They are of two different גִזְרוֹת . . . I.e., two different word roots. One is קיחה and the other is לקיחה .

To atone for the act of the calf. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why is a bull taken, and not another type of animal? [Rashi answers as he does] because “bull” means the same as “calf” whenever it is not written “less than a year old” [for the calf. Question: How can a bull be used for this purpose?] An accuser cannot become a defender. Re”m answers: That rule applies only to service done inside [the ohel moed], not to service done outside [in its courtyard]. Later, in parshas Tzav, I will explain this further, God willing.

Is referred to later on. . . Rashi wishes to prove that the “unleavened bread” mentioned here is actually “scalded dough.” The term “bread” comprises all types, so Rashi explains that here, “bread” means “scalded dough.” His proof is from (Vayikra 6:13), “This is the offering of Aharon and his sons. . . on the day that he is anointed.” [This verse raises a question:] What does, “The day that he is anointed,” teach us regarding his sons? [The answer is:] The installation of an ordinary kohein into his service, in all generations, is being compared to the Kohein Gadol’s daily offering*.* This offering is called chavisin, and is of “scalded dough” — as it is written, “You shall bring it well scalded in boiling water” (ibid. v. 14). Therefore, on the day of installation of Aharon’s sons, who are ordinary kohanim, there is an offering is of “scalded dough.” [See Menachos 78a and Rashi there.] The “scalded dough” is bread whose dough is completely scalded in boiling water, then baked in an oven, and then fried in a pan. The “loaves” and “wafers” are only baked in an oven. The “loaves” are mixed with oil while still flour. The “wafers” are first baked and then anointed with oil in the shape of the Greek letter chi, and the rest of their oil is consumed by the kohanim. Some say that the wafers are repeatedly anointed until the whole log of oil is used up. (Re”m)

Brought of each kind. . . [The number ten] is learned from the number of loaves of the thanksgiving offering: just as there are ten loaves there, so too here. It is clear that the thanksgiving offering has ten loaves [of each kind of bread], because it is written about its bread: “From it, he shall bring one from each offering as terumah” (Vayikra 7:14). And the Gemora in Menachos 78b interprets as follows: It says terumah here, [regarding the bread of the thanksgiving offering,] and it says terumah there, [in Bamidbar 18:26,] regarding terumas ma’aser. Just as there, it is one from ten, so too here, one from ten [is brought as terumah. Thus we learn that the bread of the thanksgiving offering has ten loaves of each kind.]

While they were still flour, oil was poured into them. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture describe each differently, rather than saying “mixed” or “anointed” for all of them?

**To the courtyard of the mishkon. . .**But not to the altar. [Rashi knows this] because only one of every kind was actually offered up, as it is written below in vs. 23-25. Rashi adds, “On the day when it will be erected,” to say that it should be done then, and not beforehand. The mishkon was actually erected only on rosh chodesh Nissan, because during the [preceding] seven days of installation, Moshe built and dismantled it every day.

This is immersing the entire body. And not sanctification of the hands and feet. [Rashi knows this] because it is written בַמים (the water), implying the water known from elsewhere. This is mikveh water, which contains forty se’ah. Consequently, it means immersing the body.

He puts oil on his head. . . I.e., a drop of oil.

This procedure of installation. . . Question: In Zevachim 17 and Sanhedrin 28 this verse is interpreted to mean that they acquire priesthood by wearing the garments, [and the wearing of garments is apparently not referring to the installation procedure]: when their garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them. And when their garments are not upon them, their priesthood is not upon them and they are like non-kohanim. [Why does Rashi explain it as referring to the installation procedure?] The answer is: We already learned from, “These garments must be worn by Aharon and his sons” (28:43), that if they lack one of the priestly garments [and perform the service,] they are liable for the death penalty [since they are like non-kohanim; see 28:35]. Therefore, Rashi holds that we must explain our verse here according to its plain meaning, not according to its Halachic exegesis [as it is interpreted in the Gemara]. Otherwise, the prohibition to serve without priestly garments would seem to be written twice.

By means of these things. I.e., by means of the things written afterward: “Bring. . . Slaughter . . .” [Rashi is explaining that] the installation procedure is not a separate matter from the things written afterward.

Installation and the appointment to the priesthood. Since מילוי ידים always means installation, Rashi tells us to what they were installed.

**In the courtyard of the mishkon. . .**As stated in parshas Tzav. It does not mean literally in the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, since sin offerings were slaughtered north of the altar, [while the Tent’s entrance was to the west]. The verse rather means “opposite the entrance.”

At the top, actually on the “horns.” Explanation: He may not do as with the burnt offering and all the other sacrifices, standing below [on the ground] and casting the blood onto the lower half of the altar’s wall below the horns [which protruded from its upper corners].

The remaining blood. [Rashi knows this] because he puts blood also on the horns. If so, how does it say, “Pour all the blood”? Perforce, it conveys: “All the remaining blood.”

Also take some of the liver. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written in Vayikra 9:10: “The lobe from the liver,” implying he should take a bit of the liver along with the lobe. In our verse, על הכבד means עם הכבד i.e., with the liver.

We find no other “outside” sin-offering. . . Question: Is there not another “outside” sinoffering that was burnt, namely, the calf sinoffering of Vayikra 9:11? The answer is: Rashi means that there is no other besides those of the installation procedure. The calf sin-offering was also part of the installation procedure, as it was the beginning of Aharon’s installation as Kohein Gadol. [It was the first sacrifice that Aharon himself offered.] Thus, “No other. . . besides this one” is not to be taken literally. It means: “no other besides this one and those similar to it.”

With a vessel. He holds the basin. . . [Rashi knows this because] if we think it means [to put the blood] with his finger, we should note that it says וזרקת [literally: “You shall throw”]. How is this done? Perforce, “He holds the basin. . .”

But other korbonos... Including this one.

With its cut up pieces. . . [Rashi says, “In addition to the other pieces,”] rather than, “In addition to the pieces,” because the intestines and legs are among its pieces. That which Rashi said before — “With its cut up pieces” — seemingly implied that the intestines and legs are not among its pieces. Therefore Rashi writes [in clarification], “In addition to the other pieces.” We need not ask: How does Rashi know that על means “with”? Perhaps it means literally [“on”]. For the answer is: It is written על נתחיו ועל ראשו . This raises a question: if the intestines and legs are “on” the pieces, how can they be “on” the head? And if they are “on” the head, how can they be “on” the pieces? Therefore Rashi explains, “With its cut up pieces.”

“It is pleasing to Me. . . Not that the fragrance itself is pleasing to Him. [Rashi knows this] because it is written (Tehillim 50:12): “If I was hungry I would not tell you [to feed me], for Mine is the world and its fullness.” [Alternatively], Rashi is answering the question: Does not the burning of meat and bones produce a terrible odor? Therefore he explains, “It is pleasing to Me. . .” (Devek Tov)

From the word אש . . . אשה is an adjective describing עולה . It is so described because all the limbs of the עולה are put in fire.

[ בהן means:] “the thumb” — and on the middle joint. [Rashi knows it is the middle joint] because it is similar to the תנוך , which is in the middle of the ear.

This refers to the fat of the small intestines. R. Akiva and R. Yishmael disagree over this: one says it is the fat of the small intestines, and one says it is the fat of the stomach.

With the other parts to be burnt. Nor do we find anywhere that the terumah separated from the bread of a שלמים sacrifice is burnt, like this one is burnt. The terumah is always given to the kohanim. Here however, it was a temporary injunction.

It is “perfect” in every way. Scripture thereby teaches. . . Explanation: The מלואים written here is the same as שלמים written elsewhere. It is called מלואים because anything that is מלא (full and complete) is שלם (perfect). That is why שלמים is called as it is. שלמים means complete in every way. Here the verse uses the term מלואים , rather than the usual שלמים , because “Scripture thereby teaches that the completion-offerings were שלמים sacrifices.” In other words, [it teaches that שלמים ] are completed and filled in every way: “They bring about peace to the altar, and to the one who performs the service and to the ‘owners’.”

From the scalded kind. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “Loaf of oiled bread,” indicating that much oil is put in it. This is the “scalded dough,” for its amount of oil equals that of the loaves and wafers together.

Both participated in the waving. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “Place all these things upon the hands of Aharon. . . and you shall wave them.” If they are on Aharon’s hands, how could Moshe wave them? Yet it is written, “You shall wave them.” Perforce, they both waved.

He brings it back and forth. . . [Rashi knows this] because תנופה means waving. Whereas bringing it up and down is learned from ואשר הורם (v. 27), since הרמה is upwards. And one cannot bring up without lowering [afterward, thus we learn bringing it down as well].

After the earlier ram. Rashi is saying that the burning of the parts to be burnt from the שלמים sacrifice came after the placing of the burnt offering on the altar. I.e., we should not think that על העולה means to place the parts to be burnt from the שלמים sacrifice, with its shoulder and loaves, on top of the burnt offering and burn them all together.

And the waving of the breast and shoulder. . . [Rashi is explaining that] it does not mean to sanctify the actual breast and shoulder spoken of here. [Rashi knows this because] they were already waved and uplifted. Then the shoulder was burnt and the breast was given to Moshe as a portion, and they have no further level of sanctity. Perforce, [“Sanctify the breast. . . and the shoulder. . .”] was written for generations, as Rashi explains: “That there will continue to be practiced the uplifting and the waving of the breast and shoulder of the שלמים offerings. However, not insofar as burning them is concerned, but instead: ‘They shall be Aharon’s. . .’”

Whoever follows him in his exalted position. I.e., to be Kohein Gadol in his place, for an ordinary kohein is forbidden to wear the Kohein Gadol’s eight garments.

To be put in a high position by them. . . [Rashi knows this] because משיחה [in its usual sense of “anointing”] does not apply to garments. Anointing is not done with garments [but with oil].

By means of the garments. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written (v. 9): “Gird them. . . and bind turban-like hats for them and then the priesthood shall be for them an everlasting statute.” But if their garments are not upon them, they are like non-kohanim.

[They must be] consecutive. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why does it say “seven days”? A Kohein Gadol must wear these garments every time he serves, after which he removes them [until the next time]. Perforce, it refers to his seven days of installation — which are consecutive.

One of his sons who will rise up in his place. . . Rashi is telling us that [ תחתיו מבניו ] should be understood in reverse order, as מבניו תחתיו , thus meaning: “He who serves*—*one of his sons — who will rise up in his place to the high priesthood.”

Prepared to enter the innermost part. . . See Yoma 73a. Perforce, it means “the innermost part.” This is because the “Tent of Meeting” mentioned here cannot refer to the mishkon, like it does everywhere else in the Torah, since everykohein is fit to enter the mishkon. So Scripture would not identify [a specific kohein] by saying one who is fit to enter the Tent of Meeting. Perforce, “Tent of Meeting” refers to “the innermost part.” Re”m [who did not understand why Rashi said this,] overlooked the above Gemora. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Who can fill his position. . . [Rashi knows this] because in Vayikra 16:32 it is written ואשר ימלא את ידו , which teaches: when he can fill ( ממלא ) his father’s place, [he should be appointed].

A participle — the one actually doing service. . . This is because the term הכהן must be connected to תחתיו מבניו . For if it is connected to ילבשם , and means, “The priest shall wear them,” then תחתיו would be without meaning. i.e., it would not be referring to anything. But since הכהן and תחתיו are connected, this shows that [regarding Aharon and his sons,] the term כהן is “a participle — the one actually doing service.” For if the term כהן mentioned here means someone with a prominent position, as in the following verses — מדין כהן (2:16), כהן און (Bereishis 41:45), בני דוד כהנים (Shmuel II 8:18) — תחתיו would not follow it. It is not idiomatic to say המלך תחתיו , or השר תחתיו , but rather המלך אשר יהיה תחתיו , or ימלוך תחתיו . Therefore, [if הכהן meant someone with the prominent position of “priest,”] the verse would be elliptic. [However, if הכהן means “the one actually doing service,” and it is as if it said המשרת , then הכהן connects smoothly with [the next word,] תחתיו . Therefore Rashi says: “It is for this reason that the mark of the intonation is a תביר , which connects it to the next word,” and not to the preceding word ילבשם . This is because a תביר does not [necessarily] connect to [the preceding mark of] דרגא . See Kitzur Mizrachi.

In the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written in Vayikra 6:9, “In a sacred place; in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting.”

These shlomim were Holy of Holies. [Rashi knows they were not like regular shlomim] because otherwise, why does it say, “A non-kohein may not eat thereof” (v. 33)? Sacrifices of lesser holiness, such as [regular] shlomim, may be eaten by all!

The entire courtyard is referred to in this way. [Rashi knows] it does not mean literally at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting because why should these offerings be different from all other korbonos that are Holy of Holies, which are eaten [anywhere] in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting?

Through which atonement was achieved. . . “strange” and objectionable. I.e., everything strange and objectionable that Aharon and his sons did was atoned for them through this ram of the completion-offering and this bread. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, [if כֻפַר referred to Aharon and his sons, and not to everything “strange and objectionable”,] it should say אשר כֻפְרו בהם (plural).

By means of the ram and these breads. [Rashi is explaining that] Aharon and his sons became established into the priesthood by means of properly performing the ram and bread offerings, not by the previously mentioned eating of them.

By means of these מלואים -offerings. . . Rashi is explaining that לקדש אותם [should be understood as if it] is missing a ו , [and means ולקדש אותם ]. Otherwise, it would convey that their installation is what sanctifies them for the priesthood, but this is not so. Rather, performing the מילואים -offerings causes both their installation in the service and their sanctification for the priesthood.

Holy of Holies. . . I.e., [a non-kohein is forbidden to eat] from every kind of offering that is classified as Holy of Holies, not only from these offerings. [Rashi knows this] because Scripture gave a reason for the prohibition of “A stranger may not eat thereof,” [saying: “For they are sacred.”] This implies that the prohibition applies to all [offerings with similar sanctity].

Scripture now repeats. . . critical. . . Explanation: from what was written before would lead us to say that these things are a mitzvah to do, but failing to do everything stated would not invalidate them as kohanim and their service would be valid. Therefore Scripture repeats, to teach that [each thing] is critical.

With these korbanos every single day. Rashi says this so we will not think it is sufficient to do it once, and we should divide it into seven parts, every day doing one part of these actions which sanctify them. Rather, on each of the seven days we must do all the actions and korbonoswhich are stated regarding this.

I would know only something that is offered for their sake. . . Otherwise, why does it say: “Offer a bull for a sin-offering each day”? It is already written (v. 35), “Seven days shall you install them,” and [the korbonos of] their installation consists of the bull for a sin-offering and the two rams.

Atonement for the altar was necessary. . . Rashi is saying that [according to the Midrash,] it does not mean atonement from acts that are “strange and objectionable,” as with the atonement of Aharon and his sons (v. 33) — for that meaning does not fit here.

All anointings are in the form of כי . כ"י stands for כ"ף יונית (a Greek chaf). It has the shape of our נ .

Such as an animal used for bestiality. . . All these were disqualified before being brought into the courtyard, and are unfit [for the altar].

For example. . . overnight . . . taken out . . . ritually unclean. . . All these were disqualified only after being brought to the courtyard. “Overnight” means the blood was left overnight, rather than being cast on the altar on the day the animal was slaughtered. The same is true if its flesh or parts to be burnt were left overnight. “Taken out” means the blood, flesh or parts to be burnt belonging to a burnt offering, sin offering or guilt offering that were taken outside the curtains [that enclose the mishkon’s courtyard]. “Slaughtered. . . outside the time” means that when slaughtering the sacrifice, the kohein had in mind to do one of the following things on a day when this is forbidden: 1. burn the parts to be burnt 2. burn its limbs 3. eat its flesh. “Outside the place allotted for it” means that when slaughtering the sacrifice, the kohein had in mind to eat its flesh outside its allotted place, i.e., outside the curtains [that enclose the mishkon’s courtyard] or outside the wall [that encloses the Beis Hamikdosh].

Forty-three and one-fifth eggs. [Rashi knows that it is of an eipha] because it states in Bamidbar 28:5: “And a tenth of an eipha of fine flour as a meal-offering.” An eipha is three se’ah, and a se’ah is six kav, and a kav is four log, and a log is six eggs. Thus an eipha is 432 eggs, a tenth of which is 43.2 eggs.

For the bowls. . . ספלים means bowls, as in (Shoftim 5:25): “In a majestic bowl ( ספל ).”

From there it runs down into the crevices. . . the altar. . .. The שיתין are orifices in the altar’s foundation, as in (Tehillim 22:3): “When the foundations ( השתות ) are destroyed.”

This refers to the minchah. . . I.e., we should not think that this minchah is like other menachos, which are not entirely consumed on the altar. For then [we would mistakenly conclude that] “For a pleasing fragrance” — which conveys that the whole offering ascends to God — refers only to the sheep of the burnt offering and not to the minchah.

That is where I will set it. . . I.e., the two phrases “Meet with you” and “Speak to you” are not two separate matters. Therefore Rashi skips the word שמה , [which seemingly separates it into two matters], so that the word שם at the end of the verse will suffice [to convey the meaning].

I will meet with them by speaking, as a king. . . Rashi explains “By speaking” because the verse does not mention in what way Hashem will meet with them. Rashi then answers the question: [If so,] why is it not written, “I will speak”? He answers: “As a king who sets a meeting place where he will speak with his servants.” In other words, it is customary for a king to set a place to speak. Therefore the verse says simply, “I will meet,” without [needing to specify,] “I will speak.”

The mishkon. I.e., the mishkon will be sanctified by My Shechinah resting in it. Rashi is saying this even according to those Sages who hold that “Where I will meet with you” (v. 42) refers to a special place in the mikdosh, namely, the copper altar. All agree that [in our verse,] “it will be sanctified” applies to the whole Tent of Meeting, i.e., the Shechinah will rest there.