English translation — פנחס ב

A.

In the verse¹

"Command the children of Israel and say to them: My offering, My food for My fires, My pleasing aroma, you shall guard to offer to Me at its appointed time" — Rashi focuses on the word "at its appointed time" and explains: "Every day is the appointed time of the perpetual offerings."

One must understand:

What does Rashi add to that which is explicitly stated immediately in the verse after this?

There it says "two each day, a continual burnt offering,"

that the time of the offering of the tamidim is continual,

every day — why does Rashi need to explain in the first verse on the word "in its appointed time"?

The Ra'avad learns that Rashi does not come to say that this is a commandment that applies every day,

because it is already explicitly stated in the verse

(as above),

rather "this is its explanation,"

that each day is the "time of the tamidim and there is no preventer of them, for even in impurity they are offered on their day."

But the explanation in Rashi is seemingly difficult: Rashi wrote his commentary

(air)

for a five-year-old studying Scripture,

that is, in clear language

(also)

for the people,

and if Rashi had intended to say that one offers the daily offerings always even

in a state of impurity,

he would have said this explicitly,

in the manner that he says in parshas Beha'aloscha⁴

regarding the word "in its appointed time" that is stated by the Paschal offering — "even on Shabbat...

even in a state of impurity"⁵.

Also one must understand: why specifically is <b>here </b>Rashi not explaining "in its appointed time — even on Shabbos even in a state of tumah"?

And although regarding Shabbos one does not need here in Rashi any derivation,

because that is stated explicitly further in the verse<sup>6</sup>

"the burnt-offering of Shabbos on its Shabbos, besides the continual burnt-offering",

one needs however to have a derivation that one offers the daily continual offering "even in a state of tumah".

2.

The Ibn Ezra^,

translates "in its appointed time" — "that they should not come before the morning and that they should not delay after the evening".

And according to this it is understood why it must say "in its appointed time",

even though it says further "two each day a continual burnt-offering" and "the*⁷

one lamb you shall offer in the morning and the second lamb you shall offer between the evenings",

because the verse comes to emphasize its exact time "that they should not come before...

and that they should not delay etc."⁸.

And one must explain: Why does Rashi not learn⁹

in the manner of the explanation of the Ibn Ezra,

that according to him it is understood why it must say "in its appointed time",

and this is an explanation which lies in the plain sense of Scripture¹⁰.

3.

And it can be said the explanation in this:

The difference between Rashi's commentary in our parshah and Rashi's commentary in parshas Beha'aloscha is:

In Parshas Beha'aloscha, Rashi comes to explain the superfluity of the word "bimoado".

Because the verse there directly continues its precise time "on the fourteenth day of this month in the afternoon etc."¹¹.

Therefore Rashi teaches that the superfluity comes to make heard a new law — "bimoado even on Shabbos, bimoado even in impurity".

However in our parshah, what is difficult for Rashi is the meaning of the word "bimoado": the simple meaning of "bimoado" is — at the time that was designated for it.

And as Rashi translates "l'moed"¹²

— "to that designated time that I set for you"¹³.

And based on this: It is understandable regarding the sacrifices of Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh and Festivals,

sacrifices that come from time to time,

the expression "in its appointed time" is understood —

Each sacrifice is offered on the fixed day that was designated for it,

which is unique to it.

But regarding the daily offering,

what for it,

was not designated a special day,

one offers it constantly,

continually,

every day

(and as its name — continual offering; burnt offering <b>continual</b><sup>14</sup>),

so it does not apply to it to say the term "in its appointed time."

And therefore Rashi does not learn like the interpretation of Ibn Ezra "that it should not be brought before the morning and that it should not be delayed after the evening" — because according to his interpretation "in its appointed time" refers

(not to the designated and fixed time for the <b>continual</b> offering,

but)

to a limitation within the time itself

(which one offers — each and every day),

that one must be <b>careful</b> not to advance its time before the morning and not to delay its time after the evening — for which the expression <b>"in its appointed time"</b><sup>15</sup> does not apply

<b> </b>— that is not a fixed appointed time,

the designated time <b>for the continual offering,</b>

but a <b>law</b><sup>16</sup>

(and in relation to all offerings<sup>17</sup>).

Also: it is not plausible to explain simply according to the plain meaning of the verse as the aforementioned interpretation,

because¹⁸

then "in its appointed time" would have

had to be said after the Torah states the general and specific time of its offering: "two <b>a day</b>, a continual burnt-offering, the one lamb you shall do <b>in the morning</b>, and the second lamb you shall do <b>between the evenings</b>."

because the "in its appointed time" is according to his interpretation not an explanation of the actual time, but rather a <b>detail</b> and <b>limitation</b> in its general time of the day and the specific time of morning and between the evenings,

"that they should not bring it before the morning and that they should not delay it after the evening."

From the fact that the Torah precedes the word "במועדו" before the general time,

and certainly before the particular time of each Tamid — in the morning and between the evenings,

it is understood,

that the "במועדו" speaks of the essence of their time.

Therefore Rashi explains "each day is the &lt;b&gt;appointed time of the Tamid offerings",&lt;/b&gt;

that the verse here introduces &lt;b&gt;a new &lt;/b&gt;definition regarding the daily offering:

Simply, one learns¹⁹,

that the daily offering is not similar to all the festival offerings, each of which has its appointed time,

its fixed time,

but the daily offering has no fixed appointed time,

one offers it continually,

<b>every </b>day,

and therefore it is called "burnt offering <b>continual"</b>

— Rashi says that with "in its appointed time" the verse comes to say that the explanation is not so,

but that <b>"every day </b>it is <b>the appointed time </b>of the daily offerings",

<b>every </b>day is an appointed time, a <b>distinct </b>time for the offering of the daily offering of this day; each and every day by itself is a <b>separate</b>

(appointed time — )

time for the daily offering of that day,

on its day.

4.

What is the difference? The definition of the daily offering²⁰

that "every day is the appointed time of the daily offerings"?

— is understood simply:

Further in <b>the </b>portion⁶,

regarding the offering of Shabbat,

Rashi stands on the words "the burnt offering of Shabbat on its Shabbat" and explains "and not the burnt offering of Shabbat on another Shabbat, if he did not offer on this Shabbat, I might say he should offer two on the following Shabbat; the verse says 'on its Shabbat' to teach that if its day passed, its offering is void."

And one should examine: What is the law regarding the Tamid,

whether the daily burnt-offering "two a day" comes,

or "if its day passed, its offering is void."

At first glance one could say that from Shabbat one learns this regarding all the offerings,

as the precise wording of Rashi: "It teaches that if its day passed"

(not "if its Shabbat passed" and the like),

with which it "teaches" that regarding an offering,

"if its day passed — the day of each offering,

then — its offering is void."

It is however difficult to say so,

because a few verses later on the verse²¹

"This is the burnt-offering of the new month on its new month" Rashi says "that if its day passed, its sacrifice is void and there is no replacement for it."

From this it is understood

That the lesson from "the burnt-offering of the Sabbath on its Sabbath" is not regarding each sacrifice.

Furthermore: even regarding the offerings of the appointed times, there stands a special teaching — earlier in Parshat Emor on "the matter of a day in its day"²²

Rashi explains "that if its day passed, its offering is void".

And based on this, it seemingly comes out,

that regarding the daily offering, one does not say "if its day passed, its offering is void"²³,

unlike all the aforementioned offerings.

And according to the above explanation in Rashi's commentary, it can be said,

then the law is also on the daily offering:

Since the definition of the daily offering is,

as above,

not only that one must constantly,

every day offer a sacrifice,

but "every day it is &lt;b&gt;the appointed time &lt;/b&gt;of the daily offerings",

each day is a distinct appointed time,

a designated fixed and appointed time for the offering of the daily offering of that day,

then it is understood that also regarding the daily offering the rule applies that if "its &lt;b&gt;day passed&lt;/b&gt;" — which is "designated" for the offering of the daily offering of that day — then "its sacrifice is void".

5.

Nevertheless, one need not have for this a special teaching

(so also regarding "Tamid" the law is that "if its day passed, etc.")

— although Shabbos and Festivals are certainly designated days on which one offers a sacrifice,

and nevertheless one must

for them have a verse and special teaching that "if its day passed, his sacrifice is void"

— because there is a fundamental difference between the sacrifices of Shabbat etc. and the daily sacrifice:

The distinctiveness

(regarding the rest of the days of the year)

of Shabbat and Festivals,

is not from the aspect of the offering of the sacrifices in them,

but from their own aspect: Shabbat is a holy day and is forbidden in work,

and likewise the Festivals — they are special days in the prohibition of doing work and in the commandments that are special to them; only in these days <b>also come</b> <b>obligations</b> of bringing sacrifices that are special to them²⁴.

And therefore,

were it not for the <b>special</b> study,

it could have been a reasoning that one should complete the offering on the following Shabbat,

and likewise regarding the festival²⁵.

But not so regarding the daily offerings,

according to Rashi's explanation that "every day is the appointed time of the daily offerings",

the distinction of the day is only through,

because of,

the offering of this day,

and consequently it is simple²⁶

that "if

Passed &lt;b&gt;its day" — &lt;/b&gt;the day that is allocated and designated for this daily offering of that day,

is "its offering is void"&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;,

one cannot bring it tomorrow,

which is allocated by itself for the daily offering &lt;b&gt;of its day&lt;/b&gt;

(from that morning).

And.

This is, however, still not a sufficient explanation:

It is plausible to say,

that the first verse of the section of the offerings "Command the children of Israel and say to them: My offering, My bread for My fire, My sweet savor, you shall observe to offer to Me at its appointed time" is a general introduction to all the offerings that come later in the portion — the perpetual offerings,

the additional offerings of Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh and the Festivals,

that all of them are "My bread for My fire etc.",

and with "And say to them: This is the fire-offering which you shall offer etc." the verse begins to specify the details of the offerings,

each one individually — beginning with the perpetual offering.

And accordingly it turns out that also the word "at its appointed time" applies to all the offerings,

as the verse further enumerates the times of each offering,

Shabbat, Rosh Chodesh, and Festivals

(Rashi only explains&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

that also regarding the perpetual offering the same interpretation of "at its appointed time" applies because "Every day is the &lt;b&gt;appointed time &lt;/b&gt;of the perpetual offerings").

And accordingly it is understood,

that the offerings of Shabbat, Rosh Chodesh and Festivals are not an additional matter upon the days,

but the distinctiveness

of the days is

(also)

because of the offerings of the day,

the days are designated and fixed for the offerings of that day²⁹.

And the difficulty returns to its place: why does one need a special study

(regarding Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh)

that "if its day passed, his offering is void"?

7.

And one can say the explanation of this — by prefacing the explanation of the differences in language that one finds regarding it: by Shabbat Rashi writes at length "Behold, if he did not offer on this Shabbat, I might hear that he should offer two on the next Shabbat; Scripture says 'on its Shabbat,' teaching that if its day passed, his offering is void",

but not so with a few verses further,

by Rosh Chodesh Rashi says briefly

(and together with this also an addition "and again etc.")

"that if its day passed, his offering is void and again he has no completion".

And earlier in Parshas Emor on the verse "Davar yom b'yomo" Rashi says briefly

(And without the addition)

: "If the day passed, its offering is void."

Now, it is understandable regarding Rosh Chodesh,

since that comes a few verses after his explanation on "B'shabato",

it is understood why he does not need to repeat again at length "Behold, if he did not offer on this Rosh Chodesh, etc."³⁰.

But regarding the offerings of the festivals in Parshas Emor

(which is before this and in a different book),

why does he say there briefly and does not say in the manner that he says here regarding Shabbos "Behold, if he did not offer on this Shabbos, etc."?

Commentators say&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;,

that on the pilgrimage festivals one does not need to come to a study "that one does not bring the Festival burnt-offering on another Festival",

because it is obvious that "if he did not offer it on Passover, he should not offer it on Shavuot as a make-up for Passover&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

although they are already in their offerings, nevertheless they are two names, but Sabbaths and New Moons, since they are all one name, you might say that he should offer for the make-up of the first; it teaches us not."

And accordingly,

the study "the matter of its day in its day" regarding the offerings of the pilgrimage festivals negates the make-up from one day of the Festival to the later day

(days)

within the same Festival&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

itself — within the seven days of Passover and the seven days of Sukkot&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;.

The question is, however: Why should one not need a study that "if he did not offer on this Passover, he will offer two on the next Passover"³⁵,

and likewise regarding Shavuot*³⁵.

Ch.

And one can say the explanation in this:

In the category of completion there are several manners,

And among them: a)

From the aspect of the &lt;b&gt;person,&lt;/b&gt;

He comes to complete the &lt;b&gt;obligation&lt;/b&gt; that he should have done a previous day,

And etc.

b)

From the aspect of the &lt;b&gt;object,&lt;/b&gt;

A sort that one should have done with a certain object,

He does it with the object at a later time.

when the stolen object is still extant,

he gives back the object itself,

and fulfills "And he shall return the stolen object" literally

(the object)

; when the object is no longer extant,

he pays the value of the stolen object and completes the obligation of the mitzvah that lies upon him

(the person)³⁷].

<b>And similarly </b>regarding the offering of the sacrifices: from the aspect that each sacrifice has its fixed, specific time — "in its appointed time",

it is understood that the fulfillment of the obligation and mitzvah of offering a sacrifice on this day cannot be fulfilled by offering it on another day³⁸.

And this is what Rashi emphasizes regarding the daily offerings that "Each day is the <b>appointed time </b>of the daily offerings",

consequently there is no place that the fulfillment of the mitzvah of offering the daily offerings of the day <b>this,</b>

should be fulfilled by bringing it on a second day which is not "its appointed time".

And in this way it is understood regarding all the sacrifices in our parshah, that "in its appointed time" refers to their fixed time for a specific day,

the additional offerings of Shabbat on Shabbat,

Rosh Chodesh and festivals — there is no

any thought that when one missed offering the additional offering of Shabbat, one should complete the mitzvah and obligation of that day on the following Shabbat

(and similarly on Rosh Chodesh and festivals).

9.

The question remains however: since there is the reality of this offering,

the lamb designated for the daily-offering of this day,

should one offer <b>the lamb</b> tomorrow,

and likewise regarding the additional-offerings of Shabbos — should one offer on the coming Shabbos the lambs that were prepared for the previous Shabbos,

because this is a <b>lamb</b> designated for a <b>daily-offering</b> or for <b>Shabbos.</b>

(And even if one only did not prepare the lamb for the daily-offering or for the additional-offering of Shabbos and the like,

since however there is the money in the treasury

(in the chamber),

designated and prepared for the lambs of the daily-offering and additional-offerings of Shabbos,

one should use it for the addition to the daily-offerings of tomorrow,

and likewise regarding Shabbos).

And this is the novel point "if he did not offer on this Shabbos, I might think he should offer two for the coming Shabbos": the assumption here is not that one should complete the <b>obligation of the commandment</b> of offering the additional-offering of the previous Shabbos³⁹,

but rather because of the <b>reality</b> of the lambs for the offering

(or the money for the offering).

— so from this one learns from "בשבתו" — "מגיד שאם עבר יומו &lt;b&gt;בטל קרבנו",&lt;/b&gt;

there is not the &lt;b&gt;existence &lt;/b&gt;of this "קרבנו",

not only is there not the obligation &lt;b&gt;of the commandment &lt;/b&gt;of its offering from the previous Shabbos,

but at the time that "עבר יומו" was nullified the offering of this Shabbos.

And this law one learns also regarding Rosh Chodesh and Festivals.

But not regarding the daily offering,

even though that "every day is the &lt;b&gt;appointed time &lt;/b&gt;of the daily offerings" — there is no thought that one should fulfill the obligation of today's daily offering by sacrificing it tomorrow,

since tomorrow is not "its appointed time"&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;.

But they have no teaching that &lt;b&gt;"his offering is &lt;/b&gt;nullified",

that the &lt;b&gt;existence &lt;/b&gt;of the offering becomes nullified.

Consequently, according to the simple meaning of the verse, one can say that one may

(further — one must)

sacrifice the daily offerings tomorrow,

since the existence exists

(or its monetary value)

of the offering&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;.

And based on this, it is understood simply,

that regarding the festivals there is not even any thought that if one does not sacrifice on Passover,

he should sacrifice two on the next Passover and similarly on Shavuot

— because the shekels of each year which are for buying the communal offerings of each and every year are indeed different in each and every year,

as Rashi already explained earlier⁴²

("each one gave half a shekel and from them they buy the communal offerings of each and every year"),

there is no logic that one should bring the offerings of one year in a festival of the second year

(even from the aspect of the reality of the offering,

not only from the aspect of the completion of the obligation and commandment as above),

since the shekels of this year have no connection to the offerings

(and the money of the offerings)

that are in the second year⁴³.

40)

See above note 26.

41)

To note from the language of the Rambam, Laws of Tamidim and Musafim, end of chapter

(from Temurah 14,

a)

: And they are not obligated to offer the remainder the next day or at another appointed time, but rather every one of their horns, a pipe that its time passed, its offering is taken.

42)

Tissa 30,

15.

43)

Up to the halachah — see Rambam, Hilchos Shekalim, ch.4, hal.11.

Yud-Daled.

From the "wine of Torah" that is in Rashi's commentary this:

It is known that the dwelling of the Shechinah in the Temple

(and through this in the entire world)

was through the sacrifices⁴⁴.

And of course,

each type of sacrifice is connected with a different manner in the dwelling

(according to the definitions and conditions of each and every sacrifice).

And likewise regarding the sacrifices in our parshah — that they divide into two types: a)

the continual burnt-offering,

which is brought constantly every single day,

b)

the additional offerings of Shabbos, Rosh Chodesh, and Festivals — they are connected with two

(general)

manners in the dwelling of holiness:

The offerings of the additional sacrifices of Shabbat,

Rosh Chodesh and festivals,

bring about the indwelling of holiness that transforms the "time" — in these days a holiness shines

(the holiness of Shabbat,

Rosh Chodesh and Yom Tov)

openly, which causes that the time should become a holy time.

But from that which the holiness in these days transforms the time,

it is understandable,

that it has a limitation,

because of which the "indwelling" is connected specifically with a particular day⁴⁵.

By the daily offering it is reversed: this is a matter that is always present,

always,

without limitations,

from which it is understandable that the indwelling of holiness⁴⁶

that through the daily offering is

(connected with the revelation of the Most High Himself with Whom it is)

not applicable any changes, heaven forbid,

and consequently it is shining and spreading <b>always,</b>

without any limitation.

And this itself is the reason why it does not effect that every day should become a holiday — because since the indwelling of holiness through the daily offering is connected with

(the Most High Himself, "I am the Lord

I have not changed"⁴⁷,

it is not within the category of time,

but above time.

11.

One could think that it “remains” above time and does not act in time — the verse teaches that this is not so,

but that even the daily offering must be sacrificed “in its appointed time” — that “each day is the &lt;b&gt;appointed time &lt;/b&gt;of the daily offerings”:

Although here we speak about an influence in a manner of “constant”

(and “I did not change”)

— but the meaning is not that it has no

(connection and effect on time,

but “each day is the &lt;b&gt;appointed time &lt;/b&gt;of the daily offerings”,

the day — the time itself — becomes different because of the daily offering,

but this is not seen openly.

It comes out that in the matter of the daily offering there is a connection of two opposites — "continual"

(which is not in the category of time)

and

"in its appointed time" — this is drawn forth⁴⁸

into an appointed time and fixed period⁴⁹.

12.

The concept in the service of man to his Master:

When a Jew’s service is in the manner of “always,”

then there are no changes in his service: both on weekdays and on Shabbos and Yom Tov, even on Yom Kippur

(Shabbos Shabbason)⁵⁰

— in whatever situation and state he may be,

and whatever service he does — one thing is heard by him: fulfillment of the will of the Above,

“that I said and My will was done”⁵¹.

That such a manner of “service” comes from the side of being completely given over to the will of the Above,

then to him it is “light”

(and he “feels”)

that “I am Hashem, I have <b>not</b> changed,”

and consequently there is also no change in his service.

And this Rashi emphasizes,

that through the service of "tamidim" becomes "every day" a &lt;b&gt;"moed",&lt;/b&gt;

is remade each day its own,

until that each day is a "distinguished" day,

it is not a weekday like the rest of the weekdays but a day designated and fixed for its offering — drawing close to Hashem.

And through this is fulfilled the completeness of the intention of the Holy One, blessed be He, desired to have a dwelling place &lt;b&gt;in the lower worlds&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;,

that one effects holiness not only on special and fixed days of the year,

but on every day,

also on every weekday,

That this hastens the fulfillment of the destiny of Shabbat in all the days,

when every ordinary day will be a day of holy Shabbat — a day that is entirely Shabbat and rest for the life of the worlds.

(From the sichot of Shabbat Parshat Pinchas 5732,

5744)