Month: March 2021

12 If he offers it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the thanksgiving sacrifice unleavened loaves mixed with oil, unleavened wafers smeared with oil, and loaves of fine flour well mixed with oil.

16 and he fell on his face at Jesus’ feet, giving him thanks. Now he was a Samaritan.

John Gill

And he fell on his face at Jesus’ feet—For being cleansed, he might draw nigh unto Jesus; and which he did, with the most profound respect unto him, and reverence of him; and having a deep sense of the favour he had received from him, prostrated himself in this manner before him:

Giving him thanks—Who had shown compassion to him, had exerted his power on him, and had favoured him with such a singular mercy, as restoring him to health.

Now he was a Samaritan—This is particularly remarked by the evangelist, because the Samaritans were reckoned by the Jews, to be ignorant and irreligious persons, and no better than Gentiles; and yet this man behaved as a religious good man, who had a sense of his mercy, knew his duty, and his obligations, and performed them; when the other nine, who very likely were all Jews, acted a very stupid and ungrateful part.

18 Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner? LUK 17:16, 18

John Gill

Was no one found to return—Or it do not appear, that any have returned:

And give praise to God—For inasmuch as they did not return to give thanks to Christ, and acknowledge him the author of their cure and cleansing they did not give praise to God:

Except this foreigner—For so the Samaritans were reckoned by the Jews, even as the Gentile, aliens from the commonwealth, of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise. Christ speaks in the language and dialect of the nation, and yet we find sometimes, that, “a Cuthite,” or a Samaritan, is distinguished from, “a foreigner,” or a Gentile: they might set up their beasts in the inns of the Samaritans, but not in the inns of “strangers”; and a man might let out his bath to a Samaritan, but not to a “foreigner”; but this must be understood of them in times past, before they were found out to be idolaters; when, as Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel says, they were as Israelites in all things, and kept the law and the precepts of it, and even more exactly than the Israelites themselves did; but afterwards a Samaritan was reckoned a Gentile, and so he was in the times of Christ; and therefore he calls a Samaritan a foreigner: that tradition of the Jews, requires some notice and consideration; all are defiled

“with leprosies, except, ‘strangers,’ and the proselyte of the gate.”

And yet here is a foreigner among the Jews, and reckoned unclean, on account of leprosy, and sent with them to show himself to the priest.

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ROM 1:21

John Gill

For although they knew God—Though they had such a knowledge of the being and perfections of God, yet

They did not honor him as God—They neither thought nor spoke honourably of him; nor did they ascribe those perfections to him, which belonged to him; they did not adhere to him as the one and only God, nor honour him as the Creator of all things out of nothing, and as the sole governor of the universe; they did not glorify him by the internal exercise of fear of him, love to him, or trust in him, nor by any external worship suitable to his nature, and their own notions of him, Seneca is an instance of this, of whom Austin says,

“that he worshiped what he found fault with, did what he reproved, and adored that which he blamed.”

Or give thanks to him—For the knowledge of things they had, which they ascribed to themselves; or for their mercies, which they imputed to second causes:

But they became futile in their thinking—The vanity or their minds was the spring and source of their evil conduct; which may design the wickedness of their hearts, and the thinking thereof, which were evil, and that continually; the pride of their natures the carnality and weakness of their reasonings, and the whole system of their futile philosophy; and hence they ran into polytheism, or the worshiping of many gods:

And their foolish hearts were darkened—Where they thought their great wisdom lay: darkness is natural to the hearts and understandings of all men, which is increased by personal iniquity; Satan is concerned in improving it, and God sometimes gives up the hearts of persons to judicial blindness, which was the case of these men.

15 And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his offering. He shall not leave any of it until the morning.

Berakhot 2a:5

Rabban Gamliel cites several cases in support of his claim, such as the burning of fats and limbs on the altar. Due to the quantity of offerings each day, the priests were often unable to complete the burning of all of the fats and limbs, so they continued to be burned into the night, as it is written: “This is the law of the burnt offering. The burnt offering shall remain upon the pyre on the altar all night until the morning, and the fire of the altar burns it” (Lev 6:2). And, with regard to all sacrifices, such as the sin offerings and the guilt offerings that are eaten for one day and night; although the Sages state that they may be eaten only until midnight, by law they may be eaten until dawn. This is in accordance with the verse: “On the day on which it is offered must you eat. Do not leave it until the morning” (Lev 7:15). If so, why did the Sages say that they may be eaten only until midnight? This is in order to distance a person from transgression, as if one believes that he has until dawn to perform the commandment, he might be negligent and postpone it until the opportunity to perform the commandment has passed.

Menachot 81b:18

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting before Rabbi Zeira, and he was sitting and saying: The mishna taught only that the loaves may not be brought from second-tithe wheat itself, but he may bring the loaves from wheat purchased from second-tithe money. Rabbi Zeira said to him: My teacher, do you say so? I say that he may not bring the loaves even from wheat purchased from second-tithe money. And I will say my reasoning and I will say your reasoning. I will say your reasoning first: From where do you derive that the loaves of a thanks offering may be brought from wheat purchased with second-tithe money? You derive it from the halakha of a peace offering. A thanks offering is a type of peace offering, as the verse states: “And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanks” (Lev 7:15), and a peace offering may be brought from second-tithe money.

Rashi

And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving—The verse could have said, “And its flesh.” Consequently, there are many apparently redundant words; they are intended to include in this law the sin offering, the guilt offering, the Nazirite’s ram and the חֲגִיגָה (the festive offering of the pilgrims) brought on the fourteenth of Nisan—that these should be eaten only during one day (the day of slaughtering) and the following night (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 12 1; Zevachim 36a).

Shall be eaten on the day of his offering—And as the period prescribed for eating its flesh is the period during which its bread may be eaten (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 12 1).

He shall not leave any of it until the morning, but during the whole night he may eat of it. But if this be so why have they (the Rabbis) say (Zevachim 55a) that it may only be eaten during the day and the following night till midnight? As a precaution to keep people far from the possibility of sinning (cf. Berakhot 2a).

Zevachim 4a:18

Rav Pinḥas, son of Rav Ami, says: The verse states with regard to a thanks offering: “And the meat of the sacrifice [zevaḥ] of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his offering” (Lev 7:15), apparently indicating that its slaughter [zeviḥa] must be performed for the sake of a thanks offering. And if this language is not needed for the matter of deviation with regard to the type of offering, and in fact it is not, as we already derived this halakha from there, i.e., the verse cited concerning peace offerings, apply it to the matter of deviation with regard to the owner. It is thereby derived that an offering must be slaughtered for the sake of its owner.

Zevachim 7a:7

Rabba said: From where do I say that it is fit? It is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the meat of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving . . . on the day that he presents his offering it shall be eaten” (Lev 7:15-16). Abba Ḥanin said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: The verse comes to teach that a thanks offering that one slaughtered for the sake of a peace offering is fit, whereas a peace offering that was slaughtered for the sake of a thanks offering is unfit. And what is the difference between this offering and that offering? A thanks offering is called a peace offering in the verse, but a peace offering is not called a thanks offering.

Zevachim 36a:3

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda, who deems the offering unfit if there was intent to leave it over until the next day or to take it out of its designated area? Rabbi Elazar said: There are two verses that are written with regard to notar. One verse states: “You shall let none of it remain until the morning; anything that remains until the morning you shall burn” (Exo 12:10), and one verse states: “He shall not leave any of it until the morning” (Lev 7:15). If the additional verse is not necessary for the matter of the prohibition against leaving it overnight, which is already mentioned by the first verse, apply it to the matter of intent of leaving it overnight, which would therefore be prohibited as well.

Zevachim 36a:4

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, does this verse come to teach this idea? This verse is necessary for him to derive that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his offering. He shall not leave any of it until the morning” (Lev 7:15). From the words: “And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving,” we learned with regard to a thanks offering that it is eaten for a day and a night.

16 But if the sacrifice of his offering is a vow offering or a freewill offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he offers his sacrifice, and on the next day what remains of it shall be eaten.

Bekhorot 27b:7

The Gemara asks: And Rav, from where does he derive that a firstborn is eaten for two days and one night? The Gemara answers: He derives it from a verse in which Moses spoke to Aaron and his sons with regard to eating the firstborn: “But their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh are yours” (Num 18:18). The verse thereby juxtaposed the halakha of the firstborn with the breast and thigh of a peace offering. Just as there, it may be eaten for two days and one night, as stated explicitly in a verse (see Lev 7:16), so too here, a firstborn may be eaten for two days and one night.

Rashi

But if the sacrifice of his offering is a vow offering or a freewill offering—That he does not bring it as an acknowledgement of some miraculous deliverance (cf. Rashi v. 12), then it does not require the offering of bread and may be eaten during two days as is delineated in the section.

And on the next day what remains of it—On the first day, shall be eaten—This vav (that of וְהַנּוֹתָר) is redundant (the text being equivalent to הַנּוֹתָר); there are many similar examples in Scripture: “These are the sons of Zibeon: Aiah (וְאַיֶָּה) and Anah” (Gen 36:24); “giving over of the sanctuary (וְקֹדֶשׁ) and the host to be trampled” (Dan 8:13).

13 This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer to the Lord on the day when he is anointed: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half in the evening.

Horayot 9a:4

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: An anointed priest is exempt from bringing an offering in all the cases where one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? It is as the verse states: “This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer to the Lord on the day when he is anointed: One-tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a . . . grain offering” (Lev 6:13). One can infer: It is this tenth of an ephah that comes as an obligation for him, and no other such offering comes as an obligation for him.

Menachot 8a:8

The Gemara discusses the matter itself: With regard to the griddle-cake offering of the high priest, Rabbi Yohanan says that it is not sanctified in halves, and Rabbi Elazar says: Since it is sacrificed in halves, as half of the meal offering is sacrificed in the morning and half in the afternoon, it may likewise be sanctified in halves. Rav Aha said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yohanan? The verse states: “A regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half in the evening” (Lev 6:13). This means: First bring a whole grain offering, and only afterward divide it into halves.

Menachot 50b:6

The Gemara cites that which the Sages taught in a baraita, commenting on the verse: “This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer to the Lord on the day when he is anointed: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half in the evening” (Lev 6:13). If the verse had stated: A regular grain offering, half in the morning and half in the evening; I would have said that the high priest brings half of a tenth of an ephah in the morning and sacrifices it, and then he brings half of a tenth of an ephah in the afternoon and sacrifices it.

Menachot 50b:7

Since the verse states: “Half of it in the morning and half in the evening” (Lev 6:13), it teaches that he sacrifices half of a complete tenth of an ephah. How so? The high priest brings from his house a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour, and divides it in half, and sacrifices half in the morning and half in the afternoon.

Menachot 51a:10

The baraita continues its determination of how much oil is brought with the griddle-cake offering of the high priest. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says: “This is the offering that Aaron . . . a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a grain offering perpetually [tamid], half of it in the morning and half in the evening” (Lev 6:13). The fact that the verse makes reference to the griddle-cake offering of the high priest as tamid teaches that it is in the same category as the grain offering component of the daily offerings [temidin]. Just as the grain offering component of the daily offerings requires three log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour, so too this griddle-cake offering of the high priest requires three log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour.

Menachot 51b:7

That verse is needed for that which is taught in a baraita: “This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer to the Lord on the day when he is anointed” (Lev 6:13). One might have thought that since the verse speaks of the offering in the singular, it means that Aaron and his sons should sacrifice one offering. Therefore the verse states: “That they shall offer to the Lord,” in plural, teaching that Aaron sacrifices an offering by himself as the high priest, and his sons sacrifice offerings by themselves as ordinary priests. When the verse refers to “his sons,” these are the ordinary priests. Each priest must bring a griddle-cake offering as an offering of initiation when he begins his service.

Rashi

This is the offering that Aaron and his sons—The ordinary priests, too, offer a grain offering, consisting of a tenth part of an ephah of flour on the day they are installed into the priestly service; the high priest, however, must bring this grain offering every day, as it is said, “a regular grain offering . . .” (verse 15), “The priest from among Aaron’s sons, who is anointed to succeed him . . . as decreed forever” (Menachot 51b; Sifra, Tzav, Section 3 1-4).

For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. HEB 5:1

John Gill

For every high priest chosen from among men—Every one that was a high priest under the law was a man, and not an angel; and it was proper he should be so, that he might be a priest for men, have compassion on them, and offer for them; and he was among the number of common men, and was taken out from them, and chosen and separated from the rest of men, as Aaron and his sons were from the children of Israel (Exo 28:1). And such a one

Is appointed to act on behalf of men—In their room and stead, and for their good; and above them, as the word sometimes signifies; he was exalted unto, and invested with a superior office, to which he was appointed to act according to the law of a carnal commandment, by anointing with oil, and without an oath.

In relation to God—In things in which God had to do with men; and so he presided over them in the name of God, and declared the will of God unto them, and blessed them; and in things in which men had to do with God; and so he appeared in their name, and represented their persons, and presented their sacrifices to God, as follows:

To offer gifts and sacrifices for sins—Freewill offerings, peace offerings, burnt offerings, sin and trespass offerings, all kind of sacrifice.

He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. HEB 7:27

John Gill

He has no need, like those high priests—They being sinners, and he not:

To offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people—As they did on the Day of Atonement; see Lev 16:6, 11, 15-16 upon which place the Jews make the same remark the apostle does here;

“he (the high priest, they say) offers sacrifices for the sins of the people, for his own, ‘first, and afterwards for the sins of the people’:”

which was one reason of the imperfection and insufficiency of their sacrifices; but Christ needed not to offer for his own, nor could he, for he had none of his own; what he had was by imputation; wherefore he only needed to offer, and he only did offer, for the sins of the people; not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles also, even of all God’s covenant people; nor did he need to do this daily, as they did; they offered sacrifice daily, the common priests every day, morning and evening, and the high priest on a stated day once a year, on the Day of Atonement:

Since he did this once for all when he offered up himself—And in this also he differed from them; they offered not themselves, but what was inferior to themselves, and what could not take away sin, and, therefore, was repeated; but Christ offered himself, his whole human nature, soul and body, and both as in union with his divine nature; and this being offered to God freely and voluntarily, in the room and stead of his people, was acceptable to God: hereby justice was satisfied; the law fulfilled; sin taken away, and complete salvation obtained; so that there never was since any need of his offering again, nor never will be; which shows the perfection and fulness of his priesthood, and the preference of it to the Levitical one.

3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.

John Gill

For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices (See Gill on Heb 5:1).

Thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer—Or this person; for the word “priest” is not in the text, and seems not so proper a word to be supplied, since it was his human nature that it was necessary he should have to offer; he was a person, and existed as a divine person antecedent to his assumption of human nature: as God, he had nothing to offer, or that was capable of being offered; something to offer as a sacrifice was necessary to him as a priest, but not any thing was proper to him; Levitical sacrifices would not do, these could not take away sin; besides, the great high priest was not of the tribe of Levi, nor of the order of Aaron, and therefore could not offer these. An angelic nature would have been improper, that is not capable of dying; and the offering up of such a one would have been of no service to men, for whom priests are ordained; but a human nature is meant, and which it was necessary Christ should have, and offer, for it is for men that he became a high priest; it was human nature that had offended God, and satisfaction must be made in that nature; and this was capable of suffering and dying; yet not human nature under any consideration was necessary for him to have and offer; not merely as in a state of innocence, without any infirmity, nor as sinful, yet as perfect as to parts and qualities; and a nature, and not a person, was necessary to be had, and to be taken into close and inseparable union to his divine person; and of this there was a necessity, not absolute, or a necessity of coaction and force: Christ was not forced unto it; but on the foot of his suretyship engagements, and because of making satisfaction for the sin of man, it was necessary; otherwise Christ voluntarily engaged to be a priest, and willingly became man, and freely offered himself, soul and body, in the room and stead of his people.

4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. HEB 8:3-4

John Gill

Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all—The Socinians from hence attempt to prove that Christ was not a priest, and did not offer sacrifice on earth; whereas his coming into the world, and his appearance in human nature, was in the character of a priest, and to qualify himself for one; his death was his sacrifice, which was on earth; and he never offered but one sacrifice; and it was after he had offered himself that he went to heaven; so the sacrifices under the law were first offered, before their blood was carried within: but the meaning is, either if “that” was on earth, namely, what it was necessary he should have to offer; if his human nature had been earthly, had been of men, had come by ordinary generation, he had not been properly, only typically a priest, at most; and had been no better than the typical ones; yea, he would have been needless, nay, might not have offered, not being of Levi’s tribe, and could not have existed as a priest with the sons of Aaron; but he had his human nature in another way, through the power of the Holy Spirit from above, and therefore is said to come from above, from heaven, and to be the Lord from heaven: or the sense is, if he was on earth, and had not died, he had not been a priest; and if he had died and remained under the power of death, he had been a priest of no account and use; and had he rose again and remained on earth, without going to heaven, with his blood and sacrifice, he had not been a perfect priest; if Christ had remained on earth, the Levitical priesthood had remained, and so he would have been no priest, since two priesthoods could not have subsisted together. The Levitical priesthood was in force while Christ was on earth; Christ’s priesthood was not perfected on earth; the Levitical priesthood remaining while he was on earth, proves he was not then a perfect priest, or had not completed his priesthood; had he been so, that would not have subsisted; it was necessary therefore that Christ should enter into the holy place, to put an end to the Levitical priesthood: moreover, if he had remained on earth, he had been needless;

Since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law—There were priests when Christ was upon earth; their work was to offer gifts the people brought, and sacrifices for sin, and that according to the law of Moses, which till the death of Christ was in full force.

2 Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering. The burnt offering shall be on the hearth on the altar all night until the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it.

Bava Metzia 55a:4

The Gemara answers: It is as Rava says: “The burnt offering” (Lev 6:2), employing the definite article, indicates that the reference is to the first burnt offering. So too, when it is written: The non-kosher animal, the reference is to the initial consecration of the non-kosher animal, not the intermediate stage of consecration.

Berakhot 2a:5

Rabban Gamliel cites several cases in support of his claim, such as the burning of fats and limbs on the altar. Due to the quantity of offerings each day, the priests were often unable to complete the burning of all of the fats and limbs, so they continued to be burned into the night, as it is written: “This is the law of the burnt offering. The burnt offering shall remain upon the pyre on the altar all night until the morning, and the fire of the altar burns it” (Lev 6:2). And, with regard to all sacrifices, such as the sin offerings and the guilt offerings that are eaten for one day and night; although the Sages state that they may be eaten only until midnight, by law they may be eaten until dawn. This is in accordance with the verse: “On the day on which it is offered must you eat. Do not leave it until the morning” (Lev 7:15). If so, why did the Sages say that they may be eaten only until midnight? This is in order to distance a person from transgression, as if one believes that he has until dawn to perform the commandment, he might be negligent and postpone it until the opportunity to perform the commandment has passed.

Chagigah 10b:6

The Gemara answers: However, if that is so, this verse indicates that it is only those fats that are brought during a feast that may not remain overnight. It may be inferred from here that fats which are brought throughout the year may remain all night. But it is written about burnt offerings: “On the hearth on the altar all night into the morning” (Lev 6:2). This shows that burnt offerings must burn on the altar all night.

Horayot 3a:1

“This is the law of the burnt offering, it is that which goes up on its pyre on the altar” (Lev 6:2); these are three exclusionary terms: “This,” “the burnt offering,” and “it is,” which serve to exclude three offerings concerning which the halakha is that even if they are placed on the altar they are subsequently removed: A burnt offering slaughtered at night, a burnt offering whose blood was spilled before it was sprinkled, and a burnt offering whose blood was taken outside the courtyard. Apparently, it is Rabbi Yehuda who interprets multiple exclusionary terms.

Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 8a:4

R. Manna questioned: And why did they not institute a lot for the removal of the ashes? Come and see: Slaughtering is valid with a stranger, and you say it has a lot; the removal of the ashes is prohibited [to be done] by a stranger, and you say, it has no lot? R. Manna the said again: Slaughtering is only valid by day, but the removal of the ashes is valid all night, if you say will cast a lot, even he will not arise on the doubtful [chance]. What did you see to say so? (Lev 6:2-3) “All the night and he shall remove [take up].” From here we learn that the removal of the ashes is valid all night. A stranger i.e. a non-priest who removed the ashes, what is the law? R. Yochanan said: He is guilty of death. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He is exempt. What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish? (Num 18:7) “A gift,” excluding this one which is a service of removal. What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yochanan? (Num 18:7) “For all that concerns the altar.”

Megillah 21a:3

It was taught in the mishna: All night is a valid time for reaping the omer,” as the Master said in tractate Menachot: The reaping of the omer and the counting of the omer must be performed at night, whereas bringing the omer offering to the temple must be done during the day. And for burning the fats and limbs of the offerings, it is derived as it is written with regard to them: “Shall be burning on the altar all night until the morning” (Lev 6:2).

Menachot 6b:15

The Gemara rejects this: The tanna of that baraita relies on the verse: “This is the law of the burnt offering” (Lev 6:2), from which it is derived that any item that ascends upon the altar shall not descend from it, even if it was disqualified. In other words, the verse is the source for the halakha of the baraita, whereas the case of a private altar is cited merely as a support for this ruling.

Menachot 26b:12

Ravin bar Rav Adda said to Rava: Your students say that Rav Amram said that it is taught in a baraita: I have derived only with regard to items whose usual manner is to be sacrificed at night, for example, the limbs of the burnt offering and the fats of the burnt offering, that the priest may bring them up and burn them after sunset and they are consumed throughout all night. This is derived from the verse: “This is the law of the burnt offering. It is that which goes up on the hearth on the altar all night until the morning” (Lev 6:2).

Rashi

Command Aaron—The expression צַו always urging on to carry out a command, implying too, that it comes into force at once, and is binding upon future generations (cf. Rashi on this passage in Kiddushin 29a). R. Simeon said: Especially must Scripture urge on the fulfilment of the commands in a case where monetary loss is involved (Kiddushin 29a; Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 1).

This is the law of the burnt offering—This paragraph is intended to teach, with reference to the burning of the fat-portions and limbs of sacrifices that it is permissible during the whole night (Megillah 21a); and to teach regarding disqualified sacrifices, which of them, if already brought up on the altar,

already brought up on the altar, must be taken down, and which, if brought up, need not be taken down. The latter case may happen, because the term, תּוֹרַת wherever it occurs in Scripture as an introduction to a group of laws is intended as an all-inclusive term (to include all of the class mentioned); here it is intended to tell us: One law applies to all animals that may be brought up on the altar, even certain disqualified ones—that if these have once been brought up on the altar they shall not be taken down again (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 7; Zevachim 27b).

The burnt offering—Is intended to exclude the case of male and female cattle with which sexual sin had been committed and the like, because their disqualification did not occur in the Holy Place, since they were dis-qualified before they came into the forecourt (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 8).

3 And the priest shall put on his linen garment and put his linen undergarment on his body, and he shall take up the ashes to which the fire has reduced the burnt offering on the altar and put them beside the altar.

Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, “Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?” REV 7:13

John Gill

Then one of the elders addressed me, saying—This elder was not the apostle Peter, as some Popish interpreters have thought; and still less Pope Silvester, who lived in the times of Constantine; be is much more likely, according to others, to be Constantine himself, the first of the elders, or the chief magistrate when the church sprung out of its troubles, and enjoyed rest and peace; though some have thought of the prophet Isaiah, since many things said by this elder are to be found in his prophecy; compare Rev 7:14, 16-17; with Isa 1:18; 25:8; 49:10; but it is needless to inquire who the particular person was; it is enough to say, that he was one of the four and twenty elders about the throne, one that belonged to the church, perhaps the same as in Rev 5:5; who, in a visionary way, is represented as accosting John upon the above sight. The word “addressed me” is a common Hebraism of the New Testament, which is often used when nothing goes before, to which a return is made; and only signifies here, that the elder opened his month, began to speak, and called to John, and said as follows:

Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?—This he said, not as being ignorant of them, or of the reason of their being clothed in this manner, nor of the place and state from where they came, as appears by the account afterwards given of them by him; but to stir up John to take more notice of them, as being a body of men that were worthy of observation and contemplation, and were worth his while to consider well who they were, and from where they came; and also to try him whether he knew them or not, and to bring him to a confession of his ignorance; and that he might have an opportunity of giving him some hints about them, which might be useful to him, and to the churches, and for the explanation of this vision, and other parts of this prophecy.

8 it was granted her to clothe herself

with fine linen, bright and pure—

for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.

14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. REV 19:8, 14

John Gill

And the armies of heaven—Not the angels, though they are God’s and are the armies of the heavens; they are in heaven, and dwell there, and follow Christ, attend upon him, and minister to him, and have been sometimes represented by horses and horsemen (2Ki 2:11; 6:17; Zec 1:8), and they are pure and holy creatures, and will come with Christ to judgment: but this vision refers not to the day of judgment; and besides, the saints are meant, as appears by their habit, for the fine linen, white and pure, is the righteousness of the saints (Rev 19:8), and the righteousness of angels and saints is not the same. Moreover, these are the same company described in (Rev 17:14). The saints are in a state of warfare, have many enemies to fight with, sin, Satan, and the world; they are enlisted as volunteers under Christ, the captain of salvation; they are provided with the whole armour of God, and are very numerous, and always more than conquerors through Christ: these are described by the place where they were, “of heaven”; not being glorified saints of heaven; with these indeed Christ will come to judgment, even with all his saints with him; but members of the church militant, said to be of heaven, because that is often called the kingdom of heaven; and because their names are written in heaven, and they are of heavenly extract; they are born from above, and are partakers of the heavenly calling; they belong to heaven, they are citizens of it, and are pressing on to it.

Arrayed in fine linen, white and pure—Not the horses, but the armies on them; which designs not their inward purity, which was very glorious; nor their outward conversation garments, washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb; but the robe of Christ’s righteousness, which is pure and spotless: these have no armour on, for they are not to strike a blow, only their general, who has the bloody garment on, is to tread the winepress, and destroy antichrist with the breath of his mouth, or with his sword proceeding out of it, as follows.

Were following him—Christ, their leader and commander in the exercise of grace, and in the discharge of duty; having gone on in his ways through a train of sufferings, and cleaved unto him, and now attend him; not to assist in fighting, but to add to the glorious and triumphant appearance of their general; and therefore are said to be

On white horses—They had served Christ in his gospel, which some of them had preached, and all professed, and had maintained the purity of it in doctrine and practice, and now triumphed in Christ, and along with him, riding upon horses of the same colour with his, as being his princes and nobles, and whom he had made kings as well as priests; the former may be signified by their horses; see Jdg 5:10 and the latter by their following habit.

LEV 4

27 If anyone of the common people sins unwittingly in doing any one of the things that by the Lord’s commandments ought not to be done, and realizes his guilt,

Chullin 5b:1

“If anyone of the common people sins unwittingly . . . and he shall bring his offering” (Lev 4:27-28), from which it is inferred in a baraita: “Of the common people,” indicating: But not all of the common people. This serves to exclude a transgressor, from whom a sin offering is not accepted.

Horayot 2a:15

The Gemara notes: This matter was already taught in the dispute between amora’im of earlier generations: If a court ruled that forbidden fat is permitted, and the forbidden fat became confused for him with permitted fat and he ate the forbidden fat, Rav says: He is exempt, as the court ruled that it is permitted, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is liable, as he did not base his conduct on its ruling. The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan from a baraita that teaches: The verse states: “If anyone of the common people shall sin unwittingly in performing any one of the things that by the Lord’s commandments ought not to be done, and he is guilty” (Lev 4:27). This serves to exclude an apostate. When an apostate sins unwittingly, he is exempt from liability to bring a sin-offering even if he repents, as even his unwitting action is considered intentional.

Horayot 2a:16

Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: It is unnecessary to derive this halakha from that phrase, as it says in the same verse: “Shall sin unwittingly in performing any one of the things that by the Lord’s commandments ought not to be done, and he is guilty; or the sin which he has committed is made known to him” (Lev 4:27-28). From the words “is made known to him” it is inferred that only one who repents due to his awareness, i.e., he would not have sinned if he had known the act was prohibited, brings a sacrifice for his unwitting transgression in order to achieve atonement. But one who does not repent due to his awareness that he sinned, e.g., an apostate, who would have sinned even had he been aware that the act is prohibited, does not bring an offering for his unwitting action.

Horayot 2b:5

Rava said to Abaye: But according to your reasoning, that which is taught in a baraita that cites the verse: “In performing any one” (Lev 4:27), from which it is derived that an individual who performs a transgression on his own is liable, while one who performs a transgression based on the ruling of the court is exempt; how so? When does this apply? If the court ruled that forbidden fat is permitted, and it became known to one of the judges that they erred, or if he was a student who was sitting before them and he is qualified to issue halakhic rulings, e.g., Shimon ben Azzai, might one have thought that he would be exempt? To counter this, the verse states: “In performing any one,” from which it is derived that an individual who performs a transgression on his own is liable, while one who performs a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the court is exempt.

Horayot 2b:9

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This halakha in the mishna, which states that an individual who performs a transgression on the basis of a ruling issued by the court is exempt from liability to bring an offering, is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. But the Rabbis say: An individual who performs a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the court is liable. The Gemara asks: What is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda to which Shmuel refers? It is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “If one soul from among the common people shall sin unwittingly in performing any one of the commandments of the Lord” (Lev 4:27). These are three exclusionary terms: “One,” “unwittingly,” and “in performing,” and one of these exclusions serves to teach that one who performs a transgression on his own is liable, while one who performs a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the court is exempt.

Horayot 8a:9

The Gemara asks further: From where is it derived that an individual is liable to bring a sin-offering only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet? The Gemara answers: The verse with regard to an individual states: “And if anyone of the common people shall sin unwittingly” (Lev 4:27). The verse begins with the conjunction “and,” represented by the letter vav. This indicates that one shall derive the halakha with regard to the lower verse, i.e., the verse written later in the passage, from that which is written in the upper verses, i.e., those written earlier. Just as in those verses earlier in the passage, addressing the public, priest, and king, there is liability only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet, so too, in the case of the individual addressed in this verse, there is liability only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet.

Horayot 11a:3

The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “If anyone of the common people sins unwittingly in performing any one of God’s commandments that may not be done and he is guilty” (Lev 4:27). The phrase “of the common people” serves to exclude the anointed priest; the phrase “of the common people” also serves to exclude the king.

Horayot 11a:12

The Sages taught: The verse states: “If anyone of the common people sins unwittingly in performing any one of God’s commandments that may not be done and he is guilty” (Lev 4:27). This serves to exclude an apostate. When an apostate sins unwittingly, he is exempt from liability to bring a sin offering even if he repents for that sin, as even his unwitting action is considered intentional.

Horayot 11a:13

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon bar Yosei says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: It is unnecessary to derive this halakha from that phrase, as it says in the same verse: “If anyone of the common people sins unwittingly in performing any one of God’s commandments that may not be done and he is guilty; or the sin which he has sinned is made known to him” (Lev 4:27-28). From the words “is made known to him” it is inferred that only one who repents due to his awareness, i.e., who would not have sinned had he known that the act was forbidden, brings an offering for his unwitting transgression and achieves atonement in this way. But one who does not repent due to his awareness that he sinned, e.g., an apostate, who would sin even after becoming aware that the act is forbidden, does not bring an offering for his unwitting action.

28 or the sin which he has committed is made known to him, he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has committed.

For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, ROM 8:3

LEV 5

1 If anyone sins in that he hears a public adjuration to testify, and though he is a witness, whether he has seen or come to know the matter, yet does not speak, he shall bear his iniquity;

But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” MAT 26:63

John Gill

But Jesus remained silent—Knowing it would signify nothing, whatever he should say, they being set upon his death, the time of which was now come; and therefore he quietly submits, and says nothing in his own defence to prevent it. To be silent in a court of judicature, Apollonius Tyanaeus says, is the fourth virtue; this Christ had, and all others.

And the high priest said to him—Though Christ had said nothing, a way of speaking very frequent among the Jews, and in the sacred writings.

I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God—The Christ; the anointed, that David speaks of in Psa 2, and who is there said to be the Son of God (Psa 2:2, 7), to which the high priest seems to have respect; since there is no other passage, in which both these characters meet; and which was understood by the ancient Jews of the Messiah, as is owned by modern ones. Jesus was given out to be the Messiah, and his disciples believed him to be the Son of God, and he had affirmed himself to be so; wherefore the high priest, exerting his priestly power and authority, puts him upon his oath; or at least with an oath made by the living God, charges him to tell the truth, and which when ever any heard the voice of swearing, he was obliged to do (Lev 5:1).

2 or if anyone touches an unclean thing, whether a carcass of an unclean wild animal or a carcass of unclean livestock or a carcass of unclean swarming things, and it is hidden from him and he has become unclean, and he realizes his guilt;

Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without knowing it. LUK 11:44

John Gill

Woe to you—As they are all along called by Matthew; though only here by Luke. The Vulgate Latin only reads, “woe to you,” leaving out all the rest: but the whole is retained in all the Oriental versions.

For you are like unmarked graves—Being covered with grass; “or which were not marked,” as the Ethiopic version renders it; that is, were not whited or covered with lime, as some were, that they might be seen at a distance, and be known what they were; that so people might avoid going near them, and prevent their being defiled with them (see Gill on Mat 23:27).

And people walk over them without knowing it—And so are defiled by them. Christ compares the Pharisees, because of their hypocrisy, and secret iniquity, both to whited tombs, and to those that were not: to those that were, because, like them, they looked beautiful without, and righteous in the sight of people, and yet were inwardly full of all manner of pollution and sin; and to those that were not, because they did not appear to be what they were, and people were deceived by them; and under specious pretences to religion and holiness, were by their corrupt doctrines and practices unawares drawn into the commission of sin. Regard may not only be had to graves covered with grass, or not marked with lime, by which they might be known; but also to what the Jews call, “the grave of the abyss”; a grave that is not known no more than if it was in the bottomless pit: so uncleanness by touching a dead body, which a man is not conscious of, is called the uncleanness of the abyss, or an unknown one.

4 or if anyone utters with his lips a rash oath to do evil or to do good, any sort of rash oath that people swear, and it is hidden from him, when he comes to know it, and he realizes his guilt in any of these;

7 so that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she might ask.

9 And the king was sorry, but because of his oaths and his guests he commanded it to be given. MAT 14:7, 9

EXO 37

16 And he made the vessels of pure gold that were to be on the table, its plates and dishes for incense, and its bowls and flagons with which to pour drink offerings.

Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. 2TI 2:20

Making the Lampstand

17 He also made the lampstand of pure gold. He made the lampstand of hammered work. Its base, its stem, its cups, its calyxes, and its flowers were of one piece with it.

Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. MAT 5:15

that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, PHP 2:15

For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place. HEB 9:2

22 Their calyxes and their branches were of one piece with it. The whole of it was a single piece of hammered work of pure gold.

But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified. 1CO 9:27

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. COL 3:5

23 And he made its seven lamps and its tongs and its trays of pure gold.

12 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands,

20 As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. REV 1:12, 20

To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: “The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands.” REV 2:1

From the throne came flashes of lightning, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God, REV 4:5

And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.” REV 5:5

Making the Altar of Incense

25 He made the altar of incense of acacia wood. Its length was a cubit, and its breadth was a cubit. It was square, and two cubits was its height. Its horns were of one piece with it.

You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? MAT 23:19

9 according to the custom of the priesthood, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense.

10 And the whole multitude of the people were praying outside at the hour of incense. LUK 1:9-10

Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. HEB 7:25

We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. HEB 13:10

you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 1PE 2:5

3 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer, and he was given much incense to offer with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne,

4 and the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, rose before God from the hand of the angel. REV 8:3-4

29 He made the holy anointing oil also, and the pure fragrant incense, blended as by the perfumer.

For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. JOH 3:34

21 And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us,

22 and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee. 2CO 1:21-22

In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. HEB 5:7

20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.

27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him. 1JN 2:20, 27

EXO 38

Making the Altar of Burnt Offering

1 He made the altar of burnt offering of acacia wood. Five cubits was its length, and five cubits its breadth. It was square, and three cubits was its height.

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. JOH 6:37

3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. ROM 8:3-4

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. ROM 12:1

Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, HEB 3:1

how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. HEB 9:14

The city lies foursquare, its length the same as its width. And he measured the city with his rod, 12,000 stadia. Its length and width and height are equal. REV 21:16

4 And he made for the altar a grating, a network of bronze, under its ledge, extending halfway down.

Zevachim 62a:12

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And he made for the altar a grating, a network of bronze, under its ledge, extending halfway down” (Exo 38:4), which indicates that the ledge was on the side of the altar and not on top of it? The Gemara answers: Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: There were two entities called ledge. One was a slight protrusion above the midway point of the altar for aesthetic purposes, and one was an indentation on top of the altar for the benefit of the priests, to ensure that they would not slip off the top of the altar.

7 And he put the poles through the rings on the sides of the altar to carry it with them. He made it hollow, with boards.

Rashi

Hollow, with boards—Signifies hollow, similar to, “and its thickness was four fingers, and it was hollow” (Jer 52:21).

Hollow, with boards—The boards of acacia wood were placed on all sides, and the hollow space was in the middle.

But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.” ACT 9:15

but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 1CO 1:24

For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1CO 2:2

Making the Bronze Basin

8 He made the basin of bronze and its stand of bronze, from the mirrors of the ministering women who ministered in the entrance of the tent of meeting.

Jesus said to him, “The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you.” JOH 13:10

he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, TIT 3:5

but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. HEB 9:10

Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 1JN 3:7

and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood REV 1:5

12 And for the west side were hangings of fifty cubits, their ten pillars, and their ten bases; the hooks of the pillars and their fillets were of silver.

Zevachim 59b:10

Rabbi Yosei said back to him: But isn’t it already stated: “And the hangings of the court and the screen for the entrance of the gate of the court that is around the tabernacle and the altar” (Num 4:26)? This verse juxtaposes the tabernacle with the altar to teach that just as the tabernacle was ten cubits high, so too, the altar was ten cubits high. And another verse states: “The hangings were fifteen”

14 The hangings for one side of the gate were fifteen cubits, with their three pillars and three bases.

Zevachim 60a:1

“Cubits for one side” (Exo 38:14), which indicates that the height of the hangings surrounding the courtyard of the tabernacle was fifteen cubits. And what is the meaning when the verse states: “And the height five cubits” (Exo 27:18)? It is referring to the height of the hangings from the upper edge of the altar and above; the hangings surrounding the courtyard were five cubits higher than the altar.

26 a beka a head (that is, half a shekel, by the shekel of the sanctuary), for everyone who was listed in the records, from twenty years old and upward, for 603,550 men.

Bekhorot 5a:10

Additionally, Kontrokos asked Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: With regard to the collection of silver by Moses for the tabernacle, you find that the total amount is 201 talents and eleven maneh, as it is written that they amassed: “A beka a head (that is, half a shekel, of the shekel of the sanctuary) . . . for 603,550 men” (Exo 38:26), which totals 301,775 shekels. This sum equals 201 talents and eleven maneh, as each talent contains 1,500 shekels, or sixty maneh, and each maneh contains twenty-five shekels.

27 The hundred talents of silver were for casting the bases of the sanctuary and the bases of the veil; a hundred bases for the hundred talents, a talent a base.

Bekhorot 5a:11

But with regard to the giving of the silver to the tabernacle you find only one hundred talents, as it is written: “The hundred talents of silver were for casting” (Exo 38:27). Now, was Moses your teacher a thief, or was he a gambler, or was he not expert in accounting? He gave half of the money for the tabernacle and took half for himself, and he did not return even a complete half to the tabernacle.

3 if the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, then he shall offer for the sin that he has committed a young bull from the herd without blemish to the Lord for a sin offering.

Horayot 6b:14

The mishna teaches: If he issued the ruling unwittingly, and performed the transgression intentionally, or if he issued the ruling intentionally and performed the transgression unwittingly, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, the halakhot unique to the sin offering for an unwitting transgression by the anointed priest, derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita: It is written: “If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people” (Lev 4:3), from which it is derived that the liability of the anointed priest is incurred like that of the general public. The Gemara discusses this derivation. As one might have thought that the verse is superfluous: Could this not be derived through logical inference?

Horayot 7a:5

Since either conclusion can be derived logically, another source is necessary. Therefore, the verse states: “If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people” (Lev 4:3), indicating that the status of the anointed priest is like that of the general public. Therefore, just as the general public brings an offering only for absence of awareness of the matter by the court with unwitting performance of an action by the people, so too, an anointed priest brings an offering only for absence of awareness of the matter with unwitting performance of an action.

Horayot 7a:6

The Gemara challenges the comparison: Based on the comparison between the anointed priest and the general public, why not say: Just as with regard to the general public, if the court issued a ruling and the general public performed the transgression after its ruling and in accordance with its ruling, the court is liable, so too, with regard to an anointed priest, when he issued a ruling and the general public performed the transgression after his ruling and in accordance with his ruling, he should be liable. Therefore, the verse states with regard to the anointed priest: “Then he shall offer for the sin that he has committed” (Lev 4:3), from which it is derived: He brings an offering for that sin that he committed on the basis of his ruling, but he does not bring an offering for that sin that others committed on the basis of his ruling.

Horayot 7a:8

The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to the halakhot of the guilt-offering: “And the priest shall atone for him for the act that he performed unwittingly” (Lev 5:18), from which it is derived that this halakha applies only to one whose transgression and his unwitting action are equal, i.e., an ordinary person, whose unwitting act is the very transgression that he performed unwittingly. This serves to exclude an anointed priest, whose unwitting action and his transgression are not equal, as his unwitting act is the erroneous ruling and he is liable to bring an offering only if he performed the transgression on the basis of that ruling. As it is written about the anointed priest: “bringing guilt on the people” (Lev 4:3), indicating that the status of the anointed priest is like that of the general public.

Horayot 7a:14

The baraita continues: Since he does not achieve atonement with the general public on the Day of Atonement, one might have thought that he will bring a bull for himself even if he unwittingly performed a transgression with the general public. Therefore, the verse states: “then he shall offer for the sin that he has committed” (Lev 4:3), indicating that he sinned alone, not with the general public. How so? If he sinned by himself he brings his sin offering of a bull by himself; if he sinned with the general public, he achieves atonement with the general public.

Horayot 7b:7

The mishna teaches: And likewise with regard to the ruling of the anointed priest. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people” (Lev 4:3), indicating that the status of an anointed priest is like that of the general public.

Horayot 7b:12

The mishna continues: And likewise the anointed priest. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? It is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to the anointed priest: “If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people” (Lev 4:3), indicating that the status of an anointed priest is like that of the general public.

Horayot 8a:7

We found a source for the court bringing an offering for a transgression of the general public based on their erroneous ruling. From where do we derive that this is the halakha for an anointed priest? The Gemara answers: It is derived from the verse: “If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people” (Lev 4:3), indicating that the status of an anointed priest is like that of the transgression of the general public.

Horayot 10a:2

With regard to the statement in the mishna concerning an anointed priest who sinned after he was removed from his position, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught: It is written with regard to the high priest: “And he shall sacrifice for the sin that he committed” (Lev 4:3); this teaches that he brings his sin offering even after he has moved on from his priesthood.

Horayot 10a:7

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If a king or high priest sinned before they were appointed, and thereafter they were appointed, the status of these people is like that of commoners. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught with regard to the verse: “If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt” (Lev 4:3); this serves to exclude the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his installation as high priest.

Horayot 10a:13

Apropos a king, the Sages taught: In contrast to other cases where the verse states: If he will sin, it states concerning a king: “When a king sins.” One might have thought that this is a decree, i.e., that it is a given that the king will sin. Therefore, the verse states: “If the anointed priest sins” (Lev 4:3). Just as there the meaning is: In the event that the priest sins, so too here, the meaning is: In the event that the king sins.

Horayot 10b:3

Rava, son of Rabba, objects to this: If that is so, and the term asher is interpreted in that manner, then concerning that which is written: “He shall also make restitution for what [asher] he has done amiss from the holy item” (Lev 5:16), and with regard to Jeroboam, son of Nebat, about whom it is written: “Who [asher] sinned and caused others to sin” (1Ki 14:16), so too is the interpretation that this generation is happy? The Gemara answers: Here, in the case of a king who brings an offering, it is different, as the verse altered its formulation; in parallel verses, the term “if” is utilized, e.g., in the verse: “If the anointed priest sins” (Lev 4:3). In the other instances, asher is the standard formulation.

Megillah 9b:10

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? It is as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: “If the anointed priest sins” (Lev 4:3). From the word anointed, I have derived only that this halakha applies to a high priest who was actually anointed with the oil of anointing. From where do I derive that even a high priest consecrated by donning the multiple garments is also included in this halakha? The verse states: “The anointed,” with the definite article, indicating that the halakha applies to every high priest.

Rashi

If the anointed priest should sin to bring guilt on the people—Its midrashic interpretation: He is not obliged to bring a sin offering unless there is a hidden thing together with an unintentional act, just as it is stated, to bring guilt on the people (v. 13): “and something is hidden from the assembly, and they do” (Horayot 7a; Rashi on v. 13; Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d’Chovah, Chapter 2 1). Its literal sense is according to the high priest sins this is the guilt of the people, because they are dependent on him to effect atonement for them and to pray on their behalf, and now he has become degenerate.

Bull—One might think that it may be an old one! Scripture, however, adds בֶּן, a young animal. If, then, it must be a young one, I might think a very young animal. Scripture, however, states: פַּר a term which independently means a mature animal, thus teaching us that it shall not be a very young bull. So how do we reconcile both mature and yet young? It refers to a bull in its third year (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d’Chovah, Chapter 3 1; cf. Rashi on Lev 9:7 and note thereon).

27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.

John Gill

He has no need, like those high priests—They being sinners, and he not.

To offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people—As they did on the Day of Atonement; see (Lev 16:6, 11, 15-16) upon which place the Jews make the same remark the apostle does here;

“he (the high priest, they say) offers sacrifices for the sins of the people, for his own, ‘first, and afterwards for the sins of the people’: ”

which was one reason of the imperfection and insufficiency of their sacrifices; but Christ needed not to offer for his own, nor could he, for he had none of his own; what he had was by imputation; wherefore he only needed to offer, and he only did offer, for the sins of the people; not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles also, even of all God’s covenant people; nor did he need to do this daily, as they did; they offered sacrifice daily, the common priests every day, morning and evening, and the high priest on a stated day once a year, on the Day of Atonement.

Since he did this once for all when he offered up himself—And in this also he differed from them; they offered not themselves, but what was inferior to themselves, and what could not take away sin, and, therefore, was repeated; but Christ offered himself, his whole human nature, soul and body, and both as in union with his divine nature; and this being offered to God freely and voluntarily, in the room and stead of his people, was acceptable to God: hereby justice was satisfied; the law fulfilled; sin taken away, and complete salvation obtained; so that there never was since any need of his offering again, nor never will be; which shows the perfection and fulness of his priesthood, and the preference of it to the Levitical one.

28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever. HEB 7:27-28

4 He shall bring the bull to the entrance of the tent of meeting before the Lord and lay his hand on the head of the bull and kill the bull before the Lord.

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 1PE 3:18

EXO 35

Construction of the Tabernacle

30 Then Moses said to the people of Israel, “See, the Lord has called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah;”

Berakhot 55a:11

With regard to Bezalel’s appointment, Rabbi Yitzḥak said: One may only appoint a leader over a community if he consults with the community and they agree to the appointment, as it is stated: “Then Moses said to the people of Israel, ‘See, the Lord has called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah’ ” (Exo 35:30). The Lord said to Moses: Moses, is Bezalel a suitable appointment in your eyes? Moses said to Him: Master of the universe, if he is a suitable appointment in your eyes, then all the more so in my eyes. The Holy One, blessed be he, said to him: Nevertheless, go and tell Israel and ask their opinion. Moses went and said to Israel: Is Bezalel suitable in your eyes? They said to him: If he is suitable in the eyes of the Holy One, blessed be he, and in your eyes, all the more so he is suitable in our eyes.

Rashi

Hur was the son the Miriam (Sotah 11b; cf. Rashi on Exo 24:14).

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 1CO 3:10

4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit;

11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. 1CO 12:4, 11

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. JAS 1:17

EXO 36

1 Bezalel and Oholiab and every craftsman in whom the Lord has put skill and intelligence to know how to do any work in the construction of the sanctuary shall work in accordance with all that the Lord has commanded.

teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. MAT 28:20

And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord. LUK 1:6

a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. HEB 8:2

4 so that all the craftsmen who were doing every sort of task on the sanctuary came, each from the task that he was doing,

Sanhedrin 69b:18

The Gemara asks: Rather, from where do we derive that in earlier generations men fathered children at the age of eight? From here, as it is written: “Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, made all that the Lord commanded Moses” (Exo 38:22). And it is written: “When Azubah died, Caleb took for himself Ephrath, who bore him Hur. Hur fathered Uri, and Uri fathered Bezalel (1Ch 2:19–20). And when Bezalel made the tabernacle how old was he? He must have been at least thirteen years old, as it is written: “So that all the craftsmen who carried out every sort of task on the sanctuary came, each from the task that he did” (Exo 36:4), and one who is less than thirteen is not called a man. And it is taught in a baraita: In the first year following the exodus from Egypt Moses made the tabernacle; in the second year he erected the tabernacle and sent out the spies.

Shabbat 96b:13

The Gemara asks: And perhaps they were not in a straight line but staggered. That would enable the weavers to sit adjacent to each other without disturbing each other’s task. And furthermore, did they borrow from each another? Wasn’t the following taught in a baraita of the Sage Luda? The verse states: “So that all the craftsmen who performed every sort of task on the sanctuary came, each one from the task he was doing” (Exo 36:4). From that verse it is derived: Each performed the labor from his own task, and they would not perform the labor from their friends’ task. Each person had his own tools and did not need to borrow from others.

Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? MAT 24:45

And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?” LUK 12:42

5 and said to Moses, “The people are bringing very much, more than is enough for the work of the articles which the Lord had commanded to do.”

Rashi

More than is enough for the work means more than is sufficient for the needs of the work.

2 for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part.

3 For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, 2CO 8:2-3

For they all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ. PHP 2:21

17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit.

18 I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God. PHP 4:17-18

6 So Moses gave command, and word was proclaimed throughout the camp, “Let no man or woman do anything more for the contribution for the sanctuary.” So the people were restrained from bringing,

Rosh Hashanah 34a:17

As for the concern that one might think the verse means: You shall merely carry the trumpet by hand and not sound it, you cannot in any event say that, as that tanna derives by verbal analogy between the root avara used here and the same root avara that is found with regard to Moses. It is written here: “Then you shall make proclamation [veha’avarta] with the blast of the trumpet,” and it is written elsewhere: “So So Moses gave command, and they caused to be proclaimed [vaya’aviru] throughout the camp” (Exo 36:6). Just as there, with regard to Moses, they proclaimed with a sound, so too here, the proclamation must be with a sound.

Shabbat 96b:1

GEMARA: With regard to the main issue, the Gemara asks: After all, throwing is a subcategory of carrying out. Where is the primary category of prohibited labor of carrying out itself written in the law? Isn’t it necessary to clarify the primary category before discussing the subcategory? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: As the verse said: “So Moses gave command, and they passed a proclamation throughout the camp, ‘No man or woman should perform any more work to contribute to the sanctuary.’ So the people were restrained from bringing” (Exo 36:6). According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, Moses commanded the people to cease bringing contributions in order to prevent them from bringing their contributions on the Sabbath. He then explains: Where was Moses sitting? He was in the camp of the Levites, and the Levites’ camp was the public domain. And he said to Israel: Do not carry out and bring objects from the private domain, your camp, to the public domain, the camp of the Levites.

7 for the material they had was sufficient to do all the work, and more.

Rashi

For the material they had was sufficient to do all the work—And the work of contributing was sufficient for all workers at the tabernacle, to do all the work connected with the tabernacle to make it and more.

And more—Heb. וְהוֹתֵר, like “and he hardened (וְהַכְבֵּד) his heart” (Exo 8:11); “striking (וְהַכּוֹת) the Moabites” (2KI 3:24).

Shabbat 49b:9

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I cannot reach a conclusion relying solely on a count because there is another instance of the term labor, whose meaning is not clear to me. The reason I am uncertain is because it is written with regard to the tabernacle: “For the labor they had was sufficient to do all the work, and more” (Exo 36:7). The question arises whether or not this mention of labor is included in the count of thirty-nine instances, i.e., whether or not it refers to actual labor. And if it does, that verse with regard to Joseph should be understood in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that the expression, to do his labor, is a euphemism. It means that it was to attend to his needs and engage in relations with Potiphar’s wife that he entered.

Shabbat 96b:2

The Gemara asks: And how do you know that he was standing and commanding the people on the Sabbath? Perhaps he was standing during the week, and Moses commanded the cessation of contributions because the labor of the tabernacle was completed, since all the necessary material was already donated, as it is written: “For the material they had was sufficient for them to perform all the work, and there was extra” (Exo 36:7). Rather, derive this by means of a verbal analogy between passing mentioned in this context and passing mentioned with regard to the Day of Atonement.

13 And he made fifty clasps of gold, and coupled the curtains one to the other with clasps. So the tabernacle was a single whole.

As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. 1CO 12:20

20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.

22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. EPH 2:20-22

4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious,

5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 1PE 2:4-5

35 He made the veil of blue and purple and scarlet yarns and fine twined linen; with cherubim skillfully worked into it he made it.

And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. MAT 27:51

by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, HEB 10:20

EXO 37

Making the Ark

1 Bezalel made the ark of acacia wood. Two cubits and a half was its length, a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height.

Rashi

Bezalel made—Because he gave himself over to the work more than the other wise men it is called after his name. His name alone is associated with the act (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayakhel 10).

Making the Table

10 He also made the table of acacia wood. Two cubits was its length, a cubit its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

16 For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. JOH 1:14, 16

To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. COL 1:27

Laws for Peace Offerings

1 If his offering is a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offers an animal from the herd, male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the Lord.

Bekhorot 15b:3

The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that the offspring of a sacrificial animal is imbued with inherent sanctity, derived? It is derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “If his offering is a sacrifice of peace offering, if he sacrifice from the cattle, male or female, he shall sacrifice it without blemish before the Lord” (Lev 3:1), that the words “male” and “female” are extraneous, as the term “cattle” includes both. Consequently, “male” serves to include the offspring of a peace offering; “or female” serves to include the female animal that is designated as a substitute for a peace offering.

Bekhorot 42a:3

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita discussing the peace offering, with regard to which it states: “Male or female” (Lev 3:1). This indicates: Only a definite male or a definite female, but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. Yet again the Gemara responds: Omit from this baraita the mention of a tumtum.

Bekhorot 61a:5

And furthermore, there is a source that indicates that Rabbi Yehuda holds that a mistakenly designated animal tithe is sacrificed, as it is taught in a baraita in the Sifra: “If his offering is a sacrifice of peace offering, if he sacrifice an animal from the herd, male or female, he shall sacrifice it without blemish before the Lord” (Lev 3:1). This serves to include the eleventh animal mistakenly designated as tithe; it must be sacrificed as a peace offering.

Menachot 92b:17

Lev 3, discusses peace offerings and details the obligation of placing hands. The term “his offering” is mentioned a number of times. Each time serves to emphasize that peace offerings require placing hands and to exclude another type of offering from that requirement. The Sages taught a baraita detailing which offerings are excluded and why one might have thought otherwise. “His offering” (Lev 3:1) requires placing hands, but not the firstborn offering. As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference, as follows: If a peace offering, whose consecration does not originate from being in its mother’s womb, nevertheless requires placing hands, then with regard to a firstborn offering, whose consecration originates from the womb, is it not logical that it requires placing hands? To counter this inference, the verse states: “His offering,” teaching that a peace offering requires placing hands but the firstborn offering does not.

Nazir 45a:8

GEMARA: The Gemara first addresses the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whose reasoning was not stated in the mishna. The Sages taught that when the law states: “And the Nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the entrance to the tent of meeting” (Num 6:18), the verse is speaking of the peace offering, as the phrase “the entrance to the tent of meeting” alludes to a peace offering, as it is stated: “If his offering is a sacrifice of peace offering . . . and kill it at the entrance to the tent of meeting” (Lev 3:1-2).

Rashi

Peace offering—They are so called because they bring peace (שָׁלוֹם) into the world. Another explanation is: they are called שְׁלָמִים because through them there is harmony to the altar, to the priests and to the owners (since all these receive a portion) (cf. Rashi on Exo 29:22 and our note thereon; see also Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d’Nedavah, Chapter 16 2).

Temurah 17b:5

With regard to the mishna’s statement that the halakhic status of the offspring of peace offerings and their substitutes are like that of the peace offering itself, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita: “If his offering is a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offers an animal from the herd, if male if female, he shall offer it without blemish before the Lord” (Lev 3:1). Since the verse already states: “If he offers an animal from the herd,” the words “if male if female” are unnecessary. Rather, the word “male” serves to include the offspring of a peace offering as having the the same halakhic status as a peace offering.

Temurah 18a:13

GEMARA: Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer, that the offspring of a peace offering does not have the status of a peace offering? It is that the verse states with regard to a peace offering: “If his offering is a sacrifice of peace offering for the Lord” (Lev 3:1). The term “if [ve’im],” can be read as: And a mother [ve’em], which teaches that the mother may be offered as a peace offering, but not the offspring.

Zevachim 4a:1

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that we require that an offering’s slaughter be performed for its own sake? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “If his offering is a sacrifice [zevaḥ] of peace offering” (Lev 3:1), teaching that slaughter [zeviḥa] must be performed for the sake of a peace offering.

Zevachim 99b:12

The Gemara counters: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to the verse: “If his offering is a sacrifice of peace offerings [shelamim]” (Lev 3:1), Rabbi Shimon says: The offering is called shelamim to teach that when a person is whole [shalem], i.e., in a state of contentment, he brings his offering, but he does not bring it when he is an acute mourner. From where is it derived to include that an acute mourner does not bring even a thanks offering? I include the thanks offering because it is consumed in a state of joy, like a peace offering.

1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. ROM 5:1-2

and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. COL 1:20

let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. HEB 10:22

that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 1JN 1:3

John Gill

That which we have seen and heard—This is repeated, both to confirm and illustrate what had been before said, and to carry on the discourse to what follows.

We proclaim also to you—In the ministry of the word; the person and offices of Christ being the sum and substance of the gospel ministration, that declares him to be the true God and eternal life, God over all, blessed for ever; and truly man, made of a woman, and made under the law; and to be the only Mediator between God and man, to be prophet, priest; and King, and to be the alone Saviour and Redeemer: this declares the greatness and excellency of his salvation, what an able, proper, and suitable Saviour he is; and what precious promises and spiritual blessings are in him, even all grace and eternal glory. And this declaration of him is made in the gospel, for the following ends and purposes.

So that you too may have fellowship with us—In hearing, seeing, and handling of Christ in a spiritual sense; and by enjoying the same privileges in God’s house and family, the same ordinances and spiritual provisions; joining and partaking with them in all the immunities and advantages of a gospel church state here; and by being with them to all eternity hereafter.

And indeed our fellowship is with the Father—The Father of Christ, the covenant God and Father of his people; and which they have with him, when under the influence and witnessings of the spirit of adoption, and can in the strength of faith call him their Father, draw nigh to him through Christ as such, and are indulged with his presence, and the discoveries of his love.

And with his Son Jesus Christ—Being in union to him, they become partakers of him, and of his blessings; they receive out of his fulness, and grace for grace; they are admitted to an intimacy and familiarity with him; they are had into his chambers of secret retirement; they are brought into his banqueting house, where his banner over them is love, and where he sups with them, and they with him; and into this fellowship are they called by the grace of God, through the gospel; as also they have fellowship with the blessed Spirit, though not here mentioned; see (2Co 13:14).

2 And he shall lay his hand on the head of his offering and kill it at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and Aaron’s sons the priests shall throw the blood against the sides of the altar.

Arakhin 2a:14

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? With regard to placing of hands, he expounds the term: “His offering” (Lev 3:2), as teaching that one places his hands only on his own offering, but not on his father’s offering. And with regard to the ruling that an heir cannot effect substitution, Rabbi Yehuda derives the halakha of the initial stage of consecration, i.e., substitution, in which a previously non-sacred animal is consecrated, from the final stage of consecration, the act of placing hands, which is performed upon an already-consecrated animal immediately before it is slaughtered: Just as with regard to the final stage of consecration, an heir does not place hands, so too, with regard to the initial stage of consecration, an heir cannot effect substitution.

36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.

37 Now when they heard this they were pricked in their heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

John Gill

Now when they heard this—Or “him,” as the Arabic version; that is, Peter speaking these things, describing the character of Jesus of Nazareth; opening the prophecies concerning him; asserting his resurrection from the dead, and exaltation at the right hand of God; ascribing this wonderful affair, of speaking with divers tongues, to his effusion of the Spirit; and charging them home with the iniquity of crucifying him.

They were pricked in their hearts—The word of God entered into them, and was as a sharp sword in them, which cut and laid open their hearts, and the sin and wickedness of them; they saw themselves guilty of the crime laid to their charge, and were filled with remorse of conscience for it; they felt pain at their hearts, and much uneasiness, and were seized with horror and trembling; they were wounded in their spirits, being hewn and cut down by the prophets and apostles of the Lord, and slain by the words of his mouth; they were as dead men in their own apprehension; and indeed, a prick, a cut, or wound in the heart is mortal.

And said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”—The persons they before mocked at, they are glad to advise with, what should be done in this their sad and wretched case; what they should do to obtain the favour of God, the forgiveness of their sins, and everlasting salvation. Convinced, awakened sinners, are generally at first upon a covenant of works; are for doing something to atone for their past crimes, to set themselves right in the sight of God, to ingratiate themselves into his favour, and procure the pardon of their sins, and the inheritance of eternal life. And they seem also to be at a loss about the way of salvation, what is to be done to attain it, or how, and by what means it is to be come at; and are almost ready to despair of it, their sin appearing in so dreadful a light, and attended with such aggravating circumstances. Beza’s ancient copy reads, “some of them said to Peter” not all that heard, but those that were pricked to the heart.

38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” ACT 2:36-38

Sabbath Regulations

1 Moses assembled all the congregation of the people of Israel and said to them, “These are the things that the Lord has commanded you to do.

Rashi

Moses assembled—Heb. וַיַּקְהֵל. He assembled them on the day after the Day of Atonement when he came down from the mountain. This word is used in the verbal form that expresses the idea of causing a thing to be done, because one does not actually assemble people with ones’s hands, but they are assembled by his command. Its Aramaic translation is וְאַכְנֵשׁ.

Shabbat 97b:2

Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the Sabbath is mentioned in the verse: “These are the things [eleh hadevarim] that God has commanded to perform them” (Exo 35:1)? Several points are derived from the superfluous emphases in this verse. The law could simply have stated: This is a thing [davar]. When it states things [devarim] in the plural, it teaches at least two points. The addition of the definite article the in the term the things [hadevarim] adds at least a third point. The numerological value of letters of the word eleh, which are alef, one; lamed, thirty; and heh, five, is thirty-six. The phrase: These are the things, alludes to three plus thirty-six derivation, i.e., the thirty-nine prohibited labors that were stated to Moses at Sinai. Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that there are a fixed number of primary categories of labor, he would certainly hold a person liable for the primary categories but not for the subcategories.

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. ROM 2:13

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. JAS 1:22

2 Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.”

Rashi

Six days—He intentionally mentioned to them the prohibition in reference to the Sabbath before the command about the building of the tabernacle in order to intimate that it does not set aside (supersede) the Sabbath (cf. Mekhilta d’Rabbi Yishmael 35:1:1).

Shabbat 70a:2

We learned in the mishna that one is liable to bring a sin offering for each prohibited labor that he performs on the Sabbath. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive the division of labors? What is the source of the halakha that if one performs numerous prohibited labors on the Sabbath in the course of one lapse of awareness, each prohibited labor is considered a separate offense with regard to punishment? Shmuel said that the verse says: “You shall observe the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who desecrates it shall die [mot yumat]” (Exo 31:14). We learn from the double language, mot yumat, that the law amplified multiple deaths for a single desecration. Although several violations were committed in the course of a single lapse of awareness, each is considered a separate offense with regard to punishment. The Gemara asks: That verse was written with regard to intentional transgression. The Gemara is seeking a source for multiple sacrifices brought for unwitting transgression. The Gemara answers: If it does not refer to the matter of intentional transgression, as the verse does not teach a halakha applicable to intentional acts, as it was already written: “Six days you shall perform work, but on the seventh day it shall be holy to you, a Sabbath of rest to God; all who desecrate it shall die” (Exo 35:2), refer it to the matter of unwitting transgression. The verse teaches that that which was written with regard to the death penalty for desecration of the Sabbath in general applies to all halakhot of the Sabbath, including cases of unwitting transgression. And what, then, is the meaning of the term: Shall die, in the verse? Does it mean that one who commits an unwitting transgression is punishable by death? It means that he shall die by payment of money. Death is used in the sense of punishment; he will be forced to pay for numerous sacrifices to atone for his sins.

14 But the ruler of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, said to the people, “There are six days in which work ought to be done. Come on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day.”

15 Then the Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger and lead it away to water it?” LUK 13:14-15

And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. JOH 5:16

2 For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution,

3 how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, HEB 2:2-3

28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? HEB 10:28-29

Contributions for the Tabernacle

4 Moses said to all the congregation of the people of Israel, “This is the thing that the Lord has commanded to say:

Rashi

This is the thing that the Lord has commanded me to say to you.

5 Take from among you a contribution to the Lord; every generous hearted person shall bring it, the Lord’s contribution: gold, silver, and bronze;”

Chagigah 10a:8

Rabbi Yitzḥak says: These halakhot have something to support them, as it is stated: “Every generous hearted person shall bring it” (Exo 35:5). This verse indicates that as long as one retains the same desire to fulfill the vow, he must continue to fulfill it, but if he regrets taking the vow he may arrange for it to be dissolved. Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua’s brother, also says: They have something to support them, as it is stated: “I have sworn an oath and fulfilled it, to keep your righteous rules” (Psa 119:106). This verse indicates that certain oaths need not be fulfilled, i.e., those that have been dissolved.

Rashi

Generous hearted person—Because his heart prompts one to generosity, he is called “generous hearted.” I have already explained the contribution for the tabernacle and the work done for it in the passages where the commands about them were given.

11 So now finish doing it as well, so that your readiness in desiring it may be matched by your completing it out of what you have.

12 For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have. 2CO 8:11-12

Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 2CO 9:7

12 the ark with its poles, the ark cover, and the veil of the screen;

Rashi

And the veil of the screen—The veil which serves as a screen. Everything that screens, whether it hangs above or in front of it is called a screen or a cover. Similarly, “You . . . put a hedge about him” (Job 1:10); “I will hedge up her way” (Hos 2:8).

19 the finely worked garments for ministering in the Holy Place, the holy garments for Aaron the priest, and the garments of his sons, for their priestly service.

Yoma 72a:13

The Gemara returns to its discussion of the priestly garments: Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The finely worked [serad] garments for serving in the Holy Place” (Exo 35:19)? Why does the verse refer to the priestly garments as “serad garments”?

21 And they came, everyone whose heart stirred him, and everyone whose spirit moved him, and brought the Lord’s contribution to be used for the tent of meeting, and for all its service, and for the holy garments.

You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. MAT 12:34

22 So they came, both men and women. All who were of a willing heart brought bracelets and earrings and signet rings and buckles, all sorts of gold objects, every man dedicating an offering of gold to the Lord.

Rashi

And women means and women and closely following them.

חָח is a circular golden ornament placed upon the arm, and it is the צָמִיד.

And buckles—Heb. וְכוּמָז. This was a golden ornament worn by the women upon their private parts, Our Rabbis explain the name כּוּמָז as an acrostic meaning here is the place of licentiousness. (cf. Shabbat 64a).

Shevuot 26b:15

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Shmuel from a baraita: The verse states: “You shall be careful to do what has passed your lips, for you have voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God what you have promised with your mouth” (Deu 23:24). From here I have derived only a case in which he expresses with his lips. From where do I derive a case where he decided only in his heart? The verse states in the context of the contributions to the building of the tabernacle: “So they came, both men and women. All who were of a willing heart brought bracelets and earrings and signet rings and buckles, all sorts of gold objects” (Exo 35:22). The fact that the verse describes those who contributed as of a willing heart indicates that one becomes liable via a non-verbal decision.

And going into the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. MAT 2:11

27 And the leaders brought onyx stones and stones to be set, for the ephod and for the breastpiece,

Rashi

And the leaders brought—R. Nathan asked, “What reason had the leaders to give their contributions at the dedication of the altar first of all the people, whereas at the work of the tabernacle they were not the first, but the last to contribute?” This is what the leaders said, “Let the community contribute all they with to give and what will then be lacking we shall supply” But when the community gave everything needed in its entirety—as it is said (Exo 36:7), “For the material they had was sufficient”—the leaders asked, “What can we now do?” therefore they brought onyx stones, etc. That is why they were the first to contribute at the consecration of the altar. Because, however, they were dilatory at the beginning, a letter is missing here from their title, and וְהַנְשִׂיאִם is written instead of וְהַנְשִׂיאִים (Bamidbar Rabbah 12:16).

Yoma 75a:19

With regard to donations for the tabernacle, the verse states: “They still kept bringing him freewill offerings every morning” (Exo 36:3). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “every morning”? Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: They still kept bringing donations from that which fell every morning with the manna. This teaches that pearls and precious stones fell for the Israelites with the manna. It states: “And the leaders [nesi’im] brought onyx stones” (Exo 35:27). A tanna taught that the word nesi’im means actual clouds brought them. As it states: “Like clouds [nesi’im] and wind without rain is a man who boasts of a gift he does not give.” (Pro 25:14). We learn from this that the precious stones fell from the clouds with the manna.

7 And if your offering is a grain offering cooked in a deep pan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil.

Menachot 74b:13

With regard to the three placements of oil in a pan grain offering and a deep pan grain offering, the Sages taught that the verse states: “And if your offering is a deep pan grain offering, it shall be made of fine flour with oil” (Lev 2:7). This teaches that it requires the placement of oil in an empty vessel, and the flour is added afterward. In addition, the term “your offering” in this verse and the term “your offering” (Lev 2:5), written with regard to the grain offering prepared in a pan, are understood to teach a verbal analogy:

Rashi

Cooked in a deep pan—This was a vessel used in the temple, a deep one, and because it was deep the oil in it was heaped up and the fire did not burn it, and therefore the grain offering cooked in it was, as it were, creeping. Every thing that is soft because of the liquid contained in it appears as though it were creeping and moving (Menachot 63a; Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d’Nedavah, Chapter 12 7).

11 No grain offering that you bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven, for you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as a food offering to the Lord.

Bekhorot 33b:15

And furthermore, one cannot draw parallels between the opinions of the two sources, as here the tanna’im disagree with regard to the exposition of certain verses, and there they disagree with regard to the exposition of certain other verses. As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All of the Sages who disagree as to whether one may let the blood of the firstborn animal concede that one who leavens a grain offering after another had already leavened it is liable to receive lashes for the additional leavening, as it is written: “It shall not be baked with leaven” (Lev 6:10), and it is also stated: “No grain offering that you sacrifice to God shall be made with leaven” (Lev 2:11). This indicates that one is liable for every act of leavening performed on a grain offering.

Keritot 6a:16

And if one placed honey in the incense he has disqualified it, as it is stated: “For you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as a food offering to the Lord” (Lev 2:11). If he omitted any one of its spices he is liable to receive death at the hand of heaven. Rabbi Shimon says: The balm mentioned here is nothing other than a resin exuded from the balsam tree, not the bark of the tree itself. The Kersannah lye mentioned is not part of the ingredients of the incense itself, but it is necessary as one rubs the onycha in it so that the onycha should be pleasant. Likewise, the Cyprus wine is required as one soaks the onycha in it so that it should be strong. And urine is good for this purpose, but one does not bring urine into the temple because it is inappropriate.

Menachot 23b:11

The Gemara answers: There, the halakha of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira says that the verse teaches that nullification does not take place when remainders are intermingled with handfuls. He explains: The term burning is stated with regard to the handful removed from the grain offering (see Lev 2:2), as it is a commandment to burn the handful, and the term burning is stated with regard to the remainder of the grain offering (see Lev 2:11), as it is taught that it is prohibited to burn the remainder.

Menachot 55a:10

MISHNA: All the grain offerings that come as unleavened bread are to be kneaded with lukewarm water so that the dough will bake well, as only a small amount of oil is added. And one must watch over them to ensure that they do not become leaven while kneading and shaping them, and if a grain offering or even only its remainder becomes leaven, one violates a prohibition, as it is stated: “No grain offering that you bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven, as you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as a food offering to the Lord” (Lev 2:11). And one is liable to be flogged for kneading the grain offering, and for shaping it, and for baking it, if the grain offering becomes leaven.

Menachot 55b:1

“Be baked with leaven” (Lev 6:10). What is the meaning when the verse states this? Isn’t this requirement already stated earlier: “No grain offering that you bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven; as you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as a food offering to the Lord” (Lev 2:11)? Rather, the phrase “it shall not be baked with leaven” serves to teach a different halakha. Since the prohibition concerning leaven is first stated in general terms: Shall not be made with leaven, without specification, one might have thought that one who causes a grain offering to become leaven will be liable to receive only one set of lashes for all of his actions, i.e., kneading, shaping, and baking the dough. Therefore, the verse states: “it shall not be baked with leaven” which teaches that one who causes a grain offering to become leaven is liable separately for baking it, and for each stage of its preparation.

Menachot 55b:9

Rabbi Aptoriki said: That hermeneutic principle is not relevant here, because this is a case of a generalization and a detail that appear in the law distanced from one another, as the phrase: Shall not be made with leaven (Lev 2:11), is far from the expression: “It shall not be baked with leaven” (Lev 6:10). And for any instance of a generalization and a detail that appear in the law distanced from one another, one cannot derive a halakha from them by analyzing them as a generalization and a detail.

Menachot 56b:2

The Gemara discusses similar cases, including examples involving grain offerings. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All of the Sages who disagree as to whether one may let the blood of a firstborn animal whose blood circulation is constricted concede that one who leavens a grain offering after another had already leavened it is liable to receive lashes for the additional leavening, as it is written: “No grain offering that you bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven” (Lev 2:11), and it is also stated: “It shall not be baked with leaven” (Lev 6:10). This indicates that one is liable for every act of leavening performed on a grain offering.

Menachot 57a:8

The Gemara returns to discussing the prohibition against leavening a grain offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: Concerning the deep-pan grain offering, the verse states: “No grain offering that you bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven, for any leaven nor any honey, you shall not burn any of it as a food offering to the Lord” (Lev 2:11). The term “grain offering” is apparently superfluous, and therefore the baraita explains: If the verse had stated only: Nothing that you shall bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven, I would say: I have derived only that the handful removed from the grain offering for burning on the altar alone is included in the prohibition: “Shall not be made with leaven,” as only the handful is burned on the altar.

Menachot 57a:13

Rav Mari raises another dilemma concerning the leavening of a grain offering. If a priest leavened a grain offering while standing at the top of the altar, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies the possibilities: The Merciful One states in the law: “No grain offering that you bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven” (Lev 2:11), which indicates that this prohibition applies only to a grain offering that has not yet been brought to the Lord, i.e., to the altar. And therefore, as this grain offering has already been brought to the top of the altar, even though it has not yet been burned, perhaps it is not included in the prohibition.

Menachot 57b:13

The baraita answers: The verse states: “For any leaven nor any honey, you shall not burn any of it as a food offering to the Lord” (Lev 2:11). The extra term “of it” teaches that any item that has already had some part of it burned in the fire on the altar is included in the prohibition: Do not burn, stated in that verse explicitly with regard to honey and leaven.

Menachot 57b:18

And what is the reason that Rabbi Elazar says that one who brings up parts to the ramp is exempt? As the verse states: “For any leaven nor any honey, you shall not burn any of it as a food offering to the Lord. As an offering of first produce you may bring them to the Lord, but they shall not be offered on the altar for a pleasing aroma” (Lev 2:11-12).

Menachot 58a:5

The Gemara asks: And may the two loaves not be sacrificed as communal gift offerings? But isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “As any leaven nor any honey, you shall not burn any of it” (Lev 2:11): If it is stated: “Any leaven,” why is it stated: “Any honey”? And if it is stated:  “Any honey,” why is it stated: “Any leaven”? In other words, why is it necessary for the verse to repeat the inclusive term “any,” from which it is derived that offering an insufficient quantity of honey or leaven is included in the prohibition? The baraita answers: Both of these terms had to be stated, because there is a halakha that applies to leaven that is not applicable to honey, and there is another halakha that applies to honey that is not applicable to leaven.

Menachot 58b:3

The Gemara discusses another dispute between Abaye and Rava on this topic: It was stated: With regard to one who offers up a mixture made of leaven and of honey on the altar, Rava says: He is flogged with four sets of lashes for this act, as the verse: “As any leaven nor any honey, you shall not burn any of it as a food offering to the Lord” (Lev 2:11), includes four separate prohibitions. He is flogged one set due to the prohibition against sacrificing leaven, and he is flogged a second set due to the prohibition against sacrificing honey, and he is flogged a third set due to the prohibition against sacrificing mixtures of leaven, and he is flogged a fourth set due to the prohibition against sacrificing mixtures of honey.

Menachot 84b:2

Rabba sat in the study hall and stated this halakha. Rabbi Aḥa bar Abba raised an objection to Rabba from a baraita: The law refers to the two loaves offering as: “A first offering to the Lord” (Lev 2:11), which indicates that it is to be the first of all the grain offerings that come from the new crop. And similarly the verse states with regard to the Feast of Weeks: “On the day of the firstfruits, when you offer a grain offering of new grain to the Lord” (Num 28:26). By designating the two loaves as “new,” the verse indicates that they should be brought from the first of the new crop.

Menachot 106b:2

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said: The priest does not burn the oil as an offering but burns it for the sake of wood, i.e., not as a sacrificial rite, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The verse states: “No grain offering that you bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven, for you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as a food offering to the Lord. As an offering of firstfruits you may bring them to the Lord, but they shall not be offered on the altar for a pleasing aroma” (Lev 2:11-12). This verse indicates that you may not offer up leaven and honey as a pleasing aroma, i.e., as an offering. But you may offer up leaven and honey and other substances for the sake of wood, not as an offering.

Rashi

Nor any honey—Any sweet juice of a fruit is called “honey.”