ויקרא

ויקרא אל משה. לְכָל דִּבְּרוֹת וּלְכָל אֲמִירוֹת וּלְכָל צִוּוּיִים קָדְמָה קְרִיאָה, לְשׁוֹן חִבָּה, לָשׁוֹן שֶׁמַּלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְקָרָא זֶה אֶל זֶה (ישעיהו ו'), אֲבָל לִנְבִיאֵי אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם נִגְלָה עֲלֵיהֶן בִּלְשׁוֹן עֲרָאִי וְטֻמְאָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיִּקָּר אֱלֹהִים אֶל בִּלְעָם (במדבר כ"ג):

ויקרא אל משה AND [THE LORD] CALLED UNTO MOSES — All oral communications of the Lord to Moses whether they are introduced by דבר or by אמר or by צו were preceded by a call (to prepare him for the forthcoming address) (cf Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 1 1-2). It is a way of expressing affection, the mode used by the ministering angels when addressing each other, as it is said (Isaiah 6:3) “And one called unto another [and said, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts]”. To the prophets of the nations of the world, however, God revealed himself in a manner which Scripture describes by an expression ordinarily used for denoting events of a casual character and of uncleanness, as it is said, (Numbers 23:4) “and God happened to meet (ויקר) Balaam” (the term ויקר, from the root ,קרה, is connected with מִקְרֶה which denotes “chance”, “occurrence”, and has also the meaning of “uncleanness”, by analogy with Deuteronomy 23:11: ‎לא יהיה טהור מקרה לילה) (cf. Bereishit Rabbah 52:5).

ויקרא אל משה. הַקּוֹל הוֹלֵךְ וּמַגִּיעַ לְאָזְנָיו וְכָל יִשְֹרָאֵל לֹא שׁוֹמְעִין; יָכוֹל אַף לְהַפְסָקוֹת הָיְתָה קְרִיאָה, תַּ"ל וַיְדַבֵּר — לְדִבּוּר הָיְתָה קְרִיאָה וְלֹא לְהַפְסָקוֹת, וּמֶה הָיוּ הַפְסָקוֹת מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת? לִתֵּן רֶוַח לְמֹשֶׁה לְהִתְבּוֹנֵן בֵּין פָּרָשָׁה לְפָרָשָׁה וּבֵין עִנְיָן לְעִנְיָן; קַ"וָ לְהֶדְיוֹט הַלּוֹמֵד מִן הַהֶדְיוֹט:

ויקרא אל משה AND HE CALLED UNTO MOSES — This implies that the Voice went on and reached his (Moses’s) ears only but all the other Israelites did not hear it). One might think that for the subsections there was also such a call! It, however, states, “[And the Lord called unto Moses] and spake (וידבר) [to him]”, thus intimating that a דבור, a complete section had (was preceded by) a call (e. g., in our text chapters 1—4), but not the subsections. And what purpose did these subsections serve (i. e., why are the larger sections broken up into smaller ones)? To give Moses an interval for reflection between one division and another and between one subject and another — something which is all the more necessary for an ordinary man receiving instruction from an ordinary man (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 1 9).

אליו. לְמַעֵט אֶת אַהֲרֹן; רַ' יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר י"ג דִּבְּרוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בַּתּוֹרָה לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְאַהֲרֹן וּכְנֶגְדָּן נֶאֶמְרוּ י"ג מִעוּטִין, לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁלֹּא לְאַהֲרֹן נֶאֶמְרוּ אֶלָּא לְמֹשֶׁה שֶׁיֹּאמַר לְאַהֲרֹן, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן י"ג מִעוּטִין: לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ, מִדַּבֵּר אֵלָיו, וַיְדַבֵּר אֵלָיו (במדבר ז'), וְנוֹעַדְתִּי לְךָ (שמות כ"ה) — כֻּלָּן בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים. יָכוֹל יִשְׁמְעוּ אֶת קוֹל הַדִּבּוּר תַּ"לֹ קוֹל לוֹ, קוֹל אֵלָיו, מֹשֶׁה שׁוֹמֵעַ וְכָל יִשְֹרָאֵל לֹא שָׁמְעוּ:

אליו TO HIM — This is intended to exclude Aaron. Rabbi Judah said, “Thirteen communications in the Torah are stated, according to the wording of the text, to have been spoken to Moses and Aaron together; but corresponding to these there are thirteen which include expressions with a limitative force to teach you that they were spoken not to Aaron but to Moses only, with the view that he should communicate them to Aaron. The following are the thirteen limitations: (Numbers 7:89) “[And when Moses had come into the appointed tent] that He might speak with him, [then he heard the Voice] speaking unto him … [from between the two cherubim]: and he spoke unto him”; (Exodus 25:22) “and there I will be met by thee”; — all the thirteen instances you will find in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 1. — I might, however, think that they (Aaron and all Israel) heard at least the sound of the Divine utterance (הדבור), even though they could not distinguish the words! However, in the text, Numbers 7:89: וישמע את הקול מדבר אליו,where it might have said לו‎...‎ ה]קול], it says אליו‎‎… ‎ה]קול], “And he heard the voice (הקול) uttering itself (מדבר) right up to him (אליו)” — consequently Moses alone heard the utterance, and all Israel did not hear it) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 8).

מאהל מועד. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיָה הַקּוֹל נִפְסָק וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹצֵא חוּץ לָאֹהֶל; יָכוֹל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַקּוֹל נָמוּךְ, תַּ"ל אֶת הַקּוֹל, מַהוּ הַקּוֹל? הוּא הַקּוֹל הַמְפֹרָשׁ בִּתְהִלִּים קוֹל ה' בַּכֹּחַ קוֹל ה' בֶּהָדָר קוֹל ה' שֹׁבֵר אֲרָזִים (תהילים כ"ט), אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר מֵאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד? מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיָה הַקּוֹל נִפְסָק. כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ וְקוֹל כַּנְפֵי הַכְּרוּבִים נִשְׁמַע עַד הֶחָצֵר הַחִיצֹנָה (יחזקאל י'), יָכוֹל שֶׁהַקּוֹל נָמוּךְ תַּ"ל כְּקוֹל אֵל שַׁדַּי בְּדַבְּרוֹ, אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר עַד הֶחָצֵר הַחִיצֹנָה? שֶׁכֵּוָּן שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ שָׁם הָיָה נִפְסָק:

מאהל מועד FROM THE APPOINTED TENT — This teaches us that the Voice broke off and did not issue beyond the appointed tent. One might think that this was so because the Voice was a very low one! Scripture, however, states, (Numbers 7:89) “[when he entered the tent he heard] the Voice”. What does it mean by the Voice? It was the Voice that is so minutely described in Psalms, (29:4, 5) “The voice of the Lord is powerful; the voice of the Lord is full of majesty. The voice of the Lord breaketh the cedars. But if this be so (that it was a very powerful voice), why does Scripture state, “[and the Lord spoke to him] from the appointed tent” (מאהל מועד and does not state באהל מועד)? Because it intends to tell us that the Voice broke off and that it was heard only in the tent). A similar case we have in Ezekiel that a powerful sound uttered within the Temple was not heard outside: (Ezekiel 10:5) “And the sound of the cherubims’ wings was heard up to the outer court”. One might think then that the sound was a very low one! Scripture, however, continues “as the Voice of the Almighty God when He speaketh”! If this was so why, then, does Scripture state, “[it was heard] up to the outer court only”? Because when it (the sound) reached there it broke off (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 10-11).

מאהל מועד לאמר. יָכוֹל מִכָּל הַבַּיִת, תַּ"ל מֵעַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת, יָכוֹל מֵעַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת כֻּלָּהּ, תַּ"ל מִבֵּין שְׁנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים:

מאהל מועד לאמר [AND THE LORD … SPOKE UNTO HIM] OUT OF THE APPOINTED TENT, SAYING — One might think from this that the Lord spoke to him from the entire house (i.e. from any part of the appointed tent)! Scripture, however, states, (Numbers 6:89) “[and he heard the Voice speaking unto him] from off the covering”. From this, again, one might think that he heard the Voice coming from off the entire covering (from any part of it)! Scripture, however, continues, “from between the two cherubim”. Consequently the words מאהל מועד cannot denote the place from which the Lord spoke to Moses, but the area within which the Voice was heard (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 12).

לאמר. צֵא וֶאֱמֹר לָהֶם דִּבְרֵי כִּבּוּשִׁין — בִּשְׁבִילְכֶם הוּא נִדְבָּר עִמִּי; שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ שֶׁכָּל ל"ח שָׁנָה שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְֹרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר כִּמְנֻדִּים, מִן הַמְרַגְּלִים וָאֵילַךְ, לֹא נִתְיַחֵד הַדִּבּוּר עִם מֹשֶׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיְהִי כַאֲשֶׁר תַּמּוּ כָּל אַנְשֵׁי הַמִּלְחָמָה לָמוּת … וַיְדַבֵּר ה' אֵלַי לֵאמֹר (דברים ב'), אֵלַי הָיָה הַדִּבּוּר. דָּ"אַ צֵא וֶאֱמֹר לָהֶן דְּבָרַי וַהֲשִׁיבֵנִי אִם יְקַבְּלוּם, כְּמָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיָּשֶׁב מֹשֶׁה אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָעָם וְגוֹ' (שמות י"ט):

לאמר SAYING — This implies “Go and speak to them words that will bring them to a subdued frame of mind):‘It is for your sake that He communicates with me’!” And indeed we find this was so; for all the thirty — eight years during which Israel in the wilderness were placed, as it were, under excommunication — from the time of the incident of the spies and onwards — there was no intimate conversation of God with Moses, for it is said, (Deuteronomy 2:16, 17) “So it came to pass, when were consumed all the men of war (i. e. the men who had waged war immediately after the return of the spies; cf. Numbers 14:40—45. It was they and their generation who wandered in the wilderness as though excommunicated) … that the Lord spake unto me, saying, …” — only then was a divine communication again made to me (Sifra). Another explanation of לאמר is that it means “to speak to God”: it implies, “Go and tell them My commands and bring Me back word whether they will accept them, as it is said, (Exodus 19:8) “And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 13).

אדם כי יקריב מכם. כְּשֶׁיַּקְרִיב; בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת נְדָבָה דִּבֵּר הָעִנְיָן:

אדם כי יקריב מכם IF A MAN OF YOU OFFER [AN OFFERING] — This means, when he offers: Scripture is speaking here of free — will offerings (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 4).

אדם. לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? מָה אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן לֹא הִקְרִיב מִן הַגָּזֵל — שֶׁהַכֹּל הָיָה שֶׁלּוֹ — אַף אַתֶּם לֹא תַּקְרִיבוּ מִן הַגָּזֵל (ויקרא רבה):

אדם — Why is this term for “man” employed here? Since אדם also means Adam, its use suggests the following comparison: what was the characteristic of the first man (אדם הראשון)? He did not offer sacrifice of anything acquired by way of robbery, since everything was his! So you, too, shall not offer anything acquired by way of robbery (Leviticus Rabbah 2:7).

הבהמה. יָכוֹל אַף חַיָּה בִּכְלָל, תַּ"לֹ בָּקָר וָצֹאן:

הבהמה [OF] THE BEASTS — One might think that wild beasts are also included! Scripture, however,’ goes on to state, “even of cattle or of sheep” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 6).

מן הבהמה. וְלֹא כֻּלָּהּ — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הָרוֹבֵעַ וְאֶת הַנִּרְבָּע:

מן הבהמה OF THE BEASTS — but not all of them: the phrase, “some of the beasts”) is used in order to exclude male and female animals with which sexual sin has been committed (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 7).

מן הבקר. לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנֶּעֱבָד:

מן הבקר OF THE CATTLE — This serves to exclude an animal which has been worshipped as a god (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 9).

מן הצאן. לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַמֻּקְצָה:

מן הצאן OF THE SHEEP — This serves to exclude an animal set aside for the purpose of being offered to an idol (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 11).

ומן הצאן. לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנּוֹגֵחַ שֶׁהֵמִית; כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לְמַטָּה מִן הָעִנְיָן מִן הַבָּקָר — שֶׁאֵין תַּ"ל — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה (ספרא):

ומן הצאן AND OF THE SHEEP — The ו prefixed to the word is intended to exclude a goring ox that has killed a man. — When Scripture again says lower down in the section, (v. 3) מן הבקר, “of the cattle”, — which word מן it was unnecessary to use, (it would have sufficed to say: 'אם עולה קרבנו זכר וכו) — it is intentionally used to exclude a טרפה (an animal afflicted with a fatal organic disease) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 11).

תקריבו. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁשְּׁנַיִם מִתְנַדְּבִים עוֹלָה בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת:

תקריבו YE SHALL OFFER [YOUR OFFERING] — The plural תקריבו teaches us that two (or more) persons may bring a burnt offering as a free — will gift in partnership (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 3 1).

קרבנכם. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהִיא בָּאָה נִדְבַת צִבּוּר, הִיא עוֹלַת קַיִץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, הַבָּאָה מִן הַמּוֹתָרוֹת (שבועות י"ב):

קרבנכם YOUR OFFERING — This teaches us) that it (the עולה) may also be offered as a free-will gift of the community (not of individuals only). This was the burnt offering bearing the name of “the summer - fruit offering”) of the altar which had to be supplied from the surplus of the levy upon the people (cf. Shevuot 12a, Shevuot 12b).

זכר. וְלֹא נְקֵבָה; כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר זָכָר לְמַטָּה — שֶׁאֵין תַּ"לֹ — זָכָר וְלֹא טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס:

זכר A MALE, but not a female. When Scripture mentions again lower down. (v. 10) that the sacrifice shall be זכר, a male, — which appears unnecessary to state, — it intends to say: a male, but not an animal whose sex is indeterminate or which is a hermaphrodite (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 3 9; Bekhorot 41b).

תמים. בְּלֹא מוּם:

תמים means WITHOUT BLEMISH,

אל פתח אהל מועד. מְטַפֵּל בַּהֲבָאָתוֹ עַד הָעֲזָרָה; מַהוּ אוֹמֵר יַקְרִיב יַקְרִיב? אֲפִלּוּ נִתְעָרְבָה עוֹלַת רְאוּבֵן בְּעוֹלַת שִׁמְעוֹן יַקְרִיב כָּל אֶחָד לְשֵׁם מִי שֶׁהוּא, וְכֵן עוֹלָה בְּחֻלִּין, יִמָּכְרוּ הַחֻלִּין לְצָרְכֵי עוֹלוֹת, וַהֲרֵי הֵן כֻּלָּן עוֹלוֹת, וְתִקְרַב כָּל אֶחָד לְשֵׁם מִי שֶׁהוּא; יָכוֹל אֲפִלּוּ נִתְעָרְבָה בִּפְסוּלִין אוֹ בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ" (ספרא):

אל פתח אהל מועד [HE SHALL BRING IT NEAR] UNTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE APPOINTED TENT — He himself must attend to bringing it right up to the forecourt (where it is handed over to the priests). What is the force of Scripture using the term יקריב twice (יקריבנו and יקריב אתו; it might suffice to say:‎תמים זכר ‎'יקריבנו אל פתח אהל מועד לרצונו וכו‎)?! It is intended to intimate that even in case the burnt offering of Reuben has become mixed up with that of Simeon so that they cannot be identified, nevertheless each must bring one of the animals to the forecourt on behalf of him to whom it really belongs). Similarly if a burnt offering has been mixed up with non-consecrated animals, the non — consecrated ones must be sold for עולה purposes (they are sold to people who have voluntarily undertaken to offer an עולה), and thus all of them become burnt offerings and each is now brought on behalf of him to whom it belongs (cf. Mishna Zevachim 8:1). One might think that this must also be done if it (an animal intended to be a burnt offering) became mixed up with animals unfit for sacrifice (with those mentioned above as excluded from the category of sacrifices) or with a different kind of sacrifices (e.g., peace — offerings)! Scripture. however, states,יקריבנו, “he shall bring it) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 3 13).

יקריב אתו. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ, יָכוֹל בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "לִרְצוֹנוֹ", הָא כֵּיצַד? כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר רוֹצֶה אֲנִי (שם):

יקריב אתו HE SHALL OFFER IT — This apparently superfluous word (אתו) teaches us that they (the בי"ד) must put pressure upon him to bring it if he is remiss in bringing the sacrifice he had promised. One might think that this means that they shall force him against his will! Scripture, however, states, לרצונו “[he must bring it] so that it shall be favourably accepted for him”. How is this possible? They press him until he says, “I wish to do it” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 3 15).

לפני ה' וסמך. אֵין סְמִיכָה בְּבָמָה (שם):

‎'לפני ה‎ וסמך [HE SHALL OFFER] IT …] BEFORE THE LORD (4) AND HE SHALL LAY [HIS HAND UPON THE HEAD OF THE SACRIFICE] - This implies that there is no "laying of hands" upon an animal sacrifice on a private "high place" (במה; at the time when sacrifice was permissible on such) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 1)

על ראש העלה. לְהָבִיא עוֹלַת חוֹבָה לִסְמִיכָה וּלְהָבִיא עוֹלַת הַצֹּאן (שם):

על ראש העולה UPON THE HEAD OF THE BURNT OFFERING — This is intended to include an obligatory burnt offering also in the law of סמיכה (laying hands on the head of the sacrifice) as well as to include a sheep that is offered as a free — will burnt offering (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 3-5).

העלה. פְּרָט לְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף (שם):

העלה THE BURNT OFFERING — This implies the exclusion of a bird offered as a burnt offering (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 7).

ונרצה לו. עַל מָה הוּא מְרַצֶּה לוֹ? אִם תֹּאמַר עַל כָּרֵתוֹת וּמִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין אוֹ מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם אוֹ מַלְקוּת, הֲרֵי עָנְשָׁן אָמוּר, הָא אֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה אֶלָּא עַל עֲשֵֹה וְעַל לָאו שֶׁנִּתַּק לַעֲשֵֹה (שם):

‎ ונרצה לו AND PROPITIATION SHALL BE EFFECTED FOR HIM — For what kind of sins does it (the עולת נדבה) effect propitiation for him? Should you say, “for such as make him liable to excision, or to execution by the court, or to the death penalty through the Heavenly Judge, or to lashes, surely, you see that the punishment for those sins is expressly stated and it is that and not the sacrifice which effects propitiation! Consequently it can only propitiate for the neglect of a positive command and for the transgression of “a prohibition transformed into a positive command” (לאו הניתק לעשה, a prohibitive law the transgression of which can be repaired by a succeeding act) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 8).

ושחט והקריבו, הכהנים. מִקַּבָּלָה וָאֵילַךְ מִצְוַת כְּהֻנָּה — לִמֵּד עַל הַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁרָה בְּזָר (שם):

הכהנים …‎ושחט …והקריבו AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER … AND THE PRIESTS SHALL OFFER [THE BLOOD] — All the rites from “receiving the blood in a vessel” (which is implied in והקריבו) and onwards are the duty of the priesthood. This teaches about the slaughtering that it is valid even if performed by a layman (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 2; Zevachim 32a).

לפני ה'. בַּעֲזָרָה:

'‎לפני ה‎‎‎ means in the forecourt.

והקריבו. זוֹ קַבָּלָה, שֶׁהִיא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וּמַשְׁמָעָהּ לְשׁוֹן הוֹלָכָה, לָמַדְנוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן:

והקריבו AND [THE PRIESTS] SHALL OFFER [THE BLOOD] — This must refer to “receiving the blood in a vessel”, since this is the first rite mentioned after the slaughtering of the animal, but really it implies the bringing of the blood to the altar; we thus learn that both of them (receiving of the blood and bringing it to the altar) as well as all the succeeding rites are priestly duties (cf. Zevachim 4a):

בני אהרן. יָכוֹל חֲלָלִים, תַּ"ל הַכֹּהֲנִים:

בני אהרן — One might think that these duties may be performed also by חללים (priests who have lost their priestly status for reasons connected with their birth or marriage)! Scripture, however, adds הכהנים, the priests (i.e. they must not only be descendants of Aaron but also “priests” — fit for priesthood, and חללים are excluded from priestly functions) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 6).

את הדם וזרקו את הדם. מַה תַּ"ל דָּם דָּם שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים? לְהָבִיא אֶת שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמִינוֹ אוֹ בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ, יָכוֹל אַף בִּפְסוּלִים אוֹ בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת אוֹ בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנִיּוֹת, שֶׁאֵלּוּ לְמַעְלָה וְהִיא לְמַטָּה, תַּ"ל בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר דָּמוֹ (זבחים פ"א):

את הדם …וזרקו את הדם [AND THE PRIESTS … SHALL OFFER] THE BLOOD AND SHALL SPRINKLE THE BLOOD — Why does Scripture use the word דם twice (instead of saying והקריבו את הדם וזרקוהו)? In order to include in the command of sprinkling also the blood of an עולה which has been commingled with blood of the same kind of sacrifice (i. e. with the blood of another burnt offering) or with that of a different kind (that of a peace — offering or a guilt — offering). One might think that this law applies also if it has been commingled with that of sacrifices unfit for sacrifice or with that of sin — offerings whose blood has to be sprinkled in the “Interior’ (the Holy Place) or with that of sin — offerings whose blood has to be sprinkled outside (in the court), although these (i. e., the blood of the (חטאות פנימיות וחיצוניות) has to be sprinkled above the red line (that marks the division between the upper and the lower halves of the altar) and it (the blood of the עולה) below! Scripture, however, states of an עולה in another place (v. 11) ‘‘[and he shall sprinkle] its blood (דמו)” (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 7-8; Zevachim 81).

וזרקו. עוֹמֵד לְמַטָּה וְזוֹרֵק מִן הַכְּלִי לְכֹתֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְמַטָּה מִחוּט הַסִּקְרָא כְּנֶגֶד הַזָּוִיּוֹת, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר סָבִיב — שֶׁיְּהֵא הַדָּם נָתוּן בְּאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ; אוֹ יָכוֹל יַקִּיפֶנּוּ כְּחוּט, תַּ"ל וְזָרְקוּ וְאִי אֶפְשַׁר לְהַקִּיף בִּזְרִיקָה, אִי וְזָרְקוּ יָכוֹל בִּזְרִיקָה אַחַת, תַּ"ל סָבִיב, הָא כֵּיצַד? נוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע (ספרא):

וזרקו AND [THE PRIESTS] … SHALL DASH [THE BLOOD ROUND ABOUT] — He (the priest) stands below and dashes the blood from the vessel upon the altar wall below the red line over against the two diagonally opposite corners (the north — east and the south — west corners so that there is blood on the four sides). That is what Scripture means when it says, סביב, “round about” — that the blood shall be put upon all the four sides of the altar. Or I might think that it means he (the priest) shall place it (the blood) right round the altar as a line! Scripture, however, states, וזרקו, “and they shall dash [the blood]” (i. e. fling it; cf. Exodus 9:8; thus implying that he must be standing some distance away), and it is impossible to put it right round the altar by flinging it against it. — The explanation given above as to how it was actually done is arrived at by the following argument: If we go only by the meaning of the word וזרקו alone, one might have thought that it would suffice with one “flinging” only (that we need merely fling the blood against one side of the altar)! Scripture, however, adds סביב, “round about”! How then can this be done? He makes two flingings but in such a manner that they virtually constitute four, as stated above). (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 9)

אשר פתח אהל מועד. וְלֹא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מְפֹרָק (שם):

אשר פתח אוהל מועד {AND THEY SHALL SPRINKLE THE BLOOD ROUND ABOUT THE ALTAR} THAT IS BY THE ENTRANCE OF THE APPOINTED TENT — but not at times when it (the appointed tent) had already been dismantled, even though the altar itself were still in position, for then it is not by the entrance of the appointed tent (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 14).

והפשיט וגו'. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר הָעוֹלָה? לְרַבּוֹת אֶת כָּל הָעוֹלוֹת לְהֶפְשֵׁט וְנִתּוּחַ:

'‎והפשיט וגו‎ AND HE SHALL FLAY [THE BURNT OFFERING] — Why does it state “the burnt offering” (instead of merely saying, והפשיטה, “and he shall flay it”)? In order to include all burnt offerings (i. e. all עולות בהמה, whether they be free — will or obligatory, whether they are taken מן הבקר or מן הצאן, whether brought by a man or by a woman, by a free Israelite or by an Israelite עבד) in the law of flaying and dismembering (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 2; cf. Note 3 on העולה v. 4).

אתה לנתחיה. וְלֹא נְתָחֶיהָ לִנְתָחִים (ספרא):

אתה לנתחיה AND HE SHALL SEVER IT INTO ITS PIECES — he shall sever it etc. but not its pieces again into smaller pieces (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 7).

ונתנו … אש. אַעַ"פִּי שֶׁהָאֵשׁ יוֹרֶדֶת מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם מִצְוָה לְהָבִיא מִן הַהֶדְיוֹט (שם):

אש … ‎ונתנו AND [THE SONS OF AARON …] SHALL PUT FIRE [ON THE ALTAR] — Although the fire descended from heaven, it was nevertheless a religious duty to bring also some fire of profane origin (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 10; Yoma 21b; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 10:2 and Note thereon).

בני אהרן הכהן. כְּשֶׁהוּא בְּכִהוּנוֹ, הָא אִם עָבַד בְּבִגְדֵי כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה:

בני אהרן הכהן THE SONS OF AARON THE PRIEST — They shall place the fire on the altar as sons of Aaron the priest: implying that Aaron should always minister in his priestly dignity (i. e. when attired in his priestly garments), consequently if he officiated in the garments of an ordinary priest his service is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 9; Zevachim 18a).

בני אהרן הכהנים. כְּשֶׁהֵם בְּכִהוּנָם, הָא כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁעָבַד בִּשְׁמוֹנָה בְּגָדִים עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה (זבחים י"ח):

בני אהרן הכהנים THE SONS OF AARON THE PRIESTS — i e. only as priests : when they are ministering in their priestly dignity; but if an ordinary priest officiates in the eight garments of the High Priest his service is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 9; Zevachim 18a).

את הנתחים את הראש. לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הָרֹאשׁ בִּכְלַל הֶפְשֵׁט, שֶׁכְּבָר הֻתַּז בִּשְׁחִיטָה, לְפִיכָךְ הֻצְרַךְ לִמְנוֹתוֹ לְעַצְמוֹ (חולין כ"ז):

את הראש את הנתחים [AND THE PRIESTS … SHALL SET] THE PIECES, THE HEAD etc. [IN ORDER] — Since the head was not included in the law prescribing flaying (v. 6) as it was already as good as cut off by the act of slaughter, it therefore was necessary to enumerate it separately here since Scripture wishes every part of the animal to be put on the altar (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 3; Chullin 27a).

ואת הפדר. לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁמַּעֲלֵהוּ עִם הָרֹאשׁ וּמְכַסֶּה בּוֹ אֶת בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה, וְזֶהוּ דֶּרֶךְ כָּבוֹד שֶׁל מַעְלָה (שם):

ואת הפדר AND THE FAT — Why is this mentioned separately (is it not included in the word הנתחים)? In order to teach you that he must bring it up on the altar together with the head, and that with it he must cover the throat of the animal (בית השחיטה, lit., the place where the act of slaughter was performed). This (covering the cut in the throat) was done in way of regard for God on high (Chullin 27a).

אשר על המזבח. שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ הַגְּזִירִין יוֹצְאִין חוּץ לַמַּעֲרָכָה (ספרא):

אשר על המזבח WHICH IS UPON THE ALTAR — upon the altar: this implies that the logs of wood must not project beyond the woodpile (מערכה) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 5).

עלה. לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה יַקְטִירֶנּוּ:

עלה [AND THE PRIEST SHALL CAUSE ALL TO ASCEND IN FUMES ON THE ALTAR, TO BE] A BURNT OFFERING — i. e. only with the intention that it should be an עולה shall he burn it (and not that it should be an offering of another class. The words are to be translated: he shall burn it as an עולה) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 10).

אשה. כְּשֶׁיִּשְׁחֲטֶנּוּ יְהֵי שׁוֹחֲטוֹ לְשֵׁם הָאֵשׁ; וְכָל אִשֶּׁה לְשׁוֹן אֵשׁ, פוש"ייר בְּלַעַז:

אשה AS A FIRE OFFERING — When he slaughters it he shall slaughter it with the intention of making a fire of it (i. e. having in mind the fact that it is to become a prey to the flames, not that it will become charred flesh) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 10). The word אשה wherever it occurs, is connected with אש, feuchère in O. F.

ניחוח. נַחַת רוּחַ לְפָנַי, שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי וְנַעֲשָֹה רְצוֹנִי (שם):

ניחוח (of the root נוח, “to repose”, “to draw satisfaction from …”) — an odour of ניחוח: one that causes satisfaction to Me by the knowledge that I gave commands and that My will was executed (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 10; Zevachim 46b).

ואם מן הצאן. וי"ו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן, וְלָמָּה הֻפְסַק? לִתֵּן רֶוַח לְמֹשֶׁה לְהִתְבּוֹנֵן בֵּין פָּרָשָׁה לְפָרָשָׁה (שם):

ואם מן הצאן AND IF [HIS OFFERING BE] OF THE SHEEP — The ו (of אם) adds something to the former subject (i. e. shows that this is a continuation of it). Why, then, is there a break between the two paragraphs (i. e. why does the following form a separate paragraph)? In order to give Moses an interval between the one section and the next section to reflect upon what has already been said (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 5 1).

מן הצאן, מן הכשבים, מן העזים. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ ג' מִעוּטִין — פְּרָט לְזָקֵן וּלְחוֹלֶה וְלִמְזֹהָם (שם):

מן הצאן, מן הכבשים, מן העזים — You have here these three words of limitating force (the three — fold “מן”; cf. Note on v. 1); they serve respectively to exclude an old, a sick and a malodorous animal from those that may be sacrificed (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 5 2; Bekhorot 41a).

על ירך המזבח. עַל צַד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:

על ירך המזבח means ON THE SIDE OF THE ALTAR (cf. Rashi on Exodus 40:22).

צפנה לפני ה'. וְאֵין צָפוֹן בְּבָמָה (שם):

'צפנה לפני ה NORTHWARD BEFORE THE LORD — but the law of slaughtering northward is not necessarily applicable in the case of a “Bamah” (i. e. an animal offered on a “Bamah” as an עולה need not be slaughtered at its north side, for it states here: northward before the Lord, the last words being used only of the Tabernacle and the Temple; cf. Zevachim 119b and Rashi on 'לפני ה‎ וסמך, v. 3).

מן העוף. וְלֹא כָּל הָעוֹף; לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר תָּמִים זָכָר בַּבָּקָר בַּכְּשָׂבִים וּבָעִזִּים — תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בִּבְהֵמָה וְאֵין תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בְּעוֹפוֹת — יָכוֹל אַף מְחֻסַּר אֵבֶר, תַּ"ל מִן הָעוֹף (שם):

מן העוף [AND IF A BURNT OFFERING … BE] OF FOWLS — of (i.e. of some of) but not of every description of fowls (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1.2 and Rashi on Leviticus 1:10). Since Scripture states, (Leviticus 22:19) “[Ye shall offer, to be accepted for you,] a male without blemish (תמים זכר) of the oxen, of the sheep and of the goats”, it is evident (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1.2 and Rashi on Leviticus 1:10) that unblemished condition and male sex in sacrifices are required only in the case of cattle, but unblemished condition and male sex are not required in the case of fowls. If, then, the condition of the fowl is immaterial one might think that a fowl may be brought as a sacrifice even if it lacks a limb! Scripture therefore states: “of fowls” — but not all fowls (Sifra, Emor, Section 7 2; Kiddushin 24b).

תרים. גְּדוֹלִים וְלֹא קְטַנִּים:

התרים TURTLEDOVES — Grown-up ones only may be offered but not young ones.

בני יונה. קְטַנִּים וְלֹא גְּדוֹלִים:

בני יונה YOUNG DOVES — Young doves only may be offered but not grown-up ones (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 8 4; Chullin 22a).

מן התרים או מן בני היונה. פְּרָט לִתְחִלַּת הַצִּהוּב שֶׁבָּזֶה וְשֶׁבָּזֶה שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל, שֶׁגָּדוֹל הוּא אֵצֶל בְּנֵי יוֹנָה וְקָטָן אֵצֶל תּוֹרִים (חולין כ"ב):

מן התרים או מן בני היונה OF TURTLEDOVES AND OF YOUNG DOVES — The word מן is intended to exclude birds in the first stage of their plumage becoming golden-coloured in the case of the one as of the other, for this stage makes the bird unfit for sacrifice, since such a bird is a grown-up one in the case of בני יונה and a young one in the case of תורים (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 8 5; Chullin 22b).

והקריבו. אֲפִלּוּ פְּרֵדָה אַחַת יָבִיא (ספרא):

והקריבו [AND THE PRIEST] SHALL OFFER IT — It — even a single bird he may offer (not necessarily more than one, as might be assumed from the plural תורים and בני יונה) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 1; Zevachim 65a).

הכהן, ומלק. אֵין מְלִיקָה בִּכְלִי אֶלָּא בְּעַצְמוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן, קוֹצֵץ בְּצִפָּרְנוֹ מִמּוּל הָעֹרֶף וְחוֹתֵךְ מַפְרַקְתּוֹ עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַסִּימָנִין וְקוֹצְצָן (שם):

הכהן … ומלק THE PRIEST SHALL … NIP OFF [ITS HEAD] — The nipping of the bird’s head must not be done with an instrument but by the priest’s very self:) he nips with his finger-nail close by the nape, cuts right through the neck-bone until he comes to the “organs” (the wind pipe and the gullet) and cuts them through too (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 3; Zevachim 65a).

ונמצה דמו. לְשׁוֹן מִיץ אַפַּיִם (משלי ל'), כִּי אָפֵס הַמֵּץ (ישעיהו ט"ז), כּוֹבֵשׁ בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה עַל קִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהַדָּם מִתְמַצֶּה וְיוֹרֵד (זבחים ס"ה):

ונמצה דמו AND THE BLOOD THEREOF SHALL BE WRUNG OUT — The word ונמצה is connected in meaning with (Proverbs 30:33) “the pressing out (מיץ) of wrath”; (Isaiah 16:4) “for extortion (המץ) is at an end). — He presses the place where the neck has been cut (בית השחיטה) against the wall and the blood thus drains itself out) and runs down the wall (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 7; Zevachim 64b).

ומלק, והקטיר, ונמצה. אֶ"לֹ כֵּן מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא מַקְטִיר הוּא מוֹצֶה? אֶלָּא מַה הַקְטָרָה הָרֹאשׁ בְּעַצְמוֹ וְהַגּוּף בְּעַצְמוֹ, אַף מְלִיקָה כֵּן. וּפְשׁוּטוֹ שֶׁל מִקְרָא מְסֹרָס הוּא — וּמָלַק וְהִקְטִיר, וְקֹדֶם הַקְטָרָה וְנִמְצָה דָמוֹ כְּבָר:

ומלק … והקטיר …ונמצה AND HE SHALL NIP OFF … AND CAUSE IT TO ASCEND IN FUMES … AND [THE BLOOD] SHALL BE WRUNG OUT — Is it possible to say so? Since he has burnt it can he squeeze the blood out?! But the wording is intended to suggest the following: How is it with the burning of the sacrifice? The head is separate and the body is separate (since it states here ומלק את ראשו והקטיר, and in v. 17 it is enjoined והקטיר אתו i. e. the body; vv. 16—17 speaking of the rites performed on the body)! So, too, the nipping has to be thus (i. e. has to have the effect of severing the head from the body so that it may be burnt apart from the body; the מליקה accordingly denotes here complete severance, whilst in 5:8 this is forbidden. The translation therefore is: and he shall nip off the head so that he may burn it on the altar) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 5; Zevachim 65a). According to the literal sense of the verse, however, the wording is inverted: he shall nip off [the head] and burn it, and before the burning the blood shall have been pressed out already (ונמצה has therefore a future-perfect meaning: “and its blood shall have been pressed out”).

מראתו. מְקוֹם הָרְעִי, זֶה הַזֶּפֶק (ספרא):

מראתו [AND HE SHALL REMOVE] ITS CROP — The word is connected in meaning with the word רעי in Rabbinical Hebrew (or the Biblical ראי; cf. Nahum 3:6); it thus denotes the place of the רעי, the digested food, i. e. the crop (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 9).

בנצתה. עִם בְּנֵי מֵעֶיהָ, וְנוֹצָה לְשׁוֹן דָּבָר הַמָּאוּס, כְּמוֹ כִּי נָצוּ גַּם נָעוּ (איכה ד'), וְזֶהוּ שֶׁתִּרְגֵּם אֻנְקְלוֹס בְּאוּכְלֵיהּ; וְזֶהוּ מִדְרָשׁוֹ שֶׁל אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן חָנָן שֶׁאָמַר נוֹטֵל אֶת הַקֻּרְקְבָן עִמָּהּ; וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִ"לִ אָמְרוּ קוֹדֵר סְבִיב הַזֶּפֶק בְּסַכִּין כְּעֵין אֲרֻבָּה וְנוֹטְלוֹ עִם הַנּוֹצָה שֶׁעַל הָעוֹר (ספרא); בְּעוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת אֶלָּא בְּאֵבוּס בְּעָלֶיהָ, נֶאֱמַר וְהַקֶּרֶב וְהַכְּרָעַיִם יִרְחַץ בַּמָּיִם וְהִקְטִיר, וּבָעוֹף שֶׁנָּזוֹן מִן הַגָּזֵל, נֶאֱמַר וְהִשְלִיךְ אֶת הַמֵּעַיִם, שֶׁאָכַל מִן הַגָּזֵל (ויקרא רבה ג'):

בנצתה means together with its entrails (not with its feathers which meaning the word נוצה usually has). The word נוצה is really an expression for anything that is loathsome. Similar is (Lamentations 4:15) “[depart, depart, touch not:] for they are become loathsome (נצו) and are fled away”.) That is also what Onkelos means when he translates באוכליה, “with the digested food” found in the entrails (excrement). This, too, is the interpretation of the verse given by Abba José ben Chanan who states: he removes the stomach (being the organ which contains digested food) together with it (the crop). But our Rabbis, of blessed memory, taking נוצה; in its usual sense of “feathers”, say: with a knife he cuts out around the crop an opening like a flap and removes it together with the feathers on the skin (of that spot) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 9; Zevachim 65a). — In the case of the burnt offering of the cattle which eats only from the crib of its owner it is stated, (v. 13) “But he shall lave the inwards and the legs with water: and [the priest] shall offer it”; in the case of a fowl, however, which feeds itself from what it picks up of other people’s property (lit., “of robbery”) it states, “he shall cast the entrails away”, because it (the bird) eats that which is stolen (Leviticus Rabbah 3 4).

אצל המזבח קדמה. בְּמִזְרָחוֹ שֶׁל כֶּבֶשׁ (ספרא):

אצל המזבח קדמה BESIDE THE ALTAR ON THE EAST — i. e. at the east of the כבש (the inclined ascent leading to the top of the altar which was on the south of the altar) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 9 3).

אל מקום הדשן. מָקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין שָׁם תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן בְּכָל בֹּקֶר וְדִשּׁוּן מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי וְהַמְּנוֹרָה, וְכֻלָּם נִבְלָעִים שָׁם בִּמְקוֹמָן:

אל מקום הדשן BY THE PLACE OF THE ASHES — i. e. that place where they deposited the ashes removed from the altar (תרומת הדשן) each morning (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 6:3, 4) and the ashes removed from the inner altar and the candelabrum (Meilah 12a;Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 9 3). All these miraculously sunk there in their place (i. e. on the very spot where they were deposited) (Yoma 21a).

ושסע. אֵין שִׁסּוּעַ אֶלָּא בַּיָּד, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר בְּשִׁמְשׁוֹן וַיְשַׁסְּעֵהוּ כְּשַׁסַּע הַגְּדִי וְגוֹ' (שופטים י"ד):

ושסע AND HE SHALL CLEAVE [IT] — The term שסע is used only for rending with the hands. Similarly it states in the story of Samson (Judges 14:6) “and he rent him (וישסעהו) as he would have rent a kid” (Zevachim 65b).

בכנפיו. עִם כְּנָפָיו — אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִמְרֹט כַּנְפֵי נוֹצָתוֹ:

בכנפיו means: he shall rend it together with its feathers he need not pluck out the feathers that form its plumage before doing so.

בכנפיו. נוֹצָה מַמָּשׁ; וַהֲלֹא אֵין לְךָ הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁמֵּרִיחַ רֵיחַ כְּנָפַיִם נִשְֹרָפִים וְאֵין נַפְשׁוֹ קָצָה עָלָיו, וְלָמָּה אָמַר הַכָּתוּב יַקְרִיב? כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שָֹבֵעַ וּמְהֻדָּר בְּקָרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁל עָנִי (ויק"ר ג'):

בכנפיו means actually the feathers (not the wings). But surely you will not find even a common sort of man who can smell the odour of burnt feathers without being disgusted with it! Why, then, does Scripture say that it shall be offered with the feathers? In order that the altar should appear full up, as it were, and adorned with the sacrifice of the poor (since the bird with its feathers makes a finer show than without them) (Leviticus Rabbah 3:5).

לא יבדיל. אֵינוֹ מְפָרְקוֹ לְגַמְרֵי, לִשְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת, אֶלָּא קוֹרְעוֹ מִגַּבּוֹ; נֶאֱמַר בָּעוֹף רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ וְנֶאֱמַר בַּבְּהֵמָה רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, לוֹמַר לְךָ אֶחָד הַמַּרְבֶּה וְאֶחָד הַמַּמְעִיט וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּכַוֵּן אֶת לִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם (ספרא):

לא יבדיל BUT HE SHALL NOT SEPARATE IT — he must not break it entirely into two pieces, but only rends it from behind. — It is stated here of a bird-offering “a pleasing odour [to the Lord]” and it is stated (v. 13) of an animal-sacrifice “a pleasing odour [to the Lord]”, to tell you: whether one offers much or little it is equally pleasing to God provided that he directs his heart to Heaven (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 9 7; Menachot 110a).

ונפש כי תקריב. לֹא נֶאֱמַר נֶפֶשׁ בְּכָל קָרְבְּנוֹת נְדָבָה אֶלָּא בַּמִּנְחָה, מִי דַּרְכּוֹ לְהִתְנַדֵּב מִנְחָה? עָנִי. אָמַר הַקָּבָּ"ה, מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עָלָיו כְּאִלּוּ הִקְרִיב נַפְשׁוֹ (מנחות ק"ד):

ונפש כי תקריב AND WHEN A PERSON (or “A SOUL”) WILL OFFER — Nowhere is the word נפש employed in connection with free-will offerings except in connection with the meal-offering. For who is it that usually brings a meal-offering? The poor man! The Holy One, blessed be He, says, as it were, I will regard it for him as though he brought his very soul (נפש) as an offering (Menachot 104b).

סלת יהיה קרבנו. הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה סְתָם, מֵבִיא מִנְחַת סֹלֶת, שֶׁהִיא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁבַּמְּנָחוֹת וְנִקְמֶצֶת כְּשֶׁהִיא סֹלֶת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁמְּפֹרָשׁ בָּעִנְיָן; לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ כָּאן חֲמִשָּׁה מִינֵי מְנָחוֹת, וְכֻלָּן בָּאוֹת אֲפוּיוֹת קֹדֶם קְמִיצָה חוּץ מִזּוֹ, לְכָךְ קְרוּיָה מִנְחַת סֹלֶת:

סלת יהיה קרבנו [AND WHEN A PERSON WILL OFFER A MEAL OFFERING] HIS OFFERING SHALL BE OF SIFTED FINE FLOUR — i. e. if one says, “I take upon myself the obligation to bring a מנחה”, without further defining it, he must bring that which is termed “the meal-offering of fine sifted flour” (מנחת סלת) which is that mentioned first among the different meal-offerings) since the קומץ is taken from it whilst it is yet flour (whilst in the case of other meal-offerings this is done after they have been baked), as is explained further on in this section (cf. Menachot 104b). — Because there are five different meal-offerings enumerated here all of which had to be brought ready baked beforẹ the קמץ was taken of them with the exception of this, therefore this alone is technically termed “a meal-offering of flour’ (though the others too had to be made of sifted fine flour).

סלת. אֵין סֹלֶת אֶלָּא מִן הַחִטִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר סֹלֶת חִטִּים (שמות כ"ט), וְאֵין מִנְחָה פְּחוּתָה מֵעִשָּׂרוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְעִשָּׂרוֹן סֹלֶת … לְמִנְחָה (ויקרא י"ד) — עִשָּׂרוֹן לְכָל מִנְחָה:

סלת — The term סלת always denotes “fine flour of wheat”, as it is said, (Exodus 29:2) “fine flour (סלת) of wheat” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 10 2). No meal-offering is ever less than one tenth part of an ephah of flour, as it said, (Leviticus 14:21) “and one tenth deal of flour … for a meal-offering”, i. e. there must be a tenth part for every kind of meal-offering (cf. Menachot 99a).

ויצק עליה שמן. עַל כֻּלָּהּ:

ויצק עליה שמן AND HE SHALL POUR OIL UPON IT — upon the whole of it (of the flour) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 10 14),

ונתן עליה לבנה. עַל מִקְצָתָהּ — מַנִּיחַ קֹמֶץ לְבוֹנָה עָלֶיהָ לְצַד אֶחָד. וּמָה רָאִיתָ לוֹמַר כֵּן? שֶׁאֵין רִבּוּי אַחַר רִבּוּי בַּתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט; דָּ"אַ: שֶׁמֶן עַל כֻּלָּהּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נִבְלָל עִמָּהּ וְנִקְמָץ עִמָּהּ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מִסָּלְתָּהּ וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ, וּלְבוֹנָה עַל מִקְצָתָהּ, שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִבְלֶלֶת עִמָּהּ וְלֹא נִקְמֶצֶת עִמָּהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עַל כָּל לְבֹנָתָהּ, שֶׁלְּאַחַר שֶׁקָּמַץ מְלַקֵּט אֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה כֻּלָּהּ מֵעָלֶיהָ וּמַקְטִירָהּ (ספרא):

ונתן עליה לבנה AND PUT FRANKINCENSE THEREON — upon a part of it: he lays a fistful of frankincense upon one side of it. And what reason have you (lit., what do you see) to say so? Because there is a rule: when in the Torah a רבוי, i. e. a term usually intended to include a particular detail) follows one of a similarly inclusive character, the latter implies a restriction). Another explanation of why I say that oil has to be poured upon the whole meal-offering is, because it (the oil) has to be mingled with it (the מנחה) and has to undergo the קמיצה (the taking of a fistful of the mass) together with it, as it is stated, “[and he shall take thereout by grasping a fistful] of the flour thereof and of the oil thereof”; frankincense, however, has to be put only upon a part of it, since it is not mingled with it and has not to undergo the קמיצה together with it, because it is said immediately afterwards, “besides (i. e. in addition to) all the frankincense thereof” (cf. Rashi on that passage), — which implies that after he had taken the קמץ he picks all the frankincense from off it and offers it (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 10 14-18; cf. also Sota 14b)

ויצק, ונתן, והביאה. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁיְּצִיקָה וּבְלִילָה כְּשֵׁרִים בְּזָר (שם):

. … ויצק ונתן … והביאה AND HE SHALL POUR … AND HE SHALL PUT … AND then HE SHALL BRING IT [TO AARONS SONS] — This teaches us that the pouring of the oil and the mingling it (with the flour) is valid even if done by non-priests (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 10 19: Menachot 9a).

הכהנים וקמץ. מִקְּמִיצָה וָאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהֻנָּה (שם):

הכהנים וקמץ [AND HE SHALL BRING UNTO …] THE PRIESTS: AND HE SHALL TAKE A FISTFUL — from the קמיצה (the taking of the fistful) and onwards is the duty of the priesthood (Menachot 9a).

וקמץ משם. מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁרַגְלֵי הַזָּר עוֹמְדוֹת; לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁהַקְּמִיצָה כְּשֵׁרָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם בָּעֲזָרָה, אַף בְּי"א אַמָּה שֶׁל מְקוֹם דְּרִיסַת רַגְלֵי יִשְֹרָאֵל (יומא ט"ז):

וקמץ משם AND HE SHALL TAKE A FISTFUL FROM THERE — from the place where the feel of the layman may stand; and this is stated in order to teach you that the קמיצה is valid at whatever place in the fore-court it is carried out, even in that eleven cubits) which are the area where the feet of the ordinary Israelites may tread (cf. Yoma 16b).

מלא קמצו. יָכוֹל מְבֹרָץ — מְבַצְבֵּץ וְיוֹצֵא לְכָל צַד, תַּ"לֹ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר וְהֵרִים מִמֶּנּוּ בְּקֻמְצוֹ (ויקרא ו') — לֹא יְהֵא כָּשֵׁר אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹךְ הַקֹּמֶץ, אִי בְּקֻמְצוֹ יָכוֹל חָסֵר, תַּ"לֹ מְלֹא, הָא כֵּיצַד? חוֹפֶה שְׁלוֹשׁ אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו עַל פַּס יָדוֹ, וְזֶהוּ קֹמֶץ בְּמַשְׁמַע לָשׁוֹן הָעִבְרִית (מנחות י"א):

מלא קמצו HIS FISTFUL — One might think that it (the fist) may be full to overflowing — that it may burst through his fist and come out on every side! Scripture, however, states in another passage, (Leviticus 6:8) “and he shall take from it in his closed hand [some of the flour … and burn it on the altar)”, which shows that only that is fitted to be burnt which is within his closed hand. If, then, he has to take what is בקמצו, within his closed hand, one might assume that it may be defective (underfull)? Scripture, however, states here, מלא, “his full [closed hand]”. How then does he do it that it shall be neither overfull nor underfull? After placing his hand in the vessel containing the meal-offering he (the priest) bends his three fingers (those next to his thumb) at full length over on to the palm of his hand, removing with his thumb and little finger all the flour that shows outside these three fingers. This is the literal meaning that the word קמץ has in the Hebrew language (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 9 6; Menachot 11a; Yoma 47a).

על כל לבנתה. לְבַד כָּל הַלְּבוֹנָה יְהֵא הַקֹּמֶץ מָלֵא:

‎ על כל לבנתה‎‎ [HIS FISTFUL OF FLOUR …] BESIDES ALL THE FRANKINCENSE — i. e. apart from all the frankincense shall his fist be full.

לבנתה והקטיר. אַף הַלְּבוֹנָה בְּהַקְטָרָה:

לבנתה והקטיר ITS FRANK-INCENSE. AND HE SHALL BURN — The frankincense too comes under the law of burning (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 9 10).

מלא קמצו מסלתה ומשמנה. הָא אִם קָמַץ וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ גַּרְגֵּר מֶלַח אוֹ קֹרֶט לְבוֹנָה פְּסוּלָה (שם ו'):

מלא קמצו מסלתה ומשמנה [AND HE SHALL TAKE THEREOUT] HIS HANDFUL OF THE FLOUR THEREOF AND OF THE OIL THEREOF — Consequently if when he takes the handful of the flour a grain of salt (for salt was mingled with every offering; cf. v. 13) or a particle of frankincense comes into his hand with the flour it (the offering) is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 9 10; Menachot 6a).

אזכרתה. הַקֹּמֶץ הָעוֹלֶה לְגָבוֹהַּ הוּא זִכְרוֹן הַמִּנְחָה — שֶׁבּוֹ נִזְכָּר בְּעָלֶיהָ לְטוֹבָה וּלְנַחַת רוּחַ:

אזכרתה THE MEMORIAL PORTION THEREOF — The handful of flour that is offered to the Most High God forms the memorial portion of the meal-offering, being that part of it through which the owner is remembered for good and for having caused satisfaction to the Lord.

לאהרן ולבניו. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל נוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ שֶׁלֹּא בְּמַחֲלֹקֶת וְהַהֶדְיוֹט בְּמַחֲלֹקֶת (ספרא):

לאהרן ולבניו AND THAT WHICH IS LEFT OF THE MEAL OFFERING] SHALL BE AARON’S AND HIS SONS’ — The High Priest takes a portion first, just as he pleases, without having to take part in the equal division of the מנחה, whilst the ordinary priest shares in an equal division (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 11 1; Yoma 14a and Yoma 17b).

קדש קדשים. הִיא לָהֶם:

קדש קדשים MOST HOLY is it for them.

מאשי ה'. אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק בָּהּ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מַתְּנוֹת הָאִשִּׁים (שם):

'מאשי ה OF THE FIRE OFFERING OF THE LORD — they have no portion in it (in what is left) except after the gifts (the prescribed quantity) for the fire (i. e. the קומץ) have been offered (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 11 2).

וכי תקריב וגו'. שֶׁאָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחַת מַאֲפֵה תַּנּוּר; וְלִמֵּד הַכָּתוּב שֶׁיָּבִיא אוֹ חַלּוֹת אוֹ רְקִיקִין, הַחַלּוֹת בְּלוּלוֹת וְהָרְקִיקִין מְשׁוּחִין; וְנֶחְלְקוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בִּמְשִׁיחָתָן, יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים מוֹשְׁחָן וְחוֹזֵר וּמוֹשְׁחָן עַד שֶׁכָּלֶה כָּל הַשֶּׁמֶן שֶׁבַּלֹּג — שֶׁכָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת טְעוּנוֹת לֹג שֶׁמֶן — וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים מוֹשְׁחָן כְּמִין "כִי" וּשְׁאָר הַשֶּׁמֶן נֶאֱכָל בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ לַכֹּהֲנִים (מנחות ע"ה); מַה תַּ"ל בַּשֶּׁמֶן בַּשֶּׁמֶן שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים? לְהַכְשִׁיר שֶׁמֶן שֵׁנִי וּשְׁלִישִׁי הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַזֵּיתִים, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ שֶׁמֶן רִאשׁוֹן אֶלָּא לַמְּנוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ זָךְ (שמות כ"ז), וְשָׁנִינוּ בִּמְנָחוֹת כָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת הָאֲפוּיוֹת לִפְנֵי קְמִיצָתָן וְנִקְמָצוֹת עַל יְדֵי פְּתִיתָה, כֻּלָּן בָּאוֹת עֶשֶֹר עֶשֶֹר חַלּוֹת, וְהָאָמוּר בָּה רְקִיקִין בָּאָה עֲשָׂרָה רְקִיקִין (מנחות ע"ו):

וכי ‎‎'ו גו‎תקריב‎‎‎‎‎ AND IF THOU OFFER [AN OFFERING OF AN OBLATION BAKEN IN THE OVEN] in that one said, “I take upon myself the obligation to bring a meal-offering taken in the oven. Scripture teaches you that he may bring either cakes or wafers, the cakes being mingled with oil and the wafers being anointed with oil (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 10 2). Our Rabbis are of different opinions as to their anointing. Some hold that they smeared them with oil and then repeatedly smeared them until the oil in the log was at an end, for every kind of meal-offering required a log of oil: whilst others hold that they smeared them only in the form of a Greek X (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:7 and Note thereon) and that the rest of the oil was consumed separately by the priests (Menachot 75a; cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 11 6). — Why is the word בשמן used twice in this verse (it would have sufficed to state: חלות מצות בלולות בשמן ורקיקי מצות משוחים בו)? In order to permit for use with the meal-offering the “second grade of oil” and the “third grade of oil” which comes out of the olives) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 11 6), and to teach that “the first oil” is required only for the candelabrum of which it is stated, (Exodus 27:20) “clear [olive oil for the light]”. — We read in Treatise Menachoth 76a: All the meal-offerings that were baked before the “fistful” was taken from them and at which the קמיצה could therefore be performed only by first breaking them into pieces — each of them had to be offered of ten cakes, and that at which “wafers” are prescribed was offered of ten wafers.

ואם מנחה על המחבת. שֶׁאָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחַת מַחֲבַת; וּכְלִי הוּא שֶׁהָיָה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁאוֹפִין בּוֹ מִנְחָה זוֹ עַל הָאוּר בְּשֶׁמֶן, וְהַכְּלִי אֵינוֹ עָמֹק אֶלָּא צָף, וּמַעֲשֵׂי הַמִּנְחָה שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ קָשִׁין, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁהִיא צָפָה, הָאוּר שׂוֹרֵף אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן. וְכֻלָּן טְעוּנוֹת שָׁלוֹשׁ מַתְּנוֹת שֶׁמֶן — יְצִיקָה וּבְלִילָה וּמַתַּן שֶׁמֶן בִּכְלִי קֹדֶם לַעֲשִֹיָּתָן (שם ע"ד):

ואם מנחה על המחבת AND IF AN OBLATION BAKEN IN THE PAN [BE THY OFFERING], in that one said, “I take upon myself the obligation to bring a meal-offering baken in the pan” (cf. Rashi on previous. verse and Note thereon). This (the מחבת) was a vessel employed in the Temple in which they baked this particular meal-offering on the open fire in oil. The vessel was not deep but flat; therefore the meal-offering made in it was hard, for just because it (the מחבת) was flat the fire burnt the oil. (Menachot 63a). — All of them (i.e. both the meal-offerings prepared in a vessel) require a three-fold use of oil — pouring upon them after they ware prepared, mingling with their dough, and placing of oil in the vessel prior to preparing them (Menachot 74b; cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 12 1).

סלת בלולה בשמן. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבּוֹלְלָן בְּעוֹדָן סֹלֶת (מנחות ע"ד):

סלת בלולה בשמן FLOUR MINGLED WITH OIL — This teaches us that he mingles them together when they (the cakes) are yet flour (are not yet baked, and not, as might be assumed, when the dough is already formed into cakes, as is the case with לחמי תודה. the cakes of the sacrifice of acknowledgment, Leviticus 7:12, where Scripture prescribes חלות בלולת בשמן, “Cakes” mingled with oil; cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 12 2).

פתות אתה פתים. לְרַבּוֹת כָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת הַנֶּאֱפוֹת קֹדֶם קְמִיצָה לִפְתִיתָה (שם ע"ה):

פתות אתה פתים — THOU SHALT SUNDER IT INTO MORSELS — This is stated to include all meal-offerings that are baked before the קמיצה (i. e. all mentioned here with the exception of מנחת סלת; cf. לחם משנה on Maim. הל' מעשה קרבנות פי״ג ה"י) in the law of breaking into pieces (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 12 5; Menachot 75a).

ויצקת עליה שמן מנחה הוא. לְרַבּוֹת כָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת לִיצִיקָה; יָכוֹל אַף מִנְחָה מַאֲפֵה תַּנּוּר כֵּן, תַּ"ל עָלֶיהָ; אוֹצִיא אֶת הַחַלּוֹת וְלֹא אוֹצִיא אֶת הָרְקִיקִין, תַּ"ל הִוא (שם):

ויצקת עליה שמן מנחה הוא AND THOU SHALT POUR OIL THEREON: IT IS A MEAL OFFERING — This is intended to include all meal-offerings (with the exception of one; cf. Rashi below) in the law of pouring oil upon them after the מנחה is prepared. One might think the meal-offering baken in an oven (v. 4) should also be treated thus, Scripture, however, states עליה, “[thou shalt pour oil] upon it”, but not upon that baken in the oven. But perhaps I should exclude only The cakes of the מנחת מאפה תנור and not also the wafers of which that מנחה may consist! Scripture, however, states היא, — “it is a meal-offering” using this limitative word to the exclusion of wafers too (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 12 6; Menachot 75a).

מרחשת. כְּלִי הוּא שֶׁהָיָה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, עָמֹק, וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהִיא עֲמֻקָּה, שַׁמְנָהּ צָבוּר וְאֵין הָאוּר שׂוֹרְפוֹ, לְפִיכָךְ מַעֲשֵׂי מִנְחָה הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְתוֹכָהּ רוֹחֲשִׁין; כָּל דָּבָר רַךְ עַל יְדֵי מַשְׁקֶה נִרְאֶה כְּרוֹחֵשׁ וּמְנַעֲנֵעַ (ספרא):

מרחשת [AND IF THOU BRING A MEAL OFFERING PREPARED IN A] מרחשת — This was a vessel used in the Temple, a deep one, and because it was deep the oil in it was heaped up (of considerable depth) and the fire did not burn it, and therefore the meal-offering made in it was, as it were, creeping). Every thing that is soft (elastic) because of the liquid contained in it appears as though it were creeping and moving (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 12 7; Menachot 63a).

אשר יעשה מאלה. מֵאֶחָד מִן הַמִּינִים הַלָּלוּ:

אשר יעשה מאלה [AND THOU SHALT BRING THE MEAL OFFERING] THAT IS MADE OF THESE THINGS — i. e. of one of these kinds (the meal offerings mentioned) UNTO THE LORD,

והקריבה. בְּעָלֶיהָ אל הכהן:

והקריבה AND HE SHALL OFFER IT — the owner shall offer it אל הכהן UNTO THE PRIEST,

והגישה. הַכֹּהֵן:

והגישה AND HE SHALL BRING IT NIGH — the kohen [shall bring it close],

והגישה אל המזבח. מַגִּישָׁהּ לְקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מַעֲרָבִית שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ (זבחים ס"ג):

והגישה … .אל המזבח AND HE SHALL BRING IT NIGH UNTO THE ALTAR — He (the priest) brings it nigh unto to the south-west corner of the altar (cf. Zevachim 63b).

את אזכרתה. הִיא הַקֹּמֶץ:

את אזכרתה ITS MEMORIAL PORTION — this is the “fistful” (קמץ) (cf. Rashi on v. 2).

וכל דבש. כָּל מְתִיקַת פְּרִי קְרוּיָה דְּבַשׁ:

וכל דבש [YE SHALL NOT CAUSE TO ASCEND IN FUMES] ANY HONEY – Any sweet juice of a fruit is called “honey”).

קרבן ראשית תקריבו אתם. מַה יֵּשׁ לְךָ לְהָבִיא מִן הַשְּׂאוֹר וּמִן הַדְּבַשׁ? קָרְבַּן רֵאשִׁית — שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם שֶׁל עֲצֶרֶת הַבָּאִים מִן הַשְּׂאוֹר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר חָמֵץ תֵּאָפֶינָה (ויקרא כ"ג), וּבִכּוּרִים מִן הַדְּבַשׁ, כְּמוֹ בִּכּוּרֵי תְּאֵנִים וּתְמָרִים (מנחות נ"ח):

קרבן ראשית תקריבו אתם YE MAY OFFER THEM AS AN OFFERING OF THE FIRST FRUITS — But what is it that you have to offer of leaven and of honey? The offering of the first fruits, viz., the “two loaves’’ of the Feast of Weeks” that were brought of leavened dough, — as it is said, (Leviticus 23:16, 17) “[and ye shall offer a new meal-offering unto the Lord . . . two loaves] they shall be baken leavened”. — and the first ripe fruits were brought of species that contain sweet juices (דבש), such as the firstlings of figs and dates (Menachot 58a).

מלח ברית. שֶׁהַבְּרִית כְּרוּתָה לַמֶּלַח מִשֵּׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְּרֵאשִׁית, שֶׁהֻבְטְחוּ הַמַּיִם הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים לִקָּרֵב בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ בַּמֶּלַח וְנִסּוּךְ הַמַּיִם בֶּחָג:

מלח ברית [NEITHER SHALT THOU SUFFER] THE SALT OF THE COVENANT [… TO BE LACKING FROM MY MEAL OFFERING], because a covenant was established with the salt as far back as the six days of Creation when the lower waters (those of the oceans) received an assurance that they would be offered on the altar in the form of salt and also as water in the ceremony of “the libation of water” on the Feast of Tabernacles).‎

על כל קרבנך. עַל עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה וָעוֹף וְאֵמוּרֵי כָּל הַקָּדָשִׁים כֻּלָּן (מנחות כ'):

על כל קרבנך‎ UPON ALL THY OFFERINGS [THOU SHALT OFFER SALT] — upon burnt-offerings of cattle and fowls and upon the fat-portions of all sacrifices in general (Menachot 20a).

ואם תקריב. הֲרֵי אִם מְשַׁמֵּשׁ בִּלְשׁוֹן כִּי, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין זֶה רְשׁוּת, שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּמִנְחַת הָעֹמֶר הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר שֶׁהִיא חוֹבָה, וְכֵן וְאִם יִהְיֶה הַיֹּבֵל וְגוֹ' (במדבר ל"ו):

ואם תקריב AND IF (according to Rashi, AND “WHEN”) THOU OFFER [A MEAL-OFFERING OF FIRST FRUITS] — אם here has the meaning of כי, “when”, for this (the offering of the מנחת בכורים) is not optional, since Scripture is speaking of the meal-offering of the “Omer” which is obligatory. Similar is אם in the phrase (Numbers 36:4) ואם יהיה היובל which means: “when the jubilee will be”, not: “if the jubilee will be”, since it is bound to come (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 13 2; see also Rashi on Exodus 20:22).

מנחת בכורים. בְּמִנְחַת הָעֹמֶר הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר שֶׁהִיא בָּאָה אָבִיב — בִּשְׁעַת בִּשּׁוּל הַתְּבוּאָה, וּמִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים הִיא בָּאָה, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן אָבִיב וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (שמות ט'), הַשְּׂעֹרָה אָבִיב:

מנחת בכורים THE MEAL-OFFERING OF FIRSTFRUITS — Scripture is speaking here of the meal-offering of the “Omer” (Leviticus 23:10) which is brought when the grain is in the green ears ,(אביב), i.e.. at the time of the ripening of the grain, and which was brought of barley, for it states here “אביב”, and there, too, (Exodus 9:31) it slates “for the barley was in the ears (אביב)” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 13 4; Menachot 68b).

קלוי באש. שֶׁמְּיַבְּשִׁין אוֹתָהּ עַל הָאוּר בְּאַבּוּב שֶׁל קַלָּאִים, שֶׁאִלּוּלֵי כֵן אֵינָהּ נִטְחֶנֶת בָּרֵחַיִם, לְפִי שֶׁהִיא לַחָה:

קלוי באש PARCHED BY THE FIRE It is thus described because they roast it on the fire in the “tube of the grain-parchers (אביב של קלאים)”, for unless it was treated thus it could not be ground in the mill because it was fresh, as the term אביב green, fresh suggests (cf. Rashi on Exodus 9:31).

גרש כרמל. גְּרוּסָה בְּעוֹדָהּ לַחָה:

גרש כרמל means broken (גרוש) whilst it was yet fresh (כרמל).

גרש. גֶּרֶשׂ לְשׁוֹן שְׁבִירָה וּטְחִינָה, גּוֹרְסָהּ בְּרֵחַיִם שֶׁל גָּרוֹסוֹת, כְּמוֹ וַיַּגְרֵס בֶּחָצָץ (איכה ג'), וְכֵן גָּרְסָה נַפְשִׁי (תהילים קי"ט):

גרש is an expression for breaking and grinding. — He ground it in a grit-mill. — גרש has the same meaning as the verb in (Lamentations 3:16) “and He hath broken (ויגרס) [my teeth] with gravel-stones”; and similarly (Psalms 119:20) “My soul is broken (גרסה).

כרמל. בְּעוֹד הַכַּר מָלֵא, שֶׁהַתְּבוּאָה לַחָה וּמְלֵאָה בְּקַשִּׁין שֶׁלָּהּ, וְעַל כֵּן נִקְרָאִים הַמְּלִילוֹת כַּרְמֶל, וְכֵן כַּרְמֶל בְּצִקְלוֹנוֹ (מלכים ב ד'):

כרמל — i. e., broken whilst the husk (כר) is yet full (מלא) (according to this כרמל is a word compounded of כר and מל) — when the crop is yet fresh and full in its stalks; for this reason the fresh ears are called כרמל. Similar is, (2 Kings 4:42) “and full ears of corn (כרמל) in the husk thereof”.

שלמים. שֶׁמְּטִילִים שָׁלוֹם בָּעוֹלָם; דָּ"אַ: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם שָׁלוֹם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְלַכֹּהֲנִים וְלַבְּעָלִים (ספרא):

שלמים PEACE-OFFERINGS — They are so called because they bring peace (שלום) into the world. Another explanation is: they are called שלמים because through them there is “peace” (harmony and lack of envy) to the altar, to the priests and to the owners (since all these receive a portion) (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:22 and our Note thereon; see also Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 16 2).

ואת כל החלב וגו'. לְהָבִיא חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַקֵּבָה דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר לְהָבִיא חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַדַּקִּין (שם):

‎'ואת כל החלב וגו [AND HE SHALL OFFER … ALL THE FAT THAT COVERETH THE INWARDS] AND ALL THE FAT [THAT IS UPON THE INWARDS] — These apparently redundant words are intended to include in the command the fat also that lies upon the maw. This is the opinion of Rabbi Ishmael; Rabbi Akiba holds that they are intended to include only the fat that is on the gut (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 14 6; cf. Chullin 49b).

הכסלים. פלנק"ש בְּלַעַז; שֶׁהַחֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַכְּלָיוֹת כְּשֶׁהַבְּהֵמָה חַיָּה הוּא בְּגֹבַהּ הַכְּסָלִים מִלְּמַטָּה, וְזֶה הַחֵלֶב שֶׁתַּחַת הַמָּתְנַיִם — שֶׁקּוֹרִין בְּלַעַז לונבי"לוש — לֹבֶן הַנִּרְאֶה לְמַעְלָה בְּגֹבַהּ הַכְּסָלִים, וּבְתַחְתִּיתוֹ הַבָּשָֹר חוֹפֵהוּ:

הכסלים — Flancs in O. F. — It speaks of the fat which is on (על) the kidneys being also on (על) the flanks because the fat that is upon the kidneys is, when the animal is living, on the uppermost part of the flanks, and they (the kidneys) are in a downward position. This is the fat which is under the loins — what are called lombles in O. F.; it is that white fat which is visible upon the upper part of the flanks, but on their lower part the flesh covers it, (and this latter portion of the fat is therefore not upon but under the flanks).

היתרת. הוּא דֹּפֶן הַמָּסָךְ שֶׁקּוֹרִין איברי"ש, וּבְלָשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּי חִצְרָא דְּכַבְדָּא:

היותרת is the protecting wall (membrane) over the liver which is called abris in O. F. In the Aramaic language it is called חצרא דכבדא the lobe of the liver.

על הכבד. שֶׁיִּטֹּל מִן הַכָּבֵד עִמָּהּ מְעַט, וּבְמָקוֹם אַחֵר הוּא אוֹמֵר וְאֶת הַיֹּתֶרֶת מִן הַכָּבֵד (ויקרא ט'):

על הכבד — This must mean that he shall take a little of the liver with it, for in another place it distinctly states, (Leviticus 9:10) “and the יותרת מן הכבד [he caused to ascend in fumes]” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 14 8).

על הכבד על הכליות. לְבַד מִן הַכָּבֵד וּלְבַד מִן הַכְּלָיוֹת יְסִירֶנָּה לְזוֹ:

על הכבד על הכליות — means, besides the part of the liver and besides the kidneys shall he remove this (the יותרת‎).

על העלה. מִלְּבַד הָעוֹלָה; לִמְּדָנוּ שֶׁתִּקְדֹּם עוֹלַת תָּמִיד לְכָל קָרְבָּן עַל הַמַּעֲרָכָה (זבחים פ"ט):

העולה ‎‎על‎ means [HE SHALL BURN IT] BESIDES THE BURNT OFFERING. Scripture thus teaches us that the continual burnt-offering should be placed on the wood-pile before any other sacrifice (cf. Zevachim 89a; Tosafot on Zevachim 89a 1.1. כל התדיר and Rashi on Exodus 6:5).

אם כשב. לְפִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּאֵמוּרֵי הַכֶּשֶׂב מַה שֶּׁאֵין בְּאֵמוּרֵי הָעֵז, שֶׁהַכֶּשֶׂב אַלְיָתוֹ קְרֵבָה, לְכָךְ נֶחְלְקוּ לִשְׁתֵּי פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת (ספרא):

אם כשב IF [HE OFFER] A LAMB — Because there is amongst the fat-portions of the lamb something which is not amongst the fat-portions of the goat, — for of the lamb the fat-tail (אליה) is offered, — therefore they (the law regarding the lamb and that regarding the goat) have been divided into two separate paragraphs (whilst in the case of the free-will עולה they are contained in one paragraph, Leviticus 1:10—13, since there is no difference in the laws regarding these two animals) (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 18 4).

וזרקו. שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע; וְעַל יְדֵי הַכְּלִי הוּא זוֹרֵק, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן בָּאֶצְבַּע אֶלָּא חַטָּאת (זבחים נ"ה):

וזרקו AND [AARON'S SONS] SHALL DASH THE BLOOD THEREOF [ROUND ABOUT] — two applications of the blood are necessary so as to constitute four (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1:5). He (the priest) dashes the blood with a vessel (Zevachim 55a); it is only the blood of the sin-offering that he applies with his finger (Zevachim 53a).

חלבו. הַמֻּבְחָר שֶׁבּוֹ, וּמַהוּ? זֶה הָאַלְיָה תְּמִימָה:

חלבו means: the choicest part in it; and what is this? The whole fat-tail.

לעמת העצה. לְמַעְלָה מִן הַכְּלָיוֹת הַיּוֹעֲצוֹת:

לעמת הָעֶצָה — i. e. above the kidneys which give counsel (עֵצָה) (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:22 and Note thereon).

לחם אשה לה'. לַחְמוֹ שֶׁל אֵשׁ לְשֵׁם גָּבוֹהַּ:

'לחם אשה לה‎ means: it is the food of the fire in honour of the Lord. (The translation is not: it is food, a fire offering unto the Lord; לחם is construct, and the words must be translated as Rashi does).

לחם. לְשׁוֹן מַאֲכָל, וְכֵן נַשְׁחִיתָה עֵץ בְּלַחְמוֹ (ירמיהו י"א), עֲבַד לְחֶם רַב (דניאל ה'), לִשְֹחוֹק עֹשִֹׁים לֶחֶם (קהלת י'):

לחם is a general expression for food. Similar is, (Jeremiah 11:19) “let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof (בלחמו)”; (Daniel 5:1) “[Belshazzar] made a great banquet (לחם)”; (Ecclesiastes 10:19) “It is for laughter that a banquet (לחם) is made”.

חקת עולם. יָפֶה מְפֹרָשׁ בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים כָּל הַפָּסוּק הַזֶּה:

חקת עולם This whole verse is well expounded in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 20 6-8).

מכל מצות ה'. פֵּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ אֵין חַטָּאת בָּאָה אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁזְּדוֹנוֹ לָאו וְכָרֵת (ספרא):

'מכל מצות ה [IF A SOUL SIN IN ERROR] AGAINST ANY OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD — Our Rabbis explained (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 7; Shabbat 69a) that a sin-offering (of which this chapter speaks) is brought only for such a thing the wilful committal of which is forbidden by a לאו (a negative command) and is subject to the penalty of excision).

מאחת מהנה. מִמִּקְּצָת אַחַת מֵהֶן, כְּגוֹן הַכּוֹתֵב בְּשַׁבָּת שם מִשִּׁמְעוֹן, נח מִנָּחוֹר, דן מִדָּנִיֵּאל (שם):

מאחת מהנה — The prefix in מאחת, being the partitive מ, suggests: even if one infringes only a part of one of them. as, for instance, if one writes on Sabbath the two letters שם of the name שמעון having intended to write the whole word, or the letters נח of the word נחור, or דן of דניאל (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 1 4; Shabbat 103b).

אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת העם. מִדְרָשׁוֹ: אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא בְּהֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶֹה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר מֵעֵינֵי הַקָּהָל וְעָשׂוּ (שם); וּפְשׁוּטוֹ לְפִי אַגָּדָה: כְּשֶׁכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל חוֹטֵא, אַשְׁמַת הָעָם הוּא זֶה, שֶׁהֵן תְּלוּיִין בּוֹ לְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיהֶם וּלְהִתְפַּלֵּל בַּעֲדָם, וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְקֻלְקָל:

אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת העם IF THE PRIEST THAT IS ANOINTED DO SIN לאשמת העם — The Halachic explanation is that he is liable to bring a sin-offering only when there was ignorance of the real matter (of the law in question; i. e. after having considered the case in question he came to a wrong decision) together with a mistaken action (i. e. where he erred in a Halachic decision and as a result of this error acted against the true law), just as it is stated with reference to the guilt of the whole people): (v. 13) “[And if the whole congregation of Israel err] and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly and they have done [somewhat against the commandments of the Lord]" (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 2 1; Horayot 7a; Rashi on v. 13). Its literal sense is according to the Agadic explanation: When the High-priest sins this is the guilt of the people (i. e. it results in the people remaining under a load of guilt), because they are dependent on him to effect atonement for them and to pray on their behalf, and now he himself has become degenerate and can thus not expiate for them, wherefor they remain under guilt.

פר. יָכוֹל זָקֵן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר בֶּן, אִי בֶּן יָכוֹל קָטָן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר פַּר, הָא כֵּיצַד? זֶה פַּר בֶּן שָׁלוֹשׁ (שם):

פר A BULLOCK — One might think that it may be an old one! Scripture, however, adds בן, a young animal. If, then, it must be בן, a young one, I might think a very young animal is fitted too (this being also implied in the term בן)! Scripture, however, states פר! How is this to be reconciled? By explaining פר בן בקר to be a bullock of three years (which is neither too old nor too young) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 3 1; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 9:7 and Note thereon).

אל אהל מועד. לַמִּשְׁכָּן, וּבְבֵית עוֹלָמִים לַהֵיכָל:

אל אהל מועד‎ [AND THE PRIEST … SHALL BRING IT] TO THE APPOINTED TENT — to the Tabernacle — and, later, in the House of Eternity (the Temple at Jerusalem), into the Heichal (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:43).

את פני פרכת הקדש. כְּנֶגֶד מְקוֹם קְדֻשָּׁתָהּ — מְכֻוָּן כְּנֶגֶד בֵּין הַבַּדִּים, וְלֹא הָיוּ נוֹגְעִים דָּמִים בַּפָּרֹכֶת, וְאִם נָגְעוּ נָגְעוּ:

את פני פרכת הקדש [AND THE PRIEST SHALL … SPRINKLE OF THE BLOOD …] BEFORE THE PARTITION VAIL OF THE קדש — i.e. before that spot where it is exceedingly holy — exactly in front of the space between the staves of the Ark (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 3 10). The blood did not touch the Partition Vail (since he was standing some distance off), but if it happened to touch it, then it touched it, (and it did not invalidate the ceremony) (Yoma 57a).

ואת כל דם. שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם (זבחים כ"ה):

ואת כל דם AND ALL THE BLOOD — i. e. all the remainder of the blood (since part of it had already been sprinkled) (Zevachim 25a).

ואת כל חלב פר. חֶלְבּוֹ הָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר, מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר פַּר? לְרַבּוֹת פַּר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לִכְלָיוֹת וְלַחֲלָבִים וְיוֹתֶרֶת (ספרא):

ואת כל חלב פר [AND HE SHALL TAKE UP …] ALL THE FAT OF THE BULLOCK — It ought to have said “its fat” (since the פר has just been mentioned); why does it state expressly “the fat of a bullock [of a sin-offering]” (i.e. any bullock brought as a sin-offering)? In order to include also the bullock of the Day of Atonement in respect to the burning of the kidneys, the fat portions and the lobe (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 4 1).

החטאת. לְהָבִיא שְֹעִירֵי עֲ"זָ לִכְלָיוֹת וְלַחֲלָבִים וּלְיוֹתֶרֶת (שם):

החטאת — [THE FAT OF THE BULLOCK OF] THE SIN OFFERING (implying, the fat of the bullock because it is a sin-offering) consequently serves to include the goats brought as a sin-offering for idolatry (Numbers 15:24) in respect to the burning of the kidneys, the fat portions and the lobe of the liver (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 4 1; cf. Note on the previous passage).

ירים ממנו. מִן הַמְחֻבָּר — שֶׁלֹּא יְנַתְּחֶנּוּ קֹדֶם הֲסָרַת חֶלְבּוֹ, תּוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים:

ירים ממנו AND HE SHALL TAKE FROM IT [ALL THE FAT] — from. “it”, i. e. from the bullock — consequently he must take it (the fat) whilst it is still connected with it (the animal), — that he must not dismember it before removing the fat from it. Thus is it explained in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 4 1).

כאשר יורם. מֵאוֹתָן אֵמוּרִין הַמְפֹרָשִׁין בְּשׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים; וְכִי מַה פֵּרֵשׁ בְּזֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים שֶׁלֹא פֵּרֵשׁ כָּאן? אֶלָּא לְהַקִּישׁוֹ לִשְׁלָמִים, מַה שְּׁלָמִים לִשְׁמָן אַף זֶה לִשְׁמוֹ, וּמָה שְׁלָמִים שָׁלוֹם לָעוֹלָם, אַף זֶה שָׁלוֹם לָעוֹלָם; וּבִשְׁחִיטַת קֳדָשִׁים מַצְרִיכוֹ לִלְמֹד הֵימֶנּוּ שֶׁאֵין לְמֵדִין לָמֵד מִן הַלָּמֵד בָּקֳדָשִׁים, בְּפֶרֶק אֵיזֶהוּ מְקוֹמָן (זבחים מ"ט):

כאשר יורם AS IT WAS TAKEN [FROM THE OX OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE PEACE OFFERINGS] — i. e. from those fat portions which are specified in the case of an ox brought as a sacrifice of peace-offerings. But what is specified in the case of a sacrifice of peace-offerings that is not specified here? Nothing at all! (Cf. Leviticus 3:3—4 with here.) What then is the force of the words כאשר יורם? But they are intended to declare it analogous to the peace-offerings: What is the case with שלמים? They must be burnt as such! So, too, must this be burnt as such!) And again what is the case with שלמים? They are intended to promote peace for the world! So, too, is this intended to promote peace for the world (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 4 2). In the Treatise on “the Slaughtering of Sacrifices” it (the passage 'כאשר יורם וכו‎) is stated to be necessary to deduce from it the rule that in the case of sacrifices we can derive no law from a law which is itself only derived from a text, and is not explicitly stated in Scripture. This is to be found in the chapter beginning with the words איזהו מקומן (Zevachim 49b).

על הכבד על הכליות. על ראשו ועל כרעיו. כֻּלָּן לְשׁוֹן תּוֹסֶפֶת הֵן, כְּמוֹ מִלְּבַד:

על הכבד על הכליות. על ראשו ועל כרעיו — All these words (על) are an expression denoting an addition — they meat: as much as “besides”.

אל מקום טהור. לְפִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִחוּץ לָעִיר מָקוֹם מוּכָן לְטֻמְאָה — לְהַשְׁלִיךְ אֲבָנִים מְנֻגָּעוֹת וּלְבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת — הֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה זֶה — שֶׁהוּא חוּץ לָעִיר — שֶׁיְּהֵא הַמָּקוֹם טָהוֹר:

אל מקום טהור [EVEN THE WHOLE BULLOCK SHALL HE BRING FORTH WITHOUT THE CAMP] UNTO A CLEAN PLACE — Because there was outside the city (Jerusalem) a place intended for depositing unclean things viz., to cast there the plague-stricken stones (cf. Leviticus 14:45) and to serve as a place of burial, Scripture was compelled to state regarding this term “without the camp” — which in the case of Jerusalem, is identical with: “without the city” — that the place where it was to be burnt shall be a clean one.

מחוץ למחנה. חוּץ לְשָׁלוֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת; וּבֵית עוֹלָמִים חוּץ לָעִיר, כְּמוֹ שֶׁפֵּרְשׁוּהוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בְּמַסֶּכֶת יוֹמָא (דף ס"ח) וּבְסַנְהֶדְרִין (דף מ"ב):

מחוץ למחנה WITHOUT THE CAMP — i. e. without the three camps (מחנה שכינה, מחנה לויה ומחנה ישראל) ; and, in the case of the “House of Eternity” (the Temple), it was to be brought forth without the city, just as our Rabbis have explained it in Treatise Yoma 68a and in Treatise Sanhedrin 42b.

אל שפך הדשן. מָקוֹם שֶׁשּׁוֹפְכִין בּוֹ הַדֶּשֶׁן הַמְסֻלָּק מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַדֶּשֶׁן אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה (ויקרא ו'):

אל שפך הדשן means: to the place where the ashes that were removed from the altar were cast, as it is said (Leviticus 6:4) “and he shall bring out the ashes without the camp”.

על שפך הדשן ישרף. שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ אֵין שָׁם דֶּשֶׁן (ספרא):

על שפך הדשן UPON THE PLACE FOR SHEDDING THE ASHES [SHALL IT BE BURNT] — This is something which need not have been stated (since it says immediately before, that it shall be brought forth to this spot), but it is intended to teach that even if at the time there happen to be no ashes there, the bullock shall nevertheless be burnt there (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 5 5; Pesachim 75b).

עדת ישראל. אֵלּוּ סַנְהֶדְרִין (שם):

עדת ישראל [AND IF THE WHOLE] CONGREGATION OF ISRAEL [ERR] — This is the Great Sanhedrin (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 4 2; cf. Horayot 4b).

ונעלם דבר. טָעוּ לְהוֹרוֹת בְּאַחַת מִכָּל כָּרֵתוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא מֻתָּר (הוריות ח'):

ונעלם דבר AND A THING (a matter of law) WAS HID [FROM THE EYES OF THE ASSEMBLY] — i. e. they (the Synhedrion) erred, deciding in respect to one of all those acts for which excision is, according to tradition), implicitly mentioned in the Torah that it is permissible (Horayot 8a).

הקהל ועשו. שֶׁעָשׂוּ צִבּוּר עַל פִּיהֶם:

הקהל ועשו — [AND THE THING BE HID FROM THE EYES OF] THE ASSEMBLY AND THEY HAVE DONE — It means that the assembly did according to their (the Sanhedrin’s) decision (cf. Horayot 2a).

את פני הפרכת. וּלְמַעְלָה הוּא אוֹמֵר אֶת פְּנֵי פָּרֹכֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁסָּרְחָה עָלָיו מְדִינָה, אִם מִעוּטָהּ סָרְחָה, פָּמַלְיָא שֶׁלּוֹ מִתְקַיֶּמֶת וְאִם כֻּלָּהּ סָרְחָה, אֵין פָּמַלְיָא שֶׁלּוֹ מִתְקַיֶּמֶת, אַף כָּאן, כְּשֶׁחָטָא כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ עֲדַיִן שֵׁם קְדֻשַּׁת הַמָּקוֹם עַל הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, מִשֶּׁחָטְאוּ כֻּלָּם, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם נִסְתַּלְּקָה הַקְּדֻשָּׁה (זבחים מ"א):

את פני הפרכת [AND THE PRIEST SPRINKLE IT …] BEFORE THE PARTITION VAIL — But above (v. 6) Scripture states את פני פרכת הקדש? A parable! This may be compared to the case of a king against whom the country revolted. If it is only a minority of it that revolts his council (familia) still exists, but if the whole country revolts his council no longer exists. So, also, here: When the anointed priest alone sinned, the appelation of sanctity that is attached to the place still remains on the Sanctuary, but as soon as all of them have sinned the holiness, God forbid, disappears (Zevachim 41b).

יסוד מזבח העלה אשר פתח אהל מועד. זֶה יְסוֹד מַעֲרָבִי שֶׁהוּא כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח (שם נ"א):

יסוד מזבח העלה אשר פתח אהל מועד [AND HE SHALL POUR OUT ALL THE BLOOD AT] THE BASE OF THE ALTAR OF THE BURNT-OFFERING WHICH IS AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE APPOINTED TENT — this is the base on the west side, for it was that which was opposite to the entrance of the tent (cf. Zevachim 51a).

ואת כל חלבו ירים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרֵשׁ כָּאן יוֹתֶרֶת וּשְׁתֵּי כְּלָיוֹת, לְמֵדִין הֵם מִוְּעָשָׂה לַפָּר כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וְגוֹ' וּמִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נִתְפָּרְשׁוּ בּוֹ? תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁזָּעַם עַל אוֹהֲבוֹ וּמִעֵט בְּסִרְחוֹנוֹ מִפְּנֵי חִבָּתוֹ (שם מ"א):

ואת כל חלבו ירים AND HE SHALL TAKE ALL HIS FAT — Although it does not expressly mention here the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys as portions that were to be taken (as it does in the case of the anointed priest’s sin-offering, v. 9) they may be derived from the statement (v. 20) “And he shall do with the bullock as he did [with the bullock of the sin-offering]”. But why are they not expressly mentioned? It was taught in the School of R. Ishmael: A parable! This may be compared to the case of a king who was angry with his friend and abridged the account of his offence because of the affection he bore him (Zevachim 41b). (Similarly Scripture does not give in detail all the rites that have to be carried out when the whole of the nation sins.)

ועשה לפר זֶה כאשר עשה לפר החטאת. כְּמוֹ שֶׁמְּפֹרָשׁ בְּפַר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ — לְהָבִיא יוֹתֶרֶת וּשְׁתֵּי כְּלָיוֹת שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ שָׁם, מַה שֶּׁלֹא פֵּרֵשׁ כָּאן, וְלִכְפֹּל בְּמִצְוַת הָעֲבוֹדוֹת, לְלַמֵּד שֶׁאִם חִסֵּר אַחַת מִכָּל הַמַּתָּנוֹת פָּסוּל; לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בַּנִּתָּנִין עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן שֶׁנְּתָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת כִּפֵּר, הֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר כָּאן שֶׁמַּתָּנָה אַחַת מֵהֶן מְעַכֶּבֶת (שם ל"ט):

ועשה לפר AND HE SHALL DO WITH THE BULLOCK — with this bullock —כאשר עשה לפר החטאת AS HE DID WITH THE BULLOCK FOR A SIN-OFFERING – i. e. as is expressly set forth in the case of the bullock of the anointed priest. This statement thus serves to bring under the command of offering the fat portions the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys which are not expressly mentioned there but which are not expressly mentioned here; and it serves also to repeat the command referring to these rites, teaching thereby that if he (the anointed priest) omitted one of all the applications of the blood it (the sacrifice) becomes invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 6 5). Since we find in regard to blood which had to be placed on the outer altar, that if he places it there by one application alone he nevertheless effected atonement (cf. Mish. Zevachim 4:1), Scripture was compelled to intimate here that the omission of one application impedes the validity of the rite (Zevachim 39a).

אשר נשיא יחטא. לְשׁוֹן אַשְׁרֵי — אַשְׁרֵי הַדּוֹר שֶׁהַנָּשִׂיא שֶׁלּוֹ נוֹתֵן לֵב לְהָבִיא כַּפָּרָה עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ, קַל וָחֹמֶר שֶׁמִּתְחָרֵט עַל זְדוֹנוֹתָיו (ספרא):

אשר נשיא יחטא — The word אשר is connected in meaning with ‎‎‏אשרי “happy”. Happy is the generation whose prince (king) takes care to bring an atonement sacrifice even for an inadvertent act of his; how much the more certain is it that he will do penance for his wilful sins (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 5 1; Horayot 10b)

או הודע. כְּמוֹ אִם הוֹדַע הַדָּבָר; הַרְבֵּה אוֹ יֵשׁ שֶׁמְּשַׁמְּשִׁין בִּלְשׁוֹן אִם, וְאִם בִּמְקוֹם אוֹ, וְכֵן אוֹ נוֹדַע כִּי שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא (שמות כ"א):

או הודע is the same as “IF” (אם‎) [THE THING] WAS MADE KNOWN TO HIM — There are many passages where או is used in the sense of אם, and again where אם stands in the place of או. A similar instance is: (Exodus 21:36) “או נודע כי שור נגח הוא”, which means “if it was known that the ox was wont to thrust” (cf., however, Rashi on that verse and our Note thereon).

הודע אליו. כְּשֶׁחָטָא הָיָה סָבוּר שֶׁהוּא הֶתֵּר, וּלְאַחַר מִכָּאן נוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁאִסּוּר הָיָה:

הודע אליו IT WAS MADE KNOWN TO HIM — when he committed the sin he was under the belief that it was something permissible, afterwards it became known to him that it was a forbidden thing.

במקום אשר ישחט את העלה. בַּצָּפוֹן שֶׁהוּא מְפֹרָשׁ בָּעוֹלָה:

במקום אשר ישחט את העלה [AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER IT] IN THE PLACE WHERE THEY SLAUGHTER THE BURNT-OFFERING — on the north side of the altar which is expressly mentioned in the case of the burnt-offering (Leviticus 1:11) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 8 5).

חטאת הוא. לִשְׁמוֹ כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ פָּסוּל (ספרא):

חטאת הוא IT IS [TO BE] A SIN-OFFERING — Consequently, if he slaughtered it for the purpose of (i. e. having in mind that it is) a sin-offering it is valid, but if it is not done for this purpose (i. e. that the officiating priest had another sacrifice in mind) it is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 8 6; Zevachim 10b; cf. also Rashi and Zevachim 5b).

ואת דמו. שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם:

ואת דמו [AND HE SHALL POUR OUT] THE BLOOD — i. e. the remainder of the blood (cf. Rashi on v. 7).

כחלב זבח השלמים. כְּאוֹתָן אֵמוּרִין הַמְפֹרָשִׁים בְּעֵז הָאָמוּר אֵצֶל שְׁלָמִים:

כחלב זבח השלמים [AND HE SHALL CAUSE ALL ITS FAT TO ASCEND IN FUMES], AS THE FAT OF THE SACRIFICE OF PEACE OFFERINGS — i. e. as those fat portions which are specified in the case of the goat that is mentioned among the peace-offerings (Leviticus 3:14, 15).

כאשר הוסר חלב מעל זבח השלמים. כְּאֵמוּרֵי עֵז הָאֲמוּרִים בַּשְּׁלָמִים:

כאשר הוסר הלב מעל זבח השלמים [AND HE SHALL REMOVE ALL THE FAT] AS THE FAT IS REMOVED FROM OFF THE SACRIFICE OF PEACE OFFERINGS — i.e. as the fat portions of the goat which are mentioned in the case of peace offerings (cf. previous verse).

ושחט אתה לחטאת. שֶׁתְּהֵא שְׁחִיטָתָהּ לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת (זבחים ז'):

אותה ‎‏ושחט‎ ‎לחטאת‎ AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER IT FOR A SIN-OFFERING — This means that its slaughtering shall be for the purpose of (with the intention of making it) a sin-offering (Zevachim 7b).

כאשר יוסר חלב הכשב. שֶׁנִּתְרַבּוּ אֵמוּרָיו בָּאַלְיָה, אַף חַטָּאת כְּשֶׁהִיא בָּאָה כִּבְשָׂה טְעוּנָה אַלְיָה עִם הָאֵמוּרִין:

כאשר יוסר חלב הכבש [AND HE SHALL REMOVE ALL THE FAT THEREOF] AS THE FAT OF THE LAMB IS REMOVED — the fat portions of which have been augmented by the addition of the fat-tail (cf. v. 9): thus, too, does a sin-offering, whenever it is brought as she-lamb, require the fat-tail to be removed together with the other fat portions (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 11 4).

על אשי ה'. עַל מְדוּרוֹת הָאֵשׁ הָעֲשׂוּיוֹת לַשֵּׁם, פוא"ייליש בְּלַעַז:

על אשי ה׳ means upon the fire-pyres which are made for the Lord; foailles in O. F.

ושמעה קול אלה. בְּדָבָר שֶׁהוּא עֵד בּוֹ — שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיעוּהוּ שְׁבוּעָה, שֶׁאִם יוֹדֵעַ לוֹ בְּעֵדוּת, שֶׁיָּעִיד לוֹ (ספרא):

‎‏‎ קול האלה ‎ה‎ושמע‎ [AND IF A SOUL SIN] AND HEAR THE VOICE OF AN OATH in a matter to which he was witness, i. e. that he (the person interested in the evidence) called upon him (the witness) by an oath that if he knows any evidence favourable to him he should testify for him before the court (cf. Sifra); if he does not tell it, he bears his iniquity.

או נפש אשר תגע וגו'. וּלְאַחַר הַטֻּמְאָה הַזּוֹ יֹאכַל קָדָשִׁים אוֹ יִכָּנֵס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁהוּא דָּבָר שֶׁזְּדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת; בְּמַסֶּכֶת שְׁבוּעוֹת (דף י"ד) נִדְרַשׁ כֵּן:

'או נפש אשר תגע וגו‎‎ OR IF A SOUL TOUCH [ANY UNCLEAN THING] etc., and after acquiring this uncleanness eats holy things or enters the Sanctuary, this being something which if done willfully is subject to the penalty of excision — thus is it explained in Treatise Shevuot 14b.

ונעלם ממנו. הַטֻּמְאָה:

עלם ממנו‎ונ AND IT WAS HIDDEN FROM HIM — the uncleanness was hidden from him (escaped his notice, not the fact that the things he ate were holy or that the place he entered was the Sanctuary. The translation therefore is “and it — the fact that he was unclean — escaped his notice, but he actually was unclean”) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 7; cf. Shevuot 14b).

ואשם. בַּאֲכִילַת קֹדֶשׁ אוֹ בְּבִיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ:

‎ם‎‎‏ואש AND HE INCUR GUILT through eating sacred food or entering the Sanctuary.

בטמאת אדם. זוֹ טֻמְאַת מֵת:

בטמאת אדם [OR IF HE TOUCHES] THE UNCLEANNESS OF MAN — This refers to uncleanness resulting from a corpse (i. e. it implies both touching the corpse itself or touching anyone who has come in contact with the corpse) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 8).

לכל טמאתו. לְרַבּוֹת טֻמְאַת מַגַּע זָבִין וְזָבוֹת:

לכל טמאתו WHATSOEVER UNCLEANNESS OF HIM IT BE — This is intended to include in this law the uncleanness resulting from touching men or women who have a flux (and those in similar physical condition e. g. ‎'וכו‎ יולדת ‎ נדה‎) Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 8.

אשר יטמא. לְרַבּוֹת הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּבוֹעֵל נִדָּה:

‎‏אשר יטמא‎ — these apparently redundant words are intended to include in this law one who touches a man who had intercourse with a ה‎‏נד and has not yet immersed himself (cf. Leviticus 15:24) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 8).

בה. לְרַבּוֹת בּוֹלֵעַ נִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר (ספרא):

בה — is intended to include in this law one who swallows the carrion of a clean bird (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 8).

ונעלם. וְלֹא יָדַע שֶׁשָּׁכַח הַטֻּמְאָה:

והוא ידע … ‎ונעלם AND IT WAS HIDDEN [FROM HIM], BUT HE KNOWETH afterwards) that he had forgotten his state of uncleanness.

ואשם. בַּאֲכִילַת קֹדֶשׁ אוֹ בְּבִיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ:

ואשם AND HAD INCURRED GUILT by eating sacred food or by entering the Sanctuary in this state.

בשפתים. וְלֹא בַּלֵּב (שם):

בשפתים [OR IF A SOUL SWEAR, PRONOUNCING] WITH HIS LIPS [FOR HARM, OR FOR GOOD] — with his lips but not merely in his heart (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 9 2; Shevuot 26b).

להרע. לְעַצְמוֹ:

להרע TO DO HARM to himself,

או להיטיב. לְעַצְמוֹ, כְּגוֹן אֹכַל וְלֹא אֹכַל, אִישַׁן וְלֹא אִישַׁן (שבועות כ"ז):

או להטיב OR TO DO GOOD to himself, — as for instance, if he swears: “I shall eat” (which is להטיב), or, “I shall not eat” (להרע), “I shall sleep” (להטיב) or, “I shall not sleep” (להרע) (cf. Shevuot 27a).

לכל אשר יבטא. לְרַבּוֹת לְשֶׁעָבַר:

לכל אשר יבטא WHATSOEVER IT BE THAT A MAN PRONOUNCETH [WITH AN OATH] whatsoever it be: — this is intended to include the case where the oath refers to something that happened in the past (e.g., he swore, “I have eaten” etc. but he has not) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 9 8; Shevuot 26a).

ונעלם ממנו. וְעָבַר עַל שְׁבוּעָתוֹ, כָּל אֵלֶּה בְּקָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד, כַּמְּפֹרָשׁ כָּאן, אֲבָל שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ כְּפִירַת מָמוֹן אֵינָהּ בְּקָרְבָּן זוֹ אֶלָּא בְּאָשָׁם:

‎‏ונעלם ממנו AND IT BE HID FROM HIM (he forgot that he had taken such an oath) and consequently he violated his oath. — All these cases come under the law of “a sacrifice of higher or lesser value” (according to pecuniary conditions), as is set forth here (vv. 6—13): but an oath which involves the false repudiation of a claim to money does not come under the law of this sacrifice but under that of a guilt-offering (v. 25).

והקריב את אשר לחטאת ראשונה. חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת לָעוֹלָה (ספרא); לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לִפְרַקְלִיט שֶׁנִּכְנָס לְרַצּוֹת, רִצָּה פְּרַקְלִיט, נִכְנָס דּוֹרוֹן אַחֲרָיו (זבחים ז'):

והקריב את אשר לחטאת ראשונה AND HE SHALL OFFER THAT WHICH IS FOR A SIN-OFFERING FIRST — This verse establishes the general rule that the sin-offering is always sacrificed before the burnt-offering. — To what may this be compared? To the case of an advocate (in our case the חטאת) who went in to the king to obtain pardon for his client. When the advocate has gained that pardon, then the present (עולה) is brought in after him (Zevachim 7b).

ולא יבדיל. אֵינוֹ מוֹלֵק אֶלָּא סִימָן אֶחָד (חולין כ"א):

ולא יבדיל [AND HE SHALL NIP ITS HEAD …] BUT SHALL NOT SEPARATE IT — i.e. he nips only one organ (either the gullet or the windpipe) (Chullin 21a).

ערף. הוּא גֹּבַהּ הָרֹאשׁ הַמַּשְׁפִּיעַ לְצַד הַצַּוָּאר:

עורף is the surface of the head which slopes down towards the neck);

ממול ערפו. מוּל הָרוֹאֶה אֶת הָעֹרֶף, וְהוּא אֹרֶךְ כָּל אֲחוֹרֵי הַצַּוָּאר (שם י"ט):

‎‏מול עורף is the part bordering on it which sees the עורף (the part next to the עורף and within sight of it) — that is, the length of the whole back of the throat (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 18 7: Chullin 19b).

והזה מדם החטאת. בָּעוֹלָה לֹא הִטְעִין אֶלָּא מִצּוּי, וּבַחַטָּאת הַזָּאָה וּמִצּוּי, אוֹחֵז בָּעֹרֶף וּמַתִּיז, וְהַדָּם נִתָּז וְהוֹלֵךְ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ:

והזה מדם החטאת AND HE SHALL SPRINKLE OF THE BLOOD OF THE SIN-OFFERING [… AND THE REMAINDER OF THE BLOOD SHALL BE WRUNG OUT] — In the case of a burnt-offering of a fowl Scripture requires only the wringing out of the blood (Leviticus 1:15), whilst in the case of the sin-offering it requires sprinkling and wringing out: standing quite near to the altar, he grasps the nape and makes the blood spurt out and thus the blood spurts forth in a jet and goes in the direction of the altar (cf. Zevachim 64b).

חטאת הוא. לִשְׁמָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁלֹא לִשְׁמָהּ פְּסוּלָה (ספרא):

חטאת הוא IT IS A SIN-OFFERING — These apparently redundant words intimate: if the sprinkling and wringing of the blood are done for the purpose of (i.e. having in mind that it is) a sin-offering it is valid; if it is not done for this purpose (i.‎e. that the officiating priest has another sacrifice in mind) it is invalid (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 18 9 and Rashi on Leviticus 4:24).

כמשפט. כַּדָּת הָאָמוּר בְּעוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁל נְדָבָה בְּרֹאשׁ הַפָּרָשָׁה:

כמשפט [AND THE SECOND HE SHALL OFFER FOR A BURNT-OFFERING] ACCORDING TO THE REGULATION — according to the law that is mentioned with regard to a free-will burnt-offering of fowls at the beginning of the section (Leviticus 1:14) (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 18 10; Chullin 21a).

כי חטאת הוא. וְאֵין בַּדִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא קָרְבָּנוֹ מְהֻדָּר (מנחות ו'):

כי חטאת הוא [HE SHALL PUT NO OIL UPON IT, NEITHER SHALL HE PUT ANY FRANKINCENSE THEREON:] FOR IT IS A SIN-OFFERING — a sinner’s offering, and therefore it is not proper that his offering should be embellished by oil and frankincense (Menachot 6a).

חטאת הוא. נִקְמְצָה וְנִקְטְרָה לִשְׁמָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ פְּסוּלָה:

חטאת הוא IT IS A SIN-OFFERING — Here, too, the apparently redundant words intimate: if the קמץ has been taken from it and has been burnt for the purpose of (i.e. having in mind that it is) a sin-offering it is valid; if, however, this was done not for its purpose (i. e. the priest had another offering in mind when officiating) it is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 19 9).

על חטאתו אשר חטא. כָּאן שִׁנָּה הַכָּתוּב, שֶׁהֲרֵי בַּעֲשִׁירוּת וּבְדַלּוּת נֶאֱמַר מֵחַטָּאתוֹ, וְכָאן בְּדַלֵּי דַּלּוּת נֶאֱמַר עַל חַטָּאתוֹ, דִּקְדְּקוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ מִכָּאן, שֶׁאִם חָטָא כְּשֶׁהוּא עָשִׁיר וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְכִשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה וְהֶעֱנִי, יָבִיא מִמִּקְצָתָן שְׁתֵּי תּוֹרִים, הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לִשְׁתֵּי תּוֹרִים וְהֶעֱנִי, יָבִיא מִמִּקְצָתָן עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה, הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה וְהֶעֱשִׁיר, יוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶן וְיָבִיא קָרְבַּן עָשִׁיר, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר כָּאן עַל חַטָּאתוֹ:

‎אשר חטא על חטאתו [AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE EXPIATION ON HIS BEHALF] FOR THE SIN THAT HE HATH SINNED — Here Scripture varies the expression, for in the case of affluence (v. 6) and narrow means (v. 10) it is stated, “[and the priest shall make expiation for him] מחטאתו”, whilst here, in the case of utter destitution, it is stated מחטאתו) על חטאתו may mean: something from his sin-offering, i. e., a part of it, whilst על חטאתו implies something in addition to his sin-offering)! Our Rabbis from the niceties of the text derived from here the law that if one sinned whilst he was a rich man and set apart money for a she-lamb or a she-goat (the sacrifice prescribed for a well-to-do person; cf. v. 6), but then became impoverished somewhat, he has only to bring (purchase) from a part of it (the money) two turtledoves (or two young pigeons, the offering prescribed for the poor) and may retain the balance for his own use: if, being a poor mạn, he has set apart money for two turtledoves and then was reduced to even greater poverty, he has only to bring from a part of it a tenth of an ephah of flour; hence the use of the word מחטאתו in the sense explained above. If, on the other hand, being only of moderate means, he has set apart money only for a tenth of an ephah of flour, but became rich afterwards, he must add to it and bring the offering prescribed for a rich man. For this reason it is stated here על חטאתו — in addition to what was intended for his sin-offering (Keritot 27b).

מאחת מאלה. מֵאַחַת מִשָּׁלוֹשׁ כַּפָּרוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בָּעִנְיָן — אוֹ בַּעֲשִׁירוּת אוֹ בְּדַלּוּת אוֹ בְּדַלֵּי דַּלּוּת; וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? שֶׁיָּכוֹל הַחֲמוּרִים שֶׁבָּהֶם יִהְיוּ בְּכִשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה, וְהַקַּלִּין יִהְיוּ בְּעוֹף, וְהַקַּלִּין שֶׁבַּקַּלִין יִהְיוּ בַּעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מֵאַחַת מֵאֵלֶּה, לְהַשְׁווֹת קַלִּין לַחֲמוּרִין לְכִשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה אִם הִשִּׂיגָה יָדוֹ, וְאֶת הַחֲמוּרִין לַקַּלִּין לַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה בְּדַלֵּי דַּלּוּת (ספרא):

מאחת מאלה [AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE EXPIATION FOR HIM] BY MEANS OF ONE OF THESE — i. e. by means of one of the three expiating sacrifices mentioned in this section: either by means of the offering prescribed for affluence or by that for poverty or by that for utter destitution (i. e., in the case of the offerings brought for each of the three sins mentioned above (vv. 1, 2—3 and 4) the offering must be brought according to the circumstances of the wrong-doer). But why is this stated? (i. e., why does it not merely state‎ אשר חטא ונסלח לו ‎ חטאתו הכהן על ‎וכפר עליו‎ since the different sacrifices have been mentioned previously)? But Scripture uses this term “by means of one of these”, because I might think that the most serious sins amongst them (i. e. those mentioned in vv. 2—3, which, if done wilfully, are subject to the penalty of כרת) should be atoned for by a she-lamb or a she-goat: the lighter ones (v. 1) by a fowl, and the lightest of all (v. 4) by a tenth part of an ephah of flour! Scripture, however, states, “[and he shall make expiation for him] by one of these” — in order to put on the same level the light sins with the most serious with regard to the duty of offering a she-lamb or a she-goat, if he (the offender) possesses the means. And, on the other hand, to put on the same level the most serious sins with the lighter in respect to the duty of bringing a tenth part of an ephah of flour as an offering in case of utter destitution (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 19 10).

והיתה לכהן כמנחה. לְלַמֵּד עַל מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין, זֶהוּ לְפִי פְּשׁוּטוֹ; וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ דָּרְשׁוּ: "וְהָיְתָה לַכֹּהֵן" — וְאִם חוֹטֵא זֶה כֹּהֵן הוּא, תְּהֵא כִּשְׁאָר מִנְחַת נִדְבַת כֹּהֵן, שֶׁהִיא בְּכָלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל (ספרא):

והיתה לכהן כמנחה AND IT SHALL BE THE PRIEST’S, JUST AS A MEAL-OFFERING — This is intended to teach with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner (i. e. a meal-offering brought as an expiation for the sins mentioned above) that what is left of it after the קמץ has been burnt may be eaten by the priests just as the remains of the free-will offering (cf. Leviticus 2:3). This is what the statement means according to its literal sense. Our Rabbis, however, explained והיתה לכהן to imply: that if this sinner be a priest, then it shall be as any other meal-offering brought as a free-will offering by a priest which comes under the law: (Leviticus 6:16) “[For every meal-offering of the priest] shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten”. (The words are to be construed thus:והיתה לכהן, but if it be a priest’s, כמנחה then it shall be exactly like any voluntary meal-offering that he brings) (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 19 11; Menachot 73b).

כי תמעל מעל. אֵין מְעִילָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם אֶלָּא שִׁנּוּי, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר וַיִּמְעֲלוּ בֵאלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵיהֶם וַיִּזְנוּ אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהֵי עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ (דהי"א ה'), וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר בְּסוֹטָה וּמָעֲלָה בוֹ מָעַל (במדבר ה'):

כי תמעל מעל — The term מעל everywhere in Scripture denotes “changing”. Similarly it stales, (I Chronicles 5:25) “And they committed a מעל against the God of their fathers; for they went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land” (i. e. they exchanged Him for their gods). And similarly it states of the faithless wife, (Numbers 5:12) “[If any man’s wife go aside] and commit a מעל in respect to him” (i. e. she changes her relationship to him for one to another man) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 11 1; Meilah 18a).

וחטאה בשגגה מקדשי ה'. שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ; וְהֵיכָן הֻזְהַר? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן חֵטְא, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן חֵטְא בִּתְרוּמָה, וְלֹא יִשְֹאוּ עָלָיו חֵטְא (ויקרא כ"ב), מַה לְּהַלָּן הִזְהִיר, אַף כָּאן הִזְהִיר; אִי מַה לְּהַלָּן לֹא הִזְהִיר אֶלָּא עַל הָאוֹכֵל, אַף כָּאן לֹא הִזְהִיר אֶלָּא עַל הָאוֹכֵל, תַּ"לֹ תִמְעֹל מַעַל — רִבָּה (ספרא):

‎'‎‎וחטאה כשגגה מקדשי ה‎‎ AND SIN IN ERROR, CONCERNING THE HOLY THINGS OF THE LORD — i. e. that one has derived some benefit from (made use of) a holy thing. And where is this prohibited, that Scripture should describe it here as sin? But the expression חטא is mentioned here and חטא is mentioned further on in the case of misuse of תרומה (Leviticus 22:9): “[They — the priests — shall therefore keep my charge] not to eat תרומה when they are in a state of uncleanness: (see Rashi thereon), lest they bear sin (חטא) for it”. How is it there? Scripture forbids it! (See Rashi on Leviticus 22:10). So here, too, by the term וחטאה it forbids it. (The translation is therefore: If a person commit a מעל, whereby it would be sinning even though it be in error). But if you should argue that the analogy may be put thus: How is it there? Scripture imposes the prohibition only upon one who would eat Terumah, so, too, here it imposes a prohibition only upon one who would eat of sacred things (‎וחטאה … ‎'מקדשי ה‎)! But Scripture uses here the double expression: תמעל מעל, and thereby it enlarges the scope of the prohibition to include a benefit (הנאה) of any description (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 11 2; Meilah 18b).

מקדשי ה'. הַמְיֻחָדִים לַשֵּׁם, יָצְאוּ קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים (שם):

מקדשי ה׳ CONCERNING THE HOLY THINGS OF THE LORD — i.e. those which are specially assigned to the Lord; therefore sacrifices holy in a minor degree are excluded from this law (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 20 1).

איל. לְשׁוֹן קָשֶׁה, כְּמוֹ וְאֶת אֵילֵי הָאָרֶץ לָקָח (יחזקאל י"ז), אַף כָּאן קָשֶׁה — בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים (ספרא):

איל is an expression for “strong”, “mighty”, as in (Ezekiel 17:13) “he hath also taken the mighty of (אילי) the land”.Here, too, איל means a ram which has grown strong, i. e. one two years old (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 20 6; cf. Rashi on Genesis 31:38).

בערכך כסף שקלים. שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁוֶה שְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים:

בערכך כסף שקלים WITH THE VALUATION IN SHEKELS OF SILVER — This (the plural שקלים) implies that it must have the value of at least two shekels (cf. Keritot 10b).

ואת אשר חטא מן הקדש ישלם. קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ:

הקדש ישלם‎ מן ‎חטא‎‎ אשר‎ ואת‎ AND FOR THAT WHEREIN HE HATH SINNED IN THE HOLY THING HE SHALL PAY both the principal and the additional fifth to the Temple treasury (cf. Keritot 26b).

ולא ידע ואשם, והביא. הָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה מְדַבֵּר בְּמִי שֶׁבָּא סְפֵק כָּרֵת לְיָדוֹ וְלֹא יָדַע אִם עָבַר עָלָיו אִם לָאו, כְּגוֹן חֵלֶב וְשֻׁמָּן לְפָנָיו, וּכְסָבוּר שְׁתֵּיהֶן הֶתֵּר וְאָכַל אֶת הָאֶחָד, אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַחַת שֶׁל חֵלֶב הָיְתָה, וְלֹא יָדַע אִם זוֹ שֶׁל חֵלֶב אָכַל, הֲרֵי זֶה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, וּמֵגֵן עָלָיו כָּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁוַּדַּאי חָטָא, וְאִם נוֹדַע לוֹ לְאַחַר זְמַן, יָבִיא חַטָּאת (כריתות כ"ב):

ולא ידע ואשם … והביא [AND IF A SOUL SIN, AND DO ANY OF THESE THINGS WHICH SHOULD NOT BE DONE …] AND HE DOES NOT DISCOVER THAT HE IS GUILTY … HE SHALL BRING [A RAM … FOR A GUILT OFFERING] — This paragraph (vv. 17—19) is speaking of a person to whom there has occurred a כרת ‎ספק (i. e. it is speaking of a person who is doubtful whether he has inadvertently committed an act of such a character as to be punishable with כרת if done willfully), and he does not know whether he has actually committed a sinful act or not. For instance: חלב (fat forbidden to be eaten under the penalty of כרת) and permitted fat (שומן) lay before him, and he believed that both were permissible food (i. e. that both were שומן), and he ate one of them. Afterwards, however, people told him that one of these was חלב, but he does not know whether he had eaten that which was חלב. Then such a one has to bring an אשם תלוי (the guilt-offering for a doubtful sin, lit., the guilt-offering in suspense, from תלה to “be in suspense”); and this protects him against punishment so long as he does not become cognisant that he has undoubtedly sinned, and if he becomes cognisant of this after a time he has to bring a sin-offering (cf. Keritot 22b, 23a).

ולא ידע ואשם ונשא עונו. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, הֲרֵי הַכָּתוּב עָנַשׁ אֶת מִי שֶׁלֹּא יָדַע, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁיַּעֲנִישׁ אֶת מִי שֶׁיָּדַע, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אִם נַפְשְׁךָ לֵידַע מַתַּן שְֹכָרָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים, צֵא וּלְמַד מֵאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִצְטַוָּה אֶלָּא עַל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וְעָבַר עָלֶיהָ, רְאֵה כַּמָּה מִיתוֹת נִקְנְסוּ עָלָיו וּלְדוֹרוֹתָיו. וְכִי אֵיזוֹ מִדָּה מְרֻבָּה שֶׁל טוֹבָה אוֹ שֶׁל פֻּרְעָנוּת? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר מִדָּה טוֹבָה, אִם מִדַּת פֻּרְעָנוּת מְעוּטָה, רְאֵה כַּמָּה מִיתוֹת נִקְנְסוּ לוֹ וּלְדוֹרוֹתָיו, מִדָּה טוֹבָה הַמְרֻבָּה הַיּוֹשֵׁב לוֹ מִן הַפִּגּוּלִין וְהַנּוֹתָרוֹת וְהַמִּתְעַנֶּה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים — עַאַכַּ"וְ שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה לוֹ וּלְדוֹרוֹתָיו וּלְדוֹרוֹת דּוֹרוֹתָיו עַד סוֹף כָּל הַדּוֹרוֹת; רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה וְגוֹ' (דברים י"ז), אִם מִתְקַיֶּמֶת הָעֵדוּת בִּשְׁנַיִם, לָמָּה פֵּרֵט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב ג'? אֶלָּא לְהָבִיא שְׁלִישִׁי לְהַחֲמִיר עָלָיו וְלַעֲשׂוֹת דִּינוֹ כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּאֵלּוּ לְעִנְיַן עֹנֶשׁ בַּהֲזָמָה; אִם כָּךְ עָנַשׁ הַכָּתוּב לַנִּטְפָּל לְעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה כְּעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם שָֹכָר טוֹב לַנִּטְפָּל לְעוֹשֵׂי מִצְוָה כְּעוֹשֵׂי מִצְוָה (סנהדרין ט'); רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר, כִּי תִקְצֹר קְצִירְךָ בְשָׂדֶךָ וְשָׁכַחְתָּ עֹמֶר בַּשָּׂדֶה הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר לְמַעַן יְבָרֶכְךָ וְגוֹ' (דברים כ"ד) — קָבַע הַכָּתוּב בְּרָכָה לְמִי שֶׁבָּאת עַל יָדוֹ מִצְוָה בְּלֹא יָדַע — אֱמֹר מֵעַתָּה, הָיְתָה סֶלַע צְרוּרָה בִּכְנָפָיו וְנָפְלָה הֵימֶנּוּ וּמְצָאָהּ הֶעָנִי וְנִתְפַּרְנֵס בָּהּ, הֲרֵי הַקָּבָּ"ה קוֹבֵעַ לוֹ בְּרָכָה (ספרא):

‎ו אשם ונשא עונו‎‎ולא ידע AND HE DOES NOT DISCOVER THAT HE IS GUILTY, AND BEARETH HIS INIQUITY — R. José the Galilean said, “See, Scripture (God) punishes him who has no sure knowledge that he has sinned (in as much as it requires him to bring a guilt-offering); how much the more does it follow that He will punish him who does know that he is sinning and yet wilfully does it. — R. José said, “If you wish to know the reward prepared for the righteous, go and learn from the case of Adam Horishon, who was charged only with a negative command (not to eat from the עץ הדעת) and who transgressed it, — see how many kinds of death-penalties were on this account decreed as a punishment against himself and all his descendants! Now, which measure is greater, — that of good (of reward), or that of punishment? You must admit that it is that of reward (cf. Rashi on Exodus 20:6). If, then, the measure of punishment is the lesser, consider that if so many kinds of death-penalties were decreed as a punishment against himself and his descendants, surely, in the case of the measure of good which is the greater one, if a person refrains from eating sacrifices which have become abominable (פגול) or which have been left over beyond the prescribed time (נותר), or if he fasts on Yom Kippur, how much the more certain is it that he will acquire merit for himself and for his descendants and the descendants of his descendants until the end of all generations! — R. Akiba said, “See, it states, (Deuteronomy 19:15) “at the mouth of two witnesses, or, at the mouth of three witnesses [shall the matter be established]. — But if evidence can be established by two witnesses, why does Scripture afterwards specifically state that this may be done by three? But it is to bring the third witness under the law there stated — to be severe with him and to make his sentence exactly like that of these (the first two witnesses) in respect to punishment in case of “plotting” (evidence that is rebutted by proof that the witness was not present on the occasion to which he has testified; see Rashi on Deuteronomy 19:16). Now, if Scripture exacts punishment so severely from one who has only joined himself with sinners (he is so described because as a single witness he could not hope that his evidence would be effective), just as it does from the sinners themselves, how much the more certain is it that He will give a reward to him who attaches himself to those who practise meritorious deeds just as it does to those who themselves practise meritorious deeds! (Sanhedrin 9a; Makkot 5b). — R. Eleazar b. Azariah said: In Deuteronomy (24:19) Scripture states, “When thou reapest thy harvest in thy field, and hast forgotten a sheaf in the field, [thou shalt not return to take it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless etc.]”, and, you see, it states immediately afterwards: “that the Lord thy God may bless thee etc.” Scripture (God) thus gives the assurance of a blessing to one through whom a meritorious deed came about (the feeding of the stranger, etc.), without himself knowing about it (since he forgot to remove the sheaf from the field)! You must now admit that if a Sela was tied up in the skirt of one’s garment and it fell from it and a poor man finds it and supports himself by it the Holy One, blessed be He gives the assurance of a blessing to him (to the man who has lost the Sela) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 12 7-13).

בערכך לאשם. בָּעֵרֶךְ הָאָמוּר לְמַעְלָה:

‎ לאשם בערכך [HE SHALL BRING A RAM …] ACCORDING TO THE VALUATION FOR A GUILT OFFERING — i. e. according to the value stated above (v. 15, viz., at least 2 shekels).

אשר שגג והוא לא ידע. הָא אִם יָדַע לְאַחַר זְמַן, לֹא נִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ בְּאָשָׁם זֶה עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא חַטָּאת, הָא לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה? לְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְפָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא הַהוֹרֵג, הֲרֵי זֶה יֵהָרֵג (שם):

‎ידע‎ והוא לא‎‎ אשר שגג [AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE EXPIATION FOR HIM CONCERNING HIS ERROR] WHEREIN HE ERRED AND DISCOVERED IT NOT — Consequently if it came to his knowledge after a time that he has sinned, he is not atoned for by this guilt-offering which he has already bought, but remains unatoned until he brings a sin-offering. To what may this be compared? To the law of the Heifer whose neck was to be broken (as a kind of expiation when it was unknown who has committed the murder) when, on some particular occasion, its neck was actually broken and the murderer was afterwards found — when he surely has to be put to death (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 21 2).

אשם הוא אשם אשם. הָרִאשׁוֹן כֻּלּוֹ קָמוּץ, שֶׁהוּא שֵׁם דָּבָר, וְהָאַחֲרוֹן חֶצְיוֹ קָמָץ וְחֶצְיוֹ פַּתָּח שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן פָּעַל; וְאִם תֹּאמַר מִקְרָא שֶׁלֹּא לְצֹרֶךְ הוּא, כְּבָר דָּרוּשׁ הוּא בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים, אשם אשם — לְהָבִיא אֲשַׁם שִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה שֶׁיְּהֵא אַיִל בֶּן שְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים, יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצֹרָע, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר הוּא (שם):

אשם הוא אשם אשם — The first of these similar words is entirely (i. e. both syllables) punctuated with Kametz because it is a noun, whilst the last is punctuated half with Kametz and half with Patach, because it expresses the idea “he has done something” (i. e. it is a verb in the Kal, 3rd person masc. sing, perfect). — And if you say, surely this is a verse that is unnecessary, since it has stated in the previous verse, “he shall bring the ram for a guilt-offering”, then I reply that it has already been expounded in Torath Cohanim as follows; אשם אשם — this repetition is intended to include in the law of אשם תלוי also the אשם שפחה חרופה (the guilt-offering for dishonouring a maid-servant betrothed to another man; cf. Leviticus 19:12), viz., that it must be a ram of the value of two Sela’im. One might think that I include also the guilt-offering brought by a Nazarite (cf. Numbers 6:12) and the guilt-offering brought by a leper (cf. Leviticus 14:12)! Scripture, however, states “הוא” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 21 7).

נפש כי תחטא. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מַה תַּ"ל וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּה'? לְפִי שֶׁכָּל הַמַּלְוֶה וְהַלֹּוֶה וְהַנּוֹשֵֹׁא וְהַנּוֹתֵן אֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה אֶלָּא בְּעֵדִים וּבִשְׁטָר, לְפִיכָךְ בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מְכַחֵשׁ, מְכַחֵשׁ בָּעֵדִים וּבַשְּׁטָר, אֲבָל הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה שֶׁתֵּדַע בּוֹ נְשָׁמָה אֶלָּא שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם, לְפִיכָךְ כְּשֶׁהוּא מְכַחֵשׁ מְכַחֵשׁ בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם (שם):

ונפש כי תחטא IF A SOUL SIN [AND COMMIT FAITHLESSNESS AGAINST THE LORD] — R. Akiba said, What is the force of ‎‎‎מעל בה׳‎‎ ומעלה here, where it does not speak of betraying “holy things of the Lord” as in v. 15, but of betraying one’s neighbour? Because whoever lends or borrows money or does business with another, does it as a rule only in the presence of witnesses or by a document, therefore when he repudiates the matter, he repudiates the witnesses or the document; but he who deposits something with his neighbour does not wish any living soul to know about it except the Third Being (God) who is between them; therefore when he repudiates the deposit, he is repudiating the Third Being who is between them (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 22 4).

בתשומת יד. שֶׁשָּׂם בְּיָדוֹ מָמוֹן לְהִתְעַסֵּק אוֹ בְּמִלְוֶה:

בתשומת יד A CHARGE — He denies that he has put (שָׂם) money into his (the neighbour’s) hand (יד, i. e. that he has put money at his disposal) for the purpose of doing business in partnership or as a loan (cf. Onkelos and Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 22 6).

או בגזל. שֶׁגָּזַל מִיָּדוֹ כְּלוּם:

או בגזל OR A THING TAKEN AWAY BY VIOLENCE — He denies that he has violently taken something from his possession,

או עשק. הוּא שְֹכַר שָֹכִיר (שם):

או עשק OR HATH WRONGED [HIS NEIGHBOUR] — This refers to withholding the wages of a hired man (cf. Leviticus 19:13; see also Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 22 6 and Bava Kamma 103b).

וכחש בה. שֶׁכָּפַר על אחת מכל אֵלֶּה אשר יעשה האדם לחטא וּלְהִשָּׁבַע עַל שֶׁקֶר לִכְפִירַת מָמוֹן:

וכחש בה AND DENIETH IT — i.e. that he denies על אחת מכל REGARDING ONE OF ALL these things (those mentioned above), אשר יעשה האדם לחטא THAT A MAN DOETH (is apt to do, cf. Numbers 5:7, said of a similar case ‎מכל חטאת האדם) TO SIN and to swear falsely with the object of repudiating a money claim.

כי יחטא ואשם. כְּשֶׁיַּכִּיר בְּעַצְמוֹ לָשׁוּב בִּתְשׁוּבָה, וּבְדַעְתּוֹ לְהִתְוַדּוֹת כִּי חָטָא וְאָשֵׁם:

יחטא ואשם‎‎ כי‎ means when he comes to a recognition of himself (recognises his duty) to repent of his sin and makes up his mind to confess that he has sinned and has incurred guilt).

בראשו. הוּא הַקֶּרֶן, רֹאשׁ הַמָּמוֹן:

בראשו — This means the principal — the capital (ראש) money.

וחמשתיו. רִבְּתָה הַתּוֹרָה חֲמִישִׁיּוֹת הַרְבֵּה לְקֶרֶן אַחַת, שֶׁאִם כָּפַר בַּחֹמֶשׁ וְנִשְׁבַּע וְהוֹדָה, חוֹזֵר וּמֵבִיא חֹמֶשׁ עַל אוֹתוֹ חֹמֶשׁ, וְכֵן מוֹסִיף וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד שֶׁיִּתְמַעֵט הַקֶּרֶן הַנִּשְׁבָּע לוֹ פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה (בבא קמא ק"ג):

וחמשתיו [AND HE SHALL ADD] THE FIFTH PART [MORE THERETO) — By using the plural וחמשתיו the Torah includes in this law of restitution the many additional fifths possible in respect to one principal — that if he denies the fifth (i. e. he asserts that he has repaid both capital and fifth, but has not really paid the latter, for which a claim is now made against him) and takes an oath that he has paid it, but afterwards admits the claim, then he must now bring (pay) a fifth in addition to this fifth (a fifth of the original fifth which now has become the קרן in addition to it), and so he keeps on adding a fifth to the original fifth until the principal about which he takes an oath becomes less in value than a P’rutah (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 13 12; Bava Kamma 103a).

לאשר הוא לו. לְמִי שֶׁהַמָּמוֹן שֶׁלּוֹ (שם):

לאשר הוא לו [AND HE SHALL ADD THE FIFTH PART MORE THERETO AND GIVE IT] UNTO HIM TO WHOM IT APPERTAINETH — i. e. to him whose is the money (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 13 12; Bava Kamma 108; also Bava Kamma 103a).