AND THE PRIEST THAT OFFERETH ANY MAN’S BURNT-OFFERING, EVEN THE PRIEST SHALL HAVE TO HIMSELF THE SKIN OF THE BURNT-OFFERING. This law applies to all offerings, and although Scripture mentions only the burnt-offering, it holds good of the sin-offering and guilt-offering mentioned above.⁷⁴ Such is not the case, however, in reference to the peace-offerings [the skin of which belongs to the owner]; therefore Scripture mentioned the law of the priests’ due in the middle of the offerings, before it speaks of the peace-offerings [further on in Verses 11-21]. The interpretation of the Rabbis as found in the Torath Kohanim is as follows:⁷⁵ 9:2. “[From the verse here] I know only that the skin of the burnt-offering [belongs to the priest]. Whence do I know that the same law applies to the skins of [the other] most holy offerings? Scripture therefore says, that offereth. Or perhaps I might think that I am to include [also] the skins of the offerings which are holy to a lesser degree [such as the peace-offering etc.]; Scripture therefore says, burnt-offering, thus teaching that just as the burnt-offering is distinguished by being of the most holy degree of offerings, [so also this law holds good of all most holy offerings], thus excluding those which are holy in a minor degree.” By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, it was not necessary to state this law [that the skin of the animal belongs to the priest] in connection with the sin-offering and guilt-offering, since they are part of the gifts given to the priests,⁷⁶ and the priests thus are entitled to the meat and also the skin, but in the case of the burnt-offering [where the priests do not receive any of the meat, since it is wholly burnt on the altar], it was necessary for Scripture to say that they do acquire the skin. This is the interpretation of Rabbi [Yehuda Hanasi] who says,⁷⁷ “Essentially we need this verse only for the skin of the burnt-offering [to teach that it belongs to the priest], since the skin always follows the meat”⁷⁸ (further, 16:27) (Torath Kohanim, Tzav 9:5). Hence the Torah had to explain that the burnt-offering is different; but in the case of the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, it was not necessary to mention that the skin belongs to the priest, for since he acquired the right to the meat, the skin naturally came with it. [and here Scripture tells us that it is not to be burnt with the meat]. So also is it explained in the Torath Kohanim.⁷⁸ (further, 16:27) (Torath Kohanim, Tzav 9:5). Hence the Torah had to explain that the burnt-offering is different; but in the case of the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, it was not necessary to mention that the skin belongs to the priest, for since he acquired the right to the meat, the skin naturally came with it.

footnotes: ⁷⁴ Above, Verse 1 (the guilt-offering) and 6:18 (the sin-offering). ⁷⁵ Torath Kohanim, Tzav ⁷⁶ Numbers 18:9. ⁷⁷ Zebachim 103 b. ⁷⁸ “The bullocks which are burnt and the he-goats which are burnt [outside the camp], their skins are burnt with them, as it is said, and they shall burn in fire their skins, and their flesh ⁷⁸ “The bullocks which are burnt and the he-goats which are burnt [outside the camp], their skins are burnt with them, as it is said, and they shall burn in fire their skins, and their flesh

AND EVERY MEAL-OFFERING THAT IS BAKED IN THE OVEN, [AND EVERYTHING MADE IN THE BOILING POT, AND IN THE PAN, SHALL BE THE PRIESTS THAT OFFERETH IT]. The simple explanation of this verse is apparent, namely that He is commanding here that if one vows to bring one of the three kinds of meal-offering — the one baked in the oven, or made in the boiling pot, or in the pan — that they should all be given exclusively to the priest who offered them. Then He states concerning all the other meal-offerings, — such as if a person vowed to bring a meal-offering without specification of which kind, in which case he brings it of fine flour, and the meal-offering of first-fruits,⁷⁹ which are both mixed with oil; and the meal-offering of the sinner⁸⁰, 5:11-14. and of the suspected adulteress⁸¹ which are dry [without oil and without frankincense] — that they should be divided among all the sons of Aaron,⁸² that is to say, among all priests of their Father’s House.⁸³ The meaning of the expression, and every meal-offering, mingled with oil, or dry — is that a meal-offering which is of fine flour only, whether it be mixed with oil or dry, which is not one of these [three] mentioned above [the one baked in the oven, or made in the boiling pot, or in the pan — belongs to all priests who were ministering on that day, and not exclusively to the priests who offered them]. The reason for the difference between them is because [in the case of the three meal-offerings mentioned above] the priest took pains in baking them, and therefore he deserves to be given a greater reward. [All this is in accordance with the plain meaning of Scripture]. Our Rabbis, however, did not want to explain the verses in this way because Scripture said, and every meal-offering, mingled with oil or dry, which includes all possible meal-offerings, since they are all either mingled with oil or dry. Therefore the Rabbis understood the expression it shall be the priest’s that offereth it [mentioned here in Verse 9 in connection with the three meal-offerings: the one baked in the oven, etc.] as meaning that it shall belong to all pure priests who are present there. Similarly, when He said, And the priest that offereth any man’s burnt-offering,⁸⁴ and the priest that maketh atonement therewith, he shall have it,⁸⁵ these verses are only intended to say that they do not belong to the owners who brought them, but that in reward for offering them they belong to the pure priests who are present there, for all of them are engaged in offering them, whether physically or by command, since any individual priest or two or three of them who offered up [the particular offering], did so with the permission of all of them and acting as their deputy, and all of them would stand by the offering. As is the share of him that goeth down to the battle, so shall be the share of him that tarrieth by the baggage; they shall share alike.⁸⁶ After He had said [in general terms] that they shall belong to the priests as a reward for their service, He explained it again in detail: and every meal-offering, mingled with oil, or dry,⁸² which includes all meal-offerings, shall all the sons of Aaron have, meaning all the officiating priests mentioned [in the preceding verses], one as well as another, that is to say, all clean priests of the Father’s House,⁸³ as they are all the officiating priests mentioned previously. Thus Scripture [first] mentioned the meal-offerings by their individual names — the one baked in the oven, or made in the boiling pot, or in the pan — and then mentioned them all again in a general rule, saying [that they belong to all the priests], one as well as another, meaning that one priest should only have [of the kind of meal-offering] that the other priest has, [and they cannot give one priest his share of one kind of meal-offering, and the others a share of another kind]. Even if the meal-offering was of fine flour, each is to be given his share from that offering.⁸⁷ Scripture thus states that this law applies to meal-offerings, and all the more so to the other offerings, which are of greater monetary value. It is tradition which decides [in favor of the Rabbis’ interpretation mentioned above],⁸⁸ and it is furthermore for the benefit of [all] the priests and conducive to peace in the Sanctuary. It is possible that the interpretation of the verses according to this opinion of the Rabbis is as follows: “And every meal-offering that is baked in the oven, and everything made in the boiling pot, and in the pan, shall be the priest’s that offereth it; and every meal-offering, mingled with oil, or dry shall [also] be so, and all the sons of Aaron shall have it, one as well as another.”⁸⁹ meal-offerings are mentioned alike in Scripture with respect to the share of all ministering priests on that day.

footnotes: ⁷⁹ Above, 2:14-16. ⁸⁰ Ibid. ⁸¹ Numbers 5:15. ⁸² Verse 10. ⁸³ The priests were divided into twenty-four groups. Each group came by turn to the Sanctuary for one week’s service. These groups were in turn subdivided into Fathers’ Houses, each House ministering for one day out of the seven. On the festivals all the groups shared equally in the Service. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 46-47. ⁸⁴ Verse 8 — stating that the skin of the burnt-offering belongs to the priest who offered it. ⁸⁵ Verse 7 — stating that the meat of the sin-offering and guilt-offering belong to the priest that made the atonement. ⁸⁶ I Samuel 30:24. ⁸² Verse 10. ⁸³ The priests were divided into twenty-four groups. Each group came by turn to the Sanctuary for one week’s service. These groups were in turn subdivided into Fathers’ Houses, each House ministering for one day out of the seven. On the festivals all the groups shared equally in the Service. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 46-47. ⁸⁷ The point here is as follows. In the case of the three meal-offerings which are baked [i.e., the one baked in the oven, made in the boiling pot, and in the pan], even if the priest receives only a small part thereof, he can eat it readily. But in the case of the meal-offering of fine flour, if the share is small he will not be benefitted much by it. One might therefore think that he can receive his share from another kind of meal-offering, hence the law states that the apportionment must be only in that one kind. ⁸⁸ In other words, even though the literal interpretation of the verses indicates that the three baked meal-offerings should all belong exclusively to the priest who was actively engaged in offering them, yet it is tradition which is the deciding factor that the Rabbis’ analysis of the verses, as explained above, is correct. ⁸⁹ This interpretation indicates clearly that all

THEN HE SHALL OFFER ‘AL’ THE OFFERING OF THANKSGIVING. The commentators⁹⁰ have explained the word al as meaning “with” — with the offering of thanksgiving. Similarly, ‘al’ the cakes of leavened bread⁹¹ means “with them.” The correct interpretation appears to me that the word al is here to be understood in its ordinary sense [i.e., “upon”], meaning that he should add bread “upon” the offering. Similarly, ‘al’ the cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering,⁹¹ means that he is to bring cakes of leavened bread, and adding “upon” them he is to bring his offering, which is the unleavened bread mentioned [in Verse 12 before us] — all these breads [thirty unleavened cakes and ten leavened ones] he is to bring upon the offering [of thanksgiving]. Scripture thus made the leavened bread the chief part of the offering, “adding” upon it the rest of the bread [i.e., the unleavened bread, by stating “upon the cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering,” which means “his unleavened bread”], because the unleavened breads are more than all the other kinds.⁹² Scripture changed the expression, stating, [he shall present his offering] of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving⁹¹ [while here in Verse 12 it merely says, the offering of thanksgiving], in order to allude to the Rabbis’ interpretation regarding it, namely that the bread does not become holy in itself [in the sense that it cannot be redeemed, or that it becomes invalid if carried outside the wall of the city, etc.] until the offering is slaughtered, and [also] that it should be slaughtered “upon” it [the bread], that is to say, with the intention that the bread should become holy with it [the offering]. Now Rashi wrote: “Then he shall bring with the offering of thanksgiving four sorts of bread: cakes, wafers, and cakes mingled with oil — these three kinds being of unleavened bread. And it further states, with cakes of leavened bread,⁹¹ [thus making four kinds], and each kind consisted of ten cakes. Thus it is explained in Tractate Menachoth.⁹³ And their total measure was five Jerusalem seahs, which are six measures according to the Wilderness measure,⁹⁴ or twenty tenths [of the ephah].”⁹⁵ Now the Rabbi [Rashi] did not mention in connection with these twenty tenths [of flour] that ten of them were for the leavened cakes, a tenth for each one, and the other ten tenths for the unleavened ones, thus making three unleavened cakes to each tenth of flour.⁹⁶ The Rabbis interpreted that this is so on the basis of the verse, ‘al’ cakes of leavened bread,⁹¹ [which they explained⁹³ as meaning]: “‘Corresponding to’ [the amount of flour used in the preparation of the ten] leavened cakes, use the same amount to bring therefrom [the thirty] unleavened cakes. Thus there were twenty tenths [of an ephah of flour], ten for the leavened cakes and ten for the unleavened. Ten tenths were used for the leavened ones, thus making one tenth of flour for each of [the ten] leavened cakes, and ten tenths for the unleavened ones, thus making three cakes to one tenth of flour. Thus there were forty cakes altogether.”

footnotes: ⁹⁰ So explained by Ibn Ezra. ⁹¹ Verse 13. ⁹¹ Verse 13. ⁹² Flour comprising twenty tenths of an ephah (see Note 95) was divided equally for the baking of the unleavened and leavened breads. The unleavened breads were of three kinds [cakes, wafers, and cakes of flour saturated with oil — as mentioned in Verse 12] each consisting of ten, thus making thirty unleavened breads. The leavened breads were ten. Thus while fewer in number, the leavened breads were yet larger, since the same amount of flour was used for the total amount of unleavened breads — thirty — as for the ten leavened breads. Of these four kinds of breads, one of each was given to the priest and the rest were eaten by the owner of the offering and his family. ⁹¹ Verse 13. ⁹¹ Verse 13. ⁹³ Menachoth 77 a. ⁹⁴ The Jerusalem measure was one sixth larger than that of the wilderness. Hence six seahs of Wilderness measure made five seahs of Jerusalem measure. ⁹⁵ An ephah is three seahs. Six seahs thus make two ephahs. Since in each ephah there are ten tenths [of the ephah], the two ephahs [comprising the six seahs] make twenty tenths of the ephah. ⁹⁶ There were three kinds of unleavened cake, each consisting of ten cakes, thus totaling thirty. Thus since thirty cakes were made out of the total of ten tenths of an ephah, it follows that three cakes were made out of each tenth. ⁹¹ Verse 13. ⁹³ Menachoth 77 a.

AND OF IT HE SHALL PRESENT ONE OUT OF EACH OFFERING — one whole cake [for a heave-offering unto the Eternal]. Thus he takes as a heave-offering four cakes [and gives them to the priest]. But I wonder! When Scripture excluded [first-fruits] from the prohibition against burning leaven [on the altar],⁹⁷ by stating, as an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them⁹⁸, 12. [which means that “the two loaves” of the Festival of Shevuoth were to be brought of leavened dough, as clearly mentioned further on in Scripture],⁹⁹ why did it not say that [the ten leavened cakes of] the thanks-offering [are also an exception]? But this is not really a question. For Scripture states, and unto the altar they [i.e., leaven and honey] shall not come up for a sweet savor,⁹⁸, 12. and of the [forty] breads of the thanks-offering, none came up on the altar at all, for they require only waving.¹⁰⁰, Verse 18), and such is the case also with the thanks-offering. So the question recurs: Why did Scripture not call attention to the exception of the breads of the thanks-offering? The Tur answers that Scripture called attention only to an obligatory offering, such being the case of “the two loaves” on the Festival of Shevuoth, but not to a thanks-offering, which is a freewill offering. See further my Hebrew commentary pp. 33-34. Even though in the case of the showbread¹⁰¹ He did say that one commits a transgression if one brought it in a leaven state¹⁰²’ (any) meal-offering, which ye shall bring unto the Eternal, shall not be made with leaven (above, 2:11), the word kol includes the showbread, that it too must not be leavened” (Menachoth 57 a). [although there too none of the loaves are burnt on the altar], that is because of the frankincense that was on it which was to the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the Eternal.¹⁰³ But of the bread of the thanks-offering, nothing at all came up on the altar [hence the Torah permitted the ten loaves to be leavened]. Perhaps Scripture only had to mention that exception [as an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them]⁹⁸, 12. because of the honey,¹⁰⁴ since it was not clearly stated concerning the first-fruits [which were brought of “the seven kinds”]¹⁰⁵ that they may be brought from honey [and it therefore had to be explicitly stated in that verse], and thus He also included leaven with it, saying of both of them, as an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them.⁹⁸, 12. With reference to leaven, however, since it is clearly explained in its correct place [that the “two loaves” of the Festival of Shevuoth constitute an exception to the usual negative commandment], there was no need any more to mention it as an exception [when mentioning the general negative commandment], just as Scripture has not specified the exception to the rule about the Sabbath, when stating every one that profaneth it shall be put to death,¹⁰⁶ [by saying] “except for the Service of the offerings” [which may be done on the Sabbath], or in the case of thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife,¹⁰⁷ [by saying] “except for a brother’s childless wife” [whom he is to marry].¹⁰⁸. For various reasons the practice now established is to grant the widow chalitzah, and she is then free to marry.

footnotes: ⁹⁷ Above, 2:11. ⁹⁸ Ibid. ⁹⁹ Further, 23:17. ⁹⁸ Ibid. ¹⁰⁰ The Tur refutes this argument by pointing to the fact that nothing of “the two loaves” of the Festival of Shevuoth came up on the altar either; yet Scripture found it necessary to call attention to their being an exception to the prohibition against burning leaven on the altar, because of the offerings that came with the two loaves (see ibid. ¹⁰¹ Twelve loaves were put on the golden table in the Sanctuary every Sabbath, with two spoons of frankincense beside them. On the following Sabbath the frankincense was burnt on the altar and the loaves were divided among the priests. None of the bread was offered on the altar. ¹⁰² “ ‘Kol ¹⁰³ Further, 24:7. ⁹⁸ Ibid. ¹⁰⁴ And not because of the leaven, as we have understood it till now. ¹⁰⁵ I.e., the seven kinds of products for which the Land of Israel was famed: wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olive-oil, and [date] honey. See my translation of “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 133-134. ⁹⁸ Ibid. ¹⁰⁶ Exodus 31:14. ¹⁰⁷ Further, 18:16. ¹⁰⁸ Deuteronomy 25:5. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 217, that the duty of marrying the wife of a deceased brother who left no offspring comes before the duty of chalitzah

AND THE FLESH OF THE OFFERING OF HIS PEACE-OFFERINGS FOR THANKSGIVING SHALL BE EATEN ON THE DAY OF HIS OFFERING. “There are here many terms of amplification [all the seemingly redundant words thus being intended to widen the scope of the law]. Thus they include in this law the sin-offering and guilt-offering, the Nazirite’s ram,¹⁰⁹) and a peace-offering may be eaten for two days and the one intervening night. Yet Scripture establishes here that the Nazirite’s ram is an exception, and may be eaten as a thanks-offering which is only for a day and night. and the Festal-offering of the fourteenth day of Nisan,¹¹⁰ that they may all be eaten for a day and a night.” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct, for the Festal-offering of the fourteenth day of Nisan may be eaten for two days and the one intervening night, like the rest of the peace-offerings. So also we have been taught in Tractate Pesachim:¹¹¹ “Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou offerest on the first day at even, remain all night until the morning.¹¹² Scripture speaks here of the Festal-offering of the fourteenth day of Nisan, teaching that it may be eaten for two days and the one intervening night,¹¹³) is thus as follows: “Neither shall any of the flesh which thou offerest at even [i.e., towards eventide on the fourteenth of Nisan] remain on the first day [of the festival, i.e., the fifteenth day of Nisan] all night until the morning of the sixteenth,” but it may be eaten only on the fourteenth and fifteenth days and the one intervening night. and when Scripture states on the first day … until the morning, it means the second morning.”¹¹⁴ (until the morning) must perforce refer to the morning of the second day. Rashi himself wrote this in the Seder R’eih Anochi.¹¹² Here, however, the Rabbi [Rashi] follows the words of Ben Teima,¹¹¹ who says that the Festal-offering of the fourteenth of Nisan which comes with the Passover-offering,¹¹⁰ is like the Passover-offering, and may be eaten [only] on that day [the fourteenth of Nisan] and the following night, and may be eaten only roasted and until midnight, [like the Passover-offering] which is eaten only at night [but not on the fourteenth day]. But according to Ben Teima, these amplifications [referred to by Rashi] only come to indicate that it [the Festal-offering accompanying the Passover-offering] is like the Passover-offering in every respect, coming only from the sheep, a male of the first year,¹¹⁵ since it is written, Neither shall the offering of the feast of the Passover be left unto the morning,¹¹⁶ [which Ben Teima interpreted to mean: “the offering of the feast, namely the Festal-offering; of the Passover, namely the Passover-offering,” the same law thus applying to both], as it is stated there.¹¹⁷. But that which the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote here [namely, that the terms of amplification of the verse teach that the Festal-offering is to be eaten only for a day and a night] is on the basis of a Beraitha¹¹⁸ Note 65. taught in the Torath Kohanim,¹¹⁹ 12:1. which states as follows: “And the flesh of the offering of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving, shall be eaten on the day of his offering. This verse comes to teach that those offerings which Scripture states are to be eaten for one day [and the following night] may only be eaten during that time [and not for two days and the intervening night, as is the period assigned for the peace-offering]. I would only know that such is the law for the thanks-offering [i.e., the offering itself, which is mentioned explicitly in the verse]. Whence do I know to include the breads thereof? Scripture therefore says, his offering. Whence do I know to include the offspring of the thanks-offering and animals substituted for it in the same law? Scripture therefore says, ‘and’ the flesh. Whence do I know to include the sin-offerings and guilt-offering [that they, too, may be eaten only during the day and the ensuing night]? Scripture therefore says, the offering. Whence do I know to include the Nazirite’s peace-offering,¹⁰⁹) and a peace-offering may be eaten for two days and the one intervening night. Yet Scripture establishes here that the Nazirite’s ram is an exception, and may be eaten as a thanks-offering which is only for a day and night. and the peace-offerings which come on account of the Passover-offering? Scripture therefore says, his peace-offerings.” This is the Beraitha¹¹⁸ Note 65. [taught in the Torath Kohanim]. Now the Rabbi [Rashi] explained¹²⁰ the phrase “the peace-offerings which come on account of the Passover-offering” as referring to the Festal-offering of the fourteenth day of Nisan, which comes together with the Passover-offering, [thus providing the authority for his comment here that the Festal-offering of the fourteenth of Nisan may be eaten only during the day and ensuing night.] Thus also I have found in Tractate Pesachim, in the Chapter Mi Shehayah (If any man shall be unclean),¹²¹ that Rashi gave two explanations of this phrase — “the peace-offerings which come on account of the Passover-offering” — and wrote [after explaining the first interpretation]: “Another explanation is that it means the Festal-offering of the fourteenth. This explanation I have heard.” Here then [in his commentary on the Torah] the Rabbi relied on the interpretation he had heard [and consequently he wrote that the Festal-offering of the fourteenth may be eaten only for one day and the following night]. But the matter is not so. [The correct explanation of the phrase] “peace-offerings which come on account of the Passover-offering,” is that it refers to [those animals] which remain over from the Passover-offering,¹²² 4:10). such as where the owners substituted another one for it, or where the owners of a Passover-offering fulfilled their duty¹²³ (that they were forgiven)” — a term borrowed from a sin-offering. But in the case of the Passover-offering the sense is that the owners had fulfilled their duty through another offering. by bringing another offering. [In these cases they are to be eaten only for one day and the ensuing night], as since they were at the beginning only meant to be eaten for one day and the ensuing night, [namely the night following the day on which they were slaughtered, as is the law of all Passover-offerings], so also in the end [i.e., when they are offered up as peace-offerings they are to be eaten only for one day and the ensuing night]. But the Festal-offering of the fourteenth [since it is not originally brought as a Passover-offering], is eaten for two days [and the intervening night] in accordance with the words of the Sages. So also we have been taught in that very same Beraitha¹¹⁹ 12:1. at the end thereof: “And on the morrow.¹²⁴ also on the morrow. This verse comes to teach that those offerings which [Scripture states] are to be eaten for two days [and the intervening night] may only be eaten during that time. I know only that this applies to the peace-offering [which is clearly mentioned in the verse]. Whence do I know to include the Festal-offering which comes at its proper time [i.e., the regular Festal-offering of the fifteenth day of Nisan]? etc. Now I know to include the Festal-offering which comes at its regular time. Whence do I know to include the Festal-offering which comes with the Passover-offering [that it may be eaten only for two days and the intervening night]? etc.” [Thus it is clearly stated that the Festal-offering of the fourteenth may be eaten for only two days and the intervening night, and not as Rashi wrote that it may be eaten only for one day and the following night].

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ Numbers 6:14. The Nazirite’s ram was a peace-offering (ibid. ¹¹⁰ In order that the Passover-offering be eaten after one has satisfied one’s hunger, a Festal-offering was slaughtered on the fourteenth day of Nisan which was eaten on the night of the fifteenth [i.e., the first night of Passover], before the Passover-offering was eaten. Now this Festal-offering was really a peace-offering, and hence it ought to be eaten for two days and the one intervening night. But according to Rashi it is here included in the law of the thanks-offering, to be eaten only for one day and a night. Ramban further on will differ with this opinion of Rashi, and hold that it has the usual law of peace-offerings. ¹¹¹ Pesachim 71 b. ¹¹² Deuteronomy 16:4. ¹¹³ The explanation of the verse (Rashi ibid. ¹¹⁴ For since the expression “on the first day” means that it may be eaten the whole of the first day of the festival, the term laboker ¹¹² Deuteronomy 16:4. ¹¹¹ Pesachim 71 b. ¹¹⁰ In order that the Passover-offering be eaten after one has satisfied one’s hunger, a Festal-offering was slaughtered on the fourteenth day of Nisan which was eaten on the night of the fifteenth [i.e., the first night of Passover], before the Passover-offering was eaten. Now this Festal-offering was really a peace-offering, and hence it ought to be eaten for two days and the one intervening night. But according to Rashi it is here included in the law of the thanks-offering, to be eaten only for one day and a night. Ramban further on will differ with this opinion of Rashi, and hold that it has the usual law of peace-offerings. ¹¹⁵ Exodus 12:5. A peace-offering, on the other hand, can be brought of the cattle, male or female, regardless of the age (above, 3:1). ¹¹⁶ Exodus 34:25. ¹¹⁷ Pesachim 70 a. Ben Teima thus interprets the verse to refer to two separate offerings, and derives the law that they are both to be eaten within the same time not from the amplification of Verse 15 before us, but from the explicit statement in Exodus 34:25: neither shall … be left unto the morning ¹¹⁸ See in Seder Vayikra ¹¹⁹ Torath Kohanim, Tzav ¹⁰⁹ Numbers 6:14. The Nazirite’s ram was a peace-offering (ibid. ¹¹⁸ See in Seder Vayikra ¹²⁰ In Zebachim 36 a. ¹²¹ Pesachim 96 b. ¹²² The term “remain over from the Passover-offering” includes besides the two cases mentioned in the text also the case if he set aside a certain sum of money for the buying of a Passover-offering, and not all the money was used up for that purpose, he must bring a peace-offering from the balance (Pesachim 70 b; Mishneh Torah Hilchoth Korban Pesach ¹²³ The Hebrew reads: “shenithkapru ¹¹⁹ Torath Kohanim, Tzav ¹²⁴ Verse 16 here, referring to the peace-offering, which may be eaten on the day it was offered and the ensuing night, and

AND ON THE MORROW ‘V’HANOTHAR’ (AND THAT WHICH REMAINETH) OF IT SHALL BE EATEN. “The letter vav [in the word v’hanothar — ‘and’ that which remaineth] is redundant [thus the meaning of the verse is: “and on the morrow, that which remaineth of it shall be eaten”]. There are many examples of this in Scripture, such as: and these are the children of Zibeon: ‘v’ayah’ (and Ajah) and Anah.¹²⁵ in v’ayah (“and” Ajah) is redundant. See in Vol. I, p. 440. So also: to give ‘v’kodesh’ (‘and’ the Sanctuary) and the host to be trampled upon.”¹²⁶ in v’kodesh (“and” the Sanctuary) is here redundant. This is Rashi’s language, and so did Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra interpret the verse. In my opinion the meaning of the verse is as follows: Since He said, it shall be eaten on the day that he offereth his offering, and on the morrow, this might imply that it is a commandment that it [the peace-offering] be eaten in two days, [namely] that he should eat part of it on the first day, and should leave part of it to be eaten on the morrow. Therefore He explained again, ‘and’ that which remaineth is to be eaten on the first day and also on the morrow [if by chance it was not all eaten on the first day]. But he is not to leave some over intentionally, nor is he permitted to leave it all over to be eaten on the second day. Rather, it is a commandment that he should eat it on the first day, and that which is left over by chance, should be eaten on the morrow previously mentioned. This matter we have learned from the words of our Rabbis, who have said in the Torath Kohanim:¹²⁷ 12:11-12. “On the day that he offereth it, shall it be eaten. It is a commandment that it be eaten thereof during the first day. I might think that he is commanded to eat the whole of it; Scripture therefore says, and on the morrow. I might then think that it is a commandment to eat it in two days; Scripture therefore states, and that which remaineth — if it remains, it remains [i.e., it may still be eaten]. If [we are to go by the expression] and that which remaineth, I might think that if he left it all over for the second day it is invalid [since that does not come under the term “remaineth” which indicates only a part thereof]; Scripture therefore says [that which remaineth of it] shall be eaten, even all of it.” And even if you hold the vav in v’hanothar (and that which remaineth) to be redundant, [as Rashi explained], the verse can also be explained to mean: “and on the morrow that which remained of it [from the first day] may be eaten,” but not that he is to leave it over intentionally. But I do not know why Rashi held the vav of the verse, to give ‘v’kodesh’ (‘and’ the Sanctuary) and the host to be trampled upon¹²⁶ in v’kodesh (“and” the Sanctuary) is here redundant. to be redundant, since the meaning of the verse is that [the angel] is asking: “How long shall the transgression give appalment, and how long shall the Sanctuary and the host be trampled underfoot?”¹²⁸ in v’kodesh thus stands for the repetition of the phrase ad mathai (how long), and is therefore not redundant.

footnotes: ¹²⁵ Genesis 36:24. The vav ¹²⁶ Daniel 8:13. The vav ¹²⁷ Torath Kohanim, Tzav ¹²⁶ Daniel 8:13. The vav ¹²⁸ The vav

AND THAT WHICH REMAINETH OF THE FLESH OF THE OFFERING ON THE THIRD DAY SHALL BE BURNT WITH FIRE. The verse does not mean to say that that which is left over on the third day must be burnt, but it may be eaten during the preceding night, for our Rabbis have already derived from the verse in the section of Kedoshim Tih’yu — and if aught remain until the third day, it shall be burnt with fire,¹²⁹ that whatever remains after any part of the two days, must be burnt [and thus may not be eaten on the night preceding the third day]. But the expression, on the third day, is not connected with that which remaineth, but with shall be burnt with fire [the sense of the verse thus being as follows: “and that which remaineth of the flesh of the offering, shall be burnt with fire on the third day”]. The verse thus states that that which was left over of the flesh of the offering which was not eaten on the day when it was offered nor on the morrow, shall be burnt with fire on the third day in the morning. It is this which the Rabbis intended when saying [of the peace-offerings]¹³⁰ that “they are eaten for two days and the one intervening night,” for on the second night [preceding the third day] they are neither eaten nor burnt, for Scripture required that the burning of invalidated hallowed offerings should be at daytime, just as the offering of the valid ones can only be at daytime.

footnotes: ¹²⁹ Further, 19:6. ¹³⁰ Zebachim 55 a.

OR AN UNCLEAN BEAST. Scripture speaks here briefly, mentioning only some of the unclean objects. But the same law applies to all [sources of uncleanness], for even if he touched the carcass of a clean animal and then ate holy food, he is liable to this [punishment of] excision. The nature of this excision I will explain in the section of forbidden marriages,¹³¹ with the help of G-d.

footnotes: ¹³¹ Further, 18:29.

FOR WHOSOEVER EATETH THE FAT OF THE BEAST, OF WHICH MAN PRESENTS AN OFFERING … SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE. It is impossible that the explanation of the phrase: of the beast [of which man presents an offering], is that this beast is itself an offering, so that an unconsecrated animal be excluded from this prohibition, since in the section of Vayikra, Scripture has already prohibited all fat in an unqualified manner,¹³² without any condition or exception. Here too it prohibited at first all fat of ox, or sheep, or goat,¹³³ and it further decreed against eating the fat of that which dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of beasts,¹³⁴ and these cannot be brought as offerings to G-d. Besides, He said there [in the section of Vayikra], It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings,¹³⁵ and the expression in all your dwellings is never found in any matter connected with offerings. In speaking of the gifts of the priests He says many times, a statute forever,¹³⁶, 6:11, etc. but does not mention “in all your dwellings,” because the offerings are not “a statute forever in all your dwellings,” as they only apply in the Tabernacle and in the place which the Eternal shall choose.¹³⁷ Let not the eyes of him who is mistaken¹³⁸ refers also to the offerings (see the verse mentioned in the text with reference to the new produce, and also the following note). be blinded by the verse, And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this selfsame day, until ye have brought the offering of your G-d; it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.¹³⁹ applies also to the offerings, since the verse refers to the omer (a measure of new barley brought as a meal-offering on the second day of Passover). But Ramban answers that the phrase refers not to the omer, but to the new crop which, through the offering of the omer, was henceforth permitted to be eaten (see “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 186-188). It is to this prohibition of eating of the new crop before the bringing of the omer [or before the end of the sixteenth day of Nisan], that the phrase in all your dwellings refers. Hence the phrase in all your dwellings which is stated in connection with the prohibitions against eating fat and blood (above, 3:17) must perforce mean that they are applicable everywhere, independent of the existence of the Sanctuary and its offerings. For it is eating of the new crop that is forbidden by law of the Torah in all places, and Scripture is saying that we are not to eat bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears forever in all our dwelling places, until that same day on which we bring the offering of the new barley in the Sanctuary. If the offering is not brought [as when the Sanctuary is destroyed], it does not become forbidden henceforth to eat of the new crop [i.e., after the end of the sixteenth day of Nisan], for He did not say, “ye shall not eat until ye have brought the offering of your G-d,” but instead the prohibition extends until this selfsame day only. Rather, the meaning of until this selfsame day is the one on which you bring the offering when you are in a position to do so, the reason being that the offering should be a new meal-offering [but when you are not able to bring the offering, as when the Sanctuary is destroyed, the prohibition is only until this selfsame day]. It is possible that the word hayom (the day) is connected also with [the latter part of the verse:] “until this selfsame day, until the day ye have brought the offering of your G-d,” [thus clearly indicating that the prohibition depends on the day the offering is brought, and not on the actual bringing thereof]. The complete proof that the explanation of the phrase [in the verse before us] the beast of which man presents an offering, is “of the kind of beast from which man presents an offering,” [and not “of the beast which is itself an actual offering,” so that the unconsecrated beast would be excluded from the prohibition against eating of the fat thereof,] is that it says also in the section on valuations, And if it be a beast, whereof men bring an offering unto the Eternal, all that any man giveth of such unto the Eternal shall be holy,¹⁴⁰ and it explains that this means the kind of beast whereof men bring an offering to G-d. And so also, And if it be any unclean beast, of which they may not bring an offering unto the Eternal,¹⁴¹, Verse 11. here clearly stating, “any unclean beast of the kind from which offerings are not brought.” There is no difference whatever between stating it in the plural — whereof men bring,¹⁴⁰ of which they may not bring¹⁴¹, Verse 11. — or saying it in the singular [as in the verse before us], of which man presents, for the meaning is “the kind of beast of which man presents an offering.” Similarly He said, And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die,¹⁴² which means the kind of beast of which ye may eat, but not that the particular beast may be eaten [since it is expressly prohibited as meat, as it died without being slaughtered properly]. Now since He prohibited all fat of a beast whereof an offering is brought, but not of the kind of which offerings are not brought, it might enter one’s mind to say that a beast which died of itself or was torn [by other beasts] is regarded as a kind from which offerings may not be brought [and therefore their fats may be eaten]; therefore it was necessary to mention [in Verse 24] that [the fats of these animals] are forbidden, and it is this which He said, and ye shall in no wise eat of it,¹³⁴ meaning that he who eats it is liable to excision as with all other fats, as He forbade the fat of the entire class of beasts from which offerings are brought, even of those animals which died of themselves or were torn by [wild] beasts. He states, they may be used for any other service,¹³⁴ meaning to say that [the fat of a clean animal which died of itself or was torn by beasts] has no law of uncleanness of carrion [but is like ordinary food which has become unclean],¹⁴³, 1:5. for since He said, and their carcasses ye shall not touch,¹⁴⁴ He states concerning the fat thereof that one may touch it and use it for any other service. Now if the prohibition of eating fat would apply only to that of actual offerings, why was it necessary to say there in the section of Vayikra, Ye shall not eat any fat,¹³² when He had already commanded [in the preceding verse] that it be brought up on the altar as a sweet savor, and how could we eat of the fire-offering of G-d? Why did He not also prohibit the eating of the lobe above the liver and the two kidneys, which are removed from the offerings [and burnt on the altar — yet these may be eaten in the case of ordinary clean animals because they do not come under the term cheilev (fat)].¹⁴⁵ Moreover, why was it necessary to mention here, Ye shall eat no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat,¹³³ when it is known that offerings can be brought only from them [it thus being obvious that the prohibition of cheilev applies to all clean animals — hallowed or unhallowed]! The reason why Scripture said concerning dedicated offerings that became invalidated [because of a blemish they received, in which case they are redeemed and may then be slaughtered and eaten as ordinary food], Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof,¹⁴⁶ and did not mention anything concerning the fat, I shall explain when G-d helps me to reach there.

footnotes: ¹³² Above, 3:17. ¹³³ Verse 23. ¹³⁴ Verse 24. ¹³⁵ Above, 3:17. ¹³⁶ Ibid. ¹³⁷ Deuteronomy 12:14. A reference to the Sanctuary in Shiloh and to its final location in Jerusalem. ¹³⁸ The allusion is to Ibn Ezra who in Verse 20 wrote that the phrase in all your dwellings ¹³⁹ Further, 23:14. On the basis of this verse Ibn Ezra argued that in all your dwellings ¹⁴⁰ Further, 27:9. ¹⁴¹ Ibid. ¹⁴⁰ Further, 27:9. ¹⁴¹ Ibid. ¹⁴² Further, 11:39. ¹³⁴ Verse 24. ¹³⁴ Verse 24. ¹⁴³ Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Aboth Hatum’oth ¹⁴⁴ Further, 11:8. ¹³² Above, 3:17. ¹⁴⁵ See Ramban above, 3:9. Ramban is here arguing that if the prohibition against eating fats is restricted to those offered on the altar, why do we find no prohibition in connection with the other parts offered on the altar. ¹³³ Verse 23. ¹⁴⁶ Deuteronomy 15:23. Ramban’s explanation of this subject is found there in 12:22.

THE FAT UPON THE BREAST. It appears from this verse according to its plain meaning that the breast was waved with the fat, but not the thigh. Thus the verse which states, And the breasts and the right thigh Aaron waved for a wave-offering,¹⁴⁷ means that afterwards [after he had waved the fats with the breasts], he waved them [i.e., the breasts and the thigh] by themselves. But our Rabbis have said¹⁴⁸ that the priest placed the fats upon the hand of the owner of the offering, with the breast and thigh above them, [and waved them]. According to their opinion, the reason why waving is mentioned only in connection with the breast, is in order to serve the basis for the interpretation which they have said: “If [the parts which are to be waved] became unclean, but one of them was left [which remained clean], whence do we know that it needs waving? Scripture therefore says, that the breast may be waved.”¹⁴⁹

footnotes: ¹⁴⁷ Further, 9:21. ¹⁴⁸ Menachoth 61 b. ¹⁴⁹ In Verse 30 before us.

WHICH THE ETERNAL COMMANDED TO BE GIVEN THEM IN THE DAY THAT THEY WERE ANOINTED. The order of the verse is as follows:¹⁵⁰ “Which the Eternal commanded, on the day that they were anointed, to be given them from the children of Israel, by a statute forever.” And the explanation of the phrase in the day that they were anointed, is “at the time of the anointment.” Similarly, in the day when they were presented to minister¹⁵¹ means: “at that time when He separated them” [to minister as priests]. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that “‘b’yom’ (in the day) that they were anointed means mi’yom (from the day) that they were anointed.¹⁵² in the word b’yom (in the day) thus serves as a mem (mi’yom — from the day). Ibn Ezra thus solves the difficulty in the verse (see Note 150) by interpreting it as a command for the future. Similarly, and that which remaineth ‘babasar ubalachem’ [literally: “in the meat and in the bread”]¹⁵³. means mibasar umilechem (“of the meat and of the bread”).

footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ As the verse reads, it might appear that G-d only commanded that the priests be given these gifts of the peace-offerings, on the day they were anointed as priests, but not throughout the generations. Therefore Ramban explains the purport of the verse to be as explained in the text. ¹⁵¹ Verse 35. ¹⁵² The letter beth ¹⁵³ Further, 8:32 — shall ye burn with fire

WHICH THE ETERNAL COMMANDED MOSES IN MOUNT SINAI. According to our Rabbis¹⁵⁴ all the commandments were expressly told to Moses on Mount Sinai, in their general rules, their specific regulations and their minute details, and some of them were repeated in the Tent of Meeting. Thus [all] the commandments in the Book of Vayikra (Leviticus) [which is prefaced by the verse stating it was made known in the Tent of Meeting], are repetitions [of those said on Sinai, which is the sense of the verse before us]. By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, the meaning of the verse is:¹⁵⁵. Now according to the interpretation of the Rabbis mentioned above, the sense of the verse is that the laws of the offerings were commanded to Moses “in Mount Sinai,” and were repeated to him in the Tent of Meeting “in the wilderness of Sinai.” Ramban will now explain that according to the plain meaning of Scripture this verse speaks of two separate occasions: the offerings of the seven-day consecration of the priests were commanded to Moses “in Mount Sinai,” whilst the laws of the other offerings were given to Moses “in the wilderness of Sinai,” that is, in the Tabernacle. “Which the Eternal commanded Moses in Mount Sinai, and in the day that he commanded the children of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai to present their offerings unto the Eternal,” for He gave the commandment about the consecration-offerings [of the priests] in Mount Sinai, as also in the case of the burnt-offering and sin-offering [which were part of the consecration], and He commanded concerning the meal-offering, guilt-offering, and peace-offerings, in the wilderness of Sinai, in the Tent of Meeting. It is possible that the expression in Mount Sinai means “in this place in front of Mount Sinai,” which is in the Tent of Meeting. Similarly, It is a continual burnt-offering, which was offered in Mount Sinai,¹⁵⁶ does not mean on the mountain itself, for the continual burnt-offering [i.e., the Daily Whole-offering brought for all Israel] began only in the Tent of Meeting, as it is written, Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar: two lambs of the first year day by day continually.¹⁵⁷ So also: And they set forward from the Mount of the Eternal¹⁵⁸ [which means “from before the Mount of the Eternal”]; ye have dwelt long enough in this mountain¹⁵⁹ [which means “in front of this mountain”]. The sense of all these verses is that Israel had encamped before Mount Sinai nearby, as it is written, and there Israel encamped before the Mount.¹⁶⁰ There [in the wilderness of Sinai] they stayed until they journeyed from there to the wilderness of Paran.¹⁶¹. Thus they made the Tent of Meeting and erected it before the Mount on its east side, and it was there that they began offering the Daily Whole-offering. In the second year [after the exodus] they were commanded concerning the standards,¹⁶², 1:1; 2:1-31. and they set the Tent of Meeting in the midst of the camps¹⁶³, 2:17. when they journeyed. It is for this reason that Scripture says here that this is the law of the burnt-offering¹⁶⁴ and of all the offerings which G-d commanded [Moses] in Mount Sinai, in the day that he commanded [the children of Israel] … in the wilderness of Sinai.¹⁶⁵ Scripture thus states that it was in Mount Sinai and in the desert of Sinai, in order to inform us that it was not on the mountain itself, in the place of the Glory where G-d told to Moses the Ten Commandments, nor in the desert of Sinai after they had journeyed from before the Mount. Rather, it was in the wilderness of Sinai, in front of the mountain within its environs and nearby, and there was the Tent of Meeting, as He said at the beginning of the subject of the offerings, And He called unto Moses, and the Eternal spoke unto him out of the Tent of Meeting,¹⁶⁶ and now He informed us of the place of the Tent of Meeting.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁴ Sotah 37 b. ¹⁵⁵ The verse reads: Which the Eternal commanded Moses in Mount Sinai, in the day that he commanded the children of Israel to present their offerings unto the Eternal, in the wilderness of Sinai ¹⁵⁶ Numbers 28:6. ¹⁵⁷ Exodus 29:38. ¹⁵⁸ Numbers 10:33. ¹⁵⁹ Deuteronomy 1:6. ¹⁶⁰ Exodus 19:2. ¹⁶¹ Numbers 10:12: And the children of Israel set forward by their stages out of the wilderness of Sinai, and the cloud abode in the wilderness of Paran ¹⁶² Ibid. ¹⁶³ Ibid. ¹⁶⁴ Verse 37 here. ¹⁶⁵ Verse 38 here. ¹⁶⁶ Above, 1:1.