Commento su Levitico 19:8

ואכליו עונו ישא THEREFORE EVERYONE THAT EATETH IT SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY — Scripture is speaking here of flesh actually left unburnt on the third day (so that this verse must be connected with v. 6, and not with v. 7) since one is not liable to excision for eating that which was slaughtered with the intention to eat its flesh outside the prescribed place (of which v. 7 is speaking), because Scripture has already excluded such a case from the penalty of excision (cf. Rashi v. 7). This verse must therefore be speaking of actual נותר. In Treatise Keritot 5a they (our Rabbis) derived it (the fact that v. 8 refers back to נותר in 5:6) from a verbal analogy.

ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מעמיה and this person (soul) will be cut off from its people. We must explore the reason why the penalty for a priest who eats sacrificial meat after the time the Torah allocated for it is so severe. Why is this sin worse than eating all kinds of animals which were not allowed to be consumed at any time, such as creeping things, certain kinds of grasshoppers, or even mammals which died of natural causes or were found to be diseased? You should know that the reason is connected to what we learned in Baba Metzia 114 that the corpse of an Israelite confers ritual impurity on people under the same roof, whereas the corpse of a pagan does not. In other words, the bodies of Israelites are of a higher level of sanctity (while alive) than are the bodies of pagans. Once the sanctity departs from the body of the Jew when he dies, this is replaced by all kinds of spiritually negative phenomena. This accounts for the fact that the difference between a live Jew and a dead Jew is far greater than the difference between a live pagan and a dead pagan. No sanctity departed from the pagan when he died, hence no additional קליפות, spiritually negative forces, will invade that body. The same principle operates in connection with the legislation in our verse. The parts of the animal offered on the altar have enjoyed a higher status than any other animal dead or alive, seeing the remains of this animal have been considered fit to be offered up in holy precincts, an area that most Israelites are not allowed to enter either dead or alive. As soon as the time allocated for these parts to be eaten has elapsed the animal forfeits all the holiness it possessed and this is replaced in turn by spiritually negative forces, just as in the case of the body of a Jew who has died. These forces of טומאה which have now invaded the remains of that animal cause the premature death, etc. of the priest who will eat these parts belatedly. None of the other animals which the Torah has outlawed for consumption by Jews had ever been imbued with any sanctity so that this could have been replaced upon its death by spiritually negative forces which would represent mortal danger to a Jew eating such an animal. Any negative influences a Jew absorbs when he eats these forbidden animals can be expunged by the sinner receiving corporal punishment, מלקות.

[The verse speaks] of absolute נותר. Rashi is answering the question: Since verse 7 which states, “And if it should be eaten at all,” is speaking of someone having the thought of outside its place and he does not incur the punishment of koreis, how can Scripture write “Whoever eats from it shall bear his iniquity,” which implies that he does have the punishment of koreis? He answers: “This verse speaks of absolute נותר.”

'כי את קודש ה, “for he defiled something that had been sacred to the Lord.” Once the parts that were destined for the altar have been presented the remainder of the meat is of a holy character. (Ibn Ezra)

[Our Rabbis] derived it from a גזירה שוה. It says here, “Whoever eats from it shall bear his iniquity,” and elsewhere in parshas Tzav (7:18) it says “Anyone who eats of it shall bear [the burden of] its iniquity.” Just as there it speaks of absolute נותר, so here it speaks of absolute נותר.

The reason the Torah gives for the harsh penalty "that he (the priest) has defiled something that is sacred," appears to mean that the Torah is concerned with the status of the remains of the animal; according to our approach, however, it seems to indicate that G'd is very concerned with the sacred status of the priest. The Torah does not want the priest to jeopardise his status. Possibly, the fact that peace-offerings are not complete until the priests had consumed their portions, is the reason why the Torah had to be very blunt in outlawing eating any of that sacrificial meat after the deadline, even if, as a result of the priest not having eaten all of it on time some of it became נותר.