Chapter 16 details the service procedure on Yom Kippur. The Mishnah explains that the service must be performed in the exact order listed in the Torah or it is deemed invalid (Mishnah Yoma 5:7). There is something else unique in the chapter. When other holidays are mentioned in the Torah, the holiday itself is mentioned first and then the specific mitzvah for the day. In this chapter, the first thing mentioned is the death of Aaron’s two sons from six chapters ago, and then the service and then, in the summery, the connection between Yom Kippur and the service and then the commandment that it is Shabbat Shabbaton and a day for self-sacrifice.

What’s the connection between Yom Kippur and the death of Aaron’s sons? Perhaps it has to do with the wording of the reason for their death:

“God spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron who died when they drew too close to the presence of God” (verse 1).

וַיְדַבֵּר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁה אַחֲרֵי מוֹת שְׁנֵי בְנֵי־אַהֲרֹן בְּקָרְבָתָם לִפְנֵי־ה' וַיָּמֻתוּ׃

In the four times that their death is mentioned in the Torah, this is the only time it does not say they brought a foreign fire. Some commentators explain that this meant that Nadav and Avihu died because they tried to get too close to God—either by entering the Holy of Holies or by bringing a sacrifice that was not ordained. In other words they had pure intentions, but their execution was wrong. God explains to Aaron and the people that there is a specific way that the nation can utilize the Mishkan to enact forgiveness. It is through this exact ceremony that must be performed in this exact order that one can achieve forgiveness. Aaron’s sons attempted to do something else, and God needed to remind the people that the Mishkan was not some temple with an anything goes ruleset.

But the second unique part of the chapter is the more important lesson. Yes, one needs to do this exact service to gain forgiveness. But, God says, there is another way:

“For on this day atonement shall be made for you to purify you of all your sins; you shall be pure before God / It shall be a sabbath of complete rest for you, and you shall practice self-denial; it is a law for all time” (verses 30–31).

כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכָּל־חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי ה' תִּטְהָרוּ׃

שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן הִוא לָכֶם וְעִנִּיתֶם אֶת־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם חֻקַּת עוֹלָם׃

In this not so subtle way God is explaining that each and every person has the ability to gain forgiveness on Yom Kippur without the service. That is why this verse appears after the declaration of Yom Kippur like every other holiday, but the Mishkan service does not.

“Anyone who touches his bed must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening (verse 5: וְהַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמִשְׁכָּבוֹ יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃). During the discussion of the zav, someone who most likely had a bacterial infection of their genitals, the torah introduces the concept of midras. In the complicated regime of tumah and tahara- purity and impurity-, certain levels of impurity impart impurity in different ways to others. A main source of tumah- or av ha tuma- imparts impurity mostly by coming in contact with another person or object thereby imparting a lower level of impurity. This gets much more complicated when dealing with dead bodies and creepy animals. For a zav or zava, midras is a unique way of imparting impurity. A midras is an object that is usually used for the purpose of someone resting or standing or riding on it. Rambam provides five examples: 1) sitting on the midras e.g., like a chair or bench, 2) lying on the midras like a rug, 3) leaning on the midras, 4) standing on the midras like a mat, 5) hanging from the midras. Once the zav or zava imparts impurity to the midras then midras object can then pass first level impurity to something else in seven ways- if the person touches the midras, carries the midras, sits on the midras, lies on the midras, leans on the midras, stands on the midras or hangs from the midras. The midras object is powerful enough to pass along tumah to someone through multiple layers. For example, if a saddle became a midras object because a zav rode on it, and then someone else placed ten layers of blankets on top of the saddle before riding it, the second rider would still contract first level tumah. The idea behind the midras is unknown. Perhaps due to the physical as well as spiritual contagious nature of the zav or zav, the Torah and subsequently the rabbis, wanted to create extra levels of protection.

As part of the healing korban of the person with tzaraat, “the priest shall order two live pure birds, cedar wood, crimson stuff, and hyssop to be brought for the one to be purified (verse 4: וְצִוָּה הַכֹּהֵן וְלָקַח לַמִּטַּהֵר שְׁתֵּי צִפֳּרִים חַיּוֹת טְהֹרוֹת וְעֵץ אֶרֶז וּשְׁנִי תוֹלַעַת וְאֵזוֹב׃). The unique piece of this korban is the cedar wood. No other korban contains a piece of cedar wood. Why is this included here? Each part of this korban connects to the idea that tzaraat was a result of gossiping. The two birds reference the chirping between two individuals that started the gossip. The cedar was one of the tallest and strongest trees in the near east. So the cedar wood symbolizes the strong staying power of gossip and rumor. The crimson stuff is red, symbolizing blood and harm that gossip can cause. The hyssop is a lowly bush and symbolizes the lowly state of the victim of gossip. Rashi focuses on the height of the cedar tree alone. One who sins in a way that results in tzaraat believes that they are higher and mightier than everyone else. Siftai Chachamim adds that the cedar wood is even used for the offering for the houses based on the opinion of Rashi that a house got tzaraat as a way for the Israelites to find hidden treasures in the walls. These hidden treasures were left there by the previous Canaanite inhabitants. The previous inhabitants were haughty because of this wealth and felt they were indestructible like the cedar tree. They did not believe that they could be expelled from the land. This is also a lesson for the Israelites who find this treasure. Besides the tzaraat, the cedar tree appears most often in relation to the building of the Temple. The cedar wood provided the foundation of the structure of the Temple. The wood was chosen because of its strength. Perhaps God is also sending a message to the person that sins in a way that causes tzaraat that they are responsible for the destruction of one small piece of the Temple. Ultimately the Temple was destroyed because of the proliferation of hatred amongst the people, the very thing that is said to cause tzaraat.

The next two chapters discuss in extreme detail the affliction of Tzaraat. Most translate the word as leprosy. Although modern leprosy does not match most of the symptoms listed in this chapter. Another mystery about Tzaraat is that the Torah never mentions why someone would get the disease. There were people in Tanach that get Tzaraat- Moshe, in one of the early signs he’s told to show to Pharoah (although it is the only of the early signs he does not actually show Pharoah). Miriam becomes snow white faced after she and Aaron gossip about Moshe in Number 12. In II Kings 5, a commander of the Aramean army has Tzaraat and the prophet Elisha heals him only to curse his steward Gehazi with the disease after Gehazi demands payment from the officer. King Azariah and Uziah both get Tzaraat as well. King Azariah of the Southern Kingdom is afflicted by God, but it is unclear why. Most commentators point to the Miriam story to link Tzaraat with gossiping about someone. While that may link Miriam’s affliction, it does no explain why the other biblical characters got the disease. Dr. Chaim Trachtman, my father in law, argues that tzaraat in Leviticus is not leprosy, noting that its symptoms and complete remission described in the Torah do not match Hansen’s disease. Instead, he proposes that the biblical condition most closely resembles melanoma, a form of skin cancer whose presentation and potential for remission align far better with the textual descriptions. He supports this by highlighting the epidemiology, symptom pattern, and ancient familiarity with cancer, suggesting that the Priestly laws describe a real and serious medical affliction rather than a purely ritual or supernatural phenomenon. Turning back to the Torah, Some of the rules do match modern ideas of medicine, including the idea that one who shows symptoms must go into quarantine for a certain period of time. Quarantine does not seem to match the idea that Tzaraat is a spiritual disease caused by speaking gossip. How could such a disease be contagious? It is possible that the quarantine is not meant to protect other people form the disease, but rather to punish the individual by excluding them form the community. One part of the ceremony following an all clear by the Kohen involves placing oil on the ear lobe, finger, and toe of the person. This action mimics the ceremony performed for the priests during their inauguration. Perhaps this is a special reminder to the healed individual that they are a sacred member of the community, just like a kohen, and must therefore conduct themselves accordingly. It may also be a way to bring the humanity back to an individual who just went through the harrowing and most likely humiliating experience of examination and excommunication.

“On the completion of her period of purification, for either son or daughter, she shall bring to the priest, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering (verse 6: וּבִמְלֹאת יְמֵי טָהֳרָהּ לְבֵן אוֹ לְבַת תָּבִיא כֶבֶשׂ בֶּן־שְׁנָתוֹ לְעֹלָה וּבֶן־יוֹנָה אוֹ תֹר לְחַטָּאת אֶל־פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן׃).

Why does the woman have to bring a sin offering after giving birth? This seems antithetical to the Torah commandment to be fruitful and multiply? One school of thought is that the sin offering is meant to atone for anything the woman might have said during the pangs of childbirth. Ibn Ezra believes this is for generic unseemly things that she may have yelled. Rabman, quoting the Gemara, focusing on a more specific pronouncement. During childbirth, the mother may have sworn that she would never sleep with her husband again to avoid having to go through childbirth again. The Kli Yakar takes a different approach altogether. The sin offering is part of the atonement process for the sin of Eve. After Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, God punished Adam that he would have to till the soil to get food and Eve that she would have pain in childbirth. The Rav offers a slightly different version of this idea. The connection to Eve is not to the sin offering, but to the time the mother must wait in a state of impurity. Adam and Eve could not wait a few hours until they ate from the tree of knowledge. Therefore, a mother must wait a certain period of time after giving birth before she can be pure again. It is interesting that the father has no part of this chapter at all. It's possible that the Torah established this time period of impurity in order to protect the mother. By forcing her to sit out, it allows the mother to heal from the delivery. There difference in the waiting time between a boy and a girl seems to be rooted in ancient views of boys verses girls. Many of the medieval commentaries offer various explanations based on gestational science at the time, like female briths caused the mother to bleed more. This hints at a possible patriarchal view of the difference between boys and girls as a source for the length of time. The Netziv, however, offers a slightly different view. He explains that baby boy should have had the same length as a girl, but the fact that a baby boy will have a brit milah eight days after he is born cuts the time shorter for the mother.

Chapter 11 discusses what makes animals kosher. Land animals need to chew their cud and have split hooves. The Torah then gives examples of which animals do one but not the other- camels, pigs, and rabbits. For fish, scales and fins are required. The Torah does not give examples of fish that are not kosher. Creepy crawling animals and bugs are forbidden in their entirety except for certain grasshoppers. Then comes birds. For birds the Torah does not list certain features, it simply lists 24 different birds. The complicated part of this list is deciphering which birds are mentioned. Many of the English translations are simply guesses as to the identity of the birds. Commentators try to match the names with other uses in Tanach or other languages. The Gemara in Chullin 60b quotes the Mishnah which states that the Torah did not provide signs for kosher birds. The Gemara then explains that through the list of non-kosher birds and known kosher birds one can deduce the signs of a kosher bird. The two birds that are discussed are a nesher as the non-kosher bird and the dove as a kosher one. There are four things the dove had that the nesher does not. The nesher does not have an extra toe, it does not have a crop, it does not have a gizzard that can be peeled and it claws its prey to eat it. Doves have an extra toe, they have a crop, its gizzard can be peeled, and it does not claw its food to eat. Any animal that has four signs that match either of these birds is either kosher or not kosher. The Gemara then proceeds to spend multiple pages discussing different scenarios of birds that have some signs, but not all signs, and at the same time are not listed in the Torah, whether or not these birds are kosher. The bottom line is that it is not straightforward. Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch explains that bird species are so numerous that it would be too difficult to have generalized classifications of simanim like animals and fish. In modern times this issue arose with turkeys. Some halachic authorities held that because of the confusion surrounding the list of non-kosher birds in the Torah, one could only eat birds for which there was a tradition that it was kosher. Turkeys were only brought to Europe in the 1500s, so there was no long-standing tradition regarding their kosher status. Others took the opposite approach. Because there was a tradition listing all 24 of the non-kosher birds in the Torah, any bird not listed should be considered kosher. A third group looked at the signs listed in the Gemara and also matched the turkey with a chicken (even though it is more like a pheasant, which is also kosher). Based on these signs and the closeness to the chicken, the turkey was deemed to be kosher.

“וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־אַהֲרֹן וּלְאֶלְעָזָר וּלְאִיתָמָר בָּנָיו רָאשֵׁיכֶם אַל־תִּפְרָעוּ וּבְגָדֵיכֶם לֹא תִפְרֹמוּ וְלֹא תָמֻתוּ וְעַל־כָּל־הָעֵדָה יִקְצֹף וַאֲחֵיכֶם כָּל־בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל יִבְכּוּ אֶת־הַשְּׂרֵפָה אֲשֶׁר־שָׂרַף ה׳” (ויקרא י׳:ו׳).

“And Moses said to Aaron and to his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, ‘Do not bare your heads and do not rend your clothes, lest you die and anger strike the whole community. But your kin, all the house of Israel, shall bewail the fire that ה׳ has wrought’” (verse 6).

Why does Moshe say that the people will weep? דעת זקנים reads this as Moshe providing assurances to Aaron and his sons that the people will mourn for Nadav and Avihu. Aaron was concerned that if no one mourned for them, then the people would think that his sons had done something so wrong that they had forfeited their priestly status.

העמק דבר questions how Moshe could command the people to cry. Crying comes only from emotion. He explains that Moshe was not commanding the people to cry, but showing them how to cry. Haamek Davar differentiates between telling Aaron the people will cry “about the fire” instead of “over the fire.” Moshe tells the people they should cry over whatever causes them to be sad but do so directed at this event. The idea is that if one cannot muster the emotion to cry over a dead body, they should think about something that will cause them to cry and use that as motivation. In this way, the mourner will still honor the dead by weeping.

אור החיים does not see this as Moshe providing motivation, but instead Moshe explaining to the people that if they do weep for Aaron’s sons, then it will help prevent this tragedy from happening again. The crying “about the fire” means they should direct their mournful weeping to the cause of the death of the brothers.

For each of these interpretations, the undercurrent is that the people themselves may not have been motivated to weep for Aaron’s sons independently. Either Moshe had to command them in order to save face for Aaron, Moshe had to motivate them by providing advice on how to build up the emotion to cry, or Moshe had to motivate them with a promise that mourning would prevent this from happening in the future. None of the answers explain why the people would not spontaneously mourn. It is possible that the people were afraid of how to react. They had just witnessed fire descending from heaven consuming the sons of the Kohen Gadol. Frozen in a state of fear, they may not have known if it was okay for them to weep and mourn. For this reason, Moshe had to calm Aaron and coax the emotional reaction from the people.

“וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי ה׳ וַתֹּאכַל עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֶת־הָעֹלָה וְאֶת־הַחֲלָבִים” (ויקרא ט׳:כ״ד).

After Aaron and his sons perform the various korbanot as part of the inauguration ceremony, ה׳ sends a fire down to consume the various offerings: “Fire came forth before ה׳ and consumed the burnt offering and the fat parts on the altar” (verse 24). The important piece here is not the miraculous event but the people’s reaction after:

“וַיַּרְא כָּל־הָעָם וַיָּרֹנּוּ וַיִּפְּלוּ עַל־פְּנֵיהֶם” (ויקרא ט׳:כ״ד).

“And all the people saw, and shouted, and fell on their faces” (verse 24 cont). The reaction in the verse seems ambiguous. Was this a happy reaction or a fearful reaction? The commentators generally agree that this reaction was a happy one. The people were shouting for joy and bowing down to ה׳.

But the last time the people witnessed a miraculous heavenly show they did not have the same reaction. At the giving of the Ten Commandments, ה׳ put on a show filled with shock and awe:

“וְכָל־הָעָם רֹאִים אֶת־הַקּוֹלֹת וְאֶת־הַלַּפִּידִם וְאֵת קוֹל הַשֹּׁפָר וְאֶת־הָהָר עָשֵׁן וַיַּרְא הָעָם וַיָּנֻעוּ וַיַּעַמְדוּ מֵרָחֹק. וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה דַּבֵּר־אַתָּה עִמָּנוּ וְנִשְׁמָעָה וְאַל־יְדַבֵּר עִמָּנוּ אֱלֹהִים פֶּן־נָמוּת” (שמות כ׳:ט״ו–ט״ז).

“All the people witnessed the thunder and lightning, the blare of the horn and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they fell back and stood at a distance. ‘You speak to us,’ they said to Moses, ‘and we will obey; but let not God speak to us, lest we die’” (Exodus 20:15–16).

Notice the text uses the same phrasing “וַיַּרְא” (and the people saw) and “וַיִּפְּלוּ” (they fell) as in this chapter. The use of the identical verbs must be intentional to link these two stories. At the time of the giving of the Ten Commandments, the people were not ready to witness ה׳’s glory. Instead, they recoiled in fear. Now, after the sin of the Golden Calf and the building of the Mishkan, the people are ready. Seeing ה׳ consume the offering of the calf as an atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf gave the people closure. This was ה׳’s way of accepting their remorse. The people no longer feared the miraculous fire from ה׳; they now embraced and praised ה׳.

“וַיִּצֹק מִשֶּׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה עַל־רֹאשׁ אַהֲרֹן וַיִּמְשַׁח אֹתוֹ לְקַדְּשׁוֹ” (ויקרא ח׳:י״ב).

He poured some of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head and anointed him, to consecrate him (verse 12). Chapter 8 of Leviticus is almost like the “ויקהל־פקודי” of the inauguration ceremony laid out by ה׳ at the end of Exodus. A key part of the ceremony is the pouring of the anointing oil on the vessels of the Mishkan, and most importantly, on Aaron’s head. The anointing oil acts as the link between the vessels and Aaron. Just like the vessels act as the conduit between the people and the service to ה׳, so too does Aaron.

Yaacov is the first person in Tanach to use oil as an anointing medium. In “וַיַּשְׁכֵּם יַעֲקֹב בַּבֹּקֶר וַיִּקַּח אֶת־הָאֶבֶן אֲשֶׁר־שָׂם מְרַאֲשֹׁתָיו וַיָּשֶׂם אֹתָהּ מַצֵּבָה וַיִּצֹק שֶׁמֶן עַל־רֹאשָׁהּ” (בראשית כ״ח:י״ח), he pours oil over the stones that acted as his resting place when he had the dream about the angels. Yaacov’s action is not mandated by ה׳ but is done spontaneously by Yaacov. Yaacov repeats this ceremony after speaking with ה׳ near Paddan-Aram.

Sforno gives two reasons for Yaacov’s actions in Genesis 28: either he poured the oil to set up the pillar as a future altar or he did so to recognize the spot when he returned later. The first answer is a clear link between the actions of Yaacov and the later actions of Moshe. It is possible that this answer is anachronistic and informed by what Moshe does, as the text does not provide any indication of how Yaacov knew to do this. The second answer describes the oil as a marker. In this reading, the anointing of the Mishkan and Aaron with the oil is a way for ה׳ to mark the vessels and the kohen as important focal points. The pouring of the oil on Aaron confers a special level of holiness as well. In two perakim, Aaron is told he cannot mourn for his sons and leave the Mishkan “וּמִפֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא תֵצְאוּ פֶּן־תָּמֻתוּ כִּי שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת ה׳ עֲלֵיכֶם” (ויקרא י׳:ז׳).

The Mishnah in Horayot 3:4 explains that a Kohen Gadol who was not anointed with the special oil cannot bring the special bull offering on Yom Kippur. The oil, therefore, had a significance that was lost when the oil itself ceased to be used. The kohanim were not the only ones anointed with the special oil. Later in the times of the kings, the oil is also used to anoint the king. Shmuel uses it to anoint Shaul and David in שמואל א׳ י׳ and ט״ז. After David is anointed, he immediately begins to tap into prophecy with ה׳.

The scientific properties of oil also make it ideal for special anointing ceremonies. 1. Viscosity and Molecular Structure: Viscosity is a measure of a fluid’s resistance to flow. Oils are generally more viscous than water or wine because: Oils are composed of long-chain fatty acids and triglycerides, which create stronger intermolecular forces (van der Waals interactions). Water and wine (mostly water + ethanol) have smaller molecules and weaker cohesive forces, so they flow easily and evaporate quickly.

2. Hydrophobic vs. Hydrophilic Oils are hydrophobic (repel water) and nonpolar, so they don’t mix with water and don’t evaporate easily. This makes oil ideal for lasting application—it clings to surfaces like skin or objects, forming a protective layer.

Water or wine, being polar, evaporates quickly and doesn’t adhere well to skin or porous materials. 3. Symbolic and Practical Effects Because oil spreads slowly and penetrates surfaces, it creates a visible sheen and a tactile sense of permanence.

In ancient rituals, this permanence symbolized enduring holiness and consecration.

Wine or water would drip off and disappear, lacking the same physical and symbolic staying power. 4. Aroma and Additives Anointing oils often contained fragrant compounds (like myrrh or cinnamon), which dissolve well in oil but not in water. This allowed oil to carry aromatic and preservative qualities, enhancing its sacred role.

“דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵייִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר כָּל־חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וְעֵז לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ” (ויקרא ז׳:כ״ג).
In the middle of discussing the sacrifices, the Torah takes a slight detour todiscuss the forbidden parts of animals—the fat and the blood. The fat and theblood are the parts of the korban that are sacrificed on the altar. The fatsare burned at the end of the day and the blood is sprinkled or poured on thealtar. Because these two parts of the sacrifices are exclusively for ה׳, they are forbidden for humanconsumption. The Tur, Yoreh Deah 64 explains that this verse, “דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר כָּל־חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וְעֵז לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ” (ויקרא ז׳:כ״ג),comes to teach that the fat is only prohibited on these kosher animals. Fat ofa non-kosher animal is simply prohibited as eating a non-kosher animal.

Another reason that blood isprohibited is presented later in Deuteronomy:
“רַק חֲזַק לְבִלְתִּי אֲכֹל הַדָּם כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ וְלֹא־תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם־הַבָּשָׂר” (דברים י״ב:כ״ה).
Meam Loez also points to a verse later in Leviticus:
“לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל־הַדָּם לֹא תְנַחֲשׁוּ וְלֹא תְעוֹנֵנוּ” (ויקרא י״ט:כ״ו).
The prohibition against divination shares the verse with the prohibitionagainst consuming blood to link the two. Blood was an important part of paganrituals. The prohibition against blood is another key demarcation between theholy sacrificial service and the idol worship of the gentiles. In modern times,divination from blood has extended to Elizabeth Holmes and her Therenousproject which claimed to be able to divine all diseases from the blood alone. Withthese two prohibitions, ה׳is further protecting the special sacred space of the korbanot by restrictingthe rituals from becoming a pagan free-for-all.