Kommentar zu Wajikra 22:16

והשיאו אותם means, and they (the priests) would burden themselves with sin, באכלם את קדשיהם WHEN THEY (the non-priests) EAT THEIR HOLY THINGS which have been set apart for the purpose of heave-offering and have thereby become holy and forbidden to them. [Onkelos who translated באכלם את קדשיהם by “when they (the priests) eat them in their uncleanness” has translated it thus quite unnecessarily] (But cf. Rashi on Sanhedrin 90b).

והשיאו אותם עון אשמה, they themselves, when they declared the items in question (for instance t’rumah) as sacred cause themselves to become guilty in the event they would trespass and make profane use of them. The Torah does not allow you to apply the principle הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר, that just as one may declare something forbidden, the same person can also declare it as allowed. (D’mai,6,11) The reason why we cannot apply this principle in this case is אני ה' מקדשו, seeing that G’d Himself elevated this item to a status of holiness, a mere mortal, even the donor, cannot remove such sanctity at his own discretion.

והשיאו אותם עון אשמה, "and so cause them to bear the sin which brings guilt, etc." The meaning of the verse is that if the guilty person did not make restitution of both the value of the amount of holy things consumed plus the 20%, the parameter of the sin will grow wider so that it will be classified as if it had been committed intentionally (i.e. עון). The justification for this is that when one fails to correct a sin inadvertently committed although one has been given an opportunity to correct it, the original sin becomes so much more serious. The word והשיאו is equivalent to ינשאו "they will have to bear them;" הם i.e. the combined sins. The Torah adds: באכלם את קדשיהם, the sin will now be considered not merely failure to pay the penalty but it will be considered as if they had eaten their holy things on purpose. Compare my comments on the last verse.

באכלם, a reference to the non priests mentioned in verse 13.

והשיאו אותם עון אשמה, “and they would cause themselves to bear the sin of guilt.” They would bring the punishment of their guilt upon themselves, etc. Nachmanides writes that he has not understood the meaning of Rashi, whom he understands as saying that our verse is a warning for the priests not to give non priests to eat produce which had already been set aside as תרומה, the priest’s share of the farmer’s harvest. If that were so, the words there would not be needed to explain the wordsוהשיאו אותם עון, as applying to themselves, i.e. the people eating this תרומה, as the sin had been committed by the priests, and they would be the guilty ones, having burdened the ordinary Israelite consuming these קדשים, sacred things, with guilt. Furthermore, we do not find this prohibition Rashi speaks about being mentioned in the Talmud as a separate negative commandment, although misleading an Israelite into eating food forbidden to him because it is reserved for priests of their households, is of course, forbidden, no more and no less so than feeding the unsuspecting other categories of food which the Torah has placed out of bounds for the individuals it is given to. The proper meaning of our verse is that the verse is conceptually a continuation of verses 14 and 15 which are addressed to the Israelites and warn them not to eat such food that is described here as קדשים. The reason the legislation is repeated is to spell out that there is a punishment for disobeying it. According to our sages the punishment is even death at the hands of heaven, if the forbidden food is grain that has not been tithed, or harvest products, known as טבל. The reason is simple, and the word קדשים alludes to it. All טבל still contains the portion which was meant to be set aside as תרומה, sacred heave produce for the priest. (Midrash Hagadol Devarim, page 579)

And Onkelos who translated “in their eating, etc.” Explanation: Onkelos seems to think that “They shall not profane” refers to above [verse 2], “And let them keep away from the holy offerings of Bnei Yisroel.” I.e., they [kohanim] should be careful with terumah, not to profane it and thereby burden themselves with sin by eating it in impurity. Therefore, Rashi writes that this is unnecessary since it is possible to explain that “they shall not profane” refers to the prohibition not to of feeding it to non-kohanim. Re’m

.והשיאו אותם עון אשמם, “and so cause them to bear the guilt brought on by their iniquity.” This is a reference to the people who desecrated holy things by feeding them to non priests. They will have to bear the burden of their sin, not the people who ate them, who were unaware of their status as being holy.

והשיאו אותם — This (the word אותם) is one of the three cases of את with a pronominal suffix occurring in the Torah which R. Ishmael explained as speaking of (referring to) the person himself who is the subject of the sentence (i. e. as being reflexive and not accusative pronouns). In the same sense did he explain (Numbers 4:13) “[And this is the law of the Nazarite] when the days of his Nazaritehood are fulfilled, יביא אותו [to the entrance of the appointed tent]” as meaning: he shall bring himself (i. e. present himself) to the entrance etc. Similarly he explained (Deuteronomy 34:6) “ויקבור אותו in the glen” as meaning: he (Moses) buried himself (i. e. he went into a cave and died there cf. Avot 5:9 and יד משה on Shemot Rabbah 10). Thus is it explained in the Sifrei Bamidbar 32 (on Numbers 6:3).

את קדשיהם, T’rumah

את קדשיהם, ”their holy things.” This teaches that the farmers can give their t’rumah to any priest of their choosing.

מקדשם, “who sanctify them.” This refers to holy matters that had been sanctified by Israelites