And all commands a calling preceded. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written ויקרא and וידבר, which is apparently redundant? Therefore, he explains: [For all “speakings” and all sayings and all commands a calling preceded] ... meaning: Hashem did not speak to Moshe abruptly, but first He greeted him with “Moshe, Moshe” and he would answer “Here I am,” and then He would speak with him.

A calling, an expression of love. [All the “speakings,” etc.] in the Tent of Meeting were preceded by a calling. That is to say, from here we learn through a בנין אב (by comparison) that whenever it says, וידבר, ויאמר, or צו, it was preceded by calling. This is so in the case of דיבור as explained here. אמירה: as it is written in Parshas Shemos (3:4): “Elohim called to him from the midst of the thorn-bush, and said (ויאמר).” ציווי: as it is written in Parshas Yisro (19:20): “And Adonoy called to Moshe to come up to the top of the mountain ... [Adonoy] said ... ‘Go down and warn the people...’ This is an expression of ציווי: Lest they break through toward Hashem to see. However, there remains a difficulty: Why did Rashi not give this explanation above in Parshas Shemos or Yisro; why did he leave it until now? (Minchas Yaakov and Nachalas Yaakov).

Happenstance and uncleanness. Meaning: ויקרא is related to the word קרי, as in nocturnal emission. [You might ask:] The word ויקר refers to Hashem! [The answer is:] It seemed to Hashem, as it were, as if He contracted repulsiveness and impurity in speaking to Bilaam, as one who contracts repulsiveness through nocturnal emission.

And reaches his ears. This refers to the utterance “Moshe, Moshe,” as is, with the pronunciation of the letters. All of these are needed [i.e., the three exclusions that Rashi mentions: 1)This one, “And He called to Moshe,” which excludes all Israel, 2)“and Adonoy spoke to him,” to exclude Aharon, and 3)“the voice to him (אליו instead of לו),” Moshe heard but all Israel did not hear], for if only one of these was written we would have established it [as excluding] only Israel. And if it was only written: “And He called to Moshe and [Adonoy] spoke to him,” [without the exclusion 3)] I would have thought that Aharon and all of Israel heard the sound of Hashem’s utterance. If it was only written: “And He called to Moshe and he heard the sound,” [without exclusion 2)] I would have thought Aharon heard even the speech itself. If was written: “Adonoy spoke to him,” and also: “He heard the voice,” together, [without exclusion 1)], I would have thought Aharon heard even the speech itself and all of Israel heard the call, “Moshe, Moshe” (This is the essence of Re”m’s words).

Perhaps even for the breaks. I.e., in a place where there is a parshah-break but there is not [at the beginning of the next parshah an expression of] דבור, אמירה, or ציווי, for example, the breaks preceding (v. 10): “If his offering is from flocks of sheep,” (v. 14): “If his burnt-offering is of fowl,” and (2:1): “When a person brings,” and the like. You might ask: Why did Rashi not ask this “Perhaps even [for the breaks...]” after stating, “God happened upon Bilaam”? The answer is: Above, it was all right because I would have thought that everyone, including Israel, heard the voice of Hashem. If so, it did not indicate that Moshe was greater than the rest of Israel, for they also heard, as Moshe did. Thus, it was obvious there was a calling even for the breaks, for the fact he was called even for the breaks was the greatness of Moshe over the rest of Israel. But now that Rashi explains that Moshe alone heard the calling voice, one could be in doubt if he also had the greatness of being called for the breaks or not, because he was greater than the rest of Israel even without this, for the people of Israel did not even hear the calling voice. Thus, “the verse states

The verse states, “He spoke.” [Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say: “And He called to (אל) Moshe”?] You might ask: In the entire Torah it is written, “Adonoy spoke to Moshe, saying...” Why did Rashi not ask this before? The answer is: Here, Hashem called, “Moshe, Moshe,” if so, [it should have said: “And He called Moshe,”] why is it written אל? Rather [it is saying:] “The voice proceeds...” However, Re”m explains that Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written אל משה, it should say simply למשה? To this Rashi comments: “The voice proceeds...” Rashi responds here more than from every other place it says אל in the Torah because in Toras Kohanim the Sages expounded that וידבר אליו comes to exclude Aharon from the actual words of the command. But how did they derive that? Perhaps it only comes to exclude Israel, but Aharon, who was appointed to speak, did hear! Rather, perforce we must say that there was a previous “exclusion,” which is the word אל משה that excludes all Israel, that they did not hear it, and they did not even hear the call “Moshe, Moshe.” This is because [the word אל] refers to the verb “He called.” So much more so [that Israel did not hear] the actual words of the One Who is commanding. Thus, the extra word אליו remains [available] to exclude Aharon from [hearing] the explicit words, and the drashah קול לו excludes all of them, even from the sound of the calling.

To give a breathing space. It is understandable if this was a new calling or prophecy — that is why there is a break. But if there was no calling, why is there a break? Rashi answers: “To give a breathing space...”

How much more so for an ordinary person. The main point is to teach us who learn from ordinary persons that we must allow for a break between one subject and another in order to reflect between one and the other.

To exclude. Meaning: the speaking was specifically to Moshe alone. Rashi is saying that to exclude Israel does not need an extra word, because it is [already] written אל, which excludes Israel. Rather, [the extra word] אליו comes to exclude Aharon.

Rabbi Yehudoh ben Beseiro says: Thirteen... It appears to me that there is no disagreement. It is only that Rabbi Yehudoh explains the words of the Tanna Kamma, so that you will not understand אליו comes here to exclude Aharon from the “speaking,” regarding the command: “If his offering is a burnt-offering.” This is because an extra word is not needed here to exclude him, since Aharon is not mentioned. Rather, it should be applied to the verses where Aharon is mentioned, which are the thirteen places. The text in Toras Kohanim follows this understanding as well: “Said Rabbi Yehudoh...” It seems to me Re”m wrote unnecessarily at length about this (Nachalas Yaakov).

Perhaps they heard. Many trouble themselves to explain why Rashi writes this matter here and not before the comment: אליו — to exclude Aharon. In my humble opinion the matters are straightforward: Rashi’s comments here are dependent on each other. The main reason to differentiate between “calling” and “speaking” is based on the thirteen exclusions, which are the thirteen “speakings” in which Moshe and Aharon are mentioned. These are specifically in regard to speaking and not to the “sound of calling.” Thus, we could have possibly thought the entire people of Israel actually heard the calling, for there is no exclusion concerning this by Aharon. If so, the entire people of Israel are equal to Aharon in this matter, and Aharon would have no advantage over Israel in this matter. This is because it is based on the extra word אליו, and Aharon is excluded together with the entire people of Israel. Therefore, we would have thought this applies only to “speaking,” but not in regard to “the sound of calling.” Thus, it says: [Instead of] “the voice to him (לו),” [it states] “the voice to him (אליו).” Meaning: In the verse at the end of Parshas Nosso it is written (Bamidbar 7:89): “When Moses would come into the Tent of Meeting [to speak with Him,] he would hear the voice speaking to him.” It would have been possible to say: קול מדבר לו, but it is written: מדבר אליו, for the sake of expounding this drashah: The entire people of Israel did not hear, thus, Aharon also did not hear, for they were already equated together, as we mentioned (Divrei Dovid).

“The voice to him (לו),” “the voice to him (אליו).” I.e., Scripture should have written: קול לו, why is it written קול אליו? It must be: “Moshe heard but all Israel did not hear.” I.e., it is obvious that Israel did not hear, for they did not even hear the calling, for their exclusion was expounded from the phrase: אל משה. So much more so that they did not hear the “speaking.” Rather, this teaches about Aharon, and refers back to the words of Rabbi Yehudoh ben Beseiro there, in which Aharon was excluded by expounding the extra word אליו, even in a place where it is written: “אל משה ואל אהרן.” Rashi raises a difficulty on this: Perhaps he heard the sound of the speaking, though not the exact letters? [Therefore, it says: (Instead of) “the voice to him (לו),” (it states) “the voice to him (אליו)” — even the sound of the speaking he did not hear] and it excludes even Aharon with the extra word אליו. So Re”m explains.

And did not leave the tent. It is not written: “And He called to Moshe from the Tent of Meeting and [Adonoy] spoke to him.” It must be that the reason it is written: “[Spoke] to him from the Tent of Meeting,” i.e. [placing the phrase “from the Tent of Meeting” next to the words] “to him” must be [in order to convey that] the voice was heard by Moshe, because he was in the Tent of Meeting, but it was not heard outside of the Tent (Re”m). This does not appear to me to be correct. Rather, Rashi derives [that this verse is also speaking about the voice’s range] for if you would assume that it is only referring to the place from where the voice originated, it should say: “From between the two cherubim,” as the Toras Kohanim concludes. But since it is written, “From the Tent of Meeting,” perforce it also refers to the voice’s range (Nachalas Yaakov). However, this poses a difficulty: If so, why is the extra word אליו needed to exclude that Moshe heard and all of Israel did not hear? It is obvious that they did not hear, since the people of Israel were standing outside of the Tent! The Ra’avad answers that the exclusion is needed [for the period] before the Tabernacle was erected (Re”m).

For we find. The expression “for we find” is not meant to be precise, for the sending of the spies was only after Nissan of the second year and the Tabernacle’s establishment was on the first of Nissan of the second year from the Exodus of Israel from Egypt. Rather, perforce, we must say that the expression “for we find” only comes to give an example of what is meant by sobering words (Re”m). However, I say that this is what it means: Hashem commanded Moshe to tell them: “It is for your sake that He speaks to me.” These were the sobering words and no more. The authors of the Midrash that bring proofs for their statement that Hashem speaks to the prophets only for the sake of Israel: “For we find...” In the same way, the Mechilta dwells on this at length (Nachalas Yaakov).

And answer Me whether they will accept them. You might ask: How could it be that Hashem would not know whether or not they will accept them? The answer is: It is for this reason Rashi brings a proof: “As it is stated...” There, Rashi explains that it is the proper mode of conduct to speak in such a way, and Scripture only comes to teach you correct manners.

Voluntary sacrifices. You might ask: Perhaps it is speaking about an obligatory burnt offering! Re”m answers: Perforce, the word כי means “if” and not “that.” [If it meant “that,”] it is as if it says: Because he shall bring an offering to Hashem, which means, “because I admonished you to bring an offering to Hashem, I am telling you to bring it from the cattle, etc.” However, this is not applicable unless the sacrifices were mentioned before elsewhere. Sacrifices, though, were not mentioned in anywhere before. Therefore, it is only possible to explain that כי means “if.” See Re”m’s explanation there, because he goes on at length. It seems to me that since it is written, “You should bring your offering,” in the plural form, “you” teaches that two [people] may volunteer a burnt-offering in partnership. Perforce, this is referring to a voluntary offering, for if it refers to an obligatory offering, how could two people bring such an offering in partnership, when each one is obligated to bring an offering? Rather, perforce, it refers to a voluntary offering (Nachalas Yaakov).

Why is this said? It should say איש. Above [before Rashi explains that the section speaks of voluntary sacrifices], however, it did not pose a difficulty, because I could say אדם comes to exclude an idolater, as we derive: “You are termed אדם but idolaters are not.” Now, though, that Rashi explains אדם כי יקריב speaks of a voluntary offering, and an idolater is permitted to bring a voluntary offering, as we derive from the extra words איש איש כי יקריב — [from which we learn that] idolaters are included in bringing voluntary offerings. [Therefore, now it is difficult:] Why does it say אדם? (Kitzur Mizrachi). However, this is not true, for if so, what shall you say it means in Parshas Tazria where it is written: “אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו”? Why does it not say איש? Furthermore, when we look at what Rashi quotes [in the first d.h.]: “אדם כי יקריב מכם,” this is apparently unnecessary. First, he should quote אדם and explain it, and afterwards quote כי יקריב מכם and then explain it. Rather, Rashi’s intention is to explain the double expression אדם מכם, for it would be sufficient to say just אדם כי יקריב or simply כי יקריב מכם. Since Rashi wishes to explain this problem, which is based on the phrase’s beginning and end, i.e., the double expression, he felt it was best to first explain כי יקריב which appears first — that it refers to a voluntary offering — before he explains the later word מכם, which is a repetition of אדם, for one of them is extra. Therefore, he explains first כי יקריב, which comes first in the verse, and afterwards אדם, since the problem is based on the word מכם, which comes later. One who wishes to make the difficulty presented by the word אדם dependent on the phrase כי יקריב is just making an unnecessary pilpul (Divrei Dovid).

So should you not bring from stolen property. As it is written (Yeshayahu 61:8): “[For I am Hashem, Who loves justice,] hates robbery in a burnt offering.”

Perhaps even wild animals. [You might think this] because wild animals (חיה) are included in the term בהמה, as it is written (11:2): “These are the living things (החיה) that you may eat from among all the animals (הבהמה)” (Re”m). In Toras Kohanim [the following verse is used to support the assumption]: As it says (Devarim 14:4-5): “These are the animals (הבהמה) that you may eat: [ox, lamb,] and kid, gazelle, deer...” which is a verse in Parshas Re’eh, and this is the text cited in Zevachim 34a as well (Nachalas Yaakov).

The verse teaches us: Cattle. I.e., why is it written: “Cattle or sheep,” since the word בהמה means cattle and sheep unless specified otherwise? Rather, it comes to exclude: Specifically cattle and sheep, but not wild animals.

[A male animal] which was with a woman. You might ask: Why does it need to exclude these animals, since they are stoned to death? The answer is: [It is needed,] where [it was known only] by the testimony of one witness, or the owner admitted, in which case the animal is not stoned. Therefore, it is needed to exclude them. Similarly, we must say [regarding Rashi’s comment later] concerning the animal that was worshipped as an idol or the ox that killed a man.

Which was worshipped. Concerning the animal that was with a woman it says בהמה (20:15): “A man who lies [conjugally] with an animal (בבהמה),” whereas concerning the animal that was worshipped it is written (Tehillim 106:20): “They exchanged their glory for the likeness of an ox eating grass.” The verse here speaks of a living animal that was worshipped, which is permitted for secular use and is not forbidden as an animal that was worshipped as an idol or as an animal that was set aside as an offering to an idol, as it says in Temurah (28b).

Set aside [as an offering to an idol]. Meaning: [An animal] set aside and separated for idolatry should not be brought as an offering. This refers to the case when they fed it fodder of idolatry, but with a statement alone [it would] not [be considered as set aside], as it says in Temurah 29a.

To exclude a goring ox. Meaning: Specifically, an animal that killed a man, not that it killed another animal.

[An animal] with a fatal defect. This refers to the case where the animal was fit at the time the owner consecrated it, and then it became fatally defective. If so, I might have thought it is permissible for one to sacrifice it on the altar since it was fit at the time he consecrated it. Thus, it is necessary to exclude it here.

That two [people] may volunteer. Otherwise, it should say: יקריב קרבנו [in the singular form instead of in the plural form]. This does not mean only two, but rather ten, a hundred, or a thousand [and it is still considered an individual’s offering and requires leaning] as long as the entire people of Israel are not partners in it [as we find, for example, with the burnt offerings of the “summer fruit” for the altar which comes from the surplus of the yearly half-shekels].

“Summer fruit” for the altar. I.e., a “meal” for the altar that comes from the surplus, i.e., the surplus from the half-shekels given the previous year. From those surplus half-shekels they bought sheep as burnt offerings and sacrificed them on the altar when there were no individual offerings to bring, so that the altar would not be unused, without any sacrifices being offered.

It comes only to say — a male. Rashi brings here the exclusion from “a male” (v. 10) — not [an animal] whose sex cannot be determined and the one which has both male and female characteristics — and not the rest of the exclusions later on [such as an old or sick animal], because he explains in the next comment: “תמים. Without a blemish.” [Rashi does this] so that you will not raise the objection: How does he know that תמים means without a blemish? Perhaps תמים means that it should be perfect in its quality, i.e., it should not be [an animal] whose sex cannot be determined or one which has both male and female characteristics? Therefore, Rashi brings [the drashah] from “a male” later on, where it excludes — “a male,” and not [an animal] whose sex cannot be determined or one which has both male and female characteristics. Thus, as a matter of course, תמים means “without blemish.”

Without a blemish. Re”m writes: Even though it is written in another place (22:20): “Anything that has a blemish on it you shall not bring,” and if so, why does it say [here] תמים? The Sages already answered in Toras Kohanim: This word תמים comes for a hekeish (comparison). I.e., just as when the animal is blemished and not תמים it will not be accepted favorably, as it is written (ibid.): “Anything that has a blemish on it [you shall not bring, for it will not be accepted favorably for you],” so too, if it is not a male, but rather a female, one whose sex cannot be determined, or one which has both male and female characteristics, it will not be accepted favorably.

Until the court. The word יקריבנו is from the root of קורבה, which means to bring close. Rashi’s proof is [that otherwise,] why does it say, “[He shall bring an unblemished male] to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”? It should write: “An unblemished male he shall bring to be accepted favorably before Hashem,” and no more.

Even if [Reuvein’s burnt-offering] became mixed up [with Shimon’s]. Meaning: Scripture could have written: “He shall bring it ... to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting that it be favorably accepted from him before Adonoy.” [Why does it say “he shall bring it” a second time?] Without Rashi’s explanation that [the one who brings the sacrifice] takes care of it until [it is brought to] the [Temple] courts, I might have thought [that the first “he shall bring it” is needed for the plain meaning, to teach that he should not slaughter it outside the courtyard and] the extra “he shall bring it” teaches that he takes care of it even inside the court. However, now that Rashi explains that he is only obligated to take care of it until the entrance to the courtyard, why does it need [to repeat] “he shall bring it”?

Unfit. Meaning: Such as [a male animal] which was with a woman or a [female] animal which was with a man, and the like.

Or of another kind. With a sin-offering, guilt-offering, first-born, animal tithes, Pesach offering, or peace offering.

That they force. This is not derived from the repetition of יקריב, because that is needed to include the law when a burnt-offering became mixed up with another burnt-offering, or a burnt-offering became mixed up with a common [animal]. Rather, this is derived from the extra word אותו.

Against his will? The verse comes only to say: לרצונו. I.e., you might think that if they forced him to buy [an animal] to bring as the sacrifice and he cries out the whole time that he does not want to do it — even so — he must do it against his will. Therefore, the verse comes to say: לרצונו, they force him until he says, “I want to.” Then, he brings it. We should not ask: What does this statement help, since he says it against his will? [The answer is:] We say that because he was forced he decided to agree with what he is saying out loud, because he wants to be rid of being forced. Even regarding monetary issues we say this (Baba Basra 47b): Rav Huna said: If they hung him up until he agreed to sell to him, the acquisition has been made, because due to his being forced he decided to transfer his ownership; so much more so here where it is a mitzvah (Divrei Dovid).

There is no laying [of the hands] at a private altar. The verse (4) [“and he shall lay his hand”] is interpreted in juxtaposition to the preceding section and to the section following: “Before God,” which refers to the Tent of Meeting, where the Ark and the Divine Presence are found.

For laying (of hands). Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “[on the head of] the burnt-offering”? [It should say “on its head,”] because at the verse’s beginning it is written “burnt-offering” to which the verse is referring. Rather, it comes to include everything that is termed a burnt-offering for laying [of the hands], even an obligatory burnt-offering. And since it is written “the burnt-offering” with the indicative ה, this implies [only] the burnt-offering that was mentioned: “From cattle or from sheep,” and to exclude a bird [offered as a] burnt-offering from laying [of the hands]; and to include a sheep [brought as] a burnt-offering, i.e., also for laying [of hands].

A prohibition which is uprooted by a positive commandment. For instance (Devarim 22:6): “You shall not take the mother upon the young,” upon which it is written (Ibid. 7): “You shall send away the mother.” Similarly (Shemos 12:10): “You must not leave any of it over until morning. Any of it left over until morning must be burned in fire.” Also (Vayikro 19:13): “And you shall not rob,” upon which it is written (Ibid. 5:23): “He shall return the stolen property.” No punishment is mentioned with regard to these prohibitions, but the prohibitions mentioned by Rashi have their punishments specified, whether committed intentionally where there is execution ordered by a court or being whipped, or when committed unintentionally where there is a sin-offering.

Valid by a non-kohein. Since it is written “he shall slaughter” without specifying who slaughters, and afterwards it is written: “The kohanim shall bring,” this implies that the slaughter is valid even when done by a nonkohein. The explanation is: If you would think that receiving [the blood] is permitted by a non-kohein, and it is a mitzvah of the Kohanim [only] from carrying and onwards, and accordingly, “they shall bring” means carrying, then it should mention receiving together with slaughtering before the phrase, “and the sons of Aharon will bring.” Since it did not mention it there, perforce that “they shall bring” means receiving (Nachalas Yaakov). This is the explanation: Certainly, this word “they shall bring” refers to receiving, since we cannot say it refers to carrying because carrying is not necessarily a Temple service, for if the animal was slaughtered close enough to the altar that no carrying would be needed, then surely no carrying need to be done. If so, we must say that “they shall bring” is receiving, which is an indispensable mitzvah. However, why does Scripture use the expression “they shall bring”? Rather, it implies carrying as well, and we [therefore] learn that both [receiving and carrying] require a kohein (Gur Aryeh).

In the court. But not in the Tent of Meeting, for if [Scripture wants to specify a location that is even holier than the entrance to the Tent, or the Temple courts,] it should have written: “Before Hashem, in front of the Ark-cover,” or “Before Hashem, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.”

An expression of carrying. I.e., although [“they shall bring”] literally means carrying [the blood] to the altar, nevertheless, since the receiving of the blood [in a vessel] is the first act after slaughtering and precedes carrying, perforce, we must explain [“they shall bring”] as referring to the receiving. We learn carrying [requires a Kohein] as well through a kal vachomer [Re”m].

Perhaps those unfit? The verse says: You might ask: [If so,] let it not say “the sons of Aharon”? The Sages already answered in the Gemoro: Perhaps I should exclude those unfit and not those with a blemish? The verse says: “The sons of Aharon” — just as Aharon is valid because he is unblemished, so too, his sons are valid... However, [you might ask:] In Parshas Emor we include those with a blemish from the verse: “[the sons of Aharon]”? See Minchas Yaakov who answers. You might ask: Why do I need a verse to invalidate those with a blemish, you can derive it from what is written (21:18): “For any man who has a blemish [shall not approach]”? The answer is: There, it refers to the service on the altar, as it is written: (Ibid. 21): “Shall not approach to offer the fireofferings of Adonoy.” But here it includes receiving [the blood] and all the rest of the service. Alternatively, it informs that he transgresses on a positive commandment and a negative commandment, for this is what it implies: “The sons of Aharon” — just as Aharon is unblemished, so too every unblemished kohein is permitted to bring, [but a blemished kohein is not permitted to bring]. A negative commandment that is derived by implication from a positive commandment is considered a positive commandment. Thus, it informs us that he transgresses a negative commandment and a positive one (Gur Aryeh).

Which was mixed with [other blood of its type or of another type]. “Of its type” means [for example that] the blood of Reuven’s burnt-offering [that was mixed] with the blood of Shimon’s burnt-offering. “Or of another type” [refers to] the blood of a burnt-offering [which was mixed] with the blood of an exchanged offering or with the blood of a guilt-offering or with the blood of any sacrifice whose blood is sprinkled below the red line, such as the blood of a burnt-offering. There is no problem since they are all sprinkled below the red line. [You might ask:] The blood of the burnt-offering requires two applications [of the blood by sprinkling] that are four [in direction], and some of the other [types of] blood require only one application? This is no problem, for he may place all the blood in one application. However, the opposite is not true, because some of the [types of] blood require only one application, and [by placing more than one application] he would transgress the negative commandment of “do not add [to the mitzvos].”

“Inner” sin-offerings. Their blood is sprinkled on the inner Holy Curtain and on the inner altar.

“Outer” sin-offerings. Their blood is sprinkled on the outer altar.

Where these, [the inner ones, require sprinkling] above. Meaning: Above the red line.

“Its blood.” Meaning: This excludes the case where its blood was mixed with the blood of an inner or outer sin-offering. What should he do if the blood was mixed? He should spill it into the amoh (the drainage ditch in the courtyard). Similarly, if blood that is sprinkled above the red line was mixed with blood that is sprinkled below he should spill it into the amoh as well.

Stands below. Meaning: on the ground and not on the ramp.

Two applications that are four. Meaning: The sprinkling is from the vessel in which the kohein received the blood, and he sprinkles on the altar’s wall opposite the edge of the altar’s northeastern corner. The blood spreads on the corner’s two directions like a Greek “Ô (gamma) which is like our ך that is inverted. Then, he goes to the southwestern corner, diagonally opposite, and sprinkles from the vessel towards the edge of the corner like a “Ã.” Thus, with these two applications, one on the northeastern corner and one on the southwestern corner, the sprinkled blood appears on four directions of the altar. This is what is meant by “all around.”

Not when it is taken apart. Otherwise, why does it say: “The entrance of the Tent of Meeting”? Above, it is already written: “The entrance of the Tent of Meeting”!

To include all the burnt-offerings. Meaning: The section is [already] referring to a burntoffering; Scripture should have said: He shall skin it... Rather: [To include all the burntofferings]; it makes no difference if it is a burnt offering of women, converts, or slaves. The ה of העולה excludes [the case] when it was slaughtered [with intention to eat it] beyond its [prescribed] time or [with intention to eat it] outside of its [prescribed] place (pigul), or any other invalid offerings, and it went up on the altar [without being skinned]; it should not be taken down [from the altar]. Instead, they burn it with its skin, and it does not need skinning.

But not its pieces... In the second chapter of Yoma the Gemara explains how the pieces were cut.

It is a mitzvoh to bring [some fire]. This does not mean that the fire descended every day, but rather the fire that descended in the days of Moshe did not depart from the altar until the Jewish people came to the Eternal House (First Temple). Then, a fire descended from Heaven in Shlomo [HaMelech]’s building, and it did not depart until the days of Menashe, as [the Sages] taught [in a Baraisa] at the end of the first chapter of Yoma.

In his role as kohein godol. Otherwise, why does it say “the kohein”? Similarly, why does it say: “the sons of Aharon the Kohein”? If [you say] it comes to exclude the unfit kohanim, [that cannot be,] for the verse already excluded them from receiving the blood, which is the first step in sprinkling the blood, so much more so [they are excluded] from the rest of the service that follows! Rather, it tells you that the entire service of the kohein godol should be in the way of a kohein godol, and that [the entire service] of an ordinary kohein should be in the way of an ordinary kohein, i.e., the kohein godol wears eight garments and the ordinary kohein wears four garments.

Since it was already cut off. Once the signs (windpipe and esophagus) were cut, Rashi calls the head “cut off,” because the animal’s life-force depends on them. As a result, it is considered as if it was placed in a basket. The head is not included in skinning, but rather is brought as is with the skin.

And covers. It is understandable for Scripture to mention “the head,” for it is needed to be included, because it had already been cut off and it was not included in the skinning. However, why is it necessary to say “the fat”?

Protrude. Meaning: They cut thick pieces of wood that will not protrude outside the pile, which is where they burnt the offerings’ limbs; it is one amoh (cubit) by one amoh. The cut pieces of wood were also one amoh long so they would not protrude outside the pile. This was so the wood would not interfere with the kohanim’s feet when they walked around the pile.

For the sake of a burnt-offering. Meaning: This excludes [burning it] for the sake of a peace offering.

For the sake of the fire. Meaning: With the intent of burning it completely and not just to roast it there, like pieces of meat roasting on coals. He removes it afterwards, at the time of the removal of the ashes from the altar (Ramban).

Satisfaction before Me. I.e., it is not that Hashem is pleased by the fragrance of the sacrifice, for it is written (Tehillim 50:12): “If I were hungry I would not tell you...”

The word “and” adds. And one learns the previous section from the next section, and the next section from the previous one: Sheep require laying [of the hands], skinning, cutting into pieces, and all the things listed above.

Why was there a break. You might ask: Rashi explains above: Perhaps even for the breaks there was a calling, etc. [to give Moshe a breathing space], therefore, even without the ו adding to the first matter [we have already learned this]? The answer is: Rashi is saying this only to strengthen the question, i.e., since it says ואם, which adds to the earlier matter and it is like one parshah — if so, so much more so — why is there a break in the matter? He answers: In order [to give Moshe a breathing space...] (Re”m).

Excluding old. For if [you say] it excludes [a male animal] which was with a woman or a [female animal] which was with a man, or the other unfit animals excluded above in the beginning of the section — [this cannot be, for] the verse already excludes them above, and the ו of ואם מן הצאן comes and adds to the earlier matter, to learn the next section from the previous one. We need not ask: Why are three exclusions [the three extra words מן] needed? Let us learn [them all] from one! The Sages already answered in the Gemara (Bechoros 41a): If we were to learn from a sick animal with a מה מצינו (by comparison), I might think that only a sick animal is unfit, because being sick is not inevitable, but an old animal, since it is inevitable [for animals get old] is not unfit. Therefore it lets me know [that even an old animal is unfit]. If [we were to learn] from a filthy animal, I might think that it is [unfit] because it is repulsive, but an old or sick animal [which are not repulsive] are not [unfit]. Therefore, Scripture needed the three exclusions.

On the side. The side is called “thigh” because the thigh is on the side; similarly (Shemos 26:22): “ולירכתי המשכן (For the end of the mishkon),” (Ibid. 27): “לירכתים ימה (of the western [back] wall)” — [means] the side.

But not all fowl. I.e., although a blemished bird is fit [as an offering], nevertheless, a bird lacking a limb is unfit [as an offering]. However, we do not say ואם מן העוף — the ו adds [to the previous section] and a bird would be unfit [as an offering] even if it is only blemished, and it needs to be a male. For if so, why does it say “an unblemished male” with regard to sheep? It could have derived the later section [sheep] from the previous section [cattle]. Rather, it comes to exclude [that only regarding cattle and sheep does Scripture require unblemished males, but not regarding birds] (Re”m).

Large ones. Otherwise, Scripture should have written בני תורים as it writes בני יונה, which refers only to small ones. Rather, [it must mean the large ones]... We learn from the expression בני יונה that there is only one kind [of pigeons] that is fit — specifically small ones — since it is written, בני (the sons of) — so too, turtledoves, have only one kind that is fit. And we surely cannot say it refers to small ones, as I explained above. If so, it must mean the large ones.

Excluding [birds whose feathers] are becoming bright. I.e., when the feathers start to redden.

Even one pigeon. Otherwise, Scripture should have written: “The Kohein shall bring,” why is it written, “He shall bring it”? Rather, it teaches that if he comes to bring one pigeon he may do so. [You might ask:] It is written above, “He shall bring from turtledoves...” which implies two! [The answer is:] That [perhaps it means that this] is the best way to fulfill the mitzvah but not necessary after the fact. Alternatively, “from turtledoves” refers to the species of turtledoves, but [he may bring] even one.

With the kohein’s own body. Otherwise, why does it say “the kohein”; [even without specifying a kohein,] the nipping must obviously be done by a kohein, for a non-kohein may not bring sacrifices upon the altar. If not for the verse, I might have thought that nipping must be done with a knife, [and I would have derived it] by means of a kal vachomer from slaughtering, which can be done by a non-kohein and yet it requires a knife, so much more so nipping, which is invalid for a non-kohein — is it not logical that it should require a knife? (Zevachim 65a).

Near the nape. This is derived from the turtledoves and young pigeons spoken about at the end of the parshah, where it is explicitly written (5:8): “opposite of its neck,” i.e., [the part of the neck] that looks upon the nape of the neck, [i.e., behind the throat], but not the nape itself, which is [the back of the head,] on the level of the face and behind it, as it says (Yirmeyahu 2:27): “For they turned to Me their nape and not their face.”

After he burns it he squeezes the blood [out the blood]. Meaning: First, he must squeeze out the blood, for the limbs of an offering are brought to be burnt only after the blood is taken out. Thus, it should say “He nips, the blood is squeezed out,” and then, “he burns it.” Rather, the word “burns” is inserted between them [i.e., nipping and squeezing] to make a comparison to “nipping”: [Just as regarding burning, the head is by itself and the body is by itself, so too nipping, the head is by itself and the body is by itself, i.e., the head is completely severed by the nipping. What is the source that the burning of the head and body are separate?] Concerning the burning of its body it is written (17): “[The kohein] shall burnt it on the altar,” this speaks [of the burning] of the body. And it is [also] written (v. 15): “Its head and burn it.” [This refers to burning the head]. So too, in regard to nipping, the head is by itself and the body is by itself (Zevachim 65a).

So too the nipping. Although it is still connected by the skin it is considered separated.

It is transposed. As if it is written: “He shall nip its head, [the blood] shall be squeezed out,” and then: “and he shall burn it.”

The place of excrement; this is the crop. רעי means excrement, as in (Nachum 3:6): “ושמתיך כראי (and I will make you like dung).” In the language of the Sages רעי is with an ע, for the א and the ע are interchangeable.

East of the ramp. [Rashi knows that it is eastward of the ramp] because Scripture should have written (v. 16): “throw it to the place of the ashes,” and the place of ashes is explained in Parshas Tzav (6:3) that it is beside the altar. Rather, [it must be that] “beside” that is written here refers to the ramp, and “beside” means that the ramp was beside the altar. [This is because] the altar was thirty-two amoh by thirty-two amoh, the ramp’s width was on the altar’s southern side, and the ramp’s width was sixteen amoh and its length thirty-two amoh. The [corner formed by the] rest of the amos in width that remained on the altar’s southern side, where it intersected with the ramp’s eastern side, was where they placed the bird’s crop and the ashes that had been lifted [from the altar]. This is taught in the first chapter of Tamid (Mishnah 4).

Were absorbed there. [Rashi knows this] because it should say “upon the ashes.” Rather, it must be that it comes to teach that the ashes were absorbed there, and only the place was there [and no ashes].