A beautiful rule of grammar discovered by the great Malbim is that there are two words for it in Hebrew
• Aleph Tauv Vav (Otho) means only it and connotes limitation
• A terminal suffix vav means it
The examples below illustrate usage and connotation of Aleph Tauv Vav

• Verse Lv01-06b states And he shall flay the burnt-offering, and cut only it into its pieces. Rashi: The priest only cuts the offering but does not cut the cuts since the verse explicitly says cut only it
• Verse Lv02-06a states Thou shalt break only it in pieces, and pour oil thereon; it is a meal-offering. Rashi: The priest only breakes the matzoh offering but does not further break the broken pieces again since the verse explicitly says break only it
• Verse Lv20-05b discussing the punishment of a person who worshipped idols states then I will set My face against that man, and against his family, and will cut only him off, and all that go astray after him, to go astray after Molech, from among their people. Rashi: Although God places His Face against the person and his family nevertheless God only cuts him off, but not his family, since the verse explicitly says I will only cut him off.

We can slightly generalize the Malbim's principle as follows: Any extra pronoun, or, full-word pronoun, when a suffix suffices, indicates emphasis and can be translated using the word only.

We can apply this principle to verse Lv06-02: Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the Torah of the up-offering: It is the up-offering which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby. Any good high school student will recognize the underlined pronoun it as unnecessary (You just stated the noun why introduce a pronoun immediately after it). The verse reads quite smoothly, perhaps smoother, without the word it: Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the Torah of the up-offering, which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby.

Applying our principle that unnecessary pronouns should be translated with the word only we would translate Lv06-02 as follows: Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the Torah of the up-offering: Only It is the up-offering which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby.

In our article Biblical Formatting located on the world wide web at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/biblicalformatting.pdf, we have explained that such verses should be seen as indicating unspecified emphasis. That is, the word only certainly creates emphasis. But we don't know what is being emphasized, that is, the emphasis is non-specific. Note that while the interpretation of the verse as indicating unspecified emphasis is the simple intended meaning of the verse, the application of this unspecified emphasis to something particular is exegetical and must be derived. The Talmudic Rabbis traditionally interpret an unspecified emphasis as the worst case. Hence the Rashi comment: If bestiality has been committed with the animal then even if it was inadvertently placed on the altar it must be taken down since only it - that is, only a proper up offering may be offered on the altar. Here Rashi interprets only it to refer back to the up offerings which have been done according to all requirements in the text.

Advanced Rashi: There is a big literature on whether Rashi indicates the simple meaning of the text, intrinsic to it, or whether the Rashi comments are ways of pegging oral laws on to the text. Our position is that very often Rashi comments are reasonable interpretations of unpsecified emphasis. The unspecified emphasis is real and intrinsic to the text but its application to specific contexts is not in the text but a reasonable approach to the unspecified emphasis.

Thus here the Bible is talking about an up offering. The Bible then says only this up offering is offered on the altar fire all night. The Talmudic Rabbis interpret the unspecified emphasis of the underlined word only as referring to only up offerings done according to proper procedure. The Rabbis then delimit only the worst possible case where the animal committed bestiality. Such an animal cannot go up on the altar nor remain there if it inadvertently already went up.

I believe the above approach to Rashi, interpretation of unspecified emphasis, makes Rashis very palatable.