Komentarz do Kapłańska 22:14

כי יאכל קדש AND IF [A MAN] EAT OF HOLY THINGS — the heave-offering.

AND IF A MAN EAT OF THE HOLY THING¹⁰³Here referring to terumah (the heave-offering) which is given to the priest from the produce of the Land. THROUGH ERROR, THEN HE SHALL ADD ITS FIFTH PART UNTO IT, AND SHALL GIVE UNTO THE PRIEST THE HOLY THING. “He must give him a thing which is capable of becoming holy [like the original holy food of the priest that he ate, thus teaching] that he is not to pay him money, but fruits of a non-holy status, which then become terumah (a heave-offering).” This is Rashi’s language. Thus the explanation of the verse is as follows: “A man that eats the holy thing [i.e., the heave-offering which belongs to the priest], must add the fifth of that holy thing to it, and give to the priest this holy thing which is its original value and the added fifth.” And since Scripture called it [the restitution] kodesh (holy thing), we deduce that it becomes as the original heave-offering [which he ate in error, and that it must therefore be] something which is capable of so becoming [namely fruits, but not money]. This is the correct explanation according to both the plain meaning of Scripture and the [Rabbinical] interpretation thereof. So also did Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra comment: “And he shall give unto the priests ‘eth’ the holy thing, means ‘with’ the holy thing [i.e., he is to give the priest its original value with the added fifth, all in fruits]. Or it may that the word v’nathan (and he shall give) draws along with it a similar word, and the sense of the verse is thus: ‘then he shall add its fifth part to it and shall give unto the priest, and he shall give unto the priest the holy thing.’ But in my opinion [so continues Ibn Ezra], there is no need [for both interpretations] because of the word alav (to it).”¹⁰⁴In other words, since Scripture states, then he shall add its fifth part ‘to it,’ it implies already that it is in addition to the original value of the heave-offering he ate which he must return to the priest. There is therefore no need any longer to interpret and he shall give unto the priest ‘eth’ the holy thing as meaning “with” the holy thing, since this has already been mentioned above in the preceding verse, and instead we interpret the word eth in its normal way, namely, the mark of the accusative case. By the same token of reasoning, the second interpretation mentioned in the text [that the word v’nathan draws along with it a similar word] also becomes unnecessary, since the word alav (to it) clearly indicates that he is to give both the original value and the added fifth to the priest.

ונתן לכהן את הקדש, "and he shall give to the priest the holy thing." Our sages in the sixth chapter of Terumot are divided about the meaning of this verse. Rabbi Eliezer holds that what is meant is anything which can potentially become holy, sacred may be used as compensation for the תרומה which a person had consumed inadvertently. Rabbi Akiva holds that only the same category of food which the person consumed inadvertently may be used as compensation for the תרומה which someone who was not entitled to ate inadvertently. Thus far the Mishnah. Perhaps Rabbi Akiva meant that by means of making this restitution the Torah considers it as if the guilty person had actually restored the holy things he had consumed and had recreated a situation similar to that which existed before he inadvertently ate the holy things.

כי יאכל קודש, T’rumah.

Terumah. Because the whole parshah is talking about terumah. Not like Re’m who explains that [this is derived from] a gezeroh shovoh of “holy,” “holy,” because regarding divestment (ביעור) it is written, “I have divested my estate of sacred (holy) material” (Devarim 26:13). [See Re’m]

ויסף חמישיתו, “and he shall add one fifth to the value of the forbidden holy food that he has eaten.” What is meant is that after having added the penalty, the total will represent 20% more than the original, i.e. the sinner had actually added 25% to the original value.

ונתן לכהן את הקדש THEN SHALL HE GIVE UNTO THE PRIEST THE קדש — i. e. a thing capable of becoming קדש, thus implying that he does not pay him money but fruits of a non-sacred character (חולין), which then become תרומה (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 6 5; Pesachim 32b).

Fit to become holy. Rashi is answering the question: Since he has already eaten the terumah because he has to pay, so how can it write, “And give to the kohein the holy thing”?