๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:36:47. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
11 โ[1] ** ืืืขืืื ืืืื ืืืืืจ, and the priest administering the purification rites will place, etc.** this is best explained in light of a comment in *Keylim* 1,8 that someone whose atonement is not complete is not allowed to enter the courtyard of the Temple intended for the Israelite public. Here the Torah commands that the person undergoing the purification rites stand outside at the entrance to the Nikanor gate as stated in *Sotah* 7, based on the Torah writing the words ืืคื ื ืืฉื, "in the presence of the Lord." The Torah charges the administering priest with ensuring that the former "leper," the ืืืืจ, not cross the threshold into the courtyard. He must not even stretch his hand inside and perform ืกืืืื on the sin-offering. According to *Torat Kohanim* the Torah permitted him only to place his head inside that area so that the priest could place the oil on his right earlobe and on his respective right thumbs. The principal reason the priest was charged with this task was to prevent the ืืืืจ accidentally crossing the borderline with a substantial part of his body.
โ[2] **ืืืื ืืืืืจ, the priest who performs the purification rites;** the reason both these words are necessary is this. If the Torah had only written ืืืื, I would not have known that this particular part of the commandment could not be performed by any priest but had to be performed by the priest who administered all the rites. If, on the other hand, the Torah had written only the word ืืืืืจ, I would not have been sure that this chore had to be supervised by a priest at all; there are, after all, functions in the total purification procedure which may be performed by a non-priest. Hence the Torah had to write ืืืื ืืืืืจ.
โ[3] **ืืืืฉ ืืืืืจ ืืืืชื, the man who must be purified and these things;** the Torah had to write both the word ืืืืฉ and the word ืืืืืจ, so that we would not conclude that the word ืืืืฉ excludes a minor as not being included in this part of the legislation although he is liable to be afflicted by ืฆืจืขืช and such affliction makes him ritually impure. Hence the Torah had to add the word ืืืืืจ. On the other hand, this word would not have sufficed without the additional word ืืืืฉ as I might have reasoned that the need for the priest to supervise where the former "leper" had to stand applied only to a minor who had been afflicted and who might not take care where he stood. I would have assumed that an adult could be trusted to watch where he stands at the entrance to the courtyard. The Torah indicates that we do not trust an adult without supervision either. This is why the additional word ืืืฉ is in place.
โ[4] *Torat Kohanim* explains the reason that the Torah added the word ืืืืฉ as excluding the sin-offering and the burnt-offering from the need to undergo the ืชื ืืคื, the waving, which the Torah demands for the guilt-offering in verse 12. The Torah then writes another exclusion by means of the word ืืืชื in verse 12 excluding also the man himself, meaning that only the guilt-offering and the log of oil need to be waved. Should you ask that if the word ืืืชื excludes the ืืืฉ ืืืืืจ from the need to undergo the "waving," how could it serve to exclude others from a procedure which does not even apply to itself? This is no problem. We can always use the exclusion by falling back on the exegetical tool ืื ืืื ื ืขื ืื, that if a word is superfluous in one situation, it may be applied to another situation where it is felt to be appropriate. This is the reason the author of *Torat Kohanim* chose his words very carefully in this instance. We quote: "The Torah wrote ืืืืฉ, ืื ืืืืช ืืื ืขืืื. You note that the word ืชื ืืคื is not even mentioned here." *Torat Kohanim* meant to say therefore that the word ืืืืฉ excludes ืืืืช ืืขืืื by using the same reason although the ืืืื whose application is being excluded did not apply to the ืืืฉ in the first place. Our sages were authorised to know where to apply this exclusion seeing the word is evidently unnecessary in its own context. This makes the language of *Torat Kohinim* on our verse easily intelligible. The alternative explanation given by *Korban Aharon* seems very forced to me.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY