meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt/Tanakh/Commentary/Rashi/Torah/Rashi on Leviticus/English/merged.txt"}
text: Rashi on Leviticus
  רש"י על ויקרא
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934
  -
  
  Rashi on Leviticus
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויקרא אל משה AND [THE LORD] CALLED UNTO MOSES — All oral communications of the Lord to Moses whether they are introduced by דבר or by אמר or by צו were preceded by a call (to prepare him for the forthcoming address) (cf Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 1 1-2). It is a way of expressing affection, the mode used by the ministering angels when addressing each other, as it is said (Isaiah 6:3) “And one called unto another [and said, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts]”. To the prophets of the nations of the world, however, God revealed himself in a manner which Scripture describes by an expression ordinarily used for denoting events of a casual character and of uncleanness, as it is said, (Numbers 23:4) “and God happened to meet (ויקר) Balaam” (the term ויקר, from the root ,קרה, is connected with מִקְרֶה which denotes “chance”, “occurrence”, and has also the meaning of “uncleanness”, by analogy with Deuteronomy 23:11: ‎לא יהיה טהור  מקרה לילה) (cf. Bereishit Rabbah 52:5).
  ויקרא אל משה AND HE CALLED UNTO MOSES — This implies that the Voice went on and reached his (Moses’s) ears only but all the other Israelites did not hear it). One might think that for the subsections there was also such a call! It, however, states, “[And the Lord called unto Moses] and spake (וידבר) [to him]”, thus intimating that a דבור, a complete section had (was preceded by) a call (e. g., in our text chapters 1—4), but not the subsections. And what purpose did these subsections serve (i. e., why are the larger sections broken up into smaller ones)? To give Moses an interval for reflection between one division and another and between one subject and another — something which is all the more necessary for an ordinary man receiving instruction from an ordinary man (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 1 9).
  אליו TO HIM — This is intended to exclude Aaron. Rabbi Judah said, “Thirteen communications in the Torah are stated, according to the wording of the text, to have been spoken to Moses and Aaron together; but corresponding to these there are thirteen which include expressions with a limitative force to teach you that they were spoken not to Aaron but to Moses only, with the view that he should communicate them to Aaron. The following are the thirteen limitations: (Numbers 7:89) “[And when Moses had come into the appointed tent] that He might speak with him, [then he heard the Voice] speaking unto him … [from between the two cherubim]: and he spoke unto him”; (Exodus 25:22) “and there I will be met by thee”; — all the thirteen instances you will find in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 1. — I might, however, think that they (Aaron and all Israel) heard at least the sound of the Divine utterance (הדבור), even though they could not distinguish the words! However, in the text, Numbers 7:89: וישמע את הקול מדבר אליו,where it might have said לו‎...‎ ה]קול], it says אליו‎‎… ‎ה]קול], “And he heard the voice (הקול) uttering itself (מדבר) right up to him (אליו)” — consequently Moses alone heard the utterance, and all Israel did not hear it) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 8). 
  מאהל מועד FROM THE APPOINTED TENT — This teaches us that the Voice broke off and did not issue beyond the appointed tent. One might think that this was so because the Voice was a very low one! Scripture, however, states, (Numbers 7:89) “[when he entered the tent he heard] the Voice”. What does it mean by the Voice? It was the Voice that is so minutely described in Psalms, (29:4, 5) “The voice of the Lord is powerful; the voice of the Lord is full of majesty. The voice of the Lord breaketh the cedars. But if this be so (that it was a very powerful voice), why does Scripture state, “[and the Lord spoke to him] from the appointed tent” (מאהל מועד and does not state באהל מועד)? Because it intends to tell us that the Voice broke off and that it was heard only in the tent). A similar case we have in Ezekiel that a powerful sound uttered within the Temple was not heard outside: (Ezekiel 10:5) “And the sound of the cherubims’ wings was heard up to the outer court”. One might think then that the sound was a very low one! Scripture, however, continues “as the Voice of the Almighty God when He speaketh”! If this was so why, then, does Scripture state, “[it was heard] up to the outer court only”? Because when it (the sound) reached there it broke off (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 10-11).
  מאהל מועד לאמר [AND THE LORD … SPOKE UNTO HIM] OUT OF THE APPOINTED TENT, SAYING — One might think from this that the Lord spoke to him from the entire house (i.e. from any part of the appointed tent)! Scripture, however, states, (Numbers 6:89) “[and he heard the Voice speaking unto him] from off the covering”. From this, again, one might think that he heard the Voice coming from off the entire covering (from any part of it)! Scripture, however, continues, “from between the two cherubim”. Consequently the words מאהל מועד cannot denote the place from which the Lord spoke to Moses, but the area within which the Voice was heard (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 12). 
  לאמר SAYING — This implies “Go and speak to them words that will bring them to a subdued frame of mind):‘It is for your sake that He communicates with me’!” And indeed we find this was so; for all the thirty — eight years during which Israel in the wilderness were placed, as it were, under excommunication — from the time of the incident of the spies and onwards — there was no intimate conversation of God with Moses, for it is said, (Deuteronomy 2:16, 17) “So it came to pass, when were consumed all the men of war (i. e. the men who had waged war immediately after the return of the spies; cf. Numbers 14:40—45. It was they and their generation who wandered in the wilderness as though excommunicated) … that the Lord spake unto me, saying, …” — only then was a divine communication again made to me (Sifra). Another explanation of לאמר is that it means “to speak to God”: it implies, “Go and tell them My commands and bring Me back word whether they will accept them, as it is said, (Exodus 19:8) “And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 13).
  
  Verse 2
  
  אדם כי יקריב מכם IF A MAN OF YOU OFFER [AN OFFERING] — This means, when he offers: Scripture is speaking here of free — will offerings (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 4).
  אדם — Why is this term for “man” employed here? Since אדם also means Adam, its use suggests the following comparison: what was the characteristic of the first man (אדם הראשון)? He did not offer sacrifice of anything acquired by way of robbery, since everything was his! So you, too, shall not offer anything acquired by way of robbery (Leviticus Rabbah 2:7).
  הבהמה [OF] THE BEASTS — One might think that wild beasts are also included! Scripture, however,’ goes on to state, “even of cattle or of sheep” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 6).
  מן הבהמה OF THE BEASTS — but not all of them: the phrase, “some of the beasts”) is used in order to exclude male and female animals with which sexual sin has been committed (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 7).
  מן הבקר OF THE CATTLE — This serves to exclude an animal which has been worshipped as a god (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 9).
  מן הצאן OF THE SHEEP — This serves to exclude an animal set aside for the purpose of being offered to an idol (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 11).
  ומן הצאן AND OF THE SHEEP — The ו prefixed to the word is intended to exclude a goring ox that has killed a man. — When Scripture again says lower down in the section, (v. 3)  מן הבקר, “of the cattle”, — which word מן it was unnecessary to use, (it would have sufficed to say: 'אם עולה קרבנו זכר וכו) — it is intentionally used to exclude a טרפה (an animal afflicted with a fatal organic disease) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 2 11).
  תקריבו YE SHALL OFFER [YOUR OFFERING] — The plural תקריבו teaches us that two (or more) persons may bring a burnt offering as a free — will gift in partnership (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 3 1).
  קרבנכם YOUR OFFERING — This teaches us) that it (the עולה) may also be offered as a free-will gift of the community (not of individuals only). This was the burnt offering bearing the name of “the summer - fruit offering”) of the altar which had to be supplied from the surplus of the levy upon the people (cf. Shevuot 12a, Shevuot 12b).
  
  Verse 3
  
  זכר A MALE, but not a female. When Scripture mentions again lower down. (v. 10) that the sacrifice shall be זכר, a male, — which appears unnecessary to state, — it intends to say: a male, but not an animal whose sex is indeterminate or which is a hermaphrodite (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 3 9; Bekhorot 41b).
  תמים means WITHOUT BLEMISH,
  אל פתח אהל מועד [HE SHALL BRING IT NEAR] UNTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE APPOINTED TENT — He himself must attend to bringing it right up to the forecourt (where it is handed over to the priests). What is the force of Scripture using the term יקריב twice (יקריבנו and יקריב אתו; it might suffice to say:‎תמים זכר ‎'יקריבנו אל פתח אהל מועד לרצונו וכו‎)?! It is intended to intimate that even in case the burnt offering of Reuben has become mixed up with that of Simeon so that they cannot be identified, nevertheless each must bring one of the animals to the forecourt on behalf of him to whom it really belongs). Similarly if a burnt offering has been mixed up with non-consecrated animals, the non — consecrated ones must be sold for עולה purposes (they are sold to people who have voluntarily undertaken to offer an עולה), and thus all of them become burnt offerings and each is now brought on behalf of him to whom it belongs (cf. Mishna Zevachim 8:1). One might think that this must also be done if it (an animal intended to be a burnt offering) became mixed up with animals unfit for sacrifice (with those mentioned above as excluded from the category of sacrifices) or with a different kind of sacrifices (e.g., peace — offerings)! Scripture. however, states,יקריבנו, “he shall bring it) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 3 13).
  יקריב אתו HE SHALL OFFER IT — This apparently superfluous word (אתו) teaches us that they (the בי"ד) must put pressure upon him to bring it if he is remiss in bringing the sacrifice he had promised. One might think that this means that they shall force him against his will! Scripture, however, states, לרצונו “[he must bring it] so that it shall be favourably accepted for him”. How is this possible? They press him until he says, “I wish to do it” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 3 15).
  ‎'לפני ה‎ וסמך [HE SHALL OFFER] IT …] BEFORE THE LORD (4) AND HE SHALL LAY [HIS HAND UPON THE HEAD OF THE SACRIFICE] - This implies that there is no "laying of hands" upon an animal sacrifice on a private "high place" (במה; at the time when sacrifice was permissible on such) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 1) 
  
  Verse 4
  
  על ראש העולה UPON THE HEAD OF THE BURNT OFFERING — This is intended to include an obligatory burnt offering also in the law of סמיכה (laying hands on the head of the sacrifice) as well as to include a sheep that is offered as a free — will burnt offering (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 3-5).
  העלה THE BURNT OFFERING — This implies the exclusion of a bird offered as a burnt offering (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 7).
  ‎ ונרצה לו AND PROPITIATION SHALL BE EFFECTED FOR HIM — For what kind of sins does it (the עולת נדבה) effect propitiation for him? Should you say, “for such as make him liable to excision, or to execution by the court, or to the death penalty through the Heavenly Judge, or to lashes, surely, you see that the punishment for those sins is expressly stated and it is that and not the sacrifice which effects propitiation! Consequently it can only propitiate for the neglect of a positive command and for the transgression of  “a prohibition transformed into a positive command” (לאו הניתק לעשה, a prohibitive law the transgression of which can be repaired by a succeeding act) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 8).
  
  Verse 5
  
  הכהנים …‎ושחט  …והקריבו  AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER … AND THE PRIESTS SHALL OFFER [THE BLOOD] — All the rites from “receiving the blood in a vessel” (which is implied in והקריבו) and onwards are the duty of the priesthood. This teaches about the slaughtering that it is valid even if performed by a layman (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 2; Zevachim 32a). 
  '‎לפני ה‎‎‎  means in the forecourt.
  והקריבו AND [THE PRIESTS] SHALL OFFER [THE BLOOD] — This must refer to “receiving the blood in a vessel”, since this is the first rite mentioned after the slaughtering of the animal, but really it implies the bringing of the blood to the altar; we thus learn that both of them (receiving of the blood and bringing it to the altar) as well as all the succeeding rites are priestly duties (cf. Zevachim 4a):
  בני אהרן — One might think that these duties may be performed also by חללים (priests who have lost their priestly status for reasons connected with their birth or marriage)! Scripture, however, adds הכהנים, the priests (i.e. they must not only be descendants of Aaron but also “priests” — fit for priesthood, and חללים are excluded from priestly functions) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 6).
  את הדם …וזרקו את הדם [AND THE PRIESTS … SHALL OFFER] THE BLOOD AND SHALL SPRINKLE THE BLOOD — Why does Scripture use the word דם twice (instead of saying והקריבו את הדם וזרקוהו)? In order to include in the command of sprinkling also the blood of an עולה which has been commingled with blood of the same kind of sacrifice (i. e. with the blood of another burnt offering) or with that of a different kind (that of a peace — offering or a guilt — offering). One might think that this law applies also if it has been commingled with that of sacrifices unfit for sacrifice or with that of sin — offerings whose blood has to be sprinkled in the “Interior’ (the Holy Place) or with that of sin — offerings whose blood has to be sprinkled outside (in the court), although these (i. e., the blood of the (חטאות פנימיות וחיצוניות)  has to be sprinkled above the red line (that marks the division between the upper and the lower halves of the altar) and it (the blood of the עולה) below! Scripture, however, states of an עולה in another place (v. 11) ‘‘[and he shall sprinkle] its blood (דמו)” (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 7-8; Zevachim 81).
  וזרקו AND [THE PRIESTS] … SHALL DASH [THE BLOOD ROUND ABOUT] — He (the priest) stands below and dashes the blood from the vessel upon the altar wall below the red line over against the two diagonally opposite corners (the north — east and the south — west corners so that there is blood on the four sides). That is what Scripture means when it says, סביב, “round about” — that the blood shall be put upon all the four sides of the altar. Or I might think that it means he (the priest) shall place it (the blood) right round the altar as a line! Scripture, however, states, וזרקו, “and they shall dash [the blood]” (i. e. fling it; cf. Exodus 9:8; thus implying that he must be standing some distance away), and it is impossible to put it right round the altar by flinging it against it. — The explanation given above as to how it was actually done is arrived at by the following argument: If we go only by the meaning of the word וזרקו alone, one might have thought that it would suffice with one “flinging” only (that we need merely fling the blood against one side of the altar)! Scripture, however, adds סביב, “round about”! How then can this be done? He makes two flingings but in such a manner that they virtually constitute four, as stated above). (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 9)
  אשר פתח אוהל מועד {AND THEY SHALL SPRINKLE THE BLOOD ROUND ABOUT THE ALTAR} THAT IS BY THE ENTRANCE OF THE APPOINTED TENT — but not at times when it (the appointed tent) had already been dismantled, even though the altar itself were still in position, for then it is not by the entrance of the appointed tent (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 4 14).
  
  Verse 6
  
  '‎והפשיט וגו‎ AND HE SHALL FLAY [THE BURNT OFFERING] — Why does it state “the burnt offering” (instead of merely saying, והפשיטה, “and he shall flay it”)? In order to include all burnt offerings (i. e. all עולות בהמה, whether they be free — will or obligatory, whether they are taken מן הבקר or מן הצאן, whether brought by a man or by a woman, by a free Israelite or by an Israelite עבד) in the law of flaying and dismembering (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 2; cf. Note 3 on העולה v. 4).
  אתה לנתחיה AND HE SHALL SEVER IT INTO ITS PIECES — he shall sever it etc. but not its pieces again into smaller pieces (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 7).
  
  Verse 7
  
  אש … ‎ונתנו AND [THE SONS OF AARON …] SHALL PUT FIRE [ON THE ALTAR] — Although the fire descended from heaven, it was nevertheless a religious duty to bring also some fire of profane origin (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 10; Yoma 21b; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 10:2 and Note thereon).
  בני אהרן הכהן THE SONS OF AARON THE PRIEST — They shall place the fire on the altar as sons of Aaron the priest: implying that Aaron should always minister in his priestly dignity (i. e. when attired in his priestly garments), consequently if he officiated in the garments of an ordinary priest his service is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 9; Zevachim 18a).
  
  Verse 8
  
  בני אהרן הכהנים THE SONS OF AARON THE PRIESTS — i e. only as priests : when they are ministering in their priestly dignity; but if an ordinary priest officiates in the eight garments of the High Priest his service is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 9; Zevachim 18a).
  את הראש את הנתחים [AND THE PRIESTS … SHALL SET] THE PIECES, THE HEAD etc. [IN ORDER] — Since the head was not included in the law prescribing flaying (v. 6) as it was already as good as cut off by the act of slaughter, it therefore was necessary to enumerate it separately here since Scripture wishes every part of the animal to be put on the altar (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 3; Chullin 27a).
  ואת הפדר AND THE FAT — Why is this mentioned separately (is it not included in the word הנתחים)? In order to teach you that he must bring it up on the altar together with the head, and that with it he must cover the throat of the animal (בית השחיטה, lit., the place where the act of slaughter was performed). This (covering the cut in the throat) was done in way of regard for God on high (Chullin 27a).
  אשר על המזבח WHICH IS UPON THE ALTAR — upon the altar: this implies that the logs of wood must not project beyond the woodpile (מערכה) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 5).
  
  Verse 9
  
  עלה [AND THE PRIEST SHALL CAUSE ALL TO ASCEND IN FUMES ON THE ALTAR, TO BE] A BURNT OFFERING — i. e. only with the intention that it should be an עולה shall he burn it (and not that it should be an offering of another class. The words are to be translated: he shall burn it as an עולה) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 10).
  אשה AS A FIRE OFFERING — When he slaughters it he shall slaughter it with the intention of making a fire of it (i. e. having in mind the fact that it is to become a prey to the flames, not that it will become charred flesh) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 10). The word אשה wherever it occurs, is connected with אש, feuchère in O. F. 
  ניחוח (of the root נוח, “to repose”, “to draw satisfaction from …”) — an odour of ניחוח: one that causes satisfaction to Me by the knowledge that I gave commands and that My will was executed (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 10; Zevachim 46b).
  
  Verse 10
  
  ואם מן הצאן AND IF [HIS OFFERING BE] OF THE SHEEP — The ו (of אם) adds something to the former subject (i. e. shows that this is a continuation of it). Why, then, is there a break between the two paragraphs (i. e. why does the following form a separate paragraph)? In order to give Moses an interval between the one section and the next section to reflect upon what has already been said (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 5 1).
  מן הצאן, מן הכבשים, מן העזים — You have here these three words of limitating force (the three — fold “מן”; cf. Note on v. 1); they serve respectively to exclude an old, a sick and a malodorous animal from those that may be sacrificed (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 5 2; Bekhorot 41a).
  
  Verse 11
  
  על ירך המזבח means ON THE SIDE OF THE ALTAR (cf. Rashi on Exodus 40:22).
  'צפנה לפני ה NORTHWARD BEFORE THE LORD — but the law of slaughtering northward is not necessarily applicable in the case of a “Bamah” (i. e. an animal offered on a “Bamah” as an עולה need not be slaughtered at its north side, for it states here: northward before the Lord, the last words being used only of the Tabernacle and the Temple; cf. Zevachim 119b and Rashi on 'לפני ה‎ וסמך, v. 3).
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  מן העוף [AND IF A BURNT OFFERING … BE] OF FOWLS — of (i.e. of some of) but not of every description of fowls (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1.2 and Rashi on Leviticus 1:10). Since Scripture states, (Leviticus 22:19) “[Ye shall offer, to be accepted for you,] a male without blemish (תמים זכר) of the oxen, of the sheep and of the goats”, it is evident (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1.2 and Rashi on Leviticus 1:10) that unblemished condition and male sex in sacrifices are required only in the case of cattle, but unblemished condition and male sex are not required in the case of fowls. If, then, the condition of the fowl is immaterial one might think that a fowl may be brought as a sacrifice even if it lacks a limb! Scripture therefore states: “of fowls” — but not all fowls (Sifra, Emor, Section 7 2; Kiddushin 24b).
  התרים TURTLEDOVES — Grown-up ones only may be offered but not young ones.
  בני יונה YOUNG DOVES — Young doves only may be offered but not grown-up ones (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 8 4; Chullin 22a).
  מן התרים או מן בני היונה  OF TURTLEDOVES AND OF YOUNG DOVES — The word מן is intended to exclude birds in the first stage of their plumage becoming golden-coloured in the case of the one as of the other, for this stage makes the bird unfit for sacrifice, since such a bird is a grown-up one in the case of בני יונה and a young one in the case of תורים (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 8 5; Chullin 22b).
  
  Verse 15
  
  והקריבו [AND THE PRIEST] SHALL OFFER IT — It — even a single bird he may offer (not necessarily more than one, as might be assumed from the plural  תורים and  בני יונה) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 1; Zevachim 65a).
  הכהן … ומלק THE PRIEST SHALL … NIP OFF [ITS HEAD] — The nipping of the bird’s head must not be done with an instrument but by the priest’s very self:) he nips with his finger-nail close by the nape, cuts right through the neck-bone until he comes to the “organs” (the wind pipe and the gullet) and cuts them through too (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 3; Zevachim 65a).
  ונמצה דמו AND THE BLOOD THEREOF SHALL BE WRUNG OUT — The word  ונמצה is connected in meaning with (Proverbs 30:33) “the pressing out (מיץ) of wrath”; (Isaiah 16:4) “for extortion (המץ) is at an end). — He presses the place where the neck has been cut (בית השחיטה) against the wall and the blood thus drains itself out) and runs down the wall (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 7; Zevachim 64b).
  ומלק … והקטיר …ונמצה AND HE SHALL NIP OFF … AND CAUSE IT TO ASCEND IN FUMES … AND [THE BLOOD] SHALL BE WRUNG OUT — Is it possible to say so? Since he has burnt it can he squeeze the blood out?! But the wording is intended to suggest the following: How is it with the burning of the sacrifice? The head is separate and the body is separate (since it states here ומלק את ראשו והקטיר, and in v. 17 it is enjoined והקטיר אתו i. e. the body; vv. 16—17 speaking of the rites performed on the body)! So, too, the nipping has to be thus (i. e. has to have the effect of severing the head from the body so that it may be burnt apart from the body; the מליקה accordingly denotes here complete severance, whilst in 5:8 this is forbidden. The translation therefore is: and he shall nip off the head so that he may burn it on the altar) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 5; Zevachim 65a). According to the literal sense of the verse, however, the wording is inverted: he shall nip off [the head] and burn it, and before the burning the blood shall have been pressed out already (ונמצה has therefore a future-perfect meaning: “and its blood shall have been pressed out”).
  
  Verse 16
  
  מראתו [AND HE SHALL REMOVE] ITS CROP — The word is connected in meaning with the word רעי in Rabbinical Hebrew (or the Biblical ראי; cf. Nahum 3:6); it thus denotes the place of the רעי, the digested food, i. e. the crop (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 9). 
  בנצתה means together with its entrails (not with its feathers which meaning the word נוצה usually has). The word נוצה is really an expression for anything that is loathsome. Similar is (Lamentations 4:15) “[depart, depart, touch not:] for they are become loathsome (נצו) and are fled away”.) That is also what Onkelos means when he translates באוכליה, “with the digested food” found in the entrails (excrement). This, too, is the interpretation of the verse given by Abba José ben Chanan who states: he removes the stomach (being the organ which contains digested food) together with it (the crop). But our Rabbis, of blessed memory, taking נוצה; in its usual sense of “feathers”, say: with a knife he cuts out around the crop an opening like a flap and removes it together with the feathers on the skin (of that spot) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 9; Zevachim 65a). — In the case of the burnt offering of the cattle which eats only from the crib of its owner it is stated, (v. 13) “But he shall lave the inwards and the legs with water: and [the priest] shall offer it”; in the case of a fowl, however, which feeds itself from what it picks up of other people’s property (lit., “of robbery”) it states, “he shall cast the entrails away”, because it (the bird) eats that which is stolen (Leviticus Rabbah 3 4).
  אצל המזבח קדמה BESIDE THE ALTAR ON THE EAST — i. e. at the east of the כבש (the inclined ascent leading to the top of the altar which was on the south of the altar) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 9 3).
  אל מקום הדשן BY THE PLACE OF THE ASHES — i. e. that place where they deposited the ashes removed from the altar (תרומת הדשן) each morning (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 6:3, 4) and the ashes removed from the inner altar and the candelabrum (Meilah 12a;Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 9 3). All these miraculously sunk there in their place (i. e. on the very spot where they were deposited) (Yoma 21a).
  
  Verse 17
  
  ושסע AND HE SHALL CLEAVE [IT] — The term שסע is used only for rending with the hands. Similarly it states in the story of Samson (Judges 14:6) “and he rent him (וישסעהו) as he would have rent a kid” (Zevachim 65b).
  בכנפיו means: he shall rend it together with its feathers he need not pluck out the feathers that form its plumage before doing so. 
  בכנפיו means actually the feathers (not the wings). But surely you will not find even a common sort of man who can smell the odour of burnt feathers without being disgusted with it! Why, then, does Scripture say that it shall be offered with the feathers? In order that the altar should appear full up, as it were, and adorned with the sacrifice of the poor (since the bird with its feathers makes a finer show than without them) (Leviticus Rabbah 3:5).
  לא יבדיל BUT HE SHALL NOT SEPARATE IT — he must not break it entirely into two pieces, but only rends it from behind. — It is stated here of a bird-offering “a pleasing odour [to the Lord]” and it is stated (v. 13) of an animal-sacrifice “a pleasing odour [to the Lord]”, to tell you: whether one offers much or little it is equally pleasing to God provided that he directs his heart to Heaven (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 9 7; Menachot 110a).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ונפש כי תקריב AND WHEN A PERSON (or “A SOUL”) WILL OFFER — Nowhere is the word נפש employed in connection with free-will offerings except in connection with the meal-offering. For who is it that usually brings a meal-offering? The poor man! The Holy One, blessed be He, says, as it were, I will regard it for him as though he brought his very soul (נפש) as an offering (Menachot 104b).
  סלת יהיה קרבנו [AND WHEN A PERSON WILL OFFER A MEAL OFFERING] HIS OFFERING SHALL BE OF SIFTED FINE FLOUR — i. e. if one says, “I take upon myself the obligation to bring a מנחה”, without further defining it, he must bring that which is termed “the meal-offering of fine sifted flour” (מנחת סלת) which is that mentioned first among the different meal-offerings) since the קומץ is taken from it whilst it is yet flour (whilst in the case of other meal-offerings this is done after they have been baked), as is explained further on in this section (cf. Menachot 104b). — Because there are five different meal-offerings enumerated here all of which had to be brought ready baked beforẹ the קמץ was taken of them with the exception of this, therefore this alone is technically termed “a meal-offering of flour’ (though the others too had to be made of sifted fine flour).
  סלת — The term סלת always denotes “fine flour of wheat”, as it is said, (Exodus 29:2) “fine flour (סלת) of wheat” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 10 2). No meal-offering is ever less than one tenth part of an ephah of flour, as it said, (Leviticus 14:21) “and one tenth deal of flour … for a meal-offering”, i. e. there must be a tenth part for every kind of meal-offering (cf. Menachot 99a).
  ויצק עליה שמן AND HE SHALL POUR OIL UPON IT — upon the whole of it (of the flour) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 10 14),
  ונתן עליה לבנה AND PUT FRANKINCENSE THEREON — upon a part of it: he lays a fistful of frankincense upon one side of it. And what reason have you (lit., what do you see) to say so? Because there is a rule: when in the Torah a רבוי, i. e. a term usually intended to include a particular detail) follows one of a similarly inclusive character, the latter implies a restriction). Another explanation of why I say that oil has to be poured upon the whole meal-offering is, because it (the oil) has to be mingled with it (the מנחה) and has to undergo the קמיצה (the taking of a fistful of the mass) together with it, as it is stated, “[and he shall take thereout by grasping a fistful] of the flour thereof and of the oil thereof”; frankincense, however, has to be put only upon a part of it, since it is not mingled with it and has not to undergo the קמיצה together with it, because it is said immediately afterwards, “besides (i. e. in addition to) all the frankincense thereof” (cf. Rashi on that passage), — which implies that after he had taken the קמץ he picks all the frankincense from off it and offers it (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 10 14-18; cf. also Sota 14b)
  . … ויצק ונתן … והביאה AND HE SHALL POUR … AND HE SHALL PUT … AND then HE SHALL BRING IT [TO AARONS SONS] — This teaches us that the pouring of the oil and the mingling it (with the flour) is valid even if done by non-priests (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 10 19: Menachot 9a).
  
  Verse 2
  
  הכהנים וקמץ [AND HE SHALL BRING UNTO …] THE PRIESTS: AND HE SHALL TAKE A FISTFUL — from the קמיצה (the taking of the fistful) and onwards is the duty of the priesthood (Menachot 9a).
  וקמץ משם AND HE SHALL TAKE A FISTFUL FROM THERE — from the place where the feel of the layman may stand; and this is stated in order to teach you that the קמיצה is valid at whatever place in the fore-court it is carried out, even in that eleven cubits) which are the area where the feet of the ordinary Israelites may tread (cf. Yoma 16b).
  מלא קמצו HIS FISTFUL — One might think that it (the fist) may be full to overflowing — that it may burst through his fist and come out on every side! Scripture, however, states in another passage, (Leviticus 6:8) “and he shall take from it in his closed hand [some of the flour … and burn it on the altar)”, which shows that only that is fitted to be burnt which is within his closed hand. If, then, he has to take what is בקמצו, within his closed hand, one might assume that it may be defective (underfull)? Scripture, however, states here, מלא, “his full [closed hand]”. How then does he do it that it shall be neither overfull nor underfull? After placing his hand in the vessel containing the meal-offering he (the priest) bends his three fingers (those next to his thumb) at full length over on to the palm of his hand, removing with his thumb and little finger all the flour that shows outside these three fingers. This is the literal meaning that the word קמץ has in the Hebrew language (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 9 6; Menachot 11a; Yoma 47a).
  ‎ על כל לבנתה‎‎ [HIS FISTFUL OF FLOUR …] BESIDES ALL THE FRANKINCENSE — i. e. apart from all the frankincense shall his fist be full.
  לבנתה והקטיר ITS FRANK-INCENSE. AND HE SHALL BURN — The frankincense too comes  under the law of burning (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 9 10).
  מלא קמצו מסלתה ומשמנה [AND HE SHALL TAKE THEREOUT] HIS HANDFUL OF THE FLOUR THEREOF AND OF THE OIL THEREOF — Consequently if when he takes the handful of the flour a grain of salt (for salt was mingled with every offering; cf. v. 13) or a particle of frankincense comes into his hand with the flour it (the offering) is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 9 10; Menachot 6a).
  אזכרתה THE MEMORIAL PORTION THEREOF — The handful of flour that is offered to the Most High God forms the memorial portion of the meal-offering, being that part of it through which the owner is remembered for good and for having caused satisfaction to the Lord.
  
  Verse 3
  
  לאהרן ולבניו AND THAT WHICH IS LEFT OF THE MEAL OFFERING] SHALL BE AARON’S AND HIS SONS’ — The High Priest takes a portion first, just as he pleases, without having to take part in the equal division of the מנחה, whilst the ordinary priest shares in an equal division (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 11 1; Yoma 14a and Yoma 17b).
  קדש קדשים MOST HOLY is it for them.
  'מאשי ה OF THE FIRE OFFERING OF THE LORD — they have no portion in it (in what is left) except after the gifts (the prescribed quantity) for the fire (i. e. the קומץ) have been offered (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 11 2).
  
  Verse 4
  
  וכי  ‎‎'ו גו‎תקריב‎‎‎‎‎ AND IF THOU OFFER [AN OFFERING OF AN OBLATION BAKEN IN THE OVEN] in that one said, “I take upon myself the obligation to bring a meal-offering taken in the oven. Scripture teaches you that he may bring either cakes or wafers, the cakes being mingled with oil and the wafers being anointed with oil (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 10 2). Our Rabbis are of different opinions as to their anointing. Some hold that they smeared them with oil and then repeatedly smeared them until the oil in the log was at an end, for every kind of meal-offering required a log of oil: whilst others hold that they smeared them only in the form of a Greek X (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:7 and Note thereon) and that the rest of the oil was consumed separately by the priests (Menachot 75a; cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 11 6). — Why is the word בשמן used twice in this verse (it would have sufficed to state:  חלות מצות בלולות בשמן ורקיקי מצות משוחים בו)? In order to permit for use with the meal-offering the “second grade of oil” and the “third grade of oil” which comes out of the olives) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 11 6), and to teach that “the first oil” is required only for the candelabrum of which it is stated, (Exodus 27:20) “clear [olive oil for the light]”. — We read in Treatise Menachoth 76a: All the meal-offerings that were baked before the “fistful” was taken from them and at which the קמיצה could therefore be performed only by first breaking them into pieces — each of them had to be offered of ten cakes, and that at which “wafers” are prescribed was offered of ten wafers.
  
  Verse 5
  
  ואם מנחה על המחבת   AND IF AN OBLATION BAKEN IN THE PAN [BE THY OFFERING], in that one said, “I take upon myself the obligation to bring a meal-offering baken in the pan” (cf. Rashi on previous. verse and Note thereon). This (the מחבת) was a vessel employed in the Temple in which they baked this particular meal-offering on the open fire in oil. The vessel was not deep but flat; therefore the meal-offering made in it was hard, for just because it (the מחבת) was flat the fire burnt the oil. (Menachot 63a). — All of them (i.e. both the meal-offerings prepared in a vessel) require a three-fold use of oil — pouring upon them after they ware prepared, mingling with their dough, and placing of oil in the vessel prior to preparing them (Menachot 74b; cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 12 1).
  סלת בלולה בשמן FLOUR MINGLED WITH OIL — This teaches us that he mingles them together when they (the cakes) are yet flour (are not yet baked, and not, as might be assumed, when the dough is already formed into cakes, as is the case with לחמי תודה. the cakes of the sacrifice of acknowledgment, Leviticus 7:12, where Scripture prescribes חלות בלולת בשמן, “Cakes” mingled with oil; cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 12 2).
  
  Verse 6
  
  פתות אתה פתים — THOU SHALT SUNDER IT INTO MORSELS — This is stated to include all meal-offerings that are baked before the קמיצה (i. e. all mentioned here with the exception of מנחת סלת; cf. לחם משנה on Maim. הל' מעשה קרבנות פי״ג ה"י) in the law of breaking into pieces (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 12 5; Menachot 75a).
  ויצקת עליה שמן מנחה הוא AND THOU SHALT POUR OIL THEREON: IT IS A MEAL OFFERING — This is intended to include all meal-offerings (with the exception of one; cf. Rashi below) in the law of pouring oil upon them after the מנחה is prepared. One might think the meal-offering baken in an oven (v. 4) should also be treated thus, Scripture, however, states עליה, “[thou shalt pour oil] upon it”, but not upon that baken in the oven. But perhaps I should exclude only The cakes of the מנחת מאפה תנור and not also the wafers of which that מנחה may consist! Scripture, however, states היא, — “it is a meal-offering” using this limitative word to the exclusion of wafers too (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 12 6; Menachot 75a).
  
  Verse 7
  
  מרחשת [AND IF THOU BRING A MEAL OFFERING PREPARED IN A] מרחשת — This was a vessel used in the Temple, a deep one, and because it was deep the oil in it was heaped up (of considerable depth) and the fire did not burn it, and therefore the meal-offering made in it was, as it were, creeping). Every thing that is soft (elastic) because of the liquid contained in it appears as though it were creeping and moving (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 12 7; Menachot 63a).
  
  Verse 8
  
  אשר יעשה מאלה [AND THOU SHALT BRING THE MEAL OFFERING] THAT IS MADE OF THESE THINGS — i. e. of one of these kinds (the meal offerings mentioned) UNTO THE LORD,
  והקריבה AND HE SHALL OFFER IT — the owner shall offer it אל הכהן UNTO THE PRIEST,
  והגישה AND HE SHALL BRING IT NIGH — the kohen [shall bring it close],
  והגישה … .אל המזבח AND HE SHALL BRING IT NIGH UNTO THE ALTAR — He (the priest) brings it nigh unto to the south-west corner of the altar (cf. Zevachim 63b).
  
  Verse 9
  
  את אזכרתה ITS MEMORIAL PORTION — this is the “fistful” (קמץ) (cf. Rashi on v. 2).
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  וכל דבש [YE SHALL NOT CAUSE TO ASCEND IN FUMES] ANY HONEY – Any sweet juice of a fruit is called “honey”).
  
  Verse 12
  
  קרבן ראשית תקריבו אתם YE MAY OFFER THEM AS AN OFFERING OF THE FIRST FRUITS — But what is it that you have to offer of leaven and of honey? The offering of the first fruits, viz., the “two loaves’’ of the Feast of Weeks” that were brought of leavened dough, — as it is said, (Leviticus 23:16, 17) “[and ye shall offer a new meal-offering unto the Lord . . . two loaves] they shall be baken leavened”. — and the first ripe fruits were brought of species that contain sweet juices (דבש), such as the firstlings of figs and dates (Menachot 58a).
  
  Verse 13
  
  מלח ברית [NEITHER SHALT THOU SUFFER] THE SALT OF THE COVENANT [… TO BE LACKING FROM MY MEAL OFFERING], because a covenant was established with the salt as far back as the six days of Creation when the lower waters (those of the oceans) received an assurance that they would be offered on the altar in the form of salt and also as water in the ceremony of “the libation of water” on the Feast of Tabernacles).‎
  על כל קרבנך‎ UPON ALL THY OFFERINGS [THOU SHALT OFFER SALT] — upon burnt-offerings of cattle and fowls and upon the fat-portions of all sacrifices in general (Menachot 20a).
  
  Verse 14
  
  ואם תקריב AND IF (according to Rashi, AND “WHEN”) THOU OFFER [A MEAL-OFFERING OF FIRST FRUITS] — אם here has the meaning of כי, “when”, for this (the offering of the מנחת בכורים) is not optional, since Scripture is speaking of the meal-offering of the “Omer” which is obligatory. Similar is אם in the phrase (Numbers 36:4) ואם יהיה היובל which means: “when the jubilee will be”, not: “if the jubilee will be”, since it is bound to come (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 13 2; see also Rashi on Exodus 20:22).
  מנחת בכורים THE MEAL-OFFERING OF FIRSTFRUITS — Scripture is speaking here of the meal-offering of the “Omer” (Leviticus 23:10) which is brought when the grain is in the green ears  ,(אביב), i.e.. at the time of the ripening of the grain, and which was brought of barley, for it states here “אביב”, and there, too, (Exodus 9:31) it slates “for the barley was in the ears (אביב)” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 13 4; Menachot 68b).
  קלוי באש PARCHED BY THE FIRE  It is thus described because they roast it on the fire in the “tube of the grain-parchers (אביב של קלאים)”, for unless it was treated thus it could not be ground in the mill because it was fresh, as the term אביב green, fresh suggests (cf. Rashi on Exodus 9:31).
  גרש כרמל means broken (גרוש) whilst it was yet fresh (כרמל). 
  גרש is an expression for breaking and grinding. — He ground it in a grit-mill. — גרש has the same meaning as the verb in (Lamentations 3:16) “and He hath broken (ויגרס) [my teeth] with gravel-stones”; and similarly (Psalms 119:20) “My soul is broken (גרסה). 
  כרמל — i. e., broken whilst the husk (כר) is yet full (מלא) (according to this כרמל is a word compounded of כר and מל) — when the crop is yet fresh and full in its stalks; for this reason the fresh ears are called כרמל. Similar is, (2 Kings 4:42) “and full ears of corn (כרמל) in the husk thereof”.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  שלמים PEACE-OFFERINGS — They are so called because they bring peace (שלום) into the world. Another explanation is: they are called שלמים because through them there is “peace” (harmony and lack of envy) to the altar, to the priests and to the owners (since all these receive a portion) (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:22 and our Note thereon; see also Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 16 2).
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ‎'ואת כל החלב וגו [AND HE SHALL OFFER … ALL THE FAT THAT COVERETH THE INWARDS] AND ALL THE FAT [THAT IS UPON THE INWARDS] — These apparently redundant words are intended to include in the command the fat also that lies upon the maw. This is the opinion of Rabbi Ishmael; Rabbi Akiba holds that they are intended to include only the fat that is on the gut (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 14 6; cf. Chullin 49b).
  
  Verse 4
  
  הכסלים — Flancs in O. F. — It speaks of the fat which is on (על) the kidneys being also on (על) the flanks because the fat that is upon the kidneys is, when the animal is living, on the uppermost part of the flanks, and they (the kidneys) are in a downward position. This is the fat which is under the loins — what are called lombles in O. F.; it is that white fat which is visible upon the upper part of the flanks, but on their lower part the flesh covers it, (and this latter portion of the fat is therefore not upon but under the flanks).
  היותרת is the protecting wall (membrane) over the liver which is called abris in O. F. In the Aramaic language it is called חצרא דכבדא the lobe of the liver.
  על הכבד — This must mean that he shall take a little of the liver with it, for in another place it distinctly states, (Leviticus 9:10) “and the יותרת מן הכבד [he caused to ascend in fumes]” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 14 8).
  על הכבד על הכליות — means, besides the part of the liver and besides the kidneys shall he remove this (the יותרת‎).
  
  Verse 5
  
  העולה ‎‎על‎ means [HE SHALL BURN IT] BESIDES THE BURNT OFFERING. Scripture thus teaches us that the continual burnt-offering should be placed on the wood-pile before any other sacrifice (cf. Zevachim 89a; Tosafot on Zevachim 89a 1.1. כל התדיר and Rashi on Exodus 6:5).
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  אם כשב IF [HE OFFER] A LAMB — Because there is amongst the fat-portions of the lamb something which is not amongst the fat-portions of the goat, — for of the lamb the fat-tail (אליה) is offered, — therefore they (the law regarding the lamb and that regarding the goat) have been divided into two separate paragraphs (whilst in the case of the free-will עולה they are contained in one paragraph, Leviticus 1:10—13, since there is no difference in the laws regarding these two animals) (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 18 4).
  
  Verse 8
  
  וזרקו AND [AARON'S SONS] SHALL DASH THE BLOOD THEREOF [ROUND ABOUT] — two applications of the blood are necessary so as to constitute four (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1:5). He (the priest) dashes the blood with a vessel (Zevachim 55a); it is only the blood of the sin-offering that he applies with his finger (Zevachim 53a).
  
  Verse 9
  
  חלבו means: the choicest part in it; and what is this? The whole fat-tail.
  לעמת הָעֶצָה — i. e. above the kidneys which give counsel (עֵצָה) (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:22 and Note thereon).
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  'לחם אשה לה‎ means: it is the food of the fire in honour of the Lord. (The translation is not: it is food, a fire offering unto the Lord; לחם is construct, and the words must be translated as Rashi does). 
  לחם is a general expression for food. Similar is, (Jeremiah 11:19) “let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof (בלחמו)”; (Daniel 5:1) “[Belshazzar] made a great banquet (לחם)”; (Ecclesiastes 10:19) “It is for laughter that a banquet (לחם) is made”.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  חקת עולם This whole verse is well expounded in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 20 6-8).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  'מכל מצות ה [IF A SOUL SIN IN ERROR] AGAINST ANY OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD — Our Rabins explained ( Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 7; Shabbat 69a) that a sin-offering (of which this chapter speaks) is brought only for such a thing the wilful committal of which is forbidden by a לאו (a negative command) and is subject to the penalty of excision).
  מאחת מהנה — The prefix in מאחת, being the partitive מ, suggests: even if one infringes only a part of one of them. as, for instance, if one writes on Sabbath the two letters שם of the name שמעון having intended to write the whole word, or the letters נח of the word נחור, or דן of  דניאל (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 1 4; Shabbat 103b).
  
  Verse 3
  
  אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת העם IF THE PRIEST THAT IS ANOINTED DO SIN לאשמת העם — The Halachic explanation is that he is liable to bring a sin-offering only when there was ignorance of the real matter (of the law in question; i. e. after having considered the case in question he came to a wrong decision) together with a mistaken action (i. e. where he erred in a Halachic decision and as a result of this error acted against the true law), just as it is stated with reference to the guilt of the whole people): (v. 13) “[And if the whole congregation of Israel err] and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly and they have done [somewhat against the commandments of the Lord]" (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 2 1; Horayot 7a; Rashi on v. 13). Its literal sense is according to the Agadic explanation: When the High-priest sins this is the guilt of the people (i. e. it results in the people remaining under a load of guilt), because they are dependent on him to effect atonement for them and to pray on their behalf, and now he himself has become degenerate and can thus not expiate for them, wherefor they remain under guilt.
  פר A BULLOCK — One might think that it may be an old one! Scripture, however, adds בן, a young animal. If, then, it must be בן, a young one, I might think a very young animal is fitted too (this being also implied in the term בן)! Scripture, however, states פר! How is this to be reconciled? By explaining פר בן  בקר to be a bullock of three years (which is neither too old nor too young) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 3 1; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 9:7 and Note thereon).
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  אל אהל מועד‎  [AND THE PRIEST … SHALL BRING IT] TO THE APPOINTED TENT — to the Tabernacle — and, later, in the House of Eternity (the Temple at Jerusalem), into the Heichal (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:43).
  
  Verse 6
  
  את פני פרכת הקדש [AND THE PRIEST SHALL … SPRINKLE OF THE BLOOD …] BEFORE THE PARTITION VAIL OF THE קדש — i.e. before that spot where it is exceedingly holy — exactly in front of the space between the staves of the Ark (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 3 10). The blood did not touch the Partition Vail (since he was standing some distance off), but if it happened to touch it, then it touched it, (and it did not invalidate the ceremony) (Yoma 57a).
  
  Verse 7
  
  ואת כל דם AND ALL THE BLOOD — i. e. all the remainder of the blood (since part of it had already been sprinkled) (Zevachim 25a).
  
  Verse 8
  
  ואת כל חלב פר [AND HE SHALL TAKE UP …] ALL THE FAT OF THE BULLOCK — It ought to have said “its fat” (since the פר has just been mentioned); why does it state expressly “the fat of a bullock [of a sin-offering]” (i.e. any bullock brought as a sin-offering)? In order to include also the bullock of the Day of Atonement in respect to the burning of the kidneys, the fat portions and the lobe (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 4 1).
  החטאת — [THE FAT OF THE BULLOCK OF] THE SIN OFFERING (implying, the fat of the bullock because it is a sin-offering) consequently serves to include the goats brought as a sin-offering for idolatry (Numbers 15:24) in respect to the burning of the kidneys, the fat portions and the lobe of the liver (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 4 1; cf. Note on the previous passage).
  ירים ממנו AND HE SHALL TAKE FROM IT [ALL THE FAT] — from. “it”, i. e. from the bullock — consequently he must take it (the fat) whilst it is still connected with it (the animal), — that he must not dismember it before removing the fat from it. Thus is it explained in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 4 1).
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  כאשר יורם AS IT WAS TAKEN [FROM THE OX OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE PEACE OFFERINGS] — i. e. from those fat portions which are specified in the case of an ox brought as a sacrifice of peace-offerings. But what is specified in the case of a sacrifice of peace-offerings that is not specified here? Nothing at all! (Cf. Leviticus 3:3—4 with here.) What then is the force of the words כאשר יורם? But they are intended to declare it analogous to the peace-offerings: What is the case with שלמים? They must be burnt as such! So, too, must this be burnt as such!) And again what is the case with שלמים? They are intended to promote peace for the world! So, too, is this intended to promote peace for the world (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 4 2). In the Treatise on “the Slaughtering of Sacrifices” it (the passage 'כאשר יורם וכו‎) is stated to be necessary to deduce from it the rule that in the case of sacrifices we can derive no law from a law which is itself only derived from a text, and is not explicitly stated in Scripture. This is to be found in the chapter beginning with the words איזהו מקומן (Zevachim 49b).
  על הכבד על הכליות. על ראשו ועל כרעיו — All these words (על) are an expression denoting an addition — they meat: as much as “besides”.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  אל מקום טהור [EVEN THE WHOLE BULLOCK SHALL HE BRING FORTH WITHOUT THE CAMP] UNTO A CLEAN PLACE — Because there was outside the city (Jerusalem) a place intended for depositing unclean things viz., to cast there the plague-stricken stones (cf. Leviticus 14:45) and to serve as a place of burial, Scripture was compelled to state regarding this term “without the camp” — which in the case of Jerusalem, is identical with: “without the city” — that the place where it was to be burnt shall be a clean one.
  מחוץ למחנה WITHOUT THE CAMP — i. e. without the three camps (מחנה שכינה, מחנה לויה ומחנה ישראל) ; and, in the case of the “House of Eternity” (the Temple), it was to be brought forth without the city, just as our Rabbis have explained it in Treatise Yoma 68a and in Treatise Sanhedrin 42b.
  אל שפך הדשן means: to the place where the ashes that were removed from the altar were cast, as it is said (Leviticus 6:4) “and he shall bring out the ashes without the camp”.
  על שפך הדשן UPON THE PLACE FOR SHEDDING THE ASHES [SHALL IT BE BURNT] — This is something which need not have been stated (since it says immediately before, that it shall be brought forth to this spot), but it is intended to teach that even if at the time there happen to be no ashes there, the bullock shall nevertheless be burnt there (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 5 5; Pesachim 75b).
  
  Verse 13
  
  עדת ישראל [AND IF THE WHOLE] CONGREGATION OF ISRAEL [ERR] — This is the Great Sanhedrin (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 4 2; cf. Horayot 4b).
  ונעלם דבר AND A THING (a matter of law) WAS HID [FROM THE EYES OF THE ASSEMBLY] — i. e. they (the Synhedrion) erred, deciding in respect to one of all those acts for which excision is, according to tradition), implicitly mentioned in the Torah that it is permissible (Horayot 8a).
  הקהל ועשו — [AND THE THING BE HID FROM THE EYES OF] THE ASSEMBLY AND THEY HAVE DONE — It means that the assembly did according to their (the Sanhedrin’s) decision (cf. Horayot 2a).
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  את פני הפרכת [AND THE PRIEST SPRINKLE IT …] BEFORE THE PARTITION VAIL — But above (v. 6) Scripture states את פני פרכת הקדש? A parable! This may be compared to the case of a king against whom the country revolted. If it is only a minority of it that revolts his council (familia) still exists, but if the whole country revolts his council no longer exists. So, also, here: When the anointed priest alone sinned, the appelation of sanctity that is attached to the place still remains on the Sanctuary, but as soon as all of them have sinned the holiness, God forbid, disappears (Zevachim 41b).
  
  Verse 18
  
  יסוד מזבח העלה אשר פתח אהל מועד [AND HE SHALL POUR OUT ALL THE BLOOD AT] THE BASE OF THE ALTAR OF THE BURNT-OFFERING WHICH IS AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE APPOINTED TENT — this is the base on the west side, for it was that which was opposite to the entrance of the tent (cf. Zevachim 51a).
  
  Verse 19
  
  ואת כל חלבו ירים AND HE SHALL TAKE ALL HIS FAT — Although it does not expressly mention here the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys as portions that were to be taken (as it does in the case of the anointed priest’s sin-offering, v. 9) they may be derived from the statement (v. 20) “And he shall do with the bullock as he did [with the bullock of the sin-offering]”. But why are they not expressly mentioned? It was taught in the School of R. Ishmael: A parable! This may be compared to the case of a king who was angry with his friend and abridged the account of his offence because of the affection he bore him (Zevachim 41b). (Similarly Scripture does not give in detail all the rites that have to be carried out when the whole of the nation sins.)
  
  Verse 20
  
  ועשה לפר AND HE SHALL DO WITH THE BULLOCK — with this bullock —כאשר עשה לפר החטאת AS HE DID WITH THE BULLOCK FOR A SIN-OFFERING – i. e. as is expressly set forth in the case of the bullock of the anointed priest. This statement thus serves to bring under the command of offering the fat portions the lobe of  the liver and the two kidneys which are not expressly mentioned there but which are not expressly mentioned here; and it serves also to repeat the command referring to these rites, teaching thereby that if he (the anointed priest) omitted one of all the applications of the blood it (the sacrifice) becomes invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 6 5). Since we find in regard to blood which had to be placed on the outer altar, that if he places it there by one application alone he nevertheless effected atonement (cf. Mish. Zevachim 4:1), Scripture was compelled to intimate here that the omission of one application impedes the validity of the rite (Zevachim 39a).
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  אשר נשיא יחטא — The word אשר is connected in meaning with ‎‎‏אשרי “happy”. Happy is the generation whose prince (king) takes care to bring an atonement sacrifice even for an inadvertent act of his; how much the more certain is it that he will do penance for his wilful sins (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 5 1; Horayot 10b)
  
  Verse 23
  
  או הודע is the same as “IF” (אם‎) [THE THING] WAS MADE KNOWN TO HIM — There are many passages where או is used in the sense of אם, and again where אם stands in the place of או. A similar instance is: (Exodus 21:36) “או נודע כי שור נגח הוא”, which means “if it was known that the ox was wont to thrust” (cf., however, Rashi on that verse and our Note thereon).
  הודע אליו IT WAS MADE KNOWN TO HIM — when he committed the sin he was under the belief that it was something permissible, afterwards it became known to him that it was a forbidden thing.
  
  Verse 24
  
  במקום אשר ישחט את העלה [AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER IT] IN THE PLACE WHERE THEY SLAUGHTER THE BURNT-OFFERING — on the north side of the altar which is expressly mentioned in the case of the burnt-offering (Leviticus 1:11) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 8 5).
  חטאת הוא IT IS [TO BE] A SIN-OFFERING — Consequently, if he slaughtered it for the purpose of (i. e. having in mind that it is) a sin-offering it is valid, but if it is not done for this purpose (i. e. that the officiating priest had another sacrifice in mind) it is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 8 6; Zevachim 10b; cf. also Rashi and Zevachim 5b).
  
  Verse 25
  
  ואת דמו [AND HE SHALL POUR OUT] THE BLOOD — i. e. the remainder of the blood (cf. Rashi on v. 7).
  
  Verse 26
  
  כחלב זבח השלמים [AND HE SHALL CAUSE ALL ITS FAT TO ASCEND IN FUMES], AS THE FAT OF THE SACRIFICE OF PEACE OFFERINGS — i. e. as those fat portions which are specified in the case of the goat that is mentioned among the peace-offerings (Leviticus 3:14, 15).
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  כאשר הוסר הלב מעל זבח השלמים [AND HE SHALL REMOVE ALL THE FAT] AS THE FAT IS REMOVED FROM OFF THE SACRIFICE OF PEACE OFFERINGS — i.e. as the fat portions of the goat which are mentioned in the case of peace offerings (cf. previous verse).
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  אותה ‎‏ושחט‎ ‎לחטאת‎ AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER IT FOR A SIN-OFFERING — This means that its slaughtering shall be for the purpose of (with the intention of making it) a sin-offering (Zevachim 7b).
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  כאשר יוסר חלב הכבש [AND HE SHALL REMOVE ALL THE FAT THEREOF] AS THE FAT OF THE LAMB IS REMOVED — the fat portions of which have been augmented by the addition of the fat-tail (cf. v. 9): thus, too, does a sin-offering, whenever it is brought as she-lamb, require the fat-tail to be removed together with the other fat portions (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 11 4).
  על אשי ה׳ means upon the fire-pyres which are made for the Lord; foailles in O. F.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ‎‏‎ קול האלה ‎ה‎ושמע‎ [AND IF A SOUL SIN] AND HEAR THE VOICE OF AN OATH in a matter to which he was witness, i. e. that he (the person interested in the evidence) called upon him (the witness) by an oath that if he knows any evidence favourable to him he should testify for him before the court (cf. Sifra); if he does not tell it, he bears his iniquity.
  
  Verse 2
  
  'או נפש אשר תגע וגו‎‎ OR IF A SOUL TOUCH [ANY UNCLEAN THING] etc., and after acquiring this uncleanness eats holy things or enters the Sanctuary, this being something which if done willfully is subject to the penalty of excision — thus is it explained in Treatise Shevuot 14b.
  עלם ממנו‎ונ AND IT WAS HIDDEN FROM HIM — the uncleanness was hidden from him (escaped his notice, not the fact that the things he ate were holy or that the place he entered was the Sanctuary. The translation therefore is “and it — the fact that he was unclean — escaped his notice, but he actually was unclean”) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 7; cf. Shevuot 14b).
  ‎ם‎‎‏ואש AND HE INCUR GUILT through eating sacred food or entering the Sanctuary.
  
  Verse 3
  
  בטמאת אדם [OR IF HE TOUCHES] THE UNCLEANNESS OF MAN — This refers to uncleanness resulting from a corpse (i. e. it implies both touching the corpse itself or touching anyone who has come in contact with the corpse) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 8).
  לכל טמאתו WHATSOEVER UNCLEANNESS OF HIM IT BE — This is intended to include in this law the uncleanness resulting from touching men or women who have a flux (and those in similar physical condition e. g. ‎'וכו‎ יולדת ‎ נדה‎) Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 8.
  ‎‏אשר יטמא‎ — these apparently redundant words are intended to include in this law one who touches a man who had intercourse with a ה‎‏נד and has not yet immersed himself (cf. Leviticus 15:24) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 8).
  בה — is intended to include in this law one who swallows the carrion of a clean bird (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 8).
  והוא ידע … ‎ונעלם AND IT WAS HIDDEN [FROM HIM], BUT HE KNOWETH afterwards) that he had forgotten his state of uncleanness,
  ואשם AND HAD INCURRED GUILT by eating sacred food or by entering the Sanctuary in this state.
  
  Verse 4
  
  בשפתים [OR IF A SOUL SWEAR, PRONOUNCING] WITH HIS LIPS [FOR HARM, OR FOR GOOD] — with his lips but not merely in his heart (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 9 2; Shevuot 26b).
  להרע TO DO HARM to himself,
  או להטיב OR TO DO GOOD to himself, — as for instance, if he swears: “I shall eat” (which is להטיב), or, “I shall not eat” (להרע), “I shall sleep” (להטיב) or, “I shall not sleep” (להרע) (cf. Shevuot 27a).
  לכל אשר יבטא WHATSOEVER IT BE THAT A MAN PRONOUNCETH [WITH AN OATH] whatsoever it be: — this is intended to include the case where the oath refers to something that happened in the past (e.g., he swore, “I have eaten” etc. but he has not) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 9 8; Shevuot 26a).
  ‎‏ונעלם ממנו AND IT BE HID FROM HIM (he forgot that he had taken such an oath) and consequently he violated his oath. — All these cases come under the law of “a sacrifice of higher or lesser value” (according to pecuniary conditions), as is set forth here (vv. 6—13): but an oath which involves the false repudiation of a claim to money does not come under the law of this sacrifice but under that of a guilt-offering (v. 25).
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  והקריב את אשר לחטאת ראשונה AND HE SHALL OFFER THAT WHICH IS FOR A SIN-OFFERING FIRST — This verse establishes the general rule that the sin-offering is always sacrificed before the burnt-offering. — To what may this be compared? To the case of an advocate (in our case the חטאת) who went in to the king to obtain pardon for his client. When the advocate has gained that pardon, then the present (עולה) is brought in after him (Zevachim 7b).
  ולא יבדיל [AND HE SHALL NIP ITS HEAD …] BUT SHALL NOT SEPARATE IT — i.e. he nips only one organ (either the gullet or the windpipe) (Chullin 21a).
  עורף is the surface of the head which slopes down towards the neck);
  ‎‏מול עורף is the part bordering on it which sees the עורף (the part next to the עורף and within sight of it) — that is, the length of the whole back of the throat (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 18 7: Chullin 19b).
  
  Verse 9
  
  והזה מדם החטאת AND HE SHALL SPRINKLE OF THE BLOOD OF THE SIN-OFFERING [… AND THE REMAINDER OF THE BLOOD SHALL BE WRUNG OUT] — In the case of a burnt-offering of a fowl Scripture  requires only the wringing out of the blood (Leviticus 1:15), whilst in the case of the sin-offering it requires sprinkling and wringing out: standing quite near to the altar, he grasps the nape and makes the blood spurt out and thus the blood spurts forth in a jet and goes in the direction of the altar (cf. Zevachim 64b).
  חטאת הוא IT IS A SIN-OFFERING — These apparently redundant words intimate: if the sprinkling and wringing of the blood are done for the purpose of (i.e. having in mind that it is) a sin-offering it is valid; if it is not done for this purpose (i.‎e. that the officiating priest has another sacrifice in mind) it is invalid (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 18 9 and Rashi on Leviticus 4:24).
  
  Verse 10
  
  כמשפט [AND THE SECOND HE SHALL OFFER FOR A BURNT-OFFERING] ACCORDING TO THE REGULATION — according to the law that is mentioned with regard to a free-will burnt-offering of fowls at the beginning of the section (Leviticus 1:14) (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 18 10; Chullin 21a).
  
  Verse 11
  
  כי חטאת הוא [HE SHALL PUT NO OIL UPON IT, NEITHER SHALL HE PUT ANY FRANKINCENSE THEREON:] FOR IT IS A SIN-OFFERING — a sinner’s offering, and therefore it is not proper that his offering should be embellished by oil and frankincense (Menachot 6a).
  
  Verse 12
  
  חטאת הוא IT IS A SIN-OFFERING — Here, too, the apparently redundant words intimate: if the קמץ has been taken from it and has been burnt for the purpose of (i.e. having in mind that it is) a sin-offering it is valid; if, however, this was done not for its purpose (i. e. the priest had another offering in mind when officiating) it is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 19 9).
  
  Verse 13
  
  ‎אשר חטא  על חטאתו  [AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE EXPIATION ON HIS BEHALF] FOR THE SIN THAT HE HATH SINNED — Here Scripture varies the expression, for in the case of affluence (v. 6) and narrow means (v. 10) it is stated, “[and the priest shall make expiation for him] מחטאתו”, whilst here, in the case of utter destitution, it is stated מחטאתו) על חטאתו may mean: something from his sin-offering, i. e., a part of it, whilst על חטאתו implies something in addition to his sin-offering)! Our Rabbis from the niceties of the text derived from here the law that if one sinned whilst he was a rich man and set apart money for a she-lamb or a she-goat (the sacrifice prescribed for a well-to-do person; cf. v. 6), but then became impoverished somewhat, he has only to bring (purchase) from a part of it (the money) two turtledoves (or two young pigeons, the offering prescribed for the poor) and may retain the balance for his own use: if, being a poor mạn, he has set apart money for two turtledoves and then was reduced to even greater poverty, he has only to bring from a part of it a tenth of an ephah of flour; hence the use of the word מחטאתו in the sense explained above. If, on the other hand, being only of moderate means, he has set apart money only for a tenth of an ephah of flour, but became rich afterwards, he must add to it and bring the offering prescribed for a rich man. For this reason it is stated here על חטאתו — in addition to what was intended for his sin-offering (Keritot 27b).
  מאחת מאלה [AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE EXPIATION FOR HIM] BY MEANS OF ONE OF THESE — i. e. by means of one of the three expiating sacrifices mentioned in this section: either by means of the offering prescribed for affluence or by that for poverty or by that for utter destitution (i. e., in the case of the offerings brought for each of the three sins mentioned above (vv. 1, 2—3 and 4) the offering must be brought according to the circumstances of the wrong-doer). But why is this stated? (i. e., why does it not merely state‎ אשר חטא ונסלח לו ‎ חטאתו הכהן על  ‎וכפר עליו‎  since the different sacrifices have been mentioned previously)? But Scripture uses this term “by means of one of these”, because I might think that the most serious sins amongst them (i. e. those mentioned in vv. 2—3, which, if done wilfully, are subject to the penalty of כרת) should be atoned for by a she-lamb or a she-goat: the lighter ones (v. 1) by a fowl, and the lightest of all (v. 4) by a tenth part of an ephah of flour! Scripture, however, states, “[and he shall make expiation for him] by one of these” — in order to put on the same level the light sins with the most serious with regard to the duty of offering a she-lamb or a she-goat, if he (the offender) possesses the means. And, on the other hand, to put on the same level the most serious sins with the lighter in respect to the duty of bringing a tenth part of an ephah of flour as an offering in case of utter destitution (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 19 10).
  והיתה לכהן כמנחה AND IT SHALL BE THE PRIEST’S, JUST AS A MEAL-OFFERING — This is intended to teach with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner (i. e. a meal-offering brought as an expiation for the sins mentioned above) that what is left of it after the קמץ has been burnt may be eaten by the priests just as the remains of the free-will offering (cf. Leviticus 2:3). This is what the statement means according to its literal sense. Our Rabbis, however, explained והיתה לכהן to imply: that if this sinner be a priest, then it shall be as any other meal-offering brought as a free-will offering by a priest which comes under the law: (Leviticus 6:16) “[For every meal-offering of the priest] shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten”. (The words are to be construed thus:והיתה לכהן, but if it be a priest’s, כמנחה then it shall be exactly like any voluntary meal-offering that he brings) (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 19 11; Menachot 73b).
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  כי תמעל מעל — The term מעל everywhere in Scripture denotes “changing”. Similarly it stales, (I Chronicles 5:25) “And they committed a מעל against the God of their fathers; for they went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land” (i. e. they exchanged Him for their gods). And similarly it states of the faithless wife, (Numbers 5:12) “[If any man’s wife go aside] and commit a מעל in respect to him” (i. e. she changes her relationship to him for one to another man) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 11 1; Meilah 18a).
  ‎'‎‎וחטאה כשגגה מקדשי ה‎‎ AND SIN IN ERROR, CONCERNING THE HOLY THINGS OF THE LORD — i. e. that one has derived some benefit from (made use of) a holy thing. And where is this prohibited, that Scripture should describe it here as sin? But the expression חטא is mentioned here and חטא is mentioned further on in the case of misuse of תרומה (Leviticus 22:9): “[They — the priests — shall therefore keep my charge] not to eat תרומה when they are in a state of uncleanness: (see Rashi thereon), lest they bear sin (חטא) for it”. How is it there? Scripture forbids it! (See Rashi on Leviticus 22:10). So here, too, by the term וחטאה it forbids it. (The translation is therefore: If a person commit a מעל, whereby it would be sinning even though it be in error). But if you should argue that the analogy may be put thus: How is it there? Scripture imposes the prohibition only upon one who would eat Terumah, so, too, here it imposes a prohibition only upon one who would eat of sacred things (‎וחטאה … ‎'מקדשי ה‎)! But Scripture uses here the double expression: תמעל מעל, and thereby it enlarges the scope of the prohibition to include a benefit (הנאה) of any description (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 11 2; Meilah 18b).
  מקדשי ה׳ CONCERNING THE HOLY THINGS OF THE LORD — i.e. those which are specially assigned to the Lord; therefore sacrifices holy in a minor degree are excluded from this law (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 20 1).
  איל is an expression for “strong”, “mighty”, as in (Ezekiel 17:13) “he hath also taken the mighty of (אילי) the land”.Here, too, איל means a ram which has grown strong, i. e. one two years old (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 20 6; cf. Rashi on Genesis 31:38).
  בערכך כסף שקלים WITH THE VALUATION IN SHEKELS OF SILVER — This (the plural שקלים) implies that it must have the value of at least two shekels (cf. Keritot 10b).
  
  Verse 16
  
  הקדש ישלם‎ מן ‎חטא‎‎ אשר‎ ואת‎  AND FOR THAT WHEREIN HE HATH SINNED IN THE HOLY THING HE SHALL PAY both the principal and the additional fifth to the Temple treasury (cf. Keritot 26b).
  
  Verse 17
  
  ולא ידע ואשם … והביא [AND IF A SOUL SIN, AND DO ANY OF THESE THINGS WHICH SHOULD NOT BE DONE …] AND HE DOES NOT DISCOVER THAT HE IS GUILTY … HE SHALL BRING [A RAM … FOR A GUILT OFFERING] — This paragraph (vv. 17—19) is speaking of a person to whom there has occurred a כרת ‎ספק (i. e. it is speaking of a person who is doubtful whether he has inadvertently committed an act of such a character as to be punishable with כרת if done willfully), and he does not know whether he has actually committed a sinful act or not. For instance: חלב (fat forbidden to be eaten under the penalty of כרת) and permitted fat (שומן) lay before him, and he believed that both were permissible food (i. e. that both were שומן), and he ate one of them. Afterwards, however, people told him that one of these was חלב, but he does not know whether he had eaten that which was חלב. Then such a one has to bring an אשם תלוי (the guilt-offering for a doubtful sin, lit., the guilt-offering in suspense, from תלה to “be in suspense”); and this protects him against punishment so long as he does not become cognisant that he has undoubtedly sinned, and if he becomes cognisant of this after a time he has to bring a sin-offering (cf. Keritot 22b, 23a).
   ‎ו אשם ונשא עונו‎‎ולא ידע  AND HE DOES NOT DISCOVER THAT HE IS GUILTY, AND BEARETH HIS INIQUITY — R. José the Galilean said, “See, Scripture (God) punishes him who has no sure knowledge that he has sinned (in as much as it requires him to bring a guilt-offering); how much the more does it follow that He will punish him who does know that he is sinning and yet wilfully does it. — R. José said, “If you wish to know the reward prepared for the righteous, go and learn from the case of Adam Horishon, who was charged only with a negative command (not to eat from the עץ הדעת) and who transgressed it, — see how many kinds of death-penalties were on this account decreed as a punishment against himself and all his descendants! Now, which measure is greater, — that of good (of reward), or that of punishment? You must admit that it is that of reward (cf. Rashi on Exodus 20:6). If, then, the measure of punishment is the lesser, consider that if so many kinds of death-penalties were decreed as a punishment against himself and his descendants, surely, in the case of the measure of good which is the greater one, if a person refrains from eating sacrifices which have become abominable (פגול) or which have been left over beyond the prescribed time (נותר), or if he fasts on Yom Kippur, how much the more certain is it that he will acquire merit for himself and for his descendants and the descendants of his descendants until the end of all generations! — R. Akiba said, “See, it states, (Deuteronomy 19:15) “at the mouth of two witnesses, or, at the mouth of three witnesses [shall the matter be established]. — But if evidence can be established by two witnesses, why does Scripture afterwards specifically state that this may be done by three? But it is to bring the third witness under the law there stated — to be severe with him and to make his sentence exactly like that of these (the first two witnesses) in respect to punishment in case of “plotting” (evidence that is rebutted by proof that the witness was not present on the occasion to which he has testified; see Rashi on Deuteronomy 19:16). Now, if Scripture exacts punishment so severely from one who has only joined himself with sinners (he is so described because as a single witness he could not hope that his evidence would be effective), just as it does from the sinners themselves, how much the more certain is it that He will give a reward to him who attaches himself to those who practise meritorious deeds just as it does to those who themselves practise meritorious deeds! (Sanhedrin 9a; Makkot 5b). — R. Eleazar b. Azariah said: In Deuteronomy (24:19) Scripture states, “When thou reapest thy harvest in thy field, and hast forgotten a sheaf in the field, [thou shalt not return to take it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless etc.]”, and, you see, it states immediately afterwards: “that the Lord thy God may bless thee etc.” Scripture (God) thus gives the assurance of a blessing to one through whom a meritorious deed came about (the feeding of the stranger, etc.), without himself knowing about it (since he forgot to remove the sheaf from the field)! You must now admit that if a Sela was tied up in the skirt of one’s garment and it fell from it and a poor man finds it and supports himself by it the Holy One, blessed be He gives the assurance of a blessing to him (to the man who has lost the Sela) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 12 7-13).
  
  Verse 18
  
  ‎ לאשם  בערכך  [HE SHALL BRING A RAM …] ACCORDING TO THE VALUATION FOR A GUILT OFFERING — i. e. according to the value stated above (v. 15, viz., at least 2 shekels).
  ‎ידע‎ והוא לא‎‎ אשר שגג  [AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE EXPIATION FOR HIM CONCERNING HIS ERROR] WHEREIN HE ERRED AND DISCOVERED IT NOT — Consequently if it came to his knowledge after a time that he has sinned, he is not atoned for by this guilt-offering which he has already bought, but remains unatoned until he brings a sin-offering. To what may this be compared? To the law of the Heifer whose neck was to be broken (as a kind of expiation when it was unknown who has committed the murder) when, on some particular occasion, its neck was actually broken and the murderer was afterwards found — when he surely has to be put to death (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 21 2).
  
  Verse 19
  
  אשם הוא אשם אשם — The first of these similar words is entirely (i. e. both syllables) punctuated with Kametz because it is a noun, whilst the last is punctuated half with Kametz and half with Patach, because it expresses the idea “he has done something” (i. e. it is a verb in the Kal, 3rd person masc. sing, perfect). — And if you say, surely this is a verse that is unnecessary, since it has stated in the previous verse, “he shall bring the ram for a guilt-offering”, then I reply that it has already been expounded in Torath Cohanim as follows; אשם אשם — this repetition is intended to include in the law of אשם תלוי also the אשם שפחה חרופה (the guilt-offering for dishonouring a maid-servant betrothed to another man; cf. Leviticus 19:12), viz., that it must be a ram of the value of two Sela’im. One might think that I include also the guilt-offering brought by a Nazarite (cf. Numbers 6:12) and the guilt-offering brought by a leper (cf. Leviticus 14:12)! Scripture, however, states “הוא” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 21 7).
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  ונפש כי תחטא IF A SOUL SIN [AND COMMIT FAITHLESSNESS AGAINST THE LORD] — R. Akiba said, What is the force of  ‎‎‎מעל בה׳‎‎ ומעלה  here, where it does not speak of betraying “holy things of the Lord” as in v. 15, but of betraying one’s neighbour? Because whoever lends or borrows money or does business with another, does it as a rule only in the presence of witnesses or by a document, therefore when he repudiates the matter, he repudiates the witnesses or the document; but he who deposits something with his neighbour does not wish any living soul to know about it except the Third Being (God) who is between them; therefore when he repudiates the deposit, he is repudiating the Third Being who is between them (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 22 4).
  בתשומת יד A CHARGE — He denies that he has put (שָׂם) money into his (the neighbour’s) hand (יד, i. e. that he has put money at his disposal) for the purpose of doing business in partnership or as a loan (cf. Onkelos and Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 22 6).
  או בגזל OR A THING TAKEN AWAY BY VIOLENCE — He denies that he has violently taken something from his possession,
  או עשק OR HATH WRONGED [HIS NEIGHBOUR] — This refers to withholding the wages of a hired man (cf. Leviticus 19:13; see also Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 22 6 and Bava Kamma 103b).
  
  Verse 22
  
  וכחש בה AND DENIETH IT — i.e. that he denies על אחת מכל REGARDING ONE OF ALL these things (those mentioned above), אשר יעשה האדם לחטא THAT A MAN DOETH (is apt to do, cf. Numbers 5:7, said of a similar case ‎מכל חטאת האדם)  TO SIN and to swear falsely with the object of repudiating a money claim.
  
  Verse 23
  
  יחטא ואשם‎‎ כי‎ means when he comes to a recognition of himself (recognises his duty) to repent of his sin and makes up his mind to confess that he has sinned and has incurred guilt).
  
  Verse 24
  
  בראשו — This means the principal — the capital (ראש) money.
  וחמשתיו [AND HE SHALL ADD] THE FIFTH PART [MORE THERETO) — By using the plural וחמשתיו the Torah includes in this law of restitution the many additional fifths possible in respect to one principal — that if he denies the fifth (i. e. he asserts that he has repaid both capital and fifth, but has not really paid the latter, for which a claim is now made against him) and takes an oath that he has paid it, but afterwards admits the claim, then he must now bring (pay) a fifth in addition to this fifth (a fifth of the original fifth which now has become the קרן in addition to it), and so he keeps on adding a fifth to the original fifth until the principal about which he takes an oath becomes less in value than a P’rutah (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 13 12; Bava Kamma 103a).
  לאשר הוא לו [AND HE SHALL ADD THE FIFTH PART MORE THERETO AND GIVE IT] UNTO HIM TO WHOM IT APPERTAINETH — i. e. to him whose is the money (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 13 12; Bava Kamma 108; also Bava Kamma 103a).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  צו את אהרן COMMAND AARON — The expression “Command …!” always implies urging on to carry out a command, implying too, that it comes into force at once, and is binding upon future generations (cf. Rashi on this passage in Kiddushin 29a). R. Simeon said: Especially must Scripture urge on the fulfilment of the commands in a case where monetary loss is involved (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 1; Kiddushin 29a).
  ‎ 'וגו‎‎ ‎זאת תורת העולה  THIS IS THE LAW OF THE BURNT OFFERING: [SUCH BURNT OFFERING SHALL REMAIN ON THE FIRE-PLACE UPON THE ALTAR ALL NIGHT] — This paragraph (vv.1—2) is intended to teach, with reference to the burning of the fat-portions and limbs of sacrifices that it is permissible during the whole night (Megillah 21a); and to teach regarding disqualified sacrifices, which of them, if already brought up on the altar, must be taken down, and which, if brought up, need not be taken down. The latter case may happen, because the term, תורה wherever it occurs in Scripture as an introduction to a group of laws (cf. Leviticus 6:7, 18; 7:1,11 etc.) is intended as an all-inclusive term (to include all of the class mentioned); here it is intended to tell us: One law applies to all animals that may be brought up on the altar, even certain disqualified ones — that if these have once been brought up on the altar they shall not be taken down again (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 7; Zevachim 27b).
  הוא העולה — is intended to exclude from the general law of עולה male and female cattle with which sexual sin had been committed and the like (i. e. that even if they were put on the altar they must be taken down again), because their disqualification did not occur in the Holy Place, since they were dis-qualified before they came into the forecourt (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 8).
  
  Verse 3
  
  מדו בד HIS LINEN ROBE — this is what is elsewhere termed the כתונת, the undercoat; and why then is it here called מדו? To intimate that it (the כתונת) must be made to his measure (מדו from מדד to “measure”) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 2 1; Yoma 23b).
  על בשרו [AND LINEN DRAWERS HE SHALL PUT] UPON HIS FLESH — This implies that nothing should interpose between them (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 2 3; Zevachim 19a).
  והרים את הדשן AND HE SHALL TAKE UP THE ASHES — He raked a full pan of ashes from the innermost consumed mass of ashes and deposited them at the east side of the כבש (the inclined plane leading up to the altar) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 4 Yoma 20a; cf. Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 2:1).
  העולה‎ את ‎‏ אשר תאכל האש‎הדשן ‎ [HE SHALL TAKE OUT] THOSE ASHES INTO WHICH THE FIRE HATH CONSUMED THE BURNT OFFERING — and thus has made it into ashes; from those ashes he shall take out a תרומה, a portion, ושמו אצל המזבח AND PUT IT BESIDE THE ALTAR.
  [על המזבח [THE BURNT OFFERING] ON THE ALTAR — This implies that if he (the priest) finds any limbs of the burnt offering that were not yet consumed he shall put them back on the altar after having raked the coals hither and thither and having taken from the innermost ashes, because it states, העולה על המזבח ‎את ‎which implies: the burnt offering (i.e.so long as it can be called an עולה and not דשן) must be ‎on the altar] (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 5; Yoma 45b; cf. Rashi there s. v. ‎אשר תאכל ‎ את העולה‎).
  
  Verse 4
  
  ‎ ופשט את בגדיו ‎ AND HE SHALL PUT OFF HIS GARMENTS — This is not compulsory (cf., however, Nachmanides) but it is a matter of decency so that he should not, through removing the ashes, soil the garments in which he has regularly to minister at the altar; in the clothes he wore when he boiled the pot for his master (a menial task) he should not pour out a glass of wine for him (an honourable office). On this account it states: And he shall put on other garments — inferior to those in which he ministers at the altar (Yoma 23b; Shabbat 114a).
  והוציא את הדשן AND HE SHALL BRING OUT THE ASHES that were heaped upon the ash-heap (not the ashes mentioned in v. 3). When it accumulated and there was no more room on the wood-pile (מערכה) he carried it out; this was not compulsory every day, whilst the תרומת הדשן (the taking out of the pan of ashes commanded in v. 3) was a daily duty (Yoma 20a).
  
  Verse 5
  
  והאש על המזבח תוקד בו AND THE FIRE ON THE ALTAR SHALL BE BLAZING IN IT — Scripture uses here (in this section) many expressions from the root יקד “to ignite”: (Leviticus 6:2) “on the fire-place (מוקדה); (Leviticus 6:2) “and the fire upon the altar shall be blazing (תוקד) on it”; (Leviticus 6:5) “and the fire upon the altar shall be blazing (תוקד) on it”; (Leviticus 6:6) “a continual fire shall be blazing (תוקד) upon the altar” — all these passages have been expounded in Treatise Yoma 45b where our Rabbis state their different opinions as to the number of מערכות (wood-piles — fire-places) that were there (on the altar).
  וערך עליה העלה AND HE SHALL SET THE BURNT OFFERING IN ORDER UPON IT — The morning continual burnt offering had to come first (Menachot 49a; cf. also Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 2 10 and Rashi on Leviticus 3:5).
   ‎‎‏ השלמים‎חלבי  [AND HE SHALL CAUSE TO ASCEND IN FUMES THERÈON] THE FAT OF THE PEACE OFFERINGS — if people are bringing peace offerings there that day (this is no command that peace offerings must be placed on the altar after the daily burnt offering; if, however, any are being sacrificed on a particular day, it must be done at this point of the day’s work). — Our Rabbis, however, derived from here the following Halacha, taking the word השלמים in the sense of השלם “to complete”, “to finish”: עליה upon it — upon the continual burnt offering of the morning — complete the offering of all sacrifices; it follows therefore that no thing should be offered later than the continual burnt offering brought in the afternoon (Yoma 33a; Pesachim 58).
  
  Verse 6
  
  אש תמיד — The redundant word תמיד (because it could have written  לא תכבה המזבח ‎אש תוקד על‎ ; for this, too, would imply that it must be continually burning since it states that it must never go out) intimates: The fire about the use of which the expression תמיד is used, viz., that by which the lamps of the Candelabrum were kindled, with reference to which it is said, (Exodus 27:20) “to light the lamps continually (תמיד), this, too) should be ignited from the fire on the outer altar Yoma 45b).
  ‎‎תכבה‏ ‎לא‎ IT SHALL NEVER GO OUT — One who extinguishes the fire on the altar transgresses two negative commands (this and that contained in v. 5).
  
  Verse 7
  
  וזאת תורת המנחה AND THIS IS THE LAW OF THE MEAL OFFERING — one law for all meal-offerings (cf. Rashi on v. 2) — making requisite for them “oil” and “frankincense” which are prescribed in the previous section (Leviticus 2:1). This had to be intimated in some way here because I might think that there I have the law that meal offerings require oil and frankincense only if they belong to an ordinary Israelite since it is that alone of which a fistful (קומץ) had to be taken, (for the command to take the קומץ is preceded by the words ויצק עליה שמן ונתן עליה לבונה cf. Leviticus 2:1 and 2)! Whence can I know that the same applies to the meal-offering of priests which was entirely burnt (and of which therefore no קומץ was taken; cf. Rashi on v. 15)? Because Scripture states, תורת — “this is the general law of the meal-offering” (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 3).
  הקרב אתה [AARON AND HIS SONS SHALL] BRING IT — This means bringing near (not offering, i. e. burning, for this is mentioned later in v. 8) to the south-west corner of the altar.
  לפני ה׳ BEFORE THE LORD — This is the west side of the altar which faced the direction of the “tent of meeting” in which the Lord revealed himself.
  אל פני המזבח — This again implies the south side of the altar, because that was the ‎‎‎ אל פני המזבח, the front of the altar, since the ascent leading up to it was situated on that side (the combination therefore of both locations:'לפני ה and אל פני המזבח describes the south-west corner of the altar, as stated above) (Sotah 14b; Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 4).
  
  Verse 8
  
  והרים ממנו‎  AND HE SHALL TAKE UP FROM IT [IN HIS GRASP] — From it — from it as a united mass) — that there should be a full tenth part of an ephah at the same time in the vessel when he takes the fistful (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 5; Menachot 24a).
  בקמצו WITH HIS GRASP — This implies that he shall not make a measure for the קומץ (he must not use a measure that holds as much as his fist and in that remove the flour) (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 5; Yoma 47a).
  ומשמנה‎ מסלת המנחה‎  OF THE FLOUR OF THE MEAL OFFERING AND OF THE OIL THEREOF — From here we may derive that he takes the “fistful” (קומץ) from that spot where there is plenty of oil in it (Sotah 14b).
  המנחה THE MEAL-OFFERING — This implies that it shall not be mixed up with another meal-offering (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 5).
  ‎‏‎‎‏ הלבנה אשר על המנחה והקטיר‎ואת כל  AND ALL THE FRANKINCENSE WHICH IS UPON THE MEAL OFFERING HE SHALL CAUSE TO ASCEND IN FUMES — This means that the picks the frankincense off the meal-offering after the fistful has been taken from the latter and burns it (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 2:1). And because Scripture has stated this specifically only in the case of one of the meal offerings mentioned in ויקרא (Leviticus 2:2; viz., in the case of מנחת סולת, and it might therefore be applied to that special case only), it was compelled to state this paragraph here in order to include in a general rule all kinds of meal offerings as to all the regulations applicable to them.
  
  Verse 9
  
  ‏ ‏‏ קדוש‎במקום‏  [AS UNLEAVENED BREAD SHALL IT BE EATEN) IN A HOLY PLACE. — And which is this? בחצר אהל מועד IN THE ENCLOSURE OF THE TENT OF MEETING (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 12).
  
  Verse 10
  
  לא תאפה חמץ חלקם  IT SHALL NOT BE BAKEN AS ANYTHING LEAVENED FOR THEIR PORTION — The remains of the meal-offering which become the portion of the priests, are also forbidden to be baked in the form of leavened (Menachot 55a).
  כחטאת וכאשם [IT IS MOST HOLY] AS THE SIN OFFERING OR THE GUILT OFFERING — the meal-offering of the sinner (v. 11) is as the sin-offering, therefore if he (the priest) takes the fistful out of it not as such (not having in mind that offering) it is invalid as is the sin-offering under such circumstances (cf. Rashi on 5:12); a free-will meal-offering (i.e. any of the other meal-offerings mentioned in ויקרא), however, is as the guilt-offering, therefore if he takes the fistful out of it not doing it as such, it is still valid (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 3 3; Zevachim 11a).
  
  Verse 11
  
  כל זכר ALL THE MALES [AMONG THE CHILDREN OF AARON SHALL EAT OF IT] — all the males: even one with a bodily blemish. But why is this stated at all? If you say: for the purpose of permitting the eating of the meal-offering to such a priest, then it is redundant, for you see, this has already been stated, (Leviticus 21:22) “He (the priest with a blemish) may eat of the bread of his God, both of the most holy [and of the holy]”! But it is intended to include the priests with bodily blemishes in the right of apportionment alluded to in the preceding verse: I have given it to them as their portion (i.e. that they may not only eat holy food if such is given to them by their fellow priests, but they are entitled to participate in the apportionment) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 3 5; Zevachim 102a).
  כל אשר ‎'יגע וגו‎‎‏ WHATEVER TOUCHETH THEM — i. e. sacrifices holy in a minor degree or non-consecrated flesh (חולין) which touch it (the meal-offering) and absorb anything of it (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 3 6; Zevachim 97b),
  יקדש SHALL BECOME HOLY so as to be exactly like it (the מנחה) — that if it (the meal-offering) has become disqualified (as when e. g. it was not offered as such, לשמה), they (the holy things touching it) shall also become similarly disqualified, and if it is fit for eating they must be eaten only under the same stringency as the meal-offering (i.e., they must be eaten in a holy place (v. 9) and by males only; v. 11, etc.) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 3 6; Zevachim 97b).
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  זה קרבן אהרון ובניו THIS IS THE OFFERING OF AARON AND HIS SONS — The ordinary priests, too, offer a tenth part of an ephah of flour on the day they are installed into the priestly service; the High Priest, however, offers one every day, as it is said, “a continual meal-offering, [half of it in the morning, and half thereof in the evening] etc. And the priest amongst his sons that is anointed in his stead (i. e. every high priest) [shall offer it]; it is a statute for ever” (Sifra, Tzav, Section 3 1-4; Menachot 51b).
  
  Verse 14
  
  מרבכת means, scalded with hot oil to saturation (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 4 6).
  תפיני means, many times baken: after it has been scalded he bakes it in the oven and then again fries it in a pan (cf. Menachot 50b).
  מנחת פתים THE BROKEN PIECES — This teaches that it requires breaking into pieces (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 4 6; Menachot 75b).
  
  Verse 15
  
  המשיח תחתיו מבניו is the same as המשיח מבניו תחתיו THE PRIEST THAT IS ANOINTED FROM AMONGST HIS SONS IN HIS STEAD.
  כליל תקטר IT SHALL WHOLLY ASCEND IN FUMES — The קמץ (the altar's share) is not taken off from it so that there can be any remaining of it to be eaten by the priests, but the whole of it is burnt entire. Similarly the next verse points out that every free-will meal-offering of a priest (i. e. such offering in general) shall be wholly burnt (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 5 3). 
  
  Verse 16
  
  כליל (connected with כל, all) means, all of it belongs alike to the Most High God (i. e. no part of it is given to the priests).
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  המחטא אתה means the priest who performs those rites connected with it (i. e. those connected with the sprinkling of the blood), he is called the מחטא because it is through him that it becomes a sin-offering.
  המחטא אתה יאכלנה THE PRIEST THAT OFFERETH IT MAY EAT IT — i. e., the priest who is fitted to carry out the rite (so that the words denote: Any priest who may offer it as a sin-offering may eat of it; they do not refer to that priest alone who offered it). Thus there is excluded a priest who is unclean (and therefore unfitted) when the blood is sprinkled — that he has no share in the flesh. One cannot say that Scripture here forbids the eating of it to ANY priests (i. e. even to clean priests) except him who sprinkles the blood, because, you see, it is stated later on (v. 22), “All the males among the priests may eat thereof” (cf. Zevachim 99a).
  
  Verse 20
  
  כל אשר יגע בבשרה WHATSOEVER SHALL TOUCH THE FLESH THEREOF [SHALL BECOME HOLY] — any article of food that shall touch it and absorb anything of it (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Section 4 5; Zevachim 97a and Rashi on v. 11),
  יקדש SHALL BE HOLY, so as to become exactly like itself: if it (the sin-offering) has become invalid, it (the food touching it) also becomes disqualified, and if that be fit for eating this may be eaten only under the same stringency applying to it (the sin-offering).
  ואשר יזה מדמה על הבגד means, and if there is splashed of the blood thereof on a garment, that blood-stained spot in the garment whereon it was splashed shalt thou wash in the forecourt (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 6 3).
  אשר יזה means, shall be splashed. It is the same as the verb in (Job. 15:29) “and their substance shall not be spread (יטה) on earth” (cf. Rashi on that verse).
  
  Verse 21
  
  ישבר [BUT AN EARTHEN VESSEL WHEREIN IT IS SODDEN] SHALL BE BROKEN — because the substance absorbed in it becomes what is known as נותר (the technical term for any portion of a sacrifice not eaten by the time prescribed for this) (cf. Avodah Zarah 76a). That, too, is the regulation applicable to all sacrifices (i. e. that an earthen vessel wherein they have been cooked must be broken). 
  ומרק — of the same root and meaning as the noun in (Esther 2:12) “the things for purifying (תמרוקי) women”; escourement in old French; English, scouring.
  ומרק ושטף [AND IF IT BE SODDEN IN A COPPER POT] IT SHALL BE BOTH SCOURED AND RINSED [IN WATER] — in order that it should give out what it has absorbed: but as far as an earthen vessel is concerned Scripture teaches you that it can never get rid of its taint (lit., can never leave the grasp which its taint has on it) (Avodah Zarah 34a; Pesachim 30b). 
  
  Verse 22
  
  כל זכר בכהנים יאכלנה ALL MALES AMONG THE PRIESTS SHALL EAT THEREOF — Thus you learn that the statement “[the priest] that offers it for a sin-offering [shall eat it]” made above (v. 19) is not intended to exclude other priests (i. e. such as did not actually perform the rites of that sacrifice), but only to exclude from eating it those priests who were at that time unfit to bring it as a sin-offering (cf. Rashi on v. 19).
  
  Verse 23
  
  ‎'וכל חטאת וגו‎ AND NO SIN OFFERING [WHEREOF ANY OF THE BLOOD IS BROUGHT INTO THE TENT OF MEETING SHALL BE EATEN] — This means, that if the priest brought any of the blood of an “external” sin-offering (one the blood of which has to be sprinkled on the outer altar) into the Interior it becomes invalid and must be burnt.
  וכל AND ALL — The word “all” serves to include in this law other sacrifices too (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 8 1; Zevachim 81b).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  קדש קדשים הוא [THIS THE LAW OF THE GUILT OFFERING] IT IS MOST HOLY — “It is most holy”; it may be offered, but an animal that is exchanged for it (cf. Leviticus 27:34) may not be offered (Sifra, Tzav, Section 5 2).
  
  Verse 2
  
  שחטו THEY SHALL SLAUGHTER — By using the plural ישחטו Scripture speaks of “several slaughterers” in connection with the עולה ‎‎‎‎(ישחטו את עולה)‎ ” in order to include also the communal burnt-offering under the law that an עולה must be slaughtered on the north side of the altar. — Since we do not find a guilt-offering in the case of the whole community, the term ישחטו in the plural is used here (ישחטו את האשם) because Scripture brings it in connection with the עולה (i. e. since the plural is used of the עולה it balances it by the same expression in the next phrase) (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Section 5 3).
  
  Verse 3
  
  ואת ‎'כל חלבו וגו‎ [HE SHALL OFFER OF IT] ALL THE FAT etc. — So far the fat portions of the guilt offering that have to be offered have not yet been mentioned as having to be burnt (though the אשם itself has already been dealt with in Leviticus 5:15), Scripture therefore was compelled expressly to specify them here. So far, however, as the sin-offering is concerned, it (the burning of their fat) has already been mentioned in the Sedrah ויקרא (Leviticus ch. 4), therefore it was unnecessary to mention it in 6:18—23.
  את האליה THE FAT TAIL — Because only a ram or a lamb can be offered as a guilt-offering and the altar’s share in the case of a ram and lamb has been augmented by the fat tail (cf. Leviticus 3:9), therefore it is here naturally mentioned as having to be burnt.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  אשם הוא IT IS A GUILT OFFERING — it remains (הוא) a guilt offering until its appelation is removed from it. This teaches regarding a guilt-offering the owner of which has died, or the owner of which has been atoned for by another sacrifice, (e.g. if that originally destined for that purpose was lost and afterwards found), — that although its value (i. e. the animal bought from the proceeds of its sale) is destined to become a burnt-offering for the unemployed altar (lit., for the altar's summer time when there were not sufficient obligatory sacrifices for the altar), yet if one slaughtered it without a special designation) before it was condemned to pasture) it is not fit to become a burnt offering. — Scripture does not, by these words, intend to intimate concerning a guilt-offering that it becomes invalid if slaughtered not as such (but as some sacrifice other than a guilt offering — שלא לשמו) i. e., in the same sense as they (the Rabbis) explained the word הוא that is stated of a חטאת (Leviticus 4:24; cf. Rashi thereon), because in the case of אשם the limiting words אשם הוא are used only after mention of the burning of the fat pieces (not as in the case of חטאת, where חטאת הוא is stated after the command of slaughtering) and could therefore at most be taken as limitating the act of הקטרה in the sense that if this has been done שלא לשמה the sacrifice is invalid; this, however, is not a fact because הקטרה is not essential, and it itself (the אשם), even though the fat pieces have not been burnt at all, is nevertheless valid (Zevachim 5b; Menachot 4a).
  
  Verse 6
  
  קדש קרשים הוא IT IS MOST HOLY — In Torath Cohanim these words which appear to be a mere repetition of those in v. 1, are expounded (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 9 10).
  
  Verse 7
  
  תורה אחת להם [AS THE SIN OFFERING IS SO IS THE GUILT OFFERING:] THERE IS ONE LAW FOR THEM in this (the following) respect:
  that הכהן אשר יכפר בו THE PRIEST WHO MAKETH EXPIATION THEREWITH — i.e., who is fitted to effect expiation, shall have a share in it, thus excluding an unclean person who has bathed on a particular day but is awaiting sunset to be perfectly clean, one who lacks atonement (an unclean person who has bathed but has to await the next day to bring the sacrifice requisite for his complete restoration to cleanness), and one who is in the state of mourning during the period between the death and the burial of a near relative (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 9 1).
  
  Verse 8
  
  עור העלה אשר הקריב לכהן לו יהיה [AND THE PRIEST THAT OFFERETH ANY MAN’S BURNT OFFERING] EVEN THE PRIEST SHALL HAVE TO HIMSELF THE SKIN OF THE BURNT OFFERING WHICH HE HATH OFFERED — thus excluding the טבול יום, the מחוסר כפורים and the אונן (cf. Rashi on v. 7) — that these have no share in the skins of burnt offerings (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 9 5; Zevachim 103b).
  
  Verse 9
  
  לכהן המקריב אתה וגו'‏‎‎‏‎‎ [AND EVERY MEAL OFFERING …] SHALL BE THE PRIEST’S THAT OFFERETH IT etc. — One might think it shall be his exclusively! Scripture, however, states (v. 10) לכל בני אהרן תהיה IT SHALL BELONG TO ALL THE SONS OF AARON; — one might think then, that it shall belong to all of them, which is, however, impossible, for Scripture states “[it shall be] the priest’s (that offereth it”! How then can these apparently contradictory passages be reconciled? By referring the text to the “family”) officiating on that day on which it (the מנחה) is offered (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 10 2).
  
  Verse 10
  
  בלולה בשמן [AND EVERY MEAL OFFERING] MINGLED WITH OIL — This is the free-will meal-offering (Leviticus 2:1, 4, 5, 7);
  וחרבה OR DRY — this is the meal-offering of the sinner (Leviticus 5:11) and the “meal-offering of jealousy” (Numbers 5:15) in which there was no oil.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  אם על תורה יקריבנו IF HE OFFER IT FOR A THANKSGIVING — i.e., if he brings it on account of (על) a matter that requires thanksgiving (תודה): on account of a miraculous deliverance that was wrought for him, as being, for instance, one of those who have made a sea-voyage. or travelled in the wilderness, or had been kept in prison, or if he had been sick and was now healed, all of whom are bound to offer thanks-giving, since it is written with reference to them, (Psalms 107:8, 15, 21, 31) “Let them offer thanksgiving to the Lord for His goodness, and for His wonderful works to the children of men!” (cf. Rashi on those vv. and on vv. 4, 10, 17 and 23 of that chapter; see also Berakhot 54b) — if it is on account of one of these things that he vowed those peace offerings, they are “peace offerings for acknowledgement” and require the offering of bread that is mentioned in the section, and may not be eaten beyond a period of one day and one night as it is here set forth (v. 15) [whilst other שלמים may be eaten at any time during two days and the intervening night].
  והקריב על זבח התודה [IF HE OFFER IT FOR AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT] THEN HE SHALL OFFER WITH THE SACRIFICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT four sorts of bread: cakes, wafers and cakes of flour saturated with oil — these being three kinds of unleavened bread; it further states (v. 13), “together with cakes of leavened bread [he shall offer his offering etc.]”, thus making four. Each kind consisted of ten cakes; thus is it explained in Treatise Menachoth 77a. And their total measure was five Seahs according to the Jerusalem standard, these being equal to six Seahs of the “wilderness” standard (i.e. in force at the period when the Israelites were in the wilderness) comprising 20 tenths of an ephah) (Menachot 76b).
  מרבכת — bread scalded with oil, as much as is needed to saturate it.
  
  Verse 13
  
  יקריב קרבנו על זבח [WITH THE CAKES OF LEAVENED BREAD] HE SHALL OFFER HIS OFFERING WITH THE SACRIFICE — The word קרבנו is redundant (it would have sufficed to say על חלת לחם חמץ יקריבנו), it intimates that the bread is not holy as such (קדוש קדושת הגוף), that it should become invalid by being carried forth from the forecourt, or by the touch of טבול יום (see v. 7) and so as to become incapable of going forth from its holy status to that of non-holy (ordinary) food (as is the case with a sacrifice that is קדוש קדושת הגוף), before the sacrifice is slaughtered (Menachot 78b)
  
  Verse 14
  
  אחד מכל קרבן [AND OF IT SHALL HE OFFER] ONE OUT OF EACH OFFERING [FOR A HEAVE OFFERING UNTO THE LORD] — one bread (piece) of each of these different kinds shall he take as a heave offering for the priest who performs the rite connected with it (the קרבן), and the rest may be eaten by the owner (Menachot 77b). The flesh of the sacrifice also belongs to the owner with the exception of the breast and the shoulder of it, just as the waving of the breast and the shoulder is expressly prescribed later on, (Leviticus 7:31 Leviticus 7:32) in the case of the “peace offerings”, thus making them become the portion of the priests (cf. Leviticus 7:31 Leviticus 7:32), and the sacrifice of acknowledgement comes under the term שלמים (Zevachim 4a).
  
  Verse 15
  
  ובשר זבח תורת שלמיו AND THE FLESH OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE PEACE OFFERING FOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT [SHALL BE EATEN THE SAME DAY] — There are here many apparently redundant words (רבויין); they are intended to include in this law the sin-offering, the guilt-offering, the Nazarite’s ram and the חגיגה (the festive offering of the pilgrims) brought on the fourteenth of Nisan — that these should be eaten only during one day (the day of slaughtering) and the following night, just as the תודה, and not two days and the intervening night as is the period assigned for שלמים - Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 12 1; Zevachim 36a) 
  ביום קרבנו יאכל [AND THE FLESH …] SHALL BE EATEN ON THE DAY THAT HIS OFFERING IS EATEN — and as the period prescribed for eating its flesh is the period during which its bread may be eaten (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 12 1).
  לא יניח ממנו עד בקר HE SHALL NOT LEAVE ANY OF IT TILL THE MORNING, but during the whole night he may eat of it. But if this be so why have they (the Rabbis) said, (Zevachim 55a) “The sacrifice of acknowledgement etc. … may only be eaten during the day and the following night till midnight”? As a precaution to keep people far from the possibility of sinning (cf. Berakhot 2a).
  
  Verse 16
  
  ואם נדר או נדבה BUT IF [THE SACRIFICE OF HIS OFFERING BE] A VOW OR A FREE WILL OFFERING — i. e., that he does not bring it as an acknowledgement of some miraculous deliverance (cf. Rashi v. 12), then it does ‘not require the offering of bread and may be eaten during two days as is set forth in the section.
  וממחרת והנותר ממנו AND ON THE MORROW ALSO THE REMAINDER OF IT — i. e. what remained on the first day, יאכל MAY BE EATEN; — this ו (that of והנותר) is redundant (the text being equivalent to וממחרת הנותר ממנו יאכל); there are many similar examples in Scripture: (Genesis 36:24) “And these are the sons of Zibean: And Ajah (ואיה) and Anah”; (Daniel 8:13): “to give and the Sanctuary (וקדש) and the host to be trampled under foot”.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  אם האכל יאכל וגו' ‏ AND IF ANY [OF THE FLESH] SHOULD BE EATEN AT ALL [ON THE THIRD DAY) — Scripture is speaking of one who has the intention whilst slaughtering thė sacrifice to eat it (the flesh) on the third day. One might think that what the text really means is, that if one has eaten of it on the third day it becomes disqualified retrospectively (i. e., that it is regarded as having been invalid from the moment that it was offered)! Scripture, however, states, “As for him that offereth it, there shall be no מחשבה to him” implying that at the time when it is offered it can become disqualified, and that it cannot become disqualified on the third day (Sifra, Tzav, Section 8 1). And the following is its meaning (that of the text): At the time when it is offered, this shall not enter the mind of any priest performing a rite with it, to eat of it on the third day, and if he does harbour such a thought, it becomes פגול, an abominable thing,
  והנפש האכלת ממנו AND THE SOUL THAT EATETH OF IT even within this period (of three days), עונה תשא SHALL BEAR ITS INIQUITY.
  
  Verse 19
  
  והבשר AND THE FLESH of the sacred animals constituting peace-offerings (not that of פגול mentioned in v. 18, for this may not be eaten even though it does not touch an unclean thing), אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל THAT TOUCHETH ANY UNCLEAN THING SHALL NOT BE EATEN. 
  והבשר — The word והבשר the second time it occurs in this verse is redundant (it should have stated: כל טהור יאכל בשר) but it is intended to include in the law mentioned here, the limb of a sacrifice that went forth (was brought out) in part from the place where it had to be eaten (in the case of שלמים, from Jerusalem, in that of קדשי קדשים, from the forecourt) — that the part that remained inside is permitted to be eaten (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Section 9 6).
  כל טהור יאכל בשר ALL THAT ARE CLEAN MAY EAT FLESH — Why is this stated? Why should it not be assumed that a clean person may eat of the sacrifices? But, since it is stated, (Deuteronomy 12:27) “and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured upon the altar …, but the flesh thou mayest eat”, I might have thought, that as it speaks of thy sacrifices and states “thou mayest eat”, only the owner of the sacrifices may eat the peace-offerings! For this reason it is stated here: “all that are clean may eat flesh” (Sifra, Tzav, Section 9 7).
  [והבשר כל טהור יאכל בשר ‎AND AS FOR THE FLESH ALL THAT ARE CLEAN MAY EAT FLESH — This is as much as to say: all that I have told thee (some editions read: שאסרתי לך, — “that I have forbidden thee”), is only in the case of the sin-offering and a guilt-offering: that if these went forth (were carried forth) without the hangings of the forecourt they are forbidden (נפסלים ביוצא), as it is said, (Leviticus 6:19) “in the enclosure of the tent of meeting”) shall they eat it”; but with regard to this flesh (that of שלמים) I tell thee, “all that are clean may eat flesh” even amidst all the people (some editions read: בכל העיר, “in the whole city”, which is what “amidst all the people” is intended to mean)].
  
  Verse 20
  
  וטמאתו עליו [BUT THE SOUL THAT EATETH OF THE FLESH OF THE SACRIFICES …] HAVING ITS (or HIS) UNCLEANNESS UPON IT (or HIM) — Scripture is speaking here of the uncleanness of the person (i.e., the words mean: And the soul (person) that eateth of the flesh of the שלמים whilst his uncleanness is upon him; it does not mean: the person who eateth the flesh whilst its uncleanness is upon it) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 14 3; Zevachim 43b; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 22:3). But a clean person who eats unclean sacrificial flesh is not punished with excision, as is the case here, but only for transgressing the prohibition in v. 19:“And the flesh, that toucheth any unclean thing [shall not be eaten]”, for which the punishment is lashes. The prohibition referring to the case of “an unclean person who eats holy things” for which our text states the punishment is not expressly mentioned in the Torah but the Sages derived it by means of a verbal analogy (ג"ש) (Makkot 14b). — Three times is the punishment of excision stated in the Torah with reference to people eating holy sacrifices in a state of bodily uncleanness, (here, in v. 21 and in Leviticus 22:3), and our Rabbis explained them in Treatise Shevuot 7a as follows: one is intended as a general statement, the other as referring to a particular case and the third is intended to teach about the קרבן עולה ויורד (the sacrifice of higher or lesser value according to monetary circumstances of him who offers it; Leviticus 5:2, 3), that it is prescribed only as an atonement for communicating uncleanness to the Temple or sacred food by entering the former or eating the latter in a state of uncleanness (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 22:3 and Note thereon).
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  יעשה לכל מלאכה [AND THE FAT OF CARRION AND THE FAT OF THAT WHICH IS TORN] MAY BE USED IN ANY WORK — Scripture comes and teaches you with regard to חלב (the forbidden fat) of carrion that it does not acquire the “uncleanness of carrion” (‎‏טומאת נבלות), i.e. that whilst the flesh is unclean (cf. Leviticus 11:39) the fat (חלב) does not acquire this uncleanness (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Section 10 5; Pesachim 23a, b).
  תאכלוה ‎לא ‎‏ ואכל[AND THE FAT OF CARRION … MAY BE USED IN ANY WORK] BUT YE SHALL IN NO WISE EAT OF IT — By these words it is not intended to forbid the eating of the חלב of a נבלה and טרפה because it is חלב for this has already been forbidden in Leviticus 3:17, but the Torah in effect says here: The prohibition of eating נבלה or טרפה shall come and fall upon (shall form an additional prohibition to) that of חלב — that if one eats it (the חלב of נבלה or of טרפה) he becomes liable to the punishment for transgressing the prohibition of נבלה also, (or of טרפה also), and you should not say: No prohibition can be super-imposed upon another prohibition already existing (Zevachim 70a).
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  בכל מושבתיכם [YE SHALL EAT NO BLOOD …] IN ALL YOUR HABITATIONS — Since this is a personal duty (חובת הגוף) and not a duty depending upon Palestinian soil it applies wherever Israelites are settled). In Treatise Kiddushin, first chapter, (Kiddushin 37b) it is explained why it is necessary to use this term (i. e. to add ‎בכל משבתיכם).
  לעוף ולבהמה ‎Excluded [from this prohibition is] the blood of fish and locusts. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  'ידיו תביאינה וגו‎ HIS OWN HANDS NAMELY SHALL BRING [THE FIRE OFFERINGS OF THE LORD] — This means that the owner’s hand shall be above and the fat and the breasts shall be lying in it, and the priest’s hand shall be beneath (i. e. beneath the hand of the owner) — and thus does he wave them (Menachot 61b).
  ‎'את אשי ה‎ THE FIRE OFFERINGS OF THE LORD — and what are these fire-offerings that he shall bring?
  ‎החזה יביאנו‎ ‎‏ את החלב על‏THE FAT UPON THE BREAST SHALL HE BRING — When he (the first priest; see below) brings it from the slaughtering-place he places the fat upon the breast, and when he afterwards transfers it into the hand of the priest who is to do the waving it follows that the breast is on top and the fat beneath; — that is what Scripture states in another passage, (Leviticus 10:15) “The heave shoulder and the wave breasts shall they bring upon (על) the fire-offerings of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering etc.” (i. e. during the waving the חזה ושוק shall be on top). After the waving he (that priest) transfers it to the priest who is to burn it on the altar, when consequently the breast is again beneath; — that is what Scripture states, (Leviticus 9:20) “And they put the fat upon the breasts, and he burnt the fat at the altar”. Thus we learn that three priests are required for it (for the rite of waving). Thus is it explained in Treatise Menachot 62a.
  את החלב על החזה יביאנה THE BREAST WITH THE FAT, IT SHALL HE BRING — And to what end does he bring the breast? This is stated in the words that follow: “[As for the breast], להניף אותו for the purpose of waving it” shall he bring it, and not that it, too, should become part of the fire offerings. But because it states את אשי ה' את החלב על החזה "‎the fire-offerings of the Lord — the fat with the breast”, I might think that the breast also belongs to the fire-offerings, Scripture therefore continues: 'את החזה להניף וגו, “he brings the breast to wave it, etc.”
  
  Verse 31
  
  והקטיר הכהן את החלב AND THE PRIEST SHALL CAUSE THE FAT TO ASCEND IN FUMES [AT THE ALTAR] and only afterwards,  והיה החזה לאהרן  SHALL THE BREAST BE AARON’S [AND HIS SONS] — This teaches us that the flesh of the sacrifices may not be eaten so long as the fat portions are below the altar (have not yet been placed upon it and burnt) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 16 4; Pesachim 59b).
  
  Verse 32
  
  שוק is that limb of the right rear-leg extending from the knee-joint, the bone and blesh of which are usually sold as offal together with the head, unto the middle joint which is what is known as the סובך of the leg (the סובד is the small bone between that middle joint and the thigh-bone; consequently the שוק spoken of in connection with שלמים is the middle one of the three limbs that form an animal’s leg) (Chullin 134b).
  
  Verse 33
  
  ‎'וגו‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‏‎ השלמים ‎  ‏‏‎דם‎ ‎את ‎‎המקריב‎ [HE AMONG THE SONS OF AARON] THAT OFFERETH THE BLOOD OF THE PEACE-OFFERINGS [AND THE FAT SHALL HAVE THE SHOULDER OF THE RIGHT SIDE FOR HIS PART] — “He that offereth the blood” means: he who is fitted to perform the sprinkling of it and to burn the fat portions, — thus excluding a priest who was unclean at the time when the blood was sprinkled, or the fat portions were burnt — that he does not share in the flesh (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 16 8; Zevachim 98b).
  
  Verse 34
  
  תנופה … .תרומה WAVE [BREAD AND] HEAVE [SHOULDER] — This implies that he (the priest) moved them to and fro in a horizontally direction (תנופה) and moves them up and down (תרומה) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 16 3; cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:27 and Note thereon).
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  ולמלואים AND FOR THE CONSECRATION OFFERING that was offered on the day that they were installed in the priestly office (cf. Exodus 28:41).
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  
  
  Verse 55
  
  
  
  Verse 56
  
  
  
  Verse 57
  
  
  
  Verse 58
  
  
  
  Verse 59
  
  
  
  Verse 60
  
  
  
  Verse 61
  
  
  
  Verse 62
  
  
  
  Verse 63
  
  
  
  Verse 64
  
  
  
  Verse 65
  
  
  
  Verse 66
  
  
  
  Verse 67
  
  
  
  Verse 68
  
  
  
  Verse 69
  
  
  
  Verse 70
  
  
  
  Verse 71
  
  
  
  Verse 72
  
  
  
  Verse 73
  
  
  
  Verse 74
  
  
  
  Verse 75
  
  
  
  Verse 76
  
  
  
  Verse 77
  
  
  
  Verse 78
  
  
  
  Verse 79
  
  
  
  Verse 80
  
  
  
  Verse 81
  
  
  
  Verse 82
  
  
  
  Verse 83
  
  
  
  Verse 84
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  קח את אהרן TAKE AARON — This section was spoken seven days before the final erection of the Tabernacle and so should have been placed before Exodus XL., but a transposition of this kind is quite customary in the Bible, because there is no “earlier” or “later” (no chronological order) in the Torah.
  קח את אהרן means win him over with fine words and draw him on (cf. Rashi on Exodus 14:6) (Sifra, Tzav, Mechilta d'Miluim 1 2)).
  ואת פר החטאת וגו'‏‎‎‎‎‎ AND THE BULLOCK FOR THE SIN OFFERING [AND THE TWO RAMS] etc. — These are the sacrifices mentioned in the section containing the command about the installation ceremony — in the Scriptural Reading beginning with the words, ואתה תצוה (see Exodus 29) and now, on the first day of the installation ceremony He again admonished him (Moses) regarding this when the time for performing the command arrived.
  
  Verse 3
  
  הקהל אל פתח אהל מועד AND ASSEMBLE THOU [THE WHOLE CONGREGATION), UNTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE TENT OF MEETING — This is one of the instances where the lesser comprised the greater (the small area accommodated the whole congregation) (Leviticus Rabbah 10 9).
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  זה הדבר THIS IS THE THING [WHICH THE LORD COMMANDED ME TO DO] — The things you will see me doing in your presence has the Holy One, blessed be He, bidden me do, and do not think I am doing them for my own glory and for my brother’s glory. — The whole of this matter treated in the present chapter I have already explained in the Scriptural Reading beginning with the words,  ‎‏ ואתה תצוה ‏‎(Exodus ch. XXIX.).
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  את האורים THE URIM — an inscription bearing the Proper Name of the Lord (cf. Rashi on Exodus XXV 3:30).
  
  Verse 9
  
  וישם על המצנפת UPON THE MITRE … DID HE PUT [THE GOLDEN PLATE] — Threads of blue purple that were: fastened on the Plate he put over the mitre, consequently the Plate hung from the mitre mid would be “against his face” (upon his forehead) as stated here (cf. Rashi on Exodus 28:37).
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  ויז ממנו על המזבח AND HE SPRINKLED THEREOF UPON THE ALTAR — I do not know where he was given any command about these sprinklings (cf., however Nachmanides).
  
  Verse 12
  
  וימשח … ‎‏ ויצק‎ AND HE POURED [THE ANOINTING OIL UPON AARON'S HEAD] AND ANOINTED |HIM| — First he poured some oil upon his head and afterwards he put a drop between his eyebrows, and he drew the oil with his finger from this place to that (this drawing the oil from one place to the other was the anointing here spoken of) (Keritot 5b; Horayot 12a; cf. also Rashi on Exodus 29:7).
  
  Verse 13
  
  ויחבש — This is a term meaning binding.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויחטא את המזבח AND HE PURIFIED THE ALTAR — He cleansed and purified it from anything “strange” (alien to the sacred purpose for which the altar was intended) that may have happened to it, so that it might enter into a state of holiness (cf. Rashi on Exodus 19:36).
  ויקדשהו AND HE SANCTIFIED IT by this rite.
  לכפר עליו THAT ONE MIGHT MAKE EXPIATION UPON IT from that time onward with all atonement sacrifices (i. e. that all atonement sacrifices might henceforth be offered upon it; the meaning is not that he sanctified it so that he might now offer an atonement offering for it or upon it).
  
  Verse 16
  
  הכבד [AND THE LOBE OF] THE LIVER — i. e. he took it (the lobe) besides some of the liver — it means that he took a little of the liver with it (the lobe).
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  איל המלאים — This means the same as איל השלמים, for the word מלואים is synonymous with the word שלמים; this term is used to describe the ram because by means of it they set the priest fully (ממלאין) and completely (משלימין) in their priestly office (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Mechilta d'Miluim 1 20).
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  וחלת לחם שמן AND A CAKE OF OILED BREAD — This was a scalded cake, and it is called “oiled bread” because he used a large quantity of oil for it, equal to that which he used for the cakes and wafers together. So is it explained in Treatise Menachot 78a (also Menachot 89a).
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  ויקטר המזבחה [AND MOSES TOOK THEM FROM OFF THEIR HANDS] AND CAUSED THEM TO ASCEND IN FUMES AT THE ALTAR — Moses (though a non-priest) was officiating during the seven days of installation [in a white garment] (Avodah Zarah 34a). 
  על העלה [AND MOSES … CAUSED THEM TO ASCEND IN FUMES] על העלה — after the burnt offering (על is taken in the sense of besides, in addition to the burnt offering. Hence he burnt it after the burnt offering). We do not find in any passage, that the shoulder of peace-offerings was burnt except in the case of this alone (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:22).
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  צוה ה' לעשת [AS HE HATH DONE THIS DAY, SO] THE LORD HATH COMMANDED TO DO all the seven days). But our Rabbis explained as follows: לעשת, “so hath the Lord commanded to do” — this refers to the “Red Heifer” (Numbers ch. XIX.); and לכפר, “to perform a cleansing ceremony” — this refers to Yom-Kippur. And thus these words, they say, are intended to intimate that the High Priest requires separating from his family during seven days before Yom-Kippur, and similarly the priest who burns the Red Heifer (Sifra, Tzav, Mechilta d'Miluim 1 37; Yoma 2a; Yoma 3b).
  
  Verse 35
  
  ולא תמותו [THEREFORE SHALL YE ABIDE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE APPOINTED TENT DAY AND NIGHT. SEVEN DAYS] … THAT YE DIE NOT — Consequently if you will not do thus, you become liable to the death penalty.
  
  Verse 36
  
  ויעש אהרן ובניו SO AARON AND HIS SONS DID [ALL THE THINGS] — This is stated to tell their praise — that they did not turn to the right nor to the left (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Mechilta d'Miluim 1 38).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויהי ביום השמיני AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE EIGHTH DAY of the installation of the priests into their sacred office (cf. Sifra); this was the New Moon of Nisan on which the Tabernacle was finally erected (cf. Rashi on Exodus 40:29) and it (that day) received ten crowns (it was distinguished in ten different ways) which are enumerated in Seder Olam 7 (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 1; Shabbat 87b).
  ולזקני ישראל AND TO THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL, to inform them that it was by the express command of God that Aaron was entering the Sanctuary and ministering in the high-priesthood, so that they might not say: “He is entering on his own authority, unbidden.”
  
  Verse 2
  
  קח לך עגל TAKE THEE A CALF — This animal was selected as a sin offering to announce to him that the Holy One, blessed be He, granted him atonement by means of this calf for the incident of the golden calf which he had made (Midrash Tanchuma, Shmini 4)
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  כי היום ה' נראה אליכם FOR TODAY THE LORD WILL APPEAR UNTO YOU to make His Shechinah rest upon your handiwork; on this account these sacrifices come (are to be brought) as an obligation for this day (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 4).
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  קרב אל המזבח [AND MOSES SAID TO AARON] GO TO THE ALTAR, for Aaron was diffident and feared to go there. Moses therefore said to him “Wherefore art thou diffident? For this purpose hast thou been selected!” (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 8).
  את חטאתך THY SIN OFFERING — the young calf (v. 2).
  ואת עלתך AND THY BURNT OFFERING — the ram (v. 2).
  קרבן העם THE OFFERING OF THE PEOPLE — the kid of the goats and the calf and the lamb (v. 3). Wherever the term עגל, “calf” is mentioned without further definition it denotes one in its first year, and it is from this passage that you may derive this rule (cf. Sifra on 4:2; Rosh Hashanah 10a).
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  'ואת הבשר ואת העור וגו‏‎‎ AND THE FLESH AND THE HIDE [HE BURNT .. OUTSIDE THE CAMP] — We do not find that any “external” sin-offering (one the blood of which was sprinkled on the outer altar) was burnt except this and that of the installation ceremony — and all these, only at the express command of God (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:14).
  
  Verse 12
  
  וימציאו — This signifies handing over and presenting.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויחטאהו means: he treated it according to the regulation regarding the חטאת, “sin-offering”.
  כראשון AS THE FIRST — as his own calf (as is described in v. 8).
  
  Verse 16
  
  ויעשה כמשפט AND HE DID IT ACCORDING TO THE MANNER that is set forth in the section ויקרא (ch. 1) in respect to the burnt offering brought as a free-will gift (Beitzah 20a).
  
  Verse 17
  
  וימלא כפו AND HE FILLED HIS HAND [THEREWITH] — this is what is elsewhere termed קמיצה (i. e. this is elsewhere expressed by the phrase … וקמץ מלא קמצו “he shall take a fistful”) (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 10; cf. Menachot 9b).
  מלבד עלת הבקר BESIDE THE BURNT OFFERING OF THE MORNING — all these rites he carried out after the continual burnt offering.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  והמכסה AND THAT WHICH COVERETH — This is elsewhere (e.g., Leviticus 3:3) termed “the fat which covereth the inward parts”.
  
  Verse 20
  
  וישימו את החלבים על החזות AND THEY PUT THE FAT UPON THE BREAST — After the waving the priest who waved them gave them to another priest to burn them; consequently what was previously above was now beneath (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 7:30; Menachot 62a).
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויברכם AND HE BLESSED THEM with the priestly benediction (Numbers 6:24—26): “May the Lord bless thee … May the Lord cause his face to shine … May the Lord lift up …” (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 17; Sotah 38a) 
  ‎‏וירד AND HE CAME DOWN from off the altar.
  
  Verse 23
  
  ויבא משה ואהרן AND MOSES AND AARON CAME, etc. — Wherefore did they now enter the Tabernacle? I have found the following in the “Mechilta d’Miluim,” in the Boraitha that is appended to our Torath Cohanim (Sifra): Wherefore did Moses enter with Aaron? To instruct him regarding the incense ceremony. Or it may be that he entered for some other reason?! See, I draw a conclusion: the descent from the altar and the entry into the tent of meeting both required to be accompanied by a benediction, as stated in vv. 22 and 23 (and consequently both were, in a measure, of similar character). Now what was the descent from the altar? It was of the nature (it look place in connection with) a sacrificial act! So, also, the entry into the tent took place in connection with a sacrificial act! Thus you may learn: Why did Moses enter with Aaron? To instruct him regarding the incense ceremony which was the only rite performed on that day within the tent! (Cf. Talmud Yerushalmi Taanit 4). Another explanation is: When Aaron perceived that all the sacrifices had been offered and all the rites performed, and yet the Shechinah had not descended for Israel, since the heavenly fire had not fallen to consume the sacrifice, he was uneasy in mind and said: I feel certain that the Holy One, blessed be He, is angry with me and that it is on my account that the Shechinah has not descended for Israel. He therefore said to Moses: “My brother Moses! Do you act thus with me: you know that I have entered into this matter at your bidding and yet I have been put to shame! Moses at once entered the tent with him and they offered prayer and the Shechinah descended for Israel (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 18).
  ויצאו ויברכו את העם AND THEY CAME OUT AND BLESSED THE PEOPLE — They said the words that conclude “The Prayer of Moses” (Psalms 90:17): “May the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us” — i. e. May it be God’s will that the Shechinah may rest upon the work of your hands (see Rashi on Exodus 39:43). They invoked just this blessing and not another formula because during the whole seven days of the installation when Moses was setting up the Tabernacle and officiating therein and dismantling it daily the Shechinah had not rested upon it and the Israelites felt ashamed, saying to Moses: “O, our Teacher Moses! All the trouble which we have taken was only that the Shechinah may dwell amongst us, so that we may know that the sin of the golden calf has been atoned for on our behalf!” He therefore had said to them (v. 6): “This is the thing which the Lord commanded that ye should do so that the glory of the Lord may appear unto you” (i. e. only after these offerings will have been brought by Aaron (cf. v. 7) will God’s glory appear unto you). My brother Aaron is more worthy and excellent than I am, so that through his sacrifices and ministration the Shechinah will rest upon you, and ye will thereby know that the Omnipresent God has chosen him to bring His Shechinah upon you.
  
  Verse 24
  
  וירנו Understand this as the Targum does: and they praised God.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  ותצא אש AND THERE WENT OUT FIRE — Rabbi Eleizer said: the sons of Aaron died only because they gave decisions on religious matters in the presence of their teacher, Moses (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 32; Eruvin 63a). Rabbi Ishmael said: they died because they entered the Sanctuary intoxicated by wine. You may know that this is so, because after their death he admonished those who survived that they should not enter when intoxicated by wine (vv. 8—9). A parable! It may be compared to a king who had a bosom friend, etc., as is to be found in Leviticus Rabbah 12:1, 4 (cf. Biur).
  
  Verse 3
  
  ‎‎ '‏וגו‎‎‎ 'הוא אשר דבר ה‎ THIS IS WHAT THE LORD SPOKE, etc. — Where had He spoken this? In the statement (Exodus 29:43), “And there I will be met by the children of Israel and it (the Tabernacle) shall be sanctified by My glory (בכבודי).” Read not here בִכְבוֹדִי, “by My Glory” but בִּמְכֻבָּדַי, “through My honoured ones” (Zevachim 115b). Moses here said to Aaron: “My brother, Aaron! I knew that this House was to be sanctified by those who are beloved of the Omnipresent God and I thought it would be either through me or through thee; now I see that these (thy sons who have died) are greater than me and than thee!” (Leviticus Rabbah 12 2).
  ‎וידם אהרן AND AARON WAS SILENT — He received a reward for his silence. And what was the reward he received? That the subsequent Divine address was made to him alone and not to Moses also — for to him alone was spoken the section (vv. 9—11) dealing with those who are intoxicated by wine (see v. 8) (Zevachim 115b; Leviticus Rabbah 12 2).
  בקרבי IN THEM THAT COME NEAR UNTO ME — i. e. in My chosen ones.
  ועל פני כל העם אכבד AND BEFORE ALL THE PEOPLE I WILL BE HONOURED — When the Holy One, blessed be He, executes judgment upon the righteous He becomes feared, and exalted and praised. If this be so in the case of these (when He judges the righteous) how much more is it so in the case of the wicked (i. e. when He punishes the wicked)! And in a similar sense it says (Psalms 68:36) “Thou art feared, O god, ממקדשיך”. Read not here מִמִּקְדָשֶׁיךָ, “from out of Thy sanctuaries”, but ‎ ‏ מִמִּקֻדָּשֶׁיךָ“because of Thy sanctified ones” (Zevachim 115b).
  
  Verse 4
  
  דד אהרן THE UNCLE OF AARON — Uzziel was Amram’s brother, as it is said (Exodus 6:18) “And the sons of Kehath were [Amram …. and Uzziel]”.
  שאו את אחיכם וגו׳ CARRY YOUR BRETHREN etc. — as a man who says to his fellow: Remove the corpse from before the bride in order not to disturb the joy.
  
  Verse 5
  
  בכתנתם IN THEIR GARMENTS — in those of the dead (not in their own garments). This tells us that their garments had not been destroyed by fire, but their souls alone (neither their clothing nor bodies showed signs of burning; they had been struck by fire inwardly): there entered into their nostrils something like two threads of fire which burnt them to death (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 34; Sanhedrin 52a).
  
  Verse 6
  
  ראשיכם] אל תפרעו] means, let not your hair grow long (cf. Numbers 6:5) (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 40). From this (from the fact that Scripture forbade these particular mourners to let their hair grow long) it follows that an אבל (one mourning the death of a near relative) is forbidden to cut his hair. Moses's words therefore signified: Ordinarily an אבל may not cut his hair but ye, disturb ye not the joy of the Omnipresent God by displaying signs of mourning (Moed Katan 14b).
  ולא תמתו LEST YE DIE — Consequently if ye do this ye shall die (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 41).
  ואחיכם כי בית ישראל BUT (LET] YOUR BRETHREN, THE WHOLE OF ISRAEL [WEEP] — From this it follows that for the miseries of the learned the duty devolves upon everyone (the entire community) to mourn (cf. Moed Katan 28b.)
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  ושכר ‎יין [DO NOT DRINK] WINE NOR STRONG DRINK — do not drink wine in a manner that brings out its intoxicating force (i. e. do not drink a “log” of wine) (Sifra, Shemini, Section 1 1; Keritot 13b). 
  ‎‏ בבאכם אל אהל מועד WHEN YE GO INTO THE APPOINTED TENT — I have in these words only a law that forbids this when ye go into the Sanctuary; whence can it be derived that it applies also whenever they approached the outer altar? But there is mention here of entering into the appointed tent and there is mention, in connection with the sanctification (the washing) of the hands and feet, of entering into the appointed tent (Exodus 30:20). What is the law there? It (the Torah) made the law regarding approaching to the altar exactly similar to that regarding entering the appointed tent (“when they go into the appointed tent they shall wash with water … or when they come near to the altar”)! Here, also, it makes approaching the altar exactly similar to entering the appointed tent (Sifra, Shemini, Section 1 5).
  
  Verse 10
  
  ולהבדיל AND TO DISTINGUISH [BETWEEN THE HOLY AND THE UNHOLY] — i. e., Observe this law in order that ye may be able to distinguish between a holy (valid) sacrificial act and one which has become profane (invalid). Thus you may learn that if one performed a sacrificial rite in a state of intoxication his ministry was invalid (Sifra, Shemini, Section 1 8; Zevachim 17b).
  
  Verse 11
  
  ולהורת AND TO TEACH [THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] — This informs us that an intoxicated person is forbidden to pronounce religious decisions. One might think that if he does so he is liable to the death penalty! It, however, says: “[Do not drink wine] thou (Aaron), nor thy sons with thee … lest ye die” — priests when they minister in a state of intoxication are punishable by death, but the Sages when they thus render decisions are not punishable by death (Sifra, Shemini, Section 1 6).
  
  Verse 12
  
  הנותרים WHO WERE LEFT from death. This teaches us that upon them, also, death had been pronounced in punishment for the sin of the golden calf. This is what is meant by the words (Deuteronomy 9:20) “And with Aaron the Lord was very angry to destroy him”, for the expression “destruction” means the extirpation of offspring, as it is said (Amos 2:9) “And I destroyed its fruit above”. Moses’ prayer, however, made half the sentence of none effect, (so that only two of Aaron’s four sons died) as it is said (Deuteronomy 9:20) “And I prayed also on behalf of Aaron at that time” (Vayikra  10:5; cf. Rashi on that passage).
  קחו את המנחה TAKE THE MEAL OFFERING, although ye are אוננים and the holy things are forbidden to an אונן (Zevachim 101a).
  את המנחה THE MEAL-OFFERING — This was the meal-offering prescribed for the eighth day of the installation ceremony and the meal-offering of Nachshon (Numbers 7:13; cf. Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 3).
  ואכלהו מצות AND EAT IT AS UNLEAVENED CAKES — Why is this stated at all, since this regulation regarding the meal-offering has been previously laid down (cf. Leviticus 6:9)? Since, however, this (the meal-offering prescribed for the installation ceremony) was a communal meal-offering (cf. Leviticus 9:3—4) and an occasional meal-offering and nothing similar to it had been commanded for future generations and it was therefore possible that the regulations relating to meal-offerings in general did not apply, it was necessary expressly to set forth in respect of it the law already laid down for other meal-offerings (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 4).
  
  Verse 13
  
  וחק בניך AND THY SONS’ PORTION — Daughters are not mentioned as is the case in v. 14 because daughters have no portion in these holy things (meal-offerings; cf. Leviticus 6:10— 11) (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 7).
  כי כן צויתי FOR SO AM I COMMANDED — that they must eat it even when they have the status of אוננים (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 8; Zevachim 101a).
  
  Verse 14
  
  ואת חזה התנופה AND THE WAVE BREAST of the communal) peace-offerings,
  תאכלו במקום טהור YE SHALL EAT IN A CLEAN PLACE —But had they eaten those that preceded this (the sin-offering and the meal-offering) in an unclean place? But he said this because the preceding ones being holy in the highest degree the eating of them had necessarily to take place in a holy spot (in the court of the Tabernacle), but these,however, were not required to be eaten “within the hangings” (i. e. in the court which was enclosed by hangings), but they were, however, required to be eaten in the camp of Israel (and not beyond the confines of that camp), that being a clean place in so far as lepers were precluded from entering it. From this we infer that sacrifices holy in a lower degree, being similar to the peace-offerings mentioned here, may be eaten anywhere within the city of Jerusalem, this area corresponding to “the camp of Israel” in the wilderness (see Rashi on 4:12; Zevachim 55a).
  אתה ובניך ובנתיך THOU AND THY SONS AND THY DAUGHTERS — You and your sons have a claim to a portion, but your daughters have no claim to a portion; if, however, you give them part of these sacrifices as a gift they are permitted to eat of the breast and the shoulder. Or perhaps this is not the meaning, but if means that the daughters have also a claim to a portion? It, however, states immediately afterwards: “for as thy due and thy sons’ due are they given” there is a due to sons but there is no due to daughters (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 10).
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  על אשי החלבים WITH THE FIRE OFFERINGS OF THE FAT — From this we may learn that the fat-portions were beneath the others at the time of waving (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 11). And as for the exposition of the texts in such a manner that they shall not contradict each other I have already explained the three of them in the section צו את אהרן (Leviticus 7:30; see Rashi thereon).
  
  Verse 16
  
  שעיר החטאת THE GOAT OF THE SIN OFFERING — This was the goat of the additonal offerings of the New Moon. Three goats for sin-offerings had been sacrificed that day: a goat of the kids prescribed for the installation ceremony (see Leviticus  9:3), and the goat brought by Nachshon as a free-will offering, and the goat for the New Moon. Of all these, this last alone had been burnt, and the Sages of Israel differ in their opinions regarding the matter. Some say that it was on account of some uncleanness (unclean thing) which had touched it that it was burnt, whilst others say that it had been burnt on account of the state of mourning in which Aaron’s sons were, for it was a holy sacrifice ordained for all generations and was not of an exceptional character whilst in the case of the occasional holy sacrifices (the two other goats) they relied on Moses’ statement when he said in respect to the occasional meal-offering (v. 12), “and eat it as unleavened cakes”, although you are Onanim, and they took this to apply also to those goats which were also of an occasional character (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 8-10; Zevachim 101a).
  דרש דרש [MOSES] DILIGENTLY ENQUIRED ABOUT — The repetition of the word implies that he made two enquiries: why has this (the goat for the New Moon) been burnt and why have these other goats been eaten? — Thus it is stated in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 2).
  על אלעזר ועל איתמר [HE WAS ANGRY] WITH ELEAZAR AND ITHAMAR — Out of the respect due to Aaron he turned towards his sons and showed himself angry with them instead of with Aaron (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 3).
  לאמר SAYING (i. e. that they should say or speak) — He said to them, “Give me replies to my questions” (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2).
  
  Verse 17
  
  מדוע לא אכלתם את החטאת במקום הקדש WHEREFORE HAVE YE NOT EATEN THE SIN OFFERING IN THE HOLY PLACE? — But had they eaten it outside the holy place? Had they not burnt it? What then did he mean when he said “in the holy place”? But he said to them in effect: Had it perhaps gone forth (been taken forth) outside the hangings of the court and so become invalid?
  כי קדש קדשים הוא FOR IT IS HOLY IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE, and such sacrifices become invalid through being taken outside the hangings? If this was so you have done right in burning it! But they replied to him, “No, it has not been taken forth!” He thereupon said to them, “Since it remained in the holy place (במקום הקדש), wherefore have ye not eaten it (מדוע לא אכלתם)?!” (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 4; cf. Zevachim 101a.) 
  'ואתה נתן לכם לשאת וגו‎ AND HE HATH GIVEN IT TO YOU TO BEAR [THE INIQUITY] etc., — for only if the priests eat it are the owners of the sin-offering (the entire Congregation in the case of the goat for the New Moon) atoned for (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 4).
  לשאת את עון העדה TO BEAR THE INIQUITY OF THE CONGREGATION — From this we learn that it must have been the goat for the New Moon about which he made the enquiries, for it was this that made atonement for iniquity involved in causing uncleanness to the Sanctuary and holy food (cf. Shevuot 2a), whilst the sin-offering for the eighth day of the installation ceremony and the sin-offering of Nachshan did not come (were not intended) for the purpose of atonement (Zevachim 101b).
  
  Verse 18
  
  'הן לא הובא וגו‎ BEHOLD [THE BLOOD OF IT] WAS NOT BROUGHT [IN WITHIN THE HOLY PLACE] — for if it had been brought,then indeed was it your duty to burn it, as it is said (Leviticus 6:23) “Any sin-offering whereof any of the blood is brought [into the appointed tent, … shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt in the fire]” (Zevachim 101a; Pesachim 82a);
  אכל תאכלו אתה YE SHOULD INDEED HAVE EATEN IT although you were Onanim,
  כאשר צויתי AS I COMMANDED you in the case of the meal-offering (vv. 12, 13).
  
  Verse 19
  
  וידבר אהרן AND AARON SAID — The term “saying” used here denotes a harsh utterance, as it is said (Numbers 21:5) “And the people spake (וידבר) against Moses, etc.” — Is it likely that when Moses expressed his indignation with Eleazar and with Ithamar, Aaron should reply to him in such harsh language? You must consequently know (conclude) that it was only by way of respect that these remained silent. They thought, “It would not be right that our father (Aaron) should be sitting here (be present) and that we should speak in his presence, nor would it be right that a disciple should retort on his teacher (Moses)”. You might think, however, that Eleazar did not possess the ability to reply, and that on this account he was silent. This was not so for it is stated (Numbers 31:21) “And Eleazar the priest spake to the men of the army, etc.” — and so you see that when he wished to do so he did speak in the presence of Moses and in the presence of the princes (cf. Numbers v. 13). This I found in the ספרי של פנים שני (known under the name of מדרש פנים or ספרי זוטא) (see Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 785:40).
  הן היום הקריבו BEHOLD, THIS DAY THEY HAVE OFFERED — What did he mean by this? It does not appear to be a reply to Moses rebuke! But Moses had said to them: “Perhaps you have sprinkled its blood whilst you were Onanim and have on that account burnt it, since it thereby became defiled!? — for the rule is that if an Onan does any sacrifical rite he thereby defiles the sacrifice. Aaron therefore said to him: “Did they then offer the sacrifice — they wo are ordinary priests? It was “I” that offered — I who am the High Priest arid who may therefore offer when an Onan (Zevachim 101a).
  ותקראנה אתי כאלה AND IF THINGS LIKE THESE HAD BEFALLEN ME — even if those who died were not my sons but other blood relatives for whom I am bound to mourn as an Onan, even as I am bound to mourn for these — for instance all those mentioned in the section regarding the priests (ch. 21) for whom the priest may of set purpose render himself unclean (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 9).
  ואכלתי חטאת then IF I HAD EATEN THE SIN-OFFERING, 'הייטב וגו‎, WOULD IT HAVE BEEN PLEASING etc.
  היום THIS DAY (i. e. by day) — but in the case of the mourning of an Onan on the night following the death, the eating of an offering is permitted, for the laws regarding an Onan really (i. e. מן התורה) apply only to the day of burial which is also the day of death (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 11; Zevachim 100b).
  'הייטב בעיני ה WOULD IT HAVE BEEN PLEASING IN THE EYES OF THE LORD? — If you have heard (been commanded; cf. v. 13) in the case of occasional holy offerings to which category the meal offering offered on the day of installation and that of Nachshon belonged that these may be eaten by Onanim (cf. vv. 12 and 13) you have no right to take a lenient view and to permit this also in the case of sacrifices that are obligatory on all generations, as this goat of the New Moon is! (Zevachim 101a).
  
  Verse 20
  
  וייטב בעיניו AND IT WAS PLEASING IN HIS EYES — He admitted his error and was not ashamed to do so, by saying (instead of admitting it) “I have not heard a statement (from God regarding this)", but rather he said, “I have heard, but I forgot it” (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 12; Zevachim 101b).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ‎‎משה ואל אהרן‏ ‎‎‏ אל[AND THE LORD SPOKE] TO MOSES AND TO AARON — He spoke to Moses that he should in turn tell Aaron (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1:1 s. v.אליו.) 
  לאמר אליהם SAYING UNTO THEM (more lit. “to say unto them”) — He said to Aaron that he should tell it to Eleazar and Ithamar. But perhaps this is not the meaning, but it means that he should tell Israel? When, however, it states (v. 2) “Speak unto the children of Israel”, we have the command of speaking to Israel mentioned there; how then can I explain the words “to say to them?” — to say it to his sons, to Eleazar and Ithamar (Sifra, Shemini, Section 2 1).
  
  Verse 2
  
  דברו אל בני ישראל SPEAK TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL (The word “speak” is in the plural) — He made all of them (Moses, Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar) alike His messengers in communicating this utterance, because they were all alike in remaining silent and lovingly accepted the decree of the Omnipresent God in respect to the death of Nadab and Abihu.
  זאת החיה THESE ARE THE ANIMALS — the word חיה is an expression denoting life and is purposely used here in preference to בהמה to express the following idea: because Israel cleave to the Omnipresent and therefore deserve to remain in life, [זאת החיה is thus taken to mean: This, O living nation (or, nation that lives), is what ye may eat!]. He therefore separated them from what is unclean, and imposed commandments upon them, whilst to the other nations who do not cleave to him He prohibited nought. A parable! It may be compared to the case of a physician who goes to visit a sick person: one who is incurable he permits to eat whatever he chooses, while to the patient who may recover he gives directions as to what he may eat and may not eat — as may be found in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma 3:3:6. 
  זאת החיה THIS IS THE ANIMAL — This! the expression זאת teaches us that Moses held each animal and showed it to Israel, saying, “This ye may eat, and this ye may not eat” (Chullin 42a). Similarly Scripture states of fish (v. 9)  'את זה תאכלו וגו‎‎ THIS YE MAY EAT etc. — also of the swarming creatures of the waters he held some of every species and showed them to them (to the Israelites). So, too, in the case of birds: (v. 13) “And these are they which ye shall have in abomination amongst the fowls”, and similarly as regards the swarming reptiles (v. 29): “And these are unclean to you” (Sifra, Shemini, Section 2 2; cf. Menachot 29a).
  מכל הבהמה ....... ‎זאת החיה ‎THESE ARE THE ANIMALS (החיה) [WHICH YE MAY EAT]; AMONG ALL THE CATTLE (הבהמה) [YE MAY EAT] etc. — This teaches us that בהמה is included in the term חיה (Sifra, Shemini, Section 2 8; Chullin 71a).
  
  Verse 3
  
  מפרסת — Explain this as the Targum does: that is split. 
  פרסה — plante in O. F.; English= hoof.
  ושסעת שסע AND HATH CLOVEN FEET — which are divided above and below into two nails (The hoof must be cloven over the entire height, so that from top to bottom they are split, and the hoofs are covered therefore not by one nail but by two); as the Targum has it: which has nails (plural). For there are animals whose hoofs are cleft on top but are not cleft and separated entirely, because they are joined below (cf. Rashi on v. 26).
  מעלת גרה WHICH CHEWETH THE CUD — which brings up and spues up the food from its entrails and returns it into its mouth to pound it small and to grind it thin. 
  גרה THE CUD — This is its name (that of the food thus returned to the mouth); and it seems likely that it is of the same derivation as the word we find in (II Samuel 14:14) “water which is drawn towards (הנגרים) the earth”, and it (the cud) is so called because it is drawn towards the mouth. The translation of the Targum,however, is פשרא which denotes something dissolved, for through the rumination the food is dissolved and becomes pulpy (cf. Bava Kamma 28b).
  בבהמה AMONGST (lit., in) THE BEAST — This is a redundant word and therefore may be used for an Halachic derivation — to permit the embryo found within the dam (בבהמה — within the beast) to be used as food without itself being slaughtered (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 3 1; Chullin 69a). 
  אתה תאכלו THAT YE MAY EAT, and not an unclean animal. But is not this implied in the prohibition in the following verse? But what is here expressed in a positive form is there stated as a negative command, so that now, one who eats such food transgresses thereby a positive and a negative command (because a prohibition that is not plainly expressed, but can only be drawn by inference from a positive command, is itself regarded only as a positive command — לאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה) (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 3 2).
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  מבשרם לא תאכלו OF THEIR FLESH SHALL YE NOT EAT — I have here only a law about these animals mentioned here! Whence can I derive that the same applies to other unclean animals which have no sign of cleanness at all? You must admit that it is a conclusion a fortiori: How is it with these that have some signs of cleanness? They are forbidden! how much the more must this be so in the case of cattle which do not possess even one sign of cleanness! (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 3 2).
  מבשרם OF THEIR FLESH [SHALL YE NOT EAT] — with respect to their flesh one is placed under a prohibition to eat, but not in respect to the bones, sinews, horns and claws (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 4 8). 
  ובנבלתם לא תגעו AND THEIR CARRION SHALL YE NOT TOUCH — One might think that Israelites (i. e. non-priests) are prohibited from touching a carcass at any time! It, however, states, (Leviticus 21:1) in reference to uncleanness in touching a corpse: “Speak unto the priests etc.” — priests are prohibited (from touching it) and Israelites in general are not prohibited. Well, you can draw a conclusion a fortiori from now (i. e. consequent upon what you have now stated): How is it in the case of uncleanness caused by a corpse, which is a stringent kind of uncleanness? The Torah prohibits it only to priests, but ordinary Israelites may touch a corpse. Surely in the case of uncleanness caused by a carcass which is less stringent this is all the more so! Then why does it state here: “[and their carrion] shall ye not touch”? — It means on a festival when every male Israelite was obliged to appear in the Sanctuary and should therefore be in a state of cleanness (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 4 8-9; Rosh Hashanah 16b).
  
  Verse 9
  
  סנפיר — These are what it (the fish) swims with — FINS.
  קשקשת — These are  the scales attached to it (see Chullin 59a) as it is said (I Samuel 17:5) "in a scaly coat of mail (שריון קשקשים) was he clothed".
  
  Verse 10
  
  שרץ THE PROLIFIC CREATURES — Everywhere this word denotes a low (small) being that creeps and moves along upon the ground (cf. Rashi on Genesis 1:20).
  
  Verse 11
  
  ושקץ יהיו AND THEY SHALL BE AN ABOMINABLE THING — This statement is here repeated to prohibit all things with which it (the שרץ) is mixed if they contain so much of the שרץ as to impart its taste to them (Sifra, Shemini, Section 3 9).
  מבשרם OF THEIR FLESH — One is,however, not prohibited in respect to the fins and the bones (Sifra, Shemini, Section 3 10).
  ואת נבלתם תשקצו BUT YE SHALL HAVE THEIR CARRION IN ABOMINATION — This serves to include in the category of abominable things יבחושין found in liquids which one has filtered. יבחושין are moucherons in O. F., (English = gnats).
  
  Verse 12
  
  'כל אשר אין לו וגו‎ WHATEVER HATH NO [FINS] etc. — For what purpose is this repeated? Because I might think that in verse 9 I have only the law that permits the eating of a fish which brings up its signs of cleanness (i. e. fins and scales) to dry land. Whence, however, could I learn that if it sheds them whilst it is in the waters such is also permitted as food? Therefore it states here: whatever hath no fins and scales in the water [that shall be an abomination to you]”. Thus, if it did have them whilst it was in the water, even though it shed them when it came up on dry land, it is permissible as food! (Sifra, Shemini, Section 3 11).
  
  Verse 13
  
  לא יאכלו THEY (the fowls to be mentioned) SHALL NOT BE EATEN — The prohibition is put in this form and not in the words “Ye shall not eat them” (v. 42) to declare liable to punishment those who give them as food to minors, the latter themselves not being liable, for the following is what it implies: They shall not be eaten through any act of yours. But perhaps this is not the meaning, but the words are intended to prohibit any beneficial use to be made of them?   It says, however, in reference to a similar case (v. 42) “Ye shall not eat them” — for eating they are forbidden, for any other use they are permitted! And the same is the case here (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 5 1; Zevachim 114a). — In reference to every fowl of which it is stated למינהו ,למינו ,למינה, “after its kind”, there are in that species some that are not alike one to the other either in their color or in the names they bear, and yet they are all one species.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  הנץ — Espervier in O. F., (English = sparrow-hawk)
  
  Verse 17
  
  שלך — Our Rabbis explained that this is a bird that draws up (שלה = שלך) fish out of the sea (Chullin 63a) and that is why Onkelos translates it by ושלי נונא “and that which draws up fishes” (a common heron; according to others a kind of pelican).
  כוס וינשוף — These are chouettes in O. F. that shriek at night (kinds of owl), and have their cheek-bones formed like those of a human being; and there is another bird similar to it which is called hibou in O. F.
  
  Verse 18
  
  תנשמת — This is the chauvesouris in O. F.: it is similar to a mouse which flies about at night (a “bat”). The תנשמת mentioned among the creeping things (v. 30) is somewhat like it but it has no eyes, and it is called “talpa”, (English = mole) (cf. Chullin 63a).
  
  Verse 19
  
  החסידה — This is the white stork, cigogne in old French And why is it called חסידה? Because it deals kindly (חסד) with its fellows in respect to food (Chullin 63b).
  האנפה — This is the hot-tempered דיה, and it seems to me that it is what is called heron. 
  הדוכיפת — the wild cock which has a double comb (כרבלת). In O. F., herupé; (English = hoopoe). And why is its name called דוכיפת? Because its ornament (הודו) is tied tegether (כפות): this refers to its comb (which being doubled, appears to be tied up). It is also called נגר טורא, mountain-splitter, because of its doings, just as our Rabbis explained in Tractate Gittin 68b in the chapter commencing שאחזו ‎‎מי. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  העוף ‎שרץ PROLIFIC CREATURES AMONGST FOWL — These are the thin, lowly creatures which move upon the ground, such as flies and hornets and gnats and grasshoppers (cf. Rashi on Genesis 1:20).
  
  Verse 21
  
  על ארבע means UPON FOUR legs.
  ממעל לרגליו ABOVE ITS FEET — Quite close to its neck it has something like two feet, in addition to its real feet; when it wants to fly and to spring off the ground it presses itself strongly on the ground with those two knees and so it flies. There are many of these, such, as those which we call longouste (sea-locusts), but we are not expert in regard to them, — as to which we are not permitted as food, — because four characteristic marks of cleanness are mentioned by our Rabbis in respect to them, viz., four feet, four wings, and קרסולים, i. e. the כרעים mentioned here, and that their wings cover the greater part of them. All these characteristics are present in these which are found amongst us, but there are some of them which have a long head and there are some which have no tail, matters which do not affect the question of cleanness (Chullin 59a). It is, however, necessary in order that they shall belong to the clean species that they should bear the name חגב (Chullin 55b), and in this respect we do not know how to distinguish one from another [i. e. we have no tradition as regards to these locusts whether they belong to the species which was in olden (Talmudic) times called חגב or not, and consequently in spite of the other four marks of cleanness we cannot distinguish them from unclean locusts which also show the same marks but are unclean because they do not bear the name חגב].
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  'וכל שרץ העוף וגו‎ BUT ALL PROLIFIC CREATURES AMONG FOWL etc. — This repetition of the statement already made in verse 20 is intended to teach that if it has five feet it is clean (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 5 10).
  
  Verse 24
  
  ולאלה AND TO THESE which are to be mentioned further on in the section, 
  תטמאו YE CAN BECOME UNCLEAN — that is, by touching them there is uncleanness.
  
  Verse 25
  
  וכל הנשא מנבלתם AND WHOSOEVER BEARETH OUGHT OF THE CARRION OF THEM [SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN] — In every passage where there is mentioned uncleanness consequent upon the bearing of anything unclean it is more stringent than uncleanness which is the result of contact, inasmuch as the former requires also the washing of the clothing one happens to wear whilst carrying the unclean thing (Sifra, Shemini, Section 4 8).
  
  Verse 26
  
  מפרסת פרסה ושסע איננה שסעת WHICH DIVIDETH THE HOOF AND IS NOT CLOVEN FOOTED, such as the camel, the hoof of which is split on top but is attached below (see Rashi on v. 3); here it tells you that the carcass of an unclean animal causes uncleanness and in the paragraph which is at the end of this section (vv. 39–40) it sets forth the law concerning the carcass of a clean animal.
  
  Verse 27
  
  על כפיו UPON ITS PAWS — such as a dog, bear and cat (which have no hoofs).
  טמאים הם לכם ARE UNCLEAN UNTO YOU, in respect to any contact with them.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  וזה לכם הטמא THESE ALSO SHALL BE UNCLEAN TO YOU — All these statements regarding uncleanness that follow are not intended as a prohibition against eating them (not as טמאה ,טמא in vv. 4—7 in the beginning of this section which is the result of eating the animals mentioned) but refers to actual uncleanness, — that one becomes unclean by contact with them and is thereby forbidden to eat the heave-offering and the holy sacrifices, and to enter the Sanctuary.
  החלד — moustille in O. F.; (English = weasel).
  והצב — bot in old French; (English = toad), which is like a frog.
  
  Verse 30
  
  אנקה hérisson in O. F.; English hedgehog.
  הלטאה — lizard in old French; English lizard.
  חמט — limace in old French: English snail. 
  תנשמת — talpa in O. F.; English mole.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  במים יובא IT MUST BE PUT INTO WATER — but even after it has been immersed, טמא IT IS UNCLEAN in respect to using it to hold the heave - offering,
  עד הערב UNTIL THE EVENING,  AND — afterwards  — וטהר  IT BECOMETH CLEAN at the setting of the sun (Yevamot 75a).
  
  Verse 33
  
  אל תוכו [AND EVERY EARTHEN VESSEL] WHEREINTO [ANY OF THEM FALLETH SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — An earthen vessel does not become unclean except through the medium of its interior (i. e. only if something unclean is inside it) but not by something unclean touching its exterior) (cf. Chullin 24b).
  כל אשר בתוכו יטמא WHATSOEVER IS INSIDE IT SHALL BE UNCLEAN — the vessel, in turn, renders anything inside it unclean.
  ואתו תשברו AND IT SHALL YE BREAK — This teaches that there is no purification for it by immersion in a ritual bath, (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Section 7 13).
  
  Verse 34
  
  מכל האכל אשר יאכל OF ALL THE FOOD WHICH MAY BE EATEN — This is to be connected with the preceding verse (consequently the words ואתו תשברו v. 33 are a parenthesis): “whatsoever is in it shall be unclean”; viz., anything of all food which may be eaten upon which water has once come, if it is in an earthen vessel which is unclean, itself becomes unclean. [And similarly all drink that may be drunk in any vessel, if it is in an earthen vessel that is unclean, itself becomes unclean]. From this we learn several things: we learn that food is not fitted and liable to become unclean until water has once come upon it, and after water has once come on it it can any time after become unclean, and even after it has become dry; that wine and oil and anything which is termed משקה, liquid, (besides the three mentioned, also blood, milk, dew and honey of bees; cf. Mishnah Makhshirin 6:4) makes vegetation fitted to become unclean even as water does, for thus must the verse be expounded: any food upon which there cometh water or any liquid which may be drunk out of any vessel, that food shall become unclean. Further our Rabbis derive from here the law that a “secondary uncleanness” (ולד הטומאה) cannot render “vessels” (a term used to denote anything except food and animate beings) unclean. For thus we read in a Boraitha (Pesachim 20a): One might think, since Scripture states v. 33: anything that is inside it shall be unclean, that all “vessels” that are placed inside an earthen vessel become unclean through the medium of the interior of an earthen vessel (i. e. because they are in contact with the earthen vessel which has itself become unclean through something unclean having been inside it)! It, however, says: all that is within it shall become unclean … of any food etc., — i.e., food [and liquids] may become unclean through the medium of the interior of an unclean earthen vessel, but no “vessels” can become unclean through the medium of the interior of an unclean earthen vessel. Now since a dead שרץ, “reptile” (which causes the uncleanness to the earthen vessel) is a primary source of uncleanness (אב הטומאה) and the object which has been rendered unclean by it (in this case the כלי חרס) is a secondary uncleanness (ולד הטומאה), consequently we have the rule that the latter a secondary uncleanness — cannot in turn render unclean “vessels” which are in it. And we further learn from this (Pesachim 20a) that if a dead reptile (שרץ) falls into the interior of an earthen oven in which there is bread, but the reptile does not come in contact with the bread, the oven becomes a secondary source of uncleanness of the first degree (ראשון לטומאה) and the bread one of the second degree (because the bread only becomes unclean through having come in contact with the oven which is only a secondary source of uncleanness of the first degree, and not a primary source): and we do not say that we regard the oven which contains the primary source as though it were full of uncleanness, and is itself a primary source, so that the bread should be a secondary uncleanness of the first degree (תחלה), as though it had itself touched the primary source; for if you argue so, then any article which is in an earthen vessel is not excluded from becoming unclean through the medium of its interior (whilst we have just stated that “vessels” are excluded — that in such a case they do not become unclean), because you see, if we assume that the whole interior is full of a primary source of uncleanness, it would be as though this uncleanness itself has touched them (the objects) on their outside and then the objects would indeed have become unclean: we, however, have stated that in such a case they do not become unclean; therefore we do not assume that the primary source of uncleanness fills the whole interior: the bread therefore receives the uncleanness not from the carcass but from the oven and is thus a secondary uncleanness of the second degree which does not further transfer its uncleanness to things which have no sacred character. — And we further learn (Chullin 118b; cf. Sifra, Shemini, Section 8 2) in regard to the “coming of water”, that this does not render vegetation fitted to become unclean unless it falls upon them after they have been plucked; because if you say that they (the vegetation) can acquire this fitness whilst still attached to the soil, then the law has no significance at all, for you have no growing vegetation upon which water does not fall at some time or other, and what, then, is the sense of Scripture saying, “upon which water cometh”? — And we further learn (Yoma 80a) that articles of food which are unclean do not render other food unclean unless the former contains at least a volume equal to that of an egg, for it says: “[food] which may be eaten”, i.e. food which may be eaten at one time, and our Rabbis calculated that the gullet does not hold more than a hen’s egg (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 9 1; cf. also Yoma 80a).
  
  Verse 35
  
  תנור וכרים OVEN OR RANGES FOR POTS — These are movable objects, and they are of earthenware, they have an interior and one places the pot over the opening of the hollow space (the cavity); both have their openings on top. 
  יתץ SHALL BE BROKEN DOWN — because for an earthenware article there can be no purification by immersion in water.
  וטמאים יהיו לכם AND THEY SHALL BE UNCLEAN TO YOU — In order that you should not say, “I am under a command to break it down”, it therefore states וטמאים יהיו לכם — i. e. if one  wishes to let them remain in their state of uncleanness (when they may still be used for חולין) one has the right to do so (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 10 10). [יתץ therefore means: “should be broken down”, and the following words signify: “but though they are unclean (וטמאים) they may remain with you ‎(יהיו לכם‎)”].
  
  Verse 36
  
  עין ובור מקוה מים‎אך מ NEVERTHELESS A FOUNTAIN OR A PIT WHERE THERE IS A GATHERING OF WATERS which are attached to the ground are not receptive of uncleanness (not being included in וכל משקה ונו׳ בכל כלי mentioned in v. 34, since it states here יהיה טהור, it shall remain clean). But you may also give it the meaning: יהיה טהור, he shall be clean i.e. he who immerses himself in them to free himself from his uncleanness.
  ונגע בנבלתם יטמא BUT THAT WHICH TOUCHES THEIR CARRION SHALL BE UNCLEAN — even if one is in the fountain or pit and comes in contact with their uncleanness (their carcasses) he shall be unclean. This is specifically stated in order that you should not argue à fortiori as follows: since it cleanses the unclean from their uncleanness, it follows à fortiori that it will save the clean from becoming unclean, — it stales therefore, “but whoever touches their carrion shall be unclean” (Sifra, Shemini, Section 9 5; Nedarim 75b).
  
  Verse 37
  
  זרע זרוע means seed of any kind of seed-plant. The word זרוע is a noun (not a passive participle, when it would be punctuated ‎זָרוע), like (Daniel 1:12) "and let them give us of pulse — זֵרוֹעִים". 
  טהור הוא HE SHALL BE CLEAN — Scripture by means of this and the following verse teaches you that it does not become fitted and proper to be termed food and therefore to be receptive of uncleanness, until water comes upon it.
  
  Verse 38
  
  ‎זרע‎‎ ‎על‎‎ מים‎ וכי יתן  BUT IF ANY WATER BE PUT ON THE SEED, after it has been plucked, … it shall be unclean; for if you assert that there can be fitness to receive uncleanness whilst it is still attached to the soil, you will never have any seed which has not become thus fitted (Chullin 118b; cf. Sifra, Shemini, Section 8 2 and Rashi on v. 34).
  מים על זרע WATER ON SEED — whether it be water or any other liquids, whether these are on the seed or the seed falls into them — all this is derived in Torath Cohanim (from the wording) (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 11 7-10).
  ונפל מנבלתם עליו AND ANY PART O. THEIR CARRION FALL THEREON, even after it has become dry from the water, because the Torah is particular only that the name “food” should be applicable to it. Consequently as soon as the fitness to receive uncleanness has once fallen upon it, it can never again be removed from it even if it becomes dry again (cf. Bava Metzia 22a).
  
  Verse 39
  
  בנבלתה [HE THAT TOUCHETH] THE CARRION THEREOF [SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — but not if he touches the bones and sinews, nor the horns and claws, and not the hide after these have been removed from the body (Sifra, Shemini, Section 10 5; Chullin 117b).
  
  Verse 40
  
  והנשא את נבלתה HE ALSO THAT BEARETH THE CARRION OF IT [SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — The uncleanness resulting from bearing the carrion is more stringent than the uncleanness resulting from contact with it; for he who bears it thereby renders his garments unclean, whilst as for him who touches it his garments do not thereby become unclean, since it does not state regarding him in the preceding verse: “he shall wash his garments” (cf. Rashi on v. 25). 
  והאכל מנבלתה AND HE THAT EATETH OF ITS CARRION [… SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — One might think from this statement that the act of eating therefrom makes him unclean! But this is not so because when it states of the carcass of a clean fowl (Leviticus 22:8) “that which dies of itself (נבלה) or that which is torn he shall not eat to defile himself therewith”, we may learn from it: בה “therewith” — only that (the carcass of a clean fowl) makes a person’s clothes unclean by the very act of eating therefrom, but the carcass of cattle does not make a person’s clothes unclean by the very act of eating therefrom if there is no carrying involved, e. g., if another person inserts it into his gullet (for one it not regarded as carrying something which is inside his body). But if this be so, why is it here stated “he that eateth”? In order to prescribe as a minimum for making unclean him who bears or touches such carrion a quantity as much as can be called “eating” viz., a piece as large as an olive (Sifra, Shemini, Section 10 7; Niddah 42b).
  עד הערב ‎‎וטמא AND HE SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTO THE EVEN — although he may have immersed himself in water he must await sunset before he becomes clean.
  
  Verse 41
  
  ‎‎‎‏על הארץ ‎ושרץ THAT CREEPETH ON THE EARTH — the law is worded thus in order to exclude the insects in peas and in beans and the mites in lentils, for, you see, these do not move about on the ground but inside the food, but so soon as they have emerged into the air and have moved about they become prohibited to be eaten (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 1; Chullin 67b).
  לא יאכל IT SHALL NOT BE EATEN — This passive form; it shall not become the object of eating, is used to make the liability to punishment fall upon the one who gives these abominable things to others (to‎ minors) to eat just the same as upon him who himself eats them (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 1; cf. Rashi on v. 13). — Only that is called שרץ which is low and has short feet and which seems only to progress by a creeping movement.
  
  Verse 42
  
  ‎גחון‎ הולך על THAT GOETH ON THE BELLY — This is the serpent (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2; Chullin 67b), and the expression גחון denotes bending low, so that the phrase means: that which walks bent down and fallen upon its belly.
  כל הולך EVERYTHING THAT GOETH — The word “everything” is employed to include worms and whatever is similar to anything similar to it (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2).
  הולך על ארבע THAT GOETH UPON ALL FOUR — This is the scorpion (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2). 
  כל EVERYTHING [THAT GOETH UPON ALL FOUR] — The word “everything” is intended to include the beetle, —  escarbot in O. F. — and whatever is similar to anything similar to it (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2).
  מרבה רגלים [AND] WHAT HATH MANY FEET — This is the centipede  (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 2) — an insect which has feet from its head to its tail on both sides of its body, and it is called centpies in old French
  
  Verse 43
  
  אל תשקצו YE SHALL NOT MAKE [YOUR SOULS] ABOMINABLE, by eating these (Meilah 16b): this must be the meaning, because you see it is written “[ye shall not make] your souls [abominable]” and no soiling of the soul arises from touching these creatures. And similarly the words (v. 44) “neither shall ye defile [your souls]” mean: by eating them.
  ונטמתם בם THAT YE SHOULD BE DEFILED THEREBY — If you become defiled thereby on earth I will treat you as defiled in the world-to-come and in the heavenly academy (cf. Yoma 39a).
  
  Verse 44
  
  כי אני ה׳ אלהיכם FOR I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — Just as I am holy, I, Who am the Lord your God, similarly והתקדשתם MAKE YOURSELVES HOLY below on earth ( (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 3),
  והייתם קדשים AND YE WILL BE HOLY, because I will then treat you as holy, above and in the world-to-come (Yoma 39a).
  ולא תטמאו NEITHER SHALL YE DEFILE [YOUR SOULS] etc. — This is repeated in order to bring it about that a person transgresses many negative commands when he eats such abominable things: and every single negative commandment involves for its transgression the punishment of lashes. This is the meaning of what they said in the Talmud (Makkot 16b): if one has eaten a Putisa (a shell fish or water reptile), he receives floggings (39 lashes) four times, (because four of the different prohibitions referring to שרצים apply to such a water reptile); if he has eaten an ant, he receives five such floggings; a hornet, six such floggings.
  
  Verse 45
  
  כי אני ה׳ המעלה אתכם FOR I AM THE LORD THAT BRINGETH YOU UP [OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT] — On condition that you should accept My commandments did I bring you up (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 4). Another explanation of: FOR I AM THE LORD THAT BRINGETH YOU UP — In all other places it is written, “I brought (you) forth”, and here it is written “that bringeth (you) up” — in reference to this it was taught in the school of R. Ishmael: If I had brought up Israel from Egypt only to effect this one thing — that they do not defile themselves by reptiles as do the other peoples, that should be sufficient for them (Bava Metzia 61b), and it should be regarded by them as an elevation for themselves — this is what is implied in the expression used here: מעלה (I raised you above the people of the land of Egypt).
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  להבדיל TO MAKE A DISTINCTION — Not that one should only learn the laws, but it is a command that you should know and recognize the differences and be expert in them (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 6).
  ‎הטהור‎‎ בין הטמא ‎ובין‎  BETWEEN THE UNCLEAN AND THE CLEAN — Is it necessary to say. that one should understand to distinguish between the ass and the cow? Have they not already been closely defined as to their distinguishing characteristics? But the meaning is: that you should thoroughly understand to distinguish between what is unclean for you and what is clean for you (i. e. between what is forbidden and what is permitted to you) — between the case of an animal only half of whose wind-pipe has been cut through by the knife, and the case when the greater part has been cut through (in the former case the animal is forbidden, in the latter it is permitted as food) (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 7).
  ובין החיה הנאכלת AND BETWEEN AN ANIMAL THAT MAY BE EATEN — Is it necessary to say that one should learn to distinguish between a stag and a wild ass? Have not these already been closely defined as to their distinguishing characteristics? But the meaning is: that you should thoroughly understand to distinguish between the case when there have arisen in it (in the animal) signs by which one might regard it as forbidden (טרפה) and yet it is permitted as food (כשרה), and the case when there have arisen in it signs by which one might regard it as forbidden and because of which it is actually unfitted to be eaten (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 12 8).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  אשה כי תזריע IF A WOMAN HAVE CONCEIVED SEED — R. Simlai said: Even as the formation of man took place after that of every cattle, beast and fowl when the world was created, so, too, the law regarding him is set forth after the law regarding cattle, beast and fowl (contained in the previous chapter) (Leviticus Rabbah 14:1).
  כי תזריע — These words are superfluous, כי ילדה would suffice — they mean literally, ”if she bringeth forth seed” and are employed to include the case that if she gave birth to him (the male child) as a pulpy mass which had dissolved, having become liquified like seed, even then its mother becomes unclean as though it were a normal birth (Niddah 27b). 
   כימי נדת דותה תטמא AS IN THE DAYS OF THE SEPARATION FOR HER IMPURITY SHALL SHE BECOME UNCLEAN — According to the regulation of every uncleanness which is mentioned in the case of a נדה does she become unclean in respect to the uncleanness resulting from child-birth — even though the womb opened without any issue of blood (cf. Niddah 21a). 
  דותה — This is an expression for anything which flows from her body (‎‎‏זב = דו, “flowing”), and the translation is: “as in the days of separation due to her flux”. Another explanation is: it has the same meaning as .מדוה (root דוה), malady and sickness, and this is termed דותה, “her sickness”, because no woman sees an issue of blood from herself except that, as a result of it, she becomes unwell and her head and limbs feel heavy (cf. Niddah 9a).
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  תשב — The word תשב signifies here “remaining”, just as in (Deuteronomy 1:46) “And ye stayed (ותשבו) at Kadesh”, and (Genesis 13:18) “and he stayed (‎‎‎וישב) in the Plain of Mamre” 
   בדמי טהרה IN THE BLOOD OF PURIFICATION — Even though she see an issue of blood she is nevertheless clean (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Yoledet, Chapter 1 7). 
  בדמי טהרה — There is no Mappik in the last 'ה‎ of טהרה (as there is in the last word of this verse): it (the word) is an uninflected noun similar in meaning to טֹהַר (being a feminine form of it). 
  ימי טהרה — the 'ה here has a Mappik and the meaning is: the days of her טֹהַר, her purification.
  בכל קדש [SHE SHALL NOT TOUCH] ANYTHING THAT IS HOLY — not anything: this serves to include the heave-offering (Makkot 14b; Yevamot 75a). The Torah prescribes this because such a woman must be regarded as one who has taken the immersion on a very long day (טבולת יום ארוך), because she immersed herself at the end of the first seven days whilst her sun does not set to bring about her purification until sunset of the fortieth day since it is only on the morrow that she has to bring the atonement offering in connection with her purification, as it is stated in v. 6.
  לא תגע SHE SHALL NOT TOUCH — This is a prohibition addressed to anyone who would eat holy things in a state of uncleanness, as it is stated in a Baraitha in Yevamot 75a.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  והקריבו AND HE SHALL OFFER IT — Two offerings have been mentioned, a lamb and a bird, but it states here ,,and he shall offer it and so make an atonement for her” — this teaches you that only the omission to sacrifice a particular one of these two precludes her from eating the sacrificial food. And which is this? It is the sin-offering, because it is stated immediately afterwards: “he shall make expiation for her and she shall be clean” — that which is intended as expiation (i. e. the sin-offering), upon it does the purification depend (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Yoledet, Chapter 3 4).
  וטהרה AND SHE SHALL BE CLEAN — it follows, therefore, that until now (until she has brought the atonement offering) she is termed ‘‘unclean” (i.e. she is regarded as טמאה) although she is actually טהרה.
  
  Verse 8
  
  אחד לעלה ואחד לחטאת THE ONE FOR A BURNT-OFFERING AND THE OTHER FOR A SIN-OFFERING — Scripture puts it (the עולה) first only by way of mention, but so far as offering it is concerned the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering; thus do we learn in the Treatise Zevachim 90a, in the chapter commencing כל התדיר .
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  'שאת או ספחת וגו‎ — These are the names of leprous plagues — A RISING, A SCAB etc., — and they are the one whiter than the other (cf. Shevuot 5b; Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Section 1 4).
  בהרת means SPOTS, taie in O. F. — Similar is (Job 37:21) “It is a spot (בהיר) in the skies”.
  'אל אהרון וגו‎ [HE SHALL BE BROUGHT] TO AARON etc. — It is an enactment of Scripture that the uncleanness and purification of leprous plagues are pronounced only by the mouth of a priest (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Section 1 9).
  
  Verse 3
  
  הפך לבן [THE HAIR …] IS TURNED WHITE — This means that at first it was dark, and it turned white within the plague. The smallest number of hairs implied by the term שער is two (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 2 2).
  עמק מעור בשרו [THE PLAGUE] IS DEEPER THAN THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH — Every white colour is deep (in contrast to a dark colour surrounding it) just as the colour of anything illuminated by the sun is deeper than the shadow (Shevuot 6b).
  וטמא אתו HE SHALL PRONOUNCE HIM UNCLEAN — He (the priest) shall say to him. “Thou art unclean” — for it is an enactment of Scripture that hair that has become white is a symptom of uncleanness.
  
  Verse 4
  
  ועמק אין מראה AND ITS APPEARANCE BE NOT DEEPER [THAN THE SKIN] — I do not know the meaning of this.
  והסגיר HE SHALL SHUT [HIM UP] — He shall shut him up in one house and shall not see him again until the end of the week. Then the symptom that show themselves shall decide regarding him whether he is unclean or not.
  
  Verse 5
  
  בעניו means in its original colour and size.
  שנית … ‎והסגירו HE SHALL SHUT HIM UP … A SECOND TIME — Consequently if it has spread during the first week, he is decidedly unclean, and no further quarantine is required.
  
  Verse 6
  
  כֵּהֶה means it has become paler than its former color — consequently if it remains in its color or if it has spread he is unclean.
  מספחת — This is the name of a clean leprous disease.
  וכבס את בגדיו וטהר AND HE SHALL WASH HIS GARMENTS AND BE CLEAN — Since he required shutting up he was termed (was regarded as coming under the term) “unclean” (although it now transpires that he was clean), and he must undergo immersion in a ritual bath.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  וטמאו הכהן AND THE PRIEST SHALL PRONOUNCE HIM UNCLEAN — and as soon as he has pronounced him unclean he is a decided leper and he is obliged when he recovers from his leprosy to bring two birds (as a means of his purification) and to shave his flesh and to bring the offering which is mentioned in the section beginning זאת תהיה — Leviticus ch. 14 (cf. Megillah 8b).
  צרעת הוא IT IS A LEPROSY — this מספחת is a leprosy (while the מספחת mentioned in v. 6 is a clean scab)
  The word צרעת is feminine; נגע is masculine.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  ומחית A QUICK [RAW FLESH] — sainement in old French English healing; — it means that the part of the white within the “higher-lying white spot” (השאת) has turned to a flesh-colour; this, too, is a symptom of uncleanness; — white hair without healthy flesh, and healthy flesh without white hair . Although healthy flesh is mentioned only in connection with a spot of higher-lying colour, in the case of all pure white colours (snow-white and wool-white) and their shades (lit., derivations) it is also a symptom of uncleanness(cf. Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Section 3 1; Mishnah Negaim 4:6).
  
  Verse 11
  
  צרעת נשנת הוא IT IS AN OLD LEPROSY — i. e. it is an old leprous malady beneath the sound flesh, and this wound appears healthy above, but underneath it is full of moisture (pus), therefore the priest shall pronounce it unclean. Scripture states this in order that you should not say: since healthy flesh has come over it I shall pronounce it clean.
  
  Verse 12
  
  מראשו FROM THE HEAD of the man ועד רגליו AND UNTO HIS FEET,
  לכל מראה עיני הכהן WHERESOEVER THE PRIEST LOOKETH (lit., to the whole sight of the priest’s eyes) — This excludes a priest the sight of whose eyes is darkened (whose sight is imperfect) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 4 4).
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  בו בשר חי‎‎‎‏‎‎ וביום הראות ‎‎ BUT ON THE DAY WHEN RAW FLESH APPEARETH IN HIM [HE SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — If this means that a healthy spot sprang up in it and that on this account it is unclean, surely, however, it has already been stated that the healthy spot is a symptom of uncleanness! Why repeat it here? But it is the following case: that the plague was on one of the “twenty-four tips of the limbs” that project from the body (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:26), — which cannot become unclean (i. e. be declared unclean) because it has healthy flesh since the leprous plague as a whole cannot be seen at one time, (as is required by Scripture stating: לכל מראה עיני הכהן  cf. Kiddushin 25a),because they (the two sides of the affected limb) slope in different directions (Mishnah Negaim 6:7; Kiddushin 25a) — and the tip of the limb altered, so that its sloping side became visible through fat, as e. g., if it (the tip of the limb) became thick and broadened (so that the sloping sides flattened out to form one surface with the limb) and the healthy flesh thus becomes visible in it, Scripture informs us that it (such healthy flesh) makes it unclean on the day when it is seen in it (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 5 1). ‎
  וביום — Why is this word used (it might have said ובהראות)? To inform us that there are days when you may see (examine) the plague and there are days when you may not examine. On this account they (the Rabbis) said: A bridegroom is given a respite of all the seven days of the marriage festivities — to him, and to his clothing and his house (i.e. whether he himself or his clothing, cf. v. 17, or his house, cf. Leviticus 14:33 ff., has been affected by a leprous disease), and similarly on a festival he (everyone) is given a respite all the days of that festival — and during these periods the priest may not come to examine him or his clothing or his house (Mishnah Negaim 3:2; Moed Katan 7b; Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 5 2; cf. Bekhorot 43b).
  
  Verse 15
  
  צרעת הוא IT IS A LEPROSY — that flesh is a leprosy; בשר is masc., and therefore the pronoun הוּא is used as its copula.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  שחין A BOIL — The word expresses the idea of heat. It is so called because the flesh has become inflamed by an injury which came about as the result of a blow and not as the result of fire (the latter case being mentioned in v. 24 and being termed a מכוה) (Chullin 8a).
  ונרפא AND IT BECAME HEALED — the boil (not the flesh also mentioned in this verse) became healed and in its place it produced another plague (the שאת mentioned in the next verse).
  
  Verse 19
  
  או בהרת לבנה אדמדמת in OR A BRIGHT SPOT REDDISH-WHITE — It means that the plague is not evenly white but it is compounded and intermingled with two colours — white and red.
  
  Verse 20
  
  מראה שפל IT BE IN SIGHT LOWER [THAN THE SKIN] — it itself is not deeper, but on account of its whiteness it appears lower and deeper ‎(מראה שפל), just as the colour of anything illuminated by the sun is deeper than the shadow (see Rashi v. 3).
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  נגע הִוא IT IS A PLAGUE — this rising or bright spot is a plague (שאת and בהרת are fem., hence the fem. adj. הִיא).
  
  Verse 23
  
  .תחתיה means IN ITS PLACE (and not “beneath it”).
  צרבת שחין [IT IS] A BURNING BOIL — Understand this as the Targum does: רשם שחנא — i. e. it is only a mark (a scar) of the inflammation, discernible in the flesh. Wherever צרבת occurs it denotes the contraction of skin which has become shrivelled through inflammation. Similar is, (Ezekiel 21:3) “and every face shall become shrivelled (ונצרבו)” through the heat mentioned in the verse, retrecir in old French, to contract.
  צרבת is retrecissement in old French, (English = contraction). 
  
  Verse 24
  
  מחית המכוה IIEALED FLESH OF THE BURNT PART — sainement in old French The text means that when the burnt part was healed it turned into a bright spot variegated or evenly white (i.e. ‎'וכו‎‎ והיתה denotes “and the healed flesh became a white bright spot etc.”). The symptoms of cleanness or uncleanness of a burn and the symptoms of a boil are exactly similar. Why, then, has Scripture mentioned them separately (in two paragraphs, instead of saying ואדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו שחין ומכוה )? To tell us that they cannot be combined one with the other to make up the minimum size of a spot which is a symptom of leprosy — if, e. g., there develops a leprous spot the size of a half of a גריס (a גריס is a half-bean; חצי גריס is a half of this), in a boil (שחין), and one of the size of a half גריס in a burn (מכוה), they do not come under the law of a full ‎‎‏ גריס(the minimum size for an unclean spot) (Chullin 8a).
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  בראש או בזקן UPON THE HEAD OR UPON THE BEARD — Scripture intends to make a difference between a plague which is on a place where hair grows and a plague which is on a place where flesh is (already mentioned v. 38) — that as regards this (that on the flesh) its symptom of uncleanness consists in white hair, and as regards the other its symptom consists in gold-coloured hair (Sifra, Braita d'Rabbi Yishmael 14).
  
  Verse 30
  
  ובו שער צהוב AND THERE BE IN IT A GOLD-COLOURED HAIR — This means that the black hair that was in it has turned into gold-coloured (cf. Rashi on v. 3). 
  נתק הוא — this (נתק) is the name of a plague which is on the spot where hair grows.
  
  Verse 31
  
  ושער שחור אין בו AND THERE IS NO BLACK HAIR IN IT [THE PRIEST SHALL SHUT HIM UP] — Consequently, if there is black hair in it, he is clean, and does not require to be shut up — for black hair is a characteristic of cleanness in cases of נתקים, as it is stated, (v. 37) “if there is black hair grown up in it … [he is clean]” (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 8 9).
  
  Verse 32
  
  'והנה לא פשה וגו‏‎‎‎ AND BEHOLD IF [THE SCAB] SPREAD NOT etc. — Consequently, if it spreads or there is in it gold-coloured hair it is unclean.
  
  Verse 33
  
  והתגלח AND HE SHALL CUT HIS HAIR around the scall,
  ואת הנתק לא יגלח BUT THE SCALL ITSELF HE SHALL NOT CUT THE HAIR OF — this means that he leaves a row of two hairs quite close to it around it in order that it may become discernible if it (the scall) spreads, for if it spreads it passes the hair and will extend to the spot where the hair has been cut off (Mishnah Negaim 10:5; Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 9 7).
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  אחרי טהרתו [AND IF THE SCALL SPREADS AT ALL …] AFTER HIS BEING PRONOUNCED CLEAN — I have here only the statement that he is unclean if it spreads after he has been freed from the quarantine; whence do I know that the same applies if it has spread by the end of the first week and or by the end of the second week? Because it states here: “if it spreads at all” (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 9 9).
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  ושער שחור AND [THERE BE] BLACK HAIR — Whence do I know that this applies also to yellow or reddish hair which also, like black hair here mentioned, are not gold-coloured? Because it states ושער “and hair” (whatever its colour may be) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 9 14). The expression צָהוֹב denotes anything like the appearance of gold, and צהוב is equivalent to זהוב, orpàle in old French (English = pale gold). 
  טהור הוא וטהרו הכהן HE IS CLEAN AND THE PRIEST SHALL PRONOUNCE HIM CLEAN — Consequently a person who is really unclean whom the priest pronounces clean is not clean. [It is true that the declaration is left to the priest — as pointed out by Rashi on v. 2 — but if he erred or willfully pronounced the unclean person clean it is of no effect for Scripture states: he is clean and the priest then — and then only — shall pronounce him clean] (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 9 16).
  
  Verse 38
  
  בהרות are SPOTS.
  
  Verse 39
  
  כהות לבנות DULL WHITE — It means that their whiteness is not intense but a dull white.
  בהק A BRIGHTNESS — just like the white which shows itself in the flesh of a ruddy man, who is termed rouge in old French, between his red spots: this is called בהק “brightness” — like a man who is covered with lentil-like spots, when between one lentil-like spot and another the flesh shows bright with a pure brightness.
  
  Verse 40
  
  קרח הוא טהור הוא HE IS BALD, HE IS CLEAN — clean from the uncleanness of נתק (a scall in a hairy spot) (Sifra, Braita d'Rabbi Yishmael 15), for he is not subject to the law about the symptoms of the head or the beard, which are places where hair grows, but to that about the symptoms of a plague on the skin of the flesh — [white hair], healthy flesh or the spreading of the plague.
  
  Verse 41
  
  ואם מפאת בניו AND IF FROM THE CORNER OF HIS FACE [THERE FALLS OFF THE HAIR OF HIS HEAD] — The area from the slope of one’s skull in the direction of the face is called גבחת (and that explains why the man suffering from such a malady is here called גבח) — and the temples on both sides are also included; and the area from the slope of one’s skull in the direction of the back of his head is termed קרחת (hence the term קרח in v. 40) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 10 7).
  
  Verse 42
  
  נגע לבן אדמדם A RISING OF THE SORE REDDISH-WHITE — variegated (the term לבנה אדמדמת does not signify white and red each separately, but mingled: reddish-white). Whence may we learn that the plague is unclean too if it has the other colours (not variegated, but plain white shades of white which are the distinguishing characteristics of the plagues)? Because it states here: נגע, a plague (it describes it as a ‘‘plague” and therefore all colors applicable to a “plague” apply to it also).
  
  Verse 43
  
  כמראה צרעת עור בשר AS THE COLOUR OF LEPROSY IN THE SKIN OF THE FLESH — it is like the colour of the leprosy which is mentioned in the section dealing with the plague on the skin of the flesh (v. 2): “When a man hath in the skin of his flesh …”.What is stated about that? That it makes one unclean by reason of four shades of white, and that it is subject to the law of quarantine during two weeks. And it is not to be treated like the colour of the leprosy mentioned in the case of the boil (v 18) or burn (v. 24) which though also unclean by reason of four shades of white are, however, subject to the law of quarantine for one week only, (i. e if at the end of the week there is neither white hair, nor has it spread the priest at once declares him clean); nor must it be treated as the colour of נתקין on a spot where hair grows — which do not make a person unclean by cause of four colours: a שאת and its subspecies, and that of a בהרת and its subspecies.
  
  Verse 44
  
  בראשו נגעו HIS PLAGUE IS ON HIS HEAD — I have only a statement that the following laws apply to the case of נתקין, plagues on hairy places! Whence may we learn that there are included the sufferers from all other kinds of leprous plagues? Because it states מא יטמאנו‎ט, “he shall in any case proclaim him unclean”  (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 12 2)— thus including all of these: regarding all of these it says: “his garments shall be rent etc.”.
  
  Verse 45
  
  פרומים signifies TORN.
  פרוע means his head shall be over-grown with hair (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 13 6).
  ועל שפם יעטה AND HE SHALL COVER HIS LIPS as one who mourns for the dead (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 13 7; cf. Onkelos).
  שפם denotes the hair on the lips; grenon in old French, (English = moustache).
  וטמא טמא יקרא AND HE SHALL CALL OUT, UNCLEAN, UNCLEAN — he must proclaim aloud that he is unclean, so that people may keep away from him (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 13 7; Moed Katan 5a).
  
  Verse 46
  
  בדד ישב HE SHALL ABIDE SOLITARY — This means that people who are unclean from other causes than that of leprosy shall not abide with him (Pesachim 67a; cf. Sifra). Our Rabbis said: Why is he (the leper) treated differently from other unclean persons that he should abide solitary? They replied: Because he, by slanderous statements, (cf. Numbers 12:10) parted man and wife, or a man from his friend, he must be parted from everybody (Arakhin 16b).
  מחוץ למחנה WITHOUT THE CAMP — outside the three camps (see Rashi on Leviticus 4:12; cf. Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 13 14 and Pesachim 67a).
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  לפשתים ולצמר‎ means OF FLAX OR OF WOOL.
  או בעור WHETHER IN A SKIN — this is a skin which has not been manufactured (of which no article has been made).
  או במלאכת עור OR IN ANYTHING MADE OF SKIN — this is a skin which has been manufactured.
  
  Verse 49
  
  ירקרק denotes green amongst the greens (the deepest green).
  אדמדם — the deepest red (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 14 2).
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  צרעת ממארת A FRETTING LEPROSY — The word ממארת has the same meaning as. (Ezekiel 28:24) “a pricking (ממאיר) brier”; point (poignant) in old French The Midrashic explanation is: Attach a curse (מארה) to it, — that you will make no use of it (and therefore it must be burnt) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 14 11).
  
  Verse 52
  
  בצמר ובפשתים means OF WOOL OR OF FLAX. This is the plain meaning. And the Midrashic explanation is: One might think that he must bring fleeces of wool or stalks of flax and burn them together with it, (the garment, in order to make a flame in which to burn it; then the verse will mean: he shall burn the garment with wool etc.) Scripture, however, states, in this verse, היא באש תשרף “it (the garment) shall be burnt in fire” — no other thing being required with it. If this be so why does it state בצמר או בפשתים? To exclude from being burnt the אומריות, the hems, that are on it if these are made of a different material than wool or flax respectively. The word אומריות means a hem; it is the same as the better-known word אימרא. (The translation is therefore: he shall burn [apply fire to] the garment etc., on the woolen parts only) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 15 1).
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  את אשר בו הנגע THAT WHEREIN THE PLAGUE IS — One might think that he has to wash only that spot in which is the plague and not the garment itself! It. however, states: Not, “he shall wash the plague, but “that where in the plague is”. If this be so, then one might think that the entire garment requires washing! It, however, states, (v. 55) הנגע “the plague” (after the plague has been washed), and not the garment. How shall it be done? He washes some of the garment with it (the plague) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 15 5).
  
  Verse 55
  
  הֻכַּבֵּס‎ ‎ ‎‎‎‏ אחרי AFTER IT IS WASHED — The verbal form is an expression of something done (a passive infinitive).
  לא הפך הנגע את עינו THE PLAGUE HATH NOT CHANGED ITS COLOR — i. e. it has not become paler than its former colour.
  והנגע לא פשה AND THE PLAGUE HATH NOT SPREAD — We understand from this that if it has not changed its color and has not spread it is unclean, (although the fact that it has not spread might lead us to suppose that it is clean;here, however, the color has not changed, and so it is unclean). It is, of course, not necessary to state that it is unclean if the colour has not changed but the plague has spread (for the spreading is an additional reason for declaring it unclean). If, however, it has changed its colour, but it has not spread, I would not know what one should do with it. Therefore it states, (v. 50) “And he shall shut up the plague” for a period and examine it again — shut it up whatever the circumstances of doubt may be. This is the opinion of Rabbi Jehuda. But other Sages say that in this case it is undoubtedly unclean as is stated in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 15 7): and I make mention of this here (instead of doing so on v. 50), in order to explain that verse in its connection with this text. 
  פחתת היא — This is an expression denoting a pit (anything cut out) as in, (II Samuel 17:9) “in one of the pits (פחתים)”. It is as much as to say, it is low-lying — a plague the colour of which is sunk deep (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 15 8).
  בגבחתו ‎‎‎ או‎ בקרחתו — Understand this as the Targum does: in its old state (lit., rubbed condition) or in its new state.
  קרחתו is therefore שחקים (clothes rubbed by wear), old (and consequently ,שחיקותיה is a proper contrast to חדתותיה in the Targum). These words, קרחת and גבחת, although not properly applicable to garments are used here to afford an opportunity for an Halachic derivation, for which there is required an argument deduced from the similarity of phrases: Whence do we know in regard to a plague spreading over the entire surface in the case of garments that it is c1ean? Because the, terms קרחת and גבחת are used in the case of a human being and the terms קרחת and גבחת are used in the case of garments. How is it in the former case? If it has spread over all his body, he is clean (v.13)! So here, also, if it has spread over all the garment it is clean (Niddah 19a). For this reason Scripture here purposely avails itself of the expressions קרחת and גבחת, to make the גז"ש possible. And in regard to its interpretation and its translation in the Targum the following is what it implies: קרחת is an expression denoting “old”, and גבחת is an expression denoting “new” (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 15 9); and the meaning is just the same as though it were written באחריתו או בקדמותו. at its end or at its beginning, — for קרחת has the meaning of the back- parts (i. e. the end), since גבחת has the meaning of face (front-side, i. e. beginning), as it is written, (v. 41) “And if from the corner towards his face [the hair of his head be fallen] … he is a גבח” — so that קרחת must be all that part which slopes downwards on the skull towards the back. Thus is it explained in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 10 7).
  
  Verse 56
  
  וקרע אתו THEN SHALL HE  REND IT OUT — i. e. he shall tear out the plague-spot from the garment and burn it (just as he is commanded in the case mentioned in the next verse) (cf. Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 16 2).
  
  Verse 57
  
  פרחת היא IT IS A SPREADING PLAGUE — it is a thing which breaks out again and again.
  באש תשרפנו THOU SHALT BURN IT IN FIRE — “it” — the entire garment (in contradistinction to v. 56).
  
  Verse 58
  
  וסר מהם הנגע IF THE PLAGUE BE DEPARTED FROM THEM — if when they washed it at first by the order of the priest (Leviticus 13:54), the plague departed from it entirely (cf. Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 16 10),
  וכבס שנית IT SHALL BE WASHED A SECOND TIME — here this expression denotes immersion in a ritual bath (not washing of the garment). The words used in the translation of the Targum for the expressions derived from the root כבס occurring in this section denote making white (cleaning, — e. g. ויתחור), “and it shall be made white” — except for this (וְכֻבַּס) which is not intended to mean making white but to mean immersion. For this reason it is translated in the Targum by ויצטבע — “it shall be dipped”. Similarly wherever it speaks of כבוס בגדים which intend “immersion” the Targum translation is ויצטבע, (this is the Targum of וְכֻבַּס‎ here and in Leviticus  15:17; the active וְכִבֶּס, is, of course, translated by ויצבע).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  'תהיה תורת וגו ‎זאת THIS SHALL BE THE LAW [OF   THE LEPER IN THE DAY OF HIS BEING PRONOUNCED CLEAN] — The words “in the day” inform us that we may not pronounce him clean at night (Sifra, Metzora, Section 1 3; Megillah 21a).
  
  Verse 3
  
  אל מחוץ למחנה OUT OF THE CAMP — outside the three camps to where he (the leper) had been sent during the days he was decidedly a leper (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 13:46).
  
  Verse 4
  
  חיות LIVING [BIRDS] — This term excludes רפות‎ט, birds that suffer from some fatal organic disease (חיות does not only mean “living”, but also “capable of continuing to live”).
  הרות‎ט CLEAN — This term excludes an unclean bird (of a species that may not be eaten) (cf. Chullin 140a). Because the plagues of leprosy come as a punishment for slander, which is done by chattering, therefore birds are compulsory for his (the leper’s) purification, because these chatter, as it were, continuously with a twittering sound (Arakhin 16b).
  ועץ ארז AND CEDAR WOOD — This lofty tree was used because plagues come also as a punishment for haughtiness (cf. Arakhin 16a).
  ושני תולעת ואזוב AND CRIMSON AND HYSSOP — What is the remedy he should use, that he may be healed? Let him, abandoning pride, regard himself lowly as a worm (תולעת) and as hyssop (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Metzora 3).
  עץ ארז means a stick of cedar wood (not a cedar tree).
  שני תולעת — a strip of wool dyed crimson.
  
  Verse 5
  
  אל מים חיים OVER RUNNING WATER — He first places it (the water) in the vessel but only, just enough that the bird’s blood may remain discernible in it. And how much is this? The fourth of a log (Sotah 16b).
  
  Verse 6
  
  את הצפור החיה יקח אתה AS FOR THE LIVING BIRD HE SHALL‎ TAKE IT — The phrasing (since it does not state ‘‘the living bird and the cedar wood etc. he shall take”, but, “the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar stick etc.”) informs us that he does not bind it (the bird) together with them (the cedar wood etc.) but keeps it apart by itself. The cedar stick, however, and the hyssop are tied together by the crimson slip, just as it is stated: “and the cedar wood and the crimson slip and the hyssop” — one “taking” for the three (since these three are grouped together after the word יקח). One might think that just as it (the bird) does not come under the regulation as regards binding, so, too, it does not come under the regulation as regards “dipping”; it therefore states “and he shall dip them and the living bird” — thus it (Scripture) mentions the bird again in connection with them to bring it, too, under the regulation of dipping (cf. Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 1 6).
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  וישב מחוץ לאהלו AND HE SHALL ABIDE OUTSIDE HIS TENT — This informs us that matrimonial intercourse is forbidden to him (מחוץ לאהלו implies outside his home — his family life; cf. Deuteronomy 5:27: שובו לכם לאהליכם) (Sifra, Metzora, Section 2 11).
  
  Verse 9
  
  את כל שערו [HE SHALL CUT OFF] ALL HIS HAIR etc. — We have a generalisation (“all his hair”), a particularisation (“his head and his beard and his eyebrows”), and again a generalisation (“and all his hair”). According to the rule of interpretation (מדה ו' י״ג מדות) the purpose of this is to include in the generalisation only such things as are similar to those contained in the particularisation; here it intends to include every spot of the body where there is a collection of hair, it (the hair) being visible (these being the characteristics of the head, beard and eyebrows) (Sotah 16a).
  
  Verse 10
  
  וכבשה אחת AND ONE EWE-LAMB for a sin-offering.
  ושלשה עשרנים AND THREE TENTH DEALS [OF FLOUR] — as the drink-offerings of these three he-lambs (Menachot 91a) — because the sin-offering and the guilt-offering of the leper require drink-offerings (although they are not required with other sin- and guilt-offerings).
  ולג אחד שמן AND ONE LOG OF OIL — to sprinkle on his behalf before the Lord seven times (cf. v. 17), and to put of it upon the tip of his ear and for putting it upon his thumbs (v. 25).
  
  Verse 11
  
  'לפני ה BEFORE THE LORD — i. e. in the gate of Nicanor and not in the court itself (Sifra, Metzora, Section 3 6; Sotah 8a), since he was still short of atonement (as the sin-offering had not yet been brought, and under such circumstances he was not permitted to enter the court).
  
  Verse 12
  
  והקריב אתו לאשם AND HE SHALL BRING IT FOR A GUILT-OFFERING - This means: he shall bring it inside the court as a guilt-offering to wave it, for it required waving whilst alive (for it states that he shall bring it “and the log of oil” and the latter was not brought as a sacrifice; besides, the act of slaughtering is mentioned in v. 13) (Menachot 62b),
  והניף אתם AND HE SHALL WAVE THEM — the guilt-offering and the log of oil.
  
  Verse 13
  
  ‎ ‎'במקום אשר ישחט וגו‎‎‎ IN THE PLACE WHERE HE SHALL SLAUGHTER etc. — i.e. on the side of the altar on the north. But why is this stated at all? Has it not already been stated in in the law about the guilt-offering in the section צו את אהרן that the guilt-offering requires slaughtering on the north side of the altar? But because this guilt-offering has gone forth from (was made an exception to) the general rule of the guilt- offerings in that it is subject to the law of being placed before the Lord (v. 11), one might think that its slaughtering should be in the spot where it was placed (in the gateway of Nicanor; i. e. it shall be made an exception also in respect to the place where it should be slaughtered); on that account it states, “and he shall slaughter [the lamb] in the place where he slaughters [the sin-offering] etc ” (Sifra, Metzora, Section 3 8).
  ‎י כחטאת‏‎כ FOR AS THE SIN-OFFERING [SO IS THE GUILT-OFFERING TO THE PRIEST] — This means, for as all sin-offerings so this guilt-offering הוא לכהן is to the priest, i. e. as regards all sacrificial rites which depend upon the priest this guilt-offering is made exactly similar to the sin-offering. In order that you should not say: Since its blood is made an exception to the general rule governing other guilt-offerings in that this is placed upon the tip of the ear and upon the thumbs, it must also form an exception in that it should not require the placing of the blood and the fat portions upon the altar, it therefore expressly states, “for as all sin-offerings so is this guilt-offering to the priest” (לכהן, in reference to the priest, so far as he is concerned). One might also think that its blood must be sprinkled on the upper part of the altar as is the case with the sin-offering! Therefore it says: (Leviticus 7:1, 2) “it is most holy … and its blood shall he sprinkle round about the altar”. So it is set forth in Torath Cohanim (cf. Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 3 1; Zevachim 49a).
  
  Verse 14
  
  תנוך is the inner wall of the ear. The etymology of the word תנוך is unknown to me, and the compilers of glossaries call it (translate it by) tendron (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:22).
  בהן means THUMB.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  'לפני ה‎ [AND HE SHALL SPRINKLE …] BEFORE THE LORD — in the direction of the Holy of Holies (cf. Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 3 9).
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ואת המנחה AND THE MEAL-OFFERING — the meal-offering of the drink-offering that accompanies an animal sacrifice.
  
  Verse 21
  
  ועשרון סלת אחד‎ AND ONE TENTH DEAL OF FLOUR — for this lamb which is a single one he shall bring one tenth part of flour to accompany its drink-offering.
  שמן ‎‏ ולג AND A LOG OF OIL — to place of it upon the thumbs. The quantity of the oil required for the libations of the meal-offering Scripture did not find it necessary to specify here (since it is given in Numbers 15:4 where three logs are prescribed; consequently the one log mentioned hero cannot be intended for the libations but for placing on the thumbs).
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  ביום השמיני לטהרתו ON TIIE EIGHTH DAY OF HIS BEING PRONOUNCED CLEAN — i. e. the eighth day after the birds have been brought and he has been sprinkled with the cedar stick, the hyssop and the crimson wool (cf. v. 10).
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  על מקום דם האשם UPON THE PLACE OF THE BLOOD OF THE GUILT-OFFERING — even though the blood has been wiped off; this teaches that it is not the presence of the blood that brings about the validity of this rite but it is the place (the fact that the oil has been placed on the proper spot) that brings it about (Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 3 10; Menachot 10a).
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  ונתתי נגע צרעת [WHEN YOU COME TO THE LAND …]I WILL PUT THE PLAGUE OF THE LEPROSY — This was an announcement to them that these plagues would come upon them (Sifra, Metzora, Section 5 4; Horayot 10a), because the Amorites concealed treasures of gold in the walls of their houses during the whole 40 years the Israelites were in the wilderness in order that these might not possess them when they conquered Palestine, and in consequence of the plague they would pull down the house and discover them (Leviticus Rabbah 17:6).
  
  Verse 35
  
  כנגע נראה לי בבית SOMETHING LIKE A PLAGUE HATH SHOWN ITSELF TO ME IN THE HOUSE — Even if he (the owner of the house) be a learned man and knows for sure that it is a plague he shall not decide the matter as a certainty saying, "a plague hath shown itself to me" but, “something like a plague hath shown itself to me" (Mishnah Negaim 12:5; Sifra, Metzora, Section 5 10).
  
  Verse 36
  
  'בטרם יבא הכהן וגו‎ [THEY SHALL CLEAR THE HOUSE] BEFORE THE PRIEST COME etc. — For so long as the priest has not yet engaged himself with it no law of uncleanness is applicable there.
  ולא יטמא כל אשר בבית THAT ALL THAT IS IN THE HOUSE BE NOT MADE UNCLEAN, for if he does not clear it out and the priest comes and examines the plague, it requires shutting up and all that is inside immediately becomes unclean. To what is it that the Torah has regard in ordering these precautions to be taken? If it had in mind wooden or metal vessels that need only be rinsed in order to restore them to cleanness, he can immerse them and they will become clean (and there is no need to remove them from the house for fear that they will become unclean if he does not do so), and if it has in mind food and liquids, he can eat them during the time of his uncleanness (in which case also he suffers no loss since he may consume them at a time when he himself happens to be unclean). Consequently it follows that the Torah must have regard only to earthen vessels for which there is no means of purification by immersion in a ritual bath (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 11:35) and which therefore will remain unusable except in connection with ordinary food (חולין) (Sifra, Metzora, Section 5 12).
  
  Verse 37
  
  שקערורת denotes lying deep because of their colors (they appear to lie deep in the stones) (Sifra, Metzora, Section 6 5).
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  וחלצו את האבנים — Understand וחלצו as the Targum does: וישלפון, i.e. they shall remove them from there. It is similar to, (Deuteronomy 25:9)  וחלצה נעלו— which is an expression for removing ("she shall remove his shoe”).
  אל מקום טמא UNTO AN UNCLEAN PLACE — i. e. a place where clean things are not likely to be handled. Scripture teaches you that these stones make the place where they are deposited unclean for the time they are there.
  
  Verse 41
  
  יקצע — rogner in old French, SCRAPE OFF, and in Mishnaic Hebrew it occurs many times.
  ‎מבית INSIDE.
  סביב ROUND ABOUT — i. e. the place round about the plague-spot; and in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 4 5) it is also thus explained: that he shall peel off the plaster which is round about the area where the plague-stricken stones had been.
  הקצו is connected in meaning with the word קצה, end, — it means: which they had scraped off at the edges of the plague-spot round about it. (The words mean: the dust which they have removed from the edges. It has nothing to do with “scraping off”).
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  הִקְצוֹת — The grammatical form expresses the idea of something “having been done” (passive) and so, also, is the word הִטּוֹחַ  (both are Niphal construct infinitive), but in חִלֵּץ את האבנים the expression refers to the man who removes them (i. e. it is active, the subject having to be supplied. The translation is: “after he has removed the stones”, whilst the following words denote: after the house has been scraped at its edges and after it has been plastered), it (the word חִלֵּץ) being of the heavy conjugation (Piel), just as כִּפֵּר and דִּבֵּר‎.
  ‎ ישוב מגע ‎ואם‎ AND IF THE PLAGUE RETURN [AND BREAK OUT IN THE HOUSE] — One might think that this means: if it returns on the self-same day it shall be unclean as it stated in v. 44. It, however, says, (v. 39) ושב הכהן “when the priest returns [on the seventh day]”, and here, also, it says, ואם ישוב, “and if it (the plague) return”. What is the case of “return” mentioned there? It is at the end of a week! Similarly, too, “return” mentioned here means at the end of a week (Sifra, Metzora, Section 7 6).
  
  Verse 44
  
  ובא הכהן וראה והנה פשה THEN THE PRIEST SHALL COME AND LOOK, AND, BEHOLD, IF THE PLAGUE HATH SPREAD … [IT IS UNCLEAN] — From this one might think that a recurring plague is unclean (i. e. renders the whole house unclean) only if it spreads. But the phrase צרעת ממארת. “a fretting leprosy”, is mentioned in connection with houses and the phrase. צרעת ממארת is mentioned in connection with garments (Leviticus 13:51), thus making that plague analogous to this: What is the case there? Scripture declares the recurring plague unclean although it has not spread (Leviticus 13:55)! Similarly, here, it declares the recurring plague unclean even though it has not spread. But if this be so, why does it state here “and, behold. [the plague] hath spread"? As a matter of fact this is not the proper place of the verse), and the statement “he shall pull down the house” (v. 45) it ought to have written immediately after (v. 43), “and if the plague return”). The words in v. 44, “he shall look, and, behold, if the plague hath spread”, consequently only intend to tell us something about a plague which has remained in the same condition during the first week, and to which he (the priest) comes at the end of the second week and finds that it has spread, for Scripture has not explained anything at all about the case where the plague remains in the same condition during the first week. (It speaks in v. 39 only of when the plague has spread during the first week.) It tells us here (in the section which speaks about what happens a week after the house has been scraped etc., i. e. after the end of the second week) the law regarding it by mention of this spreading (i. e. by the words וראה והנה פשה) which can only speak of the case that it remained in the same condition during the first week, and has spread during the second week. Now what shall he do with it? One might think that he must demolish it, even as it states immediately after it, (v. 45) “He shall break down the house”. It, however, states, (v. 39) “if the priest returneth” at the end of the week and finds that it has spread, and (v. 44) “and if the priest cometh” at the end of the second week and now finds that for the first time it has spread — thus we may learn what is to be done after this “coming" from what happens after that “returning”! What is the law in the case of that “returning”? He must remove the stones, scrape and re-plaster (vv. 40—42), and give it another week! Similarly, here, in the case of this “coming” after a second week, he must remove the stones, scrape and re-plaster and give it a further week! If it recurs he must demolish the house: if it does not recur, the house is clean. And whence may we infer that if it remained in the same condition both during this week (the first) and that (the second), he must remove the stones, scrape and re-plaster, and give it another week (just as he did when it spread in the second week, as we have just stated)? Because it states, (v. 44) ובא ”and if [the priest] cometh”, and (v. 48) ואם בא יבא “and if [the priest] cometh”, the expression “coming” being used in each case to indicate an analogy between them, the reasoning being as follows: About what can this verse 48 which refers to the plague not having spread be speaking? If you say it speaks of a plague which has spread during the first week but did not spread during the second week, behold, this has already been mentioned (vv. 39—43, and second half of v. 44)! If you say that it speaks of a plague which has spread during the second week but has not spread during the first week, behold, this has already been mentioned (v. 44 according to Rashi's explanation above). Consequently it can only be saying the words ואם בא יבא, “if having come once (בא), he cometh again (יבא)”, about one who comes at the end of the first week and comes again at the end of the second week, “and, behold, [the plague] had not spread” in either instance. In the case of such a plague which remains as it was during two successive weeks, what shall he do to it? One might think he departs and gets himself off without doing anything more because the house is clean, since it states here (immediately afterwards), “he shall pronounce the house clean”. It, however, states, “if the plague is healed”, — which implies that Scripture says as it were: I do declare clean only the plague which is healed (i. e. when something has been done by which it is removed). What, then, shall he do to it? The reply is: above (v. 44) it has spoken of “coming”, and further on (v. 48) it also speaks of “coming”. What is the law in the previous case? He removes the stones, scrapes and re-plasters and gives it another week — for, as we have stated above, we have it as tradition that “return” (v. 39: ושב הכהן) and “coming” (v. 44: ובא הכהן) are identical in regard to their law; similarly, too, must be done in the later case (v. 48 which as we have proved, must be speaking of עמד בראשון ובשני etc.), as it is stated in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Metzora, Section 7 10). The conclusion of the matter is: Demolishing a house takes place only in the case of a plague that recurs after removal of the stones, scraping and re-plastering, and such a recurring plague does not require that it should also have spread in order to make it necessary to demolish the house. The sequence of the verses is as follows: “If it returns” (v. 48), “he shall break down” (v. 45), “But if one cometh” (v. 46) “[And he that lieth in the house] … and he that eateth in the house” (v. 47), and only then v. 44: “And if the priest come and look, and, behold, the plague hath spread”; — and the last verse speaks, as shown above, of the case of a plague that remained as it was during the first week to which one has therefore given a second week for being shut up, and at the end of the second week he comes and sees it that it has spread. And what shall he do to it? He removes the stones, scrapes and re-plasters and gives it another week. If it returns he demolishes the house, if it does not return, it is clean and requires two birds for purification, but this third week is the utmost time for investigation, for not more than three weeks are to be spent in the investigation of plagues.
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  כל ימי הסגיר אתו [AND HE THAT COMES INTO THE HOUSE] ALL THE DAYS THAT IT IS SHUT UP [SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVENING] — "the days that it is shut up", but not during the days in which he had scraped the plague-spot (for through the scraping the uncleanness has, at least for the time being, departed, and the house is only closed again for investigation). I might think that I may also exclude from this law the house that is decidedly unclean through a recurring plague and which must be demolished from which one has scraped the plague-spot (but which has not yet been demolished, for we might assume that for the time being the uncleanness is departed)! It, however, states, "all the days" (Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 5 4).
  יטמא עד הערב [AND HE THAT COMES INTO THE HOUSE] SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVENING — This tells us that merely going into the house does not render his garments unclean (since it does not state, as in the next verse, that he shall wash his garments) (Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 5 5). I might think that his garments do not become unclean even if, after coming into the house, he remained there long enough to eat a half-loaf (an ordinary meal, equal in mass to 4 eggs)! It, however, states, (v. 47) "And he that eateth in the house shall wash his garments", for we may reason as follows: I have here only the law regarding one who actually eats. Whence may I derive that this applies also to one who sleeps in the house? Because Scripture states "and he who sleeps [shall wash his garments]". Now I have only the law regarding one who eats and regarding one who sleeps in the house; whence may I derive that the same law applies to one who neither eats nor sleeps (but merely stays in the house)? Because it states ‎יכבס יכבס (twice) in v. 47 where it could have written: והשכב והאכל בבית יכבס את בגדיו, and such wording would imply that only those who actually sleep and eat in the house must wash their garments. By the insertion of the first יכבס we have two coordinated sentences of similar import and this suggests that sleeping and eating are merely examples of cases where garments would require washing. Thus the use of the first יכבס serves to include besides one who sleeps and one who eats in the house anyone who stays there. If this be so (i. e. if it means that the garments of anyone who stays in the house become unclean) why does it expressly mention one who eats and one who sleeps? Let it merely state: one who stays in the house shall wash his garments, when these also would be included! But this is done in order to designate for him who sleeps in the house (i. e. who does anything in the house beyond entering and immediately leaving it, as is mentioned in v. 46) a minimum period of time the stay during which renders his garments unclean, viz., a time long enough to eat a half-loaf (cf. Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 5 7-8).
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  ואם בא יבא AND IF [THE PRIEST] SHALL COME IN at the end of the second week,
  וראה והנה לא פשה AND LOOK UPON IT, AND, BEHOLD, THE PLAGUE HATH NOT SPREAD … [THEN THE PRIEST SHALL PRONOUNCE THE HOUSE CLEAN].— This verse, as shown above, is intended to teach the law regarding the case that it (the plague) has stayed as it was during both the first week and the second week. What shall he do to it? One might think that he shall pronounce it clean just as the verse literally implies: וטהר הכהן את הבית "and the priest shall pronounce the house clean"! It, however, states, "[The priest shall declare the house clean] כי נרפא הנגע if the plague is healed" — Scripture says, as it were, I pronounce clean only that plague which is healed, and only that house is healed which has been scraped and re-plastered and in which the plague has not recurred, but this, in which during two weeks the plague has remained in the same condition, is not yet healed and thus not yet clean, and requires removal of the stones, scraping and re-plastering and yet a third week. And the verse is accordingly to be explained as follows: ואם בא יבא, And if having come once he comes again at the end of the second week and he looks upon it, and, behold, it has not spread, he shall re-plaster it and of course also remove the stones and scrape it — for re-plastering never takes place without removal of the stones and scraping (and Scripture merely states אחרי הטוח for the sake of brevity) — אחרי הטוח את הבית and after the house has been re-plastered, וטהר הכהן את הבית, shall the priest pronounce clean, if the plague has not returned at the end of the third week, כי נרפא הנגע FOR THEN THE PLAGUE IS HEALED. If, however, it has returned at the end of that week it is unnecessary to state the law here since it has already explained regarding a recurring plague that it requires the demolition of the house (cf. Rashi on v. 44).
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  
  
  Verse 55
  
  
  
  Verse 56
  
  
  
  Verse 57
  
  להורת ביום הטמא — This may be translated: TO GIVE INSTRUCTION "CONCERNING" THE DAY OF ITS BEING UNCLEAN, i. e. which day renders it clean and which day renders it unclean (to point out that particular day on which, according to circumstances, a house or a garment or a person is to be declared clean or unclean).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  כי יהיה זב WHEN THERE BE A RUNNING ISSUE — One might think if there be a running issue from any portion of his body (e. g., ear, nose) he shall be unclean!  Therefore it states מבשרו “from his flesh" (i.e. from some part of his flesh) and not from all parts of his flesh (the prefix מ is a partitive מ). Now, however, that Scripture has made a difference between one part of his flesh and another part of his flesh, I have the right to draw a conclusion: it (the Torah) pronounces uncleanness in a case of a man with a running issue (זב) and it pronounces uncleanness in a particular case of a woman with a running issue (זבה). How is it in the case of a זבה? Through that place in her body where she becomes unclean with a lighter uncleanness, viz., that of a נדה, she also becomes unclean with a more stringent uncleanness i.e. through זיבה, a continuance of the issue beyond the usual period! Similarly the זב: through the place where he becomes unclean with a lighter uncleanness, viz., קרי, (an involuntary emission of semen which makes him unclean only until evening; cf. v. 16), he also becomes unclean through a more stringent uncleanness, viz., זיבה (when he is unclean seven days and must bring a sacrifice; cf. vv. 13 ff. with 16 ff.; from the latter it is evident which part of the body is in question; it follows logically that the same part is here intended) (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 1 5).
  טמא‎ זובו HIS ISSUE IS UNCLEAN — This teaches regarding a drop (i.e. the semen itself) that it communicates uncleanness (and it is not only the man that has the issue who is unclean) (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 1 8-9; Niddah 55a). The זב issue referred to here is similar to water of dough (that runs out of dough) made of barley and it is dissolved (fluid) being similar to the white of an addled egg (where the white and the yolk have run together); שכבת זרע, however, is viscid and looks like the white of an egg that has not become addled (Niddah 35b).
  
  Verse 3
  
  רר [WHETHER HIS FLESH] DRIP — This word is connected with ריר "spittle" — the meaning is that his flesh runs with its issue as spittle, i. e. that it (the flow) comes forth clear in appearance (not thick and troubled).
  או החתים OR [HIS FLESH] BE STOPPED — it means, that the flow issues thick and closes up the orifice of the membrum, so that his flesh is stopped up by the drop that issued from him. This is its literal meaning. The Halachic explanation is: The first verse (v. 2) enumerates two appearances of the issue and then terms him (the man affected by them) unclean, for it is said, "when there flows from his flesh a flowing he is unclean" and the other verse (v. 3) enumerates three appearances of the issue and only then terms him unclean, as it is said, "his uncleanness through his flow: if his flesh drips through its flow as with spittle, or if his flesh is stopped up through his flowing then only is it his uncleanness!" How can this be reconciled? Two appearances of the flow serve to make him unclean, and the third obligates him also to bring an offering (Niddah 43b; Megillah 8a).
  
  Verse 4
  
  כל המשכב EVERY PLACE OF REPOSE — This means: everything that is fitted for sleeping on (thus excluding a door or plank etc.). One might, however, think that it includes anything intended for some other action also, as long as it can be used for sleeping and he actually slept upon it! It, however, states אשר ישכב — it does not state אשר שכב, “upon which one has slept" but אשר ישכב, “upon which one sleeps usually" — i.e. that which is intended to be used for this always, thus excluding that of which people can say to him, “Get up and let us to our work [with that upon which you are lying]" (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 1 1-3).
  אשר ישב [EVERYTHING] WHEREON HE SITTETH — It is not said here ‎יָשַׁב ‎‏ אשר, "on which he has sat", but אשר יֵשֵׁב, “on which one sits usually" — it speaks therefore of something that is intended to be used for this always (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 1 3; Shabbat 59a).
  
  Verse 5
  
  ואיש אשר יגע במשכבו AND WHOSOEVER TOUCHES HIS PLACE OF REPOSE [SHALL WASH HIS GARMENTS … AND BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVENING] — This tells us regarding the object on which he lies down that it is more stringent than an object touched by him in any manner other than lying on it — for this (the former) becomes a primary source of uncleanness (אב הטומאה) communicating uncleanness to any man who touches it, he in turn making unclean the garments he happens to wear at that moment, while anything touched by him that is not his bed becomes only a secondary source of uncleanness of the first degree (ולד הטומאה) communicating uncleanness only to food and drink (but not to men or garments) (cf. Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 2 1).
  
  Verse 6
  
  והישב על הכלי AND HE THAT SITTETH ON ANY THING [WHEREON HE SAT THAT HATH AN ISSUE … SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — even though he (the person) is not actually in contact with it: even if there be ten things one upon the other, the lowest being that upon which a זב has once sat, they all communicate uncleanness according to the law applicable to a seat upon which an unclean person has sat, and similarly is the case with an object upon which he has lain (cf. Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 3 1).
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  וכי ירק הזב בטהור AND IF HE THAT HATH THE ISSUE SPIT UPON ONE WHO IS CLEAN — and he (the clean person) comes in contact with it (the spittle; i. e. it actually falls upon him) or even if he only bears it (i. e. it has, for instance, fallen upon a stick which he is carrying) then HE SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN, for the spittle communicates uncleanness through carrying it (cf. Niddah 55b).
  
  Verse 9
  
  וכל המרכב AND ANYTHING FOR RIDING — even though he has not sat upon it when riding, e. g. the hold in front of the saddle, which is called arcon in old French, becomes unclean as a part of something for riding on (משום מרכב), and the אוכף, saddle, which is called alves in old French, is unclean as being something to sit upon (משום מושב) (Eruvin 27a).
  
  Verse 10
  
  וכל הנגע בכל אשר יהיה תחתיו AND WHOSOEVER TOUCHETH ANYTHING THAT WAS תחתיו — under the זב. This intends to teach regarding such an object for riding upon (if a זב has ridden on it) that whoever touches it becomes unclean, but he does not require washing of clothes and this is something stricter in the case of a thing for sleeping on than in that of a thing for riding on (since the former necessitates that his garments should be washed; cf. v. 5).
  והנושא אותם AND HE THAT BEARETH THEM — “them” means all that have been mentioned in the matter of a זב — his flow, his spittle, his semen, and his urine, and that upon which he has slept or ridden — the bearing of them makes a man unclean so that he in turn makes his garments unclean (cf. Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 4 4).
  
  Verse 11
  
  וידיו לא שטף כמים [AND WHOMSOEVER HE THAT HATH THE ISSUE] TOUCHETH AND HE HATH NOT RINSED HIS HANDS IN WATER [… SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN] — "and has not rinsed his hands” means: so long as he (the זב) has not immersed himself to cleanse himself from his uncleanness: even if he has ceased from his issue and has counted seven clean days (v. 13) but still lacks immersion he communicates uncleanness in all forms of defilment peculiar to him. And the reason why Scripture expresses the immersion of the whole body of the זב by the term “rinsing his hands” is to teach you that the hidden parts of the body (בית הסתרים, the inside of the mouth, ear, nose, etc., and the folds between adjoining portions of the body, קמטים) do not require “the coming of water” upon them (i. e. need not become wet when he immerses himself), but only such a limb which is visible, such as the hands (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 4 5).
  
  Verse 12
  
  וכלי חרס אשר יגע בו הזב AND THE VESSEL OF EARTH THAT HE WHO HATH THE ISSUE TOUCHETH [SHALL BE BROKEN] — One might think that the law applies also if he touched it from outside (its exterior) etc., as it is stated in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 3 1). 
  
  Verse 13
  
   וכי יטהר  means WHEN HE CEASETH [FROM HIS ISSUE] (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 5 1).
  שבעת ימים לטהרתו [THEN SHALL HE NUMBER TO HIMSELF] SEVEN DAYS FROM THE DATE WHEN HE CEASED — i. e. seven days clean (free) from the uncleanness resulting from the issue, i. e. in which he sees no issue, and all of them (of the seven days) must be consecutive (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 5 6).
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  ורחצו במים THEY SHALL BOTH LAVE THEMSELVES IN WATER — It is a decree of the King that a woman should become unclean through sexual intercourse. The reason is not because of the law of “one who touches שכבת זרע” (who, according to Leviticus 22:7 is unclean; cf. Sifra on that verse) for in her case it is מגע בית הסתרים and this does not render her unclean (Niddah 41b).
  
  Verse 19
  
  כי תהיה זבה AND IF A WOMAN HAVE AN ISSUE — One might think that this means: if there be an, issue from any limb of her body (e. g. ear, nose)! It, however, states in a law referring to this matter, (Leviticus 20:18) “and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood” — only that issue of blood therefore makes her unclean which comes from her fountain (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 4 2).
  דם יהיה זובה בבשרה AND HER ISSUE IN HER FLESH BE BLOOD — Her issue does not come under the term “flux” to cause uncleanness except if it is red (cf. Niddah 19a).
  בנדתה [SHE SHALL BE] PUT APART [SEVEN DAYS] — The word has the same meaning as, (Job. 18:18) “and they shall drive him out (ינדהו) of the world” — and her state is so called because she is set apart from the touch of any person (separated, so that no-one shall touch her).
  תהיה בנדתה [SEVEN DAYS] SHALL SHE BE IN HER SEPARATION. even though she has seen a show of blood only once (lit., only the first show — i. e., not 7 days continuously) (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 4 5).
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  ואם על המשכב הוא AND IF ONE BE ON HER PLACE OF REPOSE [OR ON ANY THING WHEREON SHE SITTETH] — This means, one who sleeps or sits on the place where she has slept or has sat even though he does not directly touch it (e. g. if there are covers upon the couch or the seat; for if he touches it vv. 21 and 22 apply); he also comes under the law of uncleanness that is stated in the above verse — that he requires washing of garments.
  על הכלי UPON A VESSEL — This is intended to add to משכב and מושב any article for riding on (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 4 15). 
  בנגעו בו WHEN HE TOUCHETH IT — "it" (בו) — this refers only to מרכב which, as has just been stated, is included in the law on account of the words על הכלי. 
  בנגעו בו יטמא WHEN HE TOUCHETH IT HE SHALL BE UNCLEAN, but does not require washing of the garments, because so far as the מרכב is concerned its being touched does not communicate uncleanness to people so that they in turn should render their garments unclean (cf. Mishnah Kelim 23:3).
  
  Verse 24
  
  ותהי נדתה עליו [AND IF ANY MAN LIE WITH HER AT ALL] THEN SHALL HER UNCLEANLINESS OF SEPARATION BE UPON HIM — One might think that he follows in her wake — that if he had intercourse with her e. g. on the fifth day of her separation he shall become unclean for three days only (for the fifth, sixth and seventh) like herself (i. e. because these are the remaining days during which she is unclean)! Scripture, however, states: "he shall be unclean seven days”. Therefore these words cannot refer to the duration of her uncleanness. What then is the force of ותהי נדתה עליו? They mean: her state of uncleanness as a נדה shall be upon him. How is it in the case of her? She, being an אב הטומאה, makes man unclean, and also earthen vessels by means of ‎‎היסט! So, too, he becomes an אב הטומאה (not a ולד הטומאה), and makes man unclean, and also earthen vessels by means‎ of היסט! (Niddah 33a)
  
  Verse 25
  
  ‎ימים רבים [AND IF A WOMAN HAVE AN ISSUE OF HER BLOOD] MANY DAYS — at least three days (since the plural ימים suggests at least two days, the word רבים, “more", must imply at least three days) (cf. Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 5 9),
  בלא עת נדתה OUT OF THE TIME OF HER SEPARATION — i. e. at least three days immediately after the seven normal days of her separation have expired.
  או כי תזוב OR IF SHE HAS A FLOW during these (the above mentioned) three days,
  על נדתה BEYOND THE TIME OF HER SEPARATION — i. e. being remote (distant) from her time of separation by one intervening day — this woman (such a woman) is, in both cases, termed a זבה and the law regarding her is decreed in this section that follows; and it is not like the law of a נדה, because she (the former) requires the counting of seven clean days (i. e. her uncleanness does not end until she has counted שבעה נקיים, seven consecutive days that are clean of any flux; cf. v. 28) and a sacrifice on the following day (cf. v. 29); whilst the נדה does not require the counting of the clean days (i. e. התורה ‎מן nor does she require a sacrifice) but she remains seven days in her separation and no longer irrespective as to whether she has or has not seen a show of blood (i. e. even if there is a flow on the seventh day and it then ceases she is still clean on the eighth day after having immersed herself). And they (our Rabbis) in expounding this section in the Sifra explain. There are eleven days intervening between the end of one ,נדה-period and the beginning of the next נדה-period, so that if she sees blood on three immersed herself. And they (our Rabbis) in expounding this section (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 8 2-3) derived the Halacha of the eleven days that intervene between the expiration of one נדה period and the commencement of another ‎נדה period — i. e. that as a result of any three consecutive days that she sees blood within these eleven days she shall be (come under the law of) a זבה and not a נדה.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  והזרתם THUS SHALL YE PUT APART [THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] — The word נזר has wherever it occurs the meaning of "separating". Similar is (Isaiah 1:4) “they are gone away (נזורו) backward" ; (Genesis 49:26) “him that was separated from (נזיר) his brethren” (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 9 6).
  ולא ימתו בטמאתם THAT THEY DIE NOT IN THEIR UNCLEANNESS [WHEN THEY DEFILE MY TABERNACLE] — Thus you see that the penalty of “excision” to which one who defiles the Holy Place is subject (cf. Numbers 19:13) is here called מיתה (i. e. מיתה בידי שמים) (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 125).
  
  Verse 32
  
  זאת תורת הזב THIS IS THE LAW OF HIM THAT HATH AN ISSUE, i.e. anyone who has but one appearance of flux. And what is his law?
  ואשר תצא ממנו שכבת זרע, he is like him to whom a pollution happened: he is unclean with an uncleanness lasting only till the evening (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 9 8; cf. v. 16).
  
  Verse 33
  
  והזב את זובו — This refers to anyone who has two appearances and to anyone who has three appearances, the law regarding whom is set forth above (cf. Rashi on v. 3).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  'וידבר ה' אל משה אחרי מות שני בני אהרן וגו‎‎ AND THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AFTER THE DEATH OF THE TWO SONS OF AARON etc. —What is this statement intended to tell us? (i. e. why is it at all stated when God spoke this to Moses?) Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah illustrated this by a parable: It may be compared to the case of a sick person whom the physician visited. He (the physician) said to him: “Do not eat cold things nor sleep in a damp place!" Another physician came and said to him: “Do not eat cold things, nor sleep in a damp place so that thou mayest not die as Mr. So-and-so died!" Certainly this (the latter) put him on his guard more than the former; that is why Scripture states “after the death of the two sons of Aaron" (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 1 3).
  
  Verse 2
  
  יבא‎ ויאמר ה׳ אל משה דבר אל אהרן אחיך ואל יבא AND THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SPEAK UNTO AARON THY BROTHER THAT HE COME NOT [AT ALL TIMES INTO THE HOLY PLACE]! THAT HE DIE NOT as his sons have died (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 1 4). 
  ולא ימות THAT HE DIE NOT — for if he comes into the Holy of Holies at any time other than Yom-Kippur he will die (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 1 4). 
  כי בענן אראה means, for I constantly show Myself there with My pillar of cloud, and because the revelation of My Shechinah takes place there he should take care not to make it his habit to come there. This is the literal meaning of the verse. The Halachic explanation is: He shall not come into the Holy of Holies except with (i.e. on the occasion when he is going to raise) a cloud of incense on the Day of Atonement (Yoma 53a).
  
  Verse 3
  
  בזאת WITH THIS [SHALL AARON COME] — The numerical value of this word is 410, being an allusion to the 410 years during which the First Temple existed (cf. Leviticus Rabbah 21 9).
  'בזאת יבא אהרן וגו WITH THIS SHALL AARON COME [INTO THE HOLY PLACE] etc. — And this, also, shall not be at any time he pleases, but on the day of Atonement, as it is explicitly stated at the end of this section (vv. 29—34). “In the seventh month on the tenth day of the month [ye shall fast … And the priest … shall make expiation]". 
  
  Verse 4
  
  'כתנת בד וגו [HE SHALL PUT ON] THE LINEN INNER GARMENTS etc. — This teaches us that he must not officiate in the “Interior" (in the Holy of Holies) robed in the eight garments which were the insignia of the High Priest (cf. Exodus 28:4ff) in which he performed the service outside (in the היכל and the עזרה) and in which there was gold interwoven, — because the prosecuting counsel cannot become the defending counsel) — but in the four garments (cf. Exodus 28:40), like an ordinary priest, all of these being on this occasion entirely of linen (whereas one of the four worn by the ordinary priests, the belt, was a mixture of wool and linen) (Rosh Hashanah 26a).
  קדש ילבש HE SHALL PUT ON [THE LINEN INNER GARMENT] OF HOLINESS (or, OF THE SANCTUARY) - This means that they shall be purchased from the Temple treasury (whilst his personal offering mentioned v. 3 had to be of his own) (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 1 10).
  יצנף — Understand this as the Targum does: יחת ברישה which means: he shall place upon his head. Thus, the verb in (Genesis 39:16) ותנח בגדו, is rendered by the Targum ואחתתיה (of the same root as יחת) “and she placed".
  ורחץ במים AND HE SHALL LAVE [HIS FLESH] IN WATER — That day he required immersion at each change of his garments! Five times he proceeded alternately from the service in the “Interior" to that performed outside and from the outside service to that in the "Interior", changing from the golden garments into the linen garments or from the linen garments into the golden garments. At each change he required to take an immersion and to wash his hands and his feet twice from the laver (viz., before he took off the garments he was wearing and after he had put on others — in all, 10 times during the day) (Yoma 32a).
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  את פרי החטאת אשר לו [AND AARON SHALL OFFER] THE BULL OF SIN OFFERING WHICH IS HIS — i. e. that mentioned above (v. 3). It teaches you here, by adding the words אשר לו, that it came (had to be purchased) from his own and not from the money of the community (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 2 2; Yoma 3b).
  וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו means, he shall make confession over it of his own sins and of the sins of his house (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 2 2; Yoma 36b).
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  ‎‎‎‎‏ השעירים גרלות‎שני ‎על ‎‎ אהרן ‎ונתן  AND AARON SHALL CAST LOTS UPON THE TWO GOATS — He places one goat at his right and the other at his left. He then puts both his hands into an urn and takes one lot in his right hand and the other in his left. These he places upon them (the goats; i.e. one upon each of them). The goat upon which there fell that lot bearing the inscription 'לה, "For the Lord" was destined for the Lord, and that upon which there fell that lot bearing the inscription "For Azazel" was afterwards sent forth to the Azazel (Yoma 39a).
  עזאזל AZAZEL — (The word is taken to be a compound of עזז "to be strong" and אל "mighty"). It was a precipitous and flinty rock — a towering peak, for it is said (v. 22) "[and the goat shall bear upon it their iniquities into] an גזר) "ארץ גזרה means to cut) — into a craggy land (Yoma 67b).
  
  Verse 9
  
  ועשהו חטאת means, when putting the lot upon it he names it (i.e. designates its purpose), using the words: "to the Lord as a sin offering״ (Yoma 39a).
  
  Verse 10
  
  חי ‎יעמד SHALL BE PRESENTED ALIVE —  חי‎ יָעֳמַד is the same as חי ‏‎ ‏ יוּעֲמַד (i. e. יָעֳמַד is a regular Hophal-form) — it shall be made to stand by others (i. e. it shall be placed). The Targum also renders it by: יתקם כד חי, “it shall be made to stand in a live state". — Why is it stated that it shall be presented alive; this is already implied in the word יעמד. it shall be made to stand!? But because it continues “to send it forth unto Azazel" and I would not know whether this “sending forth” means to death or to life (in the latter case it would mean “to let it go”; cf. Leviticus 14:7 where ושלח has this meaning), therefore Scripture states “it shall be presented alive” — its presentation must be made whilst it is alive ana the animal remains so up to the time when it is being sent forth; it follows therefore that it shall be sent forth to death (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 2 6).
  לכפר עליו THAT HE MAY MAKE AN EXPIATION WITH IT — i. e. that he (the High-Priest) shall confess upon it (upon its head) Israel’s sins, as it is said (v. 21) “And Aaron shall confess upon it [the iniquities of the children of Israel]” (cf. Yoma 40b).
  
  Verse 11
  
  'וכפר בעדו וגו‎ AND HE SHALL MAKE AN EXPIATION FOR HIMSELF etc. — This implies a second confession of sins which he was to make for himself and on behalf of his brother-priests, who may all be termed “his house”, as it said (Psalms 135:19) “Bless the Lord, o house of Aaron, etc." (cf. Shevuot 14a). Hence we learn that the priests become atoned for by means of it (the bullock). The expiation effected by it extended, however, only to those sins committed by causing uncleanness to the Sanctuary or holy things (i.e. by the priests having entered the Sanctuary or eaten of the holy things in such a state), as it is said (v. 16) “And he shall make an expiation for the holy place because of the uncleanness [of the children of Israel] etc.”.
  
  Verse 12
  
  מעל המזבח FROM OFF THE ALTAR — i. e. the outer altar (that was in the fore-court) (Yoma 45b).
  מלפני ה׳ FROM BEFORE THE LORD — from that side of the altar which was before the entrance — that is, the west side (cf. Yoma 45b.) 
  דקה [AND HIS HANDS FULL OF INCENSE OF AROMATICS] FINE — Why is it stated that it shall be fine? Was not all incense fine, for so it is said, (Exodus 30:36) "And thou shall rub some of it very fine” - ? But it is intended to teach that it (the incense used on the Day of Atonement) was to be of the very finest powder, for on the Eve of the Day of Atonement it (the ordinary incense) was put again into the mortar in order that it should be again beaten into a finer powder. (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 3 8-9; Keritot 6b; Yoma 45a).
  
  Verse 13
  
  על האש UPON THE FIRE which was in the censer.
  ולא ימות THAT IIE DIE NOT — Hence, if he did not offer it according to regulation he was liable to the death penalty (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 3 10; Yoma 53a).
  
  Verse 14
  
  והזה  באצבעו AND HE SHALL SPRINKLE IT WITH THE FINGER — One sprinkling only is implied (since the next phrase mentions a definite number),
  ולפני הכפרת יזה שבע AND BEFORE THE COVERING SHALL HE SPRINKLE [OF THE BLOOD] SEVEN TIMES — Thus we have one sprinkling upwards and seven downwards (Yoma 53b).
  
  Verse 15
  
  אשר לעם [THE GOAT OF THE SIN-OFFERING] THAT IS FOR THE PEOPLE — Only for that which the bullock effects atonement for the priests (i. e. for ומאת מקדש וקדשיו‎ט) the goat effects atonement for the Israelites. It (the goat spoken of here) is that goat upon which the lot “for the Lord" fell (Yoma 61a; Shevuot 2b).
  כאשר עשה לדם הפר AS HE DID WITH THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK, viz., sprinkling once upwards and seven times downwards (Yoma 53b).
  
  Verse 16
  
  מטמאת בני ישראל [AND HE SHALL MAKE AN EXPIATION FOR THE HOLY PLACE] BECAUSE OF THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — i. e. for those who entered the Sanctuary in a state of uncleanness without having finally become conscious of this fact (Shevuot 7b), for it is said לכל חטאתם, and the word חטאת implies a sin committed unconsciously.
  ומפשעיהם AND BECAUSE OF THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS — This implies atonement also for those who entered the Sanctuary presumptuously in a state of uncleanness (Shevuot 7b; cf. also Shevuot 2a and Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 1).
  וכן יעשה לאהל מועד AND SO SHALL HE DO FOR THE APPOINTED TENT — Just as he sprinkled in the “Interior" (the Holy of Holies) from the blood of both of them (of the bullock and the goat) once upwards and seven times downwards so he sprinkles over against the Partition Vail from outside (i. e. standing in the היכל; cf. Leviticus 4:6) once upwards and seven times downwards (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 5; Yoma 56b).
  השכן אתם בתוך טמאתם— This implies that although they are unclean nevertheless the Shechinah dwells in their midst (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 5; Yoma 57a).
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  אל המזבח אשר ‎'לפני ה‎‎‎ [AND HE SHALL GO OUT] UNTO THE ALTAR THAT IS BEFORE THE LORD — i. e. unto the golden altar which is before the Lord viz., in the היכל. But why then (if the golden altar is intended) does Scripture state ויצא, “he shall go out" since he did not then leave the area where he officiated before? But because immediately before he made the sprinklings in front of the Partition Vail (cf. Rashi on the preceding verse) and was standing inwards (i.e. westwards) from the altar when sprinkling, whilst for the purpose of sprinkling the blood upon the horns of the altar Scripture forced him to go outwards from the altar (i. e. to its east-side, the side facing the exit) so that he should begin the sprinklings from the north-east corner, therefore it rightly Uses the term ויצא, he shall go out"  i. e. move alongside the altar towards the exit (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 7-8; Yoma 58b).
  וכפר עליו AND HE SHALL MAKE EXPIATION FOR IT — wherein does this expiation consist? ולקח מדם הפר ומדם השעיר that HE TAKETH OF THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK AND OF THE BLOOD OF THE GOAT mingled one with the other and sprinkles it (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 9; Yoma 57b).
  
  Verse 19
  
  והזה עליו מן הדם AND HE SHALL SPRINKLE UPON IT WITH THE BLOOD — After he has made with his finger the application of the blood upon the horns of the altar he shall make seven sprinklings on its top (עליו signifies "upon it") (cf. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 12).
  וטהרו AND THUS HE CLEANSES IT from the defilement that happened to it in the past,
  וקדשו AND HALLOWS IT for use in the future (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 13)
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  איש עתי A READY MAN — one who was held in readiness for this purpose from yesterday (Yoma 66a; Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 4 8).
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  ובא אהרן אל אהל מועד AND AARON SHALL COME INTO THE APPOINTED TENT — Our Rabbis said (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 6 2; Yoma 32a), that this is not the proper place for this verse (it should be read after v. 25) and they gave a reason for this assertion in Treatise Yoma 32a. They said: The whole section is written in the order in which the rites actually took place with the exception of this "coming" into the appointed tent which was really done after he (the High-Priest) had offered his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people (v. 24) and also after the burning of the fat-parts of the bullock and the goat, which rites were performed outside the Sanctuary (i. e. in the fore-court) he being then attired in the golden garments. This having been done he immersed himself, sanctified himself (i. e. washed his hands and feet), took them (the golden garments) off, and put on the linen garments and only then, ובא אהרן אל אהל מועד DID HE COME INTO THE APPOINTED TENT in order to bring out the spoon and the censer in which he had burnt the incense in the "Innermost" (the Holy of Holies).
  ופשט את בגדי הבד AND HE SHALL PUT OFF THE LINEN GARMENTS — after he had brought it (the censer) out. Then he attired himself in his golden garments to offer the continual burnt offering due in the afternoon. Thus the order of the services on the Day of Atonement was as follows: The offering of the morning continual offering — in the golden garments; the service connected with the bullock and the ram the blood of both of which was sprinkled in the Interior, (v. 6—22) and the offering of the incense in the censer (in the Holy of Holies) — in the linen garments. The offering of his (the High-Priest's) ram and that of the people and one part of the additional offerings (the seven lambs mentioned in Numbers 29:8; cf. Yoma 70a) — in the golden garments. The bringing out of the spoon and the censer — in the linen garments. Finally the offering of the remaining additional offerings (the bullock and the ram mentioned in Numbers 29:8, 11) and of the continual burnt offering due in the afternoon and of the daily incense in the היכל. which was burnt on the golden altar — in the golden garments. The sequence of the Scriptural verses according to the rites as actually performed is as follows: "and he shall send the goat forth into the desert" (v. 22), then "and he shall lave his flesh with water …. and come out and burn his burnt offering etc." (v. 24) and the whole section up to "and afterwards he shall come into the camp" (end of v. 28), and only after this (v. 23) "and Aaron shall come etc." 
  והניחם שם AND HE SHALL PUT THEM THERE — This teaches us that they (the linen garments) must be laid by and that he must not officiate in those four garments again on any subsequent Day of Atonement (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 6 7; Yoma 12b).
  
  Verse 24
  
  'ורחץ את בשרו וגו‎‎ AND HE SHALL LAVE HIS FLESH etc. — Above (v. 4) we have learned from the statement "therefore shall he lave his flesh and so put them on" that whenever he (the High-Priest) changed from the golden garments into the linen ones he had to immerse himself (for on the occasion of that immersion, mentioned v. 4, he took off his golden garments in which he performed the service connected with the continual burnt offering due in the morning and put on the linen garments for the performance of the service peculiar to that Day); here, however, we are told that whenever he changed from the linen garments into the golden ones he had also to immerse himself (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 6 3; Yoma 32).
  במקום קדוש [AND HE SHALL LAVE HIS FLESH WITH WATER] IN A HOLY PLACE — i.e. in a place which has the sanctity of the fore-court. It (the immersion) took place (later on when the Temple was built) on the roof of the so-called Parva-compartment. Similarly also all the four immersions that formed a special obligation for the Day alone. The first immersion, however, (that which took place immediately before entering the עזרה to offer the תמיד של שחר) was taken in an unsanctified place (i.e. outside the fore-court) (Yoma 30a).
  ולבש את בגדיו AND HE SHALL PUT ON HIS GARMENTS — i. e. the eight garments in which he officiated on every day of the year. 
  ויצא AND HE SHALL COME OUT from the היכל into the fore-court where was the altar of the burnt offering. ...
  ועשה את עלתו AND HE SHALL MAKE HIS BURNT OFFERING — "the ram for a burnt offering" mentioned above (v. 3) (cf. Yoma 70b).
  ואת עלת העם AND THE BURNT OFFERING OF THE PEOPLE — This is identical with "a ram for a burnt offering" mentioned above (v. 5) which begins with the words "And he shall take from the congregation of the children of Israel … [a ram for a burnt offering]".
  
  Verse 25
  
  ואת חלב החטאת AND THE FAT OF THE SIN OFFERING [SHALL HE CAUSE TO ASCEND IN FUMES] — i. e. the fat parts of both the bullock and the goat.
  יקטיר המזבחה SHALL HE CAUSE TO ASCEND IN FUMES ON THE ALTAR — i. e. on the outer altar, for if you say that it was burnt on the inner altar you are wrong, for it is written (Exodus 30:9) "Ye shall not bring up strange incense thereon, (i. e. on the inner altar) nor burnt offering, nor oblation".
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  אשר הובא את דמם WHOSE BLOOD WAS BROUGHT into the Heichal and the Innermost (the Holy of Holies).
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  'וכפר הכהן אשר ימשח וגו‎ AND THE PRIEST WHOM THEY SHALL ANOINT … SHALL MAKE EXPIATION etc. — This expiation on the Day of Atonement is valid only if it is effected by the High-Priest. Because in the whole of this section reference is made to Aaron alone, Scripture was compelled to state here (towards the end) that any High-Priest succeeding him shall be like himself (i. e. shall possess the same power of effecting atonement on Yom-Kippur) (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 8 4). 
  ואשר ימלא את ידו AND WHOM THEY SHALL CONSECRATE — Since it is stated "whom they anoint" I might say I have here only the law that he who has been anointed with the oil of anointing is capable of effecting expiation; How do I know that this is also the case with a High- Priest who is distinguished from an ordinary priest only by a larger number of official garments though he may not have been anointed? Because Scripture states "and whom they shall consecrate etc." (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 8 4) — Such (i. e. מרובה בגדים only) were all the High-Priests who held office from Josiah and later, for in his days the flask of anointing oil was concealed (Horayot 12a). 
  לכהן תחת אביו TO MINISTER AS A PRIEST IN HIS FATHER'S STEAD — The words "in his father's stead” are intended to teach us that if the High-Priest’s son is able to fill his father’s place he has to be given preference to any other man (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 8 5).
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  'ויעש כאשר צוה וגו AND HE DID AS [THE LORD] COMMANDED [MOSES] etc. — When the next Day of Atonement arrived he (Aaron) did everything as is here set forth in order. And Scripture only states this in order to declare the praise of Aaron — that he did not attire himself with them (the official garments) for his own aggrandisement, but as one who was executing the ordinance of his King (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 8 10).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ישחט שור או כשב‎ ‎‎‏ אשר [WHAT MAN SOEVER] THAT SLAUGHTERETH AN OX, OR A LAMB — Scripture is speaking here of consecrated animals since it says (v. 4) "and bringeth it not unto the appointed tent to offer an offering" (cf. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 6 3; Zevachim 106a).
  במחנה [WHAT MAN SOEVER SLAUGHTERETH …] IN THE CAMP — i. e. outside the forecourt (cf. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 6 5; Zevachim 107b).
  
  Verse 4
  
  דם יחשב BLOOD SHALL BE IMPUTED [UNTO THAN MAN] — As though he had shed the blood of a human being, who is guilty of a deadly sin. 
  דם שפך HE HATH SHED BLOOD — These apparently redundant words are intended to include in the penalty of כרת him who sprinkles outside the fore-court the blood of a sacrifice which has been slaughtered within it as is here commanded (Sanhedrin 34b; Zevachim 107a).
  
  Verse 5
  
  אשר הם זבחים [THAT THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL MAY BRING THEIR SACRIFICES] WHICH THEY SACRIFICE [IN THE OPEN FIELD ….. UNTO THE LORD] — "which they sacrifice" means, which they are at present accustomed to sacrifice.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  לשעירים .means TO THE DEMONS. Similar is (Isaiah 13:21) “and demons (ושעירים) shall dance there" (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 9 8).
  
  Verse 8
  
  אשר יעלה עלה [WHOSOEVER MAN THERE BE ….] THAT OFFERETH (lit., bringeth up) A BURNT OFFERING — This is intended to declare one who burns the limbs of sacrifices outside the fore-court to be liable to the penalty of excision just the same as him who slaughtered a sacrifice outside the fore-court; so that if one person slaughtered a sacrifice outside the fore-court and another brought it up on the altar to burn it both are liable to excision (cf. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 10 6; Zevachim 106a).
  
  Verse 9
  
  ונכרת [THAT MAN] SHALL BE CUT OFF — his offspring are cut off (die out) and his own life-time (lit., his days) is shortened (cf. Rashi and Tos. Shabbat 25a; Tos. Yevamot 2a).
  
  Verse 10
  
  כל דם [WHATSOEVER MAN THERE BE … THAT EATETH] ANY BLOOD — Since Scripture states (v. 11) “[for it is the blood] with the life that maketh expiation", I might think that one is liable only for eating the blood of consecrated animals, (i. e. sacrifices), for it is only the blood of such animals that makes expiation. Scripture therefore states here “[Whatsoever man there be … that eateth] any blood [I will cut him off from among his people]" (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 7 3).
  ונתתי פני I WILL SET פני [AGAINST THAT SOUL] — ‎פני is taken to mean as much as פנאי שלי My leisure — i.e. I will turn away (פונה) from all My affairs and concern Myself only with him (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 7 4; cf. also Targum Jonathan)
  
  Verse 11
  
  כי נפש הבשר FOR THE LIFE OF THE FLESH of every creature, not only of animals brought as sacrifices, is dependent on its blood (בדם היא), and it is for this reason that I have placed it [on the altar] to make expiation for the life of man: let life come and expiate for life!
  
  Verse 12
  
  כל נפש מכם NO SOUL OF YOU [SHALL EAT BLOOD] — This is stated in addition to v. 10 to admonish the adults about their young children (that they should not permit them blood to eat — for “no soul” shall eat blood) (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 7 6; Yevamot 114a).
  
  Verse 13
  
  אשר יצוד WHO HUNTETH — I seem to have here only the law that the blood of hunted beasts and fowls caught now by hunting must be covered with dust. Whence do I know that this applies also to geese and fowls which have been kept in the house having already been caught? Scripture therefore states יצוד] ציד], “who hunts a hunted thing"— hunted under any circumstances whether now or before. If this be so why does Scripture at all state אשר יצוד (let it merely state 'אשר ישחט וכו‎)? But it uses the term “hunting” to teach that one should not eat meat except after such toilsome preparation (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 11 2; Chullin 84a).
  אשר יאכל THAT MAY BE EATEN — This is especially mentioned to the exclusion of unclean animals (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 11 4).
  
  Verse 14
  
  דמו בנפשו הוא means its blood represents its life (במקום הנפש), in as much as its life is depending on it.
  כי נפש כל בשר דמו הוא means the life is (is identical with) the blood; דם and בשר are masculine, נפש is feminine.
  
  Verse 15
  
  אשר תאכל נבלה וטרפה [AND EVERY SOUL] THAT EATETH CARRION, OR THAT WHICH WAS TORN … [HE SHALL BOTH WASH HIS GARMENTS AND LAVE HIMSELF IN WATER] — Scripture is here speaking of the carrion of a clean bird which causes uncleanness only during the time it passes through the gullet (lit., it is being swallowed in the gullet) and what Scripture teaches you here is that it makes one unclean by eating of it [but it does not defile one by touching it]. The טרפה mentioned here (though being superfluous since a טרפה which died) is of course also a נבלה and thus causes uncleanness just as any other נבלה is mentioned only for the sake of the correct interpretation of the word נבלה. For thus we learn (in Sifra): One might think that the carrion of an unclean bird causes uncleanness in the moment it passes through the gullet! Scripture therefore adds the word טרפה to intimate that this law of נבלה applies only to that class of birds among which טרפה is possible, thus excluding unclean birds for in their class a רפה‎ט can never occur (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12 7; Zevachim 69b).
  
  Verse 16
  
  ונשא עונו THEN HE SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY — If he eats sacred food or enters the Sanctuary in this state of uncleanness he becomes liable to excision for this uncleanness just as for doing these things in any other state of uncleanness (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12 14).
  ובשרו לא ירחץ ונשא עונו [BUT IF HE WASH THEM NOT], NOR LAVE HIS FLESH HE SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY — For the omission to lave his body before entering the Sanctuary or before eating sacred food he is liable to excision, but for the omission to wash his clothes he is liable to lashes only (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12 13).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  אני ה' אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — I am He Who spoke on Mount Sinai “I am the Lord thy God" and Whose kingship you then accepted; now, therefore, accept My decrees! Rabbi Judah han-Nasi said: It was manifest and known to Him that in the days of Ezra they would ultimately revolt against restricting sexual relations, He therefore came to them with a decree emphasized by the words: "I am The Lord your God" — understand well Who it is that imposes this decree upon you, — the Judge (אלהיכם) Whose function it is to punish but Who is certain also to give a reward ('‎ה‎) (cf. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 1).
  
  Verse 3
  
  כמעשה ארץ מצרים AFTER THE DEEDS OF THE LAND OF EGYPT… [SHALL YE NOT DO] — This tells us that the deeds of the Egyptians and the Canaanites were more corrupt than those of all other nations, and that the district of Egypt in which the Israelites had resided (אשר ישבתם בה) was even more corrupt than all the rest of Egypt (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 3).
  אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה [AND AFTER THE DEEDS OF THE LAND OF CANAAN] WHITHER I BRING YOU [SHALL YE NOT DO] — This again tells us that those Canaanitish clans whom Israel subdued were more corrupt than all the others of them (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 4).
  ובחקתיהם לא תלכו NEITHER SHALL YE WALK IN THEIR ORDINANCES — What has Scripture left unsaid when it spoke of the deeds of the Egyptians and Canaanites that it felt compelled to add ובחקתיהם לא תלכו But by these latter words it refers to their social customs — things which have assumed for them the character of a law as, for instance, the frequenting of theaters and race-courses. Rabbi Meir, however, said: These (חקתיהם) refer to the "ways of the Amorites" (superstitious practices) which our Rabbis have enumerated (Shabbat 67a; Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 8; cf. also Tosefta Shabbat 7).
  
  Verse 4
  
  את משפטי תעשו YE SHALL DO MY JUDGMENTS — Matters prescribed in the Torah which are in conformity with the human feeling of justice such as one feels ought to be ordained if they had not been already ordained by the Torah.
  ואת חקתי תשמרו AND KEEP MINE ORDINANCES — matters which are decrees of the King (promulgated without any reason being stated) against which the evil inclination raises objections: "Why should we observe them and against which also the nations of the world raise objections, as e. g., the  prohibition of eating swine’s flesh, of wearing clothes of a mixture of wool and linen, the purgatory power of "water mingled with the ashes of the Red Heifer" (טהרת מי חטאת) — therefore it is stated: "I", the Lord, have enacted this for you — you are not at liberty to evade the obligation (Yoma 67b).
  ללכת בהם TO WALK IN THEM — do not free yourselves from their environment, i.e. that you must not say, I have acquired Jewish wisdom, now I will go and acquire the wisdom of the other peoples of the world in order to walk in their ways.
  
  Verse 5
  
  'ושמרתם את חקתי וגו‎ YE SHALL THEREFORE KEEP MY ORDINANCES — [This is not a mere repetition  of v. 4 but is intended] to include other details of the laws mentioned in this chapter which Scripture does not expressly mention. Another explanation is: Scripture makes this repetition in order to attach the commands of “observing" (שמירה) and "performing" (עשיה) to the חוקים, and the commands of שמירה and עשיה to the משפטים, for in v. 4 it uses the term עשיה only in connection with the משפטים, and that of שמירה only with reference to the חוקים (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 10). 
  וחי בהם means, THAT HE SHALL LIVE THROUGH THEM in the world to come (eternal life). For if you say it means that he shall live in this world, is it not a fact that in the end he must die! (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 10; cf. also Targ. Onkelos) 
  'אני ה‎ I AM THE LORD, Who am faithful to pay you your reward (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 10).
  
  Verse 6
  
  לא תקרבו  NONE OF YOU SHALL APPROACH  TO [ANY THAT IS NEAR OF KIN TO HIM] — The intention is to admonish women as well as men (in respect to this general prohibition of unchastity); on this account the plural is used (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13 1).
  'אני ה I AM THE LORD, who am faithful to pay you your reward (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13 13.
  
  Verse 7
  
  אביך‎ ערות‎ THE NAKEDNESS OF THY FATHER, [AND THE NAKEDNESS OF THY MOTHER SHALT THOU NOT UNCOVER] — This refers to intercourse with thy father's wife (no matter whether she is thy own mother or thy stepmother). Or perhaps this is not so, but ערות אביך has to be taken literally (as sodomy)?! Scripture, however, uses the expression ערות אביך here, and it is said later on (Leviticus 20:11) “And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness (״(ערות אביו גלה. Now what is the meaning of ערות אביו there? It refers to one's fathers wife! so does ערות אביך  here also refer to one's father's wife (Sanhedrin 54a).
  וערות אמך AND THE NAKEDNESS OF THY MOTHER [SHALT THOU NOT UNCOVER] — This is intended to include in the prohibition the marriage of one's own mother although she be not the wife of one's father (Sanhedrin 54a).
  
  Verse 8
  
  ערות אשת אביך THE NAKEDNESS OF THY FATHER'S WIFE [SHALT THOU NOT UNCOVER] — This is intended to include in the prohibition of union with one's father's wife already mentioned v. 7. even the doing of this after his death (Sanhedrin 54a).
  
  Verse 9
  
  בת אביך [THE NAKEDNESS OF THY SISTER] THE DAUGHTER OF THY FATHER [OR THE DAUGHTER OF THY MOTHER… THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER] — Also the daughter of a woman raped by one's father is implied by the term  מולדת בית או מולדת חוץ.
  .בת — WHETHER SHE BE BORN IN THE HOUSE OR WHETHER SHE BE BORN OUTSIDE THE HOUSE — This means, thy sister, thy father's daughter, whether according to the law we can say to thy father, "Keep her mother as your wife" or whether we have to say to him, "Divorce her mother", as, for instance, when she is a ממזרת (the issue of a union forbidden in the Torah under the penalty of כרת) or a נתינה (the daughter of a Gibeonite woman, cf. Joshua 9:27, forbidden under the penalty of מלקות) (Yevamot 23a).
  
  Verse 10
  
  ערות בת בנך THE NAKEDNESS OF THE DAUGHTER OF THY SON [OR THE DAUGHTER OF THY DAUGHTER THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER] — When it states "thy daughter״ Scripture is speaking of his daughter born of a woman whom he had outraged (similarly "the daughter of thy son" means, the son born of such a woman). This must be so, for that one is forbidden to marry one's daughter or the daughter of one's daughter who was born of one's wife we may learn from the prohibition (v. 17) in the verse beginning אשה ובתה ערות "the nakedness of a woman and her daughter" of whom it is stated "thou shalt not uncover" and which thus implies the prohibition to marry one's daughter (and forbids one's marriage with one's daughter's daughter; for Scripture continues there: “neither shalt thou take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter) whether she be begotten by him or by another man (cf. Yevamot 22b and Rashi von v. 17).
  ערות בת בנך THE NAKEDNESS OF THY SON'S DAUGHTER [… THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER] — Since even thy son's daughter (the former being born from an אנוסה) is forbidden, the prohibition concerning thy own daughter born of thy אנוסה could be derived by a conclusion a minori ad majus (ק״ו). But because there is a rule אין מזהירין מן הדין “no prohibition can be derived by a logical conclusion" they (the Rabbis) derived it in Treatise Yevamot 3a by an analogy (גזירה שוה) based on the similar expression הנה — הנה used here and in v. 17.
  
  Verse 11
  
  ערות בת אשת אביך THE NAKEDNESS OF THY FATHER'S WIFE'S DAUGHTER… [THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER] — This teaches us that one is not liable to excision for a union with one's sister (on his father’s side) who was born of a maid-servant or a non-Jewess. It is for this reason that Scripture instead of simply saying "thy sister"  uses the circumlocution "the daughter of thy father's wife" i. e. a woman who is fitted for Kiddushin (one with whom a marriage may be legitimately entered into, which is not the case with a שפחה ונכרית) (Yevamot 22b).
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  ערות אחי אביך לא תגלה THE NAKEDNESS OF THY FATHER'S BROTHER THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER — and what does this "uncovering of his nakedness" mean אל אשתו לא תקרב? THOU SHALT NOT APPROACH TO HIS WIFE.
  
  Verse 15
  
  אשת בנך [THE NAKEDNESS OF THY DAUGHTER-IN-LAW THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER; SHE IS] THY SON'S WIFE — By using the apparently redundant words: “she is thy son's wife"  Scripture says, as it were: I command this about such a woman only when thy son has a legal matrimonial relation (אישות) to her, thus excluding a woman who has been raped by him (אנוסה) or a Canaanitish maid-servant, or a non-Jewess (cf. Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 10)).
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  ערות אשה ובתה THE NAKEDNESS OF A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER [THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER] — Scripture forbids this only  if the union with the first of these (whether it be the woman or her daughter) came about through a legal marriage. That is why Scripture uses the term לא תקח, the expression employed for "taking to wife in a legal way". Similarly with reference to the punishment for such a union it states, (Leviticus 20:14) "And if a man take (יקח) a wife and her mother, [it is wickedness; they shall be burnt with fire]" — an expression for "taking" to wife in a legal way. But if one has raped a woman he is permitted to marry her daughter (Yevamot 97a). 
  שארה הנה means, they are closely related to one another. 
  זמה means, an evil plan, as the Targum renders it‎ עצת חטאין , "a sinful plan"; the term is used because it is your evil inclination which counsels you to sin.
  
  Verse 18
  
  ‎ אל אחתה ‎[NEITHER SHALT THOU TAKE A WIFE] TO HER SISTER — both at the same time. 
  לצרר is connected with the word  ,צרה — a rival (cf. I Samuel 1:6). Thus the verse signifies “thou shalt not take a wife to her sister", to make (i. e. making) the one the rival of the other.
  בחייה DURING HER LIFE-TIME — This teaches you that if he divorced her (his wife) he is not allowed to marry her sister so long as she (the former) is still living (Yevamot 8b).
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  למלך [AND THOU SHALT NOT LET ANY OF THY SEED PASS THROUGH THE FIRE] TO MOLECH — This was an idol the name of which was "Molech", and this was the manner in which it was worshipped: that he (the father) handed his child (lit., his son, but it applies to his daughter also; cf. Deuteronomy 18:10) over to the priests of the idol. These lit two large pyres one opposite the other and made the child to pass on foot between the two pyres (Sanhedrin 64b).
  לא תתן refers to “the handing over of the child” to the priests.
  להעביר למלך — this refers to the “passing through the fire".
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  תבל הוא THIS IS CONFUSION — תבל is an expression used for unchastity, incest and adultery. Similar is (Jeremiah 10:25) “Mine anger because of their depravity (תבליתם)". Another explanation of תבל הוא: it is an expression denoting the mingling (root בלל) and fusion of the human seed and the animal seed.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  ולא תקיא הארץ אתכם THAT THE LAND VOMIT NOT YOU OUT — A parable! This may be compared to the case of a prince (i. e. a sensitive, refined person) to whom one gives a disgusting thing to eat which he cannot retain on his stomach but vomits it out thus Eretz-Yisrael is unable to retain sinners on its soil (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 12 14). The Targum renders it by: ולא תרוקן a term for ״emptying out״ — it (the earth) empties itself of them.
  
  Verse 29
  
  העשת‏‎ הנפשות ‎‏‎‎EVEN THE SOULS THAT SHALL DO THEM [SHALL BE CUT OFF] — Both men and women are implied by the plural הנפשות (in contrast to the sing. יעשה in the beginning of the verse) (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13 20).
  
  Verse 30
  
  ושמרתם את משמרתי THEREFORE SHALL YE KEEP (OR, WATCH OVER) MY CHARGE — This is intended to caution the court regarding this (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13 22).
  ולא תטמאו בהם אני ה' אלהיכם AND IF YE DEFILE NOT YOURSELVES THEREIN, I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — If, however, you do defile yourselves I shall no longer be your God (אלהיכם) since you have cut yourselves off from following after Me. What use then can I have of you? Consequently you deserve annihilation! That is why Scripture states: I am the Lord your God (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13 22).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  דבר אל כל עדת בני ישראל SPEAK UNTO ALL THE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — This (the addition of the words כל עדת) teaches us that this section was proclaimed in full assembly because most of the fundamental teachings of the Torah are dependent on it (contained in it) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 1; Vayikra Rabbah 24:5).
  קדשים תהיו YE SHALL BE HOLY — This means, keep aloof from the forbidden sexual relations just mentioned and from sinful thoughts. [It is evident that this is the meaning of קדשים תהיו because] wherever you find in the Torah a command to fence yourself in against such relations you also find mention of “holiness". Examples are: (Leviticus 21:7) “[They shall not take] a wife that is a harlot, or a profane etc.", and in the next verse "for I, the Lord, who sanctifieth you, [am holy]"; (Leviticus 21:15) “Neither shall he profane his seed (by the forbidden unions mentioned in the preceding verses) for I the Lord do sanctify him"; (Leviticus 21:6) "They shall be holy… followed by (v. 7) "[they shall not take] a wife that is a harlot or a profane" (cf. Vayikra Rabbah 24:4-6).
  
  Verse 3
  
  איש אמו ואביו תראו means, EVERYONE OF YOU SHALL FEAR HIS MOTHER AND HIS FATHER; this is the literal sense. The Halachic explanation of the verse, however, is as follows: Since Scripture says איש I have here only the law that a man must fear his father and his mother, whence do I know that this applies also to a woman? Because Scripture states תיראו (in the plural), it is evident therefore that it speaks here of two (man and woman). But if this be so (that Scripture means to include a woman also) why does it use the term איש, a man? Because it is the man who has the means to do it, whilst the woman is under the control of others (what she does is dependent upon her husband’s consent)(Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 3; Kiddushin 30b).
  אמו ואביו תיראו EVERYBODY OF YOU SHALL FEAR HIS MOTHER AND HIS FATHER — Here Scripture mentions the mother before the father because it is manifest to Him that the child fears the father more than the mother and therefore by mentioning the mother first Scripture stresses the duty of fearing her. In the case of honoring one's parents, however, Scripture mentions the father before the mother because it is manifest to Him that the child honors the mother more than the father because she endeavors to win him over by kindly words. Therefore by mentioning the father first Scripture emphasizes the duty of honoring him (Kiddushin 30b - Kiddushin 31a).
  ואת שבתתי תשמרו AND MY SABBATHS SHALL YE KEEP — Scripture places the commandment of observing the Sabbath immediately after that of fearing one’s father in order to suggest the following: “Although I admonish you regarding the fear due to your father, yet if he bids you: "Desecrate the Sabbath", do not listen to him” — and the same is the case with any of the other commandments. This, it is evident, is the meaning since Scripture adds  —
  אני ה' אלהיכם  “I am the Lord your God" (the plural) — both you and your father are equally bound to honour Me! Do not therefore obey him if it results in making My words of no effect (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 10; Bava Metzia 32a). — What is implied in  the term מורא? That one should not sit in his (the father's) seat, nor speak in his stead (i. e. when he is expected to speak), nor contradict his words. And what is implied in the term כבוד? That the child gives the parents to eat and to drink, provides them with clothes and shoes, leads them into the room and out if they are infirm (Kiddushin 31b).
  
  Verse 4
  
  אל תפנו אל האלילים TURN YE NOT UNTO THE IDOLS — to worship them (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 10). The word אלילים, idols, is connected with “not“ (אל) — it is regarded of “none" import.
  ואלהי מסכה [NOR MAKE TO YOURSELVES] MOLTEN GODS - In the beginning they may appear as “nought" (אלילים) but if you turn unto them you will in the end make them gods (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 11). The translation therefore is: do not turn unto these “non-entities", so that you may not in the end make them into molten gods for yourselves.
  לא תעשו לכם implies: do not you make molten gods for others nor let others make such for you. Should you, however, say that לא תעשו לכם implies only “you shall not make them for yourselves" but others may make them for you, then I reply: But Scripture has already stated (Exodus 20:3) “Thou shalt have [no other gods]” — neither your own idol nor one which is the idol of (made by) others (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 12).
  
  Verse 5
  
  'וכי תזבחו וגו‎‎ AND IF YE SACRIFICE [A SACRIFICE OF PEACE OFFERINGS UNTO THE LORD, YE SHALL SACRIFICE IT TO BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU] — This section is said only for the purpose of teaching us that their (the peace offerings’) slaughtering must not take place except with the intention that they should be eaten within this time (the time prescribed v. 6); for if its purpose were to fix the time for eating them it would be redundant, since it is already said (Leviticus 7:16) “But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a free-will offering [it shall be eaten the same day… and on the morrow” (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 1 1).
  לרצנכם תזבחהו YE SHALL SACRIFICE IT TO BE ACCEPTABLE FOR YOU — This means, from the very beginning the slaughtering shall be done with the intention to give Me satisfaction (i. e. to sacrifice it in a manner that is satisfactory to Me) so that it shall effect favour for you (לרצנכם). For if you have in connection with it (with the slaughtering) any intention which will invalidate it (the sacrifice) it shall effect no favour for you before Me.
  לרצנכם  thus means as much as apaisement in O. F., — “favourable acceptance”. This is the literal meaning of the verse. Our Rabbis, however, (taking the word in its primary sense of will, “intention”) learned from here as regards one who is handling (מתעסק) a sacrifice (קדשים) (when he does the act of Shechitah without the intention of doing this) that it becomes invalid, because it is required that he should intend to slaughter it (Zevachim 47a; Chullin 13a).
  
  Verse 6
  
  ביום זבחכם יאכל ON THE DAY YE SACRIFICE IT [SHALL IT BE EATEN] — This means, when ye slaughter it (וכי תזבחו) slaughter it (תשחטהו =תזבחהו) having in mind the period which I have already fixed for you as that within which it must be eaten (that which is mentioned already Leviticus 7:16).
  
  Verse 7
  
  ואם האכל ‎'יאכל וגו‎‎‎ AND IF IT SHOULD BE EATEN AT ALL [ON THE THIRD DAY] etc. — If it (this verse) has no bearing on a sacrifice at the slaughtering of which there was the intention to eat its flesh beyond its (the prescribed) time, since it has already been stated, (Leviticus 7:18) “And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice is to be eaten (i. e. is intended to be eaten) at all [on the third day, it shall not be accepted]" — then give it an application to a sacrifice at the slaughtering of which there was the intention of eating its flesh outside the prescribed place (e. g. in the case of a festival offering — outside the walls of Jerusalem) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 1 4). One might think that people are liable to excision for the eating of it (of such a sacrifice), Scripture therefore states in the case of the former (the חוץ לזמנו sacrifice) (Leviticus 7:18) “And the soul that eateth of it (ממנו) shall bear its iniquity"; i. e. the soul that eateth of it, but not of the one similar to it (the חוץ למקומו sacrifice) shall bear its iniquity. This excludes therefore from the penalty of excision the case of a sacrifice which has been slaughtered with the intention that it should be eaten outside the prescribed place (Zevachim 28a). 
  פגול means abominable; similar is (Isaiah 65:4) "and broth of abominable things (פגולים) is in their vessels".
  
  Verse 8
  
  ואכליו עונו ישא THEREFORE EVERYONE THAT EATETH IT SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY — Scripture is speaking here of flesh actually left unburnt on the third day (so that this verse must be connected with v. 6, and not with v. 7) since one is not liable to excision for eating that which was slaughtered with the intention to eat its flesh outside the prescribed place (of which v. 7 is speaking), because Scripture has already excluded such a case from the penalty of excision (cf. Rashi v. 7). This verse must therefore be speaking of actual נותר. In Treatise Keritot 5a they (our Rabbis) derived it (the fact that v. 8 refers back to נותר in 5:6) from a verbal analogy.
  
  Verse 9
  
  לא תכלה פאת שדך THOU SHALT NOT WHOLLY REAP THE CORNER OF THY FIELD — This means that one must leave פאה (an uncut portion) at the extremity of one's field (cf. Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 1 9; Mishna Peah 1:2; Shabbat 23a).
  ולקט קצירך [NEITHER SHALT THOU COLLECT] THE GLEANINGS OF THY HARVEST — Gleanings are ears that drop from the hand of the harvester during the reaping — one or two at a time, but three do not come under the category of לקט (Mishna Peah 6:5; Sanhedrin 99a).
  
  Verse 10
  
  לא תעולל AND THOU SHALT NOT GLEAN [THY VINE YARD] — (עלל is a verb connected with the noun עולל "young, tender, not developed"; cf. Samuel 15:3: עולל ויונק) thus לא תעולל means, thou shalt not take the tender grapes of it. They can be recognized as such from the description given in Mishna Peah 7:4 (cf. also Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 3 3) where it is stated: What are עוללות? Clusters which have neither כתף, “arms" nor נטף, "drippings".
  ופרט כרמך [NEITHER SHALT THOU COLLECT] THE FALLEN GRAPES OF THY VINE YARD — i. e. the single berries of the grapes which fall to the ground during the grape gathering.
  אני ה'‏‎‎‎‎‎ אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — the Judge Who am certain to punish if necessary and Who for the neglect of these duties will exact from you nothing less than your souls, as it is said (Proverbs 22:22, 23) "Rob not the poor… for the Lord will plead their cause, [and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them]" (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 3 7).
  
  Verse 11
  
  לא תגנבו YE SHALL NOT STEAL — This is a warning addressed to him who steals money (the property of his fellow-man), but the law “Thou shalt not steal" which is contained in the Ten Commandments is a warning addressed to him who steals a human being. For this it what is learnt from the context, because it must be a matter for which one becomes liable to death by sentence of the court, (since the preceding laws in the Ten Commandments are of this character, which is the case with kidnapping and not with theft of money; cf. Rashi on Exodus 19:14) (Mekhilta 20:13:3; Sanhedrin 86a).
  ולא תכחשו NEITHER SHALL YE DEAL FALSELY [WITH ONE ANOTHER] — Since Scripture has stated (Leviticus 5:21, 22) "[If a man sin… and deny unto his neighbour a charge, or a deposit… or has found that which was lost] and denieth it (וכחש בה)", that he shall pay the principal and add a fifth part more thereto, we have there mention only of the punishment he incurs; whence do we derive the prohibition (i.e. where is it forbidden)? From Scripture's statement here “neither shall ye deal falsely" (The Hebrew here is תכחשו, the same term as is used in the verse quoted — וכחש בה) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 3; Bava Kamma 105b).
  ולא תשקרו NEITHER SHALL YE LIE [ONE TO ANOTHER] — Since Scripture has stated (V.  22) “[If a soul sin… and deny unto his neighbour a charge or a deposit…] and sweareth falsely (לשקר)" that he shall pay the principal and shall add the fifth part more thereto, we have there mention only of the punishment he incurs; whence do we derive the prohibition to lie? From Scripture's statement here “ye shall not lie one to another”.
  לא תגנבו ולא תכחשו ולא תשקרו ולא תשבעו YE SHALL NOT STEAL, NEITHER DEAL FALSELY, NEITHER LIE, NEITHER SWEAR [ONE TO ANOTHER] - If you steal you will in the end come to deny it, then you will lie (in order to back up your first denial), and ultimately you will swear falsely (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 5).
  
  Verse 12
  
  ולא תשבעו בשמי AND YE SHALL NOT SWEAR BY MY NAME [TO A LIE] -  Why is this stated at all (how does the particular form of words used  here tell us more than is contained in the Third Commandment)? Since it is said (Exodus 20:7) “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord (‎'ה) thy God in vain”, I might have inferred that one is not liable except he swore by the "Proper Name” of the Lord (שם המיוחד). Whence do I know that all names that are descriptive of God's attributes (Adonay, Rachum, Chanun etc.) are included in this prohibition? Because Scripture states “ye shall not swear by My Name to a lie", thus implying by any Name I have (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 6).
  
  Verse 13
  
  לא תעשק THOU SHALT NOT WRONG [THY FELLOW-MAN] — This refers to one who withholds the wages of a hired servant (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 9; Bava Metzia 61a).
  לא תלין The word תלין is feminine gender and refers to the wages.
  עד בקר UNTIL THE MORNING — Scripture speaks here of  a person hired for day-work (שכיר יום) whose departure from work is at sunset. The time for drawing his wages is therefore the whole night (and the law is not infringed provided he pays it before the moment of day break). In another passage (Deuteronomy 24:14) it states, "the sun shall not go down upon it (the man's wages)”. There, however, it is speaking of one hired for night-work (שכיר לילה) the end of whose period of work is at day break, therefore the time for drawing his wages is the whole day (but it must be done before sunset). The reason why he has the whole night or whole day to pay the wages is because the Torah gives the employer the time of one "Ona" (one half of the astronomical day; cf. for the meaning of the word Niddah 65b) to endeavour to obtain the money he requires for paying the wages (Bava Metzia 110b).
  
  Verse 14
  
  לא תקלל חרש THOU SHALT NOT CURSE THE DEAF — I have here only the law that one must not curse the deaf: whence do I know that any person is included in this prohibition and that the meaning is, Thou shalt not curse even the deaf? Because Scripture states (Exodus 22:27) "Thou shalt not curse בעמך, anyone among thy people". But if this be so why does Scripture say חרש and does not use some more general expression? It does so in order to offer an analogy: What is the case with the חרש? He is one who cannot hear your curse and therefore cannot feel aggrieved, but he has the characteristic of being a living person! The same applies to all living, thus excluding a dead person, who though he cannot hear and feel aggrieved, is not living (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 13; cf. also Sanhedrin 66a).
  ולפני עור לא תתן מכשל THOU SHALT NOT PUT A STUMBLING BLOCK BEFORE THE BLIND — This implies: "Give not a person who is "blind" in a matter an advice which is improper for him. Do not say to him: "Sell your field and buy from the proceeds of the sale an ass", the fact being that you are endeavouring to circumvent him and to take it (the field) from him (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 14).
  ויראת מאלהיך BUT THOU SHALT BE AFRAID OF THY GOD — Because in this case it is not given to human beings to know whether the intention of this man (the offender) was for the advantage or the disadvantage of the person whom he advised, and he thus might be able to evade the responsibility  by saying: "I meant it for the best", Scripture therefore states with reference to him: "But thou shall be afraid of thy God" Who is cognizant of thy secret thoughts. Similarly in all actions where it is given only to the heart of him who does it to know the motive that prompts him and where other people have no insight into it, Scripture states, "But be afraid of thy God!" (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 14; Bava Metzia 58b).
  
  Verse 15
  
  לא תעשו עול במשפט YE SHALL NOT DO INJUSTICE IN JUDGMENT — This teaches us that the judge who perverts judgment is called an "unjust person" (עַוָּל), hateful and detested, doomed to destruction, and an abomination. He is rightly called thus for the unjust person (עַוָּל) is called by Scripture "abomination", as it is said (Deuteronomy 25:16) "For all that do [such things] all that do injustice (עַוָּל=עֹשֵׂה עָוֶל) are an abomination (תועבה) unto the Lord thy God”. The abomination (תועבה), on its part, is called by Scripture חרם and שקץ, as it is said (Deuteronomy 7:26) "Neither shalt thou bring an abomination (תועבה) into thine house, lest thou be a doomed thing (חרם) like it; but thou shall regard it as שקץ. 
  לא תשא פני דל THOU SHALT NOT RESPECT THE PERSON OF THE INDIGENT — i. e. thou shalt not say, "This is a poor man, and the rich man has in any case the duty of supporting him; I will find in favor of him (the poor man) and he will consequently obtain some support in a respectable fashion (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 2).
  ולא תהדר פני גדול NOR HONOR THE PERSON OF THE MIGHTY — thou shalt not say, “This is a rich man, or, this man is of noble descent (lit., the son of great people) how can I possibly put him to shame and be witness to his shame? There is punishment for such a thing!” It is for this reason that Scripture states, "thou shalt not honor the person of the mighty” (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 3).
  בצדק תשפט עמיתך IN RIGHTEOUSNESS SHALT THOU JUDGE THY COMPANION — Take this as the words imply (i.e. take the word צדק as what it usually implies: strict right). Another explanation is: Judge thy fellow man with an inclination in his favour (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 4; Shevuot 30a).
  
  Verse 16
  
  לא תלך רכיל THOU SHALT NOT GO ABOUT AS A TALE BEARER — I say that because all those who sow discord between people and all who speak slander go into their friends' houses in order to spy out what evil they can see there, or what evil they can hear there so that they may tell it in the streets —they  are called  הולכי רכיל which it the same as הולכי רגילה, "people who go about spying"; espiement in O. F. A proof of my statement is the fact that we do not find anywhere the term רגיל used in Scripture except in connection with the expression הלך "to go". Examples are: the phrase here, לא תלך רכיל; (Jeremiah 6:28) "[They are all] walking as spies: they are brass and iron". But as for any other expressions for “slander”, the verb הלך is not used with them. Examples are (Psalms 101:5) "whoso privily slandereth his neighbour”; (Psalms 120:2) "false tongue"; (Psalms 12:4) "the tongue that speaketh proud things (slander)". For this reason I say that this expression (הולך רכיל) means "going about ומרגל, and spying out” (רגל = רכל), because the כ may interchange with ,ג since all letters the pronounciation of which are of the same place in the organs of speech may interchange with each other e. g., בי"ת with גימ"ל ,פ"א with כ"ף or with נו"ן ;קו"ף with זי"ן ;למ"ד with צד"י. And in a similar sense we have, (II Samuel 19:28) "He spied against thy servant [to my lord]” which implies, "he spied me out with subtly in order to speak evil about me to my lord״ (and thus וירגל comes to mean "to slander”). Similar is (Psalms 15:8): לא רגל על לשונו which means, "he has not spied out in order to have evil on his tongue”. Similarly the רוכל, the trader, is one who goes round and searches for (spies out) all kinds of merchandise, and so also the seller of perfumes which women use to make themselves nice, because he constantly goes about in the villages, he is called רוכל, which has the same meaning as רוגל. And its translation in the Targum לא תיכול קורצין, has the same meaning as (Daniel 3:8) "and they slandered (אכלו קורציהון) the Jews”; and as (Berakhot 58a) "he slandered him (אכל ביה קורצא בי מלכא) to the king”. It seems to me that people had the custom to eat a little snack in the house of him who listened to their slanderous words, and this served as the final confirmation that his (the slanderer's) statements were well founded and that he would maintain the truth of them. This "snack” was called אכילת קורצין, the word קורצא being connected in meaning with the root קרץ in (Proverbs 6:13) "He winketh (קורץ) with his eyes”, for it is the manner of all who go about slandering to wink with their eyes and to suggest their slanderous statements by innuendos in order that others who happen to hear them should not understand them.
  לא תעמד על דם רעך NEITHER SHALT THOU STAND AGAINST THE BLOOD OF THY FELLOW — witnessing his death, you being able to rescue him: if, for instance, he is drowning in the river or if a wild beast or a robber is attacking him (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 8; Sanhedrin 73a).
  ‎'אני ה‎‎ I AM THE LORD — Who am faithful in paying reward to those who obey My commandments and Who am certain to punish those who transgress them.
  
  Verse 17
  
  ולא תשא עליו חטא [THOU SHALT IN ANY WISE REBUKE THY COMPANION] AND NOT BEAR A SIN ON ACCOUNT OF HIM — i. e. though rebuking him thou shalt not expose him to shame (lit., make his face grow pale) in public, in which case you will bear sin on account of him (cf. Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 8; Arakhin 16b).
  
  Verse 18
  
  לא תקם THOU SHALT NOT AVENGE — If one says to another “Lend me your sickle", and he replies, “No!", and the next day he (the latter) says to him (the former), “Lend me your hatchet”, and he retorts, “I am not going to lend it to you, just as you refused to lend me your sickle״ — this is avenging. And what is “bearing a grudge”? If one says to another, “Lend me your hatchet”, and he replies “No!” and on the next day he says to him “Lend me your sickle”, and he replies: “Here it is; I am not like you, because you would not lend me” — this is called “bearing a grudge (נטירה)” because he retains (נוטר) enmity in his heart although he does not actually avenge himself (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 10-11; Yoma 23a).
  ואהבת לרעך כמוך THOU SHALT LOVE THY FELLOW MAN AS THYSELF  —Rabbi Akiba said: “This is a fundamental principle of the Torah” (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 12;  Talmud Yerushalmi Nedarim 9:3).
  
  Verse 19
  
  חקתי תשמרו ‎את YE SHALL KEEP MY ORDINANCES — These are they: “Thou shalt not cause two kinds of thy cattle to gender etc.”, (and the other ordinances laid down in this verse), for by the term חוקים are meant those enactments of the King for which no reason is given and those that precede are not of this character.
  ובגד כלאים NEITHER SHALL A GARMENT MINGLED OF LINEN AND WOOLLEN [COME UPON THEE] — Why is this st‎atement made (how does the particular form of words used here tell us some point of law which is not contained in Deuteronomy 22:21 which bears upon the same subject)? Because Scripture states there “Thou shalt not wear שעטנז, wool and linen together” I might think that one must not wear in combination wool (i. e. wool as it comes from the shearing) and combed flax! Scripture therefore states here “a garment (i. e. something made of a cloth) [mingled of woollen and linen shall not come upon thee]”, thus excluding loose pieces of wool and flax in combination, which do not form a בגד. Whence do we know that this prohibition extends to felt-stuff (which though not being really בגד, since the material is not worked up into cloth, is, however, made of wool and linen pressed into one material)? Because Scripture states in Deuteronomy “שעטנז shall not come upon thee” which means a material that is calendered (pressed, שוע), or woven (טוי) or twisted (נוז) together — (שעטנז is taken to be an abbreviation of these words) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 18). I say that נוז is an expression for material which is dried by rubbing between the fingers in order to extend it into threads, these being then twined together so that it forms a coherent web. This is called tistre in O. F. (cf. Rashi on Gittin 59a s. v. דבר הנמלל ונמתח). Similar is the expression to be found in the Talmud (Moed Katan 12b): חזין לגזאי דאית בהון, “The sesame-plant may be plucked on חולו של מועד because it is fit for use on account of the נזאי, the dried-up kernels which it contains” — which word, viz., נזאי, we explain to mean as much as “withering”, flestre in O. F.. Menachem explains שעטנו to denote a combination of wool and linen.
  
  Verse 20
  
  נחרפת לאיש [AND WHOSOEVER LIETH CARNALLY WITH A WOMAN THAT IS A HANDMAID] GIVEN OVER TO A MAN — נחרפת signifies: destined and designated to a man. I do not know of any similar use of it (the root חרף) in Scripture. — And it is of a Canaanitish handmaid who is partly a שפחה and partly a free-woman and who is betrothed to a Hebrew servant who is permitted to marry a שפחה, that Scripture is here speaking (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 5 2; Keritot 11a).
  והפדה לא נפדתה means, she is redeemed (הפדה) and not redeemed (לא נפדתה) (i. c. she is partly redeemed, but not fully redeemed; cf. Keritot 11a). An expression derived from the verb פדה, unless it be more closely defined, means redemption by money.
  או חפשה NOR FREEDOM [WAS GIVEN HER] through a document of release (שטר שחרור) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 5 3).
  בקרת תהיה INVESTIGATION SHALL BE MADE CONCERNING HER — she shall be punished with lashes but not he. It is for the court to investigate the  matter (to discover that she is really not free) so that they should not make her liable to death (which would be the punishment of a free woman who committed adultery), כי לא חפשה BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT FREE and her marriage with the Hebrew slave was no marriage. Our Rabbis, however, (taking the word בקרת as though it were בקריאת “by reading”) learned from here that whoever is subject to lashes (the מלקות punishment) shall be subject to the recitation (קריאה) of Biblical verses — that the judges who pronounce the sentence of lashes shall recite, whilst standing by him who is lashed the verses (Deuteronomy 28:58, 59): "If thou wilt not observe to do [all the words of the law] etc… Then the Lord will distinguish thy plagues (מכותך which also implies thy "lashes") etc." (cf. Keritot 11a) 
  כי לא חופשה BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT FREE therefore he, also, is not liable to death because of her, since her marriage was no marriage. It follows therefore that if she were free her marriage would have been a marriage and he would be liable to the death penalty (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 5 5).
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  ונסלח לו מחטאתו אשר חטא AND THE SIN WHICH HE HATH SINNED SHALL BE FORGIVEN HIM — [The words מחטאתו אשר חטא appear to be redundant after the statement על חטאתו אשר חטא immediately preceding them, but they are intended] to include the willful sinner just as well as him who acts unintentionally amongst those who must bring this offering (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 5 7; Keritot 9a).
  
  Verse 23
  
  וערלתם ערלתו את פריו meant lit., ye shall close its closing (regard it as enclosed): the meaning being that it shall be, as it were, closed up and barred so that no benefit may be derived from it.
  שלש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים THREE YEARS IT SHALL BE AS UNCIRCUMCISED UNTO YOU — From when does one count its three years? From the time of its (the tree's) being planted (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 3 3). One might think that if one has laid it (the fruit) by during these three years it shall become permitted for use after the three years, Scripture therefore states, יהיה which implies it shall remain in its former state of being (forbidden as it was during the entire three years).
  
  Verse 24
  
  יהיה כל פריו קדש [BUT IN THE FOURTH YEAR] THE FRUIT THEREOF SHALL BE HOLY, in the same way as the "second tithe" with reference to which, too, it is stated (Leviticus 27:30) "And all the tithe of the land… [belongeth to the Lord]; it is holy (קדש) unto the Lord". Now what is the law regarding the “second tithe"? It must not be eaten outside the walls of Jerusalem except after redemption! The same is the case with this (the fruit in the fourth year). And this very thing הלולים לה׳, is A PRAISE OF THE LORD, for he takes it there (to Jerusalem) to praise and to laud God in Heaven, as he does with the second tithe (cf. Berakhot 35a).
  
  Verse 25
  
  להוסיף לכם תבואתה [AND IN THE FIFTH YEAR SHALL YE EAT THE FRUIT THEREOF] THAT IT MAY YIELD UNTO YOU ITS INCREASE — This command (of ערלה and נטע רבעי, fruit of the fourth year) which you observe will result in its giving you its produce in larger quantities. Because as a reward for it (for the fulfilment of My command) I shall bless for you the fruit of the plantation. R. Akiba used to say: “The Torah says this because it has man’s evil inclination in mind: that one should not say, "Behold, for four years I must take trouble with it for nothing!" Scripture therefore states that the result of your obedience will be that it will give you its produce in larger quantities (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 3 9). 
  'אני ה‎‎‎ means, it is I, the Lord, Who gives you a promise about this (that your obedience to Me will bring a blessing on your harvest) and Who am faithful to keep My promise.
  
  Verse 26
  
  לא תאכלו על הדם YE SHALL NOT EAT ANYTHING על הדם — This text is interpreted in many different ways in Treatise Sanhedrin 63a: It is taken as a prohibition of eating the flesh of the sacrifices before their blood has been sprinkled; and as a prohibition addressed to him who eats of the flesh of a non-consecrated animal (חולין) before life has entirely left it; and many other interpretations are there given.
  לא תנחשו YE SHALL NOT DIVINE — as do those who draw prognostications from the cry of a weasel or the twittering of birds (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 6 2; Sanhedrin 66a), or from the fact that the bread falls from his mouth or that a stag crosses his path (Sanhedrin 65b).
  ולא תעוננו The verb is connected in meaning with “period" (עונה) and “hours"; thus a מעונן is one who says: “This or that day is auspicious for beginning a work, this or that hour is inauspicious for starting on a journey (Sanhedrin 66a).
  
  Verse 27
  
  לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם YE SHALL NOT ROUND THE CORNERS OF YOUR HEAD — This refers to one who makes his temples exactly like (as hairless as) the back of his ears and his forehead (cf. Rashi on Makkot 20b, ד״ה המשוה צדעיו) by removing the hair on his temples, so that the lower edge of the hair that surrounds his head (i. e. his skull, because we are not concerned with ‎hair at the back of the neck) forms a complete circle, since above the back of his ears the roots of his hair are situated much higher than his temples (and it is thus only the temples which prevent an uninterrupted circular line going round his skull). (Cf. Makkot 20b).
  פאת זקנך [NEITHER SHALT THOU MAR] THE CORNERS OF THY BEARD — i. e. the tip of the beard and its sides, these making together five corners: two on each cheek, above near the head (the temples) — where it (the cheek) is broad and has therefore two corners (thus four on the two sides) and one at the bottom, on the chin, on that spot where is the junction of the two cheeks (Shevuot 3a; cf. also Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 6 3; Makkot 20a and Rashi on Shevuot 3a: ועל הזקן ‎‎‏ (ד"ה
  
  Verse 28
  
  ‎ ‎‎‎‎ושרט לנפש‏‎ ‎[YE SHALL NOT MAKE] ANY CUTTINGS [IN YOUR FLESH] FOR THE DEAD — This was the practice of the Amorites (a general term for heathens) to make cuttings in their flesh when someone belonging to them died. 
  וכתבת קעקע [NOR SHALL YE IMPRESS] ANY WRITING BY ETCHING [UPON YOU] — i. e. a writing engraved (more lit., dug into) and sunk into the flesh and which can never be erased because it is pricked in with a needle and remains black forever.
  קעקע (root יקע) is an expression connected in sense with והוקע in (Numbers 25:4) “and hang them (והוקע אותם)" and with (II Samuel 21:6) "and we will hang them (הוקענום)". They drove poles into the ground and hanged them upon these — consequently they themselves, as the poles, were, so to speak, dug in and inserted in the ground; pourpoint in O. F.
  
  Verse 29
  
  אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה DO NOT PROSTITUTE THY DAUGHTER TO CAUSE HER TO BE A HARLOT — Scripture speaks of one who gives his unmarried daughter away for illegitimate concubinage (cf. Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 2; Sanhedrin 76a).
  ולא תזנה הארץ LEST THE EARTH BECOME DISLOYAL TO YOU — If you do this the soil will become faithless to you in regard to the distribution of its fruits, producing them in other places and not in your land. Scripture uses this simile also in (Jeremiah 3:2—3) "and thou hast polluted thy land with thy whoredom… Therefore the showers have been withholden etc.” (so that the land yielded no fruit) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 4; Tosefta Kiddushin 1).
  
  Verse 30
  
  ומקדשי תיראו AND YE SHALL REVERE MY SANCTUARY — This implies that one should not enter it with his staff in hand or in his shoes, or with his money belt or with the dust on his feet (all signs of irreverence) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 9; Berakhot 54a; Yevamot 6b). But — says God — although I warn you with regard to the reverence due to the Sanctuary, yet — את שבתתי תשמרו YOU SHALL KEEP MY SABBATHS — not even the erection of the Sanctuary can set aside the Sabbath law (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 7; Yevamot 6a; cf. Rashi on Exodus 35:2).
  
  Verse 31
  
  אל תפנו DO NOT TURN [TO THE אבת NOR TO THE ידענים] — This is a warning addressed to the necromancers and the charmers themselves (not to the people who consult these tricksters). The בעל אוב, the controller of the spirit אוב, as the necromancer is called (cf. I Samuel 28:7), is identical with the פיתום (in Greek: πύξωυ); he is one who speaks out of his arm-pit; ידעני is one who puts a bone of an animal the name of which is ידוע into his mouth and the bone speaks (Sanhedrin 65b).
  אל תבקשו means DO NOT SEEK to busy yourselves with them, for if you busy yourselves with them, you will become defiled in My sight and I shall abhor you. 
  אני ה' אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — Just think Whom you are changing (by these practices which lead to idolatry) for whom! (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 11)
  
  Verse 32
  
  מפני שיבה תקום THOU SHALT RISE UP BEFORE A HOARY HEAD — One might think this reverence is also due to an ignorant old man! Scripture however says זקן — "thou shalt honour the face of the ״זקן — and זקן  denotes only one who has acquired wisdom (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 12;Kiddushin 32b). 
  AND THOU SHALT HONOR THE FACE OF THE OLD — What does the term "honoring” an old man imply? That one should not sit in his seat nor contradict his statements. One might think that one is allowed to close one’s eyes as though one does not see him (the old man)! Scripture however states "but be afraid of thy God”, because in this thing it is given to the heart of him only who does the action to know the motive that prompts him for no one has an insight into this except himself, and in reference to any thing where it is given only to the heart to know, Scripture states “and thou shalt be afraid of thy God Who knows thy secret thoughts״ (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 14; Kiddushin 32b).
  
  Verse 33
  
  לא תונו [AND IF A STRANGER SOJOURN WITH THEE IN  THY LAND], YE SHALL NOT VEX HIM — This implies vexing him with words (cf. Rashi on Exodus 22:20) — do not say to him, “Yesterday you were an idolator and now you come to study the Torah which was given from the mouth of the Almighty!” (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8 2; Bava Metzia 58b, 59b.) 
  
  Verse 34
  
  כי גרים הייתם FOR YE WERE STRANGERS [IN THE LAND OF EGYPT] — "Do not reproach thy fellow-man for a fault which is also thine” (cf. Rashi on Exodus 22:20).
  אני ה' אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — Thy God and his God am I! (אלהיכם “your” God — the God of both of you).
  
  Verse 35
  
  לא תעשו עול במשפט YE SHALL NOT DO UNRIGHTEOUSNESS IN משפט — If this has a reference to the execution of justice it would be redundant, for it has already been stated (v. 15) “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment”. What, then is the meaning of משפט mentioned here? It refers to what is right in respect to measure of length, to weight and to measure of capacity. The use of the word משפט here teaches us, therefore, that one who has to do with measuring (in trade or commerce) is termed (is regarded as) “a judge” so that if he gives false measure he is like the judge who perverts justice and he is therefore called "an unjust person” (עַוָּל), hateful, detested, doomed to destruction, and an abomination (cf. Rashi v. 15). He brings about those five things which are mentioned in connection with the judge who perverts justice: he defiles the land, profanes the Name of the Lord, causes the Shechinah to depart from Israel's midst, Israel to fall by the sword and to be exiled from their land (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8 5). 
  במדה — This denotes land measure (linear and square measure); 
  במשקל is what the word literally implies (“in weight", from שקל, to weigh); 
  ובמשורה — This denotes liquid and dry measure (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8 6; Bava Metzia 61b).
  
  Verse 36
  
  אבני צדק are stones used for weights wherewith one weighs. 
  איפת — The “Epha” is a certain dry measure. 
  והין — The “Hin” is a certain liquid measure. 
  אשר הוצאתי אתכם WHO BROUGHT YOU FORTH [FROM EGYPT] for this purpose, that you shall be honest in your actions (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8 10). Another explanation is: I distinguished in Egypt between those who were firstborn and those who were not firstborn (a matter which is hidden from human cognizance), I am also certain to exact punishment from him who secretly puts his weights in salt in order to take advantage of people who are not aware of it (cf. Bava Metzia 61b).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  ואל בני ישראל תאמר AGAIN THOU SHALT SAY TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL the punishments for the transgression of the prohibitions mentioned in the previous chapters.
  מות יומת HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH by sentence of the court; and if the court has not sufficient authority to carry this out, then, ‎ 'וכו‎‎ עם הארץ the people of the land shall assist them (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 4). 
  עם הארץ THE PEOPLE OF THE EARTH — that people for whose sake the earth was created: Israel (cf. Rashi on Genesis 1:1); or, that people which is destined to remain in possession of the Land (Canaan) through obedience to these commands (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 4).
  
  Verse 3
  
  אתן את פני ‎ is taken in the sense of, פנאי שלי, My leisure — I shall turn away from everything else that I am occupied with, and will busy Myself with him alone (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 13; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 17:10). 
  באיש AGAINST THAT MAN — but not against the whole congregation if they thus sin (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 13), for the community as a whole is never punished with excision.  
  כי מזרעו נתן למלך BECAUSE HE HATH GIVEN OF HIS SEED TO THE MOLECH — These words appear to be redundant since in v. 20 the nature of the sin is already mentioned, but because Scripture states (Deuteronomy 18:10) “[There shall not be found among you] any one that maketh his son or his daughter pass through the fire", one might think that this law applies only to ones children; whence do we know that it applies also to one’s son's son and one's daughter’s son? Because Scripture states here, “because he hath given of his offspring to the Molech". Whence do we know that illegitimate offspring are also included in this law? Because Scripture states again (v. 4) “when he giveth of his seed to the Molech” — whether legitimate or not (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 6-7; Sanhedrin 64b). 
  למען טמא את מקדשי TO DEFILE MY מקדש — This means the “Congregation of Israel" which is sanctified to Me. The word מקדש does not imply the Sanctuary only but anything that is holy to God, as in the expression (Leviticus 21:23) “that he profane not my holy things (‎‎‏מקדשי‎). 
  
  Verse 4
  
  ‎ואם העלם יעלימו  AND IF [THE PEOPLE OF THE LAND] DO ANY WAYS HIDE THEIR EYES [FROM THE MAN] — If they hide their eyes in one thing they will in the end hide their eyes also in many other matters (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 9); if the Small Sanhedrin (a judicial court of twenty-three) hide their eyes, in the end the Great Sanhedrin (the Supreme Court of seventy-one) will also hide their eyes (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 11).
  
  Verse 5
  
  ובמשפחתו [THEN I WILL SET MY EYES AGAINST THAT MAN], AND AGAINST HIS FAMILY — R. Simeon asked, "But how did his family sin that it should be punished?" But the family is mentioned to teach you that you may take it as a rule that there is no family in which there is one tax-collector (a calling held in great reprobation by Jews) which may not be regarded as consisting entirely of tax-collectors, for they all try to protect him (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 13; Shevuot 39a). 
  והכרתי אתו AND I WILL CUT HIM OFF — Why is this stated (it appears to be a mere repetition of the statement in v. 3)? Because since Scripture says here for the reason stated above, “[I will set My face…] against his family", I might think that the  whole family is also doomed to excision; Scripture therefore states “[I will cut] him [off]"— he alone is subject to excision, but the whole family is not subject to excision but to bodily sufferings (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 14; Shevuot 39a).  
  לזנות אחרי המלך TO COMMIT WHOREDOM WITH MOLECH — This is intended to include the worship also of any other idol which he worshipped in this way (by letting his children pass through the fire in honor of it) even though this is not the manner of worship peculiar to it (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 15; Sanhedrin 64a).
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  והתקדשתם SANCTIFY YOURSELVES — This implies keeping aloof from all idolatry (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 2).
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  אביו ואמו קלל HE HATH CURSED HIS FATHER OR HIS MOTHER — These apparently redundant words are intended to include as subject to the death penalty one who curses his parents after their death (Sanhedrin 85b). 
  דמיו בו HIS BLOOD IS UPON HIM — This implies execution by stoning; similarly wherever the expressions דמיו בו or  דמיהם בם occur. We learn this Halachic rule from the case of אוב and ידעוני of whom Scripture expressly states, (v. 27) [“they shall surely be put to death], they shall overwhelm them with stones, their blood is upon them (דמיהם בם)” (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 7; cf. Sanhedrin 54a; Keritot 5a). But according to the literal sense of the passage it means the same as the expression דמו בראשו (Joshua 2:19): “[whosoever shall go out of the doors of thy house into the street his blood shall be upon his own head] (דמו בראשו)” where the meaning is: No one deserves punishment on account of his death except himself, for he brought it upon himself that he should be killed (i. e. it was his own fault).
  
  Verse 10
  
  ואיש AND THE MAN [THAT COMMITTETH ADULERY SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — a man, thus excluding a minor (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 8). 
  אשר ינאף את אשת איש WHO COMMITTETH ADULTERY WITH ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE — a man's wife, thus excluding the wife of a minor from the death penalty. This teaches us that a minor cannot enter into a marriage contract. And in reference to what married woman do I make you liable to the death penalty? 
  אשר ינאף את אשת רעהו IF HE COMMITTETH ADULTERY WITH THE WIFE OF HIS FELLOW-MAN — his fellow-man, thus excluding the wife of a heathen; this teaches us that a heathen cannot enter into a marriage contract according to Jewish law (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 8; Sanhedrin 52b). 
  מות יומת הנאף והנאפת THE ADULTERER AND THE ADULTRESS SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH — Wherever a death penalty is mentioned in Scripture without being precisely defined, only strangulation is intended (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 8; Sanhedrin 55b).
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  תבל עשו THEY HAVE WROUGHT תבל — i. e. they have done a shameful deed. Another interpretation is that תבל is connected with בלל to "intermingle" and signifies that they mingle (בּלל) the seed of the father with the seed of the son.
  
  Verse 13
  
  משכבי אשה means he inserts as a brush into a tube [i.e. in the manner of marital intercourse].
  
  Verse 14
  
  ישרפו אתו ואתהן [AND IF A MAN TAKE A WIFE AND HER MOTHER, IT IS WICKEDNESS] THEY SHALL BE BURNT [WITH FIRE] BOTH HE AND THEY — You cannot say that this means that they shall burn also his first wife (i. e. her whom he married first), because you must admit that he married her  legally for  she was not forbidden to him as a wife. But the fact is that the case of “a woman and her mother": mentioned here must be a case where both of them are forbidden to him on account of a previous relationship to him, — that, for instance, after having married a woman, he marries also his mother-in-law and her mother. It is these two that have to be burnt. There are, however, some of our Rabbis who say we have here a case of where, in addition to having married a woman, he marries only his mother-in-law (but not also the latter's mother). But what then could be the meaning of אתהן? It means one of them (“את "הן) and this is a Greek word, הן (ξυ) meaning “one" (Sanhedrin 76b; Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 12).
  
  Verse 15
  
  ואת הבהמה תהרגו AND YE SHALL SLAY THE BEAST — If the man has sinned, what sin has the beast committed?  But because the man’s opportunity to stumble (to sin) was occasioned by it, therefore Scripture says, “let it be stoned"! How much the more does this principle apply to a human being who knows to distinguish between good and evil and yet brings evil upon his fellow-man by inducing him to commit a sin. In a similar way you should explain: (Deuteronomy 12:2) “Ye shall utterly destroy all the places [where the nations… served their gods… under every bushy tree]" Now is not the following a logical conclusion? How is it in the case of trees which can neither see nor hear? Merely because an opportunity to sin was occasioned by them Scripture says, "Destroy, burn, exterminate them!״ One who makes his fellow-man deviate from the path of  lifeto the path of death, does it not follow all the more that he should be punished? (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 11 5; cf. Sanhedrin 54a, 55a.)
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  חסד הוא IT IS A WICKED THING — It is an Aramaic expression, the Hebrew חרפה (disgrace) being in that language חסודא (cf. Onkelos on Genesis 34:14).  A Midrashic explanation of it (of חסד הוא) is; If you should say, "But Cain married his sister!" then I reply, Cain's case was an exceptional one; an act of kindness (חסד) was done by the Omnipresent in order that His world might be built up through him (i. e. He made the propagation of the human race possible through this union), as it is said (Psalms 89:3) "The world was built up through חסד, loving-kindness" (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 11 11; Sanhedrin 58b).
  
  Verse 18
  
  הערה means HE HATH UNCOVERED. Similarly the term ערוה everywhere denotes "uncovering". The ו in the word ערוה nakedness, is inserted in the root ערה in order to form a noun of it, just as the noun זעוה, "trembling", is of the same derivation as זע in the phrase (Esther 5:9) "and he stood not up and did not tremble (זע)". Similarly, אחוה "brotherhood", is of the same derivation as אח, brother. As for this term "uncovering" our Rabbis differ in the meaning they give to it (Yevamot 55b).  Some say that it is the mere contact of the tip of the organ, while others say that it is the insertion of the tip.
  
  Verse 19
  
  'וערות אחות אמך וגו‎‎‎  [AND THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER] THE NAKEDNESS OF THY MOTHERS SISTER [NOR OF THY FATHER’S SISTER] — Scripture repeats the prohibition regarding these (although they had been mentioned already in Leviticus 18:12, 13) to tell us that one is prohibited in respect to them, both in regard to one's father's or mother's sister on their father's side, and in regard to their sisters on their mother's side. But as regards a marriage being forbidden with the wife of one's father’s brother (cf. Leviticus 18:14) the prohibition (i.e. the איסור ערוה מדאורייתא) applies only to the wife of the brother of one's father when he is the father’s brother on the father’s side (i. e. when both have one father) (cf. Yevamot 54b).
  
  Verse 20
  
  אשר ישכב את דדתו AND IF A MAN SHALL LIE WITH HIS AUNT… [THEY SHALL DIE CHILDLESS] — This verse is intended to teach that the "excision" mentioned above (18:29, where "all these abominations includes the union prohibited in v. 14 of that chapter) consists in their (the offenders’) passing from this world childless. 
  ערירים — Translate this as the Targum renders it: בלא ולד, childless. Similar is, (Genesis 15:2) "and I will pass away childless (ערירי)”. If he has children he will bury them (i. e. they will die during his life-time); if he has no children when this sin is committed he will die childless (he will beget no children afterwards). That is why Scripture varies the expression in these two verses (this and the following) here stating ערירים ימתו, "they shall die childless", and there ערירים יהיו, "they shall be childless". The expression ערירים ימתו implies: if he has any children at the time he commits the sin, he shall have none remaining when he dies because he will bury them during his lifetime; ערירים יהיו on the other hand, implies: if he has no children at the time when he commits the sin, he shall remain all his life just as he was then (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 12 7; Yevamot 55a).
  
  Verse 21
  
  נדה הוא means, this cohabitation ought to be kept at a distance (avoided) and is loathsome. Our Rabbis explained that these words prohibit the slightest approach to her [I.e. one is liable for superficial contact, as is defined in the commentary on verse 18] just as though she were a נדה in the case of whom such intimacy is expressly stated as forbidden, as it says, (v. 18) “he hath uncovered her fountain” (cf. Yevamot 54a).
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  קוץ — ואקץ signifies loathsomeness. Similar is: (Genesis 27:46) "I am sick (קצתי) of my life”, like a man who is disgusted with his food (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 12 16).
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   והבדלתם בין הבהמה הטהרה לטמאה YE SHALL THEREFORE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CLEAN BEASTS AND UNCLEAN — It is needless for Scripture to say that one should distinguish between a cow and an ass for these are different and are therefore distinguishable. But it means: you shall distinguish between such an animal as is clean (permitted) to you and such as is unclean (forbidden) to you although it is a clean animal per se, i.e., make a distinction between an animal which has been killed by cutting at least the greater part of each organ (the gullet and the windpipe) or whether it has been killed by cutting exactly the half of each organ. And how much difference is there between the greater part and the exact half? A hair’s breadth only (and consequently the command is given: והבדלתם, “you shall very carefully distinguish”) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 12 20; cf. also Rashi on Leviticus 11:47 and Chullin 27a).
  אשר הבדלתי לכם לטמא WHICH I HAVE SEPARATED FOR YOU TO DECLARE THEM UNCLEAN — This means, to declare them as forbidden.
  
  Verse 26
  
  ואבדל אתכם מן העמים להיות לי ‎ AND I HAVE SEPARATED YOU FROM THE PEOPLES THAT YOU SHOULD BE MINE — If you hold yourselves apart from them then you will be Mine, but if not, you belong to (become subject to) Nebuchadnezzar and others like him. Rabbi Eleazer ben Azariah said, “Whence do we know that one should not say, "My soul loathes swine’s flesh”, or, “I have no desire to wear clothes which are a mixture of wool and linen”, but one should say, "I would, indeed, like them, but what can I do since my Father in heaven has imposed these decrees upon me”? Because Scripture states: “I have separated you from the peoples to be for Me",  whichyour separation from them (from their doings) should be for My sake — that one should keep aloof from sin and take upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 12 23).
  
  Verse 27
  
  '‎כי יהיה בהם אוב וגו‎  [A MAN ALSO, OR A WOMAN] THAT HATH THE SPIRIT אוב, [OR THAT IS A WIZARD SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — Here the penalty of death by stoning is mentioned for them, and above (Leviticus 20:6) it mentions excision! But the explanation is: If there were witnesses to the offence and the necessary warning had been given them, death by stoning is the punishment. If he acted wittingly but had not been warned, he is punishable with excision and if he breaks the law regarding them (the אוב or ידעוני) inadvertently, he has to bring a sin offering. And the same rules  apply  in  the case of all persons who are subject to the death penalty, where excision is mentioned (i. e. in all such cases “stoning" or a sin offering is the punishment according to the circumstances).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  אמר אל הכהנים SAY UNTO THE PRIESTS [… AND THOU SHALT SAY UNTO THEM] — “Say" and again “thou shalt say unto them" — this repetition is intended to admonish the adults about their children also — that they should teach them to avoid defilement (Yevamot 114a).
  בני אהרן THE SONS OF AARON — One might think that חללים (priests who have lost their priestly status for reasons connected with their birth or marriage) also may not defile themselves by the dead, Scripture therefore states, "Say unto the priests", — thus only those sons of Aaron are included who have not lost their priestly character; consequently חללים are excluded (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 1) . 
  בני אהרן THE SONS OF AARON — This implies also those of Aaron's sons who have a bodily blemish;
  בני אהרן THE SONS OF AARON — but not the daughters of Aaron (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 1).
  לא יטמא בעמיו THERE SHALL NONE BE DEFILED BY THE DEAD AMONG HIS PEOPLES — This means, as long as the dead is among his peoples (i. e. so long as there are some of his people — Jews — who can occupy themselves with his burial) thus excluding the case of a מת מצוה (a corpse of a person whose relatives are unknown or which lies in a place where there are no Jews, nor are there any in the near vicinity; cf. Nazir 43b) in which case the priest is allowed to make himself unclean by handling the corpse (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 3).
  
  Verse 2
  
  כי אם לשארו BUT FOR HIS KIN [THAT IS NEAR TO HIM] — שאר here denotes his wife (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 4; Yevamot 22b).
  
  Verse 3
  
  הקרובה [AND FOR HIS SISTER A VIRGIN] THAT IS NIGH UNTO HIM — This is intended to include  the sister who was only betrothed and has therefore not yet left her father's house and who is consequently still near to him (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 1; Yevamot 60a), for it continues 
  אשר לא היתה לאיש, WHO HATH HAD NO HUSBAND — i. e. who has not yet entered into marital relations with him:
  לה יטמא — This is a command, [and the translation is: FOR HER HE SHALL DEFILE HIMSELF, not, “he may defile himself”] (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 12; Zevachim 100a).
  
  Verse 4
  
  לא יטמא בעל בעמיו להחלו This means: he shall not defile himself for his wife if she is really unfitted to be his wife (because he is a כהן) and through whom he consequently becomes profaned as a priest, so long as she remains with him (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 15). The following, therefore, is the literal exposition of the verse: לא יטמא בעל, a husband shall not defile himself for his wife's corpse while it is among its people, which means that there are persons who can bury her so that she is not a מת מצוה (cf. Rashi’s explanation of בעמיו on v. 1). And with reference to what kind of wife do I say this? With reference to such a one who להחלו, i. e. who leads to his being profaned and therefore disqualified from his priestly duties so long as she remains with him (cf. Sifra, Emor, Section 1 15; Yevamot 90b).
  
  Verse 5
  
  לא יקרחו קרחה THEY SHALL NOT MAKE BALDNESS [UPON THEIR HEAD] for the dead. But were not the ordinary Israelites also forbidden in respect of this? Why then is this law especially stated with reference to the priests? But because in the prohibition addressed to the ordinary Israelites it is stated, (Deuteronomy 14:1) “[Ye shall not make  anybaldness] between your eyes [for the dead]”, I might think that one is not liable to punishment for making baldness on any other part of the whole head, Scripture therefore states here: “upon their heads”; and now that we have both commands, the law regarding the Israelites may be derived from that addressed to the priests from a similarity of terms used in both prohibitions: the term “קרחה” is used here, and in the prohibition regarding the Israelites it also uses the term “קרחה”; what is the case here? The prohibition applies to the whole head! So, also, there the whole head is included in the prohibition. And, on the other hand, how is the case there? The prohibition is limited to making baldness for the dead! So here too it applies only to such baldness as is made for the dead (Makkot 20a; Kiddushin 36a).
  ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו NEITHER SHALL THEY RAZE THE CORNER OF THEIR BEARD — Because it is written in the prohibition addressed to the ordinary Israelites, (Leviticus 19:27) “thou shalt not destroy (תשחית) [the corners of thy beard]”, I might think if one took it (the hair) off with a מלקט or a רהיטני, tweezers or plane-like or file-like tools that may be used for destroying the hair, he is guilty of violating the law! Scripture therefore states here "they shall not raze off (לא יגלחו) the corner of their beard", the two statements supplementing each other, thus teaching that one is liable only for the use of an instrument the employment of which is termed גילוח (razing), and  ,which at the same time, involves  the destruction of the hair, and this results only from the use of a razor (Makkot 21a).
  ובבשרם לא ישרטו שרטת NOR SHALL THEY MAKE ANY INCISION IN THEIR FLESH — This is stated in addition to the law in Leviticus 19:28 for the following reason: Because it is said there of the ordinary Israelites “and ye shall not make a cutting in your flesh for the dead”, I might think that if one made five incisions at the same time he is liable to the punishment of lashes only once, Scripture therefore states here: לא ישרטו שרטת “they shall not incise an incision" to make one liable for each and every incision — for this word (שרטת) would be redundant if it added nothing to the previous prohibition and must therefore have been added for the purpose of deriving an Halacha, since it ought to have written only לא ישרטו  and I would then have known that it refers to making incisions and consequently the intention of Scripture by using the term "they shall not incise an incision" is to make one liable to punishment for each incision (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 1 4).
  
  Verse 6
  
  קדשים יהיו THEY SHALL BE HOLY — even against their will — the court shall force them to remain holy in respect to this (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 1 6).
  
  Verse 7
  
  זנה is a woman who had sexual intercourse with an Israelite who is forbidden to her as a husband, for instance, with those whom she may not marry under the penalty of excision, or a Gibeonite or a ממזר (that is, a man born from the union of a couple who are liable to excision for such a union) (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 1 7; Yevamot 61b).
  חללה — This is a woman born from a marriage which is forbidden to the priesthood alone (Kiddushin 77a), e. g., the daughter of a widow and a high priest, or the daughter of a divorced woman [or one released from levirate marriage by the appropriate ceremony (cf. Deuteronomy 25:9)] and an ordinary priest. So also it denotes a woman who became profaned in respect to the priesthood (who lost the right of marrying a priest) through her having previously entered into a union with one of those priests a marriage with whom comes under the term: "marriages forbidden to the priesthood alone”.
  
  Verse 8
  
  וקדשתו THOU SHALT SANCTIFY HIM — even against his will; it means that if he is not willing to divorce the woman whom he had illegally married flog him (מלקות ארבעים) and chastise him (מכות מרדות) until he divorces her (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 1 13; Yevamot 88b).
  קדש יהיה לך HE SHALL BE HOLY UNTO THEE — holy unto thee: treat him with sanctity (as someone holy) — that he should be the first in all holy matters (e. g., the reading of the law) and that he should have the first right to recite the benedictions at a meal (המוציא and ברכת המזון) (Gittin 59b; cf. Rashi on Nedarim 62b).
  
  Verse 9
  
  כי תחל לזנות means, if she profanes herself through unchastity, i. e. that a marriage-tie of some kind applied to her and she nevertheless prostituted herself either after betrothal (which constituted a kind of marriage-tie, since she would require a bill of divorce to enable her to marry someone else) or after marriage (having left her father's house for her husband’s). Our Rabbis are of different opinions regarding this (whether Scripture speaks here of an ארוסה  or a נשואה), but all agree that Scripture is not speaking of a פנויה (a woman who is neither betrothed nor married) (cf. Sanhedrin 51b).
  את אביה היא מחללת SHE PROFANETH HER FATHER — i. e. she profanes and makes light of his honor by her conduct (מחללת does not mean she causes him to become a חלל, one unfit for priestly service), in that people say about him, "Cursed be he who has engendered this woman; — cursed be he who has reared this woman” (Sanhedrin 52a).
  
  Verse 10
  
  לא יפרע [THE HAIR OF HIS HEAD] SHALL HE NOT DISARRANGE — i.e. he shall not let his hair grow wild on account of ritual mourning for the death of a near relative (Sifra). And what is called "letting the hair grow wild”? Leaving it uncut for more than 30 days (Sanhedrin 22b).
  
  Verse 11
  
  'ועל כל נפשת מת וגו‎‎ means, he shall not go into a tent wherein is a corpse. 
  נפשת מת — The word נפשת, which appears redundant, is intended to include a quarter of a log of the blood of a corpse — to intimate that even this, as a corpse itself, makes men and vessels unclean through being in a "tent” in which it happens to be (Sanhedrin 4a).
  לאביו ולאמו לא יטמא NOR SHALL HE DEFILE HIMSELF FOR HIS FATHER OR FOR HIS MOTHER — By these words which appear redundant, since אביו ואמו are included in כל נפשת מת, Scripture has no other intention than to permit him to defile himself for a מת מצוה (cf. v. 1) (Sifra, Emor, Section 2 4; Nazir 47b).
  
  Verse 12
  
  ומן המקדש לא יצא NEITHER SHALL HE GO OUT FROM THE SANCTUARY — This means that he must not follow the bier (attend the funeral of his father or mother) (Sanhedrin 18a). Our Rabbis further derived from this (Sanhedrin 84a) the Halacha that the High Priest may perform the sacrificial rites when an “Onan”. The following is how this is implied: even if his father or his mother died he is not required to leave the Sanctuary as may be assumed, but may perform the service;
  ולא יחלל את מקדש means because he does not thereby (by remaining in the Sanctuary) profane the sacred service, since Scripture permits him to remain and to perform it; it follows therefore that an ordinary priest who officiated when an "Onan" did profane the service (Zevachim 16a; Sanhedrin 84a).
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  וחללה OR A PROFANE [SHALL HE NOT TAKE] — i. e. a woman born from marriages forbidden to the priesthood alone (cf. v.7) (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 2 3).
  
  Verse 15
  
  ולא יחלל זרעו NEITHER SHALL HE PROFANE  HIS  SEED  —  ,thus if he marries one of these women disqualified for a union with him his offspring (זרעו) from her becomes “profaned" (חלל) being exempted from the general law of holiness that applies to the priestly status (cf. Kiddushin 77a).
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  לחם אלהיו THE BREAD OF HIS GOD — This means, any food of his God (not “bread” only); any meal is termed לחם, as e. g., (Daniel 5:1) “he made a great banquet (לְחַם)” (cf. Rashi on Genesis 31:54).
  
  Verse 18
  
  כי כל איש אשר בו מום לא יקרב FOR ANY MAN THAT HATH A BLEMISH SHALL NOT APPROACH — This means: it is not right that he should approach; It expresses the same idea as (Malachi 1:8) “[And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame or sick, is it not evil?] offer it now unto thy governor! [will he be pleased with thee?]”.
  חרם A FLAT-NOSED MAN — one whose nose is sunk between his two eyes so that he is able to paint both his eyes (for medical or cosmetic purposes) with one stroke (Sifra, Emor, Section 3 7; Mishna Bekhorot 7:3). 
  שרוע HE THAT HATH A LIMB TOO LARGE — i.e. one of whose limbs forming a pair is larger than the other, e. g. one of his eyes is large and the other small, or, one of his legs is longer than the other (Bekhorot 40b; cf. Sifra, Emor, Section 3 9).
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  או גבן — sourcils in O. F. — is one whose eye-brows have their hair long so that they lie over his eyes (Bekhorot 43b)
  או דק — one who has in his eye a membrane which is called “toile” (web) in old French The word is similar in meaning to (Isaiah 40:22) “It is He that stretcheth out the heavens like a web (כַּדֹּק) (Bekhorot 48a). 
  או תבלל — (from בלל "to mingle") denotes anything that causes a mingling in the eye, e. g., a white line which extends from the white of the eye and intersects the סירא (the iris), which is the ring that encloses the black of the eye which is called prunelle in old French This white line intersects the circle and runs into the black (so that the white and the black of the eye mingle). The Targum rendering of תבלל is חילוז, connected in meaning with חלזון (a kind of worm); he translates it thus because that line resembles a worm. Thus, too, the Sages of Israel name it (the while line) among the blemishes of first-born animals: חלזון נחש עינב (worm, snake, wart) (cf. Bekhorot 38a,b).
  גרב וילפת — These are kinds of boil; גרב is identical with חרס (mentioned in Deuteronomy 28:27) — a boil  which is dry both inside and on the surface. ילפת is identical with the Egyptian lichen, (חזזית) (Sifra, Emor, Section 3 15). Why is it called ילפת (root לפת “to embrace")? Because it continues to cling to the body until the day of death. It is wet on the surface and dry inside. In another passage, however, Scripture gives the name גרב to a boil which is wet on the surface and dry inside, as it is said (Deuteronomy 28:27) "[The Lord will smite thee…] ובגרב ובחרס”, where גרב necessarily denotes a wet boil since חרס (identical with חרש, potsherd) denotes the dry species. But the explanation is as follows: חרס always denotes the dry skin disease, ילפח always the wet one; as to גרב it depends: When Scripture mentions גרב together with חרס it is calling a ילפת by the term ,גרב  and when it  mentions it (גרב) together with ילפת (as is the case here) it is calling a חרס by the term גרב. Thus is it explained in Bekhorot 41a.
  מרוח אשך, according to the Targum, מרס פחדין, which signifies one whose פחדין are מרוססין, i. e., one whose testicles are crushed. פחדין has the same meaning as (Job 40:17) “and the sinews of his stones (פחדיו) are wrapped together”.
  
  Verse 21
  
  כל איש אשר בו מום NO MAN THAT HATH A BLEMISH… [SHALL COME NEAR] — This is intended to include in the prohibition (besides the blemishes expressly mentioned in vv. 18—20) also other bodily blemishes (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 1).
  מום בו HE HATH A BLEMISH — These apparently redundant words imply: so long as he has the bodily blemish he is unfit for priestly service; (the translation is: מום בו while the blemish is in him, '‎לא יגש וכו‎ he shall not approach to offer); consequently, if his blemish disappears, he becomes again fit for it (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 6).
  לחם אלהיו THE BREAD OF HIS LORD — any food is called לחם (cf. Rashi on v. 17).
  
  Verse 22
  
  מקדשי הקדשים OF THE MOST HOLY — These are what are technically known as קדשי קדשים — of them he may eat. 
  ומן הקדשים יאכל AND OF THE HOLY HE MAY EAT — these are what are technically known as קדשים קלים. But if קדשי קדשים are mentioned as being permitted to him as food, why are קדשים קלים also mentioned? Could this not be inferred by a conclusion a fortiori? But the explanation is as follows: If קדשים קלים were not expressly mentioned as being permitted, I might have said: of the sacrifices holy in the highest degree the priest with a bodily blemish may eat — because we find that these had on one occasion been permitted to be eaten even by a non-priest, for Moses (who was not a priest) ate the flesh of the installation offering (cf. Leviticus 8:29; and this was holy in the highest degree since Scripture continues there: “Seethe the flesh at the entrance of the appointed tent… etc., a law that only applies to קדשי קדשים) — but he (a priest who is בעל מום) must not eat of the breast and the shoulder of sacrifices holy in a minor degree, since we do not find that a non-priest ever took a share in them. On this account sacrifices holy in a minor degree are expressly stated as permitted to be eaten. Thus it is explained in Treatise Zevachim 101b (cf. also Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 8-9).
  
  Verse 23
  
  אך אל הפרכת  ONLY [HE SHALL NOT GO IN] UNTO THE PARTITION VAIL for the purpose of applying the seven sprinklings which are to be made upon the partition vail (cf. Leviticus 16:17).
  ואל המזבח [NOR SHALL HE COME NIGH] UNTO THE ALTAR — i. e. the outer altar. Both (פרכת and מזבח) must be mentioned here and the reason is explained in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 10).
  ולא יחלל את מקדשי THAT HE PROFANE NOT WHAT IS HOLY TO ME — Consequently, if he performs the service it is profaned and thus becomes invalid (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 11).
  
  Verse 24
  
  וידבר משה AND MOSES TOLD this command,
  אל אהרן ואל בניו ואל כל בני ישראל UNTO AARON AND UNTO HIS SONS AND UNTO ALL THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — He told it to the Israelites although they were not directly concerned with these commands in order to admonish the court regarding the priests (i. e. that the authorities should watch over the sanctity of the Sanctuary and prevent priests with a bodily blemish from officiating) (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 12).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  וינזרו THAT THEY KEEP AWAY [FROM THE HOLY THINGS etc.] — The term נזר always denotes “keeping aloof". Similarly it is said (Ezekiel 14:7) "and he separates himself (וינזר) from following Me”; (Isaiah 1:4) "They are gone away (נזורו) backward”. The meaning of this verse therefore is: they (the priests) shall keep aloof from the holy things during the time of their uncleanness (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 1).
  וינזרו מקדשי בני ישראל אשר הם מקדשים לי. ולא יחללו את שם קדשי — Invert the words of the verse in the order here set forth and explain it accordingly.
  אשר הם מקדשים לי WHICH THEY HALLOW UNTO ME — This is intended to include in the prohibition the holy things of the priests themselves (i. e. הם refers to אהרן ובניו not to ‎‎בני ישראל‎) (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 1).
  
  Verse 3
  
  ‎כל איש אשר יקרב  WHOSOEVER HE BE THAT GOETH UNTO [THE HOLY THINGS… SHALL BE CUT OFF etc.] — This “approaching" unto the holy things signifies nothing else but eating of them. Similarly we find that the prohibition of eating holy things in a state of uncleanness is expressed by the term נגע, (which means, as does קרב, “approaching”): (Leviticus 12:4) “she shall approach near to nothing that is holy" — which is explained as a prohibition addressed to one who would eat of the holy things (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 12:4). And our Rabbis derived it (the fact that לא תגע means: she shall not eat) from a verbal analogy. It is indeed impossible to say that one is punishable for touching holy things in a state of uncleanness, because the penalty of excision for eating holy things in such a state is mentioned in the section commencing צו את אהרן (Leviticus 7:20, 21) — twice is the punishment of כרת mentioned there, one immediately after the other; and if one really becomes liable to punishment for the mere touching of holy things it is unnecessary to pronounce him liable to punishment for eating them! In this sense also is it (our passage) expounded in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 7): But is a priest who merely touches holy things when he is unclean really liable to the punishment of excision? Surely not, since Scripture expressly states in the following verse that an unclean priest who eats of the holy things is liable to excision and this latter statement would be unnecessary since eating without touching is impossible. But if this be so, why does Scripture use the term יקרב and not  יאכל which means "eating”? It is in order to intimate that this law applies only when an unclean priest eats of it after it becomes fit לקרב, “to be offered” — that one does not become liable on account of his uncleanness until its מתירין (its “permitting portions”) have been offered, and he then eats of it. And if you ask, “Why are three mentions of the כרת-punishment (Leviticus 7:21 and here) necessary in respect to priestly uncleanness? then I reply, they have already been interpreted in Treatise Shevuot 7a, one as being intended as a generalisation, the other as a specification, etc. (see Rashi on Leviticus 7:20).
  וטומאתו עליו means, AND THE MAN'S UNCLEANNESS IS UPON HIM (the first word meaning "and his uncleanness”). I might, however, think that Scripture is speaking of the flesh — "the uncleanness of the flesh is upon it” (the first word meaning “and its uncleanness, the word בשר being implied in the term הקדשים that precedes) and that Scripture is thus speaking of a clean person who ate holy things which have become unclean! You must needs admit that from what is implied in it (in the phrase) you must learn that Scripture is speaking of one whose state of uncleanness can fly (pass) away therefrom (since the phrase implies: “whilst the טומאה is still present", presupposing that there is a possibility of the טומאה passing away), and this can only refer to a human being who has a means of purification through immersion in a ritual bath whilst unclean food can never again become clean (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 8; Zevachim 43b).
  ונכרתה  [THAT SOUL] SHALL BE CUT OFF — I might think that this implies merely that he will be removed from one region (lit., side) to another region — that he will be cut off from his native place but may settle down in another place! Scripture however states, “[that soul shall be cut off from My presence] I am the Lord” — I am everywhere (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 6; cf. Rashi on Exodus 12:15.)
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  בכל טמא נפש [AND WHOSO TOUCHETH] ANY טמא נפש — This means: who touches a person who has become defiled by a corpse.
  
  Verse 5
  
  בכל שרץ אשר יטמא לו [OR WHOSOEVER TOUCHETH] ANY PROLIFIC CREATURE BECAUSE OF WHICH (לו) HE MAY BE MADE UNCLEAN — This means: who touches any שרץ of the minimum size that is capable of communicating uncleanness, viz., a particle of the size of a lentil (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 4 4; Chagigah 11a).
  או באדם OR A HUMAN BEING — a dead person (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 4 4). 
  אשר יטמא לו BY WHOM HE MAY BE MADE UNCLEAN - i. e. by touching the minimum size of a portion of the dead person which is capable of transmitting uncleanness, and this is, a portion as large as an olive (Mishnah Oholot 2:1).
  לכל טמאתו WHATSOEVER UNCLEANNESS HE HATH — This is intended to include in the prohibition of eating holy things one who has touched a man or a woman who has an issue, or who has touched a נדה or a woman in childbirth (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 4 4).
  
  Verse 6
  
  נפש אשר תגע בו THE SOUL WHICH HATH TOUCHED IT — i. e. who touches any one of these unclean persons or things (enumerated in the second half of v. 4 and in v. 5).
  
  Verse 7
  
  ואחר יאכל מן הקדשים [AND WHEN THE SUN IS DOWN HE SHALL BE CLEAN] AND MAY AFTERWARDS EAT OF HOLY THINGS — This is interpreted in Treatise Jebamoth (74b) to have reference to the heave-offering (not to holy things of every description): that he (a priest who was unclean and has bathed) is permitted to eat it as soon as the sun has set.
  מן הקדשים accordingly means: some OF THE HOLY THINGS, but not all holy things (the word מן having a partitive meaning: “some of”).
  
  Verse 8
  
  נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל לטמאה בה CARRION, OR THAT WHICH IS TORN HE SHALL NOT EAT TO BECOME UNCLEAN THEREBY — It is with regard to the defilement that Scripture lays down this prohibition: that if he (the priest) eats the carrion of a clean bird — which has no defiling effect through being touched or carried but has a defiling effect only when eaten, as soon as it is in the gullet — he is forbidden to eat holy things (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12 6). And it was necessary for Scripture to mention טרפה also, in order to define what נבלה is here intended, viz., one that can have a טרפה amongst the individuals of its class: therefore the נבלה of an unclean bird is excluded, for in its class a טרפה can never occur (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 17:15).
  
  Verse 9
  
  ושמרו את משמרתי THEY SHALL THEREFORE KEEP MY CHARGE — not to eat the heave-offering (as mentioned in v. 7) whilst they are in a state of bodily uncleanness (Sanhedrin 83a).
  ומתו בו LEST THEY DIE THEREBY — This phrase teaches us that this means death through Heaven (not through the sentence of the court) (cf. Sanhedrin 83a).
  
  Verse 10
  
  לא יאכל קדש [THERE SHALL] NO [LAYMAN] EAT OF THE HOLY THINGS — Scripture is speaking here of the heave-offering (i. e., the word קדש  means here תרומה only, and not any holy food) because the whole section (cf. Rashi on v. 7 and 9) is speaking of this.
  תושב כהן ושכיר A SOJOURNER WITH THE PRIEST OR A HIRED SERVANT [SHALL NOT EAT OF THE HOLY THINGS] — These words mean: the תושב of a כהן and his שכיר (not a כהן who is a תושב or a שכיר); on this account this word תושב here is punctuated with a Patach, because it is in the construct state. What is a תושב? One (a Hebrew servant) whose ear has been pierced (cf. Exodus 21:6), who thereby becomes his (the master’s) possession until the Jubilee year. And what is a שכיר? One (a Hebrew servant) who has been acquired as his possession for a limited number of years only — who goes free at the end of six years (cf. Exodus 21:2). Scripture intends to teach you here that it is not his body (that of the תושב or the שכיר), but only his labour for a term of years that has been acquired by his master that he should become entitled to eat of his heave-offering (as is the case with the קנין כספו, with “a person obtained as a property with money”, mentioned in the next verse) (Sifra, Emor, Section 5 17; Yevamot 70b).
  
  Verse 11
  
  וכהן כי יקנה נפש BUT IF THE PRIEST BUY ANY SOUL… [HE MAY EAT OF IT] — This refers to a Canaanitish servant who has been acquired even in respect to his body (not only as regards his work). 
  ויליד ביתו AND THEY THAT ARE BORN IN HIS HOUSE — This refers to the children of his maid-servants. A priest's wife may eat תרומה as may be derived from this verse, for she, too, is “an acquisition obtained by his money” (Ketuvot 57b; cf. Mishna Kiddushin 1:1… ‎'האשה נקנית בכסף וכו‎‎‎, one of the ways in which a marriage may be contracted is by the passing of money or its equivalent from the man to the woman. A wife is therefore a קנין כסף). But it may also be derived from another verse (Numbers 18:11) "[the heave-offering…] everyone that is clean in thy house may eat of it”. Thus is it expounded in Sifrei Bamidbar 117 2.
  
  Verse 12
  
  לאיש זר TO A LAYMAN — to a Levite or an ordinary Israelite (i. e. to any non-priest) (Sifra, Emor, Section 5 7).
  
  Verse 13
  
  אלמנה וגרושה [BUT IF A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER BE] A WIDOW OR DIVORCED WIFE of the layman mentioned in the preceding verse,
  וזרע אין לה AND SHE HATH NO DESCENDANTS — from him (from the layman) (Sifra; Yevamot 87a),
  ושבה THEN SHE MAY RETURN [UNTO HER FATHER'S HOUSE AS IN HER YOUTH  AND MAY EAT OF HER FATHER’S BREAD] — if, however, she has descendants from him she is forbidden to eat as long as the descendants (cf. Yevamot 87a) are alive.
  וכל זר לא יאכל בו BUT THERE SHALL NO LAYMAN EAT THEREOF — The repetition of the prohibition already mentioned in v. 10 intends nothing else than to exclude from it the אונן — i. e. that he (the אונן) is permitted to eat תרומה. [Scripture, as it were, says here:] The status of being a non-priest, I tell you, debars one from eating תרומה but not that of being an אונן (Yevamot 68b).
  
  Verse 14
  
  כי יאכל קדש AND IF [A MAN] EAT OF HOLY THINGS — the heave-offering.
  ונתן לכהן את הקדש THEN SHALL HE GIVE UNTO THE PRIEST THE קדש — i. e. a thing capable of becoming קדש, thus implying that he does not pay him money but fruits of a non-sacred character (חולין), which then become תרומה (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 6 5; Pesachim 32b).
  
  Verse 15
  
  '‎ולא יחוללו וגו‎‎ AND THEY SHALL NOT PROFANE [THE HOLY THINGS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] — by giving them to non-priests to eat of them.
  
  Verse 16
  
  והשיאו אותם means, and they (the priests) would burden themselves with sin, באכלם את קדשיהם WHEN THEY (the non-priests) EAT THEIR HOLY THINGS which have been set apart for the purpose of heave-offering and have thereby become holy and forbidden to them. [Onkelos who translated באכלם את קדשיהם by “when they (the priests) eat them in their uncleanness” has translated it thus quite unnecessarily] (But cf. Rashi on Sanhedrin 90b).
  והשיאו אותם — This (the word אותם) is one of the three cases of את with a pronominal suffix occurring in the Torah which R. Ishmael explained as speaking of (referring to) the person himself who is the subject of the sentence (i. e. as being reflexive and not accusative pronouns). In the same sense did he explain (Numbers 4:13) “[And this is the law of the Nazarite] when the days of his Nazaritehood are fulfilled, יביא אותו [to the entrance of the appointed tent]” as meaning: he shall bring himself (i. e. present himself) to the entrance etc. Similarly he explained (Deuteronomy 34:6)  “ויקבור אותו in the glen” as meaning: he (Moses) buried himself (i. e. he went into a cave and died there cf. Avot 5:9 and יד משה on Shemot Rabbah 10). Thus is it explained in the Sifrei Bamidbar 32 (on Numbers 6:3).
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  נדריהם THEIR VOWS — [An animal is termed נדר when an obligation is entered into by the words:] Behold, I take it upon myself [to bring a burnt-offering].
  נדבותם THEIR FREE-WILL OFFERINGS — [it is a נדבה when one states:] Behold, this animal [shall be a burnt-offering] (Megillah 8a).
  
  Verse 19
  
  לרצנכם — The meaning is: bring such a thing (animal) as is fitted to cause רצון, propitiation for you before Me. The word לרצנכם means: so that it may be to you for propitiation; apaisement in old French And which animal is it that is fitting to effect propitiation? 
  תמים זכר בבקר בכבשים ובעזים A MALE WITHOUT BLEMISH OF THE CATTLE, OF THE SHEEP, OR OF THE GOATS — but in the case of a burnt-offering that consists in a bird, the unblemished condition and the male sex are not essential, and it does not become unfit for sacrifice by reason of a mere blemish (a bodily defect), but only by reason of the loss of a limb (Sifra, Emor, Section 7 2).
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  לפלא נדר means, expressing it by speech (not expressing it mentally,‎ בלב).
  
  Verse 22
  
  ‎עורת is a noun denoting the blemish of blindness (עִוָּרֹן), being, however, a feminine form of the latter. The text therefore means that there shall not be the defect of blindness in it (in the sacrifice).
  או שבור nor shall it be a broken animal. 
  חרוץ CHAPPED — an eye-lid that is split or has a piece cut out of its edge; and similarly, its (the animal’s) lip that is split or has a piece cut out of its edge (Sifra, Emor, Section 7 12; Bekhorot 38a).
  יבלת is called verrue in old French, (English = wart).
  גרב is a kind of lichen and so too is ילפת. The word ילפת is connected in meaning with (Judges 16:29) “And Samson took hold (וילפת) [of the two middle pillars]”. The blemish is so called because it keeps its grasp on him (the sick person) until the day of his death, since there is no cure for it (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 21:20).
  לא תקריבו YE SHALL NOT OFFER — Three times is the expression לא תקריבו used in this section (here and in v. 20 and 24), in order to lay down a separate prohibition regarding designating them (blemished animals) as sacrifices, slaughtering them and sprinkling their blood (cf. Temurah 6b).
  ואשה לא תתנו YE SHALL NOT MAKE A FIRE-OFFERING [OF THEM] — This contains the prohibition of burning them on the altar (Temurah 6b).
  
  Verse 23
  
  שרוע is an animal that has one limb larger than its fellow-limb (Bekhorot 40a).
  וקלוט is an animal which has uncloven hoofs (the sign of uncleaness; cf. Leviticus 11:4—6. It is a שור or a שה which, being a clean animal, is fitted to be sacrificed, but abnormally its hoofs are uncloven) (Bekhorot 40a).
  נדבה תעשה אתו THOU MAYEST DESIGNATE IT FOR A FREE-WILL OFFERING for the purpose of repairing the breaches in the Temple from the proceeds of its sale,
  ולנדר BUT AS A VOW — i. e. as an animal vowed for the altar (for sacrifice), it shall not be accepted.
  לא ירצה [BUT AS A נדר] THERE SHALL NOT BE PROPITIATION — What dedicated thing is it that is intended to effect propiation? You must admit that it is something dedicated to the altar. Consequently נדר can only mean a sacrifice for the altar (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 7 6).
  
  Verse 24
  
  ומעוך וכתות ונתוק וכרות are forbidden as sacrifices whether the mutilation be in the testicles or the membrum.
  מעוך means, one whose testicles have been pressed by hand.
  כתות CRUSHED — it implies more severely crushed than מעוך. 
  נתוק — they have been torn off by the hand, so that the threads on which they hang have snapped but they are still in the scrotum, the scrotum itself not having been torn off.
  וכרות — they have been cut away by an instrument but are still in the scrotum (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 7 9; Bekhorot 39b).
  [ומעוך — Its translation in the Targum is, ודי מריס; this is its exact translation in Aramaic, because this Aramaic root has the meaning of pounding.
  וכתות, however, is translated by the Targum ודי רסיס “and that which is smashed”, (a stronger term than מרס), similar to, Amos 6:11) “The great house shall be smitten into רסיסים‎” i. e. into small fragments; similar is the Talmudical expression (Shabbat 80b) a reed crushed to pieces (מרוסס‎‎‎‎)]. 
  ובארצכם לא תעשו NEITHER SHALL YE DO IN YOUR  LAND this thing — to castrate any cattle or beast even if it be unclean. That is why Scripture adds “in your land” — to include every animal that is in your land under this law (cf. Chagigah 14b and Tosafot there). For it is impossible to say that they are here commanded to abstain from mutilating animals in the Land of Israel only, (and that the word must be translated: “In your land you must not do this”, implying, but you may do it elsewhere) for surely the command regarding mutilation is a personal duty and any personal duty has to be practiced both in the Land and outside the Land (Kiddushin 36b; cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 7 11).
  
  Verse 25
  
  ומיד בן נכר AND FROM ANY STRANGER’S HAND who has brought a sacrifice through the agency of a priest to offer it to the Lord, לא תקריבו YOU SHALL NOT OFFER a blemished animal on his behalf. And though blemished animals are not forbidden as sacrifices of the “Sons of Noah” (the non-Israelite world) except such as lack one of their limbs (as derived from the text: Genesis 6:19; cf. Avodah Zarah 5b) — this rule applies only to animals offered to God by the “Sons of Noah” themselves on a Bamah (an altar, lit., an elevated place) in the open field, but on the altar in the Tabernacle shall you not offer blemished animals on their behalf (cf. Temurah 7a). An animal, however, that has no blemish you may accept from them as an offering on your altar. It is for this reason that Scripture says above (v. 18): איש “Any man… who offers”, in order to include in this law the heathens also — that they, too, are permitted to undertake to bring vowed animals (נדרים) and free-will offerings (נדבות) just the same as the Israelites (Chullin 13b).
  משחתם THEIR CORRUPTION — Translate this as the Targum does: חבולהון, their wound (defect).
  לא ירצו לכם THEY SHALL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR YOU — i. e. to atone for you.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  כי יולד WHEN [ANY OX etc.] IS BORN… [FROM THE EIGHTH DAY, AND THENCEFORTH, IT SHALL BE FAVOURABLY ACCEPTED AS A FIRE OFFERING…] — The expression יולד “that is born” excludes the case of an animal delivered through the abdominal wall (i. e. by Caesarian section) (Chullin 38b).
  
  Verse 28
  
  אתו ואת בנו [AND WHETHER IT BE AN OX OR A SHEEP YE SHALL NOT SLAUGHTER] IT AND ITS YOUNG [BOTH IN ONE DAY] — This law applies only to the female parent, although Scripture uses the masculine term אתו — that it is forbidden to slaughter the dam and its male or female young in one day, but it does not apply to the male parent, and it is permissible to slaughter the father animal and its young whether male or female in one day (Chullin 78b; cf. also Onkelos).
  אתו ואת בנו IT AND ITS YOUNG — The prohibition of slaughtering the young first and then it (the dam) in one day is also implied (Chullin 82a).
  
  Verse 29
  
  לרצנכם תזבחו‎ ‎ [AND WHEN YE WILL SLAUGHTER A SACRIFICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT UNTO THE LORD], SLAUGHTER IT SO THAT IT MAY EFFECT PROPITIATION FOR YOU — i. e. take care from the very outset of your slaughtering that it should effect acceptance for you; and wherein consists the assurance of its acceptance? 
  ביום ההוא יאכל in the intention that IT SHALL BE EATEN ON THE SAME DAY  — Scripture intends by these words only to express the warning that the slaughtering shall be made with this intention: — do not slaughter it with the intention of eating it on the morrow, because if you then harbour any intention which will lead to its disqualification it shall not be favourably accepted for you. Another explanation of לרצנכם is: sacrifice it wittingly (with full knowledge of what you are doing); hence we may derive that if one is “handling” the sacrifices when slaughtering them (i. e. when he does the act of שחיטה without the intention of doing this) they become invalid (Chullin 13a). And (referring again to the first explanation) though Scripture has already specifically stated this (the fact that the slaughtering must be made with the clear intention not to eat the flesh beyond the prescribed time) with regard to such offerings that may be eaten during two successive days (cf. Leviticus 7:18), it specifically states here again of those sacrifices which are permitted to be eaten on one day only that their slaughtering must take place with the clear intention to eat them within the time prescribed for them.
  
  Verse 30
  
  ביום ההוא יאכל IT SHALL BE EATEN ON THE SAME DAY — Scripture only intends by these words to express the warning that the slaughtering shall be done with this in mind (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 9 2), for if it intended to fix the time for eating it they would be redundant, since it is already stated (Leviticus 7:15) “And the flesh of the sacrifice of his feast offerings for acknowledgment [shall be eaten the same day that it is offered]”.
  אני ה׳ I AM THE LORD — Know Who it is that has decreed this matter, and let it, therefore, not be a light thing in your eyes!
  
  Verse 31
  
  ושמרתם — This implies the study of the commandments,
  ועשיתם, the doing of them (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 9 3).
  
  Verse 32
  
  ולא תחללו YE SHALL NOT PROFANE [MY HOLY NAME], by transgressing My commands willfully. Having regard to what is implied in the statement: You shall not profane [My holy name] (viz., that it must be hallowed), what is the meaning of ונקדשתי? But, this implies a positive act of sanctification: Abandon yourself to martyrdom and hallow My name! I might think that this command applies even to the Israelite when he is alone (i. e., when no other Israelites are present when the heathen bids him transgress a Divine command)! Scripture, however, states: בתוך בני ישראל [AND I SHALL BE SANCTIFIED] AMIDST THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. — And when offering oneself to martyrdom, one should offer himself with the firm determination (lit., under the condition) to die if necessary, for he who abandons himself on condition (i. e. cherishing the hope) that God will not exact the sacrifice and that a miracle will happen to save him will have no miracle wrought for him; for thus we find in the case of Chananyah, Mishael and Azariah that they did not offer themselves for martyrdom expecting a miracle, as it is said (Daniel 3:17, 18) “[And God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace and He will deliver us out of thy hand, O king]. But if not, be it known unto thee that we will not serve thy gods etc. — Whether He saves us or whether he does not save, “be it known unto thee etc.” (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 9 5)
  
  Verse 33
  
  המוציא אתכם THAT HATH BROUGHT YOU OUT [OF THE LAND OF EGYPT] — for the sake of this (that you should hallow His name).
  'אני ה‎‎ I AM THE LORD — Who is faithful in paying you your reward (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 9 6).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   'דבר אל בני ישראל, מועדי ה‎‎ SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL [AND DECLARE UNTO THEM] THE APPOINTED FESTIVALS OF THE LORD — This means, Regulate the festive seasons in such a manner that all Israel should become practised in them (their observance). Hence we derive the law that they (the Sanhedrin) proclaim a leap-year (i. e. intercalate a second Adar) for the sake of those living in the diaspora who have already left their homes in order to go up for the festival but have not yet arrived in Jerusalem (Sifra, Emor, Section 9 1; cf. Sanhedrin 11a).
  
  Verse 3
  
  ששת ימים SIX DAYS [MAY WORK BE DONE BUT THE SEVENTH DAY IS THE SABBATH OF STRICT REST] — What relation is there between the Sabbath (the day that is invariably fixed by God as the holy day) and the festive seasons (the times of which are variable, being dependent upon the proclamation of the Sanhedrin)? But by putting both into juxtaposition Scripture intends to teach you that he who desecrates the festivals is regarded as though he had desecrated the Sabbath, and that he who keeps the festivals is regarded as though he had kept the Sabbath (Sifra, Emor, Section 9 7).
  
  Verse 4
  
  'אלה מועדי ה THESE ARE THE APPOINTED FESTIVALS OF THE LORD [EVEN CONVOCATIONS OF HOLINESS WHICH YE SHALL PROCLAIM] — Above (v. 2), where similar words are used, Scripture is speaking of proclaiming the year to be a leap-year, here it is speaking of the קדוש החדש, sanctification of the month (a technical expression denoting proclaiming when is the New Moon — the beginning of a month) (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 10 1).
  
  Verse 5
  
  בין הערבים AT EVENTIDE — i. e. the period from six hours onwards (reckoning from six o’clock in the morning) (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 11 1; cf. Rashi on Exodus 12:6).
  פסח לה׳ [AT EVENTIDE] IS THE פסח OF THE LORD — i. e. the offering of the sacrifice which bears the name פסח‎.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  'והקרבתם אשה וגו‎‎ BUT YE SHALL OFFER A FIRE-OFFERING etc. — This is identical with the additional offerings due on the first day of Passover which are mentioned in the section of פנחס (Numbers 28:19). But why are these referred to here? In order to intimate that the additional offerings do not impede one another (i. e. that if a particular animal of these מוספים cannot be scarified, it is still lawful to bring the others) (Menachot 49a), because it states: —
  ‎'והקרבתם אשה לה‎ YE SHALL BRING THE FIRE-OFFERING OF THE LORD — bring  it  under any circumstances — if there are no bullocks available as prescribed, offer the prescribed rams; and if there are neither bullocks nor rams, offer the lambs (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 11 5).
  שבעת ימים SEVEN DAYS — Wherever the term שבעת is used it is a noun (not a cardinal numeral), so that the words here mean a septaine of days (a period of seven days), in old French Similar is the meaning of all the expressions שמנת ,ששת ,חמשת ,שלשת. 
  מלאכת עבדה [YOU SHALL DO NO] SERVILE WORK — Not even such labors as are regarded by you as an obligation and a necessity, the neglect of which involves loss of money, as, for instance, a matter that may become lost (that cannot be postponed without irretrievable loss). I understand this (that the above is the meaning of מלאכת עבדה) from Torat Cohanim (on  .v  36  of this chapter), since it states there: I might think from what Scripture states (vv. 36, 37)  כָּל מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ אֵלֶּה מוֹעֲדֵי‎  that‎ מלאכת עבדה is forbidden also on the intermediate days of Passover and Tabernacles (lit., the week-days of the festivals). Scripture, however, states, “it (the eighth day) is a festival and ye shall do no מלאכת עבדה” thus intimating that on a day which is not a festival such work is permitted. The intermediate days are not regarded as a festival and the rule is that דבר האבד may be attended to. Hence the very question: “may מלאכת עבדה be done on the intermediate days?”, implies that the term denotes דבר האבד. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  ראשית קצירכם THE FIRST FRUITS OF YOUR HARVEST — This means that it (the Omer) shall be the first thing to be harvested (cf. Sifra, Emor, Section 10 3). 
  עמר — The tenth part of an Epha; this was its name (i. e. עמר has not the meaning of a sheaf here as is the meaning of the word e. g., in Deuteronomy 24:19: ושכחת עמר — but it denotes a certain measure), as we find (Exodus 12:18) “And they did measure it with the Omer”.
  
  Verse 11
  
  והניף AND HE SHALL WAVE [THE OMER] — Every form of the root נוף used in connection with sacrifices signifies that one moves the latter about both horizontally (מוליך ומביא) and upwards and downwards (מעלה ומוריד); he moves it about horizontally to prevent (i. e. the act was symbolical of preventing) destructive winds, he moves it about upwards and downwards to keep away injurious dews (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:24) (Menachot 62a).
  לרצנכם TO BE ACCEPTED FOR YOU — If you offer it according to this precept it shall effect favourable acceptance for you.
  ממחרת השבת ON THE MORROW AFTER THE DAY OF REST [THE PRIEST SHALL WAVE IT] — This must mean on the morrow of the first day of the Passover festival (on the 16th of Nisan); for if you say that it means on the morrow of the weekly Sabbath (i. e. on a Sunday) you do not know which particular Sabbath Scripture is referring to (Menachot 66a).
  
  Verse 12
  
  ועשיתם... כבש AND YE SHALL OFFER… A LAMB — This came (was brought) as an obligatory sacrifice in connection with the Omer.
  
  Verse 13
  
  ומנחתו AND THE MEAL OFFERING THEREOF — i. e. the usual meal-offering that was brought together with its drink-offering,
  שני עשרנים TWO TENTHS DEALS OF FLOUR — It was double as much as was usually required with a lamb (cf. Numbers ch. 28).
  ונסכו רביעית ההין AND THE DRINK OFFERING THEREOF OF WINE SHALL BE THE FOURTH PART OF HIN — Although its meal-offering was twice as much as usual its drink-offering was not double (Menachot 89b).
  
  Verse 14
  
  וקלי means flour made out of tender ears (כרמל); this is called קלוי because they dry them in the oven and so become scorched.
  וכרמל — these are ears themselves which are called grenailles in old French (Menachot 66a, b).
  בכל משבתיכם IN ALL YOUR HABITATIONS — The Sages differ in their opinions regarding this (the meaning of these words). Some learn from here (taking the words בכל משבתיכם in the sense "wherever you may live") that the law concerning the new crop applies also outside the Land of Israel; others, hold that it (the phrase) denotes “in all your settlements” and is only intended to teach that they did not become subject to the command concerning the new crop until after the land had become their inheritance and place of settlement (ישיבה) i. e. after they had subjugated the land and had parcelled it out amongst the tribes (Kiddushin 37a).
  
  Verse 15
  
  ממחרת השבת FROM THE MORROW AFTER THE DAY OF REST — i. e. from the morrow after the first day of the Passover festival (Menachot 65b).
  תמימת תהיינה [SEVEN WEEKS] SHALL BE COMPLETE — This teaches that one has to begin counting in the evening, for otherwise they would not be complete (Menachot 66a).
  
  Verse 16
  
  השבת השביעת — Translate this as the Targum does שבועתא שביעתא THE SEVENTH WEEK.
  עד ממחרת השבת השביעת תספרו EVEN UNTIL THE MORROW AFTER THE SEVENTH WEEK SHALL YE NUMBER — until, but not including the day until which you count: thus there are 49 days (the seven complete weeks spoken of in the preceding verse).
  'חמשים יום והקרבתם מנחה חדשה לה‎… FIFTY DAYS — AND YE SHALL OFFER A NEW OBLATION UNTO THE LORD — i. e. on the fiftieth day ye shall offer it. This, I say, is a Midrashic explanation, but the literal sense is: “Even unto the morrow of the seventh week which is the fiftieth day shall ye number”: the text has its phrases inverted.
  מנחה חדשה A NEW MEAL OFFERING — It was the first meal-offering that was offered from the new crop. And if you ask, “But surely the meal-offering of the Omer has already been offered on the 16th of Nisan”?! Then I reply: It (the Omer) was not like all the other meal-offerings — which, with one exception (cf. Numbers 5:15), were all brought of wheat — since it was brought of barley and therefore it is not taken into account (cf. Menachot 84b).
  
  Verse 17
  
  מושבתיכם [YE SHALL BRING] OUT OF YOUR HABITATIONS [TWO WAVE LOAVES] — but not from outside the Land of Canaan (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 13 1; Menachot 83b).
  לחם תנופה WAVE LOAVES — i. e. heave loaves that have been heaved in honour of the Lord. It is these which constitute the “new meal-offering” mentioned above (v. 16).
  בכורים [THEY ARE] THE FIRSTLINGS — the first of all meal-offerings offered, the first even in relation to the “meal-offering of jealousy” (cf. Numbers 5:15) which was brought of barley; even that must not be offered of the new crop previous to the two loaves, although a barley offering had already been brought, viz., the Omer which was offered on Passover (Menachot 84b).
  
  Verse 18
  
  על הלחם means, on account of the bread — as an obligation connected with the bread (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 13 4; Menachot 45b).
  ומנחתם ונסכיהם WITH THEIR MEAL OFFERINGS AND THEIR DRINK OFFERINGS — according to the law of the meal offerings and the drink offerings which are distinctly set forth with reference to all animal sacrifices in the chapter dealing with drink offerings: (Numbers 28:12—14) “three tenth deals of flour for one bullock, two tenth deals of flour for one ram, and one tenth deal of flour for one lamb”: — this is the meal-offering. The drink-offerings were: “half a hin of wine for a bullock, the third part of a hin of wine for a ram, and the fourth part of a hin of wine for a lamb”.
  
  Verse 19
  
  ועשיתם שעיר עזים THEN YE SHALL SACRIFICE ONE KID OF THE GOATS — I might think that the seven lambs (cf. v. 18) and the goat mentioned here are identical with the seven lambs and one goat mentioned in the Book of Numbers (28:27—30). — This is, however, not the case, for when you come to the bullocks and the rams you will find that they are not identical (here, v. 18. we have one bullock and two rams, whilst there you have two bullocks and one ram). Consequently you must admit that these (the lambs and the goats mentioned here) form a group for themselves and the others form a group for themselves: these were offered on account of the loaves and the others as additional offerings for the day (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 13 6; Menachot 45b).
  
  Verse 20
  
  והניף הכהן אתם... תנופה AND THE PRIEST SHALL WAVE THEM [WITH THE BREAD OF THE FIRSTLINGS] FOR A WAVE OFFERING — This teaches us that they (the offerings) require the waving whilst they are still living. One might think that all of them (the seven lambs mentioned in v. 18) have to be waved! It, however, states על שני כבשים “[and the priests shall wave them… upon the two lambs]” (cf. Menachot 62a).
  קדש יהיו THEY SHALL BE HOLY [TO THE LORD FOR THE PRIEST] — Because festival-offerings offered by a private person are holy only in a minor degree, Scripture was compelled to state of the festival-offerings of the community that they are holy in the highest degree.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  ובקצרכם AND WHEN YE REAP [THE HARVEST OF YOUR LAND, THOU SHALT NOT MAKE CLEAR RIDDANCE OF THE CORNER OF THE FIELD] — Scripture repeats the prohibition here (although it has already been mentioned above, 19:9) in order to make one who transgresses this law infringe two negative commands. R. Abdima the son of R. Joseph said: What reason had Scripture to place it (the law concerning the corner of the field) amidst those regarding the festival-sacrifices — those of Passover and Pentecost on this side of it, and those of the New Year, Day of Atonement and “the Feast” (Tabernacles) following on that side of it? To teach you that he who leaves the gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and the corner of the field to the poor as it ought to be, is regarded as though he had built the Temple and offered his sacrifices therein (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 13 11).
  תעזב THOU SHALT LEAVE [THEM UNTO THE POOR] — leave these in front of them and they shall gather: you are not allowed to assist one of them to the injury of another poor man (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 3 5; Mishnah Peah 5:6).
  אני ה' אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD, Who am faithful to pay you your reward.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  זכרון תרועה [THERE SHALL BE UNTO YOU] A זכרון OF SOUNDING THE CORNET — a mention (זכרון) of Biblical verses which speak of the Divine remembrance and Biblical verses which have reference to the blowing of the Shofar (a ram’s horn) on the occasion of important historical events (Sifra; Rosh Hashanah 32a) that I may recall to memory (זכרון) for you the offering (lit., the “Binding”) of Isaac in whose stead a ram was offered (cf. Rosh Hashanah 16a) having been caught by its horn (שופר‎).
  
  Verse 25
  
  אשה‎ והקרבתם‎ AND YE SHALL OFFER A FIRE OFFERING — i. e. the additional offerings prescribed in the Book of Numbers (29:2 ff.).
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  אך — The words אך and רק wherever they occur in Scripture have a limitative force; here the word implies: it (Yom Kippur) makes expiation for those who repent, but it does not make expiation for those who do not repent (אך... יום הכפורים הוא — in a limitative sense it is Yom Kippur) (Shevuot 13a; cf. Rashi on Exodus 34:7).
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  והאבדתי I WILL DESTROY — This expression “destroying” is employed here because Scripture uses everywhere in similar cases the term כרת, “cutting off” without clearly defining it, so that I do not know exactly what it implies; but when it states here והאבדתי, it teaches in respect of the term כרת that it implies nothing else than becoming lost” (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 14 4).
  
  Verse 31
  
  '‎‎כל מלאכה וגו‎ [YE SHALL NOT DO] ANY WORK — This is repeated (cf v. 30) in order to make one who does work on Yom Kippur transgress several negative commands. Or, it is repeated, in order to prohibit working in the night of Yom Kippur, just as well as working during the day itself (Yoma 81a).
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  מקרא קדש — This means: Hallow it (make it different from other days) by wearing fine clothes, and through appropriate prayer. In the case of other Festivals of which the same words are used, the expression מקרא קדש implies: Hallow them (distinguish them from other days) by your food and drink, by your fine clothes and appropriate prayers (cf. Sifra, Emor, Section 12 4).
  
  Verse 36
  
  עצרת הוא — The word is derived from the root עצר “to hold back” and suggests: I keep you back with Me one day more. It is similar to the case of a king who invited his children to a banquet for a certain number of days. When the time arrived for them to take their departure he said, “Children, I beg of you, stay one day more with me; it is so hard for me to part with you!” (cf. Rashi on Numbers 29:36 and Sukkah 55b).
  כל מלאכת עבדה ANY WORK THAT IS AN עבדה — i. e. even such work which rests as an obligation (עבודה) upon you because if it is left undone it involves monetary loss (cf. Rashi v. 8),
  לא תעשו YE SHALL NOT DO: — One might think that it is forbidden to do such urgent work (מלאכת עבדה) also on the intermediate days of Passover and Tabernacles (which are Half-festivals)! Scripture, however, states: עצרת] הוא], “it (i. e. the eighth day) forms a restriction: [ye shall do no urgent work]” — but on the intermediate days such work is not forbidden (Sifra, Emor, Section 12 6).
  
  Verse 37
  
  עלה ומנחה A BURNT OFFERING AND A MEAL OFFERING — This means the מנחת נסכים (the meal-offering due with the drink-offering) that is brought together with the‎ עולה (Menachot 44b)‎.
  ‎‎ביומו‎ ‎יום‎ ‎דבר  EVERYTHING UPON ITS DAY (lit., the thing of the day, on its day) — the quantity definitely assigned to each day in the Book of Numbers (cf. Rashi on Exodus 16:4).
  דבר יום ביומו EVERYTHING UPON ITS DAY (which may mean the matter of the day shall be on its day) — consequently if its day (the day on which some particular one of these sacrifices is due) be past, it's (the day’s) offering is past (cf. Sifra, Emor, Section 12 9).
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  אך בחמשה עשר יום... תחגו BUT ON THE FIFTEENTH DAY… YE SHALL OFFER A חג — i. e., a sacrifice of peace-offerings as a חגיגה (the pilgrims’ sacrifice on the Festivals) (Chagigah 9a). Since it states that this has to be brought on the fifteenth day of the month, one might think that it (the offering of קרבן חגיגה) shall set aside the Sabbath (supersede the Sabbath law, if that day be the fifteenth of the month)! Scripture, however, uses the word אך (the particle that implies a limitation; cf. Rashi on v. 27): suggesting that it must not be offered on Sabbath because it has a supplementary period consisting of all the seven days of the Festival.
  באספכם את תבואת הארץ [ON THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF THE SEVENTH MONTH] WHEN YE GATHER IN THE INCREASE OF THE LAND — This tells us that this seventh month (in which סכות occurs) must be at the time of the ingathering. Hence we learn that they are enjoined to intercalate the years if necessary (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 15 6), because if there be no such intercalation it (the seventh month) would sometimes fall in the middle of the summer or of the winter.
  תחגו YE SHALL CELEBRATE (OFFER) the peace-offerings of the חגיגה.
  שבעת ימים  SEVEN DAYS (during seven days), meaning that if one has not brought them on one he may bring them on another of the seven days. But I might think that the meaning is that one has to offer them on each of the seven days! Scripture, however, states (v. 41): וחגתם אתו, “and ye shall make it the day of the חגיגה” — this implies one day and no more. Why, then, does Scripture say “seven”? In reference to the supplementary period (Chagigah 9a).
  
  Verse 40
  
  פרי עץ הדר THE FRUIT OF THE TREE HADAR — a tree the wood of which (עץ) has the same taste as its fruit (פרי) (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 16 4; Sukkah 35a).
  הדר — It is called הדר because it is the tree whose fruit remains (הַדָּר) on the tree from one year to another (several years) — and this is the “Ethrog”.
  כפת תמרים A BRANCH OF PALM TREES — The word כפת is written defective (without ו, not כפות) to intimate that only one branch is intended (Sukkah 32a).
  וענף עץ עבת AND BOUGHS OF THE TREE עבת — i. e. of a tree whose boughs are, as it were, plaited (intertwined one with another) like ropes (עבתות) and cords; this is the myrtle plant which is indeed formed as a plait (three leaves issuing from one point of the branch and covering it) (Sukkah 32b).
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  האזרח THE NATIVE — Since this word means native-born, the word בישראל, ANYONE IN ISRAEL, serves to include the proselytes (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 17 9).
  
  Verse 43
  
  כי בסכות הושבתי THAT I MADE [THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] ABIDE IN BOOTHS — This does not mean literally “booths” but, “the clouds of Glory" by which they were sheltered (cf. Onkelos; Sifra, Emor, Chapter 17 11; Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:35:1; Sukkah 11b).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  צו את בני ישראל COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL [THAT THEY BRING UNTO THEE CLEAR OLIVE OIL, BEATEN, FOR THE LIGHT] — This is the section containing the commandment concerning the lamps, whilst the section beginning with ואתה תצוה (Exodus 27:20 ff.) which also deals with the lamp is only mentioned there for the sake of giving an orderly account of the work of the Tabernacle, to explain what the purpose of the candlestick was — for thus do those words ואתה תצוה imply: “and thou wilt at some future time command the Children of Israel” about this. 
  שמן זית זך CLEAR OLIVE OIL — Three different qualities of oil come forth (are extracted) from the olive tree, the first of which is called זך, “clear”. They are all fully explained in Treatise Menachot 86a and in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Emor, Section 13 1-3).
  תמיד (continually not continuously) here implies from night to night. It has the same meaning as in עולת תמיד a “continual” burnt offering which was only sacrificed from day to day (cf. Rashi on Exodus 27:20).
  
  Verse 3
  
  לפרכת העדת [WITHOUT] THE PARTITION VAIL OF THE TESTIMONY — i. e. the Partition Vail which is before the Ark which on account of its contents (the Tablets, termed לחות העדות in Exodus 37:15) is called “Testimony”. Our Rabbis, however, explained it (the word העדות) as referring to the western light of the candlestick which was a testimony (עדות) to mankind that the Shechinah dwelt in Israel through the miracle wrought in connection with it; for he (the priest) put only as much oil into it as was the quantity put into the other lamps and yet he began the lighting of the other lamps in the evening by it and finished the work of cleaning with it [since it continued to burn miraculously until the following evening] (Sifra, Emor, Section 13 9; Shabbat 22b; Menachot 86b).
  יערך אתו אהרן מערב עד בקר AARON SHALL SET IT IN ORDER FROM EVENING UNTO MORNING — The meaning is not that he shall occupy himself the whole night with setting the lights in order, but he shall arrange it in such a manner (lit., by such an arrangement) that will prove adequate for the length of the whole night. Our Rabbis by experiment (cf. Menachot 89a) fixed the quantity at a half log oil for each lamp, ascertaining that this would suffice also in the long nights of the Teveth quarter; and this quantity therefore became to them the fixed measure [for all the seasons of the year].
  
  Verse 4
  
  המנרה הטהרה THE PURE CANDELABRUM — It was so called because it was made of pure gold. Another explanation is: he shall set the lights in order upon the purity of the candlestick, implying that he must first purify (cleanse) it and remove its ashes beforehand (the words therefore mean: on a clean candlestick; cf., however, Sifra, Emor, Section 13 12 where the word is explained differently).
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  שש המערכת SIX ON A ROW — i. e. six cakes shall form one row.
  השלחן הטהר THE PURE TABLE — i. e. the table of pure gold (cf. Rashi on v. 4). Another explanation is that על השלחן הטהר means: immediately upon the טהר of the table (i. e. its top and they must not rest upon something else that is placed on the table-top) — i. e. that the supporting pillars (cf. Rashi on Exodus 25:29) must not raise the bread (i. e. the lowest loaves) above the top of the table (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 18 4; Menachot 97a).
  
  Verse 7
  
  ונתת על המערכת AND THOU SHALT PUT UPON THE ROW — i. e. upon each of the two rows [PURE FRANKINCENSE]; there were two bowls for this frankincense, each filled with a handful of it.
  והיתה THAT IT — this frankincense — MAY BE
  ללחם לאזכרה ON THE BREAD FOR A MEMORIAL — because of the bread itself nothing was offered to the Lord, but the frankincense was burnt when the former was removed from the golden table every Sabbath. It (the frankincense) thus served as a memorial for the bread, because through it, it (the bread) was recalled to memory Above (the bread itself was not offered) just as the “handful” of flour and of oil (Leviticus 2:2) was “the memorial portion” of the meal offering being the only part offered, while the remainder was eaten by the priests just as this bread was.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  והיתה AND IT SHALL BE — this meal-offering shall be — [AARON’S AND HIS SONS’]; (although the word מנחה is not mentioned in the text it is implicitly contained in the word לחם) because anything that is brought (offered) of grain comes under the term of ‎מנחה.
  ואכלהו‎ AND THEY SHALL EAT IT; the suffix which is masc. refers to לחם which is masculine.
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויצא בן אשה ישראלית AND THE SON OF THE ISRAELITISH WOMAN WENT OUT — Whence did he go out? Surely not from the camp, since Scripture states “and they strove in the camp”! Rabbi Levi said, “He went out from (by his blasphemous utterance he lost) his eternal life (עולמו; R. Levi evidently connects ויצא with the last word of v. 8; “the everlasting covenant, ברית עולם”). R. Berachya said, “He set forth (יצא) (started his argument) from the above section. He said sneeringly: “Every Sabbath he shall set it in order!? Surely it is the way of a king to eat fresh (lit., warm) bread every day; is it perhaps his way to eat bread nine days old (lit., cold bread of nine days)?! (The Hebrew word בתמיה “Say this in the intonation of a question” means nothing other than our question mark) (Midrash Tanchuma 38 23). A Baraitha states that ויצא means, he came out of the judicial court of Moses where he had been pronounced to be in the wrong in the following matter: although his father was an Egyptian he had gone to pitch his tent in the camp of the tribe of Dan to whom his mother belonged (cf. v. 11).  They (the men of Dan) said to him, “What have you to do here" (lit., what is your character that gives you the right to come here?). He replied. “I am one of the children of the tribe of Dan”. Thereupon they said to him, “Scripture states: (Numbers 2:2) “Every man [of the children of Israel shall encamp] by his own standard, that bears the signs of their father’s house”! He thereupon went in to the judicial court of Moses to have the matter decided and came forth (יצא) declared to be in the wrong. He then stood up and blasphemed (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1; Leviticus Rabbah 32 3).
  בן איש מצרי THE SON OF AN EGYPTIAN MAN — It was the Egyptian whom Moses had killed (Leviticus Rabbah 32 4; cf. Exodus 2:11 where Scripture also uses the expression “איש מצרי”; cf. also Rashi thereon).
  בתוך בני ישראל AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL  — This teaches us that he had become a proselyte (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1).
  וינצו במחנה THEY QUARRELLED IN [or CONCERNING] THE CAMP, about matters connected with the camp (i. e. as to where was his proper place in the camp; Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1; cf. Rashi on ית‎ישראל‎ אשה ‎ויצא בן‎‎). 
  ‎הישראלי‎ ואיש THE ISRAELITISH MAN — this was his opponent (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1) who had prevented him from pitching his tent in the camp of Dan.
  
  Verse 11
  
  ויקב — Translate this as the Targum does: ופרש “and he pronounced”, thus ויקב … ויקלל means that he uttered the Tetragrammaton and by so doing blasphemed. It was the “Proper Name” which he had heard on Mount Sinai (cf. Sifra, Emor, Section 14 2 and Jeremiah Targ.).
  ושם אמו שלמית בת דברי AND HIS MOTHER’S NAME WAS SHELOMITH, THE DAUGHTER OF DIBRI, [THE TRIBE OF DAN] — it is to tell how praiseworthy Israel was that Scripture publicly mentions her name (exposes her), telling us implicitly that of all the women of Israel she alone was a harlot (Leviticus Rabbah 32 5).
  שלמית (connected with שלום “peace”) — she was so called because she was always babbling: “Peace be with thee”, “peace be with thee”, “peace be with you” — she used to continually babble with many words (she was a בת דברי) — she enquired after the health of everybody (Leviticus Rabbah 32 5).
  בת דברי (from the root דבר “to speak”) — she was talkative — talking with any man, and in consequence of this she got into trouble. 
  למטה דן OF THE TRIBE OF DAN — This mention also of the parent and tribe of the woman teaches us that the wrong doer brings shame upon himself, shame upon his parent, shame upon his whole tribe. Similarly we find the name of the tribe Dan mentioned to express praise; (Exodus 31:6) “Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan”, where the details of Oholiab’s descent imply praise for him, praise for his father and praise for his tribe (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 4).
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויניחהו AND THEY PLACED HIM [IN WARD] — him by himself — and they did not place the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day with him (Numbers 15:34), because both of whom happened to be (i. e. to commit an offense) at the same period, but they knew that the stick-gatherer was to be punished with the death-penalty, only it had not been explained to them by what kind of death he was  to  be  punished  — it is for this reason that it is stated in his case (Numbers 15:33) “[and they placed him in ward] because it was not explained what should be done to him”. In the case of the blasphemer, however, it states “[and they placed him in ward] that [the proper penalty] might be shown to them”; this was because they did not know whether he is at all liable to the death-penalty or not (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 5; Sanhedrin 78b).
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  השמעים THEY THAT HEARD — This refers to the witnesses. 
  כל ALL [THOSE THAT HEARD] — 'all' serves to include the judges also (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 1).
  את ידיהם [AND ALL THAT HEARD HIM SHALL LAY] THEIR HANDS [UPON HIS HEAD] — They said to him: your blood is upon your head; we do not deserve punishment on account of your death, for it was you yourself who brought it about (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 2).
   כל העדה ALL THE CONGREGATION [SHALL CERTAINLY PELT HIM WITH STONES]  — (This means: the witnesses shall stone him), all the congregation standing by (because it cannot possibly mean that all the 600,000 men comprising the whole of the congregation should stone him). From here, we may derive the legal principle that a man’s agent is as himself (i. e. that his actions are legally of the same effect as though they were carried out by those for whom he acts the order) (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 23).
  
  Verse 15
  
  ונשא חטאו [WHOSOEVER EXECRATETH HIS GOD] SHALL BEAR HIS SIN — i. e. shall be punished with excision if there was no legal warning preceding the offence (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 6; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 20:27).
  
  Verse 16
  
  ונקב שם AND HE THAT UTTERETH BLASPHEMOUSLY THE NAME [OF THE LORD SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH]  —  He is not liable to the death-penalty at the hand of the judges unless he utters the Divine Tetragrammaton blasphemously, but not  if he execrateth the Lord by only mention of one of the substitutes for the Divine name (e. g., רחום, חנון, אל etc.), (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 5; Sanhedrin 56a).
  ונקב here is an expression denoting “cursing”, like (Numbers 23:8) “How shall I curse (אקב) [when God hath not cursed]” (Sanhedrin 56a).
  
  Verse 17
  
  ואיש כי יכה AND HE THAT KILLETH [ANY MAN SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — Because it is said (Exodus 21:12) “Whosoever smiteth a man so that he die [shall surely be put to death]” I might say that I have here only the law that if one kills a man he is punishable with death; whence, however, do I know that this is also the case if he kills a woman or a child? Because Scripture states here: “[and he that killeth] any person (more lit., the soul of any human being)” (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 20 1; cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:12).
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  כן ינתן בו [AND IF A MAN CAUSES A BLEMISH IN HIS COMPANION…] SO SHALL IT BE DONE TO HIM — Our Rabbis explained that this does not mean the actual infliction of a blemish but that it means monetary compensation — that we estimate his (the injured man’s) value as a slave and the offender has to pay the difference between his value as an unmaimed man and that which he represents after the infliction of the injury. It is for this reason that the term נתן “to give” is written here referring to something that is given (passed) from hand to hand viz., money (Ketubot 32b; Bava Kamma 84a).
  
  Verse 21
  
  ומכה בהמה ישלמנה AND HE THAT SMITETH A BEAST, HE SHALL PAY FOR IT — Above (v. 18) Scripture was speaking of one who kills a beast, whilst here it speaks of one who inflicts a wound up on it (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:12).
  ומכה אדם יומת AND HE THAT SMITETH A MAN SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH — although he has not killed him but only inflicted a wound upon him, because Scripture does not state מכה] נפש] (as it does in v. 17 which implies “smiting of the soul” — killing). Scripture is speaking here of one who smites his father or his mother when he is punishable with death for mere smiting without fatal result (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:15). It is true that the punishment for this offence has already been stated (Exodus 24:17) but Scripture intends by putting this case in juxtaposition with מכה בהמה to put it in some respect on a level with the case of one who smites a beast. How is it in the case of one who smites a beast? He is subject to the law only if he smote it while it was alive! So, too, is one who smites his father (or his mother) punishable only if he smites them whilst they are alive, thus excluding from the death penalty one who smites them after their death. Because we find that he who curses him (the father; — the same applies to the mother) after death is liable to the death penalty (cf. Rashi Leviticus 20:9), Scripture was compelled to state with reference to one who smites his parents that he is exempt from the death penalty if he does this after their death (as stated above). And there is another point of comparison: How is it in the case of a beast? The law speaks only of smiting resulting in a wound! — for if there is no wound resulting no compensation can be claimed — so, too, he who smites his father is not liable to the death penalty unless he inflicts a wound upon him (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 8; Sanhedrin 84a, 85b).
  
  Verse 22
  
  ‎'אני ה אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — your God — the God of all of you. Just as I attach My Name to you, so do I attach it to the strangers.
  
  Verse 23
  
  ובני ישראל עשו AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DID [AS THE LORD COMMANDED MOSES] every prescription mentioned in respect to the stoning-penalty in another place, viz., the casting down of the culprit from a height, the heaping of stones upon him, and the hanging him after the execution has taken place (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 10; Sanhedrin 43a).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  בהר סיני [AND THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES] ON THE MOUNT SINAI — What has the matter of the Sabbatical year to do with Mount Sinai that Scripture fell compelled to expressly state where it was commanded? Were not all commandments given on Sinai? But this statement is intended to suggest the following comparison: How is it in the case of the law of Shemittah? Its general rules, [its specific prescriptions] and minute details were ordained on Mount Sinai! So, also, were all commandments with their general rules and their minute details ordained on Mount Sinai. Thus is in taught in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Behar, Section 1 1). It seems to me that the following is the explanation of this: Since we do not find in Deuteronomy that the law concerning “the rest of the soil in the Sabbatical year” was repeated in “the fields of Moab” (cf. Deuteronomy 34:1; the place where Moses repeated many of the commandments contained in the other books of the Pentateuch), we may infer that all its general rules and specific prescriptions must have been promulgated on Sinai. The express mention of בהר סיני here appears therefore to be unnecessary but Scripture by mentioning it intends to teach regarding every Divine command (lit., Divine utterance) that was spoken to Moses that in every case they, their general rules and minute details originated at Sinai and that they were only repeated again in “the fields of Moab”.
  
  Verse 2
  
  שבת לה׳ [THEN SHALL THE LAND KEEP) A REST ‎'לה‎ — This means a rest in honor of the Lord (not a rest for the Lord, as in v. 4: שבת שבתון יהיה לארץ, “there shall be a strict Sabbath for the land”, i. e. for the land to rest) in the same sense as these words are used in the case of the weekly Sabbath (lit., the Sabbath of Creation) (Exodus 20:10) where 'שבת לה‎ cannot mean “a day for God to rest” (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 1 2).
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  יהיה לארץ [A SABBATH OF STRICT REST] SHALL BE UNTO THE LAND [or SOIL] — unto the fields and vineyards.
  לא תזמר — The word is a denominative verb from זמורה, a branch, and denotes: to do something to the branches: it is used here because one lops off its (the vineyard’s) branches. Its translation in the Targum is thus: לא תכסח, “thou shall not cut off”, and this root has a similar meaning in the Hebrew (Isaiah 33:12) “as thorns cut off (כסוחים)”; (Psalms 80:17) “it is burnt with fire, it is cut down (כסוחה). 
  
  Verse 5
  
  את ספיח קצירך  THAT WHICH GROW OF ITS OWN ACCORD OF THY HARVEST — i. e. even if you have not sown it but it grew from the seed which fell into it (into the ground) at the time of the last harvest — and that is what the term ספיח denotes.
  לא תקצור THOU SHALT NOT REAP [IT] — to take it as your exclusive property as you do with other harvests (with the harvest in another year) but it shall be free (הפקר) to all and then thou also may reap of it.
  נזירך [AND THE GRAPES OF THY VINE] WHICH ARE נזירים — i. e. those from which you barred people (שהנזרת) and from which you have kept them away, not having declared them free to everybody.
  לא תבצר THOU SHALT NOT GATHER — them thou must not gather, but you may gather from that which has been declared free to everybody (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 1 3).
  
  Verse 6
  
  'והיתה שבת הארץ וגו‎‎‎‎ AND THE SABBATH OF THE LAND SHALL BE [FOOD FOR YOU] — Although I have forbidden them (the fruits of the sabbatical year) to you by stating “thou shalt not harvest etc.”, I do not mean to forbid them to you as food or to be used for any other beneficial purpose but what I meant was that you should not comport yourself in respect of them as the exclusive owner but all must be equal as regards it (the Sabbatical year’s produce) — you and your hired servant and your sojourner.
  שבת הארץ לכם לאכלה THE שבת OF THE LAND [SHALL BE] FOR FOOD FOR YOU — Since Scripture does not state והיתה תבואת הארץ לכם לאכלה‏ but‎‎  והיתה שבת הארץ לכם לאכלה it intimates: Only that which has been treated according to the Sabbatical law (שבות) and been declared free to all may you eat, but not that which has been kept by you (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 1 5).
  לך ולעבדך ולאמתך [AND THE SABBATH OF THE LAND SHALL BE FOOD FOR YOU]; FOR THEE, FOR THY SERVANT, AND FOR THY MAID SERVANT — Because it states (Exodus 23:11) “[but in the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still]; that the needy of thy people may eat”, one might think that they (the fruits of the Sabbatical year) are forbidden as food for the rich (and thus also for the owner of the field and his household), Scripture therefore states here: “[it shall be for food for thee,] for thy servant, and for thy maid servant” — thus you have the mention of the owners (the rich) here as well as of the servants and the maid servants — the poor (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 1 6).
  ולשכירך ולתושבך AND FOR THY HIRED SERVANT, AND FOR THY SOJOURNER — Even non-Jews (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 1 7).
  
  Verse 7
  
  ולבהמתך ולחיה AND FOR THY BEAST, AND FOR THY CATTLE [… SHALL ALL THE INCREASE THEREOF BE FOOD] — If the wild beast may eat thereof how much the more is this the case with cattle to supply which with food is your duty! What, then, is intended by Scripture specially stating “and for thy cattle”? But by mentioning it, it intends to put on a level (to suggest equal treatment of) the cattle with the wild beast: so long as the wild beast has the opportunity of eating from the produce in the field, feed your cattle with what is stored in the house; as soon, however, as food has disappeared for the wild beast from out of the field, make it disappear for thy cattle from out of thy house [i. e. clear it out of thy house into the field and make it thus available to all animals alike] (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 1 8; Taanit 6b).
  
  Verse 8
  
  שבתות שנים [AND THOU SHALT NUMBER] SEVEN SABBATHS OF YEARS [UNTO THEE] — seven Shemittah-periods of years (cf. Onkelos). One might think that one may keep seven successive years as “Shemittah” and keep the year immediately following them as the “Jubilee”, Scripture therefore states “seven years, seven times”, consequently you are bound to say that each of these seven years of release has to be kept in its proper time (i, e. at the end of six years of work) (Sifra, Behar, Section 1 1).
  'והיו לך ימי שבע וגו‎‎ AND THE PERIOD OF SEVEN [SABBATHS OF YEARS] SHALL BE UNTO THEE [FORTY AND NINE YEARS] — This mention of the sum total tells you that even if you have not kept the years of “Shemittah” keep the “Jubilee” at the end of forty-nine years (Sifra, Behar, Section 1 2). (The translation according to this Midrashic explanation therefore is: When seven Sabbaths of years (i. e. the seven seven-year periods) will be unto thee forty-nine years, thou shalt cause the horn to be blown etc. — no matter whether you have kept the intervening שמיטות or not.) The plain sense of the verse, however, is: The sum total of the periods of which each ends in a “Shemittah” (or, the sum total of these Shemittah-periods) will give thee forty-nine years.
  
  Verse 9
  
  והעברת has the same meaning as the verb in (Exodus 36:6) “and they caused it to be proclaimed (ויעבירו קול) in the camp” — it is a term for proclamation (i. e. והעברת has not the literal meaning of causing a cornet to pass, i. e. to carry it about in the land as a symbol of freedom) (Rosh Hashanah 34a).
  ביום הכפורים [ON THE TENTH DAY OF THE SEVENTH MONTH] ON THE DAY OF EXPIATION [SHALL YE CAUSE THE CORNET TO SOUND] — Since Scripture states “on the day of expiation” do I not know that it is “on the tenth day of the seventh month”? Why, then, does Scripture add “on the tenth day of the month”? But it adds these words in order to tell you: the blowing Of the שופר on the tenth day of the month sets aside the Sabbath (supersedes the Sabbath Law) throughout all your land (בכל ארצכם); whilst the blowing of the Shofar on the New Year, the first day of that month, does not supersede the Sabbath Law “throughout all your land”, but only at the law-court (בי"ד) alone (Sifra, Behar, Section 1 5; Rosh Hashanah 29b).
  
  Verse 10
  
  וקדשתם AND YE SHALL SANCTIFY [THE FIFTIETH YEAR] — when it begins they declare it holy in the court by saying: “The year is holy!” (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 2 1; Rosh Hashanah 8b and Rosh Hashanah 24a).
  וקראתם דרור AND YE SHALL PROCLAIM LIBERTY unto slaves, both to him whose ear has been pierced (and whose period of servitude has thus been prolonged until the Jubilee; cf. Exodus 21:6) and to him whose six years of servitude (the period prescribed for an ordinary Hebrew servant; Exodus 21:6 Exodus 21:2), reckoning from the time when he was sold, have not yet ended. R. Jehuda said, “What is the etymology of the term דרור, freedom? A free man is like a person who may dwell (דור) at an inn — meaning that he may reside in any place he pleases, and is not under the control of others. (דרור therefore implies liberty of residence) (Rosh Hashanah 9b).
  יובל הוא IT SHALL BE A JUBILEE [UNTO YOU] — This year shall be distinguished from all other years by it alone being given a special name for itself. And what is its name? “Jobel” is its name — with reference to the “sounding of the Shofar” (the ram’s horn which is called יובל; cf. Exodus 20:13).
  ושבתם איש אל אחזתו AND YE SHALL RETURN EVERY MAN UNTO HIS POSSESSION — This means that the fields return to their owners. (Not that each man actually goes back to his land — just as it goes on to state that the slave actually returns to his family).
  ואיש אל משפחתו תשבו AND YE SHALL RETURN EVERY MAN UNTO HIS FAMILY — This verse is intended to include in the law of setting the slaves free also the slave whose ear has  been pierced (cf. Sifra, Behar, Chapter 2 5; Kiddushin 15a).
  
  Verse 11
  
  יובל הוא שנת החמשים שנה IT IS A JUBILEE; THE FIFTIETH YEAR [SHALL BE UNTO YOU A PERIOD etc.] — Why is this statement made at all? Is it not identical with that made in v. 10? But because it is stated (v. 10) “and ye shall sanctify [the fiftieth year]” which implies that the year has to be sanctified at the beginning although the law of setting the slaves free applies only as from Yom Kippur, and consequently one might think that the holy character of the year is to be extended till the tenth of Tishri of the next year. Scripture therefore states here “a Jubilee is the fiftieth year” — but not any part of the fifty-first — just as is explained in Rosh Hashanah 8b and in Torat Cohanim (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 3 1).
  את נזריה [YE SHALL NOT GATHER  THE GRAPES] THAT ARE נזירים — i. e. the grapes which have been kept by you (cf. Rashi on v. 6: לכם לאכלה‎ שבת הארץ), but you may gather from those that had been declared free to all (cf. Rashi on v. 5: ‎‎לא תבצר). Just as this is stated with reference to the Sabbatical year so, too, is it stated with regard to the Jubilee (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 3 2). Thus there are two holy years one after the other: the forty-ninth year שמיטה, and the fiftieth,יובל‎‎.
  
  Verse 12
  
  ‎ קדש תהיה לכם IT SHALL BE HOLY UNTO YOU — The sacred character of the produce of that year attaches itself to its equivalent (i. e. to the articles given in exchange for it), just as is the case with Temple property (הקדש). One might think that after having been exchanged it (the fruit) leaves (loses) its sacred character and becomes חולין (ordinary produce), as is the case with many “holy” objects when they have thus been exchanged! Scripture, however, states תהיה “[holy] shall it be”, it shall always be in its original (holy) status (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 3 3; cf. Sukkah 40b).
  מן השדה תאכלו את תבואתה YE SHALL EAT THE INCREASE THEREOF מן השדה — only by virtue of what is to be found in the field mayest thou eat of what is stored in the house; because if it (a particular fruit) has disappeared for food for the wild beasts in the field, you must clear it out of the house. Just as this is stated in reference to the produce of the Sabbatical year so is it slated also in reference to that of the Jubilee (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 3 4).
  
  Verse 13
  
  תשבו איש אל אחזתו YE SHALL RETURN EVERY MAN UNTO IHS POSSESSION — But has it not already been stated: (v. 10) “and ye shall return every man unto his possession”? But this is repeated in order to include in this law also the case of one who sold his field and his son came forward and redeemed it, — that it also is to be returned to the father in the Jubilee (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 3 6).
  
  Verse 14
  
  ‎'וכי תמכרו וגו‎‎‎‎ AND IF THOU SELL [OUGHT TO THY FELLOW… YE SHALL NOT OVERREACH ONE ANOTHER] — According to its plain sense the verse intimates what it literally means: (i. e. as translated above). But there is also a Midrashic interpretation: Whence can it be derived that if you sell anything you should sell it to your Israelite fellowman? From what Scripture states: “And if you sell  — ,לעמיתך sell  it  to one associated with you by nationality”. And whence can it be derived that if you intend to buy anything that you should buy it of your Israelite fellow? From what Scripture states “or if thou buy ought — מיד עמיתך, at the hand of one associated with thee, buy it” (Sifra, Behar, Section 3 1). 
  אל תונו YE SHALL NOT WRONG [ONE ANOTHER] — This refers to wronging in money matters (Sifra, Behar, Section 3 4).
  
  Verse 15
  
  במספר שנים אחר היובל תקנה ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF YEARS AFTER THE JUBILEE THOU SHALT BUY [OF THY COMPANION] — This (the following) is the literal sense fitting in the clauses of the verse as required by the context: Scripture intends here to warn against wronging prohibited in the preceding verse: When you sell or buy landed property take into account how many years there are  until the Jubilee, and according to the years and the crops of the field which it can be expected to yield shall the vendor sell and the purchaser buy, for in the end he (the purchaser) will have to return it to him (to the vendor) in the Jubilee-year. Consequently if there are only a few years until the Jubilee and this man sells it at a high price it follows that the purchaser has been overreached. If, on the other hand, there are still many years until the Jubilee so that he eats from it many crops the seller is overreached if you give him only a low price. It must therefore be purchased according to the period remaining until the Jubilee. That is what Scripture means when it states: “According to the number of the years of the fruits he shall sell unto  ,"thee," i. e. according to the number of years of crops that it (the field) will remain in the hand of the purchaser you shall sell it to him. Our Rabbis, however, derived from here the law that one who sells his field has no right to repurchase it before the elapse of at least two years, — that it must remain in the possession of the purchaser two full years reckoning from date to date, and even though there may be three crops in these two years, as, for instance, if he sold it when it had its corn standing. And in this interpretation the word שני does not lose its literal meaning, viz., that of years, (the words שני תבואות are not taken in this interpretation to mean “two crops” as you might at first think) — the phrase means מספר שנים של תבואות the number of years of crops (i. e. שני is the construct of שנים) and not of years when the corn is smitten by blast, and you know that the minimum number implied in the plural שנים is two (this is how the Rabbis derived the law that the vendor must leave the field at least two years in possession of the purchaser) (Arakhin 29b).
  
  Verse 16
  
  תרבה מקנתו THOU SHALT INCREASE THE PRICE THEREOF — i. e. you may sell it at a high price 
  תמעיט מקנתו — You shall offer a lower price.
  
  Verse 17
  
  ולא תונו איש את עמיתו YE SHALL NOT THEREFORE BE EXTORTIONATE TO ONE ANOTHER — Here Scripture warns against vexing by words (wounding a person’s feelings) — that one should  not annoy his fellow-man, nor give him an advice which is unfitted for him, but is in accordance with the plan and the advantage of the adviser. But lest you should say, “Who knows whether I had any intention to do him evil?” Scripture therefore states: “but thou shalt fear thy God”! — He Who knows men’s thoughts, He knows it! In all cases where it is a matter of conscience (more lit., a matter handed over to the heart), when no one knows the truth except the one who has the thought in his heart, Scripture always states: “but be afraid of thy God”! (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 4 1-2; Bava Metzia 58b; cf. also Rashi on Leviticus 19:14.)
  
  Verse 18
  
  וישבתם על הארץ לבטח [WHEREFORE YE SHALL DO MY ORDINANCES] AND YE SHALL ABIDE IN THE LAND IN SAFETY — It states this because as a punishment for the sin of neglecting the laws of ”Shemittah” Israel becomes exiled, as it is said (Leviticus 26:33, 34) “(And I will disperse you among the nations…] Then shall the land makeup  for the Sabbatical years… even then make up for her Sabbatical years that she has not observed” (Shabbat 33a). The seventy years of the Babylonian exile were indeed a punishment corresponding to the seventy Sabbatical years which they had neglected (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 26:35).
  
  Verse 19
  
  ונתנה הארץ וגו' וישבתם לבטח עליה AND THE LAND SHALL YIELD [HER PRODUCE AND YE SHALL EAT YOUR FILL], AND ABIDE THEREIN IN SAFETY — The latter words imply that ye shall not have to worry about years (lit., a year) of drought.
  ואכלתם לשבע AND YE SHALL EAT YOUR FILL — [even if you eat only a little — cf. Rashi on Leviticus 26:5] it will be blessed in your stomach.
  
  Verse 20
  
  ולא נאסף [AND IF YE SHALL SAY,… BEHOLD WE SHALL NOT SOW] NOR GATHER IN — into the house. 
  את תבואתנו OUR INCREASE — as, e. g., the wine and the fruits of trees and the aftergrowth of the fields, which grow of their own accord (Pesachim 51b).
  
  Verse 21
  
  לשלש השנים [IT SHALL BRING FORTH INCREASE] FOR THE THREE YEARS — i. e. for a part of the sixth year — from Nisan till the New Year of the seventh — for the whole seventh year and for part of the eighth year, for in the eighth year they will sow in Marcheshvan but will harvest only in Nisan (so that they will have to depend on the harvest of the sixth year in the eighth too).
  
  Verse 22
  
  עד השנה התשיעית UNTIL THE NINTH YEAR — i. e. until the Feast of Tabernacles of the ninth year which is the time when the crop of the eighth year comes ‎(בא תבואתה) into the house (the granaries). For during the whole summer-time (the fruits) remained in the  fields  inthe barns, and in Tishri was the time for gathering them into the house. Sometimes indeed it th)e soil) had to bring forth fruits for four years, viz., during the sixth year preceding the seventh “Shemittah” (i. e. in the forty-eighth year of the Jubilee-period) when they had to refrain from agricultural work two successive years, viz., the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee immediately following it. This verse, however, (which mentions only an increase sufficient for three years) is said (written) with reference to all other (i. e. ordinary) Sabbatical years.
  
  Verse 23
  
  ‎‎לא תמכר‎‎ והארץ THE LAND SHALL NOT BE SOLD [ABSOLUTELY] — This is intended to charge with the transgression of a negative command (לאו) the neglect of returning the fields to their owners in the Jubilee — it commands that the purchaser must not detain it (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 5 8). 
  לצמתת means for severance; the meaning is: it shall not be sold as a sale that severs in perpetuity.
  כי לי הארץ FOR THE LAND IS MINE — Your eye shall not be evil towards it (you shall not begrudge this) for it is not yours.
  
  Verse 24
  
  ובכל ארץ אחזתכם AND IN ALL THE LAND OF YOUR POSSESSION [YOU SHALL GRANT A REDEMPTION FOR THE LAND] — (The translation may be: And as regards everything etc.) thus including in this law houses and Hebrew servants (i. e. that to these also the right of redemption must be granted). And this matter is explained in Treatise Kiddushin 21a in the first section (cf. also Sifra, Behar, Chapter 4 9). According to the literal sense, however, it is to be connected with the section immediately following: to point out that one who sells his landed property has the right of redeeming it after two years either by himself or his relative, and that the purchaser has no right to prevent it (גאולה תתנו לארץ, you must grant redemption).
  
  Verse 25
  
  כי ימוך אחיך ומכר  AND IF THY BROTHER BE WAXEN POOR AND HAS SOLD AWAY [SOME OF HIS POSSESSION] — The introductory words teach us that one is not permitted to sell his real estate except under the pressure of poverty (cf. Sifra, Behar, Chapter 5 1).
  מאחזתו SOME OF HIS POSSESSION — but not the entire property. Scripture thereby teaches you a practical rule that, however needy a man is, he should always leave some immovables (lit., a field) for himself (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 5 1).
  וגאל את ממכר אחיו HE SHALL REDEEM THAT WHICH HIS BROTHER SOLD — and the purchaser has no right to prevent it.
  
  Verse 26
  
  ואיש כי לא יהיה לו גואל [AND] IF [A MAN] HAVE  NONE TO REDEEM  IT  — But does there exist anyone in Israel who has none to redeem his property (who has no relative at all)? But the meaning is: a relative who is able (possesses the means) to redeem that which he has sold (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 5 2; cf. Kiddushin 21a).
  
  Verse 27
  
  וחשב את שני ממכרו THEN LET HIM RECKON THE YEARS OF THE SALE THEREOF — [let him reckon thus:] How many years were there until the Jubilee? So-and-so many! At what price did I sell it to you? At such-and-such a price! Now in the Jubilee year you would have to restore it to me; it follows therefore that you have actually bought a number of crops only (and not the land itself) at a certain sum for every year. You have eaten it (used it) three or four years; deduct therefore their value from the sum total of the purchase money and  you take the remainder. And this is the meaning of: “he shall restore the overplus” — viz., the excess of the purchase-money over the value of the crops which he (the purchaser) has enjoyed, and he shall restore it to the purchaser.
  לאיש אשר מכר לו [AND HE SHALL RESTORE THE OVERPLUS] TO THE MAN TO WHOM HE HAD SOLD IT — i. e. to whom he — this seller who now comes to redeem it — had sold it (but not to any other person who is now in the possession of the field, having in his turn bought it from that man to whom he — the seller — had originally sold it) (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 5 3; Arakhin 30a).
  
  Verse 28
  
  די השיב לו [BUT IF HE IS NOT ABLE] TO RESTORE IT (lit., if his hand find not sufficient means to restore to him) — Therefore it follows that  he (the vendor) has no right to redeem his property in parts (lit., by halves) (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 5 5, Arachin 30a).
  עד שנת היובל UNTIL THE YEAR OF JUBILEE — “until” but not “including” the year of the Jubilee; it means that nothing of time shall have entered into that year (that not one moment of that year shall have passed), because the Jubilee effects the release of such property at its very beginning (in contrast to the cancelling of debts in the “Shemittah” which takes place only at the end of the year; cf. Deuteronomy 15:1 ff.) (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 5 6; Arakhin 28b).
  
  Verse 29
  
  בית מושב עיר חומה A DWELLING PLACE IN A CITY WHICH HATH A WALL — i. e. a house situated in a city which has been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua the son of Nun (Sifra, Behar, Section 4 1).
  והיתה גאלתו THEN IT SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE REDEEMED [UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF THE YEAR OF ITS SALE]  — Because it is stated about a field that one may redeem it after two years from the date of the sale and onwards at any time he pleases, but one may not redeem it during the first two years, Scripture was compelled to state specially with reference to this (the house) that just the opposite is the case — that if one wishes to redeem it in the first year he may do so, but after that he cannot redeem it.
  והיתה גאלתו THEN THE REDEMPTION OF IT — of the house — SHALL BE [TILL THE COMPLETION OF THE YEAR].
  ימים YEAR (lit., days) — the days of a full year are, briefly, termed “days”. Similar is: (Genesis 24:55) “Let the damsel remain with us a year (‎‎‏."(ימים
  
  Verse 30
  
  וקם הבית...לצמתת (THEN THE HOUSE… SHALL BE ESTABLISHED ABSOLUTELY [TO HIM THAT OBTAINED IT] — i. e. it leaves the control of the vendor for ever and stands under the exclusive control of the purchaser. 
  אשר לא חמה — We read the text as though it were written לו (i. e. tradition tells us to do so). Our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (Arakhin 32a): We do so to intimate that the law applies to a city even if at the present it has not a rampart (אשר לא חמה) since previous to now it had one (אשר לו חמה). It is true that עיר is a feminine noun and the preposition referring to it should have been written לה (not לו), yet because Scripture was bound to write לא in the text for the reason given, the Massora (the traditional Scriptural text without vowels) replaced it by לו (instead of לה), because the sound of the one applies also to the other (they sound similar).
  לא יצא ביובל IT SHALL NOT GO OUT IN THE JUBILEE — Rabbi Saphra said, “if the Jubilee happened to fall during that year (the first year of its sale), it shall nevertheless not go out” (Arakhin 31b).
  
  Verse 31
  
  ובתי החצרים BUT THE HOUSES OF THE VILLAGES — Understand this as the Targum does: פצחין i. e. “houses of open cities” such as have no rampart. The term חצר occurs many times in this sense in the Book of Joshua, e.g., (Joshua 13:29) “the cities and the unwalled places thereof (וחצריהם)”; so also (Genesis 25:16) "by their unwalled places (בחצריהם) and by their strongholds” (see Rashi on that verse).
  על שדה הארץ יחשב [BUT THE HOUSES OF THE VILLAGES]… SHALL BE ACCOUNTED AS THE FIELDS OF THE COUNTRY — i. e. they shall be like the fields which may be redeemed until the  Jubilee(not only in the first year) and go out in the Jubilee into the possession of their owners if they have not been redeemed in the meantime (Arakhin 33a).
  גאלה תהיה לו THEY MAY BE REDEEMED — at once if he (the vendor) so desires. In this respect it (the house in an unwalled city) has even a greater advantage than the fields, for the fields cannot be redeemed until two years have elapsed from the date of the sale (Arakhin 33a; cf. Rashi on v. 24).
  וביבל יצא AND THEY SHALL GO OUT IN THE JUBILEE — for nothing.
  
  Verse 32
  
  וערי הלוים  THE CITIES OF THE LEVITES… [MAY BE REDEEMED AT ANY TIME]  — This refers only to the forty-eight cities which had been given to them (cf. Numbers 35:6. 7). (But if the Levites built another city for themselves, or if a  Levite possesses a house in a city inhabited by Israelites these do not come under this law). 
  גאלת עולם [THE LEVITES SHALL HAVE] THE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION AT ANY TIME — This means that they (Levites) may redeem at once — even before the end of two years — if they sold a field of those fields which had been given to them within the two thousand cubits round about the cities (cf. Numbers 25:5) (whilst an ordinary Israelite’s field must remain at least two years in the hand of the purchaser), or if they sold “a house in a city which has a wall” they may redeem it at any time and it does not become irredeemable at the end of one year (as is the case with such houses belonging to Israelites; cf. v. 30) (Arakhin 33b).
  
  Verse 33
  
  ‎הלוים‎ מן‎ואשר יגאל ‏ ‎‎‎ ‎— This means, and if any one buys a house or a city from them, then that house that has been sold or the city that was sold shall go out in the Jubilee and shall return unto the Levite who has sold it, and not be irredeemable as are other houses in “cities that have a wall” viz., those of Israelites. According to this explanation, יגאל has here the meaning of a “sale”. Another explanation is (taking יגאל here in its usual meaning of “redeeming”): Because it is stated in the previous verse: “the Levites shall have the right of redemption at any time”, I might think that Scripture is speaking only of an ordinary Israelite purchaser who bought a house in a city of the Levites, but when a Levite bought a house from another Levite it shall be irredeemable! Scripture therefore states “[the Levites shall have the right redemption at any time]”, ואשר יגאל מן הלוים, “also if one who redeems does so from the Levites — i. e. that also one (a Levite) who redeems a house from the possession of another Levite shall have the right to do so at any time (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 6 6).
  ויצא ממכר בית THEN THE HOUSE THAT WAS SOLD… SHALL GO OUT [IN THE JUBILEE] — According to the second explanation of ‎'ואשר יגאל וכו‎‎ given above, this contains another command and is not a continuation of the words that precede. They mean: “but if he (the vendor) did not redeem it” then it shall go out in the Jubilee and shall not become irredeemable at the end of the first year as is the case with the house of an Israelite.
  כי בתי ערי הלוים הוא אחזתם  FOR THE HOUSES OF THE CITIES OF THE LEVITES ARE THEIR POSSESSION  —They had no separate property of fields and vineyards, only cities to dwell therein together with the open land surrounding them; these, therefore, in their case took the place of the fields possessed by the Israelites and should thus be redeemable just like fields, in order that their inheritance should not be alienated from them.
  
  Verse 34
  
  ושדה מגרש עריהם לא ימכר AND THE FIELDS OF THE SUBURBS OF THEIR CITIES MAY NOT BE SOLD — This means: they may not be sold as an absolute sale by the treasurer of the Temple property — that if a Levite dedicated his field to the Temple and has not redeemed it, and the treasurer then sold it to someone it does not pass into the possession of the priests in the Jubilee as is the case with the property of an Israelite of whom it is stated (Leviticus 27:16—20) “[and if a man shall sanctify unto the Lord some part of a field… and if he will not redeem the field,] and he (the treasurer; see Rashi on that verse) has sold it to another man, it shall not be redeemed any more, [but the field when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be… the priests]” — the Levite, however, may redeem it at any time (even after the Jubilee and also when the treasurer has sold it to another man) (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 6 9).
  
  Verse 35
  
  והחזקת בו THOU SHALT RELIEVE HIM — Do not leave him by himself so that he comes down in the world until he finally falls altogether when it will be difficult to give him a lift, but uphold him from the very moment of the failure of his means. To  what may this (the differences between whether you assist him at once or whether you wait with your help till he has come down in the world) be compared? To an excessive load on the back of an ass. So long as it is still on the ass’s back, one person is enough to take hold of it (the load) and to keep it (the ass) up, as soon as it has fallen to the ground not even five persons are able to set it on its legs (Sifra, Behar, Section 5 1).
  גר ותושב means, even though he be a stranger or a sojourner. And what is a תושב? One who has undertaken not to worship idols (i. e. one who has been converted to the fundamental tenet of Judaism) but eats carrion (does not care for the other commandments of the Torah) (Sifra, Behar, Section 5 1).
  
  Verse 36
  
  נשך ותרבית [TAKE THOU NOT] INTEREST [OF HIM] OR INCREASE  — The Rabbis regard them (these two things) as one, but Scripture uses two different words for the same offence in order to prescribe that he who infringes the law, is thereby transgressing two negative commands (Bava Metzia 60b).
  ויראת מאלהיך BUT BE AFRAID OF THY GOD — Because man’s thoughts are greatly attracted by the idea of taking interest and it comes difficult to him to keep aloof from it, so that he tries to persuade himself that it is a legitimate act (lit., he decides for himself that it is a permissible matter) on account of the fact that his money will otherwise remain unemployed, Scripture was compelled to state: “But be afraid of thy God!" Or take another case: If one pretends that his money belongs to a non-Jew in order to be able to lend it to an Israelite in an ostensibly legitimate way. This is given only to his heart and thoughts to know the real circumstances of the case; Scripture therefore was compelled to state “But be afraid of thy God!” (Bava Metzia 61b).
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  'אשר הוצאתי וגו‎‎ [I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD] WHO BROUGHT YOU FORTH [FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT] and distinguished between those who were firstborn and those who were not firstborn (a matter which is hidden from human cognizance), I also know the true facts of this matter and I will exact punishment from him who lends money to an Israelite saying that it belongs to a non-Jew (Bava Metzia 61b; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 19:36). Another explanation is: I am the Lord your God Who brought you forth from  the land of Egypt on condition that you take upon yourselves the fulfillment of My commands although they be hard for you (cf. Sifra, Behar, Section 5 3) 
  לתת לכם את ארץ כנען TO GIVE YOU THE LAND OF CANAAN as a reward for your taking upon yourselves to fulfill My commandments.
  להיות לכם לאלהים TO BE YOUR GOD  —Because to him who dwells in the land of Israel I am God; while he who leaves it may be regarded as though he were an idolator (Sifra, Behar, Section 5 4; Ketubot 110b).
  
  Verse 39
  
  עבדת עבד [THOU SHALT NOT COMPEL HIM] TO SERVE AS A BOND-SERVANT — i. e. thou shalt not make him do degrading work by which he is recognised as a slave — this might come out that he shall not, for instance, carry his (the master’s) clothes after him to the public baths nor help him on with his boots (cf. Sifra, Behar, Chapter 7 2).
  
  Verse 40
  
  כשכיר כתושב BUT AS A HIRED SERVANT AND AS A SOJOURNER HE SHALL BE UNTO THEE]  —Employ him on field-labour or on a handicraft; Treat him as you do any hired servant.
  עד שנת היבל [HE SHALL SERVE THEE] UNTIL THE YEAR OF THE JUBILEE — This implies that if the Jubilee happens to come (lit., happens to meet him) before the six years of his servitude are at an end, it frees him.
  
  Verse 41
  
  הוא ובניו עמו [AND HE SHALL GO AWAY FROM THEE] BOTH HE AND HIS CHILDREN WITH HIM — Rabbi Simeon asked: If he sold himself who sold his children that Scripture has to state they shall leave the master together with him? But we may learn from this that the master is bound to provide his (the servant’s) children with food (Kiddushin 22a; cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:3) although they are not his slaves.
  ואל אחזת אבתיו AND UNTO THE POSSESSION OF HIS FATHERS [SHALL HE RETURN] — This means, he shall  return to the dignity held by his ancestors and people shall not hold him in low esteem because of this (because he had previously been a slave); 
  אחזת thus means as much as חזקת “the status of” (Makkot 13a).
  
  Verse 42
  
  כי עבדי הם FOR THEY ARE MY SERVANTS — My document (deed of purchase) is of an earlier date ( Sifra, Behar, Section 6 1).
  לא ימכרו ממכרת עבד THEY SHALL NOT BE SOLD AS THOUGH BY THE SALE OF A BONDSMAN — by public announcement: “Here is a slave to be sold!” Nor shall one make him stand on the auction-stone (Sifra, Behar, Section 6 1). 
  
  Verse 43
  
    לא תרדה בו בפרך THOU SHALT NOT RULE OVER HIM WITH RIGOUR — i. e. do not force him to do some useless work with the sole purpose of vexing him. Do not e.g. say to him, “Warm me this cup of drink" when this is  unnecessary; nor: “Hoe beneath this vine tree until I come" whilst he does not know when you may be expected to come back. Perhaps you will say, “No one knows the fact — whether it is necessary or not, so I will tell him that it is necessary”! — the thing is thus entrusted to his (the master’s) heart only, therefore Scripture states, “but be afraid of thy God!” (Sifra, Behar, Section 6 2; see Rashi on Leviticus 19:32).
  
  Verse 44
  
  ועבדך ואמתך אשר יהיו לך BUT THY MAN-SERVANT AND THY MAID-SERVANT WHO MAY BE THINE [SHALL BE OF THE NATIONS THAT ARE ROUND ABOUT YOU] — If you should say, “But if this be so (that I must treat my Jewish servant with so much regard), by whom shall I be served? Over my Jewish servants I have no power; of the Canaanite people I cannot possess any for You have warned me, (Deuteronomy XX 16) “Thou shalt keep alive any soul"! Who  then shall serve me?” Then I reply — 
  מאת הגוים OF THE OTHER NATIONS — they may be servants to you.
  אשר סביבתיכם [THE NATIONS] WHO ARE ROUND ABOUT YOU — not, however, those who live within the boundaries of your land; for with regard to them I have indeed told you, “Thou shalt keep alive no soul” (Sifra, Behar, Section 6 3).
  
  Verse 45
  
  ‎ וגם מבני התושבים MORE-OVER FROM AMONGST THE TOLERATED STRANGERS who came from the lands round about you in order to marry Canaanite women in your land and these bear them children; then the child follows the father in respect of nationality, and thus, not being regarded as a Canaanite, is not included in this command, “Thou shalt not keep alive any soul”, but you may purchase him as a servant (cf. Sifra, Behar, Section 6 4; Kiddushin 67b).
  מהם תקנו means THEM MAY YE BUY.
  
  Verse 46
  
  והתנחלתם אתם לבניכם means, you may hold them as your possession, לבניכם אחריכם, for the benefit of your children after you. It would not, however, be correct to give the word והתנחלתם the meaning: “leave them as an inheritance to your children”, for if this were intended it should have written: והנחלתם אותם לבניכם (the Hiphil), but והתנחלתם (which is the Hithpael form) is equivalent to והתחזקתם “you may hold them as your possession”.
  איש באחיו ONE OVER ANOTHER — These apparently redundant words (for the text might have run: ובאחיכם בני ישראל לא תרדו בפרך) are intended to include in the prohibition that the prince must not rule with rigour over his people nor the king over his subjects.
  
  Verse 47
  
  יד גר ותושב [AND IF] A גר ותושב WAX RICH — This means a stranger, he being at the same time a sojourner with thee, as the Targum renders it: ערל תותב an uncircumcised sojourner (the phrase is hendiadys). The end of the verse proves this, for it states: “and he sells himself unto a strange sojourner” (גר תושב, without the copulative ו before the second word). 
  וכי תשיג יד גר ותושב עמך AND IF A STRANGE SOJOURNER WAX RICH BY THEE — The last word suggests: What was the cause that he has waxen rich? His close connection with thee (עמך) (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 8 1).
  ומך אחיך עמו AND THY BROTHER WAX POOR BY HIM — Here again the last word suggests: What was the cause that he has waxen poor? His intimacy with him (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 8 1), — because of the fact that he learned evil from his (the stranger’s) evil doings. 
  משפחת גר — itself denotes a heathen; since, however, Scripture adds the word לעקר “to the stock of the heathen’s family” it thereby refers to one who sells himself to the idol itself — to be its servant; not to worship it as a deity, but e. g., to chop wood or to draw water which are to be used in connection with this idol worship (cf. Sifra, Behar, Chapter 8 1; Bava Kamma 113b; Arakhin 30b; Kiddushin 20a).
  
  Verse 48
  
  גאלה תהיה לו means HE SHALL BE REDEEMED at once — do not allow him totally to sink his identity among the heathens (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 8 1; Kiddushin 20b).
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  עד שנת היובל [AND HE SHALL RECKON WITH HIM…] UNTO THE YEAR OF THE JUBILEE — for after all, essentially he has bought him only to work for him till the Jubilee, for surely you must admit in the Jubilee he is to go free, as Scripture states later ,on (v. 54) “[and if he be  not redeemed in these ways], then he  shall go out in the year of the Jubilee”. And, of course, Scripture is speaking here of a heathen who is under your control (i. e. who has to submit to your jurisdiction, for otherwise Scripture could not dictate to him) (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 9 3; Kiddushin 16a). But nevertheless you must not practise crooked ways against him because this would result in a desecration of the Name of the Lord (Bava Kamma 113a), but when he wishes to be redeemed he must be exact in his calculation — only just as much as is due each year shall the heathen allow him as a deduction from the purchase-money: (i. e. the Jew cannot demand a larger deduction); if e. g., there were twenty years from the date when he was sold till the Jubilee and he has bought him for  twenty manehs — and consequently the heathen has purchased the labour of each year for one maneh — if he (the Jewish servant) stayed with him five years and then wishes to be redeemed, he (the master) has to allow him only a deduction of five manehs from the purchase-money, so that the servant must repay him fifteen manehs. This is the meaning of: והיה כסף ממכרו במספר שנים; AND THE PRICE OF HIS SALE SHALL BE CALCULATED AS HAVING BEEN ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF YEARS;
  כימי שכיר יהיה עמו  AS AT THE RATE OF THE DAYS OF AN HIRED SERVANT SHALL HE HAVE BEEN WITH HIM — i. e. he shall calculate the amount due for each year as though he had hired himself out with him e. g., at one maneh per year and that amount only he (the master) has to allow him.
  
  Verse 51
  
  אם עוד רבות בשנים IF THERE BE YET MANY YEARS until the Jubilee. 
  לפיהן ACCORDING TO THEM [HE SHALL RESTORE THE PRICE OF HIS REDEMPTION] — all exactly as I have explained above.
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  לא ירדנו בפרך לעיניך HE SHALL NOT RULE WITH RIGOUR OVER HIM IN THY EYES — that is to say, you looking on unconcernedly (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 8 9; cf. Targum Jonathan on).
  
  Verse 54
  
  ואם לא יגאל באלה AND IF HE BE NOT REDEEMED BY THESE — by these (his relatives) he may be redeemed, but he cannot be redeemed through the termination of the six-years-period of servitude as in the case of a Hebrew servant of a Hebrew master (Kiddushin 15b).
  הוא ובניו עמו [HE SHALL GO OUT…] BOTH HE, AND HIS CHILDREN WITH HIM — the hèathen who acquires a Hebrew servant is bound to provide his children also with food just as is the Israelite master (cf. Rashi v. 41).
  
  Verse 55
  
  כי לי מי ישראל עבדים  FOR UNTO ME THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL ARE SERVANTS — My document (deed of purchase) is of an earlier date (cf. Rashi on v. 42).
  אני ה׳ אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — Whosoever enslaves thee (the Israelites) on earth enslaves, as it were, Him in Heaven (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 9 4).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  לא תעשו לכם אלילם YE SHALL MAKE YOU NO IDOLS This command is repeated here with reference to one who has sold himself as a slave to a non-Jew in order that he should not say "Since my master is a libertine I will be like him; since my master worships idols, I will be like him; since my master desecrates the Sabbath, I will be like hin", on this account have these verses (v. 1 and v. 2) been stated. Indeed all these sections (these of the whole Sedrah) are stated in the sequence in which the incidents to which they refer actually occur. First Scripture warns the people about the seventh year's produce (not to do trade in them). If, however, one is covetous of money and brings himself under the constant suspicion of trading in the seventh-year fruits, he will at some time have to sell his movable property on account of his destitution. It is for this reason that Scripture put in juxtaposition to it (the“And when you make a sale [to your fellow-Jew]” (25:14)  “or make a purchase from the hand…,” something that is transferred from hand to hand). If he still does not repent, he will eventually have to sell his inheritance (25:25). If he even then does not repent, he will eventually have to sell his home, and if even then, he does not repent, he will eventually have to borrow money with interest (verses 25:35-38). Now, the later the scenario in this passage, the more severe it is [i.e., first he sells his belongings, then his property, then his home and then even borrowing with interest which is more severe than selling one’s property; (Nachalath Ya’akov) thus, the passage continues accordingly, for] if he still does not repent, he will eventually have to sell himself [to his fellow Jew as a servant] (verses 25:39-46); and [finally,] if he has still not repented, not enough that he had to be sold to his fellow Jew - but he will [be forced to sell himself] even to a non-Jew! (Kiddushin 20a)
  ואבן משכית (a kind of mosaic pavement) — The word משכית is an expression denoting “covering”, similar to the verb in (Exodus 33:22) “I will cover thee (ושכותי) with my hand”. Such a mosaic is so called because people cover the ground with a pavement of stones
  להשתחות עליה TO PROSTRATE YOURSELVES UPON IT, not even to the Lord, since prostration involves stretching forth of hands and feet (the highest form of adoration) and Scripture forbids doing so outside the Temple (Megillah 22b)
  
  Verse 2
  
  ‎'אני ה‎ I AM THE LORD, Who am faithful to pay you your reward.
  
  Verse 3
  
  אם בחקתי תלכו IF YE WALK IN MY ORDINANCES — One might think that this denotes the fulfilment of the commandments; but when Scripture states “and ye shall keep My commandments and do them”, it is plain that in this passage there is mentioned the “fulfilment of the commands”. How then must I explain אם בחקתי תלכו? As an admonition that you should study the Torah laboriously (Sifra, Bechukotai, Section 1 1-2)
  ואת מצותי תשמרו AND TAKE HEED OF MY COMMANDMENTS — Study the Torah laboriously with the intention to take heed and to fulfil its teachings, as it is said, (Deuteronomy 5:1) “and ye shall learn them and take heed to do them".
  
  Verse 4
  
  בעתם [THEN I WILL GIVE YOU RAIN] IN ITS SEASON — i. e. at times when the rain is “seasonable”, at such moments when people do not usually go out on journeys, as, for instance, in the nights preceding the Sabbaths (Friday nights) (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 1 1; cf. Taanit 23a).
  ועץ השדה AND THE TREES OF THE FIELD [SHALL YIELD THEIR FRUIT] — This refers to the wild trees; and even these will bear fruits in future (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 1 6).
  
  Verse 5
  
  והשיג לכם דיש את בציר AND YOUR THRESHING SHALL REACH UNTO THE VINTAGE — This means that there will be plenty of threshing-work so that you will be busy with it till the vintage, and with the vintage you will be busy till the time of sowing (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 1 7).
  ואכלתם לחמכם לשבע AND YE SHALL EAT YOUR BREAD TO THE FULL — This means, one will eat only a little and it will become blessed in his bowels (will fully satisfy him) (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 1 7; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 25:19).
  
  Verse 6
  
  ונתתי שלום AND I WILL GIVE PEACE [IN THE  [LAND— Perhaps  you will say, “Well, there is food and there is drink; but if there is no peace, then all this is nothing!” Scripture therefore states after all these promises “I will give peace in the land”. Hence we may learn that peace counterbalances everything. In a similar sense it states: “Who makest peace and createst all things" (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 1 8).
  וחרב לא תעבור בארצכם NEITHER SHALL THE SWORD PASS THROUGH YOUR LAND — Surely it is unnecessary to say that they (enemies) will not enter your land to wage war (since this is implied in ‎‎בארץ ‎‎‎‎‎ונתתי שלום). But this means that they will not enter even to pass by way of your land [on their march from one country to another to wage war] (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 2 3).
  
  Verse 7
  
  לפניכם לחרב [AND YE SHALL PURSUE YOUR ENEMIES AND THEY SHALL FALL] BEFORE YOU BY THE SWORD — one by the sword of the other (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 2 3).
  
  Verse 8
  
  ורדפו מכם [AND FIVE] OF YOU SHALL PURSUE [A HUNDRED] — five of the weakest among you — and not alone of the most robust among you (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 2 4).
  ‎חמישה מאה ומאה מכם רבבה FIVE [OF YOU SHALL PURSUE] A HUNDRED AND A HUNDRED… TEN THOUSAND — But is this the right proportion? Surely it should have stated only “and a hundred of you shall pursue two thousand (and not ten thousand)!? But the explanation is: a few who fulfill the commandments of the Torah cannot compare with the many who fulfill the commandments of the Torah (i. e. the greater the group of those loyal to the Torah, the greater is the morale and, under God’s blessing, the physical strength of each individual belonging to the group) (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 2 4).
  'ונפלו איביכם וגו AND YOUR ENEMIES SHALL FALL etc . — The repetition of this promise already expressed in v. 7 suggests that they will fall before you in a supernatural way (lit., not in the way of the world) (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 2 4).
  
  Verse 9
  
  ופניתי אליכם AND I WILL TURN UNTO YOU — This means, I will turn away from all My business in order to pay you your reward. A parable! To what may this be compared? To a king who hired labourers etc., just as is explained in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 2 5).
  והפריתי אתכם AND I SHALL MAKE YOU FRUITFUL — This, of course, means:in פריה ורביה in reproductive power (i. e. in numbers), but — 
  והרביתי אתכם (which may denote: “I will make you large”) means in height (lit., erect stature) (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 2 5).
  והקמתי את בריתי אתכם AND I WILL ESTABLISH MY COVENANT WITH YOU — a new covenant; not like that covenant which you broke by  worshipping  the golden calf), as it said, (Jeremiah 31:31-32): “[Behold, the days come, saith the Lord that] I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. Not according to the covenant [that I made with their fathers,… which My covenant they broke, but… I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts]” (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 2 5).
  
  Verse 10
  
  ואכלתם ישן נושן AND YE SHALL EAT STORE OF FORMER YEARS (lit., ye shall eat old that has become old) — This involves a promise that the fruits (grain) will be fit to keep the whole year and will even be of such good quality as to become old, so that the old grain that has grown old, that which is in its third year, will be better for food than that of the last year (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 3 1; cf. Bava Batra 91b).
  וישן מפני חדש תוציאו AND YE SHALL CLEAR OUT THAT OF THE FORMER YEARS BECAUSE OF THE NEW — because the threshing floors in the fields will be full of new grain while the granaries are still full of the old, so that you will have to clear the granaries out into another place in order to place the new fruit in them (for this requires a dry place to preserve them, while the old fruit has already become dry and may therefore be removed from the granaries) (Bava Batra 91b)
  
  Verse 11
  
  ונתתי משכני AND I WILL SET MY DWELLING [AMONGST YOU] — This means the Temple at Jerusalem (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 3 2; Eruvin 2a).
  ולא תגעל נפשי אתכם This means AND MY SPIRIT SHALL NOT LOATHE YOU. The root געל wherever it occurs denotes the casting out (as though spewing) or something that has been absorbed in another substance. In a similar sense the verb is used in (II Samuel 1:21) “For there the shield of the mighty was נגעל, [the shield of Saul, as though it had never been anointed with oil]”, i. e. it did not show itself receptive to being anointed, but ejected, as it were, the oily substance with which it had been smeared; for they used to smear leather shields with boiled fat in order to make the blow of the arrow or the spear glide off, so that it should not penetrate the leather. (Thus, when two things have been in the closest association, the term געל may be used of that which finally discards the other. It spews it out, as it were, it is sick of it, loathes it.)
  
  Verse 12
  
  והתהלכתי בתוככם AND I WILL WALK AMONG YOU — I will, as it were, walk with you in the Garden of Eden as though I were one of yourselves and you will not be frightened of Me. One might think that this implies: you will not fear (reverence) Me! Scripture however states, “but I will be your God” (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 3 3-4).
  
  Verse 13
  
  אני ה׳ אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD [WHO BROUGHT YOU FORTH FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT] — I deserve that you should put your trust in Me that I am able to do all these things, for, behold, I brought you forth from the land of Egypt and have wrought great miracles for you (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 3 4). 
  מטות are a kind of peg inserted in both ends of the yoke which hold back the strap from slipping off the head of the ox whereby the knot might become undone. Similar is (Jeremiah 27:2). “Make thee strips and poles (מטות)”; cheville, in old French, English pins. 
  קוממיות means erect in stature (in contrast to the bent position of a person who is under a yoke) (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 3 7).
  
  Verse 14
  
  ואם לא תשמעו לי BUT IF YE WILL NOT HEARKEN UNTO ME to study the Torah laboriously in order to fathom the textual interpretation of the Sages…, I also will do this unto you, etc. One might think that this refers to the fulfillment of the commandments! When, however, Scripture states immediately afterwards: “and ye will not do [all my commandments]”, it is evident that the fulfilment of the commandments is mentioned there! How, then, must I explain לא תשמעו לי? Obviously as meaning: “But if you will not hearken unto Me to study the Torah industriously” as I bid you do when I said אם בחקתי תלכו (cf. Rashi on v. 3). And what is the force of the word לי? (To express this idea would it not have sufficed to state: ואם לא תשמעו?) It implies that your disobedience is directed לי against Me. The word לי is used only in the case of such a one who knows his Master and yet of set purpose rebels against Him (i. e. the entire chapter containing these threats of punishment is addressed only to such a person, not to one who sins against God unwittingly). Similarly in reference to Nimrod: (Genesis 10:9) “a mighty hunter before (לפני) the Lord” which means that he knew Him and yet of set purpose rebelled against him. Similarly in reference to the men of Sodom: (Genesis 13:13) “[But the men of Sodom were] evil and sinful against the Lord ('לה‎) exceedingly” — they knew their Master and yet of set purpose rebelled against him (Sifra, Bechukotai, Section 2 1-2; cf. Rashi on those two verses).
  ולא תעשו AND YOU WILL NOT DO — Because you will not learn you will not practice the commandments: thus you have two separate sins mentioned here (Sifra, Bechukotai, Section 2 3).
  
  Verse 15
  
  ואם בחקתי תמאסו   AND IF YE WILL SCORN MY ORDINANCES — scorn those who practise them.
  משפטי תגעל נפשם [IF] YOUR SOUL LOTH MY JUDGMENTS — This implies hating the Sages.
  לבלתי עשות (lit., that my commandments should not be done) — this therefore implies that one prevents others from practising them. (That they themselves do not do them has already been stated in v. 14).
  את כל מצותי ALL MY COMMANDMENTS — This refers to him who denies the Divine origin of the commandments, asserting that I have not commanded them. It is for this reason that Scripture states, “all My commands” and does not state, as in v. 14, "all these commands”.
  להפרכם את בריתי TO MAKE VOID MY COVENANT — denying the great principle of the existence of God (Sifra, Bechukotai, Section 2 3). — Thus you have here seven sins the first of which brings the second in its train and so on to the seventh. And these are: he has not studied and therefore has not practised the commandments; consequently he scorns others who do practise them, hates the Sages, prevents others from practising, denies the Divine origin of the commandments, and finally denies the existence of God.
  
  Verse 16
  
  והפקדתי עליכם means, I will order upon you the following calamities. 
  שחפת  CONSUMPTION — A disease which swells the flesh, ampoules in old French; it resembles a thing that has been distended, the distension of which has become reduced — and the appearance of his (the sick man’s) face is thin and woebegone. 
  קדחת is a disease which inflames the body, makes it hot and burning (feverish). It is similar in meaning to the verb in, (Deuteronomy 32:22) “For a fire burns (קדחה) in My nostril”.
  מכלות עינים ומדיבת נפש THAT THE EYES PINE AND CAUSE SORROW TO THE SOUL — The eyes look expectantly and pine to see that he (the sick) should be relieved and healed, and in the end it turns out that he is not healed, and the souls of his family grieve when he dies. Any desire that does not come to fulfilment and any hope deferred is termed כליון עינים, “pining of the eyes”.
  וזרעתם לריק AND YE SHALL SOW [YOUR SEED] IN VAIN — ye shall sow your seed but it shall not grow — and if it does grow, ואכלוהו איביכם YOUR ENEMIES  SHALL EAT IT.
  
  Verse 17
  
  ונתתי פני AND I WILL SET  פני [AGAINST YOU] — i. e. פנאי שלי, My leisure, — I will turn away from all My other affairs in order to do you evil (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 17:20).
  ורדו בכם שנאיכם — These words mean exactly what they imply: THEY THAT HATE YOU SHALL RULE OVER YOU. — The Agadic explanation of the Torat Cohanim (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 4 1-5) on this section is as follows:
  אף אני אעשה זאת — I speak to you only with the expression אף. Similarly it states, (v. 41) “So, too, (אף) I will walk contrary unto them”. 
  והפקדתי עליכם I WILL ORDER UPON YOU denotes that the calamities will come upon you from one to another — while the first will still be on visit to you (will afflict you) I will bring another and add it to that.
  בהלה is a plague  that causes terror upon people. And what is that? It is an epidemic plague of pestilence.
  את השחפת THE CONSUMPTION — You may have a person that is sick and even confined to his bed, but his flesh is in a well-preserved state; therefore Scripture states, “I will visit you with שחפת” — that he will waste away. Or there are times that he may be wasting away but is calm and without fever, Scripture therefore states, “I will visit you with… קדחת” — that he will be in a fever. Or there are times that he may be in a fever but still cherishes the belief that he will recover (and therefore is easy in mind), Scripture therefore states, “I will visit you… with fever that shall make the eyes pine”. Or there may be the last stage when he cherishes no belief that he will recover, but others (his relatives) cherish the belief that he will recover, Scripture therefore states, “I will visit you with… fever… that shall cause sorrow of soul (utter despair).
  וזרעתם לריק זרעכם — One shall sow it (the soil) but it shall not grow grain. Well, then, what does it mean when it states that your enemies will come and eat?. How is this possible? But the explanation is: One shall sow it (the soil) the first year and it will not yield; the next year, however, it will yield, and then the enemies will come and will find grain for the time of siege, whilst those within the beleaguered city will die of famine because they will have gathered no grain the year before. Another explanation of וזרעתם לריק זרעכם is: Scripture  is speaking in reference to your sons and daughters — you will rear them only after much toil but sin, the enemy, will come and destroy them, as it is said, (i. e. a similar thought is expressed in the text) (Lamentations 2:22) “those that I have swaddled and brought up mine enemy hath consumed”.
  ונתתי פני בכם — Even as it is stated in the case of the promise of good (v. 9), “I will turn (ופניתי) unto you” so is it stated also with regard to the threat of evil “I will set My face (פני) against you”. They (the Sages) illustrated this by a parable: it may be compared to the case of a king who said to his subjects, “I will turn away from all My other affairs and will devote myself to you alone — for evil”.
  ונגפתם לפני איביכם — (This may signify: and ye shall be plagued in the presence of your enemies) — it means that death (pestilence — נגף) will kill you within the city whilst your enemies are besieging you outside (cf. the first Agadic comment on ‎וזרעתם לריק ).
  ‎ ורדו בכם שנאיכם — ‎(בכם is taken to signify: those who are amongst you) — this means that I will raise up haters of you only out of your own people and in your own midst. Internal enemies (שונאים) are a greater curse than external enemies (אויבים) for when the nations of the world rise against Israel they seek only what lies in the open, as it is said, (Judges 6:3, 4) “And so it was, when Israel had sown, that the Midianites came up, and the Amalekites, and the children of the east,… and they encamped against them, and destroyed the increase of the land”; but when I raise up against you those of your own people and in your own midst they search also after your hidden treasures. And thus it states, (Micah 3:1—3) “[Hear, O heads of Jacob, and ye princes of the house of Israel…] who also eat the flesh of my people and flay their skin from off them etc.” 
  ונסתם AND YE SHALL RUN AWAY — from sheer panic,
  ואין רדף אתכם WHEN NONE PURSUETH YOU, since there is no strength in them to do so.
  
  Verse 18
  
  ואם עד אלה means AND IF, WHILE THESE ARE YET with you,לא תשמעו YOU WILL NOT HEARKEN,
  ויספתי — This together with ליסרה means, THEN I WILL ADD still other afflictions,
  שבע על חטאתיכם SEVEN punishments FOR THE seven SINS which were mentioned above (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 5 1).
  
  Verse 19
  
  ושברתי את גאון עזכם AND I WILL BREAK THE EXCELLENCY OF YOUR STRENGTH — This is a reference to the Temple; for thus does it state, (Ezekiel 24:21) “Behold I will profane my sanctuary, the excellency of your strength”.
  ונתתי את שמיכם כברזל ואת ארצכם כנחשה AND I WILL MAKE YOUR HEAVEN AS IRON AND YOUR EARTH AS COPPER — This threat is even severer than that of Moses, because there it says, (Deuteronomy 28:23) “And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be copper, [and the earth that is under thee shall be iron]” which implies that the heaven will at least exude moisture (will give some humidity) just as the copper exudes moisture, whilst the earth will not exude just as iron docs not exude, and so it will keep its fruit in good condition, since it will not be too humid. Here, however, Scripture threatens that the heaven will not exude moisture, just as iron does not exude, and there will therefore be draught in the world, whilst the earth will exude (be too humid) just as copper sweats, and it will consequently make its fruits perish (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 5 3).
  
  Verse 20
  
  ותם לריק כחכם AND YOUR STRENGTH SHALL BE SPENT IN VAIN — Behold, if a man does not toil in his field — neither tills, nor sows, nor weeds it, nor clears away the thorns, nor hoes it, and then at harvest time blight comes and strikes it (the field, i. e. destroys that which sprung up of itself), surely it does not matter much (he does not take it to heart). But if a man has toiled — he has ploughed, sown, weeded, cleared away the thorns and hoed it, and then blight comes and strikes it, surely then the teeth of that man become blunt! (a figurative expression for becoming speechless, terror-stricken) (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 5 4).
  ולא תתן ארצכם את יבולה — This means, the earth shall not yield even as much as you brought to it at sowing-time (יבולה as passive participle with suffix of יבל “to bring”, may denote: that which is brought to it) (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 5 4).
  ועץ הארץ AND THE TREE OF THE GROUND [SHALL NOT YIELD] — This implies that even from the very earth a curse will rest upon it — that it will not bring its fruits to development at the time when they should develop (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 5 4).
  לא יתן serves as the verb with what precedes and with what follows — with “tree” and with “fruit”. Thus we obtain a second sense —
  לא יתן פריו IT WILL NOT GIVE ITS FRUIT — when it does produce fruit, it will cast its fruits (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 5 4). This gives two curses, and so you have here seven punishments in all.
  
  Verse 21
  
  ואם תלכו עמי קרי — Our Rabbis said (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 5 5): this word signifies “irregularly”, “by chance” (מקרה), which is a thing that happens only occasionally; thus this means: if you will follow the commandments irregularly. Menachem explains it as an expression for “refraining”. Similar is, (Proverbs 25:17) “Refrain (הוקר) thy foot [from thy neighbour’s house]”; (Proverbs 17:27) “of a refraining (יקר) spirit”. This meaning approximates to the translation given by Onkelos which is a term denoting “stubbornness” (קושי) — that they harden their hearts so as to refrain from coming near unto Me. 
  שבע כחטאתיכם SEVEN ACCORDING TO YOUR SINS — i. e. seven other punishments. These words mean: I will bring upon you more plagues (ויספתי עליכם מכה) in number, seven, corresponding to your sins (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 5 5).
  
  Verse 22
  
  והשלחתי is an expression for “inciting”.
  ושכלה אתכם [I WILL INCITE THE WILD ANIMALS AGAINST YOU] WHICH WILL ROB YOU OF YOUR CHILDREN — I find here mention only of wild animals robbing them of their children, i. e. of animals whose nature consists in this (to attack human beings); whence do we know that cattle whose nature is not thus will also rob them of their children? Because it states in a similar series of threats (Deuteronomy 32:24) “I will also incite (אשלח) the teeth of cattle (בהמות) against them”. — Thus you have two of the seven calamities mentioned above (the attacks of wild beasts and of cattle). And whence do we know that it (the cattle) will kill by its bite? Because Scripture states immediately afterwards, “with the poison of serpents of the dust". How is it in the case of these (the serpents)? They bite and kill by their bite! So, too, will those (the cattle) bite and thus kill. There were indeed such years in the Land of Israel when both a tame ass bit someone and caused his death and the wild ass bit and caused death (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 5 6).
  ושכלה אתכם AND THEY WILL ROB YOU OF YOUR CHILDREN — This means your little children.
  והכריתה את בהמתכם AND THEY WILL DESTROY YOUR CATTLE — those being outside in the fields (and so unable to escape the attacks of wild beasts),
  והמעיטה אתכם AND REDUCE YOUR NUMBERS — you being inside in the houses (reduce your numbers and not destroy entirely, for some of you will be able to escape).
  ונשמו דרכיכם AND YOUR ROADS SHALL BE DESOLATE — both the highways and the by-paths (דרכיכם plural!) (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 5 7). — Here again you have seven punishments: 1) the teeth of domestic animals, 2) the teeth of wild animals, 3) the venom of the crawling things of the dust, 4) and they will bereave , 5) utterly destroy, 6) and diminish, 7) and [your roads] will become desolate. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  ‎‏ לא תוסרו לי‏AND IF YOU WILL NOT BE CHASTISED — so that you should return unto Me.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  נקם ברית [AND I WILL BRING UPON YOU A SWORD AVENGING] THE VENGEANCE OF THE COVENANT — Scripture speaks of “the vengeance of the covenant” because there is vengeance which is not mentioned in “The Covenant” (i. e. in this chapter of Scripture) being in the manner of other acts of vengeance (i. e. like the barbarous acts of revenge that are customary among other peoples, but which are not threatened in the Torah), and such a one was the blinding of the eyes of king Zedekiah (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 6 1; cf. 2 Kings 25:7). Another explanation of נקם ברית  is that it means vengeance for My covenant which you have transgressed. Wherever “bringing of the sword” is mentioned in Scripture it signifies a war waged by the enemies’ armies.
  ונאספתם AND YE SHALL GATHER YOURSELVES from outside (from the open country) WITHIN YOUR CITIES on account of the state of siege (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 6 1).
  ושלחתי דבר בתוככם AND I WILL SEND THE PESTILENCE AMONG YOU, and through the pestilence it will happen, ונתתם ביד THAT YOU WILL BE GIVEN INTO THE HAND of the enemies who besiege you. This is because no corpse was permitted to remain in Jerusalem over night, and therefore when they would carry the corpse out of the city to bury it they would be given (they would fall) into the hands of their enemies (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 6 1).
  
  Verse 26
  
  מטה לחם THE STAFF OF YOUR BREAD:  מַטֵּה — This expression denotes [a source of] “support”, similar to “staff (מַטֵּה) of strength” (Jeremiah 48:17). 
  בשברי לכם מטה לחם WHEN I  BREAK THE STAFF OF YOUR BREAD — This implies: “I will break for you every support of food”. These are the “arrows of famine” alluded to by Ezekiel (5:16), for he continues with exactly the same words: “and I will break your staff of bread” (cf. Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 6 2).
  בתנור אחד [TEN WOMEN SHALL BREAK YOUR BREAD] IN ONE OVEN — on account of scarcity of wood (fuel) (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 6 2).
  והשיבו לחמכם במשקל AND THEY SHALL DELIVER YOUR OWN BREAD AGAIN BY WEIGHT, because the grain will rot and the bread will become פת נפולת (crumbly bread) and break into pieces in the oven, so that they (the women) will deliberately weigh the pieces in order to divide them between themselves (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 6 2).
  ואכלתם ולא תשבעו AND YE SHALL EAT AND NOT BE SATISFIED — This is a special curse that will take effect on the bread already in their stomach (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 6 2; cf. Rashi on v. 5). Thus you have seven punishments (alluded to in v. 24): (1) the attacking armies, (2) the siege, (3) the plague, (4) the destruction of food supply, (5) a lack of wood, (6) crumbly bread and (7) a curse in the intestines. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  במתיכם YOUR HIGH PLACES — towers and castles.
  חמניכם SUN IMAGES — a kind of idols which they used to set on their roofs; and because they were placed in the sun (חמה) they are called “sun images” (חמנים) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 11).
  ונתתי את פגריכם AND I WILL CAST YOUR CARCASSES [UPON THE CARCASSES OF YOUR IDOLS]  —[This actually happened, for it is related (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 6 4; Sanhedrin 63b) that] people were once swollen from starvation during a siege, and yet they took their idols from their bosom and kissed them, and whilst they were so doing each person’s belly burst open and he fell to the ground upon it (the idol).
  וגעלה נפשי אתכם AND MY SOUL SHALL LOATHE YOU — This refers to the departure of the Shechinah from their midst (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 6 4).
  
  Verse 31
  
  ונתתי את עריכם חרבה AND I WILL MAKE YOUR CITIES WASTE — I might think that this means that they will be so waste that there will be no human being there (no inhabitants)! But when Scripture states (v. 32) “I will bring the land into desolation” its becoming desolate of human beings is expressed there. How, then, must I explain the words "[and I will make your cities] waste”? That there will not even be occasional passers to and fro — no occasional visitors (cf. Sifra, Bechukotai, Section 1 4).
  והשמותי את מקדשיכם AND I WILL BRING YOUR SANCTUARIES UNTO DESOLATION — I might think that this means they will be desolate of sacrifices! But when Scripture states, “and I will not smell [your pleasing odors]”, their being desolate of sacrifices is expressed there! How then must I explain והשמותי את מקדשיכם? As referring to their being abandoned by the bands of pilgrims — by the caravans of Israelites which used to prepare and to band together in order to pilgrim there (Sifra, Bechukotai, Section 1 4). Thus again you have seven punishments: the eating of the flesh of their sons and daughters, the destruction of the high places, these make two. — The cutting off of the sun-images, however, is not reckoned as a separate punishment, for that statement means that through the destruction of the high places the sun-images which were placed on the top of the roofs would fall and so be destroyed. — “I will cast your carcasses etc.”, three; the departure of the Shechinah, four; the laying waste of the cities, the desertion of the Sanctuary by the pilgrim bands and “I shall not smell the pleasing odor of the sacrifices” — make altogether seven.
  
  Verse 32
  
  והשמתי אני את הארץ AND I WILL BRING THE LAND INTO DESOLATION [AND YOUR ENEMIES WHO ABIDE IN IT SHALL BE DESOLATE UPON IT] — This was a kindly measure for Israel that the enemies would find no satisfaction in their (the Israelites') land and so it would   become desolate of its inhabitants (of the enemies also, and Israel might again easily take possession of it) (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 6 5).
  
  Verse 33
  
  ואתכם אזרה בגוים AND I WILL SCATTER YOU AMONG THE NATIONS — This again was a harsh measure; because when the inhabitants of a country go into exile in one and the same place they have the opportunity to see each other and so find consolation for their bad lot. Israel, however, was scattered as though by a winnowing fan — as when a man winnows barley with a fan — when not even one grain of them adheres to the other (not even two grains remain in the same place; cf. Jeremiah 25:7) (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 6 6).
  והריקתי — (lit., I shall empty out) — This term may be used for drawing the sword because when one draws the sword the scabbard becomes empty (cf. Rashi on Ex 15:9). A Midrashic explanation (referring the word והריקתי to the sword itself not to the scabbard) is the sword once drawn to pursue you will not soon return unto the scabbard — as a man pours out water and it can never return to the vessel that once contained it (i. e. I will, as it were, empty out the scabbard — pour forth the sword from it, and it shall never return, but always follow you) (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 6 7).
  והיתה ארצכם שממה AND YOUR LAND WILL BE (REMAIN) DESOLATE — This implies that you will not soon return unto it, and on that account עריכם יהיו חריבה YOUR CITIES WILL BE WASTE, i. e. they will seem to you waste; for when a man is exiled from his house, or from his vineyard, or from his city, knowing that he is ultimately to return to it, it appears to him as though his vineyard or his house were not waste.  —Thus is it explained in Torat Cohanim (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 7 1).
  
  Verse 34
  
  אז תרצה means: then the land shall appease the wrath of the Omnipresent who was angry because of the neglect of the Sabbatical years.
  והרצת — means, it will give satisfaction to the King as regards its Sabbatical years.
  
  Verse 35
  
  כל ימי השמה — The word השמה expresses the idea of something being done (passive infinitive; here Hophal); and the מ has a Dagesh in place of doubling that letter in the root שמם.
  את אשר לא שבתה  BECAUSE IT DID NOT REST [IN YOUR SABBATHS] — The seventy years of the Babylonian exile exactly corresponded to the seventy Sabbatical and Jubilee years that were due in those years when Israel was provoking the anger of the Omnipresent  whilststill in their land, i. e. in 430 years. Three hundred and ninety were their years of sin from the time they entered the Land until the Ten Tribes went into exile. The people of the Kingdom of Judah provoked Him still another forty years, — from the exile of the Ten Tribes until the destruction of Jerusalem (in the days of king Jehoiachin; cf. 2 Kings 24:10 ff.). It is this that is mentioned in the case of Ezekiel (4:4—6): “Moreover lie thou upon thy left, [and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it, thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have appointed the years of their iniquity to be unto thee a number of days, even three hundred and ninety days…]. And again, when thou hast accomplished these, thou shalt lie on thy right side, and shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days [each day for a year have I appointed it unto thee]”. This prophecy was spoken to Ezekiel in the fifth year of king Jeoiachin’s captivity (cf. Ezekiel 1:2). They spent another six years in the Land until Zedekiah (the last king, who reigned eleven years) went into exile; thus you have altogether forty-six years. — And if you say “But this period must have covered more than forty-six years because the years of the reign of Manasseh (the son of Hezekiah during whose reign the Ten Tribes became exiled), were alone 55 years, and there followed other kings also until the destruction of the Temple!” Then I reply that Manasseh lived in a state of repentence 33 years of these and that the years of his wickedness with which alone we are concerned were only twenty-two, as it is said, (2 Kings 21:3) “For he (Manasseh)… made an Asherah, as did Ahab king of Israel”, and Ahab reigned 22 years, just as they (the Rabbis) stated (i. e. they stated that this comparison of Manasseh with Ahab shows that the latter was wicked for 22 years only) in the chapter Chelek (Sanhedrin 103a). Then we have the years of his successor, Amon, two; eleven of Jehoiakin, and a similar number of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah — altogether 46 years. Now, go and calculate for four hundred and thirty-six years the number of Sabbatical and Jubilee periods contained in them and you will find that they are sixteen for every hundred years, viz., fourteen Sabbatical periods and two Jubilee-periods; so for four hundred years there are sixty-four. For the remaining thirty-six there are five Sabbatical periods, making seventy less one. There is yet one year over (the thirty-sixth, since five Sabbatical periods give only thirty-five years) which entered into (began) the Sabbatical period and which completes seventy such periods, each terminating in a Sabbatical year. And because of them (i. e. because of the neglect of these seventy years) exactly seventy years of exile were decreed against them. Thus, too, it is said in Chronicles, (II Chronicles 36:21) “[and them that had escaped from the sword carried he away to Babylon…] until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths [for as long as she lay desolate she kept Sabbaths] to fulfill three score and ten years” (Seder Olam).
  
  Verse 36
  
  והבאתי מרך AND I WILL SEND A FAINTNESS [INTO THEIR HEART] —  מרך‎ means timidity and faint-heartedness. The מ is an essential letter of the noun, which, however, is omitted in the root; as is the case with the מ in the nouns מועד and ומוקש.  
  ונסו מנוסת חרב AND THEY SHALL RUN AWAY AS RUNNING AWAY FROM THE SWORD — as though pursuers were about to kill them.
  עלה נדף A RUSTLING LEAF — i. e. a leaf which the wind pushes along and beats it against another leaf, so that, in tapping it, it produces a sound. This, too, is its translation in the Targum: the sound of a leaf דשקיף — a term that signifies beating. The words (Genesis 41:6): שדופות קדים are rendered in the Targum by שקיפן קידום, beaten by the east wind, the first word being of the same meaning as משקוף, a lintel, that being the place against which the door beats. Similarly the Targum translation of חבורה, a wound, (Exodus 21:25), is משקופי (a spot that has been beaten).
  
  Verse 37
  
  וכשלו איש באחיו AND THEY SHALL STUMBLE ONE UPON ANOTHER — When they are running in order to escape they will stumble one against the other because they will be in a hurry to run away.
  כמפני חרב AS IT WERE BEFORE THE SWORD — i. e. as though they were fleeing from before murderers. It means that in their heart there will be timidity, and at every moment they will think that somebody is pursuing them. A Midrashic explanation of וכשלו איש באחיו is: one will stumble by reason of the sin of the other (באחיו is taken in the sense of: on account of the other), for all Israelites are held responsible for one another (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 7 5; Sanhedrin 27b).
  
  Verse 38
  
  ואבדתם בגוים AND YE SHALL BE LOST AMONG THE NATIONS — when you are scattered about among the nations you will lose sight of each other (lit., “you will be lost from one another”) (cf. Rashi on v. 33; see also Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 8 1).
  ואכלה אתכם [AND THE LAND OF YOUR ENEMIES] SHALL EAT YOU UP — This refers to those who will die in exile (cf. Targum Jonathan on).
  
  Verse 39
  
  בעונת אבתם אתם means if the iniquities of their fathers shall be with them, i. e. if they hold fast to (imitate) the doings of their fathers (cf. Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 8 2; Sanhedrin 27b).
  ימקו — This is an expression denoting “melting away” and therefore means the same as ימסו, “they shall melt away”. Similar to it are (Zechariah 14:12) “[their eyes] shall melt away (תמקנה) in their holes”; (Psalms 38:6) “My wounds נמקו, melt” (i. e. run with pus).
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  והבאתי אתם AND I SHALL BRING THEM [INTO THE LAND OF THEIR ENEMIES] — I Myself shall bring them; this is a kindly measure for Israel in order that they should not say, “Since we are banished among the nations let us do like their doings”. “For”, says God “I will not suffer them to do this, but I will raise up My prophets and so bring them back under My wings, as it is said, (Ezekiel 20:30) “And that which cometh into your mind shall not be at all, — [that ye say, We will be as the heathens, as the families of the countries, to serve wood and stone]. As I live, saith the Lord God, surely with a mighty hand, and with  an  outstretched arm and with fury poured out, will “I” be king over you etc.” (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 8 5).
  או אז יכנע — The word או here has the same meaning as in (Exodus 21:36) או נודע כי שור נגח הוא (cf. Rashi on that verse and our Note thereon). The translation therefore is: “If then [their uncircumcised hearts] will be humbled”. Another explanation is that או means perhaps, — “perhaps then their uncircumcised hearts will be humbled”.
  ואז ירצו את עונם means, and they will atone for their iniquities by the punishments they will have suffered.
  
  Verse 42
  
  וזכרתי את בריתי יעקוב THEN I WILL REMEMBER MY COVENANT WITH JACOB — In five places in Scripture it (the name יעקב) is written plene (יעקוב) and the name אליהו is written defectively in five places, to intimate that Jacob — as it were — took one letter of his (Elijah’s) name as a pledge that at some future time he should come and proclaim the good tidings of his descendants’ redemption (cf. Midrash ‎חסירות ויתירות).
  ‎ וזכרתי את בריתי יעקוב‎ THEN I WILL REMEMBER MY COVENANT WITH JACOB [AND ALSO MY COVENANT WITH ISAAC, AND ALSO MY COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM WILL I REMEMBER] — Why are they (the patriarchs) enumerated here in a reverse order (in contrast to e. g., Exodus 32:13, where it states:  ‎'לאברהם ליצחק ולישראל וכו‎‎‎זכור ‏)? It is to say: Jacob the youngest among the patriarchs is worthy of this that, through his merits, his children should be redeemed; if he be not sufficiently worthy, behold, the merit of Isaac is with him; if that does not suffice, behold, then there is Abraham with him who is  surely worthy enough! And why does Scripture not use the word “remember” in connection with Isaac’s name? Because this is unnecessary, for — says God, as it were — the ashes of Isaac (who according to My command to Abraham was to become a burnt offering) are ever visible before Me as though they were heaped up lying upon the altar (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 8 6-7).
  
  Verse 43
  
  יען וביען BECAUSE AND BECAUSE [THEY REJECTED MY ORDINANCES] — i. e. it is a retribution — and a retribution, too, that they have rejected My ordinances.
  
  Verse 44
  
  ואף גם זאת AND YET FOR ALL THIS — i. e., but also (אף) even though (גם) I shall execute on them this (זאת) punishment which I have mentioned when they shall be in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them to make an end of them and to make void My covenant which has thus far been with them (viz., the covenant 'כי אני ה‎‎ אלהיהם that I, the Lord, would be their God).
  
  Verse 45
  
  ברית ראשנים THE COVENANT OF THE ANCESTORS — i. e. of the twelve Tribes (cf. Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 8 10). 
  
  Verse 46
  
   והתורת AND THE TORAHS… [WHICH GOD GAVE… IN MOUNT SINAI BY THE HAND OF MOSES] — (The plural is used because there are two Torahs:) one in writing and one by word of mouth (the Oral Law). This verse therefore tells us that all (both) of them were given by God to Moses on Sinai (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 8 10).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  כי יפלא means, if he expressly states by an utterance of his mouth (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 22:21).
  בערכך נפשות — he expressly states that he will give to the Sanctuary the valuation attached to a life by saying, “the payment of the valuation of such and such a thing — that, however, being something upon which its life depends — is incumbent upon me” (Sifra, Bechukotai, Section 3 6; Arakhin 4a).
  
  Verse 3
  
  והיה ערכך THEN THY ערכך SHALL BE etc. — This word ערך used throughout this section has not the meaning of דמים, market-value (which varies according to the condition of the market or the condition of the person offered for sale, whilst ערך is a fixed value), but whether he be of high value or of low value, according to his age is the ערך fixed for him in  this section. 
  ערכך is the same as ערך (i. e. the second כ''ף is not the suffix of the second person masc. sing.). I do not know what grammatical form the doubling of the כ''ף represents.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  ואם מבן חמש שנים AND IF IT BE FROM FIVE YEARS OLD — Not that the person making the vow is a minor (from five to twenty years old), for there is no validity in the words of a minor, but it is speaking of an adult who said, “The payment of the valuation of this child” — who is five years old — “shall be incumbent upon me”.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  ואם מבן ששים שנה AND IF IT BE FROM SIXTY YEARS OLD [AND ABOVE; IF IT BE A MALE THEN THE VALUATION SHALL BE FIFTEEN SHEKELS, AND FOR THE FEMALE TEN SHEKELS] — When one approaches old age a woman is more likely to be of the same importance as a man therefore a man decreases to beyond a third of his valuation when he becomes old (his ערך being fifty shekels and after sixty only fifteen, which is less then 17, the approximate third of 50), whilst a woman decreases only to exactly a third of her valuation (which was previously thirty shekels, and after sixty becomes ten), because people say (i. e. there is a familiar saying): “An old man in the house is a snare (a nuisance) in the house, an old woman in the house is a treasure in the house and a good omen in the house” (Arakhin 19a).
  
  Verse 8
  
  ואם מך הוא BUT IF HE POOR so that his means are not sufficient to pay this valuation,
  והעמידו THEN THEY SHALL PRESENT HIM — the person made the subject of a valuation, לפני הכהן BEFORE THE PRIEST, and the priest shall set a value on him according to the means of him who promised the valuation (Sifra, Bechukotai, Section 3 14).
  על פי אשר תשיג ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY — i. e. according to what he possesses shall he (the priest) assess him (the person who has promised the valuation), leaving him sufficient to live upon: a bed, mattress and cushion and tools necessary for his trade; thus, in respect to the latter, if he was an ass-driver (earning a living by carrying loads) he has to leave him his ass (Arakhin 23b).
  
  Verse 9
  
  כל אשר יתן ממנו EVERYTHING THAT A MAN GIVE implies even the case when he said, “the foot of this animal shall be a burnt offering” his words have binding force). It (the animal) is therefore sold for the purpose of a burnt-offering to one who has to bring such an offering and the monies realized by its sale are חולין (non-holy) and are returned to the owner with the exception of the value of that limb (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 9 1; Arakhin 5a; Temurah 11b; Chullin 69b).
  
  Verse 10
  
  טוב ברע [HE SHALL NEITHER CHANGE IT NOR EXCHANGE IT] A GOOD FOR A BAD — i. e. he shall not give in exchange a perfect animal of a non-sacred character for one devoted to the Sanctuary but having some blemish (cf. Rashi on Temurah 9a on ‎‎‎מתני' טוב ברע), 
  ‎‎‎או רע בטוב‎ OR A BAD FOR A GOOD — It follows à fortiori that he must not give in exchange a perfect animal for another perfect one, or one with a blemish for another with a blemish (Temurah 9a).
  
  Verse 11
  
  ואם כל בהמה טמאה AND IF IT BE ANY בהמה טמאה — Scripture is really speaking here not of an “unclean" but of a blemished animal  which  ,is just on this account, unclean (i. e. unfit) for sacrificing, and Scripture is telling you that sacred animals which have no blemish cannot again become non-holy (more lit., go forth from the category of holy animals to that of non-holy animals) through redemption except if they become blemished (Temurah 32b; Sifra, Bechukotai, Section 4 1).
  
  Verse 12
  
  כערכך הכהן כן יהיה AS THE PRIEST VALUES IT, SO SHALL IT BE for any other person who comes to buy it from the Temple treasury (in contrast to the owner himself who, if he redeems it, must add a fifth to the valuation, as stated in the next verse).
  
  Verse 13
  
  ואם גאל יגאלנה BUT IF HE WILL AT ALL REDEEM IT [THEN HE SHALL ADD A FIFTH …] — In respect to the owner Scripture is more stringent by requiring him to pay an additional fifth. And similarly in the case of one who dedicates a house to the Sanctuary (vv. 14, 15) and so, too, in the case of one who dedicates his field (v. 19), and similarly in the case of redeeming מעשר שני, “the Second Tithe”, the owner must add a fifth to their real value when redeeming them; but no other person has to do this (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 10 7; Arakhin 25a).
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  והיה ערכך לפי זרעו  [AND IF A MAN SHALL SANCTIFY SOME OF THE FIELD OF HIS POSSESSION] THEN THE VALUATION SHALL BE ACCORDING TO THE SEED THEREOF (i. e., according to the quantity of seed that can be grown in it) — not according to its value; but whether it is a good field or a bad field the money for redeeming it from its holy state is the same: an area requiring a Khor of barley seed (the equivalent of a חמר שערים mentioned in the text) is redeemable by fifty shekels (in the case of other seed the area redeemable by this sum is different) (cf. Arakhin 14a). Such is the enactment of Scripture (God). But this is only in the case that he comes to redeem it at the beginning of the Jubilee-period, but if he comes to redeem it in the middle of it he has only to pay according to the reckoning of one Selah (shekel) and a pundion (one forty-eighth of a shekel) for each year remaining in that Jubilee-period (cf. Rashi on v. 18); because, after all, it is the property of the Temple treasury only for the number of years contained in the Jubilee-period from the time when he sold it, so that if it was redeemed by the owner at any time during this period, well and good (the Temple treasury suffered no loss), and if not, the treasurer can sell it for the very same price to another person, when it remains in the hands of the purchaser till the Jubilee just like any other field sold right out (cf. vv. 20, 21). When it leaves his possession in the Jubilee year, it does not return to the Treasury, but it passes into the possession of the priests of that “Mishmar” (shift officiating) during whose turn the Jubilee happens to fall and is divided amongst them. This, in brief, is the law concerning one who dedicates a field to the Temple Treasury; and now I shall explain it, following the order of the verses.
  
  Verse 17
  
  אם משנת היבל יקדיש IF HE SANCTIFY [HIS FIELD] FROM THE YEAR OF JUBILEE — i. e. if as soon as the Jubilee-period was past he immediately dedicates it to the Temple treasury (so that the field could remain in the possession of the Sanctuary for a complete Jubilee-period), and he comes to redeem it immediately (so that the Treasury had no usufruct of the field at all).
  כערכך יקום ACCORDING TO THE VALUATION IT SHALL STAND — i. e. according to that valuation above mentioned shall it be — 50 shekel shall he give [for each area requiring a Khor of barley seed].
  
  Verse 18
  
  ואם אחר היבל יקדיש BUT IF HE SANCTIFY [HIS FIELD] AFTER (i. e. some years after) THE JUBILEE, — and similarly, of course, if he dedicated it from the year of (i. e. immediately after) the Jubilee, — and in either case it remained for a time in the possession of the treasurer and then this man comes to redeem it some years after the Jubilee,
  וחשב לו הכהן את הכסף על פי השנים הנותרת THEN THE PRIEST SHALL RECKON FOR HIM THE MONEY ACCORDING TO THE YEARS THAT ARE LEFT — it must be according to a reckoning. How is it to be done? You see, it (Scripture) has fixed the value of forty-nine years at fifty shekels, that is, one shekel for each year and one additional shekel for all of them (for all the years together). Now a shekel is forty-eight pundion; that gives one selah (shekel) and one pundion for each year, except that there is one pundion short for all the years (reckoning the price per year as the Torah prescribes, he pays forty-nine shekels and forty-nine pundion, equal to fifty shekels and one pundion whereas really he should pay fifty shekels, which is one pundion less than the calculation based upon the yearly rate. Our Rabbis said that that pundion is the commission for the money-changing (Bekhorot 50a), and therefore if he comes to redeem the field some years after the Jubilee, he must give a selah and a pundion for each year of those years that remain until the Jubilee year (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 10 10; Arakhin 24b).
  ונגרע מערכך AND THERE SHALL BE ABATED FROM THE VALUATION the number of years that have elapsed from the Jubilee year until the year when the redemption takes place.
  
  Verse 19
  
  ואם גאל יגאל AND IF HE WILL IN ANY WAY REDEEM IT “he” means, the man who dedicated it; then he shall add a fifth part to this fixed price (not a fifth of the fifty shekels, but a fifth of the value determined by this calculation is to be added to that value).
  
  Verse 20
  
  ואם לא יגאל את השדה AND IF HE WILL NOT REDEEM THE FIELD— “he” means, the man who dedicated it,
  ואם מכר OR IF HE HATH SOLD — “he”: the treasurer of the Temple property has sold (Arakhin 25b),
  את השדה לאיש אחר לא יגאל עוד THE FIELD TO ANOTHER MAN, IT SHALL NOT BE REDEEMED ANY MORE so as to return into the possession of him who dedicated it.
  
  Verse 21
  
  והיה השדה בצאתו ביבל BUT THE FIELD, WHEN IT GOETH OUT IN THE JUBILEE from the possession of him who purchased it from the treasurer, just as is the way with other fields in the Jubilee which also go out from the possession of those who purchase them, SHALL BE 
  קדש לה׳ HOLY UNTO THE LORD; — not that it shall return to the Temple treasury that provides for the Temple repair, into the treasurer’s hand, but, כשדה החרם it shall be AS A FIELD DOOMED, which has to be given to the preists, as it is said, (Numbers 18:14) “Every thing doomed (חרם) in Israel shall be thine” (i. e. Aaron’s to whom this was spoken); this field, too, shall be divided amongst the priests of that “Mishmar” during whose turn the Day of Atonement of the Jubilee-year happens to fall (Arakhin 28b).
  
  Verse 22
  
  ואם את שדה ‎'מקנתו וגו‎‎ BUT IF [HE SANCTIFY…] A FIELD OF HIS PURCHASE [WHICH IS NOT THE FIELD OF HIS POSSESSION, THEN etc.] — There is a difference between a “field of one’s purchase” and “a field of one’s possession” inasmuch as a “field of purchase” is not divided amongst the priests in the Jubilee (if it was sold by the treasurer and the purchaser has to return it at the Jubilee), because one has the right to dedicate it only until the Jubilee, for under any circumstances it was to go out from his possession and return to the original owner in the Jubilee; therefore if he comes to redeem it, he redeems it at the price stipulated for a “field of possession” (cf. משנה למלך on Maimonides   הל' ערכין פ"ד הלכה כ"ו who explains where Rashi derives it from that he has to pay the price fixed for a שדה אחוזה). And whether he does not redeem it and the treasurer sells it to another person, or whether he does redeem it, (some editions have: ואם לא יגאל; cf. Arakhin 28b) בשנת היבל ישוב השדה לאשר קנהו מאתו IN THE YEAR OF THE JUBILEE THE FIELD SHALL RETURN UNTO HIM FROM WHOM HE HATH BOUGHT IT — i. e. unto him from whom he that has dedicated it has bought it. And in order that you should not think that the words: the field shall return לאשר קנהו, mean, it shall return unto him from whom this last purchaser has bought it, — and that would be the treasurer (since he is the person from whom it was last acquired), Scripture was compelled to state לאשר לו אחזת הארץ EVEN TO HIM TO WHOM THE POSSESSION OF THE FIELD BELONGS from that which his ancestors have bequeathed to him, and this can only be the original owner who had sold it to him who sanctified it (Arakhin 26a, Arakhin 26b). 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  וכל ערכך יהיה בשקל הקדש Every valuation shall be made according to the holy shekel: i.e., every valuation regarding which shekels are written, will be made according to the holy shekel.
  עשרים גרה TWENTY GERAH — twenty meahs. This was what it was originally, but later on they increased it by one sixth. Our Rabbis stated: six silver meahs make a silver denar; thus twenty-four meahs make a selah (a shekel) (cf. Rashi on Exodus 30:13), a shekel being four denars (Bekhorot 26b).
  
  Verse 26
  
  לא יקדיש איש אתו [ONLY THE FIRSTBORN OF BEASTS…] NO MAN SHALL SANCTIFY IT for the purpose of (to become) a sacrifice of any other description, for it is not his, [being already holy to the Lord from birth] (cf. Arakhin 29a).
  
  Verse 27
  
  ואם בבהמה טמאה AND IF IT BE OF AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL — This verse does not refer to the firstborn mentioned above (when the translation would be: and if it — the firstborn just mentioned — be בבהמה טמאה, in the category of unclean animals), because one cannot state about the firstborn of an unclean animal: ופדה בערכך “it shall be redeemed by valuation”, since of all unclean animals it is only the firstborn of the ass that has to be redeemed (see Exodus 13:13 and Rashi thereon); and an ass this firstborn spoken of here cannot be, because, you see, the redemption price of the firstborn of an ass is a lamb only, whilst here the animal in question has to be redeemed כערכך, according to a certain valuation; and besides, it (the lamb) is a gift to the priest and is not given to the Sanctuary. But the verse refers to something dedicated to the Temple treasury, being a continuation of v. 11, for that verso above spoke about the redemption of a clean animal which became blemished, and here it speaks about one who dedicates an unclean animal, the proceeds to be used for the Temple repair (Menachot 101a).
  ופדה בערכך THEN HE SHALL REDEEM IT ACCORDING TO THE VALUATION — i. e. according as the priest will estimate its value.
  ואם לא יגאל OR IF IT BE NOT REDEEMED by the owners,
  ונמכר בערכך THEN IT SHALL BE SOLD ACCORDING TO THE VALUATION to others (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 12 2).
  
  Verse 28
  
  אך כל חרם NOTWITHSTANDING NO DOOMED THING… [SHALL BE SOLD OR REDEEMED] — Our Rabbis are of different opinions regarding this matter (i. e. regarding the explanation of the word חרם used in this section). Some say: “All things declared doomed without any statement as to their purpose”, go to the Temple treasury. And if you ask, “But how then can I explain the text addressed to Aaron (Numbers 18:14) “every חרם in Israel shall be thine” (i. e. the priest’s)? Then I reply that I explain it to refer to חרמים expressly made for priests, i. e. that the donor expressly said, “this shall be a doomed thing for the priests” (so that it is not a סתם חרם). Others, however, say, that all things declared doomed without any statement as to their purpose go to the priests (in accordance with Numbers 18:14) (Arakhin 28b).
  לא ימכר ולא יגאל IT SHALL NOT BE SOLD NOR REDEEMED but shall be given to the priest. Now, according to him who holds that “doomed things not specially assigned” go to the priests, this verse must be explained as referring to such “unassigned doomed things”. He, however, who holds that “unassigned doomed things” go for the Temple repair, explains this verse as referring to such “doomed things” that were expressly declared to be for the priests, since all agree that such doomed things intended for the priests cannot be redeemed before they came into the possession of the priest (when the priest may do whatever he likes with them, because they are חולין; Scripture is thus right in stating 'לא ימכר וכו‎), whilst doomed things intended for the Most High (i. e. for the Sanctuary) are redeemable (Arakhin 29b).
  כל חרם קדש קדשים הוא EVERY DOOMED THING IS MOST HOLY — He who holds that “unassigned doomed things” go to the Temple repair produces evidence from here that his assertion is correct, whilst he who holds that “unassigned doomed things” go to the priests explains the words: 'כל חרם קדש קדשים הוא לה as meaning: every doomed thing of that which is most holy (חרם is construct!) shall be the Lord’s and as intended to teach that חרמים made for the priests are applicable to objects holy in the highest degree (e. g. if one says, "This burnt-offering shall be doomed to the priests”) and to subjects holy in a minor degree (e. g. a firstborn animal) and he gives its value to the priest, as we learn in Treatise Arakhin 28b: If it is a נדר (cf. for this term Leviticus 22:18) he pays the full value of it, and if it is a נדבה (Leviticus 22:18) he only pays the value of the gratification he might have of it.
  מאדם [NO DOOMED THING…] OF MAN […SHALL BE SOLD OR REDEEMED] — for instance, in the case that he has declared as חרם his Canaanite man-servants or maid-servants (Arakhin 28a).
  
  Verse 29
  
  'כל חרם אשר יחרם וגו‎ NONE DOOMED WHO SHALL BE DOOMED OF MAN, [SHALL  BE RELEASED] — This means, if a person is going to be executed and someone says, “I take upon myself to pay his ערך” he has said nothing (his vow is of none effect) (Arakhin 6b).
  מות יומת, you see, he is going to be put to death, and he therefore cannot be redeemed, — he has neither a market-value (דמים) nor an ‎ערך.‎
  
  Verse 30
  
  ‎ ‎וכל מעשר הארץ AND ANY TITHE OF THE LAND… [BELONGETH TO THE LORD] — Scripture is speaking here of the “second tithe”.
  מזרע הארץ OF THE SEED OF THE EARTH — i. e. of grain,
  מפרי העץ OF THE FRUIT OF THE TREE — i. e. wine and oil,
  לה' הוא BELONGETH TO THE LORD — the Lord has acquired it (it is His possession) and it is from His table that He bids you to carry up (להעלות = לעלות) and to eat in Jerusalem (Kiddushin 53b), as it is said, (Deuteronomy 14:23) “And thou shalt eat before the Lord, thy God,… the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, etc.”.
  
  Verse 31
  
  ממעשרו [AND IF A MAN WILL REDEEM] OUGHT OF HIS TITHES [HE SHALL ADD THERETO ITS FIFTH] — of his tithes, but not of the tithes of his fellow: if he redeems the tithe of his fellow he need not add its fifth (Kiddushin 24a). Wherein consists the redemption of the “second tithe” (since it is permitted as food to the owner)? He redeems it in so far as he makes it permissible for food at any place (which is not the case if he does not redeem it) and the redemption-money he brings up to Jerusalem, buys eatables and eats them there as it is said, (Deuteronomy 14:25, 26) “Then thou shalt put into money… [and thou shalt lay out that money… for cattle, for sheep etc.]”.
  
  Verse 32
  
  תחת השבט [WHATEVER PASSES] UNDER THE ROD — When he is about to tithe them (the cattle), he passes them through a door one after the other and the tenth he strikes with a rod smeared with red dye so that it should afterwards be recognised as being one of the tithe. Thus he does to the young sheep and to the calves of each separate year (Bekhorot 58b).
  יהיה קדש [THE TENTH] SHALL BE HOLY [UNTO THE LORD] — inasmuch as its blood and its fat portions have to be burnt on the altar; the flesh, however, may be eaten by the owner, for we do not find it enumerated among “the gifts of the priests” (Numbers ch. 18), nor do we find in the Torah elsewhere that its flesh should be given to the priests.
  
  Verse 33
  
  לא ‎'יבקר וגו‎ HE SHALL NOT SEEK OUT, [WHETHER IT BE GOOD OR BAD — Since it is stated, (.Deut 12:11) “[thither shall ye bring…] all your choice vows” I might think he shall select and take out the choicest! Scripture therefore states here, “he shall not seek out whether it be good or bad”  —whether it be perfect in limb or whether it have a blemish the sanctity attached to the tithe applies to it; not, however, in the sense that being blemished it may be offered, but it must be eaten under the observance of the regulations relating to the tithe, and must neither be shorn of its wool nor be employed in work (cf. Bekhorot 14b).