💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ramban%20on%20Leviticus%20… captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:29:36. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
14 ‎[1] AND OF IT HE SHALL PRESENT ONE OUT OF EACH OFFERING — one whole cake [for *a heave-offering unto the Eternal*]. Thus he takes as a heave-offering four cakes [and gives them to the priest].
But I wonder! When Scripture excluded [first-fruits] from the prohibition against burning leaven [on the altar], by stating, *as an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them* [which means that “the two loaves” of the Festival of Shevuoth were to be brought of leavened dough, as clearly mentioned further on in Scripture], why did it not say that [the ten leavened cakes of] the thanks-offering [are also an exception]? But this is not really a question. For Scripture states, *and unto the altar they* [i.e., leaven and honey] *shall not come up for a sweet savor*, and of the [forty] breads of the thanks-offering, none came up on the altar at all, for they require only waving. Even though in the case of the showbread He did say that one commits a transgression if one brought it in a leaven state [although there too none of the loaves are burnt on the altar], that is because of the frankincense that was on it which was *to the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the Eternal*. But of the bread of the thanks-offering, nothing at all came up on the altar [hence the Torah permitted the ten loaves to be leavened]. Perhaps Scripture only had to mention that exception [*as an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them*] because of the honey, since it was not clearly stated concerning the first-fruits [which were brought of “the seven kinds”] that they may be brought from honey [and it therefore had to be explicitly stated in that verse], and thus He also included leaven with it, saying of both of them, *as an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them*. With reference to leaven, however, since it is clearly explained in its correct place [that the “two loaves” of the Festival of Shevuoth constitute an exception to the usual negative commandment], there was no need any more to mention it as an exception [when mentioning the general negative commandment], just as Scripture has not specified the exception to the rule about the Sabbath, when stating *every one that profaneth it shall be put to death*, [by saying] “except for the Service of the offerings” [which may be done on the Sabbath], or in the case of *thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife*, [by saying] “except for a brother’s childless wife” [whom he is to marry].
Version: Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002108945/NLI
License: CC-BY