פרשה: תצוה · עלייה: רביעי (נצח)

וזה הדבר אשר תעשה, "And this is the thing you are to do for them, etc." I have explained in connection with 27,20 that Moses' part in the construction of the Tabernacle was merely that he should instruct the artisans who would perform the work, whereas he personally was not to weave, embroider, or perform any of the various activities required. This rule was broken in the paragraph commencing here, where Moses is instructed to personally perform sacrificial rites as part of conferring the priesthood on Aaron and his sons. This is why the Torah commences the chapter with the words: וזה הדבר, "and this is the thing, etc." He was to offer animal sacrifices for seven days in a row. The word וזה, "and this," is justified seeing Moses had already been commanded to clothe the priests and to anoint them, i.e. physical activities, not just verbal instructions. The Torah therefore says: "You are also to perform this additional task with your hands, etc." If the Torah had not written תעשה, i.e. "you will do it," but had only written: "take one young bullock, etc.," we would have been justified in assuming that Moses was merely to issue a directive to Aaron or his sons to do this. Seeing there was a chance that we would interpret the instruction for Moses to act as priest and offer sacrifices as something applicable only to the inaugural sacrifices recorded here and not to any of the regular public offerings to be offered on those days, the Torah repeats by saying וזה אשר תעשה…כבשים בני שנה in verse 38 of this chapter. The repetition of this phrase indicates that Moses would officiate as priest also for those sacrifices. The Torah repeated the phrase "and this is what you shall do on the altar" (verse 38), so that we should not assume that Moses would be allowed to offer the daily public offerings also after the expiry of the seven inaugural days.

According to Yuma 4 the word הדבר in our verse may mean that everything connected with the instructions about the inaugural offerings is mandatory. According to the opinion offered there that only those details which are mandatory for the offerings which are offered throughout the generations are also mandatory for the inaugural offerings, the word הדבר tells us that the detail mentioned here is mandatory but not every other detail.

לקח פר אחד בן בקר, "take one young bullock, etc." Perhaps the Torah implied that either Moses or Aaron could pay for the bullock in question; there was nothing mandatory about this aspect of the inaugural sacrifices.

ויצקת על ראשו ומשחת אוהו, "and pour it upon his head and anoint him." The verse means that the oil had to be poured on his head. The same applied to the anointing of Aaron's sons. Aaron and his sons each required a separate pouring of oil upon their heads seeing that the verse referred to both of them in the same way as we know from 28,41. This is further reinforced by the wording in 40,15 where the Torah said: "you will anoint them just as you have anointed their father. Torat Kohanim on Parshat Tzav explains the meaning of that verse in the same spirit.

ומלאת יד אהרון ויד בניו, "and you will consecrate Aaron and his sons." This refers to the anointing of Aaron and his sons, similar to what the Torah wrote in 28,41. The only thing missing in this verse is the reference to the anointing. This is alluded to by the word ומלאת.

וסמך אהרון ובניו את ידיהם, "and Aaron and his sons will place their hands, etc." The reason that the Torah uses the singular וסמך instead of the plural form וסמכו, is that Aaron was to place his hands on the bullock and his sons were to repeat this action individually, one at a time. I have come across a Tossephta in chapter 10 of Menachot which states: "When five people jointly offer one sacrifice they all perform the rite of placing their hands with all their weight on the animal; they do not do this simultaneously but one after another." Maimonides rules similarly in chapter 3 of Maaseh Ha-korbanot. Accordingly, we can well understand why our verse describes the act of סמיכה in the singular, i.e. וסמך, instead of וסמכו, as they were not to do this simultaneously. We still have to clarify why the Torah had to give these instructions twice in connection with the ram in verse 19 and was not content with Leviticus 8,18 where it is reported that Aaron and his sons did perform סמיכה and the fact is reported in the plural. Perhaps the Torah felt that if it would not repeat the report we would think that seeing that the bullock was a sin-offering, only Aaron performed the rite of סמיכה because only he and not his sons had been involved in the sin of the golden calf. By telling us that the same procedure was followed in connection with the ram which was a total-offering, the Torah made plain that none of these offerings were connected with Aaron's share in the making of the golden calf. The method chosen by the Torah makes it clear that the performance of סמיכה was required for all meat-offerings other than birds. Now we can understand why there was no need to write the word ויסמכו in the singular in Leviticus 8,18, seeing the point had been made already in our verse here. [With all due respect to the author, why did the Torah repeat the point in Leviticus 8,14 where the Torah again uses the singular in connection with Aaron and his sons? Ed.]