AND HE CALLED UNTO MOSES; AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE UNTO HIM. Scripture states [the fact that G-d called to Moses] here and not in other places, because Moses was not able to enter into the Tent of Meeting,³¹ and to draw near the place where G-d was,³², 20:18. except through G-d calling him [to come into the Tent of Meeting]. For Moses had already been told, *and I will speak with thee from above the ark-cover;*³³, 25:22. where I will meet with thee.³⁴, 30:36. Since he knew that the Eternal that sitteth upon the cherubim³⁵ was there, Moses was afraid to come into the Tent at all until He called him, just as it was at Mount Sinai where it is said, and on the seventh day He called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.³⁶ Or it may be that Moses did not know that the Glory of G-d was in the Tent and that the communication to him would be from there,³⁷ since the cloud did not cover the Tent of Meeting until the eighth day of the installation according to the opinion of our Rabbis;³⁸ … (Further 9:1). This was the first of Nisan, and the day was distinguished in ten different ways … It was the day on which the Divine Glory dwelt for the first time among the Israelites …” (Torath Kohanim, ibid.). and after this call Moses came into the innermost part of the Tent [i.e., the Holy of Holies], just as the Rabbis have interpreted:³⁹, (further, 16:2): “Thy brother [Aaron] is under the command not to enter the holy place [except when it was his duty to officiate there], (further 16:2), but Moses is not included in this command.” “Aaron was not to enter [the Sanctuary except at the prescribed time], but Moses was not included in this command.” This is the plain meaning of this verse. I have explained it already above.⁴⁰ But our Rabbis have said⁴¹ 1:7. that “all communications [that came to Moses], whether they are introduced by the word dabeir (speak), or by emor (say), or tzav (command), were preceded by a call,” that is to say, G-d said to him, ‘Moses, Moses’ and he answered, ‘Here am I.’⁴² This was a way of expressing affection and encouragement to Moses.⁴³ Now according to this opinion, Scripture mentioned the expression [And He called unto him …] here, because it was the first communication that came to Moses from the Tent of Meeting, thus teaching us concerning all the other communications that such was His procedure with him all the time and with the whole Torah. The expression out of the Tent of Meeting refers according to the Rabbis to the preceding words, [the interpretation of the verse thus being]: “and He called unto him out of the Tent of Meeting; and the Eternal spoke to him in the Tent,” for Moses was already there [in the Tent].⁴⁴ The explanation of the verse according to its plain meaning and sense is: “and the Eternal called unto Moses and spoke unto him, out of the Tent of Meeting.” By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], this verse is like, *And unto Moses He said: ‘Come up unto the Eternal.’*⁴⁵ Its secret is known from the Revelation on Mount Sinai⁴⁶ (Vol. II, p. 251). and the Ten Commandments. I have alluded to it already.⁴⁵

footnotes: ³¹ Exodus 40:35. ³² Ibid. ³³ Ibid. ³⁴ Ibid. ³⁵ I Chronicles 13:6. ³⁶ Exodus 24:16. See also Note 7 above. ³⁷ For Moses thought that he would hear the Divine Voice speaking to him from above the ark-cover, but actually the Holy One, blessed be He, would be speaking from heaven (Abohab). See also Ramban on Exodus 40:2, Vol. II, p. 619. ³⁸ “And it came to pass, on the eighth day ³⁹ Torath Kohanim at the beginning of Parshath Acharei ⁴⁰ Exodus 40:34. ⁴¹ Torath Kohanim, Vayikra ⁴² Exodus 3:4. ⁴³ Accordingly, the call to Moses that is mentioned at the beginning of this book was not for the purpose of giving him permission to come into the Tent of Meeting, but rather to express G-d’s affection for Moses and His inspiriting him for the communication. If so, it stands to reason, Ramban continues, that this kind of call [“Moses, Moses”] came to him on all occasions when he received a Divine communication. The reason why it is mentioned specifically here, etc. (see text). ⁴⁴ For since the purpose of the call was not to give permission to Moses to enter, but rather to show him affection, the sense of the verse may then be explained as follows: “and G-d called him out of the Tent and He spoke to him in the Tent” where he already was. ⁴⁵ Exodus 24:1. ⁴⁶ See Note 17 in Seder Yithro ⁴⁵ Exodus 24:1.

WHEN ANY MAN BRINGETH OF YOU AN OFFERING UNTO THE ETERNAL OF THE CATTLE. The meaning of this verse is as follows: “when any man of you brings from the cattle an offering to the Eternal, of the herd or of the flock you shall bring it.” The reason for this command is that since He commanded afterwards concerning fowl-offerings⁴⁷ and meal-offerings,⁴⁸, Chapter 2. He said here that when a man brings an offering of cattle, he must bring it of one of these two kinds [herd and flock], but not a wild beast nor any other cattle. Thus he who offers a beast [as an offering to G-d], violates a prohibition which is derived from a positive commandment [and carries the force of a positive commandment], just as the Rabbis have said in the third chapter of Tractate Zebachim:⁴⁹ “Rabbi Yochanan said: one who offers the limbs of a [kosher] beast [upon the altar of G-d] transgresses a positive commandment.”

footnotes: ⁴⁷ Further, Verses 14-17. ⁴⁸ Ibid. ⁴⁹ Zebachim 34a.

‘TAKRIVU’ (YE SHALL BRING). “This teaches that two [or more] persons may bring a freewill burnt-offering in partnership. YOUR OFFERING. This teaches that a burnt-offering may be brought as a freewill offering of the [entire] public [not only of groups of individuals]. This refers to the burnt-offering of the altar’s summertime⁵⁰ which was supplied from the surplus [of the half-shekels of the past year].” This is Rashi’s language. The meaning of the Rabbi’s interpretation is thus to state that if many persons voluntarily offer to bring a burnt-offering, it thereby becomes a burnt-offering of partners, for what difference is there between two persons who combine to bring an offering, and ten or a thousand who associate to do so? But the burnt-offering for the altar’s summer-time which is supplied from the surplus [of the previous year’s half-shekels], is deemed a “burnt-offering of the public” because the authorities [of the Sanctuary who receive the donations for the offerings] do so with the implied condition [that they may spend them at their discretion, and the burnt-offering of the public is distinguished in certain respects from a burnt-offering of partners]. Thus according to Rashi all burnt-offerings that are brought by many persons — except those which come from the surplus of the half-shekels — have the law of burnt-offerings of partners, and they all require the laying of [their owners’] hands upon the offering,⁵¹ and the libations connected with them⁵² are taken from the owners [while “burnt-offerings of the public” need no laying of hands, and the libations are supplied by the Temple treasury]. Perhaps according to the opinion of Rashi it is permitted for the general public to offer [money] beforehand in order to bring a burnt-offering of fowls, which may be brought as a freewill offering by two [or more] persons but may [never] come as a freewill offering of the public, and similarly they [may combine to bring] a peace-offering, concerning which the Sages have said⁵³ 6:6. that it may be brought by partners as a freewill offering but may not be brought by the public⁵⁴ — and in that case it is called “a burnt-offering of partners,” or “a peace-offering of partners.” They [i.e., the burnt-offering of fowls and the peace-offering], were only excluded in that they cannot be brought from the [money of the] baskets [containing the surplus of half-shekels which were already donated by the public for the general upkeep of the offerings, and not specifically donated for a burnt-offering or peace-offering]. We may possibly say that if the public wanted originally to set aside a fund for freewill offerings, and they collected it [for that purpose] as they collected the shekalim for the Daily [public] Offerings and the Additional Offerings [of Sabbaths and festivals], that there may then be a freewill public-offering of the cattle,⁵⁵ were collected, it thereby gains the status of a public-offering. Hence Ramban’s expression: “We may possibly say”, i.e., in explanation of Rashi. and it will not require the laying of hands on it, being that it is included in this verse [as a public offering]. As long as it is the majority of Israel who donated money to that end, the offering is called “a freewill offering of the public.” [This rule applies only to the freewill burnt-offering of the cattle] but does not apply to the burnt-offering of fowls, nor to the peace-offering. But if a minority of the people donated towards the freewill burnt-offering, [even if they are a large group], they are deemed as individuals [who bring such an offering in partnership, which would thus require the laying on it of the owners’ hands, and the libations would have to be supplied by the owners]. This is the correct explanation.

footnotes: ⁵⁰ When there was a lack of private offerings [due to the long summer days], freewill burnt-offerings were supplied from the surplus of the half-shekels of the previous year. ⁵¹ See Verse 4. ⁵² See Numbers 15:3-12. ⁵³ Torath Kohanim, Vayikra ⁵⁴ Peace-offerings of the public were only brought on the Festival of Shevuoth (see further, 23:19). ⁵⁵ In other words, the freewill public burnt-offering for the altar’s summertime need not be limited exclusively to that brought out of the surplus in the baskets containing the previous year’s shekels. Money may be collected originally from the public for the purpose of bringing a freewill offering, and the offering will have the status of a public-offering in the sense that [like a public burnt-offering] it will not need the laying of hands on it, which is required in the case of an individual offering. Thus Ramban differs from Rashi’s opinion above that even the combination of a large group of individuals does not alter the status of the offering, which remains an offering of individual partners. Or it may be that Ramban means that even according to Rashi, if the community agreed beforehand, and the money was not left to be donated individually, but collected in the same way that the shekalim

AND HE SHALL LAY HIS HAND. This means his two hands, for we find it stated: *and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock;*⁵⁶ and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands upon the head of the ram,⁵⁷, Verse 15. and the Rabbis interpreted it to mean: “the hands of each and every individual.”⁵⁸ Thus [it is clear that] both hands were required for it. In the case of the goat designed to be sent [to Azazel] it is expressly stated, And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat.⁵⁹ If so, I do not know why Scripture wrote “his hand” [in the singular] in all other cases of the laying of hands. Perhaps it is for the purpose of deriving therefrom what the Rabbis have interpreted:⁶⁰ “His hand — and not the hand of his proxy.” For had it been written “his hands” [in the plural we would have interpreted it] to require the laying of both hands, and we would not have been able to exclude the proxy. But now that [we derive from other verses that] both hands must be laid upon the offering, [we must conclude that] He only wrote the singular [indicating the hands of only one person], to exclude a proxy, for although a man’s proxy is like the man himself⁶¹ in all other places, we should not consider him so in the case of the laying of hands. In Torath Kohanim we find:⁶² 4:4. “And Aaron shall lay both his hands.⁵⁹ This teaches that the laying of hands upon the offering must be done with both hands, and forms the general rule for all cases of laying of hands, that they be done with both hands.”

footnotes: ⁵⁶ Exodus 29:10. ⁵⁷ Ibid. ⁵⁸ I.e., the word “hands” does not refer to “Aaron and his sons,” thus implying that each lay one hand, but to each individual laying his two hands on the offering. The source of this interpretation is unknown to me. ⁵⁹ Further, 16:21. ⁶⁰ Menachoth 93b. ⁶¹ Kiddushin 41b. ⁶² Torath Kohanim, Acharei ⁵⁹ Further, 16:21.

AND IT SHALL BE FAVORABLY ACCEPTED FOR HIM TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HIM. “For what kind of sins does [the freewill burnt-offering] effect atonement for the person that brings it? Should you say, for sins [where punishment if wilfully committed] is excision, or any of the [four] deaths imposed by the court, or death by the hands of Heaven, or stripes, the punishment for all these sins is already stated, [and atonement is affected by those punishments, and therefore not by this offering]! You must conclude that [the freewill burnt-offering] effects atonement only for transgression of a positive commandment,⁶³ and for the violation of a negative commandment that is juxtaposed to a positive commandment.”⁶⁴ (ibid., Verse 7). Hence the usual punishment of stripes is not incurred for infringing the negative commandment, since the positive commandment “remedies” the prohibition. Yet it needs atonement, and the bringing of the burnt-offering expiates for it. — It is important to note that during the laying of hands on the offering the owner, in case of sin-offerings, confessed the sin for which he brought the offering, and so also in the case of guilt-offerings. Similarly, on bringing a burnt-offering he confessed the transgression for a positive commandment etc. [as explained here in the text]. In the case of the peace-offering, he uttered words of praise to G-d (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ma’asei Korbanoth 3:14-15). This is Rashi’s language, and it is a Beraitha⁶⁵ in Torath Kohanim.⁶⁶ 4:5. But I wonder! Where is “the punishment” for these sins already stated, since offerings only effect atonement for unwilful violations?⁶⁷ violation of the negative commandments, while offerings for atonement are brought only for unwilful violations. So how could Rashi state, “Should you say [that the freewill burnt-offering is brought] for such sins that make one liable to excision etc., the punishment for those sins has already been stated”? Where are those “punishments” for unwilful violations mentioned? For unwilful violations no punishments are ever incurred! Now we could say that [the freewill burnt-offerings] atone for those unwilful sins which the penalty [if committed wilfully] is death by the hands of Heaven, or stripes, or any of the [four] deaths imposed by the court, in such cases that do not obligate one to bring a sin-offering,⁶⁸ require the bringing of a sin-offering for unwilful violation. Examples follow in the text. such as smiting one’s father or mother, or cursing them,⁶⁹ just as the sin-offering atones for the unwilful sins for which the penalty [if committed wilfully] is excision. But perhaps it appeared to the Sages that since Scripture expressly states the punishment for both the wilful and unwilful commission of sins punishable by death imposed by the hands of the court or by excision, [stating that if committed wilfully, the sinner is liable to one of the above punishments, and if committed unwilfully, he must bring a sin-offering], and it further set forth the punishment of those liable to death by the hands of Heaven or stripes for certain sins, if committed wilfully, but did not mention in these [last two categories] any punishment if the sins are committed unwilfully — therefore it appeared [to the Sages] that Scripture had completely set forth their case.⁷⁰ For why should Scripture have explained the punishment of some sins if committed either wilfully or unwilfully, and explained the punishment for other sins [only] if committed wilfully, but not if committed unwilfully, and did not say that he is obligated to bring a burnt-offering? Therefore the Sages concluded that in the case of those sins for which one is liable to death by the hands of Heaven or stripes, they are only punishable if committed wilfully, as explained in Scripture, but if committed unwilfully there is no burden of sin at all and they do not need any atonement. This is the meaning of the saying of the Rabbis [in the Torath Kohanim⁶⁶ 4:5. mentioned by Rashi]: “their punishment has already been stated,” meaning that Scripture had already stated the whole punishment that G-d desired to impose on them. But for the wilful transgression of a positive commandment⁶³ and for the violation of a negative commandment that is juxtaposed to a positive commandment,⁶⁴ (ibid., Verse 7). Hence the usual punishment of stripes is not incurred for infringing the negative commandment, since the positive commandment “remedies” the prohibition. Yet it needs atonement, and the bringing of the burnt-offering expiates for it. — It is important to note that during the laying of hands on the offering the owner, in case of sin-offerings, confessed the sin for which he brought the offering, and so also in the case of guilt-offerings. Similarly, on bringing a burnt-offering he confessed the transgression for a positive commandment etc. [as explained here in the text]. In the case of the peace-offering, he uttered words of praise to G-d (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ma’asei Korbanoth 3:14-15). where Scripture mentioned no punishment whatever, and it is impossible that no penalty should be inflicted for them at all, in these cases the sinner is atoned for by this burnt-offering, if he brought it of his own freewill. It is possible to say that because He did not use in the case of the freewill offerings⁷¹ the expression: “to make atonement for him concerning the error which he committed,” as He said with reference to the offerings brought for sins committed unwilfully,⁷¹ and instead He said, and it shall be favorably accepted, it appeared to our Rabbis that the meaning thereof is that [the burnt-offering] effects atonement for those who wilfully commit certain sins, seeing that these persons are not [hitherto] favorably accepted by Him. For he who commits a sin unwilfully is yet, in spite of his sin, considered favorably accepted by G-d. If so, it is impossible that the burnt-offering effect atonement for wilful sinners except for those who transgress a positive commandment or a negative commandment that is juxtaposed to a positive commandment, in which cases no punishment has been mentioned in Scripture, but they are not pleasing to G-d because they violated His commandment. With what can these men become favorably accepted by their Master?⁷² With this gift! I have seen in the Agadah,⁷³ of the Torah, but which teach and edify on all subjects concerning the Torah. The Agadic literature is contained primarily in the Midrashim, as well as in the Talmud. It would appear that Ramban uses the term Agadah here in contradistinction to the Torath Kohanim previously mentioned, which is primarily a book of Halachah (law). There in the Torath Kohanim the purpose of the burnt-offering is as explained above; in the Agadah — in Vayikra Rabbah — it is assigned another purpose, as explained further on. in Vayikra Rabbah:⁷⁴ “Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai taught: The burnt-offering only comes to effect atonement for sinful thoughts of the heart. Said Rabbi Levi: It is a clear Biblical text: ‘V’ha’olah al ruchachem’⁷⁵ [literally, “comes up”]. There is thus here a suggestion that the olah is for those sinful thoughts “which come into one’s mind.” (And that which cometh into your mind) shall not be at all⁷⁶ — the olah (burnt-offering) effects atonement for those things which come into your mind. Similarly it says of Job: and he offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, ‘It may be that my sons have sinned, and blasphemed G-d in their hearts.’⁷⁷ This proves that the burnt-offering only comes to effect atonement for sinful thoughts of the heart.” The reason why [the burnt-offering was singled out for this purpose] is because it is a sin that no one recognizes except G-d [Who knows our secret thoughts]; therefore it is wholly burnt to G-d. The expression v’nirtzah lo⁷⁸ refers back to the Glorious Name mentioned [in the preceding verse: to the door of the Tent of Meeting he shall bring it for his acceptance before the Eternal], meaning that he should be favorably accepted by Him through this offering which effects atonement for him. This is similar in expression to these verses: for wherewith should this fellow ‘yithratzeh’ (reconcile himself) *unto his lord?;*⁷⁹ and the light of Thy countenance because ‘r’tzitham’ (Thou wast favorable to them),⁸⁰ and many others. It is possible that v’nirtzah is a by-word for the sin, meaning that the sin is finished for him, so that he may now be forgiven, similar to these expressions: ‘ki nirtzah avonah’ (that her guilt is paid off);⁸¹ until the land ‘rotz’thah’ (had been paid) her Sabbaths;⁸² and they ‘yirtzu’ (shall be paid) the punishment of their iniquity⁸³ — all these being expressions of completion. It is further possible to say in line with the first interpretation, that the sin will be as if it were “agreeable” [not objectionable before G-d], meaning that His anger will no longer be kindled against him.

footnotes: ⁶³ The Torah cites no punishment for failure to fulfill a positive commandment [with the two exceptions of not slaughtering the Passover-offering, and not being circumcised]. If a person thus failed to fulfill a positive commandment — such as dwelling in a booth on the Festival of Succoth — his bringing a freewill burnt-offering effects atonement for this sin. ⁶⁴ A case in point is the prohibition against taking an entire bird’s nest, with the mother-bird and its young (Deuteronomy 22:6). If, however, he did infringe upon the law, he is obliged to observe a positive commandment that the Torah stated next to the prohibition — Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go ⁶⁵ Beraitha (literally: “outside”) is a teaching or tradition of the Tannaim that had been excluded from the Mishnah and incorporated in other collections. The Tosephta, Mechilta, Sifra (Torath Kohanim), and Sifre contain these Beraithoth. ⁶⁶ Torath Kohanim Vayikra ⁶⁷ “Punishments” [such as “excision etc.”] are incurred only for wilful ⁶⁸ The general rule is that a sin-offering is brought only for such a sin unwilfully committed for which the penalty if committed wilfully would be excision. Ramban is thus suggesting: we could say that the freewill burnt-offering atones for those unwilful sins for which the penalty is death by the hands of Heaven etc., and for all those sins for which the penalty is death by the court and yet do not ⁶⁹ The reason why the sin-offering is not brought for the unwilful violation of these negative commandments is that the punishment of excision is not incurred in case of the wilful violation thereof. See Note 68 above. ⁷⁰ Thus Scripture made it clear that in the case of those sins for which the penalty is death by the hands of Heaven or stripes if committed wilfully — no offering for expiation is needed when committed unintentionally. Rashi and the Torath Kohanim were thus correct in stating that the burnt-offering could not effect atonement for these unwilful sins, since “the punishments” have already been stated in Scripture both for wilful and unwilful sins, and therefore we could not say that the burnt-offering effects atonement for the above-mentioned sins if committed unwilfully. ⁶⁶ Torath Kohanim Vayikra ⁶³ The Torah cites no punishment for failure to fulfill a positive commandment [with the two exceptions of not slaughtering the Passover-offering, and not being circumcised]. If a person thus failed to fulfill a positive commandment — such as dwelling in a booth on the Festival of Succoth — his bringing a freewill burnt-offering effects atonement for this sin. ⁶⁴ A case in point is the prohibition against taking an entire bird’s nest, with the mother-bird and its young (Deuteronomy 22:6). If, however, he did infringe upon the law, he is obliged to observe a positive commandment that the Torah stated next to the prohibition — Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go ⁷¹ Further, 5:18. ⁷¹ Further, 5:18. ⁷² See I Samuel 29:4. ⁷³ The Agadah (homily) comprises all subjects in Rabbinical literature which do not aim directly at the exposition of the laws ⁷⁴ Vayikra Rabbah 7:3. ⁷⁵ The Hebrew term for the burnt-offering is olah ⁷⁶ Ezekiel 20:32. ⁷⁷ Job 1:5. ⁷⁸ Up to here we have followed Silberman’s translation of the phrase: “and it shall be favorably accepted for him.” Ramban now suggests three new interpretations: 1) “and he will be favorably accepted by Him.” 2) “and the sin will be completed to him” — never to be mentioned again. 3) “and it will be ‘agreeable’ to Him.” ⁷⁹ I Samuel 29:4. ⁸⁰ Psalms 44:4. ⁸¹ Isaiah 40:2. ⁸² II Chronicles 36:21. ⁸³ Further, 26:43.

AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER THE BULL BEFORE THE ETERNAL. AND THE PRIESTS, AARON’S SONS, SHALL OFFER THE BLOOD. “All acts from receiving [the blood in a vessel] onwards are the duty of the priests. This teaches that the slaughtering [of the offering] is valid if performed by a zar (non-priest). ‘V’hikrivu’ (and they shall offer …) — this refers to ‘receiving’ [the blood], and the sense thereof is the bringing [of the blood to the altar]. Thus we learn that both of them [receiving the blood and bringing it to the altar], are to be done by Aaron’s sons.” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct.⁸⁴ has a primary meaning of “receiving” the blood in a vessel, which is the first process after the “slaughtering” mentioned immediately before in the verse, and a subsidiary meaning [from the root ‘karav’, to bring near] of “bringing” it to the altar. To this Ramban objects that ‘v’hikrivu’ is not derived from the root ‘karav’, implying bringing near, and hence cannot sustain the interpretation of “bringing it near” the altar even as a subsidiary meaning. Rather, it is associated with the word ‘korban’ (offering), and has only one meaning, that of “receiving” the blood, which is the first stage in offering. If so, whence do we know that bringing it near the altar may also be done only by priests [and is invalid if done by a non-priest]? To this Ramban replies that it is a logical deduction [“if receiving the blood may only be done by priests, it follows ‘all the more’ that bringing it to the altar, which is a later stage in its offering, has this requirement”]. A careful reading of Rashi and Ramban clearly indicates this interpretation. Instead, the Midrash of our Rabbis states:⁸⁵ 4:4. “V’hikrivu — this is the receiving of the blood.” For the term v’hikrivu does not mean the bringing of the blood near to the altar, namely the holachah (carrying of it). Instead, v’hikrivu is an expression similar to the word korban (offering) and it signifies receiving [of the blood in a vessel] and sprinkling it upon the altar. Thus He mentioned bringing it [to the door of the Tent of Meeting], laying hands on it, and slaughtering it with reference to the owner of the offering, and after the slaughtering He immediately mentioned the sons of Aaron. It accordingly follows that receiving the blood is in itself a duty to be performed by the priests, and may only be done by a qualified priest and with vessels dedicated to the Temple Service; and [it follows] all the more that bringing it to the altar and sprinkling it [can be done only by a qualified priest]. Moreover, even carrying of the limbs to the ramp [leading to the altar] is invalid if done by a non-priest, for so the Rabbis interpreted:⁸⁶ “And the priest shall offer it all, and cause it to ascend in fumes upon the altar⁸⁷ — this refers to carrying of the limbs to the ramp.” If so, carrying the blood to the altar also may be done only by a priest with all the conditions of priesthood.

footnotes: ⁸⁴ Ramban understood Rashi as saying that the word v’hikrivu ⁸⁵ Torath Kohanim, Vayikra ⁸⁶ Zebachim 4a. ⁸⁷ Further, Verse 13.

AND HE SHALL FLAY THE BURNT-OFFERING. He is commanded to flay it while it is whole and afterwards he sever it. The expression and he shall flay … and he shall sever refers to the owner of the offering [even if he is a non-priest], just as He said, and he shall lay his hand …⁸⁸ and he shall slaughter⁸⁹ [which may also be done by a zar — a non-priest], for flaying and severing are not functions relating to the actual offering and are therefore valid if done by a zar. This is why [in the following verse] He says again, And the sons of Aaron [the priest shall put fire upon the altar].⁹⁰ Similarly, it is valid that the washing of the inwards be done by a zar. Hence He says, But its inwards and its legs he shall wash in water,⁹¹ that is, the owner of the offering, and afterwards, and the priest shall cause all to ascend in fumes.⁹¹ He states it in the plural, and they shall put …⁹⁰ and they shall set the pieces,⁹² because all duties performed by the priests are commanded in this form, since there are many priests gathered in the House of G-d to attend to the burnt-offerings, and in the multitude of the people is the King’s glory,⁹³ but it is not indispensable, since further on He taught, and the priest shall set them in order⁹⁴ [thus showing that even a single priest may perform all the acts].⁹⁵. It is thus clear that Ramban’s intention here is to exclude Ibn Ezra’s opinion, since it is not the accepted law.

footnotes: ⁸⁸ Above, Verse 4. ⁸⁹ Verse 5. ⁹⁰ Verse 7. ⁹¹ Verse 9. ⁹¹ Verse 9. ⁹⁰ Verse 7. ⁹² Verse 8. ⁹³ Proverbs 14:28. ⁹⁴ Verse 12. ⁹⁵ Ibn Ezra, however, states that they must be performed by a minimum of two priests. This he bases upon the plural expression in Verse 7: and they shall put fire

AND HE SHALL FLAY … AND HE SHALL SEVER … AND THE SONS OF AARON THE PRIEST SHALL PUT FIRE UPON THE ALTAR.⁹⁰ This is not the correct order of these actions, for the right way is that the priests should first put fire upon the altar, and only then should they sever the limbs. Such indeed was the order of the arrangement of the Daily Offering.⁹⁶ Similarly, the verse stating, And the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall set the pieces, the head and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire,⁹² and afterwards, But its inwards and its legs he shall wash in water⁹¹ — does not mean to command that it be done in that order, for “the setting” [mentioned in Verse 8] refers to “the burning” of the pieces which He commanded further on [in Verse 9]: and the priest shall cause all to ascend in fumes. If so, the correct order of performance cannot be that he should bring up the pieces, and the head and the fat, and set them upon the fire that is upon the altar, and only afterwards should he wash the inwards and the legs and burn them! Rather, he first severed it and washed it, and then he brought everything up and set them on the fire to be burnt. The reason [for the order] of the verses is thus as follows: First He mentioned the sprinkling of the blood⁸⁹ in order to teach that this comes before everything else. Then He gave the commandment concerning the burning of the limbs, stating [in Verse 6 before us] that he should flay [the animal] and sever it in order to set the pieces upon the fire after washing the inwards and the legs, and then he should burn them all at one time, this being the sense of the expression and the priest shall cause ‘all’ to ascend in fumes.⁹¹ The reason why Scripture repeated [the commandment] concerning the limbs, stating, and they shall set them…upon the fire,⁹² and the priest shall cause all to ascend in fumes,⁹⁷ [Verse 8] means the burning thereof, as explained above, the question appears why in Verse 9 it repeats the command concerning the limbs, and they shall set them upon the fire? is in order to teach us that after he arranges them upon the fire, he should not depart until the fire has taken hold of them and consumed them so that the fumes thereof ascend. Similarly, the reason why He preceded to mention the flaying and severing to that of making the fire, is in order to teach us that in a freewill burnt-offering [discussed in this section], there is no obligation to set the fire upon the altar before [these activities] as is the case with the Daily Offering, concerning which we were commanded, and the priest shall kindle wood on it every morning,⁹⁸ this being the first thing of all that was done in everything that pertaineth to the altar⁹⁹ as far as the burning of the offering is concerned. as is explained in Tractate Yoma.⁹⁶

footnotes: ⁹⁰ Verse 7. ⁹⁶ Yoma 33. ⁹² Verse 8. ⁹¹ Verse 9. ⁸⁹ Verse 5. ⁹¹ Verse 9. ⁹² Verse 8. ⁹⁷ Verse 9. — That is to say, in view of the fact that the expression and they shall set the pieces in order … ⁹⁸ Further, 6:5. ⁹⁹ Numbers 18:7. Actually the removal of the ashes from the altar (see further, 6:3) preceded the kindling of the wood. But Ramban’s intent here is obviously to everything that pertaineth to the altar ⁹⁶ Yoma 33.

V’ETH HAPADER.’ Onkelos translated it: tarba (fat), and this is also the concensus of opinion of all commentators, the word (pader) having no companion in the Hebrew language. In my opinion the word is not a generic term for all kinds of fat, but signifies specifically the thin layer of fat which spreads over and divides between the inwards, and the word pader is one of those terms whose letters are interchangeable, thus: pader — pared (division), [and is so called] since it divides between the upper and the lower inwards. That is why our Rabbis have said¹⁰⁰ that [when the limbs are taken up to the altar] the pader is spread over the throat of the animal at the place where the act of slaughter was performed, for this is considered regard for Him Who is on high, since that fat is fit to be spread and serve as a cover. It is also customary among the nobility of nations to spread it over a roast. If, however, the word pader is indeed a generic term for all kinds of fat, [it is my opinion that] fat is so called because it is the greasy substance which is “separated” from the flesh, and such in fact is the term used as an equivalent for fat by students of nature, as I will mention.¹⁰¹

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ Yoma 26a. ¹⁰¹ Further, 3:9.

A BURNT-OFFERING. “[He shall burn it] with the intention that it should be a burnt-offering [and not an offering of another category]. ‘ISHEIH’ (A FIRE-OFFERING). When he slaughters it he should slaughter it with the intention of [burning it by] fire, [as will be explained further on]. Wherever the word isheih occurs, it is an expression of fire. PLEASING — it is pleasing to Me that I have commanded and My will was done.” This is the language of Rashi. Now the Rabbi did not explain what is meant by “the intention of [burning it by] fire.” In the Gemara¹⁰² the Rabbis have said: “this is to exclude kabobo, which may not be done.” Now the commentators¹⁰³. explained this to mean that he should slaughter it with the intention of placing it on flames burning the pile of wood upon the altar, and not of placing it upon dying coals which are in the process of being extinguished. To me it appears that the intention he needs to have is that the fire should burn it completely, and not that it should just be roasted there a little, the word kabobo being similar to the expression of the Rabbis in the chapter entitled “A stubborn and rebellious son: ”¹⁰⁴ “k’basar kiba (like partly-roasted meat) which thieves eat.” In Tractate Erubin we also find:¹⁰⁵ “v’nichbeiv (let him roast it) and eat it.” Now some books have a reading in Tractate Zebachim:¹⁰² “this is to exclude gabobo (straw), which may not be done.” Accordingly the meaning thereof is that he should have the intention to put it on a fire of wood, as it is written, on the wood that is on the fire,¹⁰⁶ and he should not intend to put it upon a fire made of stubble and straw, similar to that which we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:¹⁰⁷ “If a double-stove had been heated with stubble and gabobo.” Now this verse mentions a reason for the offerings, namely, that they are a fire-offering, of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal. The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim¹⁰⁸ that the reason for the offerings is because the Egyptians and the Chaldeans in whose lands the children of Israel were strangers and sojourners, used always to worship the herd and the flock, the Egyptians worshipping the sheep and the Chaldeans worshipping the demons whom they imagined as assuming the form of goats. To this day men of India never slaughter the herd. It was for this reason that He commanded [Israel] to slaughter these three species [of cattle: the herd, the flock, and the goats], to the Revered Name, so that it be known that the very act which the idol-worshippers considered to be the utmost sin [i.e., slaughtering the above species], that same act should be done as an offering before the Creator, and through it Israel’s sins would be forgiven. For such is the way to cure people of false beliefs, which are the diseasees of the human soul, for all diseases and sicknesses are healed by medicines which are antithetical to them. These are the words [the Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon], and he expounded them at great length. But these words are mere expressions, healing casually a severe wound¹⁰⁹ and a great difficulty, and making the table of the Eternal polluted,¹¹⁰ [as if the offerings were intended only] to remove false beliefs from the hearts of the wicked and fools of the world, when Scripture says that they are the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasing odor.¹¹¹ Moreover, [if the offerings were meant to eliminate] the foolish [ideas] of the Egyptians, their disease would not thereby be cured. On the contrary, it would increase the cause of sorrow, for since the intention of the above-mentioned wicked ones was to worship the constellations of the sheep and the ox, which according to their opinion possess certain powers [over human affairs], and which is why they abstain from eating them in deference to their power and strength, then if these species are slaughtered to the Revered Name, it is a mark of respect and honor to [these constellations]. These worshippers themselves were in the habit of so doing, as He has said, And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs,¹¹², 17:7. and those who made the [golden] calf sacrificed to it.¹¹³ Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] mentions¹⁰⁸ that the idol-worshippers used to sacrifice to the moon on the days of new-moon, and to the sun when it rose in a particular constellation known to them from their books. The disease of idolatry would surely have been far better cured if we were to eat [these animal-deities] to our full, which would be considered by them forbidden and repugnant, and something they would never do! Furthermore, when Noah came out of the ark with his three sons, there were as yet no Chaldeans or Egyptians in the world, yet he brought an offering, which was pleasing to G-d, as concerning it Scripture says, And the Eternal smelled the pleasing odor,¹¹⁴ and on account of it *He said in His heart, ‘I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake.’*¹¹⁴ Abel likewise brought of the first-born of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Eternal had regard unto Abel and to his offering.¹¹⁵, 4:4. Yet there was as yet not the slightest trace at all of idol-worship in the world! Balaam said, ‘I have prepared the seven altars, and I have offered up a bullock and a ram on every altar.’¹¹⁶ His intent¹¹⁷ then was not to eradicate from [Balak’s mind] evil beliefs, nor was he commanded to bring the offerings. Instead, Balaam did so in order to approach G-d so that he would be reached by His communication. The Scriptural expression concerning the offerings is, My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire, for a pleasing odor unto Me.¹¹⁸ Far be it that they should have no other purpose and intention except the elimination of idolatrous opinions from the minds of fools!¹¹⁹ It is far more fitting to accept the reason for the offerings which scholars¹²⁰ say, namely that since man’s deeds are accomplished through thought, speech and action, therefore G-d commanded that when man sins and brings an offering, he should lay his hands upon it in contrast to the [evil] deed [committed]. He should confess his sin verbally in contrast to his [evil] speech, and he should burn the inwards and the kidneys [of the offering] in fire because they are the instruments of thought and desire in the human being. He should burn the legs [of the offering] since they correspond to the hands and feet of a person, which do all his work. He should sprinkle the blood upon the altar, which is analogous to the blood in his body. All these acts are performed in order that when they are done, a person should realize that he has sinned against his G-d with his body and his soul, and that “his” blood should really be spilled and “his” body burned, were it not for the loving-kindness of the Creator, Who took from him a substitute and a ransom, namely this offering, so that its blood should be in place of his blood, its life in place of his life, and that the chief limbs of the offering should be in place of the chief parts of his body. The portions [given from the sin-offering to the priests], are in order to support the teachers of the Torah, so that they pray on his behalf. The reason for the Daily public Offering is that it is impossible for the public [as a whole] to continually avoid sin. Now these are words which are worthy to be accepted, appealing to the heart as do words of Agadah.⁷³ of the Torah, but which teach and edify on all subjects concerning the Torah. The Agadic literature is contained primarily in the Midrashim, as well as in the Talmud. It would appear that Ramban uses the term Agadah here in contradistinction to the Torath Kohanim previously mentioned, which is primarily a book of Halachah (law). There in the Torath Kohanim the purpose of the burnt-offering is as explained above; in the Agadah — in Vayikra Rabbah — it is assigned another purpose, as explained further on. By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], there is a hidden secret contained in the offerings. You may be introduced to it by that which our Rabbis have said in the Sifre¹²¹ 143. — The Sifre is the Tannaitic Midrash on the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. It is equivalent to the Torath Kohanim [or Sifra] on the Book of Leviticus, and the Mechilta on the Book of Exodus. and at the end of Tractate Menachoth:¹²² “Shimon ben Azai said: Come and see what is written in the section of the offerings! It does not say with reference to them E-il (G-d), nor Elokecha (thy G-d), nor Elokim (G-d), nor Sha-dai (Almighty), nor Tze-baoth (G-d of ‘Hosts’), but only, Yod Hei — the Proper name of G-d [the Tetragrammaton — ‘Eternal’] — in order not to give an opponent [i.e., a believer in plurality] an occasion for a point of attack.¹²³), — In his work on the Torah “Meshech Chochmah” (at the beginning of Seder Shoftim) Rabbi Meir Simchah explains the intent of Shimon ben Azai’s words in the following pertinent way: “It is known that the name Elokim means Master of all (natural) forces, or the Force of forces (see Ramban, Vol. I, p. 25). Hence if the name Elokim or E-il had been used in the section of the offerings it would have given an opportunity to the opponents [of the belief in the true Unity of G-d] that He is in need of food [i.e., in need of replenishing His powers]. Therefore only the Tetragrammaton is used in this whole section in order to indicate that His Existence is the only true Existence, and that everything exists only through His true Existence, for they are all in need of Him, but He is not in need of them nor of any of them.” Perhaps you might say that He is in need of food, Scripture therefore says, If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is Mine, and the fullness thereof.¹²⁴ I have only commanded you to bring the offerings in order that My Will should be said and fulfilled.” In the beginning of Torath Kohanim we also find:¹²⁵ 2:5. “Rabbi Yosei says: Wherever an offering is mentioned by Scripture, the Tetragrammaton is used, in order not to give an opportunity for heretics to rebel” [by finding pluralistic allusions against the principle of Unity]. These are the words of the Rabbis of blessed memory. Now it is true that in the section of the Torah where the offerings are commanded it does not say E-il or Elokim (G-d). But we do find [elsewhere in Scripture] verses as follows: and thou shalt offer burnt-offerings thereon unto the Eternal ‘Elokecha’ (thy G-d);¹²⁶ the bread of ‘Elokeihem’ (their G-d), *they do offer;*¹²⁷ thou shalt sanctify him [the priest], for he offereth the bread of ‘Elokecha’ (thy G-d).¹²⁸, Verse 8. In the psalm mentioned above it is written, Offer unto ‘Elokim’ (G-d) the offering of thanksgiving.¹²⁹ It is further written: For our fathers have acted treacherously, and done that which was evil in the sight of the Eternal our G-d, and have forsaken Him … Also they have closed the doors of the porch, and put out the lamps, and have not burned incense nor offered burnt-offerings in the holy place unto ‘Elokei’ (the G-d of) Israel.¹³⁰ (the G-d of Israel) is used in connection with the burnt-offering, instead of the Proper Divine Name. But the whole subject is explained in the Torah [itself], as it is said, My offering, My bread ‘l’ishai’ (for My fire-offerings),¹³¹ [vowelled with a patach] means, “for My ishim — fires,” as alluded to further on. See also my Hebrew commentary, p. 13. and it is said, the food of ‘isheh’ (the fire offering),¹³² meaning that the offerings are the food of isheh, and from it they are for the ishim — the word isheh being an expression for “fire.” Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that isheih is an adjectival noun, meaning “a fire-offering,” qualifying the word “all” [and the priest shall cause ‘all’ to ascend in fumes];¹³³ (all) to ascend in fumes on the altar ‘olah’, (a burnt-offering) ‘isheih’ … Now the word isheih which is in the masculine, is the adjective to the word hakol which is also in the masculine, and not to the word olah which is in the feminine. and in the case of the meal-offering where it says, and the priest shall cause to ascend in fumes the memorial-portion of it upon the altar, ‘isheih’ (a fire-offering), of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal,¹³⁴ [the word isheih] is adjectival to the word kometz [“handful” — mentioned in the first part of the verse]. But this is not so. Rather, the word isheih is a noun like eish (fire), and olah isheih [mentioned in Verse 9 before us] is like olath eish (a burnt-offering of fire), of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal, and so are all similar expressions, their meaning being like lechem isheh (the food of the fire-offering).¹³⁵, 3:11. In other words, although here in Verse 9 it is stated isheih, and so also in many other places, the word is yet to be understood as isheh, which is surely a noun and not an adjectival noun (as Ibn Ezra explained it). The reason, however, why He did not say eish but said isheih [comprised of the letters: alef, shin, hei] is [to allude to] the plain meaning thereof, as it hath been shown thee in the mount¹³⁶ at the Giving of the Torah, which refers to the offering in the attribute of justice. The slaughtering [of the offering] must be to the Name of the Eternal alone, meaning that [he who slaughters it] must have no intention to do so to anything else in the world, save unto the Name of the Eternal only, this being the meaning of the expression ‘olah hu … isheh hu’ (it is a burnt-offering … a fire-offering)…¹³⁷ (burnt-offering) also means “ascending” — thus alluding to its ascension to the highest emanation. Hence the expression, it is an ‘olah’ unto the Eternal … That is why the verse says, For the ‘ishei’ (fire-offerings) of the Eternal, the bread of their G-d, they offer, and they shall be holy,¹³⁸ for the offering of their G-d is unto the ‘ishei of the Eternal; and therefore the Rabbis have said¹²² that in [the sections of the Torah giving] the commands for the offerings, it does not mention E-il or Elokim (G-d),¹³⁹ but a fire-offering unto the Eternal,¹⁴⁰ a pleasing odor unto the Eternal,¹⁴¹ for the intention must be unto the Eternal alone, and he who performs the acts of offering it up should have no other intent or thought save only to the Proper Name [i.e., the Tetragrammaton]. This is the sense of the saying of the Sages:¹⁴² “Scripture has ordered all these Services to be devoted to the Proper Name.” And in the Torath Kohanim¹⁴³ 4:6 (end of chapter). it is said: “Unto the Eternal — unto Him Who created the world.” It is this which the psalm states: *Offer unto G-d the offering of thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Most High;*¹²⁹ For the Eternal is the Most High, Fearful, a Great King over all the earth.¹⁴⁴ The vow [to bring the offering] may also only be taken unto the Proper Name. It is this which the psalm states, G-d, thy G-d, am I. I will not reprove thee for thy offerings,¹⁴⁵ is here like the Proper Name — “the Eternal” (Ma’or V’shamesh). This is obvious from the following words of Ramban. just as He said, I am the Eternal thy G-d.¹⁴⁶ This is the sense of the whole psalm wherein it says, ‘E-il Elokim Hashem’ (G-d, G-d, the Eternal) hath spoken, and called the earth etc.,¹⁴⁷ using the full Divine Name¹⁴⁸. (On “the full Divine Name” see in Vol. I, p. 66). in reference to the world,¹⁴⁹. and mentioning therein the offerings. It is with reference to this too that it is said [speaking of the offerings], They shall come up with acceptance on Mine altar, and I will glorify My glorious house,¹⁵⁰ meaning to say that the offerings shall be brought for acceptance, which is upon His altar, and He will then glorify His glorious house when they go up for a pleasing odor, the word nicho’ach (pleasing) being derived from the expressions: ‘nachah’ (there rests) *the spirit of Elijah on Elisha;*¹⁵¹ ‘vatanach’ (and there rested) the spirit upon them.¹⁵² Likewise all terms of korban (offering) [from the root ‘karav’, near] are expressions of approaching, and unity. Therefore, it says, Nor did they offer burnt-offerings in the holy place unto the G-d of Israel,¹⁵³ for the burnt-offering in the holy place is to the G-d of Israel. The angel taught Manoah the concept of the offerings when he said, Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread,¹⁵⁴ meaning that if Manoah were to make him food he would not accept it from him, as it would be unfit and an offering which is an abomination to G-d. But if thou wilt make ready a burnt-offering, unto G-d alone thou must offer it.¹⁵⁴ Then will it be for acceptance as the fire-offerings of the Eternal, as indeed the angel of the Eternal ascended in the flame of the altar.¹⁵⁵, 20. Thus is the subject [of the offerings] explained and clarified. May the good Lord pardon!¹⁵⁶

footnotes: ¹⁰² Zebachim 46b. ¹⁰³ Rashi ibid ¹⁰⁴ Sanhedrin 70a. ¹⁰⁵ Erubin 29b. ¹⁰² Zebachim 46b. ¹⁰⁶ Verse 12. ¹⁰⁷ Shabbath 36b. ¹⁰⁸ Guide of the Perplexed III, 46. ¹⁰⁹ See Jeremiah 6:14. ¹¹⁰ Malachi 1:12. ¹¹¹ Further, 3:16. ¹¹² Ibid. ¹¹³ Exodus 32:8. — In other words, despite the Torah commanding that these three animal species, [the herd, the flock, and the goats] should be offered up to G-d, idol-worshippers, who had other forms of deities, could still consider these offerings to be marks of honor to their own particular foolishness, as is evidenced by the fact that they used to sacrifice herd and flock to the goats, or to the calf! Thus how could the offerings specified in the Torah be a cure against all idols? This is the gist of Ramban’s argument. It is more readily understood in the light of Ramban’s explanation on the development of idolatry in Exodus Chapter 20, Verse 3, which indicates that the early idolators believed in a Supreme G-d. See also further, Note 117. ¹⁰⁸ Guide of the Perplexed III, 46. ¹¹⁴ Genesis 8:21. ¹¹⁴ Genesis 8:21. ¹¹⁵ Ibid. ¹¹⁶ Numbers 23:4. ¹¹⁷ I.e., G-d’s intent. In other words, the fact that Balaam who was not commanded by the laws of the Torah, brought offerings of the herd and the flock, shows that G-d’s intent in commanding Israel that the offerings be brought from the three animal species was not to cure people of these evil idolatrous beliefs, as Balaam was not commanded therein. ¹¹⁸ Numbers 28:2. ¹¹⁹ This concludes Ramban’s array of arguments against Rambam’s rationale of the offerings. It is important to point out that many great authors came to Rambam’s defense, as there are many Scriptural and Rabbinical sources which seem to confirm his opinion, and the questions Ramban raised have been answered by them. A summary of them will be found in my Hebrew commentary, pp. 11-12. See there also for the unique approach of Rabbi Meir Simcha in harmonizing the theories of both Rambam and Ramban. ¹²⁰ The reference is to Ibn Ezra. This is clearly apparent in Ramban’s language in his sermon called Torath Hashem Temimah, where he writes: “Now the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra on the matter of the offerings is that they are an atonement for the soul. The explanation of the matter on the basis of his opinion is that the offerings …” (Kithvei Haramban, Vol. I, p. 164). It is thus clear that what follows is Ramban’s interpretation of the way he understood Ibn Ezra’s thought. This explains why the following exposition is not found verbatim in Ibn Ezra’s writings. See my Hebrew commentary (beginning with the third edition, p. 532). ⁷³ The Agadah (homily) comprises all subjects in Rabbinical literature which do not aim directly at the exposition of the laws ¹²¹ Sifre, Pinchas ¹²² Menachoth 110a. ¹²³ “They will bring proof from the fact that a deity with such-and-such a name commanded that the meal-offering be brought to him, and a deity of another name commanded that the bullocks [be offered to him], and a deity of a third name commanded that the ram [be offered to him]” (Rashi ibid. ¹²⁴ Psalms 50:12. ¹²⁵ Torath Kohanim, Vayikra ¹²⁶ Deuteronomy 27:6. ¹²⁷ Further, 21:6. ¹²⁸ Ibid. ¹²⁹ Psalms 50:14. ¹³⁰ II Chronicles 29:6-7. Here too the Name Elokei Yisrael ¹³¹ Numbers 28:2. — The word l’ishai ¹³² Further, 3:11. ¹³³ The verse reads: and the priest shall cause ‘hakol’ ¹³⁴ Further, 2:2. ¹³⁵ Ibid. ¹³⁶ Exodus 27:8. — See here my Hebrew commentary, p. 13. ¹³⁷ Further, 8:21. The word olah ¹³⁸ Further, 21:6. ¹²² Menachoth 110a. ¹³⁹ These Names represent the attribute of justice. The Tetragrammaton [“the Eternal”] represents the attribute of mercy. ¹⁴⁰ Further, 2:16, etc. ¹⁴¹ Here in Verse 9, etc. ¹⁴² Sanhedrin 60b. ¹⁴³ Torath Kohanim, Vayikra ¹²⁹ Psalms 50:14. ¹⁴⁴ Psalms 47:3. ¹⁴⁵ Ibid., 50:7-8. Ramban is here suggesting that the first Name Elokim ¹⁴⁶ Exodus 20:2. ¹⁴⁷ Psalms 50:1. ¹⁴⁸ G-d, the Eternal spoke ¹⁴⁹ The verse there continues: and He called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof ¹⁵⁰ Isaiah 60:7. ¹⁵¹ II Kings 2:15. ¹⁵² Numbers 11:26. ¹⁵³ II Chronicles 29:7. See Note 130 above. ¹⁵⁴ Judges 13:16. ¹⁵⁴ Judges 13:16. ¹⁵⁵ Ibid. ¹⁵⁶ II Chronicles 30:18. See also Vol. I, p. 437, Note 275. — The idea suggested here by Ramban is that in order to disprove certain erroneous explanations about the offerings, he had to resort to discuss openly some of the mystic teachings of the Cabala. Hence his prayer for forgiveness.

AND IF HIS OFFERING BE OF THE FLOCK. This section deals with the burnt-offering of the flock, and the law thereof is in every detail like that of the burnt-offering of the herd. That is why He shortened here the command, and did not mention “and he shall lay his hands” [upon the offering], nor “and it will be acceptable” [as mentioned above]. He said here in addition, however, that it be slaughtered on the side of the altar, northward before the Eternal,¹⁵⁷ in order to explain that the expression before the Eternal¹⁵⁸ mentioned in connection with the bullock means the side of the altar northward. The meaning of yerech [of the altar] is “the side” of the altar, and in the northerly direction. The verse thus teaches that the ramp of the altar was on the south side, where the front of the altar was, concerning which it is said, before the Eternal, in front of the altar.¹⁵⁹ I have already explained the reason why the slaughtering was to be done on the north side.¹⁶⁰ Scripture states without specification, round about the altar,¹⁶¹ for the reference is to the altar mentioned above, that is at the door of the Tent of Meeting.¹⁶² It does not state [in this section] and he shall flay it, since it has already been mentioned [in the preceding section].¹⁶³ It states and the priest shall set them in order,¹⁶⁴ to teach us that it is sufficient if one priest attends [to all the acts of the offering of the burnt-offering brought by an individual] as I have explained,¹⁶³ for the sections on the offerings complement each other, the points not mentioned in one being explained in the other.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁷ Verse 11. ¹⁵⁸ Above, Verse 5, when speaking of the burnt-offering of the herd. ¹⁵⁹ Further, 6:7. ¹⁶⁰ See Exodus 32:1. ¹⁶¹ Verse 11. For in view of the fact that there were two altars [[illegible]] one in the outside Court at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and one within the Sanctuary — it therefore should have specified which one is intended here. But, Ramban answers, the reference is to the altar mentioned in the preceding section. ¹⁶² Verse 5. ¹⁶³ Verse 6. ¹⁶⁴ Verse 12. ¹⁶³ Verse 6.

OF TURTLEDOVES OR OF YOUNG PIGEONS. Scripture chose these two species [of birds] because they are accessible and can be more easily caught than other [birds], just as our Rabbis have mentioned¹⁶⁵ with reference to any of the sheep, and any of the goats,¹⁶⁶ that [Scripture chose these species so that] a person should be able to bring an offering from those animals that feed at his crib, and should not have to take his weapons, quiver and bow, to go out on the hunt to bring it.¹⁶⁷, Verse 3. He chose grown-up turtledoves¹⁶⁸ 3:2). because they abstain [from pairing with strangers] and attach themselves only to their mates, and once they lose their companions they never associate with others. So Israel cleave to the Eternal their G-d,¹⁶⁹ and never attach themselves to another deity, Pigeons, on the other hand, are very jealous and as a result of their jealousy they part [from their previous mates] and take on other mates. Therefore He chose them [as offerings] only when they are young, before their mating begins, for as long as the pigeon is young it is attached with greater love to the nest where it is reared than are all other fowls. Our Rabbis have mentioned¹⁷⁰ that if a person touches the nest of all other fowls to take therefrom the young ones or the eggs, they leave it and never nest therein again, but the pigeon never abandons it under any condition. And so is [the people of] Israel. They will never exchange their Creator and His Torah, but “either Jews or nailed to the stake.” He did not choose cocks [as offerings although they are readily accessible] because of their inclination to lewdness. Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim¹⁷¹ that the reason for choosing grown-up turtledoves and young pigeons as offerings is that these are the best of their species, since old pigeons are less tasty. But this is not true, for young pigeons are almost inedible as a result of their excessive moistness. If, however, we are to take into consideration their natural tendencies as far as eating them is concerned, it is possible that they were chosen for their special qualities; for turtledoves have a propensity to sharpening of the mind, and young pigeons have a propensity to benefit greatly those who are not fully-matured physically, such as youths in the intermediate stage between boyhood and maturity, and the like.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁵ Vayikra Rabbah 27:6. ¹⁶⁶ Deuteronomy 14:4. ¹⁶⁷ Genesis 27:5. See also ibid. ¹⁶⁸ Turtledoves may be offered only after their neck-feathers have turned bright yellow. Pigeons may be brought only when they are still so young that when their feathers are plucked blood is drawn (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Isurei Mizbeiach ¹⁶⁹ See Deuteronomy 4:4. ¹⁷⁰ Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1:5. ¹⁷¹ Guide of the Perplexed III, 46.

AND THE PRIEST SHALL BRING IT UNTO THE ALTAR. This “bringing” means bringing it up onto the altar, signifying that the priest is to bring up the bird onto the altar and nip off its head there, as the nipping off may only be done on top of the altar.¹⁷² It is for this reason that the Rabbis interpreted:¹⁷² “And the priest shall bring it … Could you possibly think that a non-priest could come near the altar? If so, why does it say the priest … shall nip off? It is to teach us that the nipping off be done [not with an instrument but] only by the priest himself.” “And he shall nip off … and cause it to ascend in fumes … and the blood thereof shall be wrung out. Is it possible to say that after he has burnt it, he should squeeze the blood out? But [the order of the wording] is to teach us that just as the burning of the head is to be done separately [as is indicated here in the verse, and he shall nip off its head, and cause it to ascend in fumes], and that of the body is to be done separately [as is stated further on in Verse 17: and he shall cleave it … and cause it to ascend in fumes], so also the nipping off has to be done in this way, the head separately and the body separately. The plain meaning of the verse, however, is that the wording is to be inverted: and he shall nip off and cause it to ascend in fumes, and before the burning its blood shall have been wrung out.” This is Rashi’s language. Now it is impossible to say [that the order of the verse can be explained to mean] that he should nip off its head and burn it, and afterwards wring the blood of the body on the wall of the altar and then burn the body, since no limbs of any offering may ever be burnt [on the altar] before the sprinkling of the blood, the principle for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life¹⁷³, and the wringing of the blood can nonetheless be done subsequently because it refers to the body’s blood. Rashi, however, was compelled to invert the word-order because this suggested explanation is impossible, as explained by Ramban. applying to all offerings. Therefore the Rabbis interpreted the verse [to mean] that Scripture intended only to liken the nipping off to the burning, so that in both cases the head should be treated by itself and the body by itself. The plain sense of the verse, however, is that “he should nip off its head in order to burn it on the altar,” thus teaching that the nipping off should be done in order to burn the head [separately, and not dispose of it otherwise], just as he will burn the body, concerning which He said, and the priest shall cause it to ascend in fumes,¹⁷⁴ for such is Scriptures’ way of speaking about all offerings, as I have explained in connection with the severance into pieces of the burnt-offering.¹⁶³ However, Scripture states here, and the priest shall cause it to ascend in fumes,¹⁷⁴ and did not say “and he shall cause all to ascend” [as it said above in Verse 9, in the case of the burnt-offering of the herd], because [here in the case of the burnt-offering of the fowl] the burning thereof was done in two separate stages: first he burnt the head, and then he removed the crop [from the body], and cleft it by the wings, and then he burnt the body, as we have been taught in Tractate Zebachim.¹⁷²

footnotes: ¹⁷² Zebachim 65a. ¹⁷² Zebachim 65a. ¹⁷³ Further, 17:11. Ramban’s intention is to defend Rashi’s explanation. At first sight, one could suggest an alternative explanation, which would leave the words of the verse in the correct order, namely that the nipping off and burning mentioned in the verse refer to the head ¹⁷⁴ Verse 17. ¹⁶³ Verse 6. ¹⁷⁴ Verse 17. ¹⁷² Zebachim 65a.

AND HE SHALL REMOVE ‘ETH MURATHO B’NOTZATHAH.’ “Muratho refers to the place of the digested food, namely ‘its crop.’ B’notzathah means ‘together with its entrails.’ The word notzah is a term for anything which is loathsome. Similarly: for ‘natzu’ (they are become loathsome) and are wandered away.¹⁷⁵ That is what Onkelos intended in translating ‘b’notzathah’ as b’uchleih (with its digested food). This is also the interpretation of Aba Yosei ben Chanan who said¹⁷² that he removes the stomach together with it [i.e., the crop]. But our Rabbis have said:¹⁷⁶ he cuts out with a knife an opening around the crop like a flap, and removes it together with the feathers [on the skin].” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct. For the word notzah in all places only means actual feathers. Similarly, for ‘natzu’ and are wandered away¹⁷⁵ means that they have acquired feathers [wings] to fly away from their places and go into exile, and there too they will [constantly] wander, not finding a resting-place. Similarly: for ‘natzoh’ (she must fly away) and get away.¹⁷⁷ is derived from the original root meaning “feathers” — hence: “she must fly away.” The Jerusalem Targum rendered [the above-mentioned verse: for ‘natzu’ and are wandered away]:¹⁷⁵ “for they are ‘quarrelsome’ and have also wandered away.” The Targum thus derived the word natzu from the expression, when men ‘yinatzu’ (strive) together,¹⁷⁸ and the verse is thus stating that “they strive with all the nations and wander away from them, and do not continue to live among them.” This is a correct interpretation. But the word notzah in the sense of “loathsome” as the Rabbi [Rashi] has it, is not found. The interpretation of Aba Yosei which made it incumbent upon the priest to take also the stomach with the crop, is [not because he considers the word b’notzathah to mean “the place of its entrails,” as Rashi understood him, but rather] because the crop and the gullet together with the stomach, comprising the organs for the digestion of food [in the bird], are all included in the term muratho, because in the stomach the food turns into r’ie (dung). Aba Yosei thus does not differ at all with the First Sage who says that he should take it with the “feathers,” for we have been taught in a Mishnah of the sixth chapter of Tractate Zebachim¹⁷⁹ [with reference to the order of the burnt-offering of the bird]: “He [i.e. the priest] came then to the body, and removed the crop and the feathers and the entrails that came forth with the crop, and cast them on the place of ashes.” This Mishnah is in accordance with the teaching of Aba Yosei¹⁸⁰ and yet it mentions “the feathers!”¹⁸¹ to mean with “its feathers,” and not, as Rashi explained it, that Aba Yosei interprets it to mean “the place of its digested food, namely the crop.” Onkelos’ opinion [in translating b’notzathah as b’uchleih, is not because he considered this to be the Aramaic rendition of the word b’notzathah, so that you might think that he is of the opinion that the Hebrew word means “the place of its digested food,” as Rashi thought, but rather Onkelos’ opinion] is like that of the Sages, that he removed only the crop and its feathers together with the food therein which is the mur’ah [but he did not remove its entrails]. Since the priest takes hold of the crop and removes the food therein with it, therefore Onkelos rendered it: “and he shall remove yath zfokeih b’uchleih,” the expression being as if it had said: “and he shall remove yath uchleih bizfokeih,”¹⁸² as yath zfokeih b’uchleih, did not put it in the order of the wording of the Hebrew; instead, it is as if he had inverted it and rendered it yath uchleih bizfokeih, as the Aramaic uchleih is the equivalent of the Hebrew muratho, and the Aramaic bizfokeih is the equivalent of the Hebrew b’notzathah, as explained in the text. The reason for this change is, as explained by Ramban, because the food (muratho) is only removable by means of taking away the crop (zfokeih). Ramban then brings a number of proofs to illustrate that it is Onkelos’ habit to change the order of the Hebrew wording when it appears better to him to do so. for uchleih [according to Onkelos] is the Aramaic for the Hebrew muratho [as muratho is associated with the word r’ie — “dung,” and “food” turns into dung], whereas zfokeih is the translation for the Hebrew b’notzathah [as will be explained]. The verse [according to Onkelos] thus means as follows: he should remove the mur’ah, which is the food, with the plumage upon it, meaning that he takes the crop with its skin and the feathers upon it. In a similar way Onkelos translated [the Hebrew ‘ki sh’mi b’kirbo’ — for My Name is in him¹⁸³]: arei bishmi meimreih (“for in My Name is his word”),¹⁸⁴ which, according to the Hebrew, he should have rendered into Aramaic as follows: arei sh’mi b’meimreih (for My Name is in his word). But Onkelos changed the order of the wording because of a certain reason known to him.¹⁸⁵, Verse 20 (towards the end — Vol. II, p. 413) where he explains Onkelos’ intent in that translation. So also he translated the verse: And the two ends of the two wreathen chains¹⁸⁶, 28:25. — “and the two wreathen chains of the two ends.” There are many other such cases.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁵ Lamentations 4:15. ¹⁷² Zebachim 65a. ¹⁷⁶ Zebachim 65b. ¹⁷⁵ Lamentations 4:15. ¹⁷⁷ Jeremiah 48:9. Here too, the word natzoh ¹⁷⁵ Lamentations 4:15. ¹⁷⁸ Deuteronomy 25:11. ¹⁷⁹ Zebachim 64b. ¹⁸⁰ For according to the Sages he removes only the crop but not the entrails. ¹⁸¹ This proves that Aba Yosei also interprets the word b’notzathah ¹⁸² Ramban is thus saying that Onkelos in translating the Hebrew phrase muratho b’notzathah ¹⁸³ Exodus 23:21. ¹⁸⁴ I.e., he speaks in My Name. ¹⁸⁵ See Ramban ibid. ¹⁸⁶ Ibid.

AND HE SHALL REND IT ‘BICHNAFAV’ — “together with its feathers. He need not pluck out the feathers of its plumage. Knafav means the actual feathers [not the wings].” This is the language of Rashi. But it is not correct, for if so, then Scripture does not mention from which place he is to rend [the bird], whether from its front or back. Rather, the meaning thereof is as follows: “he shall rend it at the place of its wings,” for the letter beth [in the word bichnafav] serves here as “the beth of apparatus,” [teaching that the rending is to be done from the back of the bird where “the wings” are, for knafav, as will be explained, means “its wings,” and not “its feathers” as Rashi explained]; similar to the expression, ba’aron, (in the ark), ba’bayith, (in the house), or ba’sadeh (in the field). Knafav does not mean “feathers” [as Rashi wrote], but is similar to all expressions of knafayim mentioned in Scripture [which mean wings]: every bird, whatever hath ‘kanaf’ (wings);¹⁸⁷ and he stretcheth ‘knafav’ (his wings) towards the south.¹⁸⁸ Similarly, ‘bichnaf’ (the skirt) of his robe.¹⁸⁹ Notzah is the down [the soft under-plumage] on the body of birds, something like that which is written, a great eagle with great wings and long pinions, full of ‘hanotzah’ (down).¹⁹⁰ Similarly we have learned [in the Mishnah]:¹⁹¹ “Large feathers and down are both capable of contracting uncleanness and conveying uncleanness, and join together [with the flesh to make up the required size that is needed to convey uncleanness].” The Rabbis have also said:¹⁹² 12:2. “excepting the beak and claws, the large feathers and the down.”

footnotes: ¹⁸⁷ Genesis 7:14. ¹⁸⁸ Job 39:26. ¹⁸⁹ I Samuel 15:27. Literally: “the wing” of his robe. ¹⁹⁰ Ezekiel 17:3. ¹⁹¹ Taharoth 1:3. ¹⁹² Sifra, Acharei