Leviticus 7

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).

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).

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.

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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

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.

אם על תודה 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.

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)

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).

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).

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”.

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.

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)].

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).

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).

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.

'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.”

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).

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).

‎'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).

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).

ולמלואים AND FOR THE CONSECRATION OFFERING that was offered on the day that they were installed in the priestly office (cf. Exodus 28:41).