💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ramban%20on%20Leviticus%20… captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:59:58. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Ramban on Leviticus 1:16

Home

Torah

16 ‎[1] AND HE SHALL REMOVE ‘ETH MURATHO B’NOTZATHAH.’ “*Muratho* refers to the place of the digested food, namely ‘its crop.’ *B’notzathah* means ‘together with its entrails.’ The word *notzah* is a term for anything which is loathsome. Similarly: *for ‘natzu’* (*they are become loathsome*) *and are wandered away*. That is what Onkelos intended in translating ‘*b’notzathah’* as *b’uchleih* (with its digested food). This is also the interpretation of Aba Yosei ben Chanan who said that he removes the stomach together with it [i.e., the crop]. But our Rabbis have said: he cuts out with a knife an opening around the crop like a flap, and removes it together with the feathers [on the skin].” This is Rashi’s language.

But it is not correct. For the word *notzah* in all places only means actual feathers. Similarly, *for ‘natzu’ and are wandered away* means that they have acquired feathers [wings] to fly away from their places and go into exile, and there too they will [constantly] wander, not finding a resting-place. Similarly: *for ‘natzoh’* (*she must fly away*) *and get away*. The Jerusalem Targum rendered [the above-mentioned verse: *for ‘natzu’ and are wandered away*]: “for they are ‘quarrelsome’ and have also wandered away.” The Targum thus derived the word *natzu* from the expression, *when men ‘yinatzu’* (*strive*) *together*, and the verse is thus stating that “they strive with all the nations and wander away from them, and do not continue to live among them.” This is a correct interpretation. But the word *notzah* in the sense of “loathsome” as the Rabbi [Rashi] has it, is not found. The interpretation of Aba Yosei which made it incumbent upon the priest to take also the stomach with the crop, is [not because he considers the word *b’notzathah* to mean “the place of its entrails,” as Rashi understood him, but rather] because the crop and the gullet together with the stomach, comprising the organs for the digestion of food [in the bird], are all included in the term *muratho*, because in the stomach the food turns into *r’ie* (dung). Aba Yosei thus does not differ at all with the First Sage who says that he should take it with the “feathers,” for we have been taught in a Mishnah of the sixth chapter of Tractate Zebachim [with reference to the order of the burnt-offering of the bird]: “He [i.e. the priest] came then to the body, and removed the crop and the feathers and the entrails that came forth with the crop, and cast them on the place of ashes.” This Mishnah is in accordance with the teaching of Aba Yosei and yet it mentions “the feathers!”

Onkelos’ opinion [in translating *b’notzathah* as *b’uchleih*, is not because he considered this to be the Aramaic rendition of the word *b’notzathah*, so that you might think that he is of the opinion that the Hebrew word means “the place of its digested food,” as Rashi thought, but rather Onkelos’ opinion] is like that of the Sages, that he removed only the crop and its feathers together with the food therein which is the *mur’ah* [but he did not remove its entrails]. Since the priest takes hold of the crop and removes the food therein with it, therefore Onkelos rendered it: “and he shall remove *yath zfokeih b’uchleih*,” the expression being as if it had said: “and he shall remove *uchleih bizfokeih*,” for *uchleih* [according to Onkelos] is the Aramaic for the Hebrew *muratho* [as *muratho* is associated with the word *r’ie* — “dung,” and “food” turns into dung], whereas *zfokeih* is the translation for the Hebrew *b’notzathah* [as will be explained]. The verse [according to Onkelos] thus means as follows: he should remove the *mur’ah*, which is the food, with the plumage upon it, meaning that he takes the crop with its skin and the feathers upon it. In a similar way Onkelos translated [the Hebrew *‘ki sh’mi b’kirbo’ — for My Name is in him*]: *arei bishmi meimreih* (“for in My Name is his word”), which, according to the Hebrew, he should have rendered into Aramaic as follows: *arei sh’mi b’meimreih* (for My Name is in his word). But Onkelos changed the order of the wording because of a certain reason known to him. So also he translated the verse: *And the two ends of the two wreathen chains* — “and the two wreathen chains of the two ends.” There are many other such cases.

Version Info

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

Jewish Texts