Command Aaron and his sons, saying. The term command [tzav] always implies urging, both immediately and for generations. Rabbi Shimon said: The Scripture needs to especially emphasize urging in situations where there is financial loss. Urging is only needed in places of laziness, and it is written Laziness casts one into a deep sleep (Proverbs 19:15), and it is written How long will you lie down, O lazy one? (Proverbs 6:9). Here, the commandment involves tending to the fire burning all night until morning, and there is concern that due to the natural laziness in people, one might fall into slumber and ruin the sacrifice. Therefore, urging is needed. Similarly, the Re’em [Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi] explained regarding financial loss, that there is much greater pain in maintaining the fire all night than the pain of financial loss. From here, our Sages (Shabbat 20a) learned to say that priests are generally considered diligent, because the Scripture urged them by saying Command Aaron and his sons, saying, for generations — that all of them should be diligent in their service, removing sleep from their eyes and slumber from their eyelids, and engaging in the service all night until morning.

**Regarding the financial loss mentioned here, there are many opinions.**So I will add a good lesson from my own understanding: Since the burnt offering atones for sinful thoughts of the heart, and we find in the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 8:4 at the end) a story about Rabbi Yochanan who lost his money pouch. They asked him about Torah matters, but he did not know [the answers]. They said to him: “Has your knowledge been lost because you lost your pouch?” He replied to them: “The mind depends on the heart, and the heart depends on the pouch.” From here we have proof that financial loss can confuse a wise person and cause him to lose the gift of heart that God gave him to contemplate the Tree of Life, and instead his heart is drawn to think and contemplate sin. And if the priest does not perform this sacrifice according to its proper procedure, he must make another one, and the first is nullified and wasted — as explained by Chizkuni. Through this financial loss, he will lose his mind and heart and come to sinful thoughts. Then even the second sacrifice will not atone for these thoughts, because it would be a mitzvah that comes through a transgression. How can it atone for sinful thoughts when the sacrifice itself causes additional sinful thoughts through the financial loss? Therefore, the priest needs extra urging specifically regarding the burnt offering.

Another explanation: Since this entire portion is a commandment to the priests to be told to future generations, to teach them this is the law of the burnt offering and this is the law of the sin offering and similarly all the laws of the sacrifices. And the teaching is presumably free of charge, as our Sages of blessed memory said (Nedarim 37): “Just as I teach for free, so too you should teach for free.” Furthermore, the priests are presumably not wealthy because they have no portion in the land, and their sustenance is provided daily from the “high table” [i.e., from God’s altar]. Due to their lack of funds, we are concerned that they might lose their knowledge, which depends on their financial situation. Therefore, [the Torah] comes to urge them and says Command Aaron and his sons, saying — meaning to say these laws to future generations and to teach them this is the law of the burnt offering and similarly all the this is the law of statements mentioned throughout this portion. For all of it is the priests’ teaching, and the lips of a priest should safeguard knowledge, and people should seek teaching from his mouth (Malachi 2:7). Therefore, the Torah comes to urge them to strengthen their hearts in God’s Torah, to teach it to future generations, and that what happened to Rabbi Yochanan should not happen to them — they asked him about the law and he did not know — similar to what is stated: Ask the priests about the law, etc. (Haggai 2:11). And like Samuel said, “The priests were not mistaken” (Pesachim 17a).

Aaron and his sons. Throughout the entire book of Leviticus, Aaron is not mentioned, only “the sons of Aaron.” The Midrash explains that God distanced Aaron because of the sin of the Golden Calf, but Moses brought him close through his prayer, saying “The pit is hated but its waters are beloved,” etc., as appears in the Yalkut Shimoni (Tzav 479). The reason for this is that all the sacrifices in Parashat Vayikra primarily deal with those offerings that come because of sin, and if they had not sinned with the Golden Calf, they would not have needed these sacrifices at all, as it is written: For I did not speak to your forefathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices on the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt (Jeremiah 7:22). The commentators explain that specifically on the day I brought them out, before they sinned with the Golden Calf, I did not command them about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but after they sinned with the Golden Calf, I commanded them about the Tabernacle and the sacrifices, because they then needed atonement. And since Aaron, who made the Golden Calf, was the cause of the need for sacrifices, therefore he was distanced from their performance, because “a prosecutor cannot become a defender,” until Moses brought him close through his prayer, saying: “You have given honor to the wood for the sake of their children,” as we learn (Tamid 29a): “All types of wood are suitable for the altar pyre except for olive and vine, etc.” This is because wine and oil, the products, are offered on the altar; therefore the trees, which are their “fathers,” are saved from being burned on the pyre. Similarly, Aaron should be saved for the sake of his sons. For God said to destroy all his fruit, and Moses’ prayer was partially successful, and because of the half of his sons that were burned, their father was acquitted. So God made His ways known to Moses that this is how it would be — that the House would be sanctified through Aaron’s sons — and on this, Moses built the foundation of this prayer.

“This is the law of the burnt offering, it is the burnt offering on its pyre.” The phrase it is the burnt offering is completely superfluous. The commentators have agreed to explain that this comes to inform us that whoever engages in [studying] the law of the burnt offering, it is as if he has offered a burnt offering. And regarding this it says, This is the law of the burnt offering — [meaning] one who engages in the law of the burnt offering, it is the burnt offering — this is as good as offering the actual burnt offering itself. And we read it [in the feminine form] “she” [hi], [but it is written “he” [hu]] — this refers to the Torah scroll, because the word “book” [sefer] is masculine and “Torah” [torah] is feminine. Therefore it is written as “hu” [he] but read as “hi” [she].

“It is the burnt offering.” There are those who say this means that the study of Torah, which is called tushiyah because it weakens [mateshet] a person’s strength, is considered as if one has offered oneself as a burnt offering. And do not say that Torah study is merely metaphorically similar to offering a burnt offering, for in truth there is neither a fireplace nor an altar here. [That is why] scripture teaches us: on its firewood upon the altar — because the fire of Torah within a person is similar to the fire of the altar. The verse informs us that the time for the burnt offering is all night until morning, and furthermore, the phrase until morning is superfluous. This teaches wisdom to the people by way allusion: just as the time for the burnt offering is all night until morning, so too the appropriate time for one who engages in the Torah of the burnt offering [which is comparable to actually offering a burnt offering] is during the exile, which is compared to night. For it is then that Israel needs to pay “the bulls of their lips.” Until morning — but not including morning itself. For in the time when the morning of Israel dawns, then they will offer actual bulls on God’s altar. As it is written, O Lord, open my lips (Psalms 51:17). And when do I ask that You accept the utterance of my lips? For [Ki] You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it (Psalms 51:18). The word ki indicates a specific time, meaning there will be a time when You will not desire sacrifice, and regarding that time I ask that You accept the speech of my lips in place of sacrifice. For through engaging in the laws of sacrifices, a person will also come to a “broken spirit.” This is what is meant by The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, You will not despise (Psalms 51:19). And from the fact that it says You will not despise, we can deduce that the actual sacrifice itself is more favored by God than engagement in the Torah of the burnt offering. And what is meant by This is the law of the burnt offering; it is the burnt offering applies specifically all night — during exile when there is no sacrifice or meal offering. And that is why afterward it says, Do good in Your good pleasure to Zion… Then You shall be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness… then bulls shall be offered upon Your altar (Psalms 51:20-21).

And it may be that about this it is said (Jeremiah 7:21) Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat flesh, for the prophet rebukes them to come to the house of the Lord with burnt offerings and peace offerings, whose meat is eaten by the owners, and not to cause the destruction of the Temple and the cessation of the sacrifices. And do not lean on a broken reed of love by saying, “We can exempt ourselves from sacrifices through words of burnt offering and sacrifice,” meaning the speech of our lips. For I did not speak with your fathers, nor did I command them on the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning [literally, about the words of] burnt offerings and sacrifices (Jeremiah 7:22) — specifically regarding the words of burnt offering and sacrifice I did not command on the day of redemption, that is, on the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, for this is the morning of Israel. And the verse that says This is the law of the burnt offering, it is the burnt offering specifically [means] all night until the morning but not including [morning], for morning is the time for the actual sacrifice. And it says the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it — if it speaks of ordinary fire, it means it shall burn in the person who offers the sacrifice, for fire is kindled in his anger because he is alarmed and recoils backward, saying, “What have I done? For I have done evil and cut short my life, for I deserve all these judgments.” Thus, the fire of the altar affects him and causes him to return in repentance. And if it speaks of the fire of the law of the Torah, it is obvious that it burns within him literally and burns away all evil thoughts and all animalistic tendencies within him.

And on the level of allusion that it mentioned the darkness of exile which is compared to night, and at that very time, from on high, God sent fire in Jacob, and there is concern lest, God forbid, it may consume from soul to flesh, and where is the morning which He promised? Therefore, it said that the heavenly fire burns but does not consume, for it is the fire of the altar that shall burn within him — within Israel — because all heavenly fire has this nature: it burns but does not consume. The fire of the altar proves this, and as our Sages of blessed memory said (Chagigah 27): “The sinners of Israel, the fire of Gehenna has no power over them.” This is a fortiori from the golden altar, which had only the thickness of a gold dinar upon it and did not burn; how much more so for those who are as full of commandments as a pomegranate. And it concludes in the Tanchuma (Exodus 15) that heavenly fire has this nature that it burns but does not consume, with proof from the fire of the burning bush, for the bush was not consumed. This is a wonderful lesson on what is written: From on high He sent fire, to tell you that His fires are like His arrows — for His arrows are spent but Israel is not spent. So too His fires which God sent from on high will not burn them to destruction, but rather a fire resembling the fire of the altar shall burn within him until the morning — until the dawn of Israel rises.

And what we said, “all night until morning,” is a hint to the time of exile. This interpretation is compelled by the Midrash that concludes in Yalkut This is the law of the burnt offering. Rabbi Abba bar Yudan said: This is comparable to a king whose friend honored him with a barrel of wine and a basket of figs. The king said to him, “Is this a gift?” He replied, “My Lord king, for the time being I have honored you with this, but when you enter your palace, you know with what I will honor you.” Similarly, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses, This is the law of the burnt offering — is this the burnt offering? [expressed with surprise]. Moses said before Him, “Master of the Universe, for the time being I have offered it, but when You show favor to Zion according to Your will and build the walls of Jerusalem, then You will desire righteous sacrifices, burnt offerings, and whole offerings.”

And there is a difficulty with this midrash, where is this answer hinted at in the verse? For the question is here and the answer is in the book of Psalms (51:20–21). Rather, certainly the author of this midrash relied on the superfluous phrase until morning mentioned here, and interpreted that Moses replied to the Holy One, Blessed be He, specifically all night in this world, which is compared to night, You will accept this until the morning — until the time of redemption, when the morning of Israel will rise, meaning when You favor Zion with Your goodwill (Psalms 51:20), but not including that time itself. For then You will desire righteous sacrifices (Psalms 51:21). And he incidentally used the language of the verse in Psalms, but he derived this entire answer from the additional phrase until morning. The intention of the statement is that the burnt offering in this world comes for the sin of impure thoughts, and is this an honor and a gift? For there is no honor to God when one sins and brings a sacrifice, as it would be better if one did not sin and did not bring a sacrifice, because this sacrifice is not a gift at all but payment for the sin. And does one honor a king by paying a debt? Therefore, he brought a parable about figs and wine, because it is said Like grapes in the desert I found Israel; like the first fruit of the fig tree (Hosea 9:10). For in the desert, the Israelites were sinful and evil from within and without, as will be explained, God willing, in the verse The mixed multitude among them felt a craving (Numbers 11:4) — see there. And in this, he compared them to grapes, which appear beautiful on the outside but have waste and seeds inside. And figs have a stem on the outside, as concluded in Yalkut Parashat Lech Lecha (16:80) regarding circumcision: “Just as the fig has no waste except for its stem, etc.” And wine is after the removal of the waste from within it, and a basket of figs is after the stems have been cut off. He compared the sacrifices that atone for sins of action and thought, both internal and external, to these. And the answer to this came: All night — in this world, while man is entangled in the darkness of his material nature, then there is no righteous person on earth who does good and does not sin (Ecclesiastes 7:20). Specifically, as long as he is on earth, connected to the earthly, material part of himself. However, when the morning of redemption rises, then the heart of stone will be removed from among Israel. Then You will desire righteous sacrifices, burnt offering and whole offering (Psalms 51:21) — not burnt offerings for sin, but peace offerings and voluntary burnt offerings that come as acts of righteousness and gifts. Then “bulls” that come as acts of righteousness and gifts will be accepted favorably. And this is a precious interpretation.

On its burning place on the altar, etc. Three burnings [yekidot] are mentioned in this section, and Abarbanel explained that they correspond to the three daily prayers, as the prayers were established to correspond to the daily sacrifices: The morning prayer corresponds to the morning daily sacrifice, the afternoon prayer corresponds to the afternoon daily sacrifice, and the evening prayer corresponds to the limbs and fats [of the sacrifices] whose time [for burning] is the entire night. And this is what it means by on its burning place on the altar all night until morning — corresponding to the evening prayer, whose time is the entire night until morning. And about this it says, and the fire of the altar shall burn in it. Afterward it says, And the fire on the altar shall burn in it, and the priest shall kindle wood on it every morning — corresponding to the morning prayer. And afterward it says, A perpetual fire shall burn on the altar; it shall not go out. And this is the law of the meal offering [minchah] — this corresponds to the afternoon [minchah] prayer. Thus far is the essence of his words. And as a kind of proof for his words that prayer is hinted at in the language of burning [yekidah] is since it is said, My heart grew hot within me; in my meditation a fire burned; I spoke with my tongue (Psalms 39:4).

And I am adding to his words to bring robust and good proofs on this matter. For initially it says And the fire of the altar shall be kept burning in it — there is no prohibition here but only a positive commandment. And in the second [verse], both a prohibition and a positive commandment are stated, as it says And the fire on the altar shall be kept burning in it, it shall not go out — shall be kept burning is a positive commandment, shall not go out is a negative commandment. And in the third [verse], a prohibition and a positive commandment are also stated, with the addition of the concept of permanence, as it says A perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, it shall not go out. And all this was not written haphazardly, but with a great and wonderful purpose. This is because the evening prayer is optional and not obligatory, therefore no prohibition is mentioned regarding it, and even the positive commandment is not a complete commandment, as there is no direct command to the fire, since it says And the fire of the altar shall be kept burning in it. The morning prayer is obligatory and forbidden to neglect, therefore the prohibition of it shall not go out was added. And for the afternoon prayer, in addition to the prohibition of it shall not go out, it says perpetual fire, indicating the permanence that should not be neglected due to any business in the world, as concluded in tractate Berakhot (6b): Rabbi Chelbo said: A person should always be careful about the afternoon prayer, for Elijah was answered only in the afternoon prayer, etc. Rabbi Yochanan says: Also with the evening prayer, as it says Let my prayer be set forth as incense before You, the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice (Psalms 141:2). Rabbi Nachman bar Yitzchak says: Also with the morning prayer, as it says O Lord, in the morning You shall hear my voice; in the morning I will direct my prayer to You and watch (Psalms 5:4). You can see that the terms “perpetual” and “always” indicate diligence and persistence in the afternoon prayer, therefore it says here perpetual fire, and there they said “a person should always be careful, etc.”

However, this statement still requires explanation, because these three opinions were not mentioned in the order of their levels, for he should have placed Rabbi Yochanan’s statement last in order to arrange them in a pattern of “not only this, but also that” — not only mincha, but also shacharit, and not only shacharit, but even ma’ariv. Therefore, it seems to me that all three are speaking only about the mincha prayer, with each of them adding more time for mincha, as concluded in the Tur Orach Chaim section 108 regarding one who neglects any prayer, if there is compensation after two prayers. According to the Ba’al Halakhot Gedolot, there is compensation even if two prayer times have passed, and according to Rabbenu Yonah, even if the entire day has passed, as concluded in the Beit Yosef. Therefore, these three amoraim saw fit to speak about the virtue of the mincha prayer, as Rabbi Chelbo says, “A person should always be careful with the mincha prayer,” as it says a perpetual fire, that he should not neglect it for any business in the world.

Rabbi Yochanan adds a time for the mincha prayer, even if one was prevented [by circumstances] and did not pray mincha, nevertheless he should be careful to make up the prayer in the evening service that follows it. And this is what he meant by “even in the evening prayer,” meaning that one should be careful to pray mincha even in the evening, as it is said, May the lifting of my hands be like the evening offering [minchat arev] (Psalms 141:2). The difficulty is: Why did he call the evening prayer “mincha”? Certainly, he is speaking about someone who forgot to pray mincha and now prays two evening prayers — first the regular evening prayer and the second as a make-up for mincha. Therefore it is said regarding the evening prayer, May my prayer be established as incense before You (Psalms 141:2) — this refers to the evening prayer that comes at the time of the offering of the incense in the late afternoon, that is, at the time of the kindling of the lamps. And afterward, one prays another [prayer] for mincha, which is what he called the evening offering.

And Rav Nachman added that it also applies in the morning, meaning that even in the morning there is a makeup for the mincha prayer, even though two prayer times have passed and the day itself has passed, as it is written In the morning, hear my voice; in the morning I will arrange my prayer before You and I will watch expectantly (Psalms 5:4). But this is difficult: why do I need the word morning twice? For one cannot say that it refers to someone who forgot the evening prayer and prays twice in the morning, since the evening prayer is optional, and something that is optional does not require a makeup. Furthermore, from the phrase I will arrange before You, it is clear that this second morning refers to the mincha prayer, about which it is said The sons of Aaron shall bring it before the Lord (Leviticus 6:7), which is not said about any of the other prayers. And before the Lord mentioned here corresponds to [before] You mentioned there, because this prayer [mincha] is closer to the Lord than all the others. From here, he learned to say that this verse speaks about someone who forgot mincha and did not pray it even in the evening, so they pray two prayers in the morning: the first one is the morning prayer, about which he said, Lord, in the morning hear my voice, and the second one is to make up for mincha, about which he said, in the morning I will arrange my prayer before You and I will watch expectantly — meaning that they were waiting until they first prayed the obligatory morning prayer. And he said before You similar to before the Lord mentioned here, because the mincha prayer is especially close to the Lord, the attribute of mercy, since at night the attribute of judgment rules; therefore, the evening prayer is not so much a time of favor, and that is why it is optional. And the morning prayer is somewhat close to the night that has passed. But the afternoon mincha prayer is far from both these boundaries, as it says And Your judgment is like the afternoon (Psalms 37:6). Therefore, Scripture arranged them in this section according to their level of significance: evening, morning, afternoon.

And so David arranged them, saying Evening, morning, and afternoon I will pray and cry aloud (Psalms 55:18). This is according to the numerical value of and cry aloud [ve’ehemah], which is 57, corresponding to the 57 blessings in the three prayers including the blessing against heretics. According to this, the phrase “one should always be careful with the afternoon prayer” refers to all three prayers. And similarly, what is written a perpetual fire shall burn upon the altar refers to continuity, and therefore it says this is the law of the meal offering, for it is also its law is that forever and perpetually one should be careful with it. This also explains what is written and the priest shall burn wood on it morning by morning, as it is written Lord, in the morning You will hear my voice; in the morning I will direct my prayer to You (Psalms 5:4), which is to give two “mornings” to the afternoon prayer as mentioned.

All night until morning. The commentators said that since the burnt offering comes to atone for thoughts of the heart, which mainly occur at night, as it is said: Those who plan iniquity and plot evil on their beds; when morning dawns, they carry it out (Micah 2:1). Therefore, its time is all night. And in the Midrash Tanchuma (Pinchas 13, see there) we find a contradiction to this view, where it concludes Righteousness lodged in it (Isaiah 1:21). Rabbi Yuda bar Simon said: No person spent the night in Jerusalem with sin in their hand. How so? The morning daily offering atoned for the transgressions of the night, and the evening offering atoned for the transgressions of the entire day. This is what is meant by Righteousness lodged in it. And it is written: The people who dwell in it shall be forgiven of iniquity (Isaiah 33:24). Since lodged speaks of one who spends the night in it, the verse needed to bring The people who dwell in it regarding the day, because it is a time of dwelling and not a time of lodging and lying down. According to this, the night offering atoned for the transgressions of the day. And there is another difficulty: Why did he say that the time of the evening offering is all night, and why didn’t he mention regarding the morning offering that its time is all day? And there is a further difficulty: In Parshat Tetzaveh and Parshat Pinchas, the morning burnt offering is mentioned only once, while the evening offering is mentioned twice. It seems that this is because the sin of the day is double — in deed and in thought — and furthermore, all day a person is free for transgression. Therefore, he mentioned between the evenings twice, because its atonement is doubled, and its time is all night to atone for the sin of the entire day. But the night is not a time of action, and for the most part, the main sin of the night is in thought, as it is said: Those who plan iniquity and plot evil on their beds; when morning dawns, they carry it out. Additionally, for most of the night, a person is asleep on their bed, and therefore the morning burnt offering only atones for sinful thoughts, and it does not specify that its time is all day because it does not need to atone for the sin of the entire night.

“And the priest shall put on his linen garment, etc.” Ramban explained that the removal of the ashes requires priestly garments, and no service can be performed with only two garments. Nevertheless, the text specifies these garments to introduce a new requirement: that the tunic should be of his exact measure, and that nothing should interpose between the breeches and his flesh. This explanation is difficult, however, because why would these new requirements be specified here? They should have been written in the portion of Tetzaveh, since that is where the text discusses the preparation of the priestly garments.

I say to resolve this: Since the burnt offering atones for the thoughts of the heart, which primarily occur at night, and the main impure thoughts are about forbidden sexual relations, because from these thoughts one may come to inappropriate actions on one’s own, namely nocturnal emissions. This is also considered as bloodshed, because wasting seed that comes through impure thoughts is similar to bloodshed, that is, the blood of one’s potential offspring, as they derived from the verse who slaughter children in the valleys (Isaiah 57:5) — read it [both] as slaughter [shochatei] but as “squeeze” [sochatei] (Niddah 13a). And you already know that the breeches atone for sexual immorality and the tunic atones for bloodshed, as is found in Tractate Arachin (16a). And the burnt offering atones for thoughts that include both sexual immorality and bloodshed together. Therefore, it is said regarding the removal of the ashes of the burnt offering the priest shall put on his linen garment. This is the tunic that atones for bloodshed, and put on his linen breeches which atone for sexual immorality. And for this reason it specifies which the fire has consumed the burnt offering, to tell you that even though the ashes contain a mixture of other kinds [of offerings], nevertheless, this removal is done specifically with these two garments because the ashes of the burnt offering atone for impure thoughts. And since in reality there is neither actual sexual immorality nor actual bloodshed, but rather something similar to them, one might think that even if the tunic is not the right size for him, or if there is something separating between the breeches and his flesh, it would not invalidate [the service]. Therefore, Scripture specifies to teach that even here, they must be properly fitted in every aspect.

And in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 7:6) they said, This is the law of the burnt offering that is the burnt offering [haolah] on its burning place — anyone who is arrogant is judged by fire, etc. The intention is not to remove this verse from its simple meaning and to interpret that is haolah as referring to the arrogant person. Rather, the view of this Midrash is to say that the burnt offering atones for haughtiness of spirit. And it has some support from the verse and that which comes up [oleh] in your spirit (Ezekiel 20:32), meaning haughtiness of spirit. Therefore, the law of the burnt offering is with fire, whose nature is to rise upward. Therefore it says, it is the burnt offering on its burning place, because the burning fire of the altar that rises upward is an atonement for the haughty spirit who rises up [haoleh] in matters too great and too wondrous for him.

And with this intention, it mentioned the lifting of the ashes, because the correction is the ash, that one should say I am dust and ashes like Abraham, and then he will be exalted and lifted up and be very high because whoever humbles himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, elevates him. And this is what it means by and he shall lift up the ashes. And for this reason, it specified these two garments that the atoning priest should wear: And the priest shall put on his linen garment, according to his measure, that his garment of authority should not be longer than him but rather according to his measure, because “whoever wears a garment [of authority] should wear it according to his measure” (Berakhot 28a), and not walk in matters too great or too wondrous for him. And linen breeches which atone for sexual immorality, as our Sages said (see Sotah 4b), “Anyone who is arrogant, it is as if he engaged in all the forbidden sexual relations, etc.” And the placing of the ashes next to the altar is because the altar also indicates the attribute of humility, as explained above in Parshat Mishpatim.

And some say that since the removal of the ashes is a light and lowly task, there is concern that perhaps the priest will wear short garments so they will not get dirty from the ashes, or they will wear something that creates a barrier on their skin so that their flesh will not be soiled by the ashes. Therefore, it says that the tunic should be of their proper measurement and that there should not be anything creating a barrier between them and the breeches.

“And he shall take off his garments, etc.” Rashi explains that this is not an obligation, but rather the Torah is teaching us proper conduct, etc. This is because Rashi finds it difficult that in the portion of Acharei Mot (16:23) it states and he shall take off the linen garments, and there it does not say “his garments.” Our Sages taught (Sifra, Acharei 13) that these garments do not come from his own possessions but from the sacred treasury. If so, why does it call them here his garments when they are not his? Rather, Rashi means that he should treat these sacred garments as one would normally treat garments, just as he would do if they were actually his own garments. For just as if they were his own, he would certainly remove them when doing some degrading or soiling work and would wear lesser garments, so too he should do with these sacred garments. And from this comparison we can derive that just as his own garments would be optional [to change], so too these are optional [to change] — for otherwise, why would the verse connect these to his garments?

It shall be eaten unleavened in a holy place, in the court of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it. Rashi explains it as, in a holy place — and what is it? In the court of the Tent of Meeting.“ Nevertheless, in a holy place is redundant, and also shall be eaten and they shall eat it — one of them is redundant. The meaning of the language suggests that there are two aspects here: the eater and what is eaten. The aspect of the eater means that the priest who eats it needs to know that his eating is from the Divine table, and by law, the meal offering should be entirely consumed by the altar, except that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him his portion from His offerings. Therefore, the priest needs to eat his portion in the place where the Divine portion is consumed, namely in the court of the Tent of Meeting, because that is where the altar is located. And even though that place is indeed holy, the requirement for the eater is not because of the holiness of the place, but rather because he needs to connect his eating to the consumption by the altar, to indicate that just as the consumption by the altar atones, so too does the eating by the priests — the owners receive atonement through them.

However, the aspect that is eaten is the matzah. Due to its being clean from leaven, there is an aspect of holiness in matzah. Therefore, it says unleavened bread shall be eaten in a holy place, because from the perspective of the matzah’s quality, there is a requirement that the place be holy. And afterward, it gave a reason for both: Regarding what it said in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it, this is because I have given it as their portion from My fire-offerings. Therefore, both need to be within the same partition. And regarding what it said, unleavened bread shall be eaten in a holy place, it gave the reason saying it is most holy, like the sin offering and like the guilt offering. For the sin offering and guilt offering that come for atonement of sin are called most holy, because the completely righteous person who has not sinned at all is holy to the Lord, but the sinner who returns in repentance is most holy, for in the place where penitents stand, even the completely righteous cannot stand (Berakhot 34b). And our Sages said (Yoma 86b) that one who repents out of love, his intentional sins are transformed into merits, as will be explained, God willing, later in the portion of Vayelech. And this is a great level that is not found in the completely righteous person, besides the other virtues that our Sages mentioned there. Therefore, it is proper that the sin offering be most holy, and similarly, the matzah requires a holy place for this reason, because it too is most holy due to the removal of the leaven in the dough which profanes a person’s holiness.

The reason for distancing leaven seems to be explained in two ways. The first way is according to Rabbi Alexandri who said (Berakhot 17) “We want to do Your will, but the leaven in the dough prevents us,” and in this approach we have explained above the verse All leaven and all honey you shall not burn in the portion of Vayikra, see there. And regarding this it is stated here it is most holy, like the sin offering and like the guilt offering. For through the slaughtering of the sacrifice, a person slaughters his evil inclination and it will be sought but is no more, therefore the meal offering also comes clean of leaven. However, the two loaves of Shavuot specifically come leavened because if not for the evil inclination, those below would not need the Torah more than those above, as with this argument Moses defeated the angels, saying, “Is there an evil inclination among you, etc.” (Shabbat 89a). Furthermore, the existence of the evil inclination is necessary, and without it a person would not build a house nor marry a woman. And in the place of Torah, there is no concern that it might breach its boundaries, for the Torah is the antidote to it.

But in the thanksgiving offering, there were both leavened and unleavened breads together. This is because the unleavened bread symbolizes that one has already humbled oneself with the toil of one’s heart, as it is written regarding the four who need to give thanks: and He humbled their heart with labor (Psalms 107:12). For the wicked are under the control of their hearts, etc. And our Sages interpreted the verse Whoever offers thanksgiving honors Me (Psalms 50:23) as referring to one who slaughters one’s evil inclination and confesses over it, etc. (Sanhedrin 43b). From there is proof that the slaughtering of the thanksgiving offering represents the slaughtering of the evil inclination. Therefore, one brings as a sign unleavened cakes that are clean from leaven. Nevertheless, one still needs the evil inclination for the continuation of the species, therefore there were also leavened cakes. And there were three unleavened cakes corresponding to one leavened cake, to nullify its existence by majority, because every person should divide their years into three parts with the threefold Torah: Scripture, Mishnah, and Talmud, and give the fourth part to the maintenance of one’s body.

However, since we do not find any leaven in the sin offering’s meal offering, we can say the opposite — that one who brings a sacrifice for his sin voluntarily without being compelled certainly has no remnant of the inner leaven left within him. But one who offers a thanksgiving offering after suffering afflictions that force him to repent certainly has some impression of the inner leaven remaining within him. And know and understand that the letters of chametz [leaven] are [essentially] the same as matzah [unleavened bread] and they are equal in pronunciation. As the letters hei and chet are interchangeable in the letter group alef-hei-chet-ayin. However, chametz has a numerical value three greater than matzah, and correspondingly, for each leavened loaf there were three unleavened ones, so that they would be equal in quantity. This hints that the evil inclination has an advantage of three over the good inclination — these are the three arguments that the Duties of the Heart mentions that the evil inclination has over the good inclination. And if one wants to overcome it, then the threefold cord of Scripture, Mishnah, and Talmud will stand against it, and then there will be equanimity between them — half for God and half for yourselves.

The second approach is more correct and easier to understand, that the matzah symbolizes humility, like matzah dough that does not rise upward. The matzah of Passover proves this, as it is a symbol of freedom and redemption. This is because God only desired Israel because they diminish themselves, as they learned (Chullin 89a) from the verse Not because you were more numerous than all the peoples did the Lord desire you, for you are the fewest (Deuteronomy 7:7). For what does the Lord ask of you but to fear Him (Deuteronomy 10:12), as humility leads to fear of Heaven. The more humility is found among those below, the more the kingdom of Heaven is revealed and seen, for He is clothed in majesty and there is none besides Him. This is the reason for the Egyptian exile — to humble them in the crucible of affliction, and they will take refuge in the name of the Lord (Zephaniah 3:12). Through humility, they were freed from earthly kingdoms and accepted the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, chametz must specifically be burned, for it is a customary practice that anyone who becomes arrogant is judged by fire, as it says in the Midrash on the verse This is the law of the burnt offering; it is the burnt offering [haolah] on its firewood. For one who wishes to rise up high [lealot], like the nature of chametz which rises upward [haolah], deserves to be judged by fire, whose nature is also to rise upward. Therefore, chametz is forbidden even in the smallest amount, because in all character traits a person needs to follow the middle path, except for pride, about which our Sages said (Sotah 5a), “Not any of it, not even a bit of it.” Thus, they forbade even the slightest amount of pride, just as the slightest amount of chametz is forbidden. Similarly, our Sages said (Avot 4:4), “Be exceedingly humble in spirit” before every person, which alludes to the extreme importance of this matter and the need to distance oneself from it completely.

According to the words of Rabbi Alexandri, who compared the evil inclination to leaven in dough, we can say that this is why even the slightest amount [of leaven] is forbidden: As our Sages said (Bereishit Rabbah 22:6), “At first the evil inclination resembles a spider’s thread,” meaning something minimal, but afterward it grows and rises until it becomes like cart ropes, and injustice rises beyond remedy. Therefore, a person should not consider even a minimal amount of it insignificant, for a small amount of leaven grows and rises as mentioned. For this reason, they would bring 30 unleavened cakes with the thanksgiving offering, because regarding the four situations requiring thanksgiving, it says and He humbled their heart with labor. After this humbling, it is fitting to offer 30 unleavened cakes, perhaps corresponding to kingship which is acquired through 30 qualities that encompass all forms of elevation appropriate for a king. One who becomes proud, either in all or some of these ways, after being humbled through his suffering, should bring 30 unleavened cakes symbolizing humility, indicating that not even the slightest trace of pride remains. The 10 leavened cakes symbolize exaltation and elevation, directing all greatness and exaltation to the First Cause, blessed be He, who encompasses the 10 abstract spheres, and it is the glory of God to conceal a matter. For this reason, unleavened bread is a sign of redemption and freedom everywhere — both in the Exodus from Egypt and in the thanksgiving offering, as it is written Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, whom He has redeemed from the hand of the adversary (Psalms 107:2), which refers to all four situations requiring thanksgiving, where they were redeemed because He humbled their heart with labor, and therefore one brings unleavened cakes. The same applies to meal offerings, for through sacrifices a person is redeemed from the evil inclination whose net is spread to capture him in the bonds of iniquity. The person is freed from suffering, from foreign dominion, and from the angel of death through the sacrifice that brings him to a broken spirit and humility. Therefore, the law for meal offerings is to bake them unleavened, and they are similar to sin offerings and guilt offerings in the manner explained.

In the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered, the sin offering shall be slaughtered. The commentators said this is to cover for the sinners, so people will say he is offering a burnt offering. This is a weak reason because, in any case, his sin would be revealed when they see that he is not offering it completely [entirely consumed, as] for a burnt offering. Furthermore, the burnt offering is male and the sin offering is female. Now, regarding the burnt offering, some say it comes for the contemplation of sin, and others say the burnt offering is among those sacrifices that run without iniquity (Psalms 59:5). For those who say that the burnt offering has an aspect of sin atonement, the reason is that the heart, which is on the left side, is the cause of all sin, as the heart desires and the implements of action complete it. Therefore, both are slaughtered on the north side [associated with the left], to indicate that a deluded heart has turned him aside (Isaiah 44:20) and from the north the evil will break forth (Jeremiah 1:14). For those who say that the burnt offering only comes as a gift, with their proof from the verse I will come into Your house with burnt offerings (Psalms 66:13), we can say that after the sinner has resolved in his heart to repent and bring a sin offering for atonement, from then on he is acceptable and his sacrifice is pleasing before the Holy One, Blessed be He, as if he had offered a burnt offering, which is the most elevated of all sacrifices.

And an earthen vessel wherein it is boiled shall be broken, etc. Rashi explains that this applies to all holy offerings. Nevertheless, the matter requires explanation as to why the Torah specifically wrote this law regarding the sin offering that comes for atonement. According to the simple interpretation, we can say that since the Torah testifies about earthenware vessels that they never release what they absorb from its surfaces (Pesachim 30b), one might have thought that this only applies to lesser holy offerings that are eaten for two days and one night, where the food remains in the pot for a long time and therefore absorbs so much that it never releases its absorption from its surfaces. But for the most holy offerings that are only eaten for one day and one night, one might have thought that in such a short time it does not absorb so much and there would be a remedy even for an earthenware vessel through rinsing. Therefore, the Torah teaches us [that this is not the case].

And on the level of allusion, it is reasonable to understand that the purification of vessels bears a resemblance to the purification of the sinner who brings a sin offering. Just as with vessels, there are those that absorb much of the prohibited substance and cannot be purified through rinsing, and their only remedy is breaking, while there are others that do not absorb much of the prohibited substance and can be remedied through rinsing — similarly, there are sinners who absorb much of the prohibited matter and find it difficult to abandon their habit, and their only remedy is through the breaking of their heart, for it is the vessel in which that which was prohibited was cooked. And there are people who do not absorb much and can be remedied with minimal effort, as our Sages said (Arachin 15b): What is the remedy for one who speaks lashon hara? If he is a Torah scholar, he should engage in Torah study, as it says, A healing tongue is a tree of life (Proverbs 15:4). And if he is an am ha’aretz [unlearned person], he should humble himself, as it says, And perversion in it breaks the spirit (Proverbs 15:4). And from the sin of lashon hara, one can derive [a principle] for every sin and iniquity: that in times when the Temple does not exist, there is no remedy for the am ha’aretz except through the breaking of his heart, the vessel in which the sin was cooked; but for the Torah scholar, there is a remedy for every sin through Torah study. And the sin of the sons of Eli proves this, as it is not atoned for through sacrifice and meal offering, but it is atoned for through Torah study (Rosh Hashanah 18a).

Therefore, the Torah wrote the law of vessels next to the sin offering, to tell you that in a time when there is no sacrifice or meal offering, then the purification of the sinner is like the purification of vessels. For every unlearned person [am ha-aretz] is compared to an earthenware vessel and cannot release his blemish except through the breaking of his heart. And every Torah scholar [talmid chacham] has the status of a copper vessel, which can be remedied through rinsing and washing inside and out. Similarly, every Torah scholar has a remedy through the Torah, which is compared to water that purifies him inside and out, for through the Torah his inside will be like his outside, as it says, you shall overlay it with gold, inside and out (Exodus 25:11), as was explained there in Parashat Terumah. And this is what we said, that every person resembles some kind of vessel. There is proof from what our Sages said (Sanhedrin 52b): “How does a Torah scholar appear to an unlearned person? At first, like a golden pitcher; once he conversed with him, like a silver vessel; once he derived benefit from him, like an earthenware vessel, etc.” And it seems that this is what is meant by The precious children of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how they have come to be considered as earthen pitchers, the work of a potter’s hands (Lamentations 4:2). He was lamenting over the exceptional people who were compared to gold, fine gold, and holy stones, who would frequently feast everywhere at the head of every street with the unlearned, until they caused exile for themselves and their children. As it is said, “Whoever feasts excessively everywhere will eventually destroy his house, etc.” And it concludes there in the chapter of “These Transgress” (49a, see there): “He will eventually be exiled, etc.” And about this it says, The holy stones are poured out at the head of every street, for they would feast excessively everywhere with the unlearned. And immediately it says, The precious children of Zion, as it says And lips of knowledge are a precious vessel (Proverbs 20:15), comparable to fine gold, for initially they were compared to golden vessels, but because they are poured out at the head of every street, how have they come to be considered as earthen pitchers, those perfect ones who were called the work of the hands of the Creator of everything, for everything was created with one hand except for the perfect ones who were created with two hands (Midrash Tehillim 139:26). And how did they fall from this level to such a low state?

And with this explanation, it seems to me to resolve what our Sages of blessed memory said (Shabbat 105b): “Anyone who is lazy in eulogizing a Torah scholar deserves to be buried while still alive, as it is stated: And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnat-Serah, which is on the north side of Mount Gaash (Joshua 24:30), teaching that the mountain raged [gaash] against them to bury them.” But how do they know to say this? Perhaps some other sin caused the mountain to rage against them. Now, regarding Timnat-Serah, Rashi explains it as “the image of the sun” [temunat cheres], and in Judges (2:9) it is written as Cheres instead of Serah. Following Rashi’s approach, it seems to me that Timnat refers to “image,” but Cheres seems to mean “earthenware vessel [kli cheres].” This suggests that they did not treat Joshua with the respect due to a Torah scholar by eulogizing him properly, but rather buried him in the manner of an unlearned person [am haaretz], who is compared to a broken earthenware vessel that can never be cleansed of its filth from his blemish. Therefore, in Judges it says Cheres instead of Serah, because the Serach, meaning the filth [sirachon] of his deeds, makes him comparable to an earthenware vessel that cannot be purified of its blemish and filth except through breaking. But this is not the case with Torah scholars, for our Sages said (Berachot 19a): “If you see a Torah scholar committing a sin at night, do not think ill of them the next day, for they have certainly repented.” This is because they presumably engage in Torah study, which serves as their atonement to cleanse their sin, and it is “scoured and rinsed” inside and out with the waters of Torah. Although a typical Torah scholar is compared to a gold vessel, which can easily have a bit of dust and slight blemish removed from it, nevertheless, when they sin and follow the counsel of the serpent, they are compared to a copper vessel, for the word [nachash — serpent] corresponds to the word [nechoshet — copper]. This is because their forehead became like copper in their brazenness toward their Creator, and then it must be scoured and rinsed as mentioned. And from this verse we also learn the laws of purging vessels — that its purification corresponds to how it was used.