AND THOU SHALT BRING THEM IN THE BASKET. This is connected with the following verse [… unto the door of the Tent of Meeting],¹⁷⁴ from Verse 4 and transposing it to Verse 3, thus meaning: “and thou shalt bring them in the basket — unto the door of the Tent of Meeting.” Under “the more correct interpretation” Ramban will explain that the phrase rightfully belongs in Verse 4, teaching that the washing of Aaron and his sons must be done in the Sanctuary Court. Scripture thus stating that he [Moses] shall bring the bread in the basket, the bullock, the rams, and Aaron and his sons, to the door of the Tent of Meeting. And thou shalt wash them with water¹⁷⁴ from Verse 4 and transposing it to Verse 3, thus meaning: “and thou shalt bring them in the basket — unto the door of the Tent of Meeting.” Under “the more correct interpretation” Ramban will explain that the phrase rightfully belongs in Verse 4, teaching that the washing of Aaron and his sons must be done in the Sanctuary Court. — that is, Aaron and his sons. A more correct interpretation is that the expression and thou shalt bring them in the basket leaves the matter unspecified, for without further explanation it is known that he should bring them to the place where He commands the priests to come [it being sufficient if they come before the door of the court of the Tabernacle]. And the second verse speaks only of Aaron and his sons, and therefore He says [thou shalt bring unto the door of the Tent of Meeting] and thou shalt wash them with water.¹⁷⁴ from Verse 4 and transposing it to Verse 3, thus meaning: “and thou shalt bring them in the basket — unto the door of the Tent of Meeting.” Under “the more correct interpretation” Ramban will explain that the phrase rightfully belongs in Verse 4, teaching that the washing of Aaron and his sons must be done in the Sanctuary Court.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁴ Verse 4. Ramban is thus taking the phrase, unto the door of the Tent of Meeting ¹⁷⁴ Verse 4. Ramban is thus taking the phrase, unto the door of the Tent of Meeting ¹⁷⁴ Verse 4. Ramban is thus taking the phrase, unto the door of the Tent of Meeting

THEN SHALT THOU TAKE THE ANOINTING OIL, AND POUR IT UPON HIS HEAD. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that this was before the setting of the mitre upon his head [mentioned in the preceding verse], for it is upon the head itself that Moses was to pour the oil. But this does not appear to me to be correct. For at the actual installation also, Scripture says, And he set the mitre upon his head etc.,¹⁷⁵ and afterwards it says, And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the Tabernacle,¹⁷⁶, Verse 10. and subsequently it states, And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head.¹⁷⁷, Verse 12. But the correct interpretation is that he wound [the mitznepheth] around and around the head, but left the middle of the head uncovered, and it was on that place that he poured the oil. But if the anointing was upon the entire head as Rashi said,¹⁷⁸ then [we must say] that the pouring of the oil was upon the place where the phylacteries lay, which was left uncovered, and from there he joined [the oil with his finger to the drop between his eyebrows] in the form of an X.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁵ Leviticus 8:9. ¹⁷⁶ Ibid. ¹⁷⁷ Ibid. ¹⁷⁸ Rashi here in Verse 7: “This anointing was in the form of an X. He put a drop of oil on his head and another drop between his eyebrows and joined them with his finger.” In that case he could not have put the drop of oil on top of the head, for the mitre would then intervene between it and the drop of oil between his eyebrows. Ramban concludes that according to this comment of Rashi we must say, that the pouring of the oil etc.

AND THOU SHALT GIRD THEM WITH BELTS. This alludes to Aaron and his sons, and then Scripture reverts and explains, Aaron and his sons. This is similar to the expressions: *let him bring it, the Eternal’s offering;*¹⁷⁹ alludes already to the Eternal’s offering, but then Scripture itself reverts and explains it. The same principle applies in the next example. the kingdom which will not serve him, Nebuchadnezzar.¹⁸⁰ Such are the words of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra. But if so, [the following phrase in the verse before us,] and thou shalt bind ‘migba’oth’ on them refers only to some of them [mentioned before, namely, Aaron’s sons], for Aaron’s head-dress was not of the migba’oth, and besides, the mitznepheth is already on his head [as mentioned in Verse 6]. It is possible that the explanation of the verse is: “and thou shalt gird them with belts, and Aaron and his sons.” The verse is thus stating that he should gird Aaron’s sons mentioned with belts, and Aaron himself should be girded with his sons. For since the belt was alike for all of them [for Aaron and his sons], it was not mentioned above among the particular garments of Aaron; therefore it now became necessary to say that he should gird Aaron too with a belt like his sons. The breeches were not mentioned here as it was not necessary, as I have explained.¹⁸¹ And the reason why the breeches were singled out from the rest of the garments [by not being mentioned here] is that it was Moses who clothed them with all the garments, as G-d commanded, *and thou shalt clothe them.*¹⁸² But the breeches which were to cover the flesh of their nakedness,¹⁸³ they themselves put on in privacy. Therefore He did not mention them here among the garments — *and thou shalt take the garments, and clothe Aaron…*¹⁸⁴ and therefore He separated them [from the other garments] in command and in punishment, as I have mentioned above.¹⁸¹

footnotes: ¹⁷⁹ Further, 35:5. The word it ¹⁸⁰ Jeremiah 27:8. ¹⁸¹ Above, 28:35. “For having declared there [above] the punishment for lacking them there was no more need to revert and mention them [here], as it is understood already that he would wear them.” ¹⁸² Verse 8. ¹⁸³ Above, 28:42. ¹⁸⁴ Verse 5. ¹⁸¹ Above, 28:35. “For having declared there [above] the punishment for lacking them there was no more need to revert and mention them [here], as it is understood already that he would wear them.”

AND THOU SHALT BRING THE BULLOCK BEFORE THE TENT OF MEETING; AND AARON AND HIS SONS SHALL LAY THEIR HANDS UPON THE HEAD OF THE BULLOCK. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented, that the meaning of it is that when you will bring the bullock before the Tent of Meeting, Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands upon it, for [the bringing of the bullock] has already been mentioned above.¹⁸⁵ The correct interpretation appears to me to be as I have explained,¹⁸⁵ that above He commanded to bring them but did not explain “to the Tent of Meeting,” but only that he bring them; the purport being that he bring them to the place of the priests so that they be ready [for sacrifice], thus it would be sufficient that they be before the door of the court of the Tabernacle. But now He required that they be brought before the Tent of Meeting, to the door of the Tent, as He will explain in connection with the slaughtering thereof,¹⁸⁶ for it is there that the laying of hands will take place.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁵ Verse 3. ¹⁸⁵ Verse 3. ¹⁸⁶ Verse 11.

AND THOU SHALT TAKE ALL THE FAT THAT COVERETH THE INWARDS. “This is the membrane upon the maw which is called tele [in old French].” This is Rashi’s language. In my opinion, the expression the fat that covereth the inwards is indeed a reference to the membrane [upon the maw]. But when it says [as it does here], ‘all’ the fat that covereth the inwards, it alludes to two kinds of fat which are there: to the fat of that membrane, and to the heavy fat which is upon the inwards, as it is said in Seder Vayikra: the fat that covereth the inwards, and the fat that is upon the inwards.¹⁸⁷ Thus it is clear that there are two kinds of fat upon the inwards — at times Scripture mentions them both, and at other times it includes them as one under the term “all” [as it says here]. Thus by saying here, all the fat that covereth the inwards, He already included the fat that is upon the inwards. Similarly in the actual fulfillment of this command He says, And he took all the fat that was upon the inwards, and the lobe of the liver,¹⁸⁸, 8:16. thus including [the two kinds of fat upon the inwards] in the phrase, ‘all’ the fat that was upon the inwards. But further in this section He says, And thou shalt take of the ram the fat, and the fat tail, and the fat that covereth the inwards.¹⁸⁹ Here the first “fat” mentioned without explanation, means the fat upon the inwards.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁷ Leviticus 3:3. ¹⁸⁸ Ibid. ¹⁸⁹ Further, Verse 22.

THOU SHALT BURN WITH FIRE WITHOUT THE CAMP; IT IS A SIN-OFFERING. “We do not find any outside¹⁹⁰ sin-offering was one the blood of which was sprinkled within the Sanctuary — upon the veil in front of the Holy of Holies and the golden altar; that kind of a sin-offering was burnt completely outside the camp (Leviticus 6:23). Such a sacrifice, for example, was the sin-offering of the High Priest (ibid., 4:3-12). An outside sin-offering was one the blood of which was sprinkled upon the outer altar that stood in the court of the Tabernacle [or Sanctuary]. Of such a sin-offering only certain fats were burnt on the altar, and the meat eaten by the priests. Since the sin-offering mentioned here was an outside sacrifice, and yet it was to the burnt wholly outside of the camp, it must have been a temporary, special legislation. sin-offering that was to be burnt except this.” Thus is Rashi’s language. It was a temporary, special legislation, according to the words of our Rabbis.¹⁹¹ The reason for this is, that everything being foreseen by Him, this sin-offering was to effect forgiveness for the making of the golden calf, and it was the sacrifice of the anointed priest;¹⁹² and there [in the Book of Leviticus] He was to command that the blood of the sin-offering [of the High Priest] be brought within [the Tent of Meeting and sprinkled in front of] the veil,¹⁹³ [and the sacrifice be burnt outside the camp¹⁹⁴, Verse 12. Hence He commanded here — in advance — that that sin-offering was to be burnt.]. At present, however, He did not wish to mention that [the blood be brought] within the Tent, for there [in the Book of Leviticus] He says in discernment, [that he sprinkle the blood] in front of the holy veil,¹⁹³ and at this point [the Tabernacle] had not yet been sanctified, and the Divine Glory did not yet dwell upon it, that it be called “the holy veil.” Thus the outside sin-offering [mentioned here] was like the inner one [of the anointed priest]. The laying of hands was [also] by Aaron’s sons, [although if it was deemed to be Aaron’s sin-offering the laying of hands should have been done only by Aaron], because He was angry with Aaron to have destroyed him,¹⁹⁵ which means the extermination of his children, therefore they too needed atonement by this sin-offering. The reason for burning [such a sin-offering outside the camp] is the same as the reason for burning the Red Heifer there,¹⁹⁶ and the secret thereof is known from [the text concerning] the goat sent to Azazel.¹⁹⁷

footnotes: ¹⁹⁰ An inner ¹⁹¹ See Rashi to Leviticus 9:11. ¹⁹² A reference to Aaron’s role in that affair (see further 32:35) (Ricanti). ¹⁹³ Leviticus 4:6. ¹⁹⁴ Ibid. ¹⁹³ Leviticus 4:6. ¹⁹⁵ Deuteronomy 9:20. ¹⁹⁶ Numbers 19:3, 5. ¹⁹⁷ Leviticus 16:10. See Ramban there on Verse 8.

OF THE RAM OF CONSECRATION WHICH IS AARON’S. He did not mention here Aaron’s sons, although the ram was for the consecration of all of them. The reason for this is that Scripture commanded [in the first part of the verse before us], And thou [i.e., Moses] shalt take the breast of the wave-offering of the ram of consecration because it is Aaron’s, since the breast of the offering is by right not Aaron’s, for it does not belong to the owner of the animal [but to the priest,¹⁹⁸, 7:31. and since on this occasion Aaron and his sons were the owners of the ram of consecration, and Moses the officiating priest, the breast in this instance belonged to Moses]. Now having stated the reason why it does not belong of right to Aaron, there was no need any more to declare that it does not belong to his sons, for they follow him in their rights [and where it does not belong to him, it likewise does not belong to them]. Further, however, He does say, And thou shalt sanctify the breast of the wave-offering… of the ram of consecration, even of that which is Aaron’s, and of that which is his sons’,¹⁹⁹ for the intent is to state: “just as he [Moses] takes of the offering which belongs to them all, the breast and the shoulder,²⁰⁰ so shall they — the father and the sons [High Priest and common priests] — take of the future [peace-] offerings which they [the children of Israel] will offer up.”

footnotes: ¹⁹⁸ Ibid. ¹⁹⁹ Verse 27. ²⁰⁰ “And the shoulder,” is merely an expression, for it is clearly stated in Verse 22 that the shoulder was also burnt on the altar, and Rashi also so states it clearly.

L’MOSHCHAH BAHEM’ (TO BE ANOINTED IN THEM). “L’moshchah means to be raised to dignity by means of them, for the term m’shichah (anointing) is sometimes used in the sense of ‘authority,’ just as in these expressions: *unto thee have I given them ‘l’moshchah’ (as a distinction);*²⁰¹ touch not ‘bimshichai’ (My noble ones).”²⁰² This is Rashi’s language. Perhaps it is so. For because authority in Israel belonged to those who were anointed — the king and the High Priest — they used the term [“anointing”] metaphorically for all kinds of authority. Similarly, when it says, thou shalt anoint Hazael to be king over Aram… and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy stead,²⁰³ [the term “anoint” is used metaphorically — “appoint” or “designate”]. Here, however, the correct interpretation of l’moshchah bahem is to anoint with the garments the High Priests above their sons, and to consecrate them to offer the sacrifices. Likewise, *unto thee have I given them ‘l’moshchah’*²⁰¹ means that I have given them [i.e., the priestly gifts] because I have anointed you to minister unto Me.²⁰⁴ Similarly, *touch not ‘bimshichai’*²⁰² means that he who touches them touches the anointed ones of G-d [i.e., the kings] who are destined to come from them, as He said, *and kings shall come out from thy loins;*²⁰⁵ kings of peoples shall be of her.²⁰⁶, 17:16. It is even possible that we say that the expression thou shalt anoint Hazael to be king over Aram,²⁰³ means that he [i.e., Elijah] is to send him oil to be anointed as king, in order to inform him that this was the command of G-d; and Elisha [his disciple] did so in accordance with the charge of his master when he told Hazael that he will rule as king.²⁰⁷ Now even though it is not written there, [he yet actually anointed him as king], and [so did Elijah] anoint Elisha as a prophet [in accordance with G-d’s command to him]. Perhaps they²⁰⁸ also did so to Cyrus [king of Persia] whom they anointed like the kings of Israel, in order that he would know that it was a prophet in Israel who prophesied that he would reign, and [generations before his birth] he even called forth his name, for [the glory of] G-d. Therefore [Isaiah] said, to His anointed, to Cyrus,²⁰⁹ upon which our Rabbis have commented:²¹⁰ “And was Cyrus the anointed one? etc.”²¹¹.” (Ezra 1:3) — From this text it would appear that the Rabbis understood the verse to mean that Cyrus was really anointed [for otherwise there would have been no place at all for their question], except that he later became impaired in character. Thus all these verses speak of real anointing. However, the verse stating, The spirit of the Eternal G-d is upon me; because the Eternal ‘mashach’ me to bring good tidings unto the humble,²¹² is by way of metaphor, comparing the holy spirit which came to rest upon the prophet with precious oil, similar to that which is said, A good name is better than precious oil.²¹³

footnotes: ²⁰¹ Numbers 18:8. ²⁰² Psalms 105:15. ²⁰³ I Kings 19:15-16. ²⁰¹ Numbers 18:8. ²⁰⁴ Above, Verse 1. ²⁰² Psalms 105:15. ²⁰⁵ Genesis 35:11. ²⁰⁶ Ibid. ²⁰³ I Kings 19:15-16. ²⁰⁷ II Kings 8:13. ²⁰⁸ The prophets who lived in the time of Cyrus. ²⁰⁹ Isaiah 45:1. ²¹⁰ Megillah 12a. ²¹¹ “Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the Messiah: “I complain to you about Cyrus. I said he will build My house and gather My exiles, but he said, Whosoever there is among you of all His people… let him go up ²¹² Isaiah 61:1. ²¹³ Ecclesiastes 7:1.

AND THOU SHALT SEETHE ITS FLESH IN A HOLY PLACE. We do not know whether this was a temporary, special legislation that the flesh of [the ram of] consecration be seethed only by a priest, [who in this case was Moses] or — as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has it — that the expression and thou shalt seethe means by commanding [another person to do it], it being similar in usage to these verses: *and thy rod wherewith thou smotest the river;*²¹⁴, 7:19), the verse must mean: “thy rod wherewith thou smotest the river — by commanding Aaron.” and Solomon built the house²¹⁵ [by commanding the builders to build it]. The seething had to be done in a holy place, since they²¹⁶ were like the peace-offerings of the congregation which were to be eaten within the hangings of the court, the same day and evening until midnight.²¹⁷

footnotes: ²¹⁴ Above, 17:5. Since it was Aaron who smote the river (ibid. ²¹⁵ I Kings 6:14. ²¹⁶ I.e., the seven rams of consecration, one brought on each of the seven days of consecration. ²¹⁷ Zebachim 54b.

AND EVERY DAY SHALT THOU OFFER THE BULLOCK OF SIN-OFFERING ‘AL HAKIPURIM’ — “for atonement, to atone for the altar for anything strange [i.e., unholy] and abominable [that may happen to be brought upon it]. And in the Midrash of Torath Kohanim²¹⁸, Milu’im 1:15. it says: ‘atonement for the altar was necessary in case a person had donated for work in connection with the construction of the Tabernacle and [the sacrifices brought upon] the altar something he had acquired by robbery’” [or other unlawful means]. This is the language of Rashi. The correct interpretation of al hakipurim is, however, [that he is to bring the bullock of sin-offering] in addition to the two rams²¹⁹ which were an atonement for Aaron and his sons, as He said here, And they shall eat those things wherewith atonement was made,²²⁰ and surely the [bullock] sin-offering was for the purpose of atonement. And it is further written, As hath been done this day, so the Eternal hath commanded to do, to make atonement for you.²²¹ Such are the words of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra.

footnotes: ²¹⁸ Sifra Tzav ²¹⁹ One was a burnt-offering (Verses 16-18) and the other — the ram of consecration — was a peace-offering, as explained by Ramban above in Verse 31. ²²⁰ Verse 33. ²²¹ Leviticus 8:34. This verse shows that all three sacrifices [the bullock sin-offering, the ram burnt-offering, and the ram peace-offering] brought on each of the seven days of consecration were for the purpose of making atonement. Thus it is seen that there was atonement in all the three sacrifices.

L’SHOCHNI B’THOCHAM’²²² — “on condition that I dwell in the midst of them.” This is Rashi’s language. But the usage of the letter lamed [l’shochni] for a condition of this kind is not found [elsewhere in Scripture]! It is possible that He is stating: “and they shall know ‘when’ I dwell among them that I am the Eternal their G-d that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, for they will [then] know My Glory and believe that I brought them forth from the land of Egypt.” It is similar in usage to the verses: *And David had great success ‘l’chol drachav’*²²³ all his ways.” [which is like b’chol drachav — “in all his ways”]; that thou hast chosen *‘l’ben Yishai’*²²⁴, 20:30. Literally: “to the son of Jesse.” [which means b’ben Yishai — “the son of Jesse”]; *because ye rebelled against My word ‘l’mei Meribah’*²²⁵ the waters of Meribah.” [which means b’mei Meribah — “in (or ‘at’) the waters of Meribah”], and similar cases. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained [the verse to mean that] the purpose of My bringing them forth from the land of Egypt was only that I might dwell in their midst, and that this was the fulfilment of [the promise to Moses], you shall serve G-d upon this mountain.²²⁶ He explained it well, and if it is so, there is in this matter a great secret. For in the plain sense of things it would appear that [the dwelling of] the Divine Glory in Israel was to fulfill a want below, but it is not so. It fulfilled a want above, being rather similar in thought to that which Scripture states, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.²²⁷ And Joshua said, [For when the Canaanites… hear of it… and cut off our name from the earth,] *and what wilt Thou do for Thy Great Name?*²²⁸ There are many verses which express this thought: He hath desired it [i.e., Zion] *for His habitation;*²²⁹ Here I dwell; for I have desired it.²³⁰, Verse 14. And it is further written, and I will remember the land.²³¹ is of the root The Eternal hath been mindful of us” (Psalms 115:12) (Ricanti).

footnotes: ²²² Literally: “to dwell among them.” ²²³ I Samuel 18:14. Literally: “to ²²⁴ Ibid. ²²⁵ Numbers 20:24. Literally: “to ²²⁶ Above, 3:12. ²²⁷ Isaiah 49:3. ²²⁸ Joshua 7:9. ²²⁹ Psalms 132:13. ²³⁰ Ibid. ²³¹ Leviticus 26:42. “That is to say, the land is remembered in mercy. And I will remember