Komentarz do Kapłańska 22:18

נדריהם THEIR VOWS — [An animal is termed נדר when an obligation is entered into by the words:] Behold, I take it upon myself [to bring a burnt-offering].

FOR ALL ‘NIDREIHEM’ (THEIR VOW-OFFERINGS) AND FOR ALL ‘NIDVOTHAM’ (THEIR FREEWILL-OFFERINGS). “Nidreihem (their vow-offerings). This is when one says, ‘I pledge myself [to bring an offering].’ Nidvotham (their freewill-offerings). This is when one says, ‘This shall be [an offering].’”¹¹⁸The difference between these two kinds of obligations will be clarified further on in the text. This is Rashi’s language.¹¹⁹Not mentioned in our Rashi. It appears to me that because Scripture states ‘l’phalei’ (to clearly utter)¹²⁰The word l’phalei contains also the letters of the word pele (wonder), and accordingly Ramban interprets the verse in this light. See Note 125. in fulfillment of a vow or for a freewill-offering,¹²¹Verse 21. and similarly it always uses this [identical] expression in the section dealing with the drink-offerings,¹²²Numbers 15:3. and likewise it is used in the verse, when a man ‘yaphli’ (shall clearly utter) a vow of persons,¹²³Further, 27:2. and so also in the section dealing with the Nazirite¹²⁴Numbers 6:2. — [therefore it appears] that “the vow” is something which comes in connection with that which is beyond our power, the person in distress vowing unto G-d that “if You will deal ‘wondrously’¹²⁵It is for this reason that Scripture uses in all these cases an expression of l’phalei or yaphli, for since the root is pele (wonder, surpassing, or extraordinary) it suggests that the vow-offering is generally made when a person is in distress, and vows that if G-d will do wondrously with him he will bring an offering. with me to save me from this trouble, then I will bring a burnt-offering or peace-offering,” similar to that which is stated: And Jacob vowed a vow, saying: ‘If G-d will be with me;’¹²⁶Genesis 28:20. And Israel vowed a vow unto the Eternal, and said: ‘If Thou wilt deliver this people into my hand;’¹²⁷Numbers 21:2. and they vowed vows,¹²⁸Jonah 1:16. and so also all similar verses.
And our Rabbis have said:¹²⁹In other words, the text now quoted apparently does not hold the opinion that a vow-offering is made only in time of distress, and a freewill-offering when one is in good circumstances. Rather, the difference between them is etc. “Which is a vow-offering? When he says, ‘I pledge myself to bring a burnt-offering.’ [Which is] a freewill-offering? When he says, ‘This [animal] shall be a burnt-offering.’ And what is the difference between a vow-offering and a freewill-offering? In the case of a vow-offering, one is responsible for it [and must replace it] if it dies or is stolen, [since he took upon himself a general obligation to offer an animal], but in the case of a freewill-offering, he is not responsible for it if it dies or is stolen” [since he did not assume a general pledge upon himself, but merely said that this particular animal should be an offering]. Now the reason for this difference between them [a vow and a freewill-offering],¹²⁹In other words, the text now quoted apparently does not hold the opinion that a vow-offering is made only in time of distress, and a freewill-offering when one is in good circumstances. Rather, the difference between them is etc. is because the custom of those vowing in the time of their distress is to say, “If G-d will be with me¹²⁶Genesis 28:20. [and guard me] in this [trouble], then I pledge myself to offer a burnt-offering or a [peace-] offering,” and this is not usually called a freewill-offering, [since he has not yet set aside any particular animal for it]. But [a vow which is followed] by setting aside immediately [an animal] and giving it, is called “a freewill-offering,” because from the moment of giving, his spirit made him willing.¹³⁰Exodus 35:21. Thus Scripture is stating here that whether he brings a burnt-offering or a peace-offering which he vowed at the time of his distress, or whether he brings them because his spirit made him willing — in either case it must be perfect [without blemish], for perhaps we might have thought that [it is more important that] the vow-offering should be perfect than the freewill-offering. This is the meaning of the verse.

אשר יקריב קרבנו, after the Torah had addressed the priests, who offer the sacrifices on the altar as well as their status of sanctity, it now discusses rules applying to the offerings themselves., saying that the following applies to לכל נדריהם ולכל נדבותם, even these offerings were voluntary offerings as opposed to mandatory offerings, and I might have thought that any such offering, even of a blemished animal, would be gratefully accepted by G’d, seeing the individual in question was under no obligation to offer any sacrifice at this time, the Torah states flatly that this is not so. The author, quoting Maleachi 1,5 as proof that one would not dare offer a gift to a human ruler that was less than perfect, how much less would one dare to do this “for” G’d, concludes that there must have been people in his time guilty of mistaking what is expected of them and offering inferior animals as sacrifices.

“I am obligated.” I.e., if he [then] set aside [an animal for this vow] and the animal was lost before it was sacrificed, he is obligated to make restitution.

'איש איש וגו, from the repetition here of the word איש איש, meaning: “anyone,” we learn according to Rashi, that the donations to the Jewish Temple by gentiles are acceptable. If you were to ask why Rashi needed this verse to learn this from indirectly, when we could have inferred this from a very specific verse in verse 25 of our chapter, where the Torah writes: ומיד כל בן נכר לא תקריבו את אלו, “and when donated from any gentile you must not offer on the altar any of these,” it is clear that the only kind of offerings from gentiles we must not present on the altar of our temple are blemished beasts, but beasts that are not blemished but are perfect specimens of their respective categories, may certainly be offered on behalf of the gentiles, the answer is that from that verse we could have derived that if a Jewish priest presented a perfect specimen donated by a gentile he would transgress only against an ordinary negative commandment, but if he presented a blemished animal he did not transgress also a positive commandment at the same time. At the same time, if the Torah had only written our verse here, I would have thought that gentiles may even present animals that are blemished as sacrifices on the altar of the Jewish Temple. Not only that, I would have thought that if gentiles wanted to offer sin offerings on the altar of the Jewish Temple this would also be acceptable; this is why the Torah had to approve only nedarim and nedavot, free will offerings of the category of gifts to G-d, by writing what it did.

נדבותם THEIR FREE-WILL OFFERINGS — [it is a נדבה when one states:] Behold, this animal [shall be a burnt-offering] (Megillah 8a).

Behold, this. And if it was lost he is not obligated to make restitution.