AND THE BULLOCK OF THE SIN-OFFERING. The word chattat (sin offering) has a heh¹ prefixed to it because the sin offering² is mentioned earlier.³ The same applies to the heh prefixed to elim (rams) and matzot (unleavened bread).⁴ (rams) and matzot (unleavened bread) have a heh prefixed to them because they refer to the rams and matzot mentioned in Ex. 29:1,2.

footnotes: ¹ Indicating the definite article. ² Referred to in our verse. ³ In Ex. 29:1. ⁴ The words elim

ALL THE CONGREGATION. The heads of the tribes and the elders.

AND MOSES BROUGHT AARON. To the laver (kiyyor).⁹

footnotes: ⁹ See Ex. 30:17-21.

AND WASHED THEM. By command.¹⁰

footnotes: ¹⁰ Moses commanded that they be washed, or he commanded them to wash themselves. The point is Moses did not personally wash them.

AND BOUND IT UNTO HIM.⁵ The word va-yepod means and girded. Just as the golden plate (tzitz) (v. 9) is not the mitre (mitznefet) (Ibid.),⁶) and the mitre (mitznefet) are not one and the same, for the verse states, and upon the mitre…did he set the golden plate. so the Urim and the Thummim (v. 8) are not the stones of the breastplate (Ex. 28:15-21).⁷. See I.E. on Ex. 28:5, Vol 2, pp. 591-598. Similarly, the Tablets were placed in the ark.⁸ and the Thummim was like that of the ark to the tablets; that is, both served as receptacles. Scripture therefore reads, And in the breastplate he put in the Urim and the Thummim (v. 8).

footnotes: ⁵ This comment appears to be misplaced. ⁶ It is clear from verse 9 that the golden plate (tzitz ⁷ For Scripture states, And in the breastplate he put the Urim and the Thummim ⁸ The relation of the breastplate to the Urim

AND MOSES TOOK THE ANOINTING OIL. It means that Moses had taken the oil¹¹ before the anointing of Aaron.¹²

footnotes: ¹¹ And anointed the tabernacle and its furniture. ¹² Scripture tells of the dressing of Aaron in the priestly vestments in verses 7-9. I.E. assumes that Aaron was anointed as soon as the garments were placed upon him (see Ex. 40:15). The Torah then goes on to tell of the anointing of the tabernacle and its furniture in verses 10-12. It then tells of the dressing of Aaron’s sons (v. 13). However, Ex. 40:9-12 tells us that the anointing of the tabernacle took place before the anointing of Aaron. Hence I.E.’s interpretation.

AND MOSES BROUGHT AARON’S SONS. Scripture notes this a second time¹³ because it speaks at length.¹⁴ On the other hand, this means that when Moses brought Aaron’s sons he dressed them in tunics.¹⁵ here does not mean and brought. Rather it means when he brought. In this case there is no repetition in our verse. The word va-yalbishem (and clothed them) is a verb that governs two actions.¹⁶. Moses caused them to be dressed, and they were dressed.

footnotes: ¹³ After stating this in verse 6. ¹⁴ About other things. In other words, after stating in verse 6 that Moses brought Aaron and his sons to the laver, Scripture drops Aaron’s sons and goes on to speak of Aaron and the tabernacle. Hence, now that it goes on to speak of Aaron’s sons, it once again mentions that Moses brought Aaron and his sons to the laver and goes on to say what followed then. ¹⁵ In other words, va-yakrev ¹⁶ It is a hifil

AND PURIFIED. I have previously explained this.¹⁷

footnotes: ¹⁷ See I.E. on Lev. 6:19.

AND SANCTIFIED IT. So that all the sins¹⁸ may be atoned upon it.

footnotes: ¹⁸ Of Israel.

AND HE TOOK ALL THE FAT THAT WAS UPON THE INWARDS. Scripture earlier stated, the fat that covereth the inwards (Lev. 7:3) Another verse states, the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards (Lev. 3:3). Note, the fat that covereth [the inwards ] is substantial. However, the fat that is upon the inwards consists of a little from here and there.¹⁹ That which covereth [the inwards ] is also upon the inwards. Hence Scripture employed abridged terminology.²⁰. The latter can be taken to refer to itself and also to the fat that covereth the inwards, for they are located in the same place.

footnotes: ¹⁹ It is not part of the layer of fat that covers the inwards. ²⁰ Our verse only speaks of the fat that was upon the inwards

WERE BURNT²¹ (literally, he burnt). WITH FIRE. Some say by Moses himself.²² Others say by the command of Moses. They offer as proof, as the Lord commanded Moses (v. 21).²³ referred to Moses, the verse would have ended with “as the Lord commanded him,” rather than with as the Lord commanded Moses. However, this is no proof, for that is the style of the Hebrew language.²⁴

footnotes: ²¹ Hebrew, saraf ²² For Scripture reads, “he (Moses) burnt.” ²³ If “he” in he burnt with fire ²⁴ Scripture often employs a proper noun in places where we expect it to use a pronoun.

AND THE OTHER RAM WAS PRESENTED, THE RAM OF CONSECRATION, AND AARON AND HIS SONS LAID (VA-YISMEKHU) THEIR HANDS. The first verse reads, and Aaron and his sons laid²⁵) Aaron and his sons. (ve-samakh) (v. 14).²⁶ Note, contra a great grammarian who erred, there is no difference between ve-samakh²⁷, for he is referring to verse 14. Va-samakh is the reading in Ex. 29:10; 19 where the laws of the consecration were first given. aron u-vanav (and Aaron and his sons laid) (v. 14) and va-yismekhu aron u-vanav (and Aaron and his sons laid). The grammarian said that ve-samakh indicates that Aaron alone shall lay hands, and then his sons.²⁸ Vesamekhu²⁹ (and they laid). means, and they shall all lay together.

footnotes: ²⁵ Literally, and laid (va-yismokh ²⁶ The question arises, Is there a difference in meaning between “and laid Aaron and his sons” and “Aaron and his sons laid.” ²⁷ This appears to be an error. I.E. should read va-yismokh ²⁸ Shall lay. ²⁹ Or va-yismekhu

RIGHT EAR. Ha-yemanit (right) is similar to ha-penimit (inner).³⁰ rather than in a heh. The meaning of al tenukh (upon the tip) and bohen (toe) will be explained in the section This Shall Be the Law (Lev. 14:2).³¹ Note, the blood³² atones for Aaron’s life. Similarly for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life (Lev. 17:11). This means the life in the blood shall atone.³³ as in Vat. Ebr. 38. Life is thus offered for life.³⁴ Then [Zipporah]…cast it³⁵ at his³⁶ feet (Ex. 4:25) has a similar explanation.³⁷

footnotes: ³⁰ In form. Both forms are feminine ending in a yod tav ³¹ See I.E. on Lev. 14:14. ³² Which was dashed about the altar (v. 21). See Weiser and Krinsky. ³³ Reading yekhapper ³⁴ The life of the sacrifice atones for the life of the celebrant. ³⁵ The bloody foreskin. ³⁶ Moses’ feet. ³⁷ The blood on the foreskin atoned for Moses. See I.E. on Ex. 4:25 (Vol. 2, p. 110).

ONE UNLEAVENED CAKE. The reference is to the one loaf (kikkar) of bread (Ex. 29:2s).³⁸ usually refers to leavened bread. Hence I.E. explains that Ex 29:3 is to be understood as the one loaf of unleavened bread. I.E. comments thus so that there be no contradiction between the description of the consecration service in our chapter and the one in Exodus. It is possible that the term kikkar (loaf) refers to weight.³⁹ of (un)leavened bread. This interpretation assumes that the term loaf would not be used in reference to unleavened bread. It is not the same weight as that of a kikkar (talent) of gold or silver.⁴⁰

footnotes: ³⁸ Kikkar ³⁹ In this case Ex. 29:23 is to be rendered, the one kikkar ⁴⁰ A talent of gold weighed more than a hundred pounds.

AND PLACED THEM ON THE FAT. Scripture does not mention the lobe⁴¹. of the liver and the kidneys, for the lobe was small. The meaning of yoteret (lobe) is similar to the meaning of the word yitron (profit)⁴² in What profit hath man (Eccles. 1:3).⁴³ means the addition [to the liver]. The kidneys⁴⁴ are offered with their fat,⁴⁵ takes in the fat that is upon the kidneys. The kidneys were offered along with their fat because they are attached to it. for Scripture would not refer to the kidneys as fat.⁴⁶ Only the fat tail is fat.⁴⁷

footnotes: ⁴¹ Hebrew, yoteret ⁴² Or addition. ⁴³ In other words, yoteret ⁴⁴ Mentioned in verse 25. ⁴⁵ Our verse states, and placed them on the fat. The fat ⁴⁶ For it does not consist of fat. I,.E.’s point is that the term “fat” in our verse does not directly refer to the kidneys. ⁴⁷ Hence the term fat cannot refer to the kidneys.

AND WAVED THEM. Moses waved Aaron and his sons⁴⁸ as Aaron waved the Levites.⁴⁹

footnotes: ⁴⁸ In other words, “them” in our verse does not refer to the fat and other items mentioned in the previous verse. ⁴⁹ When they were consecrated. See Num. 8:5-21.

BOIL THE FLESH. Aaron and his sons themselves were to boil the flesh, for and seethe its flesh (Ex. 29:31) is by command.⁵⁰ means command that its flesh be seethed.

footnotes: ⁵⁰ And seethe its flesh

AND THAT WHICH REMAINETH OF THE FLESH AND OF THE BREAD. Until the morning,⁵¹ for Scripture so states.⁵²

footnotes: ⁵¹ Shall be burned. ⁵² In Ex. 29:34.

HE SHALL CONSECRATE YOU. The word ketz (end) was omitted.⁵³ (for he shall consecrate you seven days). The verse may be taken to read, for seven days shall consecrate you. Hence I.E.’s interpretation (Meijler). Our verse should be read as if written, at the end of seven days.⁵⁴ means at the end of seven days you will be consecrated. On the other hand, its meaning might be, for a period of seven days.⁵⁵ has been omitted from the last clause in our verse. In this case our verse reads, for you shall be consecrated for a period of seven days. Some say that And ye shall not go out…seven days⁵⁶ indicates that they went out at night⁵⁷ for their needs.⁵⁸ However, I believe that they went out during the day and night for their needs.⁵⁹ A great scholar⁶⁰ said that they dug a pit⁶¹ in the courtyard of the tent of meeting.⁶² However, this is farfetched.⁶³ Scripture states, And the children of Israel wept for Moses…thirty days (Deut. 34:8), as if there was no moment that they did not weep.⁶⁴ Scripture clearly states that they shall sit at the door of the tent of meeting day and night (v. 35). Its meaning is that they shall not occupy themselves with any matter and they should not go to another place.⁶⁵ Similarly neither shall he go out of the sanctuary (Lev. 21:12), as I will explain.⁶⁶

footnotes: ⁵³ From the last clause in our verse. The latter reads, ki shivat yamim yemalle et yodkham ⁵⁴ In other words, ki shivat yamim yemalle et yedkhem ⁵⁵ According to this interpretation the word zeman ⁵⁶ From the door of the tent of meeting. ⁵⁷ For Scripture speaks only of days. ⁵⁸ To take care of their natural needs. ⁵⁹ For the Torah would not command them to postpone taking care of their natural needs (Weiser). ⁶⁰ I.E. does not identify the scholar. ⁶¹ And relieved themselves in it. ⁶² They thus had no reason to leave the sanctuary to relieve themselves. ⁶³ For they would not relieve themselves in the courtyard of the sanctuary. ⁶⁴ In other words, Deut. 34:8 is hyperbolical, for they obviously did not weep every moment of the thirty days. ⁶⁵ However, they may leave to take care of their bodily functions. ⁶⁶ I.E. there notes that the high priest may leave the sanctuary for the purpose of observing a precept.

AS HATH BEEN DONE THIS DAY.⁶⁷ This means, as Moses did on this day, so God commanded to be done during the seven days of consecration. Scripture should have read, as I⁶⁸ did.⁶⁹ However, such is the style of the holy tongue.⁷⁰ Compare, Thus shall Ezekiel he unto you⁷¹ (Ezek. 24:24); and Jephthah, and Samuel⁷² (I Sam. 12:11). The fact that Scripture states, So the Lord hath commanded to do (v. 34); And thus shall you do unto Aaron, and to his sons, according to all that I have commanded thee; seven days (Ex. 29:35)⁷³. is proof of this.⁷⁴ (Moses) consecrate them. Furthermore, Scripture states, And every day⁷⁵ (literally, to the day). shalt thou⁷⁶ offer the bullock of sin-offering (Ex. 29:36).⁷⁷ The latter is similar to two day by day,⁷⁸. for a continual burnt-offering⁷⁹ indicates that the word la-yom, which precedes it, means daily. Thus the term la-yom in Ex. 29:36 is to be rendered every day.(Num. 28:3).⁸⁰ in Ex. 29:35 is daily. We thus see that Moses offered the bullock of sin offering during the seven days of consecration. Scripture there writes, and thou⁸¹ shalt do the purification⁸², i.e. you will offer the sin-offering. upon the altar…and thou shalt anoint it (Ibid.) every day until the end of the days of consecration.⁸³. Furthermore, Scripture states, Seven days thou⁸⁴ shalt make atonement for the altar (Ex. 29:37).⁸⁵ It does not mention⁸⁶. It omits the two rams. Hence it appears that Moses did not perform the entire consecration service. the two rams⁸⁷ because Scripture employed an abridged style.⁸⁸ Many are of the opinion that Moses was to offer a bullock of sin offering alone every day.⁸⁹ (Ex. 29:36). It does not mention the rams. This is the opinion of the Karaite Yefet (Krinsky). I believe that the reason Scripture mentions the bullock⁹⁰ is that the blood of the burnt offering ram was to be placed on Aaron and his sons,⁹¹ and the second ram’s flesh was to be eaten.⁹² However, the sin offering bullock was to consecrate the altar.⁹³ Scripture clearly states, al hakippurim (beside the other offerings of atonement) (Ex. 29:36), the meaning of which is, for atonement.⁹⁴

footnotes: ⁶⁷ Literally, as he did this day. ⁶⁸ Moses. ⁶⁹ Rather than as he (Moses) did. ⁷⁰ Biblical characters occasionally refer to themselves in the third person. ⁷¹ Ezekiel refers to himself in the third person. ⁷² Samuel refers to himself in the third person. ⁷³ The complete verse reads: So the Lord hath commanded to do; And thus shall you do unto Aaron, and to his sons, according to all that I have commanded thee; seven days shalt thou consecrate them ⁷⁴ That “As he did this day” refers to Moses, for the verse states seven days shalt thou ⁷⁵ Hebrew, la-yom ⁷⁶ Moses. ⁷⁷ This is additional proof that Moses himself performed the consecration ritual during the seven days of consecration. ⁷⁸ Hebrew, la-yom ⁷⁹ The phrase a continual burnt-offering ⁸⁰ In other words the meaning of la-yom ⁸¹ Moses. ⁸² Hebrew, ve-chitteta ⁸³ For the first part of the verse states, And every day shalt thou offer the bullock of sin-offering ⁸⁴ Moses. ⁸⁵ That is, purification for the altar to consecrate it. ⁸⁶ In Ex. 29:36. Ex. 29:36 states, and every day shalt thou offer the bullock of sin-offering ⁸⁷ One of which served as a sin offering and one as a “ram of consecration.” See Ex: 29:1, 15-34; Lev. 8:2, 18-29. ⁸⁸ Actually, Moses offered these rams during the seven days of consecration. ⁸⁹ For Scripture states, And every day shalt thou offer the bullock of sin-offering ⁹⁰ Only in Ex. 29:36. ⁹¹ This comment presents a problem. It was the blood of the second ram, the ram of consecration, that was placed on Aaron and his sons. See Ex. 29:1921; Lev. 8:22,23. It is possible that I.E. erred, for I.E. wrote many of his comments without a text of Scripture before him and he didn’t always edit his works. On the other hand, it is possible that I.E. was of the opinion that the blood of both rams was placed on Aaron and his sons even though Scripture only mentions it with regard to the second ram. Weiser suggests that our reading is due to an error by a copyist. Rabbi Shemu’el Tzartza believes that “I believe, etc.” is a gloss that found its way into I.E.’s commentary. ⁹² Ex. 29:32. ⁹³ The two rams are not mentioned in Ex. 29:36 because the latter speaks only of consecrating the altar. ⁹⁴ I.E.’s point is that the bullock was offered on the altar to atone, i.e., to purify the altar in order to consecrate it, while the rams were part of the consecration ritual of Aaron and his sons. Hence Scripture did not speak of them in the verse which spoke of atoning on the altar.

AND AT THE DOOR OF THE TENT OF MEETING SHALL YE ABIDE. This is stated once again⁹⁵ in order to add, that ye die not.

footnotes: ⁹⁵ In our verse after having been stated in verse 33.

I AM COMMANDED. Tzuvveti (I am commanded) is a pu’al. Some say that the meaning of for so I am commanded is identical to according to all that I have commanded thee⁹⁶ refers to the law of abiding at the door of the tent of meeting during the seven days of consecration. (Ex. 29:35), even though Scripture does not state there that they are to abide at the front of the tent of meeting.⁹⁷

footnotes: ⁹⁶ In other words, according to all that I have commanded thee ⁹⁷ During the seven days of consecration.