Comentario sobre Levítico 22:15

'‎ולא יחוללו וגו‎‎ AND THEY SHALL NOT PROFANE [THE HOLY THINGS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] — by giving them to non-priests to eat of them.

AND THEY SHALL NOT PROFANE THE HOLY THINGS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — “by giving them to non-priests to be eaten.” 16. AND SO CAUSE ‘OTHAM’ (THEM) TO BEAR THE INIQUITY THAT BRINGETH GUILT. “[The word otham here means] ‘themselves,’ meaning that they [the priests) cause themselves to bear iniquity when they [the non-priests] eat the holy things which have been set aside as the heave-offering, and have become sanctified as such, and forbidden to them [the non-priests]. And Onkelos who rendered the verse: ‘when they [the priests] eat them in impurity’ has translated it so unnecessarily.”¹⁰⁵For since the preceding verse [14] speaks of a non-priest eating the heave-offering, it is logical to interpret Verse 16 before us as being an admonition to the priests against giving the heave-offering to be eaten by non-priests [as Rashi first interpreted the verse]. According to Onkelos’ interpretation, however, that it is an admonition to the priests that they themselves should not eat it when in a state of impurity, then it properly belongs in the section above. For this reason Rashi rejected Onkelos’ interpretation as “unnecessary,” meaning to say, that while it is of course true that the priests are not permitted to do so, it is unnecessary to derive this prohibition from our verse, as it may be derived by logical deduction from Verse 6 above, which states concerning a priest who has become defiled, he shall not eat of the holy things (Verse 4; Makkoth 14 b). Thus far is the language of Rashi, of blessed memory.
But I did not understand Rashi’s opinion. For it would appear from his words that this negative commandment constitutes a prohibition to the priests, that they are not to give the heave-offering to non-priests to eat of it. And if so, it would be fitting to explain [the word ‘otham’ in the phrase] and so cause ‘otham’ (them), as a pronoun for “Israel,” meaning that the priests will thereby burden the Israelites with the iniquity that beareth guilt, when they [the Israelites] eat the holy things! Why then did Rabbi Yishmael find it necessary to interpret the word otham [as a reflexive form], meaning “themselves” [as Rashi mentioned]? Besides, this negative commandment is not mentioned [specifically] in the Talmud, but instead the priest is forbidden to do so as is the case with all other prohibitions [where we are forbidden to help or cause another person to commit a transgression].¹⁰⁶See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 277-278. Rather, the explanation of the phrase the children of Israel [in Verse 15] is that it refers back to the beginning [part of that verse, thus making it as follows]: “and the children of Israel shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel which they set apart unto the Eternal,” the verse thus constituting a second admonition¹⁰⁷The first admonition is in Verse 10 here: There shall no common man eat of the holy thing. to the non-priest that he is not to eat of the holy things, [and the reason why it is repeated is] because He wanted to mention the punishment for the transgression thereof, stating and they will cause themselves to bear the iniquity etc. when they [the non-priests] will eat their holy things.
Now our Rabbis explained [that the reason for] the repetition of this admonition was to forbid the eating of tevel.¹⁰⁸Tevel is produce from which the heave-offering and the tithes have not been separated. Thus they have said:¹⁰⁹Sanhedrin 83 a. “Whence do we know that one who eats tevel is liable to death [by the hand of Heaven]? From the verse, And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel which ‘yarimu’ (they shall set apart) unto the Eternal. Now the verse refers to that which is yet to be offered [namely, the verse refers to the holy things — the heave-offering and the tithes — which are not yet set apart from the produce, so that it is all tevel];¹⁰⁸Tevel is produce from which the heave-offering and the tithes have not been separated. and then an identity of law is learned from the use of ‘profanation’ here and in the case of the heave-offering:¹¹⁰Reference is to Numbers 18:32: Ye shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, that ye die not. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II pp. 143-145, where this whole subject is discussed at length. [just as there the penalty is death by the hand of Heaven, so here too].”
However, in the Torath Kohanim I have found this text:¹¹¹Torath Kohanim, Emor 6:8-10. “And they shall not profane. This includes one who anoints himself with or drinks [oil of heave-offering].¹¹²In Tractate Niddah 32a this is explained as follows: “This includes a case where a non-priest anoints himself with the oil of heave-offering, so that he is as liable as if he had drunk it; but for drinking itself we need no verse to include it in the prohibition, since drinking is always included under the term of ‘eating.’” The holy things of the children of Israel. For the things [declared] holy by the children of Israel, [a non-priest who eats of them by mistake] is liable to pay the priest their value and the added fifth [in fruits], but for the things [declared] holy by non-Jews, he [a non-priest] is not liable to repay [the priest] their value and the added fifth.¹¹³In our Torath Kohanim, Emor 6:8-10, the reading is as follows: “For the holy things of the children of Israel, [a non-priest who eats of them by mistake] is liable to add a fifth [to the original value], but for the holy things of non-Jews, he is not obliged to pay the added fifth.” The original value he must of course repay, since they were not his. I might think that he is liable [to pay a fifth] for the heave-offering that is in the tevel¹⁰⁸Tevel is produce from which the heave-offering and the tithes have not been separated. [as will be explained further on]; Scripture therefore states, that which ‘yarimu’ (they will set apart) unto the Eternal. For that which has been set apart they are liable to pay [an added fifth], but they are not liable to pay [an added fifth] for the heave-offering in the tevel [which has not yet been set apart]. And so they will cause them to bear the iniquity that bringeth guilt. This teaches us that for eating tevel¹⁰⁸Tevel is produce from which the heave-offering and the tithes have not been separated. one is also punishable by death [by the hand of Heaven].” Now this [Beraitha of the Torath Kohanim] is not in accord with the way of the Gemara [mentioned above].¹¹⁴The discrepancies between the Gemara and the Torath Kohanim are as follows: (a) The Gemara interprets the verse, And they shall not profane etc. as referring to that which is yet to be offered [as explained above in the text], and the Torath Kohanim explained it to include anointing oneself with or drinking oil of heave-offering. (b) In the Gemara the Rabbis derived from the Scriptural use of the word yarimu (they shall set apart) in the future, that this establishes the prohibition against eating tevel [as explained in the text], while the Torath Kohanim interpreted it to teach that for the heave-offering in the tevel he does not pay a fifth, if he ate it in error. But I say that the inclusion of anointing and drinking [in the prohibition of our verse] is only a Scriptural support for a Rabbinic ordinance, since drinking is included in the term eating [and just as a non-priest is Scripturally forbidden to eat the heave-offering, so too he is Scripturally forbidden to drink it, without the necessity for a special inclusionary phrase], whilst anointing oneself with it is [only] prohibited by Rabbinic ordinance. It is so clearly explained in the Yerushalmi.¹¹⁵Yerushalmi, Maaser Sheini II, 1. And since He stated with reference to tevel,¹⁰⁸Tevel is produce from which the heave-offering and the tithes have not been separated. And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, because they are going to set aside a part thereof for the Eternal [as the future tense in the word yarimu — “they will set apart” — indicates], the Rabbis deduced from this that [only] the portion which is set apart [as the heave-offering] is called “holy”, and not the tevel. And if so, [eating tevel] is not included in the terms of the law, And if a man eat of ‘the holy’ thing through error, then he shall add its fifth to it,¹¹⁶Verse 14. so that he be liable to pay the additional fifth.¹¹⁷One might have thought that since tevel contains the heave-offering which will be set apart for the priest, a non-priest who eats it by mistake should therefore make restitution to the priest by giving him its value and an added fifth, just as if he had eaten separately heave-offering which has already been removed from the produce. To preclude us from such reasoning, Scripture states here that he does not have to pay the additional fifth. However, the Divine punishment for eating tevel is the same as for eating the heave-offering, as Ramban continues. It is for this reason that He teaches again, and so cause them to bear the iniquity that bringeth guilt, thereby teaching that eating tevel is also punishable by death [by the hand of Heaven], for it is the heave-offering in the tevel that is mentioned here. In brief, this verse speak of tevel and warns with reference to that which is yet to be offered in the future, according to the interpretation of our Rabbis.

ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל, “and they shall not desecrate the holies of the Children of Israel,” according to Rashi this is a warning not to feed any consecrated gifts to ordinary Israelites. [Verses 14,15, and 16 all speak of the same type of holy gifts, the first describes non priests eating such inadvertently, the second speaks of the same people eating same knowingly, the third speaks of priests feeding such to non priests not entitled to eat them. Ed]