Commento su Levitico 21:23
אַ֣ךְ אֶל־הַפָּרֹ֜כֶת לֹ֣א יָבֹ֗א וְאֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֛חַ לֹ֥א יִגַּ֖שׁ כִּֽי־מ֣וּם בּ֑וֹ וְלֹ֤א יְחַלֵּל֙ אֶת־מִקְדָּשַׁ֔י כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה מְקַדְּשָֽׁם׃
Solo lui non entrerà nel velo, né verrà vicino all'altare, perché ha un difetto; che non profana i miei luoghi santi; poiché io sono il Signore che li santifico.
Rashi on Leviticus
אך אל הפרכת ONLY [HE SHALL NOT GO IN] UNTO THE PARTITION VEIL for the purpose of applying the seven sprinklings which are to be made upon the partition vail (cf. Leviticus 16:17).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Siftei Chakhamim
To sprinkle seven sprinklings. Because if not so, what has he to do with the Curtain that the verse should warn him from entering there.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daat Zkenim on Leviticus
אך אל הפרוכת לא יבא, “but he must not go beyond the dividing curtain;” Torat Kohanim demonstrates why the additional mention of the altar in this verse was necessary by stating that if the Torah had only mentioned the dividing curtain, we might have thought that seeing that anything beyond was the Holy of Holies, anyone who was not a priest was forbidden to enter there, and if it had written only that the altar was out of bounds to them that the reason was that they were not allowed to perform sacrificial rituals. By mentioning both the dividing curtain and the altar situated in the Sanctuary, no one could make such an error.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Chizkuni
אך אל הפרכת ואל המזבה, “but to the dividing curtain inside the Sanctuary, and to the altar he must not come near.” (on account of his blemish); if the Torah had only quoted the example of the dividing curtain I might have thought that seeing that the dividing curtain is inside the Sanctuary, the blemished person could also not approach the golden altar whereas it would be all right to approach the copper altar outside the Sanctuary. On the other hand, if the Torah had only forbidden the blemished priest to approach the altar, I would have thought that the reason is because the sacrificial animals are slaughtered in it. Seeing that the dividing curtain did not have anything to do with the actual slaughtering of the offering, I might have thought that even a blemished priest could approach it; in order to prevent such faulty reasoning on our part the Torah added a few words.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rashi on Leviticus
ואל המזבח [NOR SHALL HE COME NIGH] UNTO THE ALTAR — i. e. the outer altar. Both (פרכת and מזבח) must be mentioned here and the reason is explained in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 10).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Siftei Chakhamim
The outer [one]. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it is the inner altar? The answer is: If it was speaking about the inner altar, there would be no need to write, “He may not enter beyond the Curtain,” because if he is forbidden to approach the inner altar which is outside the Curtain, he would certainly not be permitted to approach the curtain. But if it is speaking of the outer altar, “both had to be written, and [the reason] is explained, etc.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Chizkuni
כי אני ה' מקדשם, “for I the Lord, sanctify them.” The Torah is speaking about sanctifying the dividing curtain and the altar, and that is why a priest with a blemish is not fit to approach them. (B’chor shor)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rashi on Leviticus
ולא יחלל את מקדשי THAT HE PROFANE NOT WHAT IS HOLY TO ME — Consequently, if he performs the service it is profaned and thus becomes invalid (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 11).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Siftei Chakhamim
His service is profaned. I.e., מקדשי of the verse does not mean the actual Temple, but rather His service, because the word מקדש can refer to the actual Temple and also to the service performed in the Temple.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy