Commento su Levitico 7:19

והבשר AND THE FLESH of the sacred animals constituting peace-offerings (not that of פגול mentioned in v. 18, for this may not be eaten even though it does not touch an unclean thing), אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל THAT TOUCHETH ANY UNCLEAN THING SHALL NOT BE EATEN.

כל טהור יאכל בשר, a person who is ritually pure.

Even though these offerings are of a subordinate level of sanctity, if the meat comes into contact with ritual impurity it is to be burned, and anyone eating thereof is guilty of the same karet penalty as if he had eaten from sacrificial meat of a higher level of sanctity that had become ritually defiled.

Peace-offerings. This excludes the just mentioned פיגול, which is not eaten even without touching impurity.

כל טהור יאכל בשר, “everyone that is ritually clean may eat of the meat.” The verse refers, of course, to meat of sacrificial offerings, as ordinary meat may be eaten also by ritually unclean people.

והבשר — The word והבשר the second time it occurs in this verse is redundant (it should have stated: כל טהור יאכל בשר) but it is intended to include in the law mentioned here, the limb of a sacrifice that went forth (was brought out) in part from the place where it had to be eaten (in the case of שלמים, from Jerusalem, in that of קדשי קדשים, from the forecourt) — that the part that remained inside is permitted to be eaten (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Section 9 6).

A limb, part of which went out. Meaning: It went out of the courtyard, or, [with regard to] holy things of lesser holiness — outside the walls of Yerushalayim. The meat of an offering that goes outside [of its prescribed limits] is prohibited to be eaten because (Shemos 22:30): “You must not eat flesh that was torn off in the field.” The part that remains within [its prescribed limits] is permitted even though it touches the part that went out [its prescribed limits, and we do not say [that just as] something that touches the impure becomes impure, [i.e., if part of it becomes impure the entire thing becomes impure,] so too, [if part of the meat of an offering becomes] invalid [because it went outside, the entire meat should be considered invalid]. [This is] because the second word והבשר comes to include, since it should say, “כל טהור יאכל בשר (every pure person may eat the meat),” and no more, why does it say והבשר? Rather, it comes to include that this [i.e., the part of the meat that remains within its prescribed limits] is permitted.

כל טהור יאכל בשר ALL THAT ARE CLEAN MAY EAT FLESH — Why is this stated? Why should it not be assumed that a clean person may eat of the sacrifices? But, since it is stated, (Deuteronomy 12:27) “and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured upon the altar …, but the flesh thou mayest eat”, I might have thought, that as it speaks of thy sacrifices and states “thou mayest eat”, only the owner of the sacrifices may eat the peace-offerings! For this reason it is stated here: “all that are clean may eat flesh” (Sifra, Tzav, Section 9 7).

Therefore. [Re’m poses the difficulty:] You might ask: Why does the verse need to teach me this? It can be derived from the fact Scripture needs to write concerning the Pesach offering that it may only be eaten by its “subscribers” (the members of the group that purchased it), who are the owners. This implies that peace-offerings, which are eaten for two days and a night, may be eaten by any person. Because if you were to assume that peace-offerings are eaten only by the owners, why does the Torah single out the Pesach offering, about which the Merciful One wrote that it is eaten only by the owners? According to this assumption, we could learn from peaceofferings, which are lenient, in that they may be eaten for two days and in any [form of] food [preparation], yet even so they may be eaten only by the owners; the Pesach offering, which is more severe, in that it may be eaten only one day and night, and it is eaten only roasted, is it not so much more so [that it may be eaten only by the owners]? The answer is: Were it not for this verse, I might think that the rest of the peace-offerings may be eaten only by the owners, and yet the verse concerning the Pesach offering is needed for itself, [to teach] that they are considered owners only if they “subscribed” to it before it was slaughtered, but after slaughtering they may not subscribe. This is not the case by other peace-offerings — even if some people became partners after slaughtering they are permitted to eat from it. However, if they do not join as partners they may not. For this reason, the verse is needed to teach this, so it appears to me (Minchas Yehudah). Re’m answers: Were it not for the verse: “Every pure person [may eat the meat...],” the verses would contradict each other: It is written concerning the Pesach offering (Shemos 12:4): “You shall make your count regarding the lamb,” which teaches that the Pesach offering is eaten only by the owners. This implies that peace-offerings may be eaten even by those who are not the owners, for if only the owners [may eat peace-offerings], Pesach should be derived from a kal vachomer from peaceofferings, as previously mentioned. [On the other hand,] it is written (Devarim 12:27): “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured ... and you shall eat the flesh.” This implies that peace-offerings may be eaten only by the owners. For this reason the Merciful One wrote the verse: “Every pure person...” to teach that the verse [in Devarim] “and [you shall eat] the flesh” is not meant to be interpreted precisely as referring only to the owners. Rather, any pure person [may eat] even if he is not an owner.

[והבשר כל טהור יאכל בשר ‎AND AS FOR THE FLESH ALL THAT ARE CLEAN MAY EAT FLESH — This is as much as to say: all that I have told thee (some editions read: שאסרתי לך, — “that I have forbidden thee”), is only in the case of the sin-offering and a guilt-offering: that if these went forth (were carried forth) without the hangings of the forecourt they are forbidden (נפסלים ביוצא), as it is said, (Leviticus 6:19) “in the enclosure of the tent of meeting”) shall they eat it”; but with regard to this flesh (that of שלמים) I tell thee, “all that are clean may eat flesh” even amidst all the people (some editions read: בכל העיר, “in the whole city”, which is what “amidst all the people” is intended to mean)].

That is that He commanded to burn consecrated items that have become impure. And that is His saying, "Meat that touches anything impure [... shall be burned in fire]" (Leviticus 7:19). And in the Gemara Shabbat (Shabbat 25a), it comes to explain the reason for that which it is forbidden to kindle priestly tithes of oil that have become impure on a holiday - and they said about this, "'Shabbaton' (Leviticus 23:24) [indicates] it is a positive commandment, such that [rest from work on] the holiday is a positive commandment and a negative commandment. And a positive commandment does not push off a negative commandment and a positive commandment." And the content of this statement is that the doing of work on a holiday is forbidden: And one who does it transgresses a positive commandment, since [work] is the negation of a positive commandment. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying about the holiday, "it shall be a Shabbaton for you." And he [also] transgresses a negative commandement, since he is doing what has been forbidden to him. And that is His saying, "no work shall be done on them" (Exodus 12:16) - meaning on the holidays. Whereas the burning of consecrated items is a positive commandment. Hence it is not permitted to burn it on a holiday, on account of the principle that it mentioned: "A positive commandment does not push off a negative commandment and a positive commandment." And there, they also said, "Just like it is a commandment to burn consecrated items that have become impure, so too is it a commandment to burn priestly tithes of oil that have become impure." And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Pesachim and at the end of Termurah. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar.)