๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:35:07. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2 โ[1] ** ืฆื ืืช ืืืจืื, "Command Aaron, etc."** *Torat Kohanim* comments that the expression ืฆื is always one which denotes a sense of urgency covering both the present and future generations. [I believe the meaning of "future generations" is that the commandment does not merely involve a one-time contribution such as the materials for the Tabernacle. Ed.]. Rabbi Shimon says that this expression is used especially when performance of the commandment involves personal expense. According to the first opinion quoted, the reason the expression ืฆื is justified here more than elsewhere is because the legislation involving the burnt or total-offering involves also night-time activity, something which is not the case with any of the other offerings. The priests therefore had to be impressed with a special sense of urgency. We find a parallel passage in the Torah (Leviticus 24,2) where the expression ืฆื is used in connection with the oil for the candlestick which was used primarily at night. That commandment also involved personal expense for the people contributing the oil. Aaron was commanded with those words, and the Torah reports in Numbers 8,3 that Aaron carried out the instructions to the letter. The word ืืืืจืืช used by *Torat Kohanim* means that the rules laid down here after the word ืฆื are not subject to change in the future. We encounter the following comment in *Pessikta* on our verse. "The need for the Torah to legislate with the word ืฆื was based on the Israelites having said: 'in the past while we were wandering through the desert we used to offer daily communal burnt-offerings. Now that we have have stopped wandering, we will also discontinue the practice of these offerings.'" We see from the above that there was room for error as to the application of the daily ืชืืืืื offerings.
โ[2] As far as the ืืกืจืื ืืืก, the personal expense cited by Rabbi Shimon as the reason for the use by the Torah of the word ืฆื in this instance is concerned, there are many interpretations as to what the Rabbi had in mind. Some say that Rabbi Shimon did not restrict his comment to when a commandment involved personal expense, but that he also referred to any commandment the fulfilment of which involved pain, discomfort, etc. to the person performing it. Others say that he included commandments which robbed the performer of his regular night's sleep or the work he would otherwise perform during that night. Others say that all the Israelites considered themselves as losing money when they observed the sacrificial animal being burned up and no one enjoying any part of it. Still others believe that Rabbi Shimon referred to the financial loss to the priest who would have preferred to officiate over a different offering, one from which he would have been able to eat at least a part. In the case of the burnt-offering the priest's share was limited to the skin of the animal. I consider all these interpretations of what Rabbi Shimon had in mind with his statement as missing the mark by a wide margin.
โ[3] He may have referred to the pile of firewood which had to burn around the clock on the ืืืื ืืขืืื, the altar for the burnt-offerings, as we know from *Yuma* 45. We are told there that the altar contained three separate piles of firewood, one of which was kept burning without any offerings being burned up on it. This was done in order to keep the fire going all night long. It seemed to the people that this was a waste of money. Hence the Torah used the word ืฆื. Use of that word would preclude debate on that subject.
โ[4] There is another element which makes one think in terms of financial loss when one contemplates the procedures involving the burnt-offering. The Torah made a big fuss in connection with that offering. We read in verse 5 (after being told that the fire on the altar must not be allowed to go out): "and the priest shall kindle wood on it every morning and lay the burnt-offering on it." *Torat Kohanim* asks: "how do I know that no other offering could be offered up before the daily burnt-offering?" Answer: The Torah says ืขืืื ืืขืืื, "the burnt-offering on [in **addition** to] it." We are told in the *Tossephta Pessachim* 4,2 that if any sacrifices were offered up prior to the daily burnt-offering of the morning they are automatically disqualified. This teaches that but for the burnt-offering all that precedes it is useless; this ruling has far-reaching consequences regarding the meaning of ืืกืจืื ืืืก, financial loss.
โ[5] Supposing some individual had brought a one year old male sheep to the Temple to offer it there as his burnt-offering. It happened to be early in the morning prior to the daily ืชืืื having been offered up. The individual is therefore told to wait for an hour until after the ืชืืื has been offered. We have a rule that when it comes to sacrificial offerings **even hours** make a difference. We derive this both from *Zevachim* 25 and *Bechorot* 39. [The male sheep used for the burnt-offering is not to be more than one year old. Normally, the day is considered a single unit, so that as long it was born on that date a year earlier it does not matter which part of the day. In this instance, if the sheep had been born on the same date the year before it had been offered up, but at an earlier hour than the time it was offered up, the extra hour would disqualify it as a potential burnt-offering. Ed.] The owner would suffer financial loss by not now being able to offer up his animal which had already been designated for a specific type of offering.
โ[6] The same rule which results in financial loss to the owner of a private burnt-offering applies if someone burned up the gift-offering prematurely. More importantly, during periods when Jerusalem was under siege and there were not always any sheep at hand, the automatic result would be that no other category of offering, be it cattle, sin-offerings consisting of goats or birds, or even meal-offerings, could be offered up on the altar seeing the daily ืชืืื had not been offered up. When you consider all this you will understand a report in *Baba Kama* 82 according to which the besieged Jews of Jerusalem lowered baskets full of golden coins to their besiegers in order to secure one or two sheep for the daily burnt-offering. [during a civil war about who should be king. Ed.] This was certainly an extreme example of the legislation of the daily burnt-offering causing substantial financial sacrifice to the people. Had the rule that the ืชืืื had to be the first offering on any day not existed, it is doubtful that the priests would have gone to such extremes in order to secure a single sheep.
โ[7] **ืืืืืจ, to say.** It is not clear to whom Aaron's sons were supposed to relay this legislation. If they were meant to do this for the benefit of future generations, we have already heard about this as being implied in the expression ืฆื. If they were meant to tell the other Israelites so that these would prepare the animals for the offering as well as all the necessary tools to be used in connection with this as well as the wood for kindling, this had already been included in the words "G'd spoke to Moses ืืืืืจ." Why would I need a second ืืืืืจ?
โ[8] Perhaps G'd had told Moses to tell Aaron various exegetical details alluded to in the text He had dictated to Moses, seeing that the verse as it stands appears like a book sealed with seven seals. If you do find that our sages have offered many ingenious interpretations of the words in this verse, this was only because they **already knew** the actual ืืืืืช and did not have to arrive at them by studying the text.
โ[9] Alternatively, seeing animals which ultimately could not be offered on the altar nonetheless were not removed from the altar once they had been placed on it --as pointed out expressly by *Torat Kohanim*,-- G'd had to inform Aaron that the priests must not allow animals unfit for sacrifice to be placed on the altar. The priests would have thought that the fact that such animals are not removed from the altar once they had been placed on it was proof that G'd did not really mind their being placed on the altar as long as they were not offered as a sacrifice. They would have reasoned that no special care had to be taken to prevent such animals from being placed on the altar. Therefore G'd commanded that only ืชืืจืช ืขืืื, an animal which corresponded in all details to the requirements of the ืขืืื legislation was to be placed on the altar as such. This meant amongst other details that the animal could not have spent the previous night in the holy precincts, nor could it have been taken out of these precincts and been brought back there prior to slaughter.
โ[10] **ืืืช ืชืืจืช ืืขืืื, This is the law of the burnt-offering;** Rabbi Yehudah in *Torat Kohanim* sees three separate restrictive clauses in this verse, i.e. the word ืืืช, the word ืืื and the letter ื in the word ืืขืืื the second time that word occurs. He reasons that the first restrictive clause is to forbid a burnt-offering being slaughtered at night; the second restrictive clause disqualifies a burnt-offering if its blood has been spilled to the ground and the extra letter ื which really limits the word ืขืืื, if the blood had escaped beyond the hangings of the courtyard of the Tabernacle. If an animal which has been disqualified by one of the three reasons just mentioned had nevertheless been placed on the altar it must be removed.
โ[11] However, if the disqualification was merely due to the animal having spent the night within the Tabernacle without having been offered as a sacrifice, it need not be removed from the altar once it has been placed thereon. The same rule applies to sacrificial animals which had either become impure or had left the precincts of the Tabernacle after having been brought inside. Similarly, all other types of disqualifications do not result in the animal having to be removed from the altar once it has been placed on it, seeing that the word ืชืืจืช is an inclusive one, it being unnecessary for the plain meaning of the text to be understood. The sequence ืืืช ืชืืจืช ืืขืืื ืืื ืืขืืื means that once the animal has already become an ืขืืื, i.e. placed on the altar, ืืืงืื, it is subject to the laws of the burnt-offering and cannot be disqualified unless the disqualification had occurred before it was placed on the altar. The altar "purifies" all the disqualified animals except for the three disqualifications mentioned at the beginning and derived from the exclusions in the text we mentioned. Unless it had wanted to teach us these additional ืืืืืช we have pointed out, the Torah could have written merely ืชืืจืช ืืขืืื ืขื ืืืงืื.
โ[12] On the words ืืื ืืขืืื, Rashi comments that it excludes an animal which had sexual relations with a human being because such an animal was already disqualified before it entered the precincts of the Tabernacle. I do not know why Rashi preferred to explain the verse in accordance with the view of Rabbi Shimon rather than in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehudah (whom we quoted in *Torat Kohanim*). [The author had not quoted Rabbi Shimon's view thus far though it appears in the same passage of Torat Kohanim as that of Rabbi Yehudah. Ed.]
โ[13] Furthermore, it would seem that Rashi did not pay careful attention to the words or letters which constitute the exegetically restrictive material. He did not refer to the restrictions deriving from the word ืืืช, but assumed them to derive from the words **ืืื ื**ืขืืื. If Rashi indeed followed the method of Rabbi Shimon he should have derived the exclusion from the word ืืืช. Unlike Rabbi Yehudah who needed to find three different restrictive expressions, Rabbi Shimon does not have to look for a number of restrictive words or letters in our text seeing that he argues that all these disqualified animals have to be removed from the altar even if they have been on it already. If Rabbi Shimon did not learn that most or all the disqualified animals have to be removed from the altar even when they had already been placed on it, he would have to find many more restrictive expresssions than Rabbi Yehudah. We must therefore conclude that he derives the law that the disqualified animals need to be removed from the altar from a **single** restrictive expression. He holds that any animal whose disqualification occurred before it was slaughtered is automatically rejected by the altar. Seeing that he does not need more than a single restrictive clause, the *Baraitha* in *Zevachim* 84 says that he used the word ืืืช as his restrictive clause.
โ[14] The question is therefore, whence does Rashi conclude that the exegetical source is the expression ืืื ืืขืืื? In *Horiyot* 2, the Talmud discusses the expression ื ืคืฉ ืืืช in 4,27, concluding that such expressions are restrictive. [The subject is the culpability of an individual who transgressed a law of the Torah that the High Court has declared permitted. The individual in question had not been aware of the High Court's decision but had acted on his own. Ed.] The Talmud assumes that the *Baraitha* quoted there reflects the view of Rabbi Yehudah. The Talmud challenges this assumption by asking that perhaps the example quoted in that *Baraitha* reflects the view of Rabbi Shimon? In answer to this question the Talmud is adamant that only Rabbi Yehudah adopted the exegetical approach that our verse contains a number of restrictive clauses such as ืืื ืืขืืื. You will note therefore that we cannot accuse Rashi of adopting Rabbi Shimon's approach.
โ[15] **ืขื ืืืงืื ืขื ืืืืื ืื ืืืืื, where it is burned up on the altar all night long, etc.** These words are explained in *Zevachim* 85 as meaning that if these parts of a disqualified burnt-offering had been placed on the altar they are not to be removed from it, whereas if they had fallen off or been removed from it they are not to be placed upon the altar a second time. Ulla claims that this rule applies only to pieces of the disqualified burnt-offering which had not yet been "ruled" (thoroughly attacked) by the fire of the altar; if the pieces had been partially burned they may be put back on the altar. Although there is an opinion in the Talmud which holds that Ulla referred only to such items as bones, horns, and hooves which were still attached to the main body of the animal having fallen off the altar, the concensus of the Talmud is that Rabbi Chanina's dictum in the *Mishnah* which forms the background to Ulla's statement represented a disagreement only with the latter half of the *Mishnah*. He did not disagree with the opinion expressed in the earlier part of the *Mishnah* where it was stated that animals disqualified **before** they were even slaughtered are to be removed from the altar even if they had been placed on it by mistake and the fire had taken hold of them; [such animals had never qualified as food for the altar. Ed.]
โ[16] The Torah therefore wrote the words ืขื ืืืงืื to inform us that once the fire had taken hold the animal is considered as food for the altar and is not to be removed. The Torah goes on to write the words ืขื ืืืืื, to teach that even animals which had not yet begun to be consumed by the fire are also not to be removed if they fitted certain criteria. The Torah wrote what appeared to be the same law twice, as it distinguished between different kinds of disqualifications which a potential burnt-offering may undergo. ืขื ืืืงืื means that once the fire took hold of the animal parts it may be put back on the altar regardless. The additional words ืขื ืืืืื teach that the permission to leave such animals on the altar applies only because they had already been on it;
โ[17] this is why the Torah had to write the words ืขื ืืืงืื first before the words ืขื ืืืืื, although under normal circumstances the word "altar" should have been mentioned first seeing it is the general location and ืืืงืื describes only the specific location on the altar. Instead, the Torah decided to describe first the circumstances when something which had become unfit may be placed on the altar a second time. It comprises parts which had already been suitable as food for the altar in the first place. This is why they may be put back on even if they had been taken off the altar. Afterwards the Torah describes a second category of disqualification which applies because the disqualified animal is already on the altar though it was not originally suitable as an offering; it need not be removed; however, if it was removed, it must not be put back on the altar a second time.
โ[18] We find a disagreement between Rabbi Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua in *Torat Kohanim* as to the implication of the words ืขื ืืืืื. Rabbi Gamliel holds that if a potential sacrifice, even a drink-offering, had once been fit to be offered on the altar, it must not be removed from the altar under any circumstances, regardless of the kind of disqualification which occurred. Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the words ืขื ืืืงืื teach that only such sacrifices as are intended to be **burned up** cannot be removed from the altar. Seeing that drink-offerings by definition are not burned up but poured out, the words ืขื ืืืงืื do not refer to such offerings.
โ[19] On a moral-ethical plane we may consider this whole paragraph as an allusion to our present and final exile. The paragraph is designed to console us about the depressing conditions we find ourselves in. Inasmuch as the soul of every Israelite refuses to be comforted seeing our exile appears to be interminable, we are certainly in need of some comfort. At the time of this writing the exile has already lasted far longer than our previous exiles combined, (Egypt=400 years, Babylonia=70 years, whereas already 1672 years have passed since the destruction of the Temple). How much longer do we have to wait for redemption?! Besides, we do not only suffer from mere exile but from persecution, seeing that every country which hosts Jews discriminates against them and treats them as inferior. Whenever revolutions do occur amongst the Gentile Kingdoms this does not bode the Jews any good as the gentile politicians never speak to us with sincerity and their promises are only lies. The Torah, i.e. G'd, who has foreseen all things used this paragraph to inform Moses to urge the Israelites, and foremost amongst them the Torah scholars, notably the priests whose task it is to instruct the people in morality and ethics, to inform the people for all future times of the message contained here.
โ[20] ืืืช ืชืืจืช ืืขืืื, the word ืืืช is an exclusion. The people are to be aware that there will not be an ืขืืื=ืขืืื an ascent comparable to the one mentioned in this paragraph. The Torah repeats who it is that will experience this ascent, i.e. ืืื ืืขืืื, a reference to Song of Songs 3,6: ืื ืืืช ืขืืื ืื ืืืืืจ, "who is this that ascends from the desert?" ืขื ืืืงืื ืขื ืืืืื "the ones who were burned up on the site for burning, on the altar;" The Torah refers to two details here; 1) that we are knowledgeable in Torah, i.e. **ืืืช ืชืืจืช ืืขืืื**, something that does not exist amongst the Gentiles; 2) that we have endured many afflictions both by being in exile and by being impoverished. The word ืืืงืื is a reference to Torah, seeing Torah is often compared to fire; young Torah scholars are described in *Taanit* 4 as ืืจืชื ืืืจืืชื, "we have to make allowances for the angry young Torah scholars as it is the fire of the Torah which causes their anger." When the Torah continues ืขื ืืืืื, this is a reference to exile and all that is connected with it. The afflictions the Jewish people suffer in exile achieve for us what the sacrifices achieved on the altar, i.e. atonement for our sins. We find that the Talmud in *Berachot* 5 uses similar language to describe the purpose of ืืกืืจืื, afflictions. The Torah therefore informs us here that there are two elements which will ensure our ascent to untold heights of good fortune, honour, etc.
โ[21] The Torah also explains how long it will be until we will achieve this goal. We will achieve our goal in two stages, 1) ืื ืืืืื, by means of enduring the whole night of exile; in Isaiah 21,11 the prophet already compared exile to night when he said: ืฉืืืจ ืื ืืืืื ืฉืืืจ ืื ืืืื. "Watchman what of the night, watchman what of the night?" as a reference to the duration of the exile. They also interpret Ruth 3,13: "stay the night until morning" in a similar vein. When "morning" arrives, G'd will pour over us His glory, etc. This time will arrive after the middle of the sixth millenium as we know from G'd's own words that 1000 years are equivalent to a "day" in His calendar (compare *Bereshit Rabbah* 8,2). Reason tells us that the first 500 years of that "day" are part of the "night" so that the time of the redemption will occur during the second five hundred years of that millenium. The words ืขื ืืืืงืจ in our verse make it plain that we cannot expect the ascent until some time during the latter 500 years of the present millenium. It was unclear from the time of the destruction of the Temple whether the "morning" referred to was the second half of the fifth millenium or the second half of the sixth millenium seeing that the Temple was destroyed in the latter half of the fourth millenium. G'd therefore revealed His secret by means of His prophets when Isaiah in chapter 33,3 spoke of "mornings." The verse reads: "Be their arm ืืืงืจืื, on mornings, also our deliverance in times of stress." Isaiah meant that if the deliverance does not occur on the first "morning," (i.e. the second half of the fifth millenium) it will surely occur during the second half of the sixth millenium. The word ืขื ืืืืงืจ is a reference to a "well known morning," i.e. the second one of these possible "mornings." Perhaps Isaiah even hinted in chapter 21,12 when he spoke about the morning having arrived and having been followed by another night, (without the redemption) that if Israel had been worthy it would have been redeemed already on the first of these two "mornings."
โ[22] When our sages claimed that no more than one day of exile had been decreed on the Jewish people, we may have to understand this in terms of Psalms 20,2: "The Lord will answer you on **the day** of trouble;" the "day" the Psalmist refers to being the "day" In G'd's calendar, i.e. 1.000 years in our calendar. According to this calculation the most that we would have have had to wait since the destruction of the Temple until redemption should have been 672 years, i.e. 172 years which were left in the fourth millenium when the Temple was destroyed plus the 500 years which represent the "night" of the fifth millenium. Upon the arrival of the "morning" of that half of the millenium the ultimate redemption should have materialised. Alas, due to the fact that our people have not rehabilitated themselves that "day" passed without our being redeemed. This was Isaiah's lament when he said in Isaiah 33,2: "O Lord, be gracious to us! It is to You we have looked." The word ืงืืื ื, "we have looked," refers to our hope to experience redemption on the first "morning" which has been disappointed. At any rate, the prophet continues, ืืื ืืจืืขื ืืืงืจืื, "be their arm on mornings," i.e. on the second morning after two nights of exile have passed.
โ[23] **ืืืฉ ืืืืื ืชืืงื ืื, and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby.** The Torah informs us that when the dawn of that morning (of redemption) finally looms, G'd's anger will burn and consume all those who have tortured us during the many years of our exile and especially the Western nations [the Christians and their inquisition who tortured Spanish Jewry Ed.]. The words "and the fire of the altar" are an allusion to the many afflictions we have endured at the hands of the merciless Gentiles who did not have pity on us seeing G'd had already punished us for so many years. The word also recalls the self-sacrifice exhibited by Isaac when he lay bound on the altar. The word "altar" always conjures up the attribute of Justice in our minds. The mystical dimension of all these concepts is contained in the word ืชืืงื, [also related to ืขืงื =he bound. Ed.]
โ[24] ** ืืืืฉ ืืืื ืืื ืื, and the priest will wear a linen garment;** the Torah switches to allude to the attribute of Love and Mercy which has also been described by the word ืืื. The Torah means that when that time arrives even such attributes as Love and Mercy will consent to G'd avenging the wrong done to the Jewish people by the nations of the world. (Compare my commentary on Exodus 6,2 on the words "He said to him: 'I am the eternal G'd.'") The words ืืื ืื may be understood in light of a comment by our sages that G'd makes a visible mark of the blood of any Jew who was killed because he was Jewish on His "garment." On the day when G'd goes out to exact retribution from our enemies He will wear that "garment" on His heart. The word ืืื, recalls Bileam's statement that the Jewish nation ืขื ืืืื ืืฉืืื, is "a nation which dwells in solitude" (Numbers 23,9); the root of that word is ืื, i.e. that the very garments of the priest are a reminder of the Jewish people. The word is also a hint of the unity which was displayed by all the martyrs who died for the sake of Judaism, i.e. who refused to compromise G'd's unity by associating Him with any other religion.
โ[25] The Torah goes on to speak of ืืืื ืกื ืื, linen trousers, the word ืืื ืกื from the root ืื ืก, to enter, to join. This is a reference to the pagans who killed the leading Jews because they tried to introduce the concept of belief in G'd and in His uniqueness into the hearts of their fellow Jews. These are the very people who are most beloved by G'd; nothing separates them from G'd at all. The word ืืื ืกื ืื means that "this is what grants entry to the domain of G'd's uniqueness and unity." The additional word ืขื ืืฉืจื "next to his skin," is an allegorical expression of the absolute affinity which exists between the martyrs for the Jewish faith we have mentioned and G'd Himself. The Torah uses the word ืขื ืืฉืจื in a sense similar to Jeremiah 13,11: ืื ืืืฉืจ ืืืืง ืืืืืจ ืื ืืชื ื ืืืืฉ ืื ืืืืงืชื ืืื ืืช ืื ืืืช ืืฉืจืื; "for as the loincloth clings close to the loins of a man, so I brought close to Me the whole House of Israel, etc." The Torah employs anthropomorphical expressions to describe G'd in order to train our ears to assimilate certain concepts which are familiar to us, not in order to create the impression that G'd has a "body." In view of what these nations have done to these righteous Jews, G'd has sealed the decree of destruction of these wicked nations.
โ[26] The Torah alludes to this in the words ืืืจืื ืืช ืืืฉื, "He will elevate the ashes." To the extent that the Gentile nations have reduced us to "ashes" by means of torture and persecution, G'd in turn will elevate these very ashes to unheard of heights. If you will examine the matter you will find that the persecution we have suffered during this exile is much worse than what we experienced during our slavery in Egypt. When the Jewish people were enslaved in Egypt, the Egyptians fed and clothed them. You only need to study the comment of the Mechilta on Numbers 11,5: "we remember the fish we used to eat in Egypt for nought, the cucumbers, the melons, etc." Hail to the people who never had to experience exile under the (Arabs) Muslims. Not only did they enslave us and torture us but they did not pay wages for labour performed but they demanded that we hand over what little we owned. People would be kidnapped to obtain their freedom by ransom. The Muslims would demand that people give them what they did not even possess and persecuted them to the point of death. The Torah alludes to this kind of persecution when it writes: ืืืจืื ืืช ืืืฉื ืืฉืจ ืชืืื ืืืฉ; G'd will elevate the ashes; when the nations of the universe experience troubles they are compared to fire by our prophets. The Torah predicts that G'd will consume these nations as if by fire. Compare Ezekiel 10,2 "fill your hands with fire from amongst the cherubs and throw them upon the city." The word ืืช ืืขืืื refers to the nation called ืขืืื.
โ[27] The words ืขื ืืืืื may be understood as follows (continuing this allegorical approach): We find a disagreement between Maimonides and ืจืืืณื in *Hilchot Teshuvah* chapter six about the nature of G'd's retribution against the nations who have abused the Jewish people. ืจืืืณื holds that seeing these nations acted as free-willed human beings they will only be judged because they committed **excessive** cruelty when acting as G'd's agents and fulfilling His decree of exile for the Jewish people. Maimonides holds that they will also be judged for the fact that they exiled us in the first place. I have already written in my commentary on Genesis 15,14 that there is ample reason to punish all our adversaries for **every act** of hostility they have committed against us. What is written here only reinforces my argument. If the intention of our oppressors had only been to carry out G'd's retribution against the Jewish people they should have been exremely careful not to do anything over and beyond what G'd commanded. The fact that they indulged in excessive cruelty only proves that they were never motivated by acting as G'd's agents in the first place. When the Torah writes the unnecessary words ืขื ืืืืื, it alludes to the unnecessary zeal and pleasure with which the Gentiles exploited their position of physical superiority. Whereas a certain measure of afflictions was decreed by G'd to serve as our atonement for sins committed, the decreed by G'd to serve as our atonement for sins committed, the extra words ืขื ืืืืื indicate that what the Gentiles did to us was far more than was called for in order for us to achieve our atonement. **ืืฉืื ืืฆื ืืืืื, and he will place it next to the altar.** The altar is intended to serve as the instrument of atonement. Everything "beside" the altar is evidence of our enemies' hateful attitude, not their desire to help us achieve atonement for our sins. As a consequence of such an attitude amongst our enemies they will be punished not only for their excesses but for the part they would not have been culpable for had they perceived themselves as true agents of the Lord. An alternative meaning may be that though the days of our exile are not yet complete, G'd will count what has been done to us ืืฆื ืืืืื, over and beyond the punishment decreed, and thereby hasten the final redemption. G'd will present the various afflictions the Jewish people have endured to the attribute of Justice which considers the concept "altar" as the instrument by means of which Israel receives its punishment and therefore atonement; By confronting the attribute of Justice with all the excesses perpetrated against us by our enemies, G'd will enlist its support for His plan to punish our enemies.
โ[28] ** ืืคืฉื ืืช ืืืืื, and He will put off His garments,** i.e. seeing G'd wore a certain set of "garments" when He was engaged in disciplining our enemies, He will now put on different "garments" in order to do good with us, to take us out of exile. He will not delay the arrival of the redemption to occur on the date set for it originally until all the evildoers have perished, but will gather us all in immediately and lead us to ืืงืื ืืืืจ. a pure place. This is a reference to the Land of Israel which is always perceived of as a pure place compared to the lands owned by the Gentiles. Our sages in *Shabbat* 15 have decreed that not only the soil of foreign lands is treated as infected with ritual impurity but also the very air of lands outside ืืจืฅ ืืฉืจืื. The expression ืืงืื ืืืืจ is also a reference to G'd's domain, seeing He is called ืืืืจ, pure.
โ[29] **ืืืืฉ ืขื ืืืืื, and the fire on the altar, etc.** Do not imagine that the only harm G'd will inflict upon our enemies will be that which occurs when He takes us out from amongst their midst. On the contrary; this "fire" of retribution ืื ืชืืื will not go out. The priest (simile for G'd) will continue to stoke that fire with additional wood, i.e. more and more of the nations of the world who are perceived as dry wood ready for burning. ืขืฆืื, trees, serve as a simile for man in Deut. 20,19 "for man is as the tree in the field;" in the introduction to *Midrash Eychah Rabbah* we read: "the trees are hyperbole for the exiles (i.e. for the people who have been exiled)."
โ[30] ** ืืืงืจ ืืืงืจ, every morning;** this is an allusion to the two "mornings," i.e. the two latter parts of the fifth and sixth millenium we described as possible dates for the redemption. The Torah tells us that actually the redemption should have occurred already on the first of these "mornings" in the fifth millenium. It was delayed by a thousand years, i.e. another day in G'd's calendar only on account of our sins. The Torah tells us that the nations of the world must not assume that they will be the beneficiaries of the sins of the Jewish people and that they would therefore escape their just punishment. When the time comes, the nations will receive the punishment due to them for what they did to us in both of these millenia, i.e. ืืืงืจ ืืืงืจ.
โ[31] **ืืขืจื ืขืืื ืืขืืื, and He will arrange on it the burnt-offering, etc.** We have to understand this in the sense of what we learned in *Baba Kama* 83: ืืื ืืคื ืืืืืฉ ืืืืชืืืฉ, "the amount of compensation payable to someone who has suffered 'loss of face' is determined by the relative social position of the party suffering the shame and the party who shamed him." One cannot compare an insult received by a socially highly placed person heaped upon a person who is also at the top end of the social ladder to someone at the bottom of the social ladder who insulted someone at the top of that ladder. We certainly cannot compare those situations to that of a slave insulting his master. When the Torah speaks of arranging the burnt-offering on it (the altar), the "burnt-offering" is a simile for the whole of the Jewish nation. **ืืืงืืืจ ืขืืื ืืืื ืืฉืืืื, and He will burn up on it the fat parts of the peace-offering.** G'd will also arrange on that altar the elite of this Jewish nation, ืืืื ืืฉืืืื whose lifestyle was equivalent to burning up sweet-smelling fragrances for G'd (compare Genesis 27,27: "look! the fragrance of my son is like the fragrance of the field which G'd has blessed"). Remember that we perceive of anyone who has committed a sin as exuding an unpleasant odour. The story is told that once the prophet Elijah passed by a wicked man and tried to avoid inhaling the evil smell which that person exuded and which was more pungent than the smell exuded by a carcass. On the other hand, the fragrance exuded by the righteous person is comparable to that which emanates from a rose-garden. The Torah therefore chose to describe the belovedness of the righteous before G'd in terms of a pleasant fragrance. The message of the verse is that G'd will match the punishment in detail to what the Gentiles have done to His righteous, the people who exuded fragrance such as the incense.
โ[32] ** ืืฉ ืชืืื, a continuous and ongoing fire;** even though G'd will inflict severe blows on the nations who have abused us, the fire (of punishment) on the altar will not go out; this is similar to the final message of the prophet Yoel (Yoel 4,21): "I will not treat their blood as having been avenged;" this will not occur until the earth has been cleansed of the spirit of impurity and "G'd rules as King over the whole earth" (Zachariah 14,9).
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY