레위기 22:2의 주석

וינזרו THAT THEY KEEP AWAY [FROM THE HOLY THINGS etc.] — The term נזר always denotes “keeping aloof". Similarly it is said (Ezekiel 14:7) "and he separates himself (וינזר) from following Me”; (Isaiah 1:4) "They are gone away (נזורו) backward”. The meaning of this verse therefore is: they (the priests) shall keep aloof from the holy things during the time of their uncleanness (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 1).

SPEAK UNTO AARON AND TO HIS SONS, THAT THEY SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM THE HOLY THINGS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND THAT THEY PROFANE NOT MY HOLY NAME, WHICH THEY HALLOW UNTO ME. “Transpose the verse⁸¹There are three phrases here in the order they are written in the verse: 1. that they separate themselves, from the holy things of the children of Israel. 2. and that they profane not My holy Name. 3. which they hallow unto Me. Now since the sense of the verse is that when the priests are in a state of impurity, they are to separate themselves from the holy things which the Israelites have hallowed to G-d’s Name, such as the offerings and the heave-offering, etc., then phrase 3 should follow phrase 1, since the word “they” (in phrase 3) refers back to “the children of Israel” at the end of phrase 1. In other words, since the word “they” in phrase 3 means “the children of Israel” mentioned in phrase 1, and the word “they” in phrase 2 definitely means “the priests,” why did Scripture place phrase 2 between phrases 1 and 3, which both refer to the children of Israel? Therefore Rashi, by way of interpretation, transposed the phrases to be read in this order: 1, 3, 2. This transposed order is followed in the J.P.S. translation. and interpret it thus: ‘that they [the priests when in a state of impurity] separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, which they [the children of Israel] hallow unto Me, and that they [the priests] profane not My holy Name.’ Which they hallow unto Me, this comes to include things hallowed by the priests themselves.” This is Rashi’s language.
But if we explain which they hallow unto Me as referring to [the things] which the priests themselves hallow, then there is no need for this transposition!⁸²Ramban’s point is as follows: As long as we interpreted the verse as referring only to the holy things which the children of Israel have hallowed, it was necessary to transpose the phrases, as explained above. But if, as Rashi now suggests, the verse speaks of two kinds of hallowed things — those hallowed by Israelites and those made holy by the priests — then the word “they” in phrase 3 (see Note 81) no longer refers back to “the children of Israel” in phrase 1, and there is no need to transpose the order of the phrases! Hence the last sentence in Rashi contradicts his previous explanation! Rather, [according to this final interpretation mentioned by Rashi, the whole verse can be explained in the order it is written without transposing the phrases, in the following way:] Scripture is stating: “that they [the priests] separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they [the priests] profane not by means of them [i.e., the holy things] My holy Name [through eating them in a state of impurity], and that which they [the priests themselves] hallow unto Me” [they should also not profane], meaning that they [the priests] should not profane the holy things which Aaron and his sons themselves hallow unto Me [and thus there is no need for transposing the verse.]! And in the Torath Kohanim it is interpreted as follows:⁸³Torath Kohanim, Emor 4:1. “That they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel. For the holy things of the children of Israel [the priests] are liable to punishment for [eating] pigul,⁸⁴“Pigul means an offering which has been rendered unfit through certain improper intentions at the time it was slaughtered or offered, namely if the ministering person had in mind to eat it, or to burn upon the altar the parts that must be burnt, after the expiration of the prescribed time” (“The Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 121). See there for the whole commandment about the prohibition of eating pigul. nothar,⁸⁵Nothar is meat of offerings which is left over beyond the time assigned for its consumption. See ibid., pp. 119-120, about this prohibition of eating nothar. or when in a state of impurity, but they are not liable for [eating] pigul, nothar, or when in a state of impurity if they are holy things of non-Jews.⁸⁶A non-Jew could bring a burnt-offering (Chullin 13 b). See also “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 74. The holy things of the children of Israel. From this I would only know that [the priests when in a state of impurity are not to eat of] the holy things of the children of Israel. How do I know [that this prohibition applies also to] the holy things which they themselves have hallowed? From the expression, which they hallow unto Me, which includes all of them” [even those of the priests themselves]. But there [in the Torath Kohanim] no mention is made at all of a transposition of the verse [as Rashi said]! And by the way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], which they hallow unto Me, I am the Eternal means that the priests are not to profane the Name which is hallowed to Him,⁸⁷“Him.” In Abusaula’s commentary on Ramban, the word is: “Me.” This follows the language of the verse: which they hallow unto ‘Me.’ since His Name is upon the Sanctuary of the Eternal [and therefore they should not cause My Presence to depart therefrom when they profane the holy things].⁸⁸Abusaula. I have already alluded to this in the section of ‘V’yikchu Li Terumah’ (And they take for Me an offering).⁸⁹Exodus 25:2. Ramban’s explanation is found there in Verse 3.

וינזרו מקדשי בני ישראל, they should not think that the senior among them may treat the sacrifices donated by the people as if they were secular in nature as far as they were concerned. We are familiar with the principle alluded to here by the Torah from Moed Katan 16 מנודה לתלמיד אינו מנודה לרב, “if something is legally out of bounds to the student this does not automatically mean that it is equally out of bounds to the student’s teacher.” (although if the situation is reversed what is out of bounds to the teacher is most certainly also forbidden to the student. ולא יחללו את שם קדשי אשר הם מקדישים לי. They shall not desecrate the things the ordinary Jews have sanctified for Me, which now bear My holy name.