פירוש על ויקרא 22:3

‎כל איש אשר יקרב WHOSOEVER HE BE THAT GOETH UNTO [THE HOLY THINGS… SHALL BE CUT OFF etc.] — This “approaching" unto the holy things signifies nothing else but eating of them. Similarly we find that the prohibition of eating holy things in a state of uncleanness is expressed by the term נגע, (which means, as does קרב, “approaching”): (Leviticus 12:4) “she shall approach near to nothing that is holy" — which is explained as a prohibition addressed to one who would eat of the holy things (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 12:4). And our Rabbis derived it (the fact that לא תגע means: she shall not eat) from a verbal analogy. It is indeed impossible to say that one is punishable for touching holy things in a state of uncleanness, because the penalty of excision for eating holy things in such a state is mentioned in the section commencing צו את אהרן (Leviticus 7:20, 21) — twice is the punishment of כרת mentioned there, one immediately after the other; and if one really becomes liable to punishment for the mere touching of holy things it is unnecessary to pronounce him liable to punishment for eating them! In this sense also is it (our passage) expounded in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 7): But is a priest who merely touches holy things when he is unclean really liable to the punishment of excision? Surely not, since Scripture expressly states in the following verse that an unclean priest who eats of the holy things is liable to excision and this latter statement would be unnecessary since eating without touching is impossible. But if this be so, why does Scripture use the term יקרב and not יאכל which means "eating”? It is in order to intimate that this law applies only when an unclean priest eats of it after it becomes fit לקרב, “to be offered” — that one does not become liable on account of his uncleanness until its מתירין (its “permitting portions”) have been offered, and he then eats of it. And if you ask, “Why are three mentions of the כרת-punishment (Leviticus 7:21 and here) necessary in respect to priestly uncleanness? then I reply, they have already been interpreted in Treatise Shevuot 7a, one as being intended as a generalisation, the other as a specification, etc. (see Rashi on Leviticus 7:20).

אמר אלהם, "say to them, etc." Torat Kohanim write that the people addressed in this verse were the ones standing at Mount Sinai. The author tried to answer why the Torah added the apparently superfluous words אמר אלהם seeing that the verse is a continuation of chapter 21 and the opening verses of this chapter. The previous directives had been addressed to the priests, so that this chapter is merely a continuation. If, on the other hand, this chapter is addressed to the Israelites at large, these had not even been mentioned in any of the adjoining verses! It follows therefore that it was addressed to all the people who had stood at Mount Sinai, the time they had become G'd's bride, so to speak. When the Torah does not bother to mention to whom the speaker addresses Himself, we may assume that the speaker is G'd Himself and that He speaks about the whole people. It follows that the retribution threatened in this paragraph for desecrating the holy name of G'd applies to all the people who had heard the revelation at Mount Sinai. [the word אלהם is therefore equivalent to עלהם. Ed.] You may well ask that if this is so why does the Torah in all other instances mention that the Israelites are addressed by writng such formulae as דבר אל בני ישראל, or something similar instead of merely writing אמר אלהם? Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 2,5 already answered this with a parable. A father had an only son and he always mentioned the fact that he was his son by saying to him: "eat my son, drink my son, etc. Similarly, G'd told Moses on an almost daily basis: 'Tell the Israelites, etc.' He mentions their name as a reminder of how fond He is of them." This kind of address is standard procedure in the Torah. Whenever the situation appears to allow for some additional message we endeavour to extract it from that text.

אשר יקרב, in order to eat.

From a gezeroh shovoh. This is according to our text. The text should be amended to read But “oOur sages actually learned it from a hekesh: Is then a kohein who [merely] touches [sacrificial flesh when he is unclean] liable [to koreis]? If so, etc., i.e., if he was liable for touching, the verse would not have to make him liable for eating. Therefore one has to say that the [words] “drawing near” [inof our verse] means “eating”. You might ask: Why not say that “draw near” means touching, and regarding your question that if so, the verses in [the parshah] Tzav es Aharon should not have mentioned eating, [you could answer] that the verses [there] neededs [to mention eating] as one might have said that we do not derive punishment from a kal vachomer. The answer is: We do not derive punishment from a kal vachomer only with regard to human punishments, but regarding Divine punishment, we derive punishment from a kal vachomer.

וטומאתו עליו means, AND THE MAN'S UNCLEANNESS IS UPON HIM (the first word meaning "and his uncleanness”). I might, however, think that Scripture is speaking of the flesh — "the uncleanness of the flesh is upon it” (the first word meaning “and its uncleanness, the word בשר being implied in the term הקדשים that precedes) and that Scripture is thus speaking of a clean person who ate holy things which have become unclean! You must needs admit that from what is implied in it (in the phrase) you must learn that Scripture is speaking of one whose state of uncleanness can fly (pass) away therefrom (since the phrase implies: “whilst the טומאה is still present", presupposing that there is a possibility of the טומאה passing away), and this can only refer to a human being who has a means of purification through immersion in a ritual bath whilst unclean food can never again become clean (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 8; Zevachim 43b).

Unless that which makes it permissible is offered. Meaning, he is not liable unless they offered that which permits the sacrifice to be eaten. I.e., [the burning of] the fat and the sprinkling of the blood.

ונכרתה [THAT SOUL] SHALL BE CUT OFF — I might think that this implies merely that he will be removed from one region (lit., side) to another region — that he will be cut off from his native place but may settle down in another place! Scripture however states, “[that soul shall be cut off from My presence] I am the Lord” — I am everywhere (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 6; cf. Rashi on Exodus 12:15.)

And if you say: Why are there three kerisos. Rashi is saying as follows: I explained earlier, “Since koreis is mentioned regarding eating in [the parshah] Tzav es Aharon: Two kerisos are [mentioned] next to one each another, and if he is liable, etc.” This implies that the [word] koreis here too is also speaking about eating. But if so, the question is even greater — why mention three kerisos? Why does Rashi only ask this question here, after explaining that the drawing near means eating? The answer is: Had he not said this, he could have answered that the three kerisos are [necessary], one to prohibit eating, one to prohibit touching, and one koreis for someone who eats it before that which makes it permissible has been offered. But now that Rashi explained that one is not liable for touching, but only liable after that which makes it permissible is offered, the question arises: why are three kerisos mentioned?

Passes away from him. Since the verse writes “on him,” this implies that the impurity is still on him as he has not yet become purified. Because if it referred to the meat which cannot be purified in a mikveh, the verse should have said “and it is impure” implying that it cannot be purified from its impurity.