meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt/Tanakh/Commentary/Daat Zkenim/Torah/Daat Zkenim on Leviticus/English/merged.txt"}
text: Daat Zkenim on Leviticus
  דעת זקנים על ויקרא
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Daat Zekenim translated by Rb. Eliyahu Munk
  -
  
  Daat Zkenim on Leviticus
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויקרא אל משה, He (the Lord) called to Moses;” according to Tanchuma on this verse, G–d had to call out to Moses from inside the Hoy of Holies, (between the cherubs on the cover of the Holy Ark) as Moses at the time was standing outside the Tabernacle. He did so as He did not consider it fitting for Moses who had erected the Tabernacle to have to stand outside while His glory was inside. Moses had been afraid to enter as He had not been invited to do so, as long as the cloud was resting above the Tabernacle. Rashi adds that an additional reason for G–d calling to Moses first before speaking to him, was that this was also so when He completed speaking to him. The absence of any word indicating this, is that G–d, when having completed what He had to say, did not do so by anything indicating this. Furthermore the word לו, “to him,” which is really not necessary, was to teach that while Moses heard the call while standing outside, the people did not. In Numbers 7,89, at the end of the consecration of the Tabernacle, the Torah elaborates by writing that Moses heard the sound of G–d’s voice emanating from between the cherubs on the Holy Ark. The word אליו, “to him,” there makes it clear that only he heard that voice.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  מן הבהמה, “from some species of domesticated mammals;” Torat Kohanim sees in the wording proof that G–d did not want to tire out the Israelites excessively by having to hunt free roaming “kosher” animals to be served up as sacrifices, and this is why only domesticated animals, בהמה, were declared suitable for that purpose.
  
  Verse 3
  
  אל פתח אהל מועד יקריב אותו, “he shall bring it to the entrance of the Tabernacle.” This line is necessary so that we understand that it is not good enough for someone wishing to offer an animal sacrifice to say to the priest: “here is the animal, take it and offer it on my behalf.” If he did so, it would not be considered good manners vis a vis Heaven. The owner of the beast in question had to bring it personally all the way to the entrance of the Tabernacle [beyond which he was not allowed to go. Ed.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  לכפר עליו, “to make atonement for him.” When someone has eaten forbidden fats, inadvertently, he must bring an offering as atonement. If he is in doubt if he has eaten forbidden fat he must bring an offering known as asham taluy, an offering which suspends his status vis a vis G–d until the doubt has been removed. If it turns out that he had not eaten forbidden fat that is the end of the matter. If it turns out that he did eat forbidden fat, he must bring the additional sin offering. Sometimes it happens that a person was convinced that what he ate was permissible, whereas in fact it was not. In such an event, offering a burnt offering will achieve atonement on his behalf. This is the kind of burnt offering described in our verse.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  ושחט, “he will slaughter, etc.” the Torah used the singular mode as ordinarily one person performs that act. On the other hand, when describing the steps following the act of slaughtering, the Torah uses the plural mode, as a number of priests are usually involved in that.
  את בן הבקר, “the bullock;” the expression: בן הבקר implies that the animal is male and young, as it is forbidden to offer diseased or overage animals.(Compare Malachi 1,8 הקריבהו נא לפחתך, “just offer it to your governor!”) [The prophet reminds people that they would not dare offer a governor something less than first rate as he becomes aware of it immediately and will feel insulted. Ed.]
  בני אהרן, the Torah does not mean that other priests are not qualified, but used the sons of Aaron as examples of priests in their prime. This corresponds to what the Talmud stated in tractate Chulin folio 24, according to which priests have to retire from active service when their hands and feet have become red as a sign of weakness.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  והפשיט את העולה, “he shall flay the burnt offering;” this had to be spelled out here as we find in cases where animals which had been disqualified shortly before being slaughtered while already on the altar were burned whole including skin and entrails. Furthermore, we had to be told that the skin after being flayed was not burned, but became the property of the officiating priest.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  וערכו בני אהרן, “and Aaron’s sons shall arrange, etc.; when the same procedure is to be performed with offerings involving sheep or goats, (verse 12) the Torah uses the singular mode for the verb ערך, The reason is that cattle are so much heavier that more than one priest was required to handle all that.
  
  Verse 9
  
  וקרבו, “and its insides;” seeing that these parts are going to be presented at the “King’s” Table, extreme care had to be taken that everything was meticulously clean and no trace of blood was visible. On the other hand, when writing of animals which were not served up on the “King’s” Table but were burned outside sacred grounds, the Torah lumps together “its insides and its excrement,” (Leviticus 4,11) as it does in Leviticus 1,16, and 27 where flesh, skin, and excrement are all being burned at the same time and place.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ונמצה דמו על קיר המזבח, “and its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar.” Seeing we speak about a minute amount of blood, no special bowl had been used in first collecting it. Had it first been collected in a bowl there would not have been enough left over to sprinkle it, hence it was squeezed out against the side of the altar.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  כי כל שאור וכל דבש לא תקטירו, “for you must not let go up in smoke anything leavened or any honey.” The reason was that G–d had said that every offering had to be accompanied with a certain amount of salt (Leviticus 2,13) and the two ingredients mentioned here are not compatible with salt.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  ולא תשבית מלח, “and you must not omit salt;” the reason salt must not be omitted is that it is something that endures, and one of the most important symbolic features of animal sacrifice is to remind the Jewish people as well as individuals of the permanence of G–d’s covenant with us, and that it is not He who has to worry about being transient but we mortals. Seeing that He is not in need of food or drink, this legislation is clearly meant for the benefit of the Jewish people. When a person has sinned, and offered a sacrifice to further his atonement, knowing that after that he will be free of sin, he will be careful not to commit a careless act which resulted in his becoming obligated to cleanse himself from sin. If, on the other hand, he fails to take steps to obtain atonement, he will undoubtedly continue to commit sins as our sages have said in the Talmud tractate Kidushin, folio 20: “once a person has committed a sin-and has not repented and taken steps to rehabilitate himself,-the sin will no longer appear to him as having been a trespass against G–d, but he will treat it as if it had not even been a sin.” They explain this by comparing it to someone who has found a stain on his outer garment. Unless he takes steps to remove it, it will soon become something that he gets used to and before long his whole garment will become soiled. Concerning this subject, Solomon, in Kohelet, 9,8 says: בכל עת יהיו בגדיך לבנים, “be sure that your garments are white at all times;” our sages in the Talmud, tractate Makkot folio 2,add: “do not let them become stained by sin.” The Torah added numerous commandments, which the average person would perform even if the Torah had not specifically commanded him to do so. The reason is that it wished to give us additional opportunities to acquire spiritual merits.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  נפש כי תחטא בשגגה, “if someone commits a sin inadvertently;” it is noteworthy that the verse does not commence with the word: אדם, “a human being,” as it does in Genesis chapter one verse two, where it describes someone feeling the urge to offer a sacrifice to the Lord. When the prophet Ezekiel in Ezekiel 18,4, writes about the same subject, he too commences by referring to the subject as נפש, i.e. the animalistic part of our soul. The point that is being made in both these verses is that a sin can only be the product of the animalistic life force in our body, not the spiritual part that G–d blew into Adam’s nostrils when the result was his becoming a human being, אדם. (Compare Genesis 2,7 where he is then described as נפש חיה, “a living creature,” not just as נפש.) The creature described as נפש, is by definition mortal, as is clear from the verse quoted from Ezekiel 18,4, where the prophet concludes with the word: תמות, “it is bound to die.” Consider the following parable: two subjects had each committed a trespass against their king. One is an ordinary citizen, whereas the second one was one of the people engaged by the palace where he made his living. They were both arraigned for judgment. The King decreed that the ordinary citizen was to be released forthwith, whereas he imposed a painful penalty for the member of the palace staff who had committed a similar offence. The other members of the palace staff were very disturbed when they observed that their colleague had been singled out for harsher punishment. They questioned the king about this. The King told them that the first citizen, being a stranger, was not familiar with the good qualities of the king. He could therefore be forgiven for having committed this trespass. The palace employees, however, who were well aware of all the king had done for them, could not be forgiven for having trespassed against his rules instead of being especially careful not to commit such an offence. The same applies to creatures who possess only a body, i.e. who though human, did not have a Divine soul, which made them part of the heavenly regions, i.e. they are part of the staff of G–d’s Palace. They are charged with ensuring that their “uniform,” the soul, is in a state of purity at all times. As a result of this difference, the bodies who did not receive a נשמה, a soul from heaven, when they die are buried and this is all. Human beings endowed with a heavenly soul, however, come up for judgment to determine if the G–d given soul is being returned in the condition it had been given to them.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  את פני פרכת הקדש, “in front of the veil of the Sanctuary.” In verse 17, where we have a similar procedure, the adjective “holy” after the word: פרכת is missing. Why is this? Is it not the same curtain? It is to teach us that if only the High Priest has committed a sin, the presence of G–d does not depart, but if an entire congregation commits a sin, that presence goes into “hiding,” i.e. people forfeit the privilege of G–d ”dwelling” on earth within the Tabernacle.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  והקטיר המזבחה, “and make it smoke on the altar.” The expression ריח ניחוח, “of pleasing odour,” is missing here as when an individual of high rank sins, G–d is more harsh than He is with average people.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  או הודע אליו, “or it has become known to him;” the Torah uses the singular mode here as well as in verse 28 where the individual who has become guilty of a sin is the leader of his tribe. Some commentators, including Rashi, understand both these verses as applying to people who at the time when they committed the trespass were convinced that what they did was perfectly permissible. Others understand the word או here to mean the same as אם, “if.” However, the author of the commentary b’chor shor of blessed memory, writes that seeing that both ordinary individuals as well as the leader of a tribe have to bring an asham taluy, sin offering of a suspended nature, [arresting potential punishment, until the doubt has been resolved, Ed] when in doubt if they had committed a certain sin. Our verse deals with that doubt having been resolved so that a sin offering to atone for a definitely committed sin is now required. The same situation also applies to verse 27 in this chapter, where the verse following deals with the situation after it has become clear. The author of בכור שור quotes as proof for his interpretation Torat Kohanim on the words: ממצות ה' אשר לא תעשינה, “from amongst one of G–d’s commandments that must not be violated.” (verse 27) The author of that volume understands the word ואשם at the end of that verse as indicating that this asham taluy is not appropriate in that situation. When a community has become guilty of such a sin and a doubt arises, no asham taluy is required. This is based on the fact that when the Torah discussed the situation requiring it, it had spoken of נפש כי תחטא, “if an individual had committed a sin.” When the High Priest had committed a sin, this is linked to a trespass by העם, “the people,” and this is the reason why the situation described as “or he had become aware of it,” is not mentioned there, as if the High Priest had been in doubt and everything he does, he does as the representative of the people, such an asham taluy was not appropriate.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  והקטיר המזבחה, “and make it smoke on the altar.” The expression ריח ניחוח, “of pleasing odour,” is missing here as when an individual of high rank sins, G–d is more harsh than He is with average people.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ושמעה קול אלה, “by having heard an oath demanding him to testify, and having ignored it;” all the other paragraphs distinguish between inadvertently committed sins and those committed deliberately except the one involving an oath, known as שבועת בטוי, “a futile oath,” which is automatically considered as the one who uttered it doing so while aware of its implications. Solomon confirmed this in Kohelet 5,5 when he said: אל תתן את פיך לחטיא את בשרך ואל תאמר לפני המלאך כי שגגה היא, למה יקצוף האלוקים על קולך וחבל את מעשה ידיך, “do not let your mouth bring you in disfavour; and do not plead before the messenger (angel) that it was only an error; but fear the Lord else He may be angered by your talk and destroy your possessions.” When G–d will sit in judgment of all of His creatures, He will place such people next to the sorcerers and adulterers, as we know from the prophet Malachi (Malachi 3,5) והייתי עד ממהר במשפים ובמנאפים ובנשבעים (בשמי) לשקר, “I will act as relentless accuser against those that have no fear of Me, who practice sorcery, commit adultery and who swear falsely (using My name).”
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  ואם לא תגיע ידו די שה, “if he is unable to afford the price of a lamb, etc.” seeing that people guilty of entering sacred grounds in a state of ritual impurity or swearing a futile oath, do not derive any benefit from committing that sin, the Torah made allowances for them if they found offering a lamb as sin offering a financial hardship, and offered two alternatives depending on their financial status. No such relief is granted to people who inadvertently ate forbidden fat, blood, or who ate on the day of Atonement, (thinking it was on a different date), or people performing forbidden activities on the Sabbath for their personal benefit. Anyone who had derived personal benefit by making use of sanctified animals or vessels has committed two sins simultaneously, and is also not qualified to avail himself of what is written in this verse. He is viewed as if had tried to steal from G–d. All these people have to pay for the value of the animal offered by the priest on their behalf.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  'אשם אשם לה, “he is most certainly guilty in the eyes of the Lord.” According to Rashi, the apparent repetition of the word אשם, [although the first one is a noun whereas the second one is a verb Ed.] is meant to add that also in the case of someone who had had sexual relations with a Canaanite slave whose process of being freed had not yet been completed, must offer a two year old animal [as opposed to a one year old one which is much cheaper. Ed. Whenever the Torah uses the word איל, “ram,” without adding the age of said animal, it refers to a two year old ram. (Torat Kohanim)
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  'וכל מנחת כהן וגו, “and every meal offering by a priest shall be a whole offering, not to be consumed (by man.)” The reason may well be that the Torah was afraid that if the priest were allowed to eat a part of it, he would reason that it was not worthwhile for him to do so, as even whole it is only a small quantity of food. It would, of course be quite inappropriate for him to think that way; but to forestall such a thought the Torah decreed that none of it may be eaten. The above is not the case when an ordinary Israelite offers a meal offering. The portion that is not burned up is eaten by the priests, seeing that only a partial fistful, קומץ, has been burned up.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  זבח השלמים, “the sacrifice of the peace-offering;”  why is it called thus? It is meant to restore peace between us down here and G–d our Father in heaven. This is also described in these terms in Psalms 50 23, when the psalmist says: זובח תודה יכבדנני, “he who sacrifices a thank offering honours Me; the reason the word יכבדנני is spelled with the letter נ repeated, is to hint that G–d will feel honoured both in our world down here and in the heavenly regions.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהי ביום השמיני קרא משה לאהרן ובניו, “it was on the eighth day when Moses called Aaron and his sons, etc.”; we find the expression קרא being used for inviting someone to eat in order to satiate himself, as in Ezekiel 36,29: וקראתי אל הדגן והרביתי אותו, “I  will summon (call) the grain and make it abundant;” we find the same expression used in connection with famine, as in Kings II 8,1: כי קרא ה' לרעב, “for the Lord has decreed a seven year famine on the land.” We find that expression when someone is chosen for greatness, as when G–d chose Moses and Aaron for such positions, G–d having told Moses to call his brother Aaron in Exodus 4,14 and his telling him that he rejoices over his appointment. We now find it here where Moses is called upon to make the appointment of Aaron and his sons as priests public knowledge. 
  We also find this expression being used when the elders were being appointed to their respective positions, in order that this would become public knowledge.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  קח לך עגל, “take a calf for yourself, etc.” the Torah here tells Aaron to take a calf instead of a bullock (fully matured animal) as seeing that the status of the priesthood had been had been undermined by the golden calf in which he had been involved, it required a calf to restore its status to its former eminence.
  
  Verse 3
  
  קחו שעיר עזים לחטאת....ועגל, “you (plural) are to take a he-goat as sin offering plus a calf, etc;” this was to let them know that the sin of the golden calf had been atoned for, otherwise they would not have been commanded to use a calf as an offering.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  קרב אל המזבח, “approach the altar;” why did Moses have to command Aaron to do this? Satan at the time had appeared to Aaron in the guise of a calf, and he had become afraid that he no longer was qualified to serve as priest, or certainly as High Priest. Moses reassured him that he had nothing to fear.
  וכפר בעדך ובעד העם, “and make atonement for yourself as well as for the people.” This verse requires further study, as this offering was only on behalf of Aaron, not the people. We read further on in verse 15 and 16 of this chapter about the offering presented on behalf of the people. Seeing that this was so, why did the Torah in our verse include “the people?” We may answer that the Torah mentioned this in order to explain why Aaron first had to offer his personal sin offering, before being able to act as the agent of the people. As long as he had not obtained atonement for his part in the golden calf, he could not function as the people’s agent in this respect.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  ויקרב את המנחה, “he then brought forward the meal offering;” after that he slaughtered the ox and the ram as peace offerings. This sequence also deserves further study as the order is unusual. We would have expected the meal offering to be the least in that sequence. (Compare verse 4)
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  וישימו עליה קטורת, “and they placed incense thereon;” they placed the incense of the fire. We never find that incense was placed directly on the censer.
  אש זרה אשר לא צוה אות, “strange fire which He had not commanded them (to use).” The Torah implies that they had already been warned not to use such fire as is written in Exodus 30,9: [Actually, in that verse, the prohibition is not to offer strange fire, but not to use a strange mixture of incense. Ed.] The reason the Torah uses the unusual formulation “which he had not commanded them,” instead of ”which He had forbidden them,” is that on occasion, in exceptional circumstances, G–d does permit something which is ordinarily prohibited. The Torah underlines that this was not such an occasion. An example of such an exception would be what Elijah did on Mount Carmel in his confrontation with the 400 hundred priests of the Baal. (Kings I 18). He used a private altar something which was strictly forbidden since the Temple had been erected. We also find a verse in Jeremiah 7,31, where the prophet uses this expression as having been used by G–d. In that example the prophet chides the people for sacrificing their children to G–d saying that this had never occurred for G–d to have them do. (Compare Talmud, tractate Taanit, folio 4 on that subject)
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  'ותצא אש  מלפני ה, “and fire came forth from before the Lord, etc.” this was because they had not acted appropriately. Even though it is in order to use man made fire, as we have read specifically in Leviticus 1,7: ונתנו בני אהרן אש על המזבח, “the sons of Aaron are to put fire on the altar, this was in addition to the heavenly fire which had come down a single time. Before G–d had demonstrated acceptance of the Israelites’ offerings in the Temple precincts, they were not allowed to use man made fire, as it would have belittled the miracle G–d provided. People would have argued that their offerings had been consumed by man made fire. This is why G–d struck these two sons of Aaron with fire emanating in heaven. Our author has difficulty with this interpretation, as the Torah had written in Leviticus 9,24: ותצא אש מלפני ה' ותאכל על המזבח, “fire came forth from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and its fat parts.” How could the sons of Aaron therefore have belittled G–d’s fire by what they did? This is why the sages in the Talmud tractate Yuma folio 53, state that the sons of Aaron did not die because of this, but because they had dared to usurp the authority of Moses and Aaron by making halachic decisions without first having consulted with these leaders.
  'וימותו לפני ה, “as a result they died before the Lord.” We find a dispute recorded in the Torat Kohanim concerning the meaning of this phrase. According to Rabbi Eliezer, they died outside the Tabernacle in an area that the Levites were permitted to enter; he bases himself on the wording in verse five, in which the Torah describes how their bodies were removed from the spot where they died. The Torah describes the sons of Elitzafan, an uncle of Aaron as performing this task, with the words: ויקרבו וישאם בכתנתם אל מחוץ למחנה, ”they approached and lifted them up by their tunics and carried them out of the camp as they had been instructed to do by Moses.” If that is so, why did the Torah write that they died “before the Lord,” i.e. on sacred ground, not accessible to the Levites? This is why Rabbi Akiva disagreed and said that they had actually died inside sacred ground, and that the sons of Elitzafan had to use a long iron spear in order to pull placing that spear in their mouths and dragging their bodies to less sacred ground before they could lift them up, as they were only Levites and not priests. This presents us with a different problem, as in that event the Tabernacle itself would have become ritually impure as it formed a tent over the bodies of Nadav and Avihu, and it would have required purification rites which would last seven days. The Torah does not, however, report that the service in the Tabernacle had been interrupted for that length of time. Our author concludes that the subject needs further study. [Since the ash of the red heifer for cleansing oneself from impurity caused through contact with a dead body was not yet available, this editor does not see where the problem is.]
  
  Verse 3
  
  בקרובי אקדש, “I will become sanctified by means of the people who had been close to Me.” The very death of these people is an event which sanctifies Me. How so? If the Israelites will internalise how strict I have been with these highly placed individuals, they will know how careful they have to be not to deviate from My commandments.
  
  Verse 4
  
  ויקרא משה אל מישאל ואל אלצפן, Torat Kohanim claims that it is clear from here that the brothers of the deceased, being priests, were not allowed to bury him, i.e. to ritually defile themselves on account of the tragedy. This statement is most puzzling, as this is nothing new, and we know from Leviticus 21,1 that priests must not defile themselves. Seeing that both Elazar and Ittamar were not High Priests, why would they be forbidden to bury their brothers seeing that they belonged to the seven closest relatives on whose account they are permitted to defile themselves in such a situation? We must therefore assume that what the author of Torat Kohanim had in mind was that on days when ordinary priests have been appointed to perform service in the Temple, they are considered on the same level of sanctity as a High Priest, and on such days they must not defile themselves even in order to bury one of the seven closest relatives. This is also the opinion of the author of b’chor shor, in his commentary on verse 6, i.e. ראשיכם אל תפרעו, “let not your hair on your head grow loose.” The reason why this rule was revealed on that day was that on that day the brothers of Nadav and Avihu had been appointed to perform duties in the Tabernacle, so that they had become subject to the restrictions applying to their father the High Priest. On ordinary days, ordinary priests do not have to observe the restriction of not letting their hair grow loose. [At the time in question there had been only five priests, Aaron and his four sons. Ed.] Our author feels that the words: כי שמן משחת קודש עליהם, “for the holy anointing oil is upon you,” in the verse following, reinforces the commentary by the author of b’chor shor.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  ועל כל העדה יקצוף, “so that He will not become angry at the whole congregation;” the Lord will be angry if you display rites of mourning, as it would then appear as if your offerings which you had presented to the Lord had not been received by Him with goodwill. In the event that you would respond that if we did not mourn our brothers, the impression would be created that they had forfeited their status of being priests by what they had done, seeing that no one had mourned them, Moses commanded all the ordinary Israelites to weep and mourn for the two sons of Aaron who had been burned to death by G–d.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  יין ושכר אל תשת, “do not drink wine or other intoxicating drinks;” this commandment applies when on that day the priest is called upon to perform service in the Temple. Seeing that the High Priest is called upon to do so daily or at least to be ready to do so daily, it is addressed here to him in the singular mode. It is a cautionary commandment, to protect him against becoming inebriated. We know that normally there are many occasions when the consumption of wine is not prohibited, but is part and parcel of our rituals, and the priests are included in this also. We know already from Noah’s experience how overindulgence in alcoholic drink can cause man to lose his dignity not only temporarily but permanently. Solomon, in Proverbs 23,29-31 dwells on the manifold evils that can beset anyone who drinks to excess, so much so that the red colour of wine is used by him as a symbol of blood, i.e. bloodshed, that can be the result of drunkenness. Solomon continues with: כי יתן בכוס עינו יתהלך במישרים, “only he who will look at the cup will walk upright.” This sounds somewhat peculiar at first glance until we notice that the word כוס for “cup” is misspelled as if it were referring to כיס, ”pocket.” What Solomon means is that drinking too much may result in the drunk becoming a thief, desirous of obtaining by illegal means what is in someone else’s pocket. This is why he continues with: אחריתו כנחש נחש וכצפעני יפרש, “in the end it bites like a snake and stings like a viper.” He who aims at illegal gain will wind up walking upright, as he will have lost what was rightfully his and therefore can walk upright having nothing to carry that would force him to stoop under its weight. Some commentators understand the comparison Solomon makes with the snake as referring to the original serpent, and they explain Adam’s having drunk too much wine when celebrating his nuptials as the cause of his eating from the tree of knowledge as the result of his having been drunk. They suggest that the word כנחש be read as בנחש, that Adam transgressed the Lord’s commandment as he too had been seduced by the snake by means of drinking too much wine. Eventually he had become cursed through the serpent. (Proverbs 23,32.) This is what the Torah meant when it wrote in Genesis 3,15: ואתה תשופנו עקב, “and you shall bruise its heel.” Seeing that wine had become the means through which man had been led into sin, when we use wine at joyous occasions, we do so after taking permission to do so from the people present by saying: סברי, to which those present respond with the word לחיים, “may this occasion of drinking wine be an auspicious one, leading to constructive life.” There is an interesting story in the Talmud, tractate Shabbat, folio 66 about Rabbi Akiva having made a festive meal for his son, at which he pronounced the words: חמרא וחיי לפום רבנן ולפופ תלמידהון, “wine for the good life of the scholars and their disciples!” When Solomon says in Proverbs 23,33: ועיניך יראו זרות, “and your eyes will see strange things,” he means that when under the influence of wine you will imagine that things which are forbidden are in reality permitted. This leads you to commit adultery, and to abuse the power of speech by speaking in a manner unworthy of a sane human being. Not only this, but ultimately it can lead you to commit idolatry. He bases himself on Exodus 32,6: וישב העם לאכול ושתו ויקומו לצחק, “the people sat down to eat; they drank, and they got up in order to make merry.” Our author quotes a similar verse from Psalms 81,10, the psalmist saying: לא יהיה בך אל זר ולא תשתחוה לאל נכר, “you shall have no foreign god and you shall not bow down to an alien god.” In both instances the reference is to the golden calf to which the Jewish people bowed and around which many of them danced. When Solomon in Proverbs speaks of ולבך ידבר הפוכות, “your heart will speak perversities,” he refers to four such perversities; a) idolatry, 2) forbidden sexual unions, 3) shedding innocent blood, and 4) slander. In verse 20 of the same chapter in Proverbs where we read: אל תהי בסבאי-יין בזוללי בשר למו, “do not belong to the category of people who guzzle wine, or to those who glut themselves with meat!,” he hints at the ben sorrer umoreh, the wayward son whose end is execution based on the testimony of his own parents. (Deuteronomy 22,18-21) This lad’s corruption had begun because he drank to excess. On the subject of drinking wine, we have another comment in the Talmud, tractate Eyruvin folio 65, by Rabbi Chiya son of Ashi, according to which anyone who can drink wine and whose faculties are not negatively affected by this, is on a mental/spiritual level equivalent to the seventy elders who helped Moses look after the Israelites in the desert. He bases himself on the numerical value of the word יין, wine, which is 70. The word סוד, secret, also has a numerical value of 70. Overindulgence in wine, loosens one’s tongue and makes a person unable to keep a secret. One of the outstanding features of the seventy elders was their ability to remain discreet and not reveal what was supposed to be kept secret. Our sages coined the phrase therefore that “when wine enters a person’s body his secrets become revealed.” [One ‘seventy’ is replaced by another ‘seventy.’ Ed.] Rabbi Chaninah, on the same folio, states that anyone who while under the influence of wine is more open to view his companions agreeably, proves that he possesses some characteristic displayed by his Creator. He bases himself on Genesis 8,21, וירח את ריח הניחוח, where the Lord is portrayed as becoming receptive to the fragrance of Noach’s offering. [The Talmud had previously shown that ריח, customarily translated as smell, is also used as a term describing imbibing. In the quote cited, G–d undertakes never to bring on a deluge again as a reaction to that fragrant odour. Ed. When examining why wine was created, seeing that it is potentially destructive in its effect, the Talmud states that Solomon has provided the answer in Proverbs 31,6, where he advises תנו שכר לאובד ויין למרי נפש, “give liquor to one who is about to perish and wine to someone who is embittered, (in mourning for a relative). [Our author continues about the subject of wine and its advantages and disadvantages. I have omitted the balance of this paragraph. Ed.] An alternate interpretation of the introductory words of our verse: the priest is advised not to indulge in intoxicating drink (even when not called for duty in the Temple, and even when in mourning;)
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  ואת שעיר החטאת דרש, “and he (Moses) demanded an accounting about what had been done with the he-goat that was a sin offering;” When commenting on Leviticus 9,11, Rashi points out that we never find that a sin-offering slaughtered on the copper altar was burned up except the one discussed in that verse, and the bullock serving as sin offering during the consecration rites for the High Priest. In both those instances there had to be a special commandment from Hashem to do so. [Normally parts of these sin offerings were consumed by the priests. Ed.] This is in contrast to sin offerings offered on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary, no parts of which were ever eaten. This raises the problem with Rashi’s commentary on Numbers 8,8, where the bullock serving as sin offering when the Levites were appointed in lieu of the firstborns is discussed. [The text describes that offering as a sin offering, whereas Rashi calls it עולה, burnt offering, i.e. none of it is to be eaten. This offering was slaughtered on the copper altar on the courtyard of the Tabernacle. The function of this animal is first not described at all, whereas the Torah then proceeds to describe a second bullock to be offered on that occasion as a sin-offering. The reader will understand Rashi’s difficulty when he looks up the verse in question. Ed.] We must therefore assume that what Rashi had meant to say is that we do not find more than these two sin offerings which had been slaughtered on the copper altar as having been burned up including their skins outside sacred grounds. Our author finds additional problems involving the definitions of some offerings, none of which he was able to offer a solution to.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  אשה כי תזריע, “when a woman conceives, etc.” what is meant here is that if the woman reaches orgasm in her marital relations with her husband before he does, she will give birth to a male child.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  ואם נקבה תלד, “and if she gives birth to a female child, etc.” the Torah now describes what procedure to follow if, as a result of the husband reaching orgasm first, a baby girl is born. We know this is the meaning from the letter ו before the word: אם, “if or when.” This is how the Talmud, tractate Niddah, folio 31 interprets our verse. Some scholars claim to have read in articles dealing with these matters scientifically, that every woman has seven orifices in her body, three on her right side and three on her left side and one in the middle. If the man’s semen enters any of the orifices on her right side she will give birth to a male child, whereas if it enters on one of the orifices on her left side she will give birth to a female child. If it enters the orifice in her middle, the baby born will either possess no (visible) genitals or the genitals of both sexes. According to these theories it depends on the woman’s position during marital intercourse. If she lies on her right side, she will give birth to a male child, i.e. her ritual impurity will depart from her relatively quickly. This is why the Torah provided for her to be ritually unclean for relations with her husband for only seven days after giving birth. If she had been lying on her left side, her ritual contamination departs more slowly, and that is why the Torah put her out of bounds for marital intercourse for a period of fourteen days. This is why Solomon said in Song of Songs 2,6: שמאלו תחת ראשית וימינו תחבקני, “his left is under my head, and his right embraces me.” The love-sick partner in this poem indicates her desire to bear male children.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  וטהרה ממקור דמיה, “she shall be cleansed from the source of her ritual impurity.” What is the purpose of this verse? Even if the woman who had given birth had seen menstrual blood during all these days of ritual cleansing, she would be able to bring the requisite offerings at the conclusion of these 33 or 66 days after the initial period when she was out of bounds to her husband? Even if we were to assume that these words refer to the blood she saw while ritually unclean, there was no need to repeat the word דמיה, “her blood (her insides had not healed yet).” Her ritual purity does not depend on her bleeding or not bleeding, as she is not able to offer the sacrifices concluding her state of being considered a יולדת “birthing woman” even if she had not only stopped bleeding immediately after giving birth, but had experienced what halachah describes as a “dry” birth! The reason why the expression וטהרה, “she regained her ritual purity,” is in place is because until the expiry of these days and her having brought the requisite offerings, she cannot partake of food which is the residue of animals that have been slaughtered on the altar in the courtyard of the Temple, as well as agricultural products to be given to a priest, i.e. t’rumah.”
  
  Verse 8
  
   וכפר עליה הכהן, “and the priest shall make atonement for her.” Some people understand this procedure as being in the nature of physical cleansing as in Leviticus 14,19: וכפר על המטהר, “he will cleanse him on account of his uncleanness;” or in verse 53 of the same chapter: וכפר על הבית, “he will make atonement for the house.” In both these verses the subjects are afflictions either on the skin or the house, [neither of which can be considered as “guilty,” so that atonement in the spiritual sense would be required for them. Ed.] We find a similar expression in connection with someone suffering an uncontrollable emission of semen from his sexual organ, i.e. a disease. Clearly, it was not the semen that is at fault and requires purification on that account. (Compare Leviticus 15,15) While it is true that the afflictions in these verses were the result of the person suffering them having committed a sin, it still would sound incomprehensible if their belongings would be “punished.” Furthermore, the expression וחטא את הבית, “he will cleanse the house,” is used in the spiritual sense [seeing the root of the word is חטא sin, so that וכפר and וחטא, can be used both for describing spiritual cleansing and physical cleansing, depending on the context in which these words appear. (Compare Mishnah Negaim, 4,11)
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  והסגיר הכהן, “the priest shall lock up (the afflicted person).” This will enable him subsequently to determine if the affliction has spread. If one looks at the same section of skin every day, it is difficult to notice any changes. But if one has not seen it for a period of time, any changes can be noticed immediately. It is assumed that these changes, if any, occur very gradually. When Noach was in the ark and he wished to check if the water level around him had dropped, he also allowed seven days to elapse between dispatching a raven or a dove to examine this state of affairs. (Genesis 8,10). Actually, this comparison is not valid, as in our situation the priest had already marked the outer limits on the skin of the symptoms of the afflicted person clearly. He took the additional precaution of locking that person up in order to prevent him from tampering with what he had marked. He suspected such a person of trying to mislead him at the next inspection of the nega, skin-eczema.
  ועמוק, “and if deeper;” we find that the Torat Kohanim explains that the reason why the Torah wrote the unusually long “and the nega had not assumed a deeper appearance than the skin in the interval between the inspection then the afflicted person is pronounced ritually contaminated,” is that if it had not done so, we would have thought that only a spreading of the symptoms would lead the priest to declare the afflicted person as ritually contaminated. The fact that the area afflicted had not diminished, is proof that the symptoms had been that which the afflicted person himself had suspected to begin with. The Torah uses similar language when discussing symptoms of boils in verse 20 of our chapter. The wording of the entire chapter has to be understood in this vein. However, according to the explanation of Rashi, the word עמוק has to be understood as relative, i.e. like shade compared to an area lit up by the sun. This does not sound like a good comparison for the word הסגר, “locking up.” Our author admits that when speaking of north Europeans who have a very light skin the comparison is more apt. With people like that the appearance of the nega described in the Torah is not usually so much different from his normal skin colour. This sounds far fetched as we are told that the skin eczema known as baheret, is as white as snow, and what can be whiter than snow?
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  עמד בעיניו, “and the plague had retained the same appearance, looking the same in the eyes of the priest,” (who had examined it the last time). According to Rashi who considers the subject as being the nega, affliction, the Torah should have written עומד בעיניו, in the present tense.
  
  Verse 6
  
  ביום השביעי שנית, “again on the seventh day;” we learn from here that the nega will not become ritually clean unless it had shrunk. This is also how Rashi explains it with the word כהה, i.e. its appearance had become dimmer. If it had become more pronounced or remained static the afflicted person is ritually unclean. The accepted ruling, halachah, however, is that if it did not spread out, the afflicted person is declared ritually clean. This has also been spelled out in the Mishnah in tractate Nega’im chapter 1, Mishnah 3. We quote: ארבעה מראות האלו מצטרפין זה עם זה לפטור ולהחליט ולהסגיר., “Any of these four shades (that have been mentioned before) may combine together to declare clean, or to certify as definite affliction by a nega, or to cause the suspected victim to be shut up.” The first example listed is that the suspected area has remained static at the end of the second week. The expression in the Mishnah להסגר, for shutting up, refers to the first examination after the priest’s visit. The expression לפטור, to declare ritually clean, refers to the visit of the priest after the second week. Similar rules apply if the symptoms had been white like snow after the first week, and by the end of the second week the affected area looked like the whitewashed area of Sanctuary. This is not considered as “having dimmed,” but as having remained static, until the area afflicted has shrunk. Some scholars state that the reason these details have been written in the Torah in this context is to tell us that if the appearance had not dimmed at all, then the afflicted person is declared ritually clean. We are to learn that a change from snow white to whitewashed, or vice versa from snow-white to whitewashed or vice versa, is not to be interpreted as a new type of nega having surfaced. Our author quotes one or two alternate interpretations of the words ביום השביעי שנית, but seeing that the legislation does not apply in our time and we need the prophet Elijah to rule on whose interpretation is correct, this editor sees no point in pursuing this subject at this time.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  ונראה שנית, “and he is to be seen by the priest a second time.” The Torah should have written: “a third time,” as the priest had already seen that person twice.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  צרעת היא, “it is the dreaded skin disease known as tzoraat.” What had first been diagnosed as נגע and had therefore been described in the masculine mode, is now described in the feminine mode, i.e. צרעת. (Compare verse 3)
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  צרעת נושנת, “an old tzoraat;” Rashi here is not precise enough in his commentary. In Torat Kohanim a white hair is considered as proof of ritual contamination of the skin from which it grows. Similarly what is described by the Torah as michyeh, i.e. מכות מחיה, in verse 24, is a sure sign of ritual impurity, regardless of any changes from one week to another. The fact that it too is treated by the Torah as feminine, is clear proof of this.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  וביום הראות בו בשר חי, “and from the day when raw flesh appears on that area;” this is clear proof that the afflicted person must be declared as ritually unclean. Rashi writes that although this verse has been understood by the Talmud in tractate Kidushin folio 25, differently. i.e. 24 limbs of the human body are not subject to this kind of ritual contamination as they require the visual inspection of a priest, the Torah here specifically spells out that if symptoms of eczema break out before the afflicted person has shaved himself, this rule does not apply to the symptoms described here, as מחיה. [Compare Maimonides hilchot tumat tzoraat chapter three halachah eight Ed.] Our author repeats that Rashi here was not accurate and disagrees with the version of Torat Kohanim. (5,1)
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  ונרפא, “and it is healed.” At first glance this word is enigmatic. How does this word get into this verse? However, we find that in the Torat Kohanim this word plus the fact that instead of the afflicted person being the subject in this verse, the subject is the state of his skin, teaches that in spite of the nega not being able to develop in the normal manner, the person so afflicted is already declared as ritually impure. The boil, שחין, must first heal completely, before a healing process for the nega can even begin.
  
  Verse 19
  
  או בהרת לבנה אדמדמת, “or a white rising or a bright spot, reddish white;” according to Torat Kohanim, the reddish looking spot is a phenomenon that occurs with all the four different types of the skin diseases described in this chapter. It is a clear sign that the afflicted person will be declared ritually impure.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  לא פשתה בעור והיא כהה, “it has not spread on the surface of the skin and has dimmed;” this means that if it has spread although its appearance did not change, it will be declared as making its victim ritually impure.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  ושער שחור אין בו, “and there is no black hair on that area of the skin;” this is an additional sign of ritual purity. One may well ask what the situation is if only one of these symptoms is present? The author of b’chor shor states that this depends on the disagreement in the Mishnah between Rabbi Yonatan and Rabbi Yoshiah in the Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 66. According to one opinion the absence of two symptoms is needed in order for the afflicted person to be declared ritually clean; according to the other opinion the absence either of the two symptoms discussed suffices.
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  'והנה פשה הנתק בעור וגו, “and behold if the scall be spread in the skin, etc. טמא הוא, “he is ritually contaminated.” This entire verse appears superfluous; we had already read that “if the scall did not spread out on the afflicted person the priest will declare him ritually clean, (verse 35)” is ritually contaminated clean (remains that way). If you were to argue that if not for this verse, I would give a different interpretation to our verse here namely” “if the scab spread and there is no single black hair he remains ritually contaminated, but if there is only one such symptom, namely the spreading out of the scall, this would not result in the person under discussion becoming declared ritually contaminated, or as the case maybe, to become ritually contaminated.
  
  Verse 37
  
  ואם בעיניו עמד הנתק, “but if the appearance of the scall has remained static, etc.;” we need to examine what new dimension of the subject has been added by this verse. We already know that if no change had occurred in the symptoms’ appearance that the afflicted person is ritually clean. Perhaps the Torah wished to spell out the law that when a black hair had begun to sprout on the surface under discussion this does not hurt his status. [According to Rashi, it teaches that if the priest had mistakenly declared this person to be ritually unclean he remains so until the priest reverses his decree. Ed.]
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  בקרחתו או בגבחתו, “on his bald head or bald forehead.” It is irrelevant if the area concerned normally produces a growth of hair or if it does not.
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  בדד ישב, “he is to dwell in solitude.” The reason is that this is a disease which is catching, and by remaining where he used to live he would infect his neighbours. He is also not permitted to carry on marital relations with his wife. He would find it difficult to perform his duty.
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  צרעת ממארת היא, “it is a malignant skin disease;” the afflicted person, when he feels burning of the skin will feel tempted to peel off the affected part of the skin, and as a result it would come back on an even bigger area of his skin.
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  
  
  Verse 55
  
  פחתת היא, “it has penetrated the fabric of his garment thoroughly.” As a result it will keep on spreading. Merely tearing up the garment is not sufficient.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   זאת תהיה תורת המצורע, “This shall be the law of the person afflicted with the skin diseases discussed in the previous chapters, etc.” the very word מצורע contains a hint that describes why, in most instances, such a person has been afflicted with this disease. It is because he bad-mouthed fellow Jews. The word is a combination of מוציא שם רע, “he called someone by a bad name.” Compare Talmud tractate Erchin folio 16. We also find that the Talmud attributes the demise of four people who had been guilty of this sin as losing their claim to an afterlife; they are: Bileam, Doag, Achitofel, and Geychazi, the disciple of the prophet Elisha. (Compare details in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 106. [That chapter deals with people who have or will forfeit their claim to an afterlife. Ed.]Solomon in Kohelet,5,5, also deals with this subject when he wrote: אל תתן את פיך לחטיא את בשרך, “let not your mouth bring guilt on your flesh;” which sin did he had in mind? The sin of badmouthing fellow Jews. Solomon referred to the same sin in Proverbs 18,21, when he said: מות וחיים ביד לשון, “death and life are within the power of the tongue.” Death is liable to follow abuse of the power of speech, whereas life is at the disposal of people who meticulously observe the Torah and study it. The Torah is the remedy with which the sin of evil gossip can be atoned for. It is known as the עץ חיים, “the tree of life.” We know this also from Solomon, who said in Proverbs 15,4: מרפא לשון עץ חיים, “the tree of life can heal (the harm caused) by abusing one’s power of speech.” Intensive Torah study prevents a person from becoming guilty of using his power of speech. The guilt of לשון הרע, evil gossip, is considered as greater that that of being guilty of shedding innocent blood. When one is guilty of the latter, one had only killed one life, whereas when one is guilty of evil gossip, one is guilty of killing at least three people, the one who engages in it, the one who listens to it, and the one about whom this evil gossip has been spread. We find an illustration of this in Samuel I 22, where King Sha-ul killed all the priests resident in the city of Nov because he had listened to the false accusations spread against them by Doag. Sha-ul was killed on account of that sin as we know from Samuel Il 1,9: עמוד נא ומותתני כי אחזני השבץ, “stand over me and finish me off, for | am in agony and barely alive;” whenever we encounter the expression שבץ, it refers to the priestly garments, as we know from Exodus 28,39: ושבצת הכתונת שש, “make the fringed tunic out of fine linen.” Concerning Doag, the slanderer, in this story we have it on the authority of Psalms 52,7 that he was killed in this world and deprived of the after life, i.e. גם אל יתצך לנצח יחתך וגו', “also G–d will tear you down for good, and root you out, etc.” The Talmud in tractate Erchin, folio 15, states that the sin of tale-bearing is greater than murder, incest or idolatry.
  והובא אל הכהן, “and he will be brought to the priest.” We read this as if it had been written in the past tense, i.e. ובא אל הכהן, “he had come.” The reason is that there was no one who could have brought him, as everyone had been warned not to associate with him in any manner. Compare Leviticus 13,46: בדד ישב מחוץ למחנה מושבו, “he must dwell in isolation, his residence must be beyond the boundaries of the camp.”
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  ולקח למטהר שני צפרים, “and he will take for the person to be ritually cleansed two birds;” according to the Talmud in Erchin folio 16, the offering matches the sin for which it is to atone, i.e. just as birds engage in constant useless chatter, so the tale-bearer to be cleansed now had done something which had demeaned his power of speech to something no better than that of a bird.
  
  Verse 5
  
  ושחט את הצפר האחת, “the priest is to slaughter one of these two birds;” why was one of the birds slaughtered and the other one was let go and sent off into his domain? This symbolised the lesson that if the person now getting his atonement would perform sincere penitence, he would again become a useful member of society, fit to be associated with.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  ונתתי, “I will give;” the Lord said to the Jewish people: see how different you are from the nations of the globe; when the former sin, I first punish them, as we know from Genesis 12,17: וינגע ה' את פרעה ואת ביתו “the Lord afflicted Pharaoh with a plague and his house" when I have occasion to strike anyone of you with a plague, I warn them by first sending a plague to the sinner’s house, and garment before striking his flesh. (Compare our verse here.) Why would I do this, seeing that the stones and the timber have not committed any sins against Me? I do this in order to give you a warning that worse is to come if you do not heed My warning. Before I sent Sancheriv to exile the ten tribes, I first let him conquer all the countries surrounding yours, so that you would take notice and mend your ways. Compare what the prophet Tzefaniah wrote in Tzefaniah 3,6: הכרתי גוים נשמו פנותם, החרבתי חוצותם מבלי עובר נצדו עריהם מבלי איש מאין יושב. “I wiped out nations, their corner towers are desolate; I turned their thoroughfares into ruins, with none passing by; their towns lie waste without people, without inhabitants.” This is how G–d sends warnings to His people of what might befall them unless they mend their ways by afflicting their possessions before afflicting them. [The prophet spells all this out in subsequent verses. Ed.] In verse 55 of our chapter, the afflicted house and subsequently the afflicted garments of a person, are cited as warnings of physical afflictions to follow if the warnings were ignored. If the warnings were heeded by the owner of those houses or garments mending their ways their flesh will not become affected. We know this from what is written in chapter 15 verse 2: איש כי יהיה בו זב וגו', “when any man has a discharge emanating from his sexual organ he is ritually contaminated.” This is also what Solomon had in mind when he wrote in Proverbs 19,29:נכונו ללצים שפטים, ומהלמות לגו כסילים, ”punishments are prepared for the scoffers, beatings for the backs of the fools.” G–d is quoted by Solomon as having said that He prepared these methods of disciplining Man already before He even created Man himself.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  זוב דמה,ואשה כי יזוב, “and if a woman  have an issue of her blood, etc.” what is described here is what Solomon in Kohelet 10,18 alluded to when he said: בעצלתים ימך המקרה, “through slothfulness the ceiling sags, and through idleness of the hands, the house leaks.” The symbolism contained in this verse refers to the neglect by a woman in observing the laws of ritual purity, especially those laws involving menstruation. If the woman fails to examine herself before the onset of her menses this can have dire consequences, both for herself and the husband with whom she entertains marital relations. In the Talmud tractate Shabbat second chapter, death in childbirth by a woman is mentioned as one of these consequences. If she handled certain hallowed foods while in a state of ritual impurity, she made these foods unfit for consumption and conferred ritual impurity on the party handling them without even having eaten them. An interesting story on this subject is related in the Talmud, tractate, Niddah, folio 6. The famous Rabbi Gamliel had a servant woman working for him, who would regularly be required to seal caskets of wine [of a highly consecrated level, Ed.] and move them to another. After each single time she had moved them, she examined herself about whether her menses had begun, as otherwise the whole casket and its contents would have been unfit for further use. This servant maid found that after she had moved the last casket she had started her period. Upon telling this to her master, she was told that if she had not been in the habit of checking herself after each time she moved a casket, not only the last one but all of them would have become ritually contaminated. This is also why on folio 13 of the same tractate, we have a statement to the effect that anyone who makes a point of frequently checking herself out in this respect is especially praiseworthy.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  ואחר תטהר, “and after that she is ritually clean.” Immersion of her whole body in forty measures of water in the ritual basin are what made her clean. Our sages in the Talmud tractate Eyruvin, folio 75 derive this from the words: אך במי נדה יתחטא, “but in the waters in which a menstruating woman bathes it will be cleansed.” [after waiting for the appropriate number of days without bleeding, Ed.] (Numbers 31,23). In verses 16-17 in our chapter, these steps to obtain ritual cleanliness are spelled out. Midrash Rabbah on Isaiah 8,6, describing the slow moving river Shiloah as moving לאט, points out that the numerical value of that word is 40; hence 40 saah of rainwater or well water is the minimum required for a ritual bath this has become the minimum amount stipulated by our sages as adequate for submersion.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  אחרי מות, “after the death;” when we read in Kohelet 9,2: כטוב כחוטא, “as is the good man so is the sinner,” this is a reference to the two sons of Aaron who died only on account of having arrogated to themselves the right to preempt their elders Moses and Aaron in issuing a religious ruling. This is the meaning of the Talmud, tractate Yuma, folio 53, where Rabbi Eliezer explained the word חוטא as referring to their having done so. What precisely was the “new” ruling that they revealed? They interpreted the line: ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן אש על המזבח, ”the sons of Aaron the priest placed fire (man made) on the altar;” (in addition to the fire that came down from the heaven). (Leviticus 1,7) Their sin was basically the same as that of Korach and his congregation, and that is why both were burned to death by heavenly fire. (Compare Tanchuma on our portion, section 1) Rabbi Acha son of Ze-ira adds (in the Tanchuma) that this is also the meaning of Job 37,1: אף לזאת יחרד לבי ויתר ממקומו, “also on account of this my heart quakes and leaps from its place;” he compares what happened to the staff of Aaron when it was placed inside the Sanctuary which sprouted almonds, whereas his sons when they entered the Sanctuary were burned to death. (Numbers 17,23) He also contrasts the fact that the Roman general Titus dared to enter the Holy of Holies, and he left it unharmed although surely he was less qualified to have entered such sacred grounds. He had entered in order to blaspheme, whereas the sons of Aaron had entered in order to offer incense to the Lord. (Tanchuma section 4 on our portion) [No wonder at the reaction of Job when he reflected on this phenomenon. Ed.] This phenomenon is also the subject of Psalms 78,63: בחורי אכלו אש ובתולותיו לא הוללו, “Fire consumed their young men and their maidens remained unwed.” The psalmist explains the reason that the sons of Aaron had to die as being that they had failed to get married. They had described themselves as so superior that no one was good enough to become their wives. They overestimated the value of having been born into such prominent families as their father and uncle. The result of their haughtiness was that they died without leaving behind any children. (Tanchuma section 6) In other words, no one remembered them.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  בזאת, “herewith, etc.” the numerical value of the word בזאת is 410, a reminder of the number of years Solomon’s Temple was operative before the last two tribes went into exile.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  גורל אחד לה' וגורל אחד לעזאזל, “one lot for the Lord and one lot for Azazel.” Ibn Ezra, [at the conclusion of his commentary on this verse, Ed.], writes that when we get to thirty three, we will be able to understand the meaning of this procedure. [At the beginning of his commentary, he had already hinted that there is a mystical element, kabbalah, in all this. Ed.] What he meant was that when we count the next thirty three verses in the Torah and we get to Leviticus 17,7, the Torah will explain that the procedure described here is meant to teach us not to sacrifice to Satanic forces in the universe anymore. These Satanic forces are symbolised by the scapegoat. Just as the bird released into the air by the priest performing the ritual of the person afflicted with tzoraat is perceived as taking away his former sins, so the scapegoat is supposed to do this on behalf of the whole Jewish nation on the day of Atonement. Ibn Ezra understands the word עזאזל as a combination of two words, similar to גלעד in Genesis 31,47 or to בנימין in Genesis 35,18 or ראובן in Genesis 29,32, and many others. Whereas the first male goat is offered to the Lord as a burnt offering, the second one is symbolically tendered of the Satanic forces, the complete destruction of that animal pointing at the uselessness of idolatry The two words לעז אזל, “it went to waste, to destruction ” symbolise this concept.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  ואל אשה בנדת טמאתה לא תקרב, “and you shall not approach a woman when she is having her period, etc.” seeing that her husband is normally physically close to her, the Torah has to issue this additional warning. He must keep his distance from her until she has regained her ritual purity.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   קדושים תהיו, “you shall strive to attain holiness.” The meaning of this verse is made clear in verse four where the Torah adds that “you must not turn to idols, etc;” even if the purpose of your preoccupation with idols is to understand why they are completely useless, so that you think that what you do is לשם שמים, “for the sake of heaven,” do not do so! Seeing that only the Lord is holy, there would be no point in studying other nations’ ideologies.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  ואלוהי מסכה לא תעשו לכם, “do not make for yourselves a molten deity.” What is the meaning of the word: “for yourselves” in this verse, seeing that we have been forbidden to make such images for gentiles? What G–d means here is: “do not make it for others, neither accept what others have made for you as deities.”
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  לא תלין פעולת שכיר, “do not withhold the wages of a day labourer overnight.” Torat Kohanim on this line asks the rhetorical question: “how do I know that the same rule applies to beasts which have laboured for you? The word שכיר followed by פעולת, “labour of,” shows that it applies not only to human beings who have laboured for you, but as well to animals and the soil that has worked for you.? When this verse is discussed in the Talmud, there is no reference to the soil.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  וערלתם, the expression ערלה basically describes an infant, which during the first three years of its life is totally illiterate. After that it begins to learn to speak intelligently; in other words, it produces some “fruit,” during that year, and during the next year it learns how to read and write, i.e. to understand parts of the Torah. Subsequently such youngsters begin to make contributions to civilised society. (Compare Talmud, tractate Baba Batra folio 21, where a youngster is described as having to study Torah from the age of six as he is mature enough). Compare also Ethics of our Fathers chapter 5 Mishnah 21 where a youngster of five years is described as ready to study the written text of the Torah.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  [לנפש לא יטמא בעמיו], “he must not ritually defile himself on account of the dead [members] of his people.” If he cannot defile himself in order to bury his relatives, how much less may he do so for people not related to him!
  
  Verse 2
  
  כי אם לשארו הקרוב אליו, “except for his kin that is close to him;” according to Torat Kohanim, the word הקרוב אליו, excludes a girl only betrothed to him who has not yet become his wife in the full meaning of the word. Seeing that the priest may not defile himself on account of a woman only betrothed to him, it is clear that he may defile himself on account of a sister who is betrothed but not married yet. Concerning the words הקרובה אליו, Rashi explains that they include a sister who is betrothed. This makes sense, as seeing that an ordinary priest may not defile himself in order to bury a woman betrothed to him, it is logical that he should be allowed to defile himself for a sister who is only betrothed. If his sister’s husband to be had been a priest, he would not have been permitted to busy herself with her funeral. The Talmud in tractate Yevamot folio 22, understands the word שארו as referring to the priest’s properly married wife. This is also in agreement of what is written in verse 4: לא יטמא בעל בעמיו להחלו, “a husband shall not defile himself for his wife’s corpse if she had not been legally permitted to be the wife of a priest.” Unless the clause להחלו, “to disgrace him,” applied to his “wife,” he would, of course, be permitted to defile himself on her corpse. Furthermore, the fact that the Torah makes a distinction between a sister who has remained a virgin, (verse three) and it describes such a sister as הקרובה אליו, “who is close to him seeing that she had not been married,” by adding: “he may defile himself on her account,” it is clear that if she had been married already, her brother the priest, would not be permitted to defile himself at her funeral. The reason is simply that in that event her husband is considered as closer to her than her brother, though the former is a blood relative. The degree of relationship through marriage has been spelled out in the Torah already in Genesis 2,24, where the Torah described the bond of marriage as making “one flesh” out of husband and wife. There is no greater degree of קרובה, physical intimacy, than that.
  לאמו ולאביו, “but for his mother and his father’s [funeral] etc;” just as he may only defile himself for burying mother and father who had been fully alive, so this exception for other members of his closest family applies only to those who had been alive for at least thirty days. He must not defile himself on account of stillborn children, for instance. Seeing that the Torah saw fit to mention the mother before the father when discussing the rules for ordinary priests, why, when discussing the parents of the High Priest in verse eleven, does the Torah mention the father ahead of the mother? If it is forbidden for the ordinary priest to defile himself ritually at his mother’s funeral, there is no need to repeat this as there is no doubt who was one’s mother, whereas there is no certainty as to who was one’s father. The father is added therefore to tell us that notwithstanding this uncertainty, he may defile himself at his father’s funeral. In the case of the High Priest, the Torah mentions his mother last in order to tell us that in spite of our being certain the woman being buried was his mother, he is still not permitted to defile himself on her account. לאחיו ולאחותו, “concerning his brother or his sister, etc.;” we find that according to Torat Kohanim that we might have thought that the Torah speaks of a brother and sister of the same mother; in order to show us that this is not so, the Torah adds the words: ,לבנו ולבתו, “and concerning his son and his daughter.” Just as the son and daughter are his potential heirs, so the brothers and sisters that are meant here are only those that are potentially heirs, i.e. they have the same father. The law of inheritance excludes the mother.
  
  Verse 3
  
  ולאחותו הבתולה, “and his sister as long as she is still a virgin;” The Talmud in tractate Nazir, folio 47, commenting on this verse, sees in the repetition of the word ולאחותו, “and on account of his sister,” an allusion to the contrast with a corpse who has no one claiming it, and which therefore even the High Priest is not only permitted but commanded to defile himself and bury, out of consideration for human dignity. We find the following comment on this subject in Maimonides, laws concerning mourning, chapter 3, halacha 8: if a High Priest encounters a corpse along the way, and he finds himself so far from the nearest human being that even if he yells at the top of his voice no one can hear him, he is obliged to proceed with burying this corpse. This ruling is based on the Talmud, tractate Yevamot folio 89: ”If the High Priest calls out in order to attract the attention of other human beings, and no one answers his call, this is the situation known as מת מצוה, “a corpse that anyone is called upon to bring to burial forthwith.” This is a decree of great severity, i.e. if there is anyone else available the High Priest must not defile himself in order to perform this last act of kindness for the dead.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  לא יטמא בעל בעמיו להחלו, “a husband [a priest, of course, Ed.] among his people, shall not contaminate himself to one (his wife) who had become his wife as a result of her having desecrated him.” According to the author of b’chor shor, we must understand this as if the Torah had written: לבעל בעמיו, even if he is a High Priest.” [The word בעל is being used by that commentator as “the highest authority,” not only the husband, i.e. his wife’s authority. Ed.] Even in the situation described, an alternate priest who is not allowed to defile himself except to the relatives mentioned in our portion may not substitute for the High Priest to save him from performing the commandment of מת מצוה.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  אשר (יהיה) בו מום לא יגש להקריב, “that has a blemish shall not come close in order to present an offering.” The Talmud in tractate Kidushin, folio 66, raises the question of why the verse in Numbers 25,12: הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום , “here I bless him with My covenant of peace” (to Pinchas) was necessary. It suggests that it was based on what is written here, i.e. that the priest must be שלם, unblemished. The subject needs further study.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  אך אל הפרוכת לא יבא, “but he must not go beyond the dividing curtain;” Torat Kohanim demonstrates why the additional mention of the altar in this verse was necessary by stating that if the Torah had only mentioned the dividing curtain, we might have thought that seeing that anything beyond was the Holy of Holies, anyone who was not a priest was forbidden to enter there, and if it had written only that the altar was out of bounds to them that the reason was that they were not allowed to perform sacrificial rituals. By mentioning both the dividing curtain and the altar situated in the Sanctuary, no one could make such an error.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  ומנחתו שני עשרונים, “with its meal offering including two tenth parts of an eyphah of fine flour;” our sages point out that this meal offering was different from all other meal offerings offered as an adjunct to offerings consisting of sheep which were only accompanied by meal offerings containing one tenth of an eypha of fine flour; although it was accompanied by a larger meal offering than other similar offerings, the libation that accompanied it was not larger than the normal one quarter of a hin of wine. This is also why when we recite in our Mussaph on the festivals that offerings of bullocks were accompanied by three measures of fine meal for such offering, whereas two measures accompanied offers consisting of a ram, and one such measure accompanying offerings consisting of a sheep. When listing the accompanying libation offerings in that same prayer, the text does not mention the amount of wine for the libations of each such sacrifice beyond saying “the appropriate amount for each.” When speaking of the libation for the “omer” offering, the Torah writes: ונסכה in the feminine mode instead of ונסכו, for Its libation offering” in the masculine mode as it refers to the whole meal offering, the word for that offering being מנחה, a feminine noun. In our prayers we do not refer to this distinction as it is the only exception. Actually, one half of the meal offering is intended to belong to the omer firstling of the barley harvest offering, whereas the other half is intended to be the meal offering which belongs to the sheep offering. The size of the libation accompanying this offering is the same as usual.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  אך בעשור לחודש, “but on the tenth of the month, etc.;” why do we need the word: “אך?” Seeing that all the other festival days are known as מקרא קודש, “holy convocation,” i.e. days for eating drinking and general enjoyment, whereas this is a day on which all these things are forbidden, the word אך introduces Yom Kippur as a contrast by letting us know that it is no less of a festival, מועד, although the emphasis is the atonement that is granted to the entire nation on that day. It is still called מקרא קודש on account of the day being honoured by the sacrifices being offered and by the abstaining from the normal weekday activities. On that day, we subject ourselves to afflictions and at the end of the day we all feel even better than at the end of any of the other days called מקרא קודש.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  אך בחמשה עשר יום, “but on the fifteenth day, etc.; the introductory word אך here is justified, as on Sukko,t when the harvests have all been brought in and stored, the degree of joy is much greater than on Pessach and Shavuot, the former being a festival when the word שמחה, joy, is not even mentioned, as no part of the year’s crops have as yet been harvested. On Sukkot we celebrate not only the material blessings the Lord has bestowed upon us but also the spiritual blessings, seeing that only four days before its beginning we have become relieved of the burdens of our sins. On this festival the expression שמחה is associated with these days no fewer than three times (including Deuteronomy 15,14). This joy is due to the harvests of our fields, orchards, and the forgiveness of our sins. This is why the Torah is able to urge us: והיית אך שמח, “you shall be joyous without any reservations.”
  
  Verse 40
  
  ולקחתם לכם, “you shall take for yourselves, etc.” the sages explain the word לכם here as equivalent to מלכם, “from something that is yours;” these plants must neither be stolen or borrowed. If they were not legally yours, they would act as accusers rather than as advocates on your behalf. Tanchuma section 18 on this verse illustrates by the following parable: The king sent out one of his officers to collect taxes due to him. The officer proceeded to this but was waylaid on the way after having collected a considerable sum, and he was robbed both of his and of the king’s money. Some time later that same robber showed up at the entrance of the king’s palace where the official who had been robbed by him stood guard. He enquired what brought this man to the palace and was told that he had a problem that he wished to submit to the king’s judgment and he begged the official to support his request, or to hire someone to do so. He was then told by that official that as long as he had not made restitution for what he had stolen from him, there could be no question of his receiving any assistance. Thereupon the thief returned what he had stolen from this official. When on the morrow the erstwhile thief submitted his case to the king, the king asked him if he had anyone who could support his request. The petitioner pointed to the official and suggested that he could give testimony as to his character. When the king heard this, he turned to that official and asked him what he could have to say in favour of the petitioner. So the official proceeded to tell the king all that had happened between him and the petitioner. He pointed to some of the vessels that he had been robbed of, and which had been the king’s property originally and which had been returned to him on the understanding that he, this official, would plead on the petitioner’s behalf. All the people present then joined in saying: “woe to the accuser and woe to the accused who both have changed their role.”
   ביום הראשון, “on the first day (of the festival).” The palm frond, lulav, which we shake on that day is to symbolise the fact that we have been found deserving of atonement on the recent Day of Atonement. This is what the psalmist had in mind when he said in Psalms 96,12: אז ירננו עצי היער, “then all the trees in the forest shall shout for joy.” Who does this verse speak of? Of the Jewish people in the desert as well as the nations of the earth whom G–d had sat in judgment of on the Day of atonement, see verse 13 in the same chapter of Psalms: לפני ה' כי בא לשפוט הארץ, ישפוט תבל בצדק ועמים באמונתו, “in the presence of the Lord, for He is coming, for He is coming to rule the Earth; He will judge the world fairly and its people in faithfulness.” Both the Jewish people and the gentile nations have come up for judgment on that day, and we do not know which ones are the victors. G–d advises us to hold the lulav in our hands, so that everyone will know that we have been acquitted. Tanchuma on this verse illustrates this by a parable. Two men appear before the king for judgment. The people on the outside have no idea which one of them was successful. All they know is that if one of them holds a cane or an apple in his hand when he emerges from the palace, he is the victor. The Jewish people, being modest, waited for five days before showing that they had been the victors in their confrontation with the gentiles. (Tanchuma, section 18)
  פרי עץ הדר, “the fruit of the goodly tree;” the four species of fruit which we use on this festival differ in basic attributes, The citron, etrog, is the fruit of a tree which provides taste as well as a pleasant fragrance. It symbolises the righteous person who has both Torah learning and good deeds to his credit. The tree from which the palm frond has been taken provides fruit but does not provide fragrance. (Date palm) It symbolises the average Israelite, who, while having the performances of many commandments to his credit, has failed to acquire Torah knowledge, i.e. he does not exude fragrance. The myrtle branch, hadass, does not bear any fruit but provides us with a pleasant fragrance. It symbolises the person who did acquire Torah knowledge but did not translate it into the performance of its commandments. Finally, the willow branch, aravah, comes from a tree that neither provides fruit nor fragrance, (except shade). It symbolises the Jew who has neither acquired Torah knowledge nor acquired a list of merits for having performed good deeds. The reason that we bind all these four plants together before performing our ritual with them is, to demonstrate that we are aware that the Almighty does not really look down upon us with favour until we have managed to coexist peacefully, regardless of any shortcomings we perceive in one another. The prophet Amos 9,6 alludes to this concept when he wrote: הבונה בשמים מעלותיו ואגדתו על ארץ יסדה, למי הים וישפכם על פני הארץ, ה' שמו, “Who built His chambers in heaven and founded His vault on earth; Who summons the waters of the sea and pours them over the land.” On this verse, Midrash Rabbah comments that G–d does all this when we, His people, form a united union. (Vayikra rabbah 30,12) Our author adds that it appears to him that this is also the reason why, on Rosh Hashanah, New Year’s day, in our prayer describing the essence of the day we insert the line: ויעשו כולם אגודה אחת, “they will all form a single band.” A different explanation: The lulav symbolises the human backbone, שדרה. The myrtle branch is a symbol of the eye, whereas the willow branch is a symbol of the lips. The citron, etrog, symbolises the heart, the most import part of the human body.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  והוא בן איש מצרי, “whereas he was the son of an Egyptian man.” It was the fact that he had Egyptian blood in his veins that was responsible for his cursing G–d. We know that Pharaoh did the same when Moses first met him, and he denied the existence of Hashem. (Exodus, 5,2) by ridiculing the idea that he, Pharaoh, should have to accept directives emanating from Hashem.
  וינצו במחנה, “they quarreled inside the camp.” This son of an Egyptian father was belittled by a normal Israelite who told him that it had been Moses who had killed his father. When this man asked the Israelite how Moses had killed his father, he was told that Moses had killed him by cursing him using the ineffable name of the Lord. Having heard this, this half Egyptian immediately retaliated by cursing this Israelite using the name of G–d to do so.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  למטה דן, “a member of the tribe of Dan;” it was that tribe which had initiated the quarrel described in the last verse. Compare Talmud, tractate Pesachim folio 4, where we are told that there was a person who whenever he disagreed with someone immediately suggested that he and his adversary take the matter to court. Eventually, people who knew him concluded that he must have been descended from the tribe of Dan, a word which means: “judging.” [This incident occurred many hundreds of years after the tribe of Dan and nine other tribes had been exiled, and no one could trace his antecedents to a particular tribe of the ten tribes whom the Assyrians had transplanted. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  'לפרוש להם עלפי ה, “until instructions (how to deal with him) would be revealed by G–d.” It was clear that this man was guilty of the death penalty, seeing that cursing the Lord is one of the seven basic commandments already revealed to mankind long before the Torah was given. What was not clear was if, seeing that his mother was Jewish, he should be stoned to death (according to Jewish law) or if he should be put to death by the sword, the type of death penalty applicable to gentiles who are guilty of such a penalty. Some scholars, aware that when the penalty described by Jewish law is applied the person executed obtains atonement, felt that this person should be denied the opportunity of atonement after death, so that they wanted to kill him by a different method. An example of such a procedure is found in Leviticus 20,2, where a parent who kills one of his or her children by burning them as a sacrifice to the idol molech is executed by stoning, whereas if he did so to all of his children no penalty is spelled out. The Rabbis, perplexed why such a parent should not be punished, explained that the fact that no penalty is spelled out means that the parent guilty of this will be killed by a method which does not bring atonement for his sin in its wake. (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 64). This is why the Torah here had to write that Moses had to make enquiries from G–d concerning this. Something similar occurred with the man who collected kindling on the Sabbath, Numbers 15,32. The Torah had already spelled out the death penalty, but without specifying which of the possible four kinds of death penalties applied. This is why the man was first put in jail until the death penalty by stoning was decreed. Normally, when no further details are spelled out in the Torah the death penalty is by asphyxiation, חנק. The difficulty both here and in Numbers 15,32, is that according to Jewish law the guilty party must not only be warned about the impending penalty, but according to Rabbi Yehudah in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 8, must be warned about which kind of death penalty he would be facing, something that was impossible in both the examples we have cited. It is possible that he was given a warning that he would face one of four kinds of death penalties. Perhaps each one of them used this as an excuse by reasoning that such a warning was not legally valid and they would get away with their sin. There is also the problem that some of our sages feel that any warning which was based on some dubious language is invalid. (Talmud tractate Pessachim folio 63) It is hardly likely that under such circumstances there could be any convictions ever, as to find witnesses who had warned concerning 4 possible type of death penalties would presuppose that witnesses to a capital offence are all learned men. There is also an opinion in the Talmud that if a person who was considered a chaver, known for meticulous observance of the Torah’s commandments, committed a serious sin, the fact that he had not been warned of the consequences is ignored, as he did not need witnesses to warn him not to do what he knew was forbidden and which penalty would await him (Sanhedrin folio 8)
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  איש איש כי יקלל אלוהיו, “any man who curses his G–d, etc.;” the reason why the attribute אלהים is used here for G–d, is that this law includes anyone cursing a Jewish judge. In the latter case the penalty would a 39 strokes by the person appointed to administer this by the court. Compare Exodus 22,27:אלהים לא תקלל, “you must not curse a judge, etc.”
  
  Verse 16
  
  ונוקב שם ה' מות יומת, ”anyone who curses the ineffable name of the Lord is to be executed.” The verb used here for G–d is the one used by the prophet Bileam when he said that “it is useless for me to curse anyone who has been blessed by this attribute of the Lord.” (Numbers 23,8)
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ובני ישראל עשו, “and the Children of Israel did, etc.” they carried out what we have read in this portion.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  בהר סיני, “at Mount Sinai;” all the portions preceding this one from the beginning of the Book of Leviticus had been revealed to Moses from the Tabernacle, (G–d’s voice emanating from the top of the Hoy Ark) and they all concerned laws of importance for the service in the Tabernacle in one way or another. The two portions commencing here had been revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai, as they neither concerned the Tabernacle nor the priests. This is the reason why the Torah here added the words: “at Mount Sinai.” Nonetheless, they were included in the Book of Leviticus, seeing that they deal with the laws of sh’mittah and Yovel as well as the laws of Erchin and Charamim which are administered by the priests. In verse 9 of our chapter the Torah decrees the blowing of the shofar on the tenth of Tishrey when the Jubilee year officially begins. This blowing of the shofar was performed by one of the priests. The fact that this blowing of the shofar when required was performed by the priests is documented in Numbers chapter 10, verse 8. In order that we should not think that these laws were issued from the Tabernacle, the Torah added the words: באהל מועד, “at the Tent of Meeting.”
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  וספרת לך, “you shall count for yourself;” at first glance we might think that this instruction to count concerns days and weeks just like during the days between Passover and the festival of Shavuot;” if you were to say that we have Leviticus 15,28 where a similar construction is found in connection with a woman experiencing a vaginal discharge at times which do not coincide with her menses, we would have to say that the reason there is to teach us that the Torah warns her not to interrupt her counting during the days before she can regain ritual purity. If she would miss counting a single day, the blessings would have been futile.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  וכי תאמרו, “if you were to say, etc.;” this sounds peculiar as to why would people worry in the sixth year about what they would have to eat in the seventh year, seeing that they ploughed, seeded and harvested in that year so that they would have food for a year? We must understand this verse as having been abbreviated; the Torah meant to quote them as saying in the seventh year: “what will we have to eat in the eighth year?”
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  כי ימוך אחיך ומכר מאחוזתו, “if your brother has become impoverished, and as a result had been forced to sell part of his ancestral land holdings;” the Torah implies that this misfortune befell him because he sold the crop that grew in his field during the seventh year. (Compare Rashi) We do indeed find a similar verse that during the period of the prophet Jeremiah, as recorded in Chronicles II 36,20, that the Israelites were forced to sell themselves as slaves to the gentiles in fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah, who had stated that this situation would last until the soil of the land of Israel would once more find favour in G–d’s eyes, having paid back the sh’mittah years it had been worked during the seventy years of the first exile.
  ובא גואלו, “and his redeemer arrives;”  this is a reference to Hashem Who is the Redeemer. We know this from Deuteronomy 4,7: אשר לו אלהים קרובים אליו, “who has the Lord near to him.” (Moses refers to Hashem being constantly close to His people)
  וגאל את ממכר אחיו, “who will redeem what his brother had been forced to sell.” The following dialogue is reported as having occurred between the prophet Jeremiah and G–d: “Lord of the universe! You who fulfil the promise of redeeming the Jewish people whom You have referred to as Your brothers, as we know from Psalms 122,8: למען אחי ורעי אדברה-נא שלום בך, “for the sake of My brothers and friends, I pray for your well being;” we also have a similar line in Isaiah 43,14:, “for your sake I have sent to Babylon, etc.” למענכם שלחתי בבלה. [The prophet quotes G–d as reminding the Jewish people that He had sent the Babylonians into exile on account of what they had done to His people. Ed.]
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  ואיש כי ימכור בית מושב עיר חומה, “and if a man had to sell a house (his) in a walled city, etc.” the “man” described here as a “man,” is none other than the Lord. He had been described as such in Exodus 15,3: ה' איש מלחמה, “The Lord is a man of war.” The expression is a euphemism for “Master, overlord.” We find the expression also used in Ruth 1,3, where the husband of Naomi, Elimelech, is described as איש נעמי, as opposed to בעל נעמי, to show the reader that if Naomi agreed to leave the land of Israel it was because her husband was her overlord, and she had no other choice. In our verse the expression בית-מושב, the house of his residence, is the same as if the Torah had written: מושב ביתו, his residence, i.e. his house. He sold it to gentiles. The addition of the word מושב is to alert the reader to Psalms 132,13: כי בחר ה' בציון אוה למושב לו, “for the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it as His residence.” [His people being exiled, is equivalent to His being exiled from Earth. Ed.] The previous owner of such a house has only one year during which he can redeem it and it becomes the permanent property of the person who had bought it. [Houses are not considered ancestral properties, which revert back to the original owner or his heirs in the Jubilee year. Ed.] G–d had promised to redeem His land after 70 years, (compare Jeremiah 29,10, [at which time the Babylonian Empire was replaced by the Persian Empire. Ed.]
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  לתת לכם את ארץ כנען, “to give you the land of Canaan;” the Talmud, tractate Ketuvot folio 110, uses this verse to make the following statement: “basically a Jew is to make his home in the land of Israel even if at that time most of the inhabitants in that land are gentiles. He should not choose to live in the Diaspora, as a Jew who voluntarily lives outside the Holy Land, is considered as if he did not have a G–d.” The Talmud bases this statement on the conclusion of our verse: להיות לכם לאלהים, “to be for you as G–d.” David also made a statement of a similar nature when he said in Samuel I 26,19: כי גרשוני היום מהסתפח בנחלת ה' לאמור לך עבוד אלוהים אחרים, “for they have driven me out today so that I cannot have a share in the Lord’s ancestral property, but they told me: ”go and worship other gods!”
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  וכי תשיג יד גר, “if an alien settler has grown wealthy, etc.” the word גר here is a veiled reference to the Persian-Medes Empire.
  או לעקר משפחת גר, “or to the offshoot of a stranger’s family.” This is a euphemism for the Roman Empire, which in due course, will be uprooted,” אחרי נמכר גאולה תהיה לו, “after it has been sold, it is subject to redemption.” This is based on Isaiah 63,4: כי יום נקם בלבי ושנת גאולי תהיה לי, “for I had planned a day of vengeance, and my year of redemption has arrived.”
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  אחד מאחיו יגאלנו, “one of his brethren is to redeem him.” Our author assumes that the “brother” referred to is Hashem. He is both “one,” i.e. “unique,” and a brother to the Jews in exile. We know this from Psalms 122,8: למען אחי רעי, “for the sake of My brethren and friends.”
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  או דודו, “or his uncle;” this is also a reference to another attribute of Hashem, as we know from Song of Songs 5,16: זה דודי ורעי, “this is my uncle and good friend.”
  או בן דודו, “or the son of his uncle, his cousin;” this is a reference to the Messiah, of whom it is said in Psalms 2,7: בני אתה, “you are My son.” [The subject being Hashem. (Compare comment in Talmud tractate Sukkah folio 52.
  או השיגה ידו, “or he has become wealthy;” as a result of performing the commandments of the Torah; so that he was able to redeem himself.
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  וחשב עם קונהו, “and he makes an accounting with his master” (the one who had purchased his labour). The unusual word used by the Torah here for “his master,” suggests that the Torah speaks of his master Esau, here on earth (while Israel is in exile).
  כימי שכיר יהיה עמו, “in whose debt he remains seeing that he had not yet rendered all the labour that he undertaken to perform.” We find a simile for this in Psalms 72,10, where the Kings of Tarshish and the various islands in the sea are described by King Solomon as paying tribute to him, first and foremost the Queen of Sheba.
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  לא ירדנו בפרך, “he shall not rule over him with rigour.” The gentile nations hosting the Israelites in exile are commanded not to take unfair advantage of the Israelites who have become their slaves. (Compare Talmud, tractate Ketuvot, folio 111.)
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  ואם לא יגאל באלה, “and if he will not be redeemed by any of the aforementioned means;” the “means” referred to are the laws concerning how to deal with a servant, (Exodus 21,1) i.e. the Jew in exile still has not learned to observe the laws of the Torah; G–d promises that at a time of His choosing there will be an end to the exile, regardless. ויצא בשנת היובל, “he will go free in the Jubilee year;” G–d has set aside such a time as we know from Isaiah 27,13: והיה ביום ההוא יתקע בשופר גדול ובאו האובדים מארץ אשור והנדחים בארץ מצרים, “it will be on that day a great ram’s horn shall be sounded; and the stranded who are in the land of Assyria, and the expelled in the Land of Egypt shall come, etc.”
  הוא ובניו עמו, “He and his sons with Him;” G–d together with His people will return from exile, as we know from Deuteronomy 30,3: ושב וקבצך, He will return and gather you in;” note that Moses does not say that G–d will bring the Israelites back but that “He together with the Israelites will return from exile.” (Compare Talmud M’gillah folio 29)
  
  
  Verse 55
  
  כי לי בני ישראל עבדים, “for the Children of Israel are My servants.” They are not the slaves of Esau.
  אני ה' אלוקיכם, “I am the Lord your G–d.” We also have the corresponding negative commandment: לא תעשו לכם אלילם, “do not make idols for yourselves!” Why is the repetition of this commandment appropriate at this juncture? Seeing that G–d has just promised us that He will redeem us from exile, He provides the reason why, in spite of everything, He feels compelled to do so. After all, at least we have been loyal in observing the law not to make idols for ourselves. (Exodus 20,3)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ואבן משכית, “nor any figured stone;” this describes a stone in which the figure or face of a human being has been carved out, so that it would serve as something to be worshipped. The root of the word משכית, is שכיה , “something admired by everybody for its beauty, (exquisite craftsmanship)
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  את שבתותי תשמורו ומקדשי תיראו, “You shall keep My Sabbaths, and revere My Sanctuary.” The Torah draws a clear parallel between the Temple and the Sabbath. It tells us that just as the observance of the Sabbath as a holy day is a permanent commandment the reverence for the Temple is similarly a commandment that has no time limit. [The temple site is sacred ground even when the temple is not standing. Ed.] This is the meaning of אות היא לעולם, “it is a sign forever.” (Exodus 31,17.)
  
  Verse 3
  
  אם בחוקותי תלכו, ורדפו מכם חמשה מאה, “and five of you will put one hundred of your adversaries to flight;” there is something peculiar about the ratios here. Why would 100 Israelites be able to put 10000 adversaries to flight, not 2000 as we would have expected from the first example given? We can understand this better when comparing the efficacy of a prayer said in the privacy of one’s home, and a prayer said in the Synagogue when each person is part of a congregation. The latter prayers are far more effective, and presumably reach the throne of the Almighty more speedily. In Deuteronomy 32,30 Moses asked the rhetorical question of how it had been possible that under certain circumstances one gentile could put 1000 times his number of Israelites to flight, and only two enemies could put 10000 Israelites to flight? Besides, seeing that we have a tradition according to which blessings are always described as more powerful than corresponding curses, (Compare Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 100), how come Moses in Deuteronomy appears to paint the opposite of that scenario? Contrary to what we might think, that Moses in Deuteronomy 32,30 speaks about enemies chasing Israelites; he said that if the Israelites had only reasoned logically, they would have realised that the disproportionate numbers in both instances could only have occurred through direct intervention by Hashem. The gentiles had realised this in retrospect when the Israelites had fallen out of favour with their G–d. Previously they had mistakenly credited the Israelites with superhuman abilities. The best example of this completely unbelievable performance in battle, is found in the Book of Judges 15,16, where Samson has been credited with killing one thousand Philistines using only the jawbone of an ass as his weapon. A similar feat of unbelievable military success is reported in the Book of Samuel, I chapter 14, where King Shaul’s son Yonathan and his arms bearer, is credited with putting the Philistine army to flight, killing many on the way. Yonathan had seen a sign that G–d was on his side by judging the Philistines’ behaviour. [It is suggested that the reader read up that chapter in the Book of Samuel. Ed.]
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  או אז יכנע לבבם הערל, “if then per chance their uncircumcised heart be humbled;” the Torah here refers to the desecration of the Sabbath by the people, (which is the seventh day of the week), or their failure to circumcise their sons on the eighth day after they had been born. [The numerical value of the letters in this words אז יכנע לבבם, in this verse would be equivalent to this interpretation.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  והיה השדה בצאתו ביובל, “but the field when it goes out in the Jubilee year, etc.” there is a comment in the Torat Kohanim, reminding us that the word שדה is of the masculine gender. Seeing that everyone is aware of that, we must examine why the author of Torat Kohanim found it necessary to remind us of this. We must understand it as follows: how do we know that the word שדה is a masculine gender? We know it from where the Torah writes at the end of our verse: לכהן תהיה אחוזתו, “the possession thereof shall be the priest’s.” [I have not followed the explanations of what happens to that field before it ends up belonging to a priest or several priests. As far as this editor is concerned, the word: בצאתו, “when it goes out” (“it” in the masculine ending) is clear proof that the word השדה immediately before it must be of the masculine gender. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  מזרע הארץ, “from the seed of the land;” this formulation includes garlic, mandrill, and berries. Rabbi Yehudah hachassid was able to answer a query raised  by many people concerning a statement in the Mishnah challah, chapter 2 mishnah 5, according to which if one separates flour (before it has become dough) as his priest’s share of the dough it is not the priest’s or priests’ share of the dough, i.e. challah, and it would be as robbery in the hand of the priest; the reason cited there is that the Torah had written (Numbers 15,20) ראשית עריסותיכם, “of the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift;” (not the first part of your flour) the question raised on the basis of this verse is: “why do we not interpret the line in Deuteronomy 18,4: ראשית דגנך....תתן לו, “the first fruits of your corn....you shall give to him (the priest) in a similar manner?” [The basic problem is how soon after the grain has been cut, can one declare part of it as intended for a specific priest. According to some opinions, this would be effective only after all stages of harvesting and storing have been completed. Ed.] The disagreement between the scholars centers around the meaning of the word מעשר מזרע הארץ, “a tithe from anything that has been planted in the earth,” and the more restrictive expression דגנך, “your corn,” i.e. something fully developed and harvested.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  אשר צוה ה' את משה בהר סיני, “which Hashem had commanded Moses at Mount Sinai. It was sufficient for G–d to entrust His messenger Moses with the task of instructing the Jewish people, seeing that the merits of the people of Israel were instrumental in his becoming such an outstanding intermediary 
  