Chasidut su Levitico 22:16
וְהִשִּׂ֤יאוּ אוֹתָם֙ עֲוֺ֣ן אַשְׁמָ֔ה בְּאָכְלָ֖ם אֶת־קָדְשֵׁיהֶ֑ם כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה מְקַדְּשָֽׁם׃ (פ)
e così fanno sì che sopportino l'iniquità che genera colpa, quando mangiano le loro cose sante; poiché io sono il Signore che li santifico.
Kedushat Levi
Leviticus 22,16. “they would make themselves guilty by consuming their holy portions which they should be offering up to Hashem;” (the last three words are taken from the end of the previous verse.) [I am not certain that this is in the author’s manuscript, or an error by the printer or editor. Ed.]
Before proceeding, the reader should remember that in the previous verses non priests have been forbidden to consume certain sacred products such as the terumah from their grain harvest which is one of the gifts the Torah has designated for the priests and members of his household.
[Several editions of the Kedushat Levi have omitted this lengthy paragraph altogether. Ed.]
The word והשיאו in this verse is very difficult to understand. Rashi is hard pressed to give a satisfactory explanation.
We shall therefore attempt to give a satisfactory explanation of why G’d warned us not to consume terumah due to its being sacred. On the face of it, and in accordance with other similar situations, the very fact that it was sacred should have been the reason why it should have been permitted, especially, seeing that meat of the peace offerings, of a higher level of sanctity, is permitted for the non priest, owner of the animal that was offered to be eaten, he is not only commanded to eat it, but he is warned not to leave anything over after a specified period of time.
We will try to explain this by means of a parable. It is customary to bring to the palace of the King people who are intelligent and well mannered and project an image of being respected members of society. Such people are able, due to their genetic and educational background, to entertain the king and put him in a good mood if there is need for this. It is out of the question for the king’s advisors to entrust such tasks to someone lacking the qualities we have just described. While such unqualified people are tolerated by the king outside his palace, he would most certainly not welcome them in his palatial home. If his advisors would dare admitting uncouth people to his presence this would be considered as an unforgivable sin.
If the priests are admitted to the “King of Kings’” presence, the Temple, it is because they represent the elite of the King’s subjects. This is also why they were permitted to share the King’s “food,” i.e. part of the sacrificial meat offered at the king’s Table, the “altar.” None of the non-priests shared in these privileges, as they lacked the prerequisites necessary for keeping the King company. They were not allowed to eat of the kind of food served at the King’s table so that they should not embarrass the king by their lack of “table-manners.” If that were to happen, the resulting embarrassment to the “King” would be greater than that caused by these people’s absence from the King’s palace where their foolish acts did not disturb anyone.
Before proceeding, the reader should remember that in the previous verses non priests have been forbidden to consume certain sacred products such as the terumah from their grain harvest which is one of the gifts the Torah has designated for the priests and members of his household.
[Several editions of the Kedushat Levi have omitted this lengthy paragraph altogether. Ed.]
The word והשיאו in this verse is very difficult to understand. Rashi is hard pressed to give a satisfactory explanation.
We shall therefore attempt to give a satisfactory explanation of why G’d warned us not to consume terumah due to its being sacred. On the face of it, and in accordance with other similar situations, the very fact that it was sacred should have been the reason why it should have been permitted, especially, seeing that meat of the peace offerings, of a higher level of sanctity, is permitted for the non priest, owner of the animal that was offered to be eaten, he is not only commanded to eat it, but he is warned not to leave anything over after a specified period of time.
We will try to explain this by means of a parable. It is customary to bring to the palace of the King people who are intelligent and well mannered and project an image of being respected members of society. Such people are able, due to their genetic and educational background, to entertain the king and put him in a good mood if there is need for this. It is out of the question for the king’s advisors to entrust such tasks to someone lacking the qualities we have just described. While such unqualified people are tolerated by the king outside his palace, he would most certainly not welcome them in his palatial home. If his advisors would dare admitting uncouth people to his presence this would be considered as an unforgivable sin.
If the priests are admitted to the “King of Kings’” presence, the Temple, it is because they represent the elite of the King’s subjects. This is also why they were permitted to share the King’s “food,” i.e. part of the sacrificial meat offered at the king’s Table, the “altar.” None of the non-priests shared in these privileges, as they lacked the prerequisites necessary for keeping the King company. They were not allowed to eat of the kind of food served at the King’s table so that they should not embarrass the king by their lack of “table-manners.” If that were to happen, the resulting embarrassment to the “King” would be greater than that caused by these people’s absence from the King’s palace where their foolish acts did not disturb anyone.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy