An expression of “urging.” Rashi explains in the Gemara (Kiddushin 29a) that [זירוז means] one should be quick and vigorous. You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain this above on the verse in Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 27:20)? The answer is: [There,] the urging is a result of the special expertise needed to harvest the olives from the olive tree’s top [branches] and to crush them in a mortar so there will be no sediment.

And for generations. [Rashi knows this] from what is written (Devarim 3:28): “Command Yehoshua and strengthen him” — [the addition of the word “and strengthen him” shows that] this is an expression of “urging.” “And for generations” — it is written in Parshas Emor (24:2-3): “Command the children of Israel and let them take [pure olive] oil ... from evening until morning before Hashem, continually, as an everlasting statute throughout your generations,” this stipulates “for generations.” “Immediately” — it says in Parshas Behaloscha (Bamidbar 8:3): “Aharon did so; he lit the lamps toward the face of the menorah, as Hashem had commanded...” — this denotes “immediately.”

Monetary loss. I.e., [Rabbi Shimon is saying] it is specifically in a place where there is monetary loss that it needs to write צו for urging, but where there is no monetary loss it does not need to write צו, even if it is an expression of urging, immediately and for future generations. And [according to this] Rabbi Shimon disagrees [with the Tanna Kama]. [You might ask:] It says here צו even though there is [seemingly] no monetary loss! The answer is: Since the kohanim do not have any benefit from the burntoffering besides its skin, and that was only given to the kohein who brought the burnt-offering, therefore it is called a monetary loss as well. However, Re’m writes that Rabbi Shimon is not coming to argue on the words of the Tanna Kama. Rather, he is coming to add and say that the primary reason that Scripture uses the expression “command” is because there is monetary loss. However, when there is no monetary loss [although there is urging, immediately and for future generations,] the word צו is not applicable. The same applies when there is no urging, immediately and for future generations, although there is monetary loss, the expression צו is not applicable, etc. (see there, where Re’m dwells at length). [You might ask:] It is written regarding the apportioning of Eretz Yisroel (Bamidbar 34:2): “Command (צו) the children of Yisroel,” although there is no monetary loss! The answer is: Since the entire people of Yisroel were disparate with regard to the conquering of the Land, for one tribe took a larger portion than another, and some took a portion in the hills and some in the plains, it is also considered, in some aspect, a monetary loss. Re’m, however, explains the entire matter differently, examine it and choose for yourself. Meaning: Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say this, specifically here? All the offerings are applicable immediately and for future generations! He answers: All the offerings have a benefit for the kohanim in that they receive a portion of the sacrifice. Therefore, each kohein will hurry and not be indolent in the Divine service, so that he will not be preempted by someone else. This however, does not apply to a burnt-offering, which is entirely burnt, and the kohanim did not receive any of the meat. Therefore, I might think they would be indolent with it. This then would be a monetary loss for the kohein of that watch. Therefore, it says צו, an expression of urging (Divrei Dovid). Nachalas Yaakov explains that regarding other offerings they bring only the blood and the fats [to the altar] and the meat is eaten by the kohanim. Thus, their benefit is large and their effort is minimal. This is not so concerning the burnt-offering, for a lot of effort is involved [in bringing it to the altar] and its benefit is minimal — [they receive] only the hide — therefore, it requires urging. Rashi is answering the question: The laws of the burnt-offering were already set down in Parshas Vayikro! Rather, it comes to teach... (Gur Areyeh).

Valid all night. Rashi knows this from the end of the verse, where it is written: “All night, until the morning.” It is [from there] he derives this.

If taken up, need not be taken down. This is because the altar sanctifies them. It is written afterwards: “It is the burnt-offering” — which comes to exclude, implying “it” and not another. [This implies that some of them, even if they were taken up must be taken down. When is this so?] Rashi explains [later]: “It is the burnt-offering, to exclude [a male animal] which was with a woman and [a female animal] which was with a man, and similar cases, whose disqualification [did not occur] in the Holiness [=the Temple].” Rashi is saying that these could have been disqualified before they were sanctified, [and therefore, even if they went up on the altar must be taken down,] but other invalid sacrifices, for instance, those that became impure, or other disqualifications that are inapplicable until after they had become sanctified, [if they were taken up they need not be taken down]. Toras Kohanim lists all these [examples], and Re’m cites them. Re’m writes: You might ask: Why do we need this exclusion: “It is the burnt-offering” — to exclude [a male animal] which was with a woman and [a female animal] which was with a man that if they went up on the altar they must be taken down? They were already excluded by Scripture in the verse (1:2): “From an animal” in Parshas Vayikro. Since they were excluded there, [to teach] that they are not sanctified, why do we need the exclusion here — that if they went up on the altar they must be taken down? It is obvious that since they are not sanctified, they are not sacred, and certainly they must be taken down from the altar. The Sages already answered this in the Gemara (Nidah 41a), that [two verses are needed, one for a non-sacred animal that he tries to sanctify — that it will not be sanctified, and] one verse for a sanctified animal, that although he sanctified it originally, if it went up on the altar it must come down, [since it was invalidated in a way that could have happened before it became sanctified].

Linen garment. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written: “The kohein shall dress in his linen garment (מדו בד),” [using the unusual expression מדו for garment instead of בגד]? Above (Shemos 28, 39-40), it does not use such an expression concerning the garments of Aharon. Rashi answers: This is the kutones (undershirt) mentioned with regard to the garments of the kohanim that is worn close to his skin. The phrase, “On his skin” refers to both, for if it referred only to the linen pants, it should write: “The kohein shall dress in his linen garment, and linen pants on his [body] skin.” Why does it say, “he shall wear”? Rather, [it must be that] it refers to מדו as well, which is the kutones (Re’m).

According to his size. Meaning: It should not be longer or shorter than his body, because I might think that since it is on his skin and he is wearing other garments on top of it, if it was shorter than his body it is of no concern. Therefore, Scripture teaches us [that it must be according to his size]. Otherwise, why does Scripture not call it a kutones as in the other places?

Consumed ashes. Since it is written, “He shall separate the ashes,” which is an expression of separation — that he separates from the ashes. If he were to rake up all of it there would not be any separation.

The innermost.. Because it is reasonable [to assume] that what was lying in the middle of the fire was extremely burnt up, they would take the innermost ashes.

**On the east of it.**This is because it is written “next to the altar,” and the ramp was next to the altar. How do we know that it was the eastern side of the ramp? This is proven from what it is written in Parshas Vayikro (1:16): “Beside the altar, eastward, [to the place of the ashes].” There, too, it implies next to the ramp, and it is clearly written “eastward.” Perforce the place of the ashes was at the eastern side of the ramp, and that is what is meant by “eastward.”

And makes them ashes. Rashi is rectifying with this [the problem we might have] because the plain meaning of the verse implies that the ashes consume the fire. Therefore, he explains: “And makes them ashes,” i.e., the word “fire” refers to the phrase “[which consumes] the burnt offering.” Furthermore, Rashi explains that he separates from that ash, so that you will not think [he takes] all the ashes which [the fire] makes of the burnt-offering. Re’m explains: Otherwise, [it is problematic that] the verse begins with the ashes and concludes with the consumption of the burnt-offering. It should be understood as if it says, “And he shall separate the ashes” — and which ashes are these? — those “that are as a result of the fire that consumes [the burnt-offering” and makes it ashes].

**Clothes in which he cooked.**If Scripture had written: “He shall [then] remove his garments and dress in others,” I would understand that it is an obligation: If he wore [until] now priestly garments, he should now wear non-sacred garments, or vice versa. However, now that it is written, “He shall [then] remove his garments and dress in other garments,” this implies garments like the first ones, i.e., if the first ones were non-sacred, he should now wear non-sacred ones as well. If so, what is the difference between the first ones and the second ones? Therefore, Rashi explains that the other garments are of lesser worth than these, but both are sacred garments. If so, why does he need to remove them? Perforce [it is because of] good manners: “This is not [obligatory,] but good manners.”

**Which are gathered.**Rashi is answering the question: Above, it is written, “and he shall separate,” and here it is written, “he shall take out”! Furthermore, here it is written: “beyond the encampment,” and there it is written, “next to the altar.” Upon this Rashi explains: “[He shall take out the ashes] which are gathered in the heap.” This, then, is the difference between [the mitzvah of] “and he shall separate” and [the mitzvah of] “he shall take out” — [the terumoh was obligatory every day and the removal was only when there was a great deal of ash. Also, the terumoh was from the innermost ashes and the removal was from the ashes gathered in the heap] (Re’m).

Our Rabbis differed on the number. The largest number of all [these views was that] each day there were four woodpiles: One was the large woodpile upon which they arranged the burntofferings [and all the sacrifices burnt that day]. Afterwards he placed two wooden logs upon that large woodpile; this was the woodpile for the sake of maintaining the fire, because if the [fire of the] large woodpile did not prevail over [the sacrifices], then this additional woodpile of two wooden logs would maintain the fire and prevail. Afterwards, he arranged another woodpile on the altar to burn the limbs that had not been consumed [whether because they had not been placed on the large woodpile or because they had not yet been consumed — thus, three woodpiles were placed one after another in the surrounding area of the large woodpile]. Before the placement of the two wooden logs they would arrange a second woodpile for the incense alongside the large woodpile, on the southwest corner, at a distance of four amos north of the corner. It was called “[the woodpile] of incense” because the kohein would rake the coals from there to bring to the inner altar in the morning and evening for the purpose of burning the incense upon these coals.

If [a peace offering] is brought. Rashi is answering the question: It is understandable [for Scripture to mention] a burnt-offering [since] every day there was a continual burntoffering, but perhaps there was no peace offering! Therefore he explains: If a peaceoffering is brought there, they should burn it after the morning’s continual offering.

Learned from here. Our Sages were answering the question: If so, it should say חלבי שלמים, why does it say השלמים with the ה? Therefore, they removed it from its plain meaning and explained it as referring to the matter of “completing” [all the sacrifices].

That too is kindled from the outer altar. You might ask: Above, Rashi explains: “[The Torah] here includes many kindlings and all of them are expounded in Maseches Yoma,” and he brings the verse “a continual fire” there as well! [Why, then, is it available for a drashah here?] The answer is: This is what Rashi means above: [The Torah] here includes many kindlings, but why are they needed? It is understandable [that the Torah mentions] “a continual fire” — I need to expound from it “a fire of which it is said, ‘continual,’ [etc.]” However, why do I need the rest? With regard to this Rashi explains: “All of them are expounded [in Maseches Yomo].”

**Two prohibitions.**Because it is written twice, “It shall not go out.”

To require oil. Meaning: Every time the word תורה is written in Scripture it comes to include, as Rashi explains above (v. 2).

That is bringing near. And not burning as the plain meaning implies, for the kohein would burn only the fistful and not the entire [meal-offering], as it is written: “He shall separate from it, when he takes his fistful ... and he shall burn on the altar...”

To the southwest corner. As Rashi himself explains: It is written “before Hashem,” which is the west... “To the front of the altar” — that is the south...

**That he should not take [the fistful] by measure.**Meaning: He should not make a utensil that holds a fistful and use it to measure. Rashi’s proof is because it is written בקמצו and it is not written מלא קמצו (the full fistful) [as in 2:2 above].

In which the oil is plentiful. Otherwise, why does it say, “and from its oil”? It already is written in Parshas Vayikro (2:1) that all the fine flour is mixed with oil, and since the fistful [was taken] from the fine flour, it surely must have included oil. Accordingly, the ו of ומשמנה is a ו of explanation, meaning as if it says: And from which place does he take the fistful? — ומשמנה — where the oil is plentiful.

And burns it.[Rashi knows this] because it is written, “He shall separate from it, when he takes his fistful,” and afterwards it is written: “and all the frankincense.” This implies that the frankincense is not included in the taking of the fistful.

In the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. You might ask: Why does it say, “In a sacred place”? The answer is: It comes to include the chambers built in a non-sacred place that have an opening into the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting, in which it is permissible to eat meal-offerings, as we find in the first Chapter of Keilim and in Zevachim 56a.

Even the left-over portions. So much more so that what is burnt on the altar [is prohibited when chometz], as it is clearly written in Parshas Vayikro (2:11). Rashi’s proof [that even the left-over portions are prohibited] is that the word חלקם (their portion) is juxtaposed to “It should not be baked as leavened.”

Like a sin-offering. As it is written (4:24): “It is a sin-offering,” it should remain as it is, [i.e.,] it must be slaughtered for the sake of a sin-offering. However, regarding a guilt offering it says “it is a guilt-offering” only after its fats have been burnt [on the altar], but [the guilt-offering] itself even though its fats have not been burnt is valid (as Rashi explains on 7:5).

To include [kohanim] who have a physical defect. Meaning, they receive a portion of the meal-offering together with the unblemished kohanim, portion for portion. I might have thought they are included only for eating the sacrifices, as it is written (21:22): “The bread of his God which is of the most holy ... he may eat,” but they may not take a share together with the unblemished kohanim, since they are not allowed to bring the sacrifices. Thus, it lets us know...

**And absorb from it.**It is written, “Whatever shall touch,” why then does it say, “them”? Rather, [the extra word them] teaches that it touches and enters into them, [i.e.,] it is absorbed within.

**If it is invalid, they become invalid.**I.e., the place where it touches, but not all of it.

Under the stringent rule [of eating] the meal-offering. That is, it must be eaten within the Temple courtyard, and for but one day and night, until midnight.

Even ordinary kohanim. [Rashi knows this] because why does the Torah say, “and his sons”? Indeed, kohanim gedolim are mentioned when it says (v. 15): “The kohein who is anointed...”

Who is anointed in his stead. Meaning: The phrase, “as a mealoffering, always” is connected with “the kohein who is anointed” (v. 15), and not with “and his sons” (v. 13). If so, their meal-offering is not continual. It is [brought] only on the day of their inauguration, like the day the kohein gadol is anointed, which is the inauguration for the kohein gadol. It is written: “ביום המשח (on the day that he is anointed)” and not מיום המשח (from the day he is anointed), in order to include the inauguration of the ordinary kohanim as well. Otherwise, it should say, “from the day,” because from that day onward the kohein gadol continually offers [the meal-offering].

In an oven and thereupon fries it.[Rashi knows this] because it is written תופני which comprises the words תפי נא (baked raw), implying that it is uncooked. This teaches that it should be uncooked when he bakes it and not fried. Therefore, Rashi explains that it is baked originally and afterwards fried.

Breaking. Although [breaking] is explicitly mentioned, Rashi comes to exclude from Rabbi Shimon’s view that the meal-offering of kohanim and the meal-offering of the anointed kohein do not require breaking, i.e., he should not fold each piece into two and then into fours, etc. since there is no taking of the fistful from these meal-offerings. It is written here only “פתים (broken pieces)” but not “פתות אותו פתים (break it into pieces),” as it does regarding the meal-offering of a Yisroel (2:6).

The one anointed of his sons in his stead. Rashi explains by changing [the order of] the verse because we could have explained המשיח תחתיו — the anointing shall be in his stead. Or, we could have explained it as: “the anointed in his stead of his sons, shall bring the offering,” i.e., the son should bring the offering. Therefore, Rashi explains by changing the verse so that “in his stead” will be connected to “of his sons” and not with “the one anointed”; “in his stead” connotes one person in succession to another (Minchas Yehudah). See Kitzur Mizrachi, Mahara’n, Gur Areyeh, and Divrei Dovid — each one has a unique approach in this. Meaning: According to the verse’s order it would seem that the anointed one in his stead who is one of his sons shall offer this meal-offering, to exclude an anointed one who is not one of his sons — that he should not offer. This cannot be. But now [that Rashi reverses it] it means the anointed of his sons in his stead shall offer it [always], to exclude any of his sons who is not anointed shall not offer it [always] (Kitzur Mizrachi).

**All of it is completely [burnt].**This is to exclude that you should not explain “כליל (completely burnt)” refers to all the meal-offerings, and it means that the fistful of all the mealofferings should be burnt. [Therefore, Rashi explains that the word כליל refers only to this mealoffering,] and כליל means all of it is completely burnt. So too, every meal-offering of a kohein, of a voluntary offering. I.e., not that a kohein’s meal offering should be different than an anointed kohein’s meal offering — that is why Rashi adds: “so too, etc.” — that it is also completely burnt. Rashi adds, “of a voluntary offering,” because without this it would imply: So too the kohein’s obligatory meal offering [is completely burnt], just as the anointed kohein’s [meal offering that is obligatory], but not a voluntary one. Therefore, it lets us know that both of them are completely burnt.

So too, every meal-offering of a kohein. Rashi’s proof is that it is written: “Every mealoffering of a kohein...”

**Equally, to the Most High.**I.e., since it says “shall be completely,” but it did not say whether for the sake of the Most High [burnt on the altar] or for an ordinary person [completely eaten], for this reason Rashi explains it is entirely for the Most High, i.e., it is burnt.

One fit [to perform] the Temple service. Rashi did not explain the verse according to its plain meaning — “[The kohein] who offers it as a sin-offering, shall eat it” — because it is written (v. 22): “Every male among the kohanim may eat it.” We need not ask: Perhaps the one fit for the avodah shall eat it — to exclude a kohein who has a physical blemish, who is not fit. [The answer is:] It is written: “Every male” — to include a kohein with a blemish. Perforce, it comes to exclude an impure kohein who immersed in a mikveh that day [and could eat it at night] — that he has no share. We should not say: Say the opposite! The one who immersed in the mikveh that day may eat at night, but the kohein with a blemish may never eat. [We do not say this because] it is logical that the kohein with a blemish should partake since he is allowed to eat immediately, and to exclude the one who immersed that day who may not eat until the evening. Meaning: It is impossible to say that it means [only the one who offers] should actually eat it, and the one who was impure at the time of the sprinkling [of the blood], who was not fit for the avodah, will be forbidden afterwards from partaking [in the meat of the offering] at all. Because if so, a minor as well, who was not fit for avodah at the time of sprinkling would be forbidden afterwards to eat. And if you would claim that this is so — [it cannot be, for] we include from “Every male” — even a minor — “may eat it.” Rather, here we only exclude that he [i.e., the impure kohein] may not have a share in the meat (Divrei Dovid).

Which touches and absorbs. In Toras Kohanim: You might think that even if it did not absorb, therefore, the Torah says: “In its flesh” — until it absorbs, etc. This Baraisa is brought in Zevachim (97a) (Nachalas Yaakov).

**Bloodspot on the garment.**The verse implies that one is required to sprinkle on the entire garment, but this cannot be. Therefore, Rashi explains: “If...” And the meaning of “ואשר” is: [If] it will have been sprinkled, as Rashi explains nearby. In Toras Kohanim: You might think that the entire garment requires washing, therefore, the Torah says: “Whatever it is sprinkled upon, you shall wash” — the bloodspot requires washing but the entire garment does not require washing.

In the court. As it is written (v. 9): “In a sacred place, in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting.” Perforce, the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting is the “sacred place.”

Becomesנותר****(meat left overnight that is invalid and must be burnt). After the day and the night that follows it. You might ask: Leave it until after daybreak on the morrow when it [the taste absorbed in the vessel’s wall] will give a bad taste (נותן טעם לפגם) and it will not require breaking or scouring! The answer is: Since at daybreak on the morrow the obligation to break or scour is immediate, it does not lapse afterwards (Re’m). With regard to Re’m’s question I stood trembling and astonished. Why is he raising such a difficulty? It is only with respect to [the prohibition of] eating, which depends on the taste of the forbidden food, that it is permitted when it gives a bad taste, since [in this case] he does not benefit. This is not so concerning נותר, which has to be burnt — the main mitzvah of burning is even after its taste has gone bad and it was left longer than its time period. As long as it is in the world he is required to burn it. How would the fact that the taste has gone bad help in this case? Therefore, the Torah commands to break the earthenware vessels and scour and rinse copper vessels so that they will not come to the circumstance of having a bad taste and of being נותר at the time of daybreak. This is because it is prohibited to bring something to the condition of becoming נותר so that it will have to be burnt. How would having a bad taste help to nullify the mitzvah of burning the נותר? It was not that the Torah said the earthenware vessel needs to be broken because it will discharge [the taste of נותר] into the food that is cooked in it afterwards, for certainly, even if he wants to leave it and not cook anything in it afterwards it does not help. Rather, he would be transgressing by causing נותר and he blemishes that which is holy. Therefore, he needs to break the earthenware pot since it is not possible to burn the absorptions of נותר in it (Divrei Dovid).