פירוש על ויקרא 22:22

‎עורת is a noun denoting the blemish of blindness (עִוָּרֹן), being, however, a feminine form of the latter. The text therefore means that there shall not be the defect of blindness in it (in the sacrifice).

עורת או שבור, “blind or having a fractured limb.” Nachmanides writes that seeing the Torah had already listed the blind and broken limbs as disqualifying such an animal it did not have to lengthen the list of disqualifications. It is therefore quite possible that the whole list of disqualifications in our verse applies to the נדבה kind of vow, which was not intended as an offering on the altar in the first place, but was intended as a gift to the Temple treasury. The verse therefore has to be understood as telling us that all the blemishes listed are acceptable in a vow called נדבה, but are not acceptable in a vow called נדר.

[This is] the noun. Explanation: עורת is not the adjective of a female [noun], i.e., a blind animal, because [in] this whole subject [of blemishes, the adjectives are] expressed in the masculine form. Rather, it is a noun like ivaron (blindness), excepting that ivaron is a masculine term and עורת is a feminine term. It is as if the verse said, “The blemish of blindness shall not be in it” (Gur Aryeh). Gur Aryeh means that עורת cannot be the adjective of “animal,” because if so שבורה (broken-limbed) too should have been feminine. Rather it is a noun, like tzedakah and tzedek [righteousness] that both have the same meaning.

או שבור, “or broken;” just as we have the expression שבר יד, and ,שבר רגל, describing a broken hand or a broken foot as examples of blemishes seen by all, so here too it describes a very visible blemish due to a fracture of a bone, that is not visible to all as it his hidden by one’s clothing.

או שבור nor shall it be a broken animal.

נדבה תעשה אותו, “you may donate it under the heading of nedavah.” Rashi says that it may be donated to the Temple treasury.

It shall not be. Rashi does not write “it shall not have [the blemish of] broken-limbed” as he wrote concerning blindness, because שבור (broken-limbed) is an adjective, i.e., the sacrifice shall not be broken-limbed. Therefore it is suitable to write that “it shall not be” [broken-limbed]. But regarding the noun of עורון (blindness) it is suitable to write “It shall not have.” I.e., it shall not have the blemish of blindness.

חרוץ, “maimed,” as in Kings I 20,40: משפטך אתה חרצת, “you yourself have released (decreed) it.”

חרוץ CHAPPED — an eye-lid that is split or has a piece cut out of its edge; and similarly, its (the animal’s) lip that is split or has a piece cut out of its edge (Sifra, Emor, Section 7 12; Bekhorot 38a).

ולנדר לא ירצה, “but it is not welcome as a vow made under the heading נדר.” Animals with the above-mentioned blemishes are not acceptable as gifts for the altar. The expression ירצה is used to make plain that the Torah speaks about a gift vowed which by definition requires G’d’s goodwill, ירצה, in order to be acceptable. Nachmanides writes that in accordance with this interpretation we need to read the previous line as follows: נדבה תעשה אותו ולנדר, “you may vow it as either a נדבה according to the definition we mentioned, and as a נדר according to the definition we mentioned, i.e. personal responsibility, in the event it disappeared, etc., but, -and that is important- as a gift for the altar which requires goodwill by G’d, it is not welcome. In that respect it does not matter which formula the vow had been phrased as. Nothing that is blemished is acceptable as a gift for the altar. On the other hand, both types of vows if intended as gifts to the Temple treasury are acceptable in spite of the animals having the blemishes mentioned in the Torah. It is possible that we can understand the wording of the Torah as primarily thinking of the type of gift to the Temple treasury in terms of נדבה, because during the donations the Jewish people made prior to the building of the Tabernacle the Torah constantly referred to the generosity of the people’s hearts prompting them to make such gifts, terming them נדיב לבו, as emanating from the generosity of his heart. (Compare at length in Exodus chapters 25,35,36 where this word appears in this context repeatedly.) It is not mentioned in connection with animals but with lifeless objects, clearly unfit for the altar. Wherever the word נדבה without further adjective is mentioned, it refers to gifts to the Temple treasury. The very fact that we do not find the expression תקריב אותה, “you shall bring it near as a sacrifice,” mentioned in connection with נדבה, but only the words תביא אותה, “you shall bring it,” supports our theory.

A type of lichen. Why does Rashi explain here what he already explained by [in the section of] the blemishes of a kohein? Because since the Torah lists here blemishes that are not mentioned over there, one may have thought that these [too] are blemishes [sharing the same names] that were not mentioned there. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

יבלת, scabbed;

יבלת is called verrue in old French, (English = wart).

גרב is a kind of lichen and so too is ילפת. The word ילפת is connected in meaning with (Judges 16:29) “And Samson took hold (וילפת) [of the two middle pillars]”. The blemish is so called because it keeps its grasp on him (the sick person) until the day of his death, since there is no cure for it (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 21:20).

ואשה לא תתנו YE SHALL NOT MAKE A FIRE-OFFERING [OF THEM] — This contains the prohibition of burning them on the altar (Temurah 6b).

לא תקריבו YE SHALL NOT OFFER — Three times is the expression לא תקריבו used in this section (here and in v. 20 and 24), in order to lay down a separate prohibition regarding designating them (blemished animals) as sacrifices, slaughtering them and sprinkling their blood (cf. Temurah 6b).