Parshat Tzav – Stop Making Excuses

(1) These things in [connection with] the pesah override Shabbat: its slaughtering and the sprinkling of its blood and the cleansing of its innards and the burning of its fat. But its roasting and the washing of its innards do not override Shabbat. Carrying it and bringing it from outside the Shabbat border and cutting off its wart do not override Shabbat. R. Eliezer says they do override [Shabbat].

(1) 1) (Vayikra 5:11) "And if his hand does not attain to two turtle-doves or to two young pigeons, then he shall bring his offering wherein he has sinned, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering.": R. Yehudah says: Beloved is a mitzvah in its time. For he brings a tenth of an ephah immediately, and we do not wait for him until he becomes wealthy and brings a lamb or goat-kid.

(2) 2) R. Eliezer says: Beloved is a mitzvah in its time. For in (the area of altar) valuations (arachin) he brings a sela immediately, and we do not wait for him until he becomes wealthy and brings fifty selaim.

(3) 3) R. Shimon says: Beloved is a mitzvah in its time. For the fats (of the offerings) may be burned the entire night, and they override the Sabbath in their time, and we do not wait to burn them until the Sabbath has ended.

(4) 4) "then he shall bring his offering wherein he has sinned, a tenth of an ephah of soleth": This tells me (only) that "a tenth of an ephah" obtains with his obligatory offering. Whence do I derive that it obtains also with his donative offering? From "his offering (in any event) … a tenth of an ephah."

(5) 5) "a tenth of an ephah": one-tenth of three sa'in, which is seven revi'in and an addition. "soleth": Just as soleth stated there (Exodus 29:2) is of wheat, so soleth stated here is of wheat. "for a sin-offering": Its monies must be designated as being for a sin-offering. "he may not place oil upon it": But he may place (oil) upon what remains (of the minchah offering). "he shall not put frankincense upon it": I might think that if he did place frankincense upon it, it becomes unfit; it is, therefore, written: "for it is a sin-offering" (and just as a beast sin-offering is not invalidated by frankincense, this bird sin-offering is, likewise, not invalidated by frankincense. Or, (I might think): "it is a sin-offering" — Even if he placed oil upon it, it is kasher; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written: "it" (with frankincense, is a sin-offering — but not with oil). And why do you see fit to permit it with frankincense and to invalidate it with oil? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Why do I permit it with frankincense? Because it can be picked off — and I invalidate it with oil, because it cannot be picked off.

(6) 6) ("He shall not place oil upon it and he shall not put frankincense upon it."): I might think that this is speaking of two Cohanim, (one placing oil and the other, frankincense, but if one does both, he is liable for only one negative transgression; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "upon it," "upon it" — The focus is the body of the meal-offering, and not two Cohanim.

(7) 7) Or, perhaps the meaning is that he is not to place the vessel (of the oil or the frankincense) upon the vessel of the meal-offering; (it is, therefore, written "upon it" (the body of the meal-offering) - "upon it")

(8) 8) "for it is a sin-offering": R. Yehudah said: But the (daily) meal-offering of the high-priest is not a sin-offering and requires frankincense.

(9) 9) (Vayikra 5:12): "And he shall bring it to the Cohein, and the Cohein shall take a fistful from it, his entire fistful, as its remembrance; and he shall cause it to smoke upon the altar, upon the fire-offerings of the L–rd; it is a sin-offering." ("upon the fire-offerings":) It must be devoted to this end. And ("of the L–rd"): it must be dedicated to the L–rd. "it is a sin-offering": All of its operations (taking the fistful, etc.) must be in the name of a sin-offering. "it": "It is a sin-offering" — to exclude one from which the fistful was not taken in the name of a sin-offering (and so with the other operations).

(10) 10) (Vayikra 5:13): "And the Cohein shall make atonement for him, for his sin that he has sinned, of one of these." What is the intent of this ("of these")? For I might think: "The most stringent of them (tumah of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects) should be subject to lamb or goat-kid; the less stringent (a court-mandated oath), to a bird; the least stringent (an oath of "pronouncement"), to the tenth of an ephah. It is therefore, (to negate this) written "of one of these" — to equate the least stringent to the most stringent vis-à-vis lamb and goat-kid, and the most stringent to the least stringent vis-à-vis the tenth of en ephah.

(11) 11) (Vayikra 5:13): "and it shall be to the Cohein": That is, the meal-offering service of the Cohein (if he himself is the sinner) can be performed by the Cohein himself. Or perhaps its intent is only to permit (the eating of what remains of) the tenth of an ephah of a Cohein (who sinned). And how would I satisfy (Vayikra 6:16): "And every meal-offering of a Cohein shall be entire, (exclusively for the L–rd); it shall not be eaten"? By his donative meal-offering; but his one tenth of the ephah may be eaten. It is therefore, (to negate this) written ("and it shall be to the Cohein) as a meal-offering" — as his donative meal-offering. Just as his donative meal-offering is not eaten, so the tenth of the ephah is not eaten. R. Shimon says: "and it shall be to the Cohein as a meal-offering": The tenth of an ephah of a Cohein is like the tenth of the ephah of an Israelite, viz. Just as a fistful is taken of the tenth of the ephah of an Israelite, so a fistful is taken of this tenth of an ephah (of a Cohein).