עור העולה אשר הקריב, לכהן לו יהיה, “the skin of the burnt offering which he presented shall belong to the priest who performed this procedure.” Although this legislation is spelled out only in connection with the burnt offering, the same rule applies to the skins of sin-offerings or guilt-offerings. However, the skin of peace-offerings,זבחי שלמים, belong to the respective owners of the sacrificial animals, not to the priest. Some sages claim that there had been no need for the Torah to spell out that the skins of sin and guilt offerings also belong to the officiating priest, seeing that even a substantial part of the meat of these offerings belongs to the priests. It is natural that the skin, something secondary, always belongs to the party to whom the flesh belongs. Seeing that no meat of the burnt offering belongs to the priest, the Torah had to specifically state that at least the skin does belong to the officiating priest.

וכל מנחה אשר תאפה בתנור, “and any meal-offering that is baked in the oven, etc.” Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text it appears that our verse speaks of someone who had made a vow to bring one of three types of meal offerings, anyone of which is baked in an oven, תנור, a deep pan, מרחשת, or in a shallow pan, מחבת. Either of these meal offerings would belong totally and exclusively to the priest who performs the procedure. In order to avoid errors, the Torah continues with other types of meal-offerings saying that these are shared out equally among the roster, בית אב, of priests performing their duties on that day or during that week.

וכל מנחה בלולה בשמן וחריבה, “and any meal-offering that is mixed with oil, or that is dry, etc.” this refers to a meal offering consisting only of fine flour mixed with oil, or even a totally dry meal offering, one that does not fit into any of the three categories mentioned in the earlier verse. The reason why the three categories of meal offering mentioned in verse nine belong exclusively to the officiating priest is that the preparation of such baked goods requires a great deal more work on the part of the priest, and the Torah rewards him for that work. However, our sages do not accept this kind of reasoning, as they interpret the statement וכל מנחה בלולה בשמן, וחריבה as including every possible category of meal offering baked or not, seeing that every meal offering is either mixed with oil or is dry, and the Torah writes that all the male priests may share in it equally. They therefore understand the words לכהן המקריב אותה לו יהיה to mean that any priests who are qualified to present such an offering, i.e. they are not in a state of ritual impurity are called מקריבים, as they always act as the appointees of the owners, the ones who themselves, personally, are prevented from performing this service due to their not being priests. What is written here concerning who participates in the consuming of the meal offerings, applies equally to the priests who may partake of the meat offerings, i.e. the members of the roster of priests on duty on that day.

והקריב על זבח התודה, “he shall offer with the meat part of the thanksgiving offering, etc.” The thanksgiving offering consists of several parts, a peace offering described as זבח השלמים, breads, both unleavened and leavened. He will bring it all to the (side of) the altar and the leavened loaves will be considered the major component [although they are 10 loaves out of a total of forty loaves. Ed.] The reason that the Torah uses the word עליו, “in addition to it,” stressing that the leavened loaves are the principal component, is because the unleavened loaves outnumber the leavened loaves and we would otherwise have thought that they outrank the leavened loaves in that offering. Nachmanides writes that he is amazed that the Torah did not exclude the thanksgiving offering as one to which the prohibition of bringing it to the altar is applied, just as it did state this in connection with bringing of the בכורים, the first fruit offerings. [I suppose the references are to Leviticus 2,12 where no mention of exceptions are made at all, and Leviticus 23,17 where the Torah specifically exempts this offering by writing it is to consist of leavened loaves. I have not yet found where Nachmanides writes what our author attributes to him. Maybe Nachmanides’ comment on verse 14 is meant. Ed.] Nachmanides poses a problem that is no problem at all, seeing that in the prohibition of leavened products for the altar, the Torah stresses that bringing leavened products to the altar is prohibited. Seeing that the loaves of these offerings mentioned here are not presented on the altar, they are in a different category and cannot be lumped together with the firstling offerings mentioned elsewhere. The loaves of the thanksgiving offering are only heaved by the priest, but not deposited on the altar. Seeing they are all being consumed, what would be the point in depositing them on the altar where things are deposited for burning up? Nachmanides also suggests that seeing that the ריח ניחוח, pleasant fragrance, enjoyed by G’d, is not an issue in these offerings, the donor not having to restore himself in G’d’s grace, there was no need at all to refer to the admissibility or not of leavened products. Perhaps there was not even any cause for the Torah to mention any of this dispensation of the restriction on offering leavened products on the altar, seeing that this offering was accompanied by animal sacrifices which achieved the ריח ניחוח status through the parts of it which were burned up on the altar. At any rate, -Nachmanides- speaking, I have already pointed out earlier that the need for ריח ניחוח is not an issue in voluntary offerings at all, as the people presenting those had not fallen out of grace with G’d, and would not regain their grace except by presenting something described as ריח ניחוח.

ויאכל, וממחרת, והנותר ממנו יאכל, “it shall be consumed, and on the day following; any leftovers may be consumed;” Rashi writes that the letter ו in the word והנותר is superfluous. Nachmanides, on the other hand, writes that he understands as follows: Seeing that the Torah had written that the thanksgiving offering may (or must) be eaten on the same day or the day following, I might have thought that it is a mitzvah to spread the eating of this sacrifice over two days, i.e. the donor eats some of it on each of these days. This is why the Torah refers to the נותר, to any part that had not yet been eaten as a “leftover,” so that we understand that permission to eat the leftover on the second day has been given, but it is certainly not mandatory to keep some of that meat for the second day. At the end of the second day, if there is still some leftover it must be burned.

והנותר מבשר הזבח ביום השלישי באש ישרף. “And what is left over of the meat of the sacrifice on the third day must be burned.” This does not mean that this meat is permitted to be eaten during the night between the second and the third day, seeing that the Torah had already said that it must be eaten during the day on which it was slaughtered or the day following. (verse 16) The meaning of the directive is simply that any sacrificial meat from that offering which has not been consumed during the permitted time must be burned on the third day. The reason the Torah had to be so specific is to teach us that the burning of sacred meats that have not been consumed must only take place by day, not by night. This is so, in spite of the fact, that those remains no longer are fit to be eaten.

כי כל אוכל חלב מן הבהמה אשר יקריב ממנה קרבן לה', “for any one who eats of the fat parts of the animal which he offers to Hashem as a sacrifice, etc.” The verse does not refer to the actual animal that has been offered as a sacrifice, so that it would exclude animals that have not been sanctified as offerings from this prohibition, but to the categories of animals which may potentially be offered as sacrifices on the altar. The fact that the fat of an animal that has already been offered as a sacrifice is forbidden on pain of the karet penalty when it is done deliberately, certainly does not need to be mentioned here. Even in Parshat Vayikra (3,17) the verse כל חלב... לא תאכלו would not have been necessary seeing that the Torah had already commanded that it be burned up on the altar. The principal reason for our verse here is to indicate that the fat parts of free roaming animals such as gazelles, deer, etc., which basically are allowed to be eaten, although capturing them unblemished may be difficult, are excluded from the prohibition. We might have thought that the categories of animals referred to as חיה that is a sub category of the ruminants described by the Torah as בהמה are included in this prohibition. By ”repeating” something we knew already, the Torah by emphasizing the words בהמה and יקריב, makes clear that free-roaming ruminants that do not qualify for יקריב are also not subject to the restriction of חלב. In order for us not to think that the חלב of an animal that died of causes other than ritual slaughter, i.e. a נבלה or an animal that died from some disease or injury, i.e. טרפה, is excluded from the legislation mentioned here, the Torah writes that although these carcasses may be used, they must not be eaten. (verse 24) The complete meaning of our verse is: the חלב of any category of animal from which a sacrifice on the altar may be presented to Hashem, including those which have become disqualified before reaching the altar, must not be eaten on pain of the severe penalty known as karet.

אשר צוה ה' לתת להם ביום משחו אותם, “which Hashem has commanded to give to them on the day of His having anointed them, etc.” The meaning of the words is: “which on the day He ordered them to be anointed, He made their appointment permanent, hereditary, throughout the ages.” Ibn Ezra understands the words ביום משחו as if the Torah had written מיום משחו, “from the day He had anointed them onwards.”

אשר צוה את משה בהר סיני, “that He had commanded Moses at Mount Sinai.” Nachmanides writes that this is to be understood in accordance with the view of our sages that all commandments had been commanded to Moses at Mount Sinai, but that some of them had been repeated to him when G’d spoke to him from above the Holy Ark in the Tent of Testimony. It is possible that the reason why the Torah emphasized “at Mount Sinai,” especially in this instance, is that on this occasion, when the Israelites were still camped around the mountain, speaking to Moses in the Tent of Testimony was basically equivalent to speaking to him from Mount Sinai. This is not the only time when the Torah uses the expression בהר סיני when it does not literally man that the command was (only) issued while Moses was on the mountain. In Numbers 28,6 we find the line עולת תמיד העשויה בהר סיני, “the permanent, (daily) burnt offering presented at Mount Sinai.” [This verse follows the appointment of Eleazar as his father Aaron’s successor as high Priest and a report of his having performed his duties for the first time. well into the 40th year of the Israelites in the desert. Ed.] Performance of this offering could not have commenced at the time Moses received the Torah at Mount Sinai, as it was offered in the Tent of Testimony only close to eleven months after the revelation. The Tent of Testimony had not begun operating until the month of Nissan in the second year. The reason why this slightly misleading wording was chosen, was that at the time when this offering was first introduced as a daily offering the Israelites were still encamped around Mount Sinai [until the 20th of the month following. Ed.] The people were commanded to divide their encampments according to the “flags” of the various army groups of three tribes each in the second year, and only then was the Tabernacle, Tent of Meeting, moved from a location close to where they had encamped ever since the time they arrived near the Mountain, between 3 and 6 days before the revelation. In order to make this distinction even clearer, the Torah writes: (7,37) זאת התורה לעולה, למנחה, ולחטאת ולאשם ולמלואים ולזבח השלמים אשר צוה ה' את משה בהר סיני ביום צוותו את בני ישראל להקריב את קרבניהם לה' במדבר סיני. “This is the law of the burnt offerings, the meal offerings, the sin offering, and the guilt offering, and the inauguration offerings, and the peace offerings on festivals, which Hashem commanded Moses on Mount Sinai, on the day He commanded the Children of Israel to bring their offerings to Hashem, in the wilderness of Sinai.” The Torah makes the point that the location of the Children of Israel at the time was the desert of Sinai, after they had moved away some distance from Mount Sinai. The tent of Meeting therefore was located in “the desert of Sinai,” not next to Mount Sinai. When the Book of Leviticus had commenced with the words: “the Lord spoke to Moses from the Tent of Testimony,” the meaning is that this conversation took place not at Mount Sinai but in the desert not far from Mount Sinai. We had not known the precise location of the Tabernacle at that time until we came to this verse