Bibbia Ebraica
Bibbia Ebraica

Commento su Levitico 21:22

לֶ֣חֶם אֱלֹהָ֔יו מִקָּדְשֵׁ֖י הַקֳּדָשִׁ֑ים וּמִן־הַקֳּדָשִׁ֖ים יֹאכֵֽל׃

Può mangiare il pane del suo Dio, sia dei più santi, sia dei santi.

Rashi on Leviticus

מקדשי הקדשים OF THE MOST HOLY — These are what are technically known as קדשי קדשים — of them he may eat.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Siftei Chakhamim

I would have thought: A blemished person may eat of the most holy sacrifices. (Gur Aryeh) Re’m raises a question regarding Rashi’s statement that the holy sacrifices were permitted to a non-kohein: The Gemara in Perek Tevul Yom (Zevachim 101b) says, Moshe, our teacher, was a Kohein Godol and took a portion of the sacrifices of Heaven as it says concerning the ram of inauguration (Vayikra 8:29), “That was the portion of Moshe.” If so, [where is the proof that] it was not permitted to a non-kohein? This is no difficulty, since it is still correct to say that it was permitted to a non-kohein, i.e., to someone whose sons were not kohanim. Also, Moshe was not a kohein regarding everything, as he was not permitted to do service after the Tabernacle was erected, and concerning this he is called a non-kohein.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Chizkuni

מקדשי הקדשים, ומן הקדשים, “both of the most holy and the holy.”(he may eat) This poses the question of why we have to be told that he may eat of the ‘holy,” seeing that the Torah had already permitted him to eat from “the most holy?” Answer: if the Torah had only written that he may eat of the קדשי הקדשים, I might have thought that what is meant by this is only the קדשים, “the holy things of a lower level of holiness.” The logic behind such a thought would have been that these קדשים, “holy” things, could be consumed also outside the sacred precincts of the Temple which are also permitted to be eaten by non priests. (Example: Passover lamb) In order to prevent such a misunderstanding, the Torah added the extra words.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Rashi on Leviticus

ומן הקדשים יאכל AND OF THE HOLY HE MAY EAT — these are what are technically known as קדשים קלים. But if קדשי קדשים are mentioned as being permitted to him as food, why are קדשים קלים also mentioned? Could this not be inferred by a conclusion a fortiori? But the explanation is as follows: If קדשים קלים were not expressly mentioned as being permitted, I might have said: of the sacrifices holy in the highest degree the priest with a bodily blemish may eat — because we find that these had on one occasion been permitted to be eaten even by a non-priest, for Moses (who was not a priest) ate the flesh of the installation offering (cf. Leviticus 8:29; and this was holy in the highest degree since Scripture continues there: “Seethe the flesh at the entrance of the appointed tent… etc., a law that only applies to קדשי קדשים) — but he (a priest who is בעל מום) must not eat of the breast and the shoulder of sacrifices holy in a minor degree, since we do not find that a non-priest ever took a share in them. On this account sacrifices holy in a minor degree are expressly stated as permitted to be eaten. Thus it is explained in Treatise Zevachim 101b (cf. also Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 8-9).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Versetto precedenteCapitolo completoVersetto successivo