פירוש על ויקרא 7:20

וטמאתו עליו [BUT THE SOUL THAT EATETH OF THE FLESH OF THE SACRIFICES …] HAVING ITS (or HIS) UNCLEANNESS UPON IT (or HIM) — Scripture is speaking here of the uncleanness of the person (i.e., the words mean: And the soul (person) that eateth of the flesh of the שלמים whilst his uncleanness is upon him; it does not mean: the person who eateth the flesh whilst its uncleanness is upon it) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 14 3; Zevachim 43b; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 22:3). But a clean person who eats unclean sacrificial flesh is not punished with excision, as is the case here, but only for transgressing the prohibition in v. 19:“And the flesh, that toucheth any unclean thing [shall not be eaten]”, for which the punishment is lashes. The prohibition referring to the case of “an unclean person who eats holy things” for which our text states the punishment is not expressly mentioned in the Torah but the Sages derived it by means of a verbal analogy (ג"ש) (Makkot 14b). — Three times is the punishment of excision stated in the Torah with reference to people eating holy sacrifices in a state of bodily uncleanness, (here, in v. 21 and in Leviticus 22:3), and our Rabbis explained them in Treatise Shevuot 7a as follows: one is intended as a general statement, the other as referring to a particular case and the third is intended to teach about the קרבן עולה ויורד (the sacrifice of higher or lesser value according to monetary circumstances of him who offers it; Leviticus 5:2, 3), that it is prescribed only as an atonement for communicating uncleanness to the Temple or sacred food by entering the former or eating the latter in a state of uncleanness (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 22:3 and Note thereon).

ונפש אשר תאכל בשר וטומאתו עליו, And a person who eats of sacrificial meat….while he is ritually unclean, etc. Both this and the following verse are interpreted by Torat Kohanim as speaking of personal ritual impurity [as opposed to the meat having become impure, as suggested by the masculine pronoun עליו which does not fit the subject נפש which is feminine. Ed.]. Zevachim 43 states that any verse which has not been interpreted by Rabbi Yitzchak son of Avdimi in this fashion cannot be interpreted in this way. Rabbi Yitzchak son of Avdimi had stated that only if a verse commences with a subject which is feminine and concludes with a subject which is feminine and in between we encounter a masculine pronoun may we interpret that the masculine pronoun refers to the original subject and not to the object which is masculine. Rashi explains that seeing that the verse following displays the same pattern and it is clear in that verse that the person who is the subject of the word ואכל, "and he eats," is a human being, verse 20 must be understood in the same sense. Rashi's words help us understand why the word וטומאתו "while he is impure," do not have to refer to the word בשר, which is the only masculine noun in that verse seeing that we thought that the laws about the meat being impure had already been concluded as Rashi explained in his commentary in Zevachim 43 where the verse is examined.

Bodily uncleanness. We derive a gezeiroh shovoh from the words טומאתו טומאתו: It is written here: “וטומאתו עליו, (while his uncleanness is yet on him),” and it is written there in Parshas Parah (Bamidbar 19:13): “עוד טומאתו בו (and his uncleanness remains upon him).” Just as there it refers clearly to impurity of the person (ibid.): “Whoever touches a corpse,” so too, here, it refers to impurity of the person. Rashi explains the later phrase: “וטומאתו עליו,” before he explains the preliminary [point]: “The warning for an unclean person who ate clean [sacrificial meat], etc.” because at first I might think that “וטומאתו עליו” refers to impure meat, and if so, it has a warning from the strength of the verse (19): “The flesh [of offerings] that will touch [any unclean thing may not be eaten],” and the punishment from the strength of this verse: “while his uncleanness is yet on him, [that person’s soul] shall be cut off.” [It is a generally accepted rule in regard to prohibitions and punishments in Vayikro that every punishment must be accompanied by a warning in another verse]. However, now that he explains that “וטומאתו עליו” refers to bodily uncleanness, it only speaks here of a warning for the meat’s uncleanness and the punishment for bodily uncleanness. The warning [for bodily uncleanness], though, is from the strength of the gezeiroh shovoh. That is: here it is written טומאתו, and [it also says טומאתו] by an impure person who enters the Beis HaMikdash, concerning which it states a warning and punishment. Thus, here, too, it has a warning. Afterwards, Rashi raises the difficulty: If so, why does it need to mention כרת again regarding bodily uncleanness? [He answers:] There are three כריתות (Divrei Dovid). אתו here has a warning.

וטומאתו עליו, “while he is still ritually unclean;” Rashi explains here that we did not find a specific warning that ritually unclean people must not eat sacrificial meat, (although the penalty has been spelled out, something most unusual) but that it can be derived from a גזרה שוה, when two laws contain similar expressions to clarify each other. In this instance we find three times that the Torah decrees the karet penalty for people eating sacrificial things while in a state of physical ritual impurity. (Compare Talmud tractate Shavuot, folio 7 where the three verses are spelled out) [Our author devotes a whole page to this complicated manner of deriving such laws by linking it to the written Torah. Since, unfortunately, the subject is not applicable until we will have a Temple again I have decided to delete these details. Ed.]

Not explicitly mentioned. Rashi is answering what you might ask: There is no punishment [for a prohibition] unless there is a warning [in the Torah]! Therefore, he explains: “[The warning...] is not explicitly [mentioned in the Torah].”

Torat Kohanim also cites a gezeyrah shavah comparing the word טומאתו, mentioned here with the word טומאתו mentioned in Numbers 19,13. However, I have decided to concentrate on the reason the Torah saw fit to contravene the rules of grammar in our two verses. If the Torah had simply written the word וטומאתה in verse 20 instead of writing וטומאתו, we would not have had to resort to the exegetical use of the gezeyrah shavah in Numbers 19,13 at all. Also, why did the Torah not write verse 21 in a more straighforward manner?

I believe that when the Torah wrote וטומאתו עליו in verse 20, it wanted to teach us something different altogether. The words refer to someone who had already undergone the purification process of seven days for someone who has become impure through contact with the dead, but had not yet experienced sunset on his seventh day; alternatively, it may refer to a person impure through contact with some kind of four-legged creeping animal who has not yet undergone ritual immersion. It is important to appreciate that such residual impurity as we have just mentioned is not so serious that it affects the soul of the person concerned. It is more like a veil of impurity which envelops only the outside of the body of a person. This is the reason why ritual immersion is sufficient to remove the last vestiges of such impurity although for the previous seven days such a ritual immersion would have been quite ineffective seeing the impurity had penetrated also the inside of the body. When the Torah wrote והנפש אשר תאכל…וטומאתו עליו, it informed us that not only is someone guilty of the Karet penalty when the impurity he is suffering from is עליה, envelops his soul, but even if the impurity has already been reduced to a state where it is only עליו on the outside of his body, the same penalty still applies if he eats sacrificial meat before having become totally pure. Similar considerations apply to someone who has not yet shed the relatively lighter impurity absorbed through his having contacted a dead creeping animal.

Three כריתות. One in Parshas Emor (22:3): “any person of your offspring who will draw near to the holy things ... [while his impurity is on him, that soul shall be cut off].” The Gemara says in Zevachim Chapter 4 that when it says “who will draw near” it refers to eating: What does it mean, “who will draw near”? It is said concerning something that is fit to be brought near [the altar]. And how is that so? Because it had already been consecrated in a holy vessel. The other two כריתות are mentioned in Parshas Tzav (v. 20): “The person who eats of the flesh of the peace-offering,” and the next verse (v. 21) reads: “A person who touches anything unclean.” Concerning both of these it says: “[that person’s soul] shall be cut off.” [Rashi explains:] “One is [to teach] a general rule” — meaning: The one [in Parshas Emor]: “to the holy things,” which includes everything. One from the two mentioned in Parshas Tzav [teaches the rule regarding] a particular case. This is a rule [handed down at Sinai as a method of expounding the Torah] explained in Toras Kohanim, in the beginning of the sefer: Something that was included in a general rule, and [then] was singled out from that rule to teach, was not singled out to teach only about itself, but rather to teach about that entire general rule. How is that so? [Peace-offerings need not have been mentioned separately:] “The person who eats of the flesh of the peace-offering, etc.” since peace-offerings were included in the general category of “to the holy things.” Why then, did they depart [as a separate category here]? To compare to them — just as peace-offerings are special in that they are brought to the altar, so too, anything else that is brought to the altar [is included in the punishment of כרת]. This excludes animals dedicated to the Temple upkeep that one is not liable to the punishment of כרת [if he eats their flesh] while in a state of impurity.

Why then does the Torah use the masculine form ואכל in the middle of verse 21, when the correct term would have been ואכלה seeing that I could not have mistaken its meaning and it would have been so much simpler to have a uniform text in both of these verses? I believe that the reason the Torah chose to write נפש כי תגע, a feminine way of describing the contact instead of writing איש כי יגע the parallel masculine form, is to inform us that such contact with the source of impurity had to be intentional not merely accidental in order for the person to become culpable of the penalty mentioned. The word נפש alludes to such an intentional act. This is also the reason why the Torah chose the word נפש instead of איש in verse 20. The word איש would not have conveyed the fact that the act was committed intentionally. Keeping in mind the thought that the word נפש alludes to the awareness of the sinner of what he is doing will help us understand the recurrent use of the word נפש in chapter four and five which deals with inadvertently committed sins. This word explains the need for the sinner to offer sin-offerings or guilt-offerings in those situations. Had the sinner been totally unaware of committing a wrong the Torah would not have required these offerings from him so that he could atone for his mistakes. We may summarise that the word נפש indicates that the person who committed the trespass cannot claim unawareness of doing something wrong. In our two verses here the word נפש implies that the guilty party was aware of touching something he should not have touched (verse21) or he was aware that he ate something he should not have eaten (verse 20). We cannot therefore question why the Torah used a masculine term in the middle of both verses as there was no need to depart from the norm in describing the perpetrator of the sin as being a male. The reason the Torah wrote ונכרתה הנפש ההיא, "this soul will be exterminated," is to teach us that G'd will not only punish the body of the sinner by premature death or something like it, but that He will also punish his soul by death.

And one to teach regarding a sliding-scale sacrifice. As it is written in Parshas Vayikro (5:2): “and this [impurity] was concealed from him, he is impure and incurs guilt.” We would not know why he incurs guilt. Could it be that because he was impure he should incur guilt and bring a sliding-scale sacrifice? Therefore, this [third] כרת was made available to teach that [the sliding-scale sacrifice] comes to atone for this כרת, referring to [a person in the state of impurity who ate] sacrificial meat. [However,] if this does not refer to sacrificial meat [eaten by a person] in [the state of] impurity [then it should be used to teach something else]. [It is not needed] because it is [already] derived from a gezeiroh shovoh: Regarding the sliding-scale sacrifice it is written (ibid.): “or the carcass of an impure animal of pasture,” and it says concerning one who eats sacrificial meat in the state of bodily uncleanness in Parshas Tzav (v. 21): A person who touches [anything unclean] ... or an impure animal ... and then eats some flesh [of the peace-offering].” Just as later on [in Parshas Tzav] it refers to sacrificial meat in impurity, so too, here, [regarding the sliding-scale sacrifice] it refers to sacrificial meat in impurity. Thus, [since it is not needed for this], it should be used to teach about one who enters the Temple in impurity.

In addition to the approach of our sages in the Talmud, we may find still another reason to justify the repetition of our verses by referring to the Mishnah in Zevachim 106. We learn there that a person who is ritually impure and eats sacrfificial meat is guilty regardless of whether that meat had already been defiled or not. Rabbi Yossi Haglili disagrees saying that if said meat had already been defiled, the person who ate it is not guilty. In discussing this problem on folio 108, the Talmud concludes that if the person became defiled before the meat became defiled there is a concensus that the person who ate from that meat is guilty. The disagreement between the majority opinion and Rabbi Yossi Haglili concerns only a situation when the meat became defiled before the person eating it became impure. This is why the Torah had to write two verses The first verse i.e. והנפש אשר תאכל describes a situation in which a person who is ritually unclean ate sacrificial meat of a peace-offering which was ritually pure; the second verse which writes ואכל מבשר זבח השלמים, speaks of a ritually impure person who ate sacrificial meat which had already become defiled. Perhaps the reason the Torah described the meat in the first verse as תאכל בשר מזבח שלמים, meat of a peace-offering, is that the meat in question had not yet become defiled; in the following verse the Torah changed this description by writing מבשר זבח שלמים, meaning the meat was of a category which qualifies as a meat-offering, but it had been defiled in the meantime and does no longer qualify for being eaten. It is no longer בשר שלמים. The letter מ in the word מבשר indicates that it is no longer wholly a meat-offering, זבח שלמים. The letter מ is therefore not exegetically available for some other למוד, halachah, to be derived from it.