Kommentar zu Wajikra 22:2

וינזרו THAT THEY KEEP AWAY [FROM THE HOLY THINGS etc.] — The term נזר always denotes “keeping aloof". Similarly it is said (Ezekiel 14:7) "and he separates himself (וינזר) from following Me”; (Isaiah 1:4) "They are gone away (נזורו) backward”. The meaning of this verse therefore is: they (the priests) shall keep aloof from the holy things during the time of their uncleanness (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 1).

SPEAK UNTO AARON AND TO HIS SONS, THAT THEY SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM THE HOLY THINGS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND THAT THEY PROFANE NOT MY HOLY NAME, WHICH THEY HALLOW UNTO ME. “Transpose the verse⁸¹There are three phrases here in the order they are written in the verse: 1. that they separate themselves, from the holy things of the children of Israel. 2. and that they profane not My holy Name. 3. which they hallow unto Me. Now since the sense of the verse is that when the priests are in a state of impurity, they are to separate themselves from the holy things which the Israelites have hallowed to G-d’s Name, such as the offerings and the heave-offering, etc., then phrase 3 should follow phrase 1, since the word “they” (in phrase 3) refers back to “the children of Israel” at the end of phrase 1. In other words, since the word “they” in phrase 3 means “the children of Israel” mentioned in phrase 1, and the word “they” in phrase 2 definitely means “the priests,” why did Scripture place phrase 2 between phrases 1 and 3, which both refer to the children of Israel? Therefore Rashi, by way of interpretation, transposed the phrases to be read in this order: 1, 3, 2. This transposed order is followed in the J.P.S. translation. and interpret it thus: ‘that they [the priests when in a state of impurity] separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, which they [the children of Israel] hallow unto Me, and that they [the priests] profane not My holy Name.’ Which they hallow unto Me, this comes to include things hallowed by the priests themselves.” This is Rashi’s language.
But if we explain which they hallow unto Me as referring to [the things] which the priests themselves hallow, then there is no need for this transposition!⁸²Ramban’s point is as follows: As long as we interpreted the verse as referring only to the holy things which the children of Israel have hallowed, it was necessary to transpose the phrases, as explained above. But if, as Rashi now suggests, the verse speaks of two kinds of hallowed things — those hallowed by Israelites and those made holy by the priests — then the word “they” in phrase 3 (see Note 81) no longer refers back to “the children of Israel” in phrase 1, and there is no need to transpose the order of the phrases! Hence the last sentence in Rashi contradicts his previous explanation! Rather, [according to this final interpretation mentioned by Rashi, the whole verse can be explained in the order it is written without transposing the phrases, in the following way:] Scripture is stating: “that they [the priests] separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they [the priests] profane not by means of them [i.e., the holy things] My holy Name [through eating them in a state of impurity], and that which they [the priests themselves] hallow unto Me” [they should also not profane], meaning that they [the priests] should not profane the holy things which Aaron and his sons themselves hallow unto Me [and thus there is no need for transposing the verse.]! And in the Torath Kohanim it is interpreted as follows:⁸³Torath Kohanim, Emor 4:1. “That they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel. For the holy things of the children of Israel [the priests] are liable to punishment for [eating] pigul,⁸⁴“Pigul means an offering which has been rendered unfit through certain improper intentions at the time it was slaughtered or offered, namely if the ministering person had in mind to eat it, or to burn upon the altar the parts that must be burnt, after the expiration of the prescribed time” (“The Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 121). See there for the whole commandment about the prohibition of eating pigul. nothar,⁸⁵Nothar is meat of offerings which is left over beyond the time assigned for its consumption. See ibid., pp. 119-120, about this prohibition of eating nothar. or when in a state of impurity, but they are not liable for [eating] pigul, nothar, or when in a state of impurity if they are holy things of non-Jews.⁸⁶A non-Jew could bring a burnt-offering (Chullin 13 b). See also “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 74. The holy things of the children of Israel. From this I would only know that [the priests when in a state of impurity are not to eat of] the holy things of the children of Israel. How do I know [that this prohibition applies also to] the holy things which they themselves have hallowed? From the expression, which they hallow unto Me, which includes all of them” [even those of the priests themselves]. But there [in the Torath Kohanim] no mention is made at all of a transposition of the verse [as Rashi said]! And by the way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], which they hallow unto Me, I am the Eternal means that the priests are not to profane the Name which is hallowed to Him,⁸⁷“Him.” In Abusaula’s commentary on Ramban, the word is: “Me.” This follows the language of the verse: which they hallow unto ‘Me.’ since His Name is upon the Sanctuary of the Eternal [and therefore they should not cause My Presence to depart therefrom when they profane the holy things].⁸⁸Abusaula. I have already alluded to this in the section of ‘V’yikchu Li Terumah’ (And they take for Me an offering).⁸⁹Exodus 25:2. Ramban’s explanation is found there in Verse 3.

וינזרו מקדשי בני ישראל, they should not think that the senior among them may treat the sacrifices donated by the people as if they were secular in nature as far as they were concerned. We are familiar with the principle alluded to here by the Torah from Moed Katan 16 מנודה לתלמיד אינו מנודה לרב, “if something is legally out of bounds to the student this does not automatically mean that it is equally out of bounds to the student’s teacher.” (although if the situation is reversed what is out of bounds to the teacher is most certainly also forbidden to the student. ולא יחללו את שם קדשי אשר הם מקדישים לי. They shall not desecrate the things the ordinary Jews have sanctified for Me, which now bear My holy name.

וינזרו, they are to abstain from eating sacred sacrificial meat while in a state of ritual impurity.

ולא יחללו את שם קדשי, “so as not to desecrate My holy Name.” According to Rashi the verse is truncated and the clause “by performing their Temple duties in an inappropriate state of purity,” are missing. Nachmanides does not consider that there was any need for these words, as the words אשר הם מקדישים, are quite adequate to make the meaning of the verse crystal clear. He explains that the words ולא יחללו את שם קדשי clearly refer to animal and animal parts that these priests had previously sanctified for use on the altar. Why else would the Torah have to add the words: אשר הם מקדישים לי, “which they are sanctifying for Me?”

Reverse the verse. I.e., “And let them keep away from the holy offerings of Bnei Yisroel which they sanctify for Me.” But not as the verse is written. If you do not reverse the verse, and “which they sanctify for Me” is written after “and they shall not profane,” and “which they sanctify for Me” comes “to include the holy offerings of the kohanim themselves,” as Rashi soon explains, the verse would be unclear. Because we could explain that the negative command of “and they shall not profane” also refers to “which they sanctify for Me [i.e., the sacrifices of the kohanim].” On the other hand [we could explain that] if “which they sanctify to Me” refers [only] to “I am Hashem,” and that the verse means as follows: “And let them keep away from the holy offerings of Bnei Yisroel and they shall not profane My holy name.” However, regarding those “which they sanctify for Me [i.e., the kohein’s own sacrifices], I am Hashem,” [ready] to punish them, but they will not transgress [the negative command of] “they shall not profane, etc.” (Re’m). But I discovered in a corrected text that the words “another alternative interpretation” in Rashi’s text above [in the text of Sifsei Chochomim, the words “another alternative interpretation” appeared just before our current Rashi], are a copyist’s error and one should move the words “another alternative interpretation” below. And this is the [correct] text: “They shall separate [themselves] from holy things in the days of their impurity. ’And let them keep away from the holy offerings, etc., and not profane My Holy Name.’ Reverse the verse and expound it. An alternative interpretation. ’Which (they sanctify for Me), etc.’.” I heard that this [alternative interpretation] should be explained as follows: According to the first interpretation, Rashi is explaining that [the phrase] “And let them keep away from the holy offerings of Bnei Yisroel” refers to days when [a kohein] is impure. But according to the alternative interpretation where Rashi explains “They shall separate themselves” [in a new way], he means that the verse [“which they sanctify for Me”] is referring to an animal that was sanctified for a sacrifice. The kohanim are commanded not to not eat them but to offer them on the altar. [The verse says this] so that you do not say, since sacrifices are permitted to kohanim after their organs [of the animal] have been sacrificed, if so, once an animal has been sanctified, it too should be permitted [immediately]. Therefore the Torah commands against this. This is why Rashi reverses the verse and expounds it as if it is written, “And let them keep away from the holy offerings of Bnei Yisroel, which they sanctify for Me,” so that [according to the alternative interpretation, the verse] is referring to a person declaring [that an animal is] sanctified [as an offering, and is commanding the kohanim not to not eat such an animal before it is sacrificed].

ולא יחללו את שם קדשי, “so that they will not profane My holy Name.” The whole purpose of a sacrificial offering is to honour My holy name; anyone presenting such while in a state of ritual impurity will desecrate it instead of honouring it.

וינזרו מקדשי בני ישראל אשר הם מקדשים לי. ולא יחללו את שם קדשי — Invert the words of the verse in the order here set forth and explain it accordingly.

אשר הם מקדישים, “which they are sanctifying;” and do not profane. The heading of this verse applies to both My holy name and the offerings sanctified in its honour.

"Lest they profane" - I saw that Rashi wrote: "Invert the order of the words of the verse and explain it accordingly", (Ed. Note the word דרש in original Rashi) but I do not understand why he has not followed the simple reading: "Lest they profane My holy name" - [After the fact that] they sanctify me through their prayers and sacrifices, and if they were to touch the holy sacrifices when they were impure they would be desecrating my holy name and all their worship would be in vain. This explains the depth of Isaiah's complaints when he says, "[Woe is me; I am dead! ...] I live among a people of unclean lips; [yet] my own eyes have beheld [the King] Lord of Hosts" (Isaiah 6:5) and he fears for his life (see Rashi there).

אשר הם מקדשים לי WHICH THEY HALLOW UNTO ME — This is intended to include in the prohibition the holy things of the priests themselves (i. e. הם refers to אהרן ובניו not to ‎‎בני ישראל‎) (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 1).