וזה הדבר אשר תעשה, "And this is the thing you are to do for them, etc." I have explained in connection with 27,20 that Moses' part in the construction of the Tabernacle was merely that he should instruct the artisans who would perform the work, whereas he personally was not to weave, embroider, or perform any of the various activities required. This rule was broken in the paragraph commencing here, where Moses is instructed to personally perform sacrificial rites as part of conferring the priesthood on Aaron and his sons. This is why the Torah commences the chapter with the words: וזה הדבר, "and this is the thing, etc." He was to offer animal sacrifices for seven days in a row. The word וזה, "and this," is justified seeing Moses had already been commanded to clothe the priests and to anoint them, i.e. physical activities, not just verbal instructions. The Torah therefore says: "You are also to perform this additional task with your hands, etc." If the Torah had not written תעשה, i.e. "you will do it," but had only written: "take one young bullock, etc.," we would have been justified in assuming that Moses was merely to issue a directive to Aaron or his sons to do this. Seeing there was a chance that we would interpret the instruction for Moses to act as priest and offer sacrifices as something applicable only to the inaugural sacrifices recorded here and not to any of the regular public offerings to be offered on those days, the Torah repeats by saying וזה אשר תעשה…כבשים בני שנה in verse 38 of this chapter. The repetition of this phrase indicates that Moses would officiate as priest also for those sacrifices. The Torah repeated the phrase "and this is what you shall do on the altar" (verse 38), so that we should not assume that Moses would be allowed to offer the daily public offerings also after the expiry of the seven inaugural days.

According to Yuma 4 the word הדבר in our verse may mean that everything connected with the instructions about the inaugural offerings is mandatory. According to the opinion offered there that only those details which are mandatory for the offerings which are offered throughout the generations are also mandatory for the inaugural offerings, the word הדבר tells us that the detail mentioned here is mandatory but not every other detail.

לקח פר אחד בן בקר, "take one young bullock, etc." Perhaps the Torah implied that either Moses or Aaron could pay for the bullock in question; there was nothing mandatory about this aspect of the inaugural sacrifices.

ויצקת על ראשו ומשחת אוהו, "and pour it upon his head and anoint him." The verse means that the oil had to be poured on his head. The same applied to the anointing of Aaron's sons. Aaron and his sons each required a separate pouring of oil upon their heads seeing that the verse referred to both of them in the same way as we know from 28,41. This is further reinforced by the wording in 40,15 where the Torah said: "you will anoint them just as you have anointed their father. Torat Kohanim on Parshat Tzav explains the meaning of that verse in the same spirit.

ומלאת יד אהרון ויד בניו, "and you will consecrate Aaron and his sons." This refers to the anointing of Aaron and his sons, similar to what the Torah wrote in 28,41. The only thing missing in this verse is the reference to the anointing. This is alluded to by the word ומלאת.

וסמך אהרון ובניו את ידיהם, "and Aaron and his sons will place their hands, etc." The reason that the Torah uses the singular וסמך instead of the plural form וסמכו, is that Aaron was to place his hands on the bullock and his sons were to repeat this action individually, one at a time. I have come across a Tossephta in chapter 10 of Menachot which states: "When five people jointly offer one sacrifice they all perform the rite of placing their hands with all their weight on the animal; they do not do this simultaneously but one after another." Maimonides rules similarly in chapter 3 of Maaseh Ha-korbanot. Accordingly, we can well understand why our verse describes the act of סמיכה in the singular, i.e. וסמך, instead of וסמכו, as they were not to do this simultaneously. We still have to clarify why the Torah had to give these instructions twice in connection with the ram in verse 19 and was not content with Leviticus 8,18 where it is reported that Aaron and his sons did perform סמיכה and the fact is reported in the plural. Perhaps the Torah felt that if it would not repeat the report we would think that seeing that the bullock was a sin-offering, only Aaron performed the rite of סמיכה because only he and not his sons had been involved in the sin of the golden calf. By telling us that the same procedure was followed in connection with the ram which was a total-offering, the Torah made plain that none of these offerings were connected with Aaron's share in the making of the golden calf. The method chosen by the Torah makes it clear that the performance of סמיכה was required for all meat-offerings other than birds. Now we can understand why there was no need to write the word ויסמכו in the singular in Leviticus 8,18, seeing the point had been made already in our verse here. [With all due respect to the author, why did the Torah repeat the point in Leviticus 8,14 where the Torah again uses the singular in connection with Aaron and his sons? Ed.]

מאשר לאהרון ומאשר לבניו. "of that which is Aaron's and of that which is his sons'". Why was this phrase needed at all? Perhaps the Torah meant to inform us that Moses was allowed to eat these parts only in this instance. He would not be permitted to eat of the breast or thigh of any other sacrificial offerings in the future, they would be exclusively Aaron's and his sons.

ואכלו אותם אשר כפר בהם, "and they will eat them with which atonement was made." They will eat those parts of the animal in their capacity as owners and not in their capacity as priests. The meaning of the words אשר כפר בהם is that the consumption of meat of the peace-offerings by their owners confers atonement upon them. Even Moses was forbidden to eat of any of these parts of the animal, though he was permitted to eat the breast and the thigh.

כי קדש הוא, for it is sacred. This is the reason it had to be burned.

את הכבש האחד תעשה בבקר, "you will offer the one lamb in the morning, etc." The Torah emphasises the definitive article הכבש, so that there can be no doubt that the one mentioned in verse 41 is not an additional one. The emphasis on the word האחד is to tell us that even if at the time when the daily morning sacrifice was offered there was not yet a second lamb at hand for the daily evening sacrifice, this fact did not disqualify the first lamb from being offered up in the morning. Although we have learned in Menachot 44 that when inaugurating the altar the two lambs' presence was mandatory, this means only that the evening sacrifice must not be offered unless the one for the morning is at hand. A morning sacrifice may be offered even in the absence of a lamb for the offering to be brought the same evening.

ונעדתי שמה לבני ישראל, "And there I shall meet with the children of Israel, etc." What precisely is the message of this verse? I believe the verse provides the rationale for the words ונקדש בכבודי, "and it will be sanctified by My Glory." Our sages said in Zevachim 115 that this is why the Torah mentioned in Leviticus 10,3: "I will become sanctified by those who are close to Me." The Torah first had to tell us that G'd's presence would be in the Tabernacle so that people would keep a respectful distance and not become victims by entering areas that were out of bounds to them. G'd hinted that the only reason He warned the ordinary Israelites i.e. לבני ישראל, about such trespass on their part was for their sake. As far as Moses or the priests were concerned, the Tabernacle was not out of bounds to them.

אני ה׳ אלוקיהם, "I am the Lord their G'd." The reason the Torah repeats this after having said almost the same thing in verse 45 may be to remind us that even at a time when G'd's שכינה is not manifest amongst us, He still remains our G'd. Alternatively, G'd's being truly our G'd depends on our being aware of and recognising this fact. We are only worthy of bearing His name while we recognise Him as our G'd as mentioned at the beginning of this verse. Failing this, the result will be that the people will shake off the burden of the Torah, in which event they would "belong" to other gods.