English translation — שמיני א

Talk 1<pg>54</pg>

A.

In the verse<sup>1</sup>

"And he slaughtered the burnt offering, and the sons of Aaron brought the blood to him, and he sprinkled it on the altar all around" Rashi cites the word "vayamitzu" and explains "an expression of extending and preparing."

Rashi's intention in plain meaning<sup>2</sup>

is to explain the word "vayamtzi'u" — that you should not think that its meaning is from the term "metziah" (finding)<sup>3</sup>

[like the commentary of Ibn Ezra here "from the root matza (found),

that they found it at the time of need",

i.e., that the sons of Aaron caused the blood to be available to Aaron]

— rather it is "an expression of extending and preparing".

But explanation is needed regarding Rashi's double language — "an expression of extending and preparing",

for seemingly it would have been sufficient to say "an expression of extending"<sup>4</sup>.

And furthermore: "handing" and "preparation" are two different matters — "handing" means transfer and giving from hand to hand,

and "preparation" means making ready,

that they prepared the blood — and what is the necessity to explain that "vayamtsi'u" includes both matters — "the language of handing and preparation"?

Simply, Rashi's intention in this is to explain that this "handing" was in a manner of "vayamtsi'u",

that is,

that through the handing to his fellow the thing becomes prepared and readied and available to him

(like the explanation of Ibn Ezra above)⁵.

But superficially this is not a sufficient explanation,

for because of this Rashi would not have needed to emphasize that it was specifically an act of preparation,

and he should have said "the language of handing that it should be available" and the like

(like the language of Ibn Ezra),

whose meaning is the very existence of the thing

(without distinction in what manner it is found by him,

whether it is prepared or not)⁶

— and what is Rashi's emphasis that "vayamtsi'u is the language of handing and preparation"?

2.

And one must say,

that Rashi's intention is

(not only to explain the word "vayamtzi'u",

but primarily)

to resolve a change in the language of the verses here: above<sup>7</sup>

regarding the offering of the "calf of the sin-offering" of Aaron it is stated "And Aaron approached the altar and slaughtered etc. and the sons of Aaron brought the blood to him and he dipped his finger in the blood and placed it on the horns of the altar etc.",

and here regarding the burnt-offering the verse emphasizes "

(And he slaughtered the burnt-offering)

the sons of Aaron brought the blood to him and he threw it etc."

(And also in the verse after this<sup>8</sup>

the verse emphasizes "And the burnt-offering they brought to him, to its pieces etc."),

and also regarding "the peace-offerings which were for the people" it is stated below<sup>9</sup>

"And the sons of Aaron brought the blood to him" — and a reason is needed?

<pg>55</pg>

Simply, one must say,

that the bringing was thus — that after the receiving of the blood of the sin-offering the sons of Aaron did not stand in proximity of place to Aaron<sup>10</sup>

and therefore they needed to bring

(and to carry)

to him the blood,

but not so the receiving of the blood of the burnt-offering

(and also of the peace-offerings)

was in proximity of place to Aaron<sup>10</sup>

and they were able to hand the blood of the burnt-offering

(and also the limbs)

to him.

But with that this explanation resolves the change in the language of the verses here — it is still not understood in the content of the matter:

Above at the beginning of parshas Vayikra¹¹,

regarding the laws of the burnt-offering,

it is said "And he shall slaughter the son of the cattle before the Lord, and the sons of Aaron the priests shall bring near the blood, and they shall throw the blood upon the altar etc.",

and in Rashi there "והקריבו" — "this is the receiving which is the first,

and its meaning is the language of conveying,

we learned

(that)

both of them are by the sons of Aaron".

That is: the term "והקריבו" includes the two services of receiving the blood and conveying the blood¹²

(for both of them are specifically by the sons of Aaron the priests).

And based on this it is perplexing,

since the verse here comes to describe the participation of the sons of Aaron in the service of the eighth day of the consecrations,

why regarding the burnt-offering

(and the peace-offerings)

did the verse omit regarding these two services

(receiving and conveying)

and says only "and they presented..

the blood",

that is, extending the blood into the hand of Aaron?

Regarding "carrying" it must be said,

that according to the simple meaning of the verse,

also the extending of the blood

(from hand to hand)

is included in the category of "carrying",

for by this he brings the blood near to the altar.

[According to the halacha there is room for discussion whether this extending has the name of carrying,

for we hold¹³

that carrying not by foot is not called carrying,

and according to the Rambam¹⁴

even when standing next to the altar one must do carrying by foot

(and in Tziyun P'li'at N'fashos al haTorah¹⁵

he wrote,

that this that the sons of Aharon only presented the blood indeed "was not according to the law"¹⁶)

; but according to the simple interpretation we do not find that carrying must be specifically by foot¹⁷,

and since the entire concept of carrying is learned from the word "and they shall offer",

it is logical that also extending is included in this,

since by this he brings the blood near to the altar,

as above].

But still not resolved regarding the receiving of the blood,

which simply is not included in the term "veyamtzi'u".

For only regarding the term "vehikrivu" did they say "this is the receiving which is the first"¹⁸,

and in <pg>56</pg>

Except that one must say that the receiving of the blood is also included in the meaning of the term "vehikrivu"¹⁹,

because the receiving of the blood is the beginning of "bringing near" the blood to the altar; unlike "veyamtzi'u"

(which is "a term of extending")

is only the action of giving from hand to hand, and it is understood that the receiving of the blood is not included in this.

And if so, it is puzzling,

why did the verse use the term "veyamtzi'u"

(and omits regarding the receiving of the blood)

and did not say

(as above)

"veyakrivu",

in which are included both the receiving and the conveying?

[Granted, if it had not been written in the Torah at all about the actions between slaughter and sprinkling,

it would not be difficult,

for we find thus in other places,

that not all the services performed with a sacrifice were detailed, but only some of them&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

; but since the verse descends to detail that the sons of Aharon "presented" the blood to Aharon — it is difficult,

as above,

why it omitted about the receiving of the blood].

And to resolve this question Rashi adds "

(an expression of extending)

and preparation",

by which he emphasizes the novelty in "vayamtzioo" relative to "vayakrivoo",

that specifically in this there is the matter of preparation,

as follows.

3.

In the Scriptures here it is explained that there is a difference between the sprinkling of the blood of the sin-offering and the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt-offering and peace-offerings,

For regarding the sin-offering it is said²¹

"And he shall dip his finger in the blood and put it on the horns of the altar",

Whereas regarding the burnt-offering and peace-offerings it is said²²

simply "And he shall sprinkle it on the altar".

That is to say,

The sprinkling of the blood of the sin-offering is with the finger,

And therefore the priest needs to dip his finger in the blood first and afterwards to sprinkle it,

But not so the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt-offering and peace-offerings is with a vessel and there is no need for dipping the finger in the blood.

And it is found that there is a fundamental difference between the action of the sons of Aaron with the blood of the sin-offering and their action with the blood of the burnt-offering and peace-offerings²³

: With the blood of the sin-offering, even after they had brought the blood to Aaron,

The blood was not yet prepared and fit for sprinkling,

Because the action of dipping Aaron's finger in the blood was lacking; but not so with the blood of the burnt-offering and peace-offerings,

Immediately after they had presented the blood to Aaron,

The blood became prepared and ready for sprinkling,

Without Aaron needing to do anything additional.

And based on this is explained the reason that it is said "and the sons of Aaron presented etc." specifically

(and not "and they offered")

: the reason that the Torah relates about the actions of the sons of Aaron in these offerings is

(in simple terms)

in order to emphasize their participation in the service of Aaron on this day²⁴.

And therefore the verse emphasizes,

that regarding the burnt-offering and peace-offerings the measure of their participation in the service of Aaron increased,

for not only did they "offer" the blood but "they presented" — that the novelty in this is not only in the manner of the ac-<pg>57</pg>

lah

(and "they presented" is an expression of reaching out),

but primarily regarding the effect on the blood,

that in the blood of the burnt-offering the sons of Aaron effected an additional thing,

that the blood would be completely prepared and ready for sprinkling.

And this is also the emphasis of the verse regarding the limbs of the burnt-offering — "And the burnt-offering they presented to him, cut into its pieces,"

That is,

The sons of Aaron cut the burnt-offering into pieces,

In a manner that immediately when the pieces reached Aaron's hands they were ready&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;

For "and he burned it on the altar."

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Shemini 5742)