Why does the Torah begin the Parshah of Vayikra with "Tzav es B'nei Yisrael", and the Parshah of Tzav with "Tzav es Aharon"?
Ramban and Moshav Zekenim: Because, whereas Vayikra discusses the Mitzvah of bringing the Korbanos, which is incumbent upon the owner, Tzav discusses the various aspects of Avodah, which is the task of the Kohanim. 1
Rosh and Hadar Zekenim #1 (citing Midrash Yelamdenu): Because, after the Eigel, Hashem initially disqualified Aharon from serving again. Only when Moshe asked how it can be that Ahron's children are beloved and he is hated, and that Hashem should honor him on account of his children ('You had mercy on olive trees (we do not cut them for the Ma'arachah) due to their Peiros, 2 which are used for Menachos and the Menorah), Hashem agreed. 3
Hadar Zekenim #2: Since Vayikra discusses a Kohen Mashi'ach's sin, it does not mention Aharon there, and it is only after it said "ve'Chiper? ve'Nislach lo", that it mentions him specifically.
See also Rashbam and Seforno, who give a summary of the Korbanos discussed in this Parshah with the reasons behind some of the Dinim.
Hadar Zekenim: Hashem had mercy on vines and olive trees, and did not explicitly teach that their wood is Pasul for the Mizbe'ach, due to their wine and oil, which are used for the Nesacham
This implies that Hashem showed honor to Aharon only on account of his sons. But Vayikra Rabah (36:1) says that sometimes Aharon is written before Moshe (Sh'mos 6:26) to teach us that they are equal! The Ananei ha'Kavod were in Aharon's merit! The former (Aharon is written first) was before his sin, and the latter (Ananei ha'Kavod were in his merit) was after he repented and returned to his previous level. (PF)
What are the connotations of the word "Tzav"?
Rashi: Tzav is an expression of Ziruz (diligence) - immediately and for all generations. 1
Moshav Zekenim (citing R. Eliezer of Garmaiza): It is an expression of command. Since Aharon was designated to serve in Hashem's name, he is like the King's chosen emissary.
See Torah Temimah, note 1.
Why did the Torah insert "Tzav" specifically here, by the Korban Olah?
Rashi #1, Ramban and Moshav Zekenim: "Tzav" is a Lashon of Ziruz - encouragement 1 - immediately and in the future. 2
Oznayim la'Torah: With reference to answer #1, R. Shimon is coming to explain the Tana Kama. What he means is that, although most things only require 'Ziruz' initially until one becomes accustomed to them, the Olah needs constant Ziruz, since it involves Chesaron Kis.
See Torah Temimah, who elaborates.
Ramban #1: Here there is no loss, because Kohanim gain from all Korbanos, even from an Olah, since they receive the skin. In other places however, it writes "Tzav" due to financial loss, such as oil for the Menorah (24:2), and B'nei Yisrael giving cities to the Levi?im (Bamidbar 35:2).
Bearing in mind that, throughout Parshas Vayikra, Hashem referred to 'ha'Kohanim' and 'Bnei Aharon', why here does He instruct Moshe to "command Aharon and his sons"
Oznayim la'Torah: Because whereas, in Parshas Vayikra, the Torah is dealing with Korb'nos Yachid, which any Kohen could bring, here it is speaking about Korb'nos Tzibur, which were also brought on Yom Kipur, which only Aharon (the Kohen Gadol) was eligible to bring. 1
See Oznayim la'Torah, who elaborates.
Seeing as "Toras" always comes to include, what is "Zos Toras ha'Olah coming to include?
Rashi and Ramban: It includes Pesulim 1 , which, once they are brought on to the Mizbe'ach, are not taken down. 2
Rashbam and Seforno: The Torah is coming to teach us here the details of all the Korbanos that it discussed in general terms in Vayikra. 3
Moshav Zekenim #1 and Ba'al ha'Turim (citing Menachos 110a): It comes to teach us that if someone studies the Dinim of the Olah, 4 it is as if he had actually brought an Olah. 5
Moshav Zekenim #2 (citing the Tanchuma): The Torah writes after this "Al Mokdah" to teach us that anyone who raises himself deserves to be burned. This includes the evil kingdom (Edom), about whom the Navi writes in Ovadyah, 1:4 "Im Tagbi'ah ka'Nesher?". 6
Menachos, 26b: It comes to teach us that not only what is brought in the night, but also what is broiught in the day 7 must be placed on the Mizbe'ach to burn all night.
Such as Yotzei, Pigul, Nosar and Tamei, which all became Pasul after the Shechitah, when the animal is fit to go on the Mizbe'ach. but
This does not pertain to Nesachim, which must be taken down - irrespective of whether they are Pasul (even if the Korban that they are accompanying is Kasher), or the Korban is Pasul, or both (Ramban, citing R. Yehoshua in Zevachim, 83a).
See Oznayim la'Torah DH 'Tzav es Aharon' as to why the Torah divides them.
And the Gemara there makes the same D'rashah about Minchah, Chatas, Asham and Shelamim later in the Parshah.
Moshav Zekenim: Because Korbanos are called 'Isheh' and 'Lechem', and so is Torah, and just like the world cannot survive without Lechem, so too, it can it not survive without Torah.
Moshav Zekeinim (Ibid.): Who will ultimately be burned - as the Navi there writes in Pasuk18.
See Torah Tenmimah, who explains what is brought in the night and what is brought in the day.
What are the implications of "Hi ha'Olah"?
Rashi: It precludes animals that were Pasul before they entered the Azarah, such as an animal that had relations with a human 1 , which must be taken down.
Targum Yonasan: It is comparing the regular Olah to the Olah that they brought at Har Sinai ? with regard to using a K'li Shareis. 2
Moshav Zekenim: Torah atones like an Olah, since it is totally for the sake of Hashem - like an Olah, and it is all for the fire like an Olah. 3
Zevachim, 83a: It teaches us that the Mizbe'ach renders Kadosh whatever is fit to be brought on it ? such as (the Basar of) an Olah. 4
Zevachim, 84a (citing R. Yehudah): "Zos", "Hi" and "ha'Olah" are three Mi'utim ? to preclude from remaining on the Mizbe'ach 1. an animal that was Shechted by night; 2. an animal whose blood spilt and 3. an animal whose blood was taken outside the curtains of the Azarah ? all of which must be taken down.
Vayikra Rabah: "Hi ha'Olah al Mokdah" hints that someone who is haughty is punished by fire. 5
Moshav Zekenim: This is the opinion of R. Shimon. R. Yehudah does not draw this distinction.. Refer to 6:2:5:5.
See Peirush Yonasan.
As the Navi writes in Yirmiyah 23:29 "ha'Lo Cho Devari ka'Eish".
See Torah Temimah, note 4.
Oznayim la'Torah: The Torah issues this warning here, by the Avodah of T'rumas ha'Deshen, to discourage the Kohanim from wondering why they, the chosen tribe, should have to perform such a demeaning task, dirtying their clothes and their hands in the process. See Oznayim la'Torah who elaborates ? citing inter alia, the Gemara in Succah, 57a, which describes the episode of the Kohen Yisachar Ish K'far Barka'i and the severe punishment he received precisely as a result of such thoughts. Refer also to 6:3:3.4:1.
What basic Halachah is this Pasuk coming to teach us?
Ramban, Rashbam and Moshav Zekenim: It teaches us that, although a Korban can only be brought by day, 1 once it is placed on the Mizbe'ach, it is a Mitzvah to ensure that it continues to burn all night. 2
As the Torah indicates in Kedoshim Vayikra,19:6 (Rashbam).
What is the definition of "Mokdah"?
Rashi (in Yoma, 33a): It means either the arrangement of wood on the Mizbe'ach or the burning pile of wood.
Yoma, 45a: It is the main wood-pile on the Mizbe'ach. 1
Why does the Torah insert the phrase "Al Mokdah al ha'Mizbe'ach Kol ha'Laylah ad ha'Boker"?
Rashi (in Sh'mos 23:18) #1: To teach us that one may replace limbs on the Mizbe'ach the entire night until the morning, and they will continue to burn the next day.
Rashi (in Sh'mos 23:18) #2: To teach us that, once limbs are placed on the Mizbe'ach, as long as they remain on the Mizbe'ach, they cannot become Nosar.
Or ha'Chayim: To teach us that, in spite of the fact that once something that is Pasul is taken down from the Mizbe'ach it is not taken up again, that is not the case in the event that the fire ignited it.
Megilah, 21a: To teach us that the whole night is eligible to burn the fat pieces and the Emurim on the Mizbe'ach. 1
Yoma, 20b: "ad ha'Boker", which is superfluous, teaches us to add a level of Boker to the regulat Boker (Amud ha'Shachar) ? to teach us that limbs that fall off the Mizbe'ach before midnight need to be returned on to the Mizbe'ach, but not if they fell off after midnight. 2
Oznayim la'Torah: The lengthy phrase hints at the Gemara in Menachos, 110 ? that at the time of the Galus, Micha'el the great Mal'ach, stands and offers sacrifices (the Neshamos of Tzadikim or lambs of fire) on the celestial Mizbe'ach. 3
Why does the Torah add (the otherwise superfluous phrase) "ve'Eish ha'Mizbe'ach Tukad bo"?
Yoma, 45a: It refers to the Ma'arachah Sheniyah shel Ketores. 1
Why does the Torah write "Tukad bo" and not Tukad alav'?
Rashbam: The word "Bo" refers to "Laylah" mentioned earlier in the Pasuk (in the night). 1
Oznayim la'Torah #1: It refers to the heavenly fire that came down 2 and entered the Mizbe'ach, from where it set fire to the Korbanos. 3
Oznayim la'Torah #2 (citing the Likutei Yitzchak): It refers to the Kohen, who was overcome by a fire of Haslahavus (enthusiasm) when he saw the fire butning all night on the Ma'arachah Sheniyyah shel Ketores ? when it could have been lit in the morning. 4
Why did Hashem tell Moshe to command Aharon? Why did He Himself not command him, like He commanded him not to serve while drunk ("va'Yedaber Hashem El Aharon" - 10:8)?
Moshav Zekenim (citing R. Eliezer of Garmaiza): Hashem wanted to give all the Mitzvos through Moshe, becaue, since Moshe began the Mitzvah (of giving Torah to Yisrael), he should finish it. The only exception 1 is the prohibition against serving while drunk, in case Aharon suspects Moshe of considering of considering him a drunkard. 2
This is not like the Mechilta, which says that there were three exceptions, or the Sifra, which says that there were no exceptions!(PF) Refer to 10:8:151:1 & 2 and notes.
I do not understand the concern. Moshe will tell him 'so Hashem commanded me to tell you!' Also, the command is needed for all generations! (PF)
The Gemara in Nidah 40a counts "Zos Toras ha'Olah Hi ha'Olah" as three exclusions (cases in which the Korban is taken down from the Mizbe'ach). Why do we not apply the principle that a Mi'ut after a Mi'ut comes to include?
Moshav Zekenim #1 (citing the Yerushalmi Horayos, 1:1): Because the principle applies only where there are two exclusions, but not when there are three. 1
Moshav Zekenim #2 citing Rashbam: When the exclusion limits the connotation, like Kohen, a Mi'ut after a Mi'ut comes to include. However, when we exclude just because the word is extra, e.g. Zos Hi ha'Olah, all the Mi'utim exclude.
The Bavli in Sanhedrin, 15a however, uses the ten exclusions "Kohen" to include. See Peirush Yonasan.
Why is 'Al' repeated - "Al Mokdah Al ha'Mizbe'ach"?
Tosfos ha'Shalem (20, citing Moshav Zekenim): To hint that someone who engages in Torah (Mokdah, fire) should not forgo Davening with a Minyan, and reciting a hundred 1 B'rachos, because there is a time to learn Torah and a time to Daven.
Moshav Zekenim: It hints atthe Heichal, which was a hundred Amos by a hundred Amos 2 which was ultimately burned.
What do we learn from "ve'Eish ha'Mizbe'ach Tukad bo Lo Sichbeh" in Pasuk 5?
Ramban and Moshav Zekenim: The Kohanim are commanded to put suffcient wood for the fire on the Mizbe'ach not to be extinguished. "Lo Sichbeh" forbids extinguishing even one coal from the Mizbe'ach, or taking it down from the Mizbe'ach.
Yoma, 45a:
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that Tzav is an expression of encouraging to be diligent, immediately and forever. What is his source?
Riva (citing Tosfos Tuch citing the Sifra): This is a Binyan Av (precedent) from two sources - expelling Teme'im from the Machanos, and lighting the Menorah. 1
Moshav Zekenim and Riva (citing Kidushin 29a): We learn from "Tzav es Yehoshua ve'Chazkehu ve'Amtzehu" (Devarim 3:28) and "Min ha'Yom? le'Doroseichem" (Bamidbar 15:23).
Moshav Zekenim citing Re'em: This is not like Rashi who explains that the word "Tzav" itself implies that.
Rashi writes that encouragement is especially needed when there is financial loss. What loss is he referring to?
Ramban #1 and Moshav Zekenim #1: Here there is no loss, because Kohanim gain from all Korbanos, even from an Olah, since they receive the skin, 1 and the Torah writes "Tzav" because it applies immediately and forever. In other places however, it writes "Tzav" due to financial loss 2 , such as oil for the Menorah (24:2), and B'nei Yisrael giving cities to the Leviyim (Bamidbar 35:2).
Ramban #2 and Moshav Zekenim #2: There is a loss in the Asiris ha'Eifah (the Minchas Chavitin that the Kohen Gadol brings daily and a Kohen Hedyot onthe first day that he serves), which follows this in Pasuk 12. 3
Moshav Zekenim #3: There is toil and exertion in this command, so it is considered a loss. Gur Aryeh - the Kohen needed to neglect his occupation to offer the Olah. This is somewhat of a loss, but not an absolute loss.
Riva citing Chizkuni: This is something that if it is not done properly, he must bring another one, and the first one is Bateil. It therefore transpires that he loses money.
Bartenura: The Tzibur must offer two Olos Tamid every day. Since it says "Tzav" both there (in Pinchas Bamidbar, 28:2), and here.
Divrei David: Because, regrding other Korbanos, where the Kohanim receive a share in the Basar, they work diligently, in case someone else receives it, whereas regarding the Olah, he is more liable to become lax, since he does not receive a portion in the Basar.
With the exception of the Olas ha'Of (PF).
Mizrachi: This is wrong. R. Shimon said 'even more, Ziruz is needed where there is loss.' He agrees with the first Tana, that Tzav is always immediately and forever, just he says that loss is the greatest reason!
If so, the Torah should have written "Tzav" there. It is a new Parshah, and begins with "va'Ydaber Hashem el Moshe?"! (PF)
