ויקרא אל משה, in view of our being told at the end of the last portion that Moses could not enter the Tabernacle (Exodus 40,35), this is why now G’d called to Moses from the Tabernacle. As a result, the meaning of the verse here is “G’d called to Moses from the Tent and spoke to him.” The meaning of the verse is parallel to Exodus 19,3 ויקרא אליו ה' מן ההר, where the operative clause is the word מן ההר, “from the mountain.” It is important for us to know from where G’d’s voice originated. At that time it came out of the mountain, whereas now it came out of the Tabernacle. At that time it signaled that G’d had “descended” into the domain of earth, i.e. on top of Mount Sinai, whereas now it signaled that G’d had taken up residence in His home on earth, the Mishkan. At a later stage, after G’d had limited His presence to the Holy of Holies, we hear in Numbers 7,89 that His voice was heard originating from above the kapporet, the lid of the Holy Ark, between the two cherubs. At the earliest stage of G’d communicating with Moses His voice originated in the burning bush, the site of Mount Sinai, also, as we know from Exodus 3,4. לאמור, there is a repetition here, i.e. וידבר and לאמור although both address the same subject. We explained this phenomenon in Genesis 8,15 This phenomenon occurs again also with Aaron in Numbers 8,2. [the author may refer to these phenomena to draw attention to his differing with the commentary of Torat Kohanim quoted by Rashi. Ed.] [The author’s understanding of the meaning of לאמור is that it is a repetition, emphasisng the preceding words, such as ויצו, or ויקרא. Ed]

כי יקריב, when he donates an animal as a sacrifice. The expression denotes that the person under discussion does not offer such a sacrifice in order to expiate for a sin he is guilty of.

אם עולה, if the wording of his vow included use of the term עולה, burnt-offering, as opposed to זבח שלמים “peace-offerings” of which the donour consumes most of the meat himself. (compare 3,1)

לרצונו, if he chose a male, unblemished animal and brought it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, then it would be pleasing to the Lord. However, if the animal were to be diseased, or otherwise blemished, G’d would relate to it with disapproval as explained by Maleachi 1,8 הירצך או הישא פניך?, “Could you obtain the governor’s goodwill, or willingness to forgive your trespasses in return for such a gift?” The same considerations apply even to inexpensive offerings such as the מנחה as spelled out in verse 10 of the same chapter of Maleachi where the prophet has switched from the [parable to G’d Himself being the subject to Whom the gift is being offered.

והקריבו, the term includes catching the blood after slaughtering the sacrifice, bringing it to the altar and performing the sprinkling of it on the appropriate parts of the altar. Our sages also explain the word והקריבו in this sense. (compare Zevachim 7)

אשר פתח אהל מועד, not the golden altar which was inside the Tabernacle.

הפדר, fat.

וכרעיו, its legs.

ומלק, our sages explain exactly how this was done. (compare Chulin 8) They base their exegesis on the wording of ומלק את ראשו instead of ומלק אותו, which would have been the parallel of the words ושחט אותו, which the Torah uses to describe the killing of the four-legged sacrificial animal. Dunash [Dunash ben Labrat, a tenth century grammarian born in Fez, disciple of Rabbi Saadyah Gaon. Ed.] explains that a further proof of the correctness of our sages’ exegesis is that they had been eye witnesses of the manner in which the birds’ throat and spine would be snipped with the fingernail of the priest, etc.

ונמצה, this term is appropriate when speaking of something soft, as we know from Isaiah 51,17 את קובעת כוס התרעלה שתית מצית, “who have drunks the dregs of the cup,” or Psalms 75,9 אך שמריה ימצו, “Only its dregs will they drain.”

מוראתו, the expression occurs both in Nachum 3,6 and in Tzefaniah 3,1, and in both of these instances it refers to a despicable spectacle. Here too, it refers primarily to the feces.

בנוצתה, feathers with its crop.