer than two.¹⁸ The same applies to the unleavened wafers.¹⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁶ Hebrew, challot ¹⁷ He may offer as many cakes as he wishes. ¹⁸ For Scripture employs the plural. ¹⁹ Hebrew, rekike matzot

SOAKED. I believe that the best interpretation of solet murbekhet (fine flour soaked) is chosen flour. The unleavened cakes²⁰. and the wafers²¹. were baked. The cakes made from chosen flour were not so treated.²² 76b.

footnotes: ²⁰ The challot ²¹ The rekike matzot ²² According to the rabbis of the Talmud they were scalded with oil until they were saturated. See Menachot

WITH CAKES. The meaning of al challot is with cakes.²³ should be here rendered as with. The word al usually has the meaning of on. Hence I.E.’s comment. Similarly And they came, both men and (al) women (Ex. 35:22).²⁴ has the meaning of with.

footnotes: ²³ In other words, the word al ²⁴ Here too the word al

AND OF IT HE SHALL PRESENT ONE OUT OF EACH OFFERING. Note, there had to be a minimum of four unleavened cakes.²⁵ (of the four types of unleavened cakes mentioned in verse 12)…for a gift unto the Lord. However, in truth there were ten.²⁶. This is the opinion of the rabbis in Menachot 77a.

footnotes: ²⁵ A minimum of four unleavened cakes is to be offered by the celebrant, for Scripture says, And…he shall present one out of each ²⁶ Of each kind of bread, and one of each was presented for a gift unto the Lord

SHALL BE EATEN ON THE DAY OF HIS OFFERING. The one who offers the sacrifice, his family, and all who are clean shall eat it, for the peace offerings are also holy²⁷ even though they are lesser holy offerings.

footnotes: ²⁷ Hence only those who are clean may eat of it.

A VOW. A vow uttered by the lips when in trouble.

OR A FREEWILL-OFFERING. His sprit moved him to bring a sacrifice to God, not because he had made a vow, or for thanksgiving.

ON THE DAY THAT HE OFFERETH HIS SACRIFICE. The word hakrivo is an infinitive²⁸ in the hifil. [AND ON THE MORROW.] On the morrow of that day.²⁹

footnotes: ²⁸ With a pronominal suffix. ²⁹ That he offered the sacrifice.

[THAT WHICH REMAINETH.] The vav of ve-ha-notar (that which remaineth)³⁰ has the same meaning as an unaspirated fa in Arabic.³¹ is to be rendered, that which remaineth, not and that which remaineth. So too Rashi. The same applies to the vav in va-ya’azov (left) in left his servants (Ex. 9:21)³² is to be rendered left, not and he left. and the vav in ve-ha-aretz (now the earth) in Now the earth was unformed and void (Gen. 1:2).³³

footnotes: ³⁰ Literally, and that which remaineth. ³¹ It does not mean “and” but rather is a particle introducing the principal part of a sentence. In other words, ve-ha-notar ³² Va-ya’azov ³³ See I.E. on Gen. 1:2 (Vol. 1, p. 30) and the notes thereto.

SHALL BE BURNT WITH FIRE. Like the parts of a sacrifice which Scripture designates for burning. However, it should not be burned on the altar.

[NEITHER SHALL IT BE IMPUTED UNTO HIM THAT OFFERETH IT.] Its meaning is, since Scripture designates that specific parts of the sacrifice be offered to God, all that remains of the animal is holy. Similarly the stones of the altar.³⁴ Since they are holy, it is unfit that anything that remains from them be used in a non-sacred way. Scripture therefore reads, of unhewn stones (Deut. 27:6).³⁵

footnotes: ³⁴ The stones used in constructing the altar. ³⁵ The stones used for building the altar were not to be hewn, because when stones are hewn the chips that fall might be employed for non-sacred purposes or might be cast into a filthy place. See I.E. on Ex. 20:22 (Vol. 2, pp. 443-445).

ABHORRED. The word piggul (abhorred) is to be rendered as the Aramaic translator does.³⁶ by merachak (removed). Similarly the word piggulim (abominable things) in And broth of abominable things is in their vessels (Is. 65:4). Some ask, “Since the sweet savor ascended,³⁷ how can it not be accepted?”³⁸ The answer is that it depends on his intention. According to the law, the peace offerings must be holy. However that which is abhorred is not holy.³⁹ Furthermore,⁴⁰ the celebrant’s gain⁴¹ disappears in his loss⁴² with regard to a peace offering. In the case of a vow offering, there is a new sin⁴³ corresponding to the first⁴⁴ if he does not fulfil his vow.⁴⁵

footnotes: ³⁶ Onkelos renders piggul ³⁷ When the sacrifice was first offered. ³⁸ In other words, since the sacrifice was properly offered, how can it be disqualified three days later? ³⁹ The slaughterer of the sacrifice disqualified the offering by intending during the slaughter to eat of the sacrifice on the third day. Thus the sacrifice never “ascended.” See Rashi. ⁴⁰ Even if he did not disqualify the sacrifice by intending to eat of it on the third day when he slaughtered it. ⁴¹ For offering the sacrifice. ⁴² By eating the sacrifice after the proscribed time. ⁴³ Not fulfilling his vow. ⁴⁴ Eating the sacrifice after the proscribed time. ⁴⁵ By bringing another animal.

SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY. His punishment.⁴⁶ (iniquity) at times has the meaning of punishment. See I.E. on Gen 4:18 (Vol. 1, p. 84). Scripture does not mention the punishment.⁴⁷ One who is unclean and eats sacred flesh is punished with karet (excision).⁴⁸

footnotes: ⁴⁶ According to I.E. the word avon ⁴⁷ For eating of the flesh of a sacrifice after the proscribed time. ⁴⁸ In verse 20.

[HAVING HIS UNCLEANLINESS.] This means if his uncleanliness comes from his body, as in the case of a flux⁴⁹. or a leper.⁵⁰. Also because of uncleanliness caused by a nocturnal emission, as Scripture states, for he thought: Something⁵¹ hath befallen him⁵² (I Sam. 20:26). It also applies to uncleanliness that comes from contact with an outside source⁵³ such as a dead body, or a living person who experienced a flux or is a leper, or an unclean beast which may not be eaten, or a detestable thing from among the fowl and that which swarms.⁵⁴ A Sadducee⁵⁵ once came to me and asked, “Does the Torah prohibit the fat tail?”⁵⁶). I answered that it is true that the fat tail is called “fat” (chelev),⁵⁷ for the Torah states, the fat thereof, the fat tail entire (Lev. 3:9). However, while our sages prohibited all fat, they permitted the fat tail.⁵⁸. Nahmanides charged that Ibn Ezra’s position is more heretical than that of the Karaites. Luzzato claimed that I.E. did not really believe that fat (chelev) is permitted. He was merely playing devil’s advocate. However, Nahmanides correctly interpreted Ibn Ezra. I.E. held that biblically speaking only the fat of an animal actually offered on the altar is prohibited. Other fat is prohibited by the rabbis. See I.E. on Deut. 12:15. The importance of I.E.’s comment on this verse for understanding Ibn Ezra’s approach to the halakhah is discussed in the introduction to this volume. The Sadducee then replied, “Does not the Torah prohibit all fat? Indeed it is written, that ye shall eat neither fat nor blood (Lev. 3:17). The latter is preceded by Scripture’s statement, It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations (Ibid.).”I once again answered him that this verse⁵⁹ relates to the peace offering. Also, the clause It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations⁶⁰ implies even in a time when the sanctuary no longer exists. does not provide complete proof, for we see that Scripture states, And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this selfsame day, until ye have brought the offering of your God (Lev. 23:14).⁶¹. Now Scripture there writes, it is a statute for ever (Ibid.). Shall we then not eat bread in the Diaspora? For we have not brought the omer offering.⁶² means as long as the sanctuary exits. Similarly a perpetual statute. He, on his part, replied, “Ye shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat (v. 23).”⁶³ I again answered that this verse too refers to a peace offering. For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men present an offering (v. 25) is proof, for the latter excludes the fat of all flesh which is not offered as a peace offering, that is, all secular meat.⁶⁴ Scripture therefore states in our section, And the fat of that which dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of beasts, may be used for any other service; but ye shall in no wise eat of it (v. 24). It is known⁶⁵ that the flesh of that which dies of itself and that which is torn of beasts is prohibited. It is the flesh that is prohibited.⁶⁶ Now since the fat⁶⁷ is not offered on the altar, one might think that it is permitted. Hence Scripture warns,⁶⁸ but ye shall in no wise eat of it.⁶⁹) of an animal that dies or is torn by another animal. It is for this reason that Scripture does not mention the blood.⁷⁰ This section⁷¹ was written in order to explain the punishment incurred by one who eats the fat of sacred flesh. The verse relating to any blood (v. 27) was similarly written to add that the blood of fowl is prohibited.⁷² The fat of fowl is therefore permitted.⁷³ Scripture’s statement in the Book of Deuteronomy (Deut. 1:1)⁷⁴ with regard to meat eaten out of desire, that is, non-sacred meat (Deut. 12:15-25), is total proof of what I say,⁷⁵ for Scripture states that non-sacred meat may be eaten in its entirety.⁷⁶ (Deut. 12:15). The fat of the latter is permitted. Only its blood is excluded in three places.⁷⁷ Fat is totally unmentioned.⁷⁸ The Sadducee’s eyes opened and he uttered an oath with his lips to the effect that he will never rely on his judgment when it comes to explaining the commandments. He will rely only on the tradition transmitted by the Pharisees.⁷⁹

footnotes: ⁴⁹ Hebrew, zav ⁵⁰ Hebrew, metzora ⁵¹ A nocturnal emission. ⁵² And rendered him unclean. ⁵³ Coming into contact with an outside unclean source. ⁵⁴ Lev. 1-31. ⁵⁵ A Karaite. ⁵⁶ The fat of the tail (Hebrew, alyah ⁵⁷ Fat is proscribed by Jewish law. ⁵⁸ This statement was disconcerting among Biblical commentaries, for according to the Talmud all fat is prohibited by the Torah (not the sages), and the violator incurs the penalty of karet ⁵⁹ Lev. 3:17. ⁶⁰ This clause may be taken to imply that the fat of animals not sacrificed is prohibited, for throughout the generations ⁶¹ The omer ⁶² Thus for ever ⁶³ The Karaite assumed that this verse applies to all animals forever. ⁶⁴ All non-sacrificed flesh. ⁶⁵ From earlier Biblical passages. See Ex. 22:30. ⁶⁶ Ex. 22:30 speaks only of the flesh. The latter may be taken to imply that the fat of carrion or of an animal that dies of itself is permitted. ⁶⁷ Of an animal that dies or is torn by another animal. ⁶⁸ In verse 24. ⁶⁹ The fat (chelev ⁷⁰ In verse 24, for Scripture earlier prohibited the eating of blood. ⁷¹ Verses 20-25. ⁷² Otherwise there would be no need for this verse, for Scripture earlier prohibited the blood of animals. ⁷³ Only the blood of fowl is spoken of in verse 27. Fat is not mentioned. ⁷⁴ In other words, Scripture’s statement in Deuteronomy. ⁷⁵ That only the fat of sacred meat is prohibited. ⁷⁶ For there Scripture says that non-sacred meat may be eaten, as of the gazelle, and as of the hart ⁷⁷ Deut. 12:23-25. ⁷⁸ For it is permitted according to Torah law. However, the rabbis prohibited it. ⁷⁹ One of the leitmotifs of I.E.’s commentary is that when it comes to religious practice we must rely on Rabbinic tradition. He offers the concession of the Karaite as proof of this position. See I.E.’s introduction (Vol. I, pp. 3-10; 18,19).

THE RIGHT THIGH. Is to be given to the kohen who sprinkles the blood, and the breast to all the kohanim.

THIS IS THE CONSECRATED PORTION. This is the reward of the consecration of Aaron or of the consecration of his sons. The word mishchat (consecrated portion) means leadership.⁸⁰.

footnotes: ⁸⁰ According to I.E. our verse should be explained, this is Aaron’s (or his sons’) reward for holding the office of leadership, i.e., kohen

IN THE DAY THAT THEY WERE ANOINTED. Be-yom (in the day) is to be rendered, from the day.⁸¹ of be-yom has the meaning of a mem. The priestly gifts mentioned in verse 34 were given to kohanim from the day that they commenced to minister. Hence I.E.’s interpretation. Similarly ba-basar⁸² has the meaning of “from” (of), not “in.” u-va-lachem (of the flesh and of the bread) (Lev. 8:32).

footnotes: ⁸¹ In other words, the bet ⁸² Here too the bet

AND OF THE CONSECRATION-OFFERING. As written in the Torah portion And Thou Shalt Command (Ex. 27:20).

TO PRESENT THEIR OFFERINGS UNTO THE LORD, IN THE WILDERNESS OF SINAI. For Israel did not offer sacrifices until they came to Mount Sinai. I have previously shown you that the altar which Moses built after defeating Amalek was built in Horeb, which is Mount Sinai.⁸³ Israel camped there for a year minus ten days.⁸⁴ The latter is clearly stated in Scripture. They did not offer sacrifices in the wilderness, for the prophet clearly states, Did ye bring unto Me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? (Amos 5:25). Israel similarly only offered the Passover sacrifice in Egypt, and for a second time at Mount Sinai,⁸⁵ for they had no cattle in the wilderness. They did not circumcise on the way after they journeyed from Mount Sinai. Most of them were thus uncircumcised.⁸⁶ Joshua circumcised them⁸⁷ so that they could partake of the Passover sacrifice.⁸⁸

footnotes: ⁸³ See I.E. on Ex 17:15 (Vol. 2, p. 341). ⁸⁴ Israel came to Sinai on the first day of Sivan (Ex. 19:1). They left Sinai on the twentieth day of the following Iyyar (Num. 10:11). See I.E. on Ex. 19:1 (Vol. 1, p. 370); and on Num. 10:11 (Vol. 4, p. 70). ⁸⁵ Num. 9:1-5. ⁸⁶ And were proscribed from offering the Passover sacrifice (Ex. 12:48). ⁸⁷ After entering the Land of Israel. ⁸⁸ Josh. 5:2-10.