Komentarz do Kapłańska 22:38

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.

וינזרו, they are to abstain from eating sacred sacrificial meat while in a state of ritual impurity.

ולא יחללו את שם קדשי, “so as not to desecrate My holy Name.” According to Rashi the verse is truncated and the clause “by performing their Temple duties in an inappropriate state of purity,” are missing. Nachmanides does not consider that there was any need for these words, as the words אשר הם מקדישים, are quite adequate to make the meaning of the verse crystal clear. He explains that the words ולא יחללו את שם קדשי clearly refer to animal and animal parts that these priests had previously sanctified for use on the altar. Why else would the Torah have to add the words: אשר הם מקדישים לי, “which they are sanctifying for Me?”

Reverse the verse. I.e., “And let them keep away from the holy offerings of Bnei Yisroel which they sanctify for Me.” But not as the verse is written. If you do not reverse the verse, and “which they sanctify for Me” is written after “and they shall not profane,” and “which they sanctify for Me” comes “to include the holy offerings of the kohanim themselves,” as Rashi soon explains, the verse would be unclear. Because we could explain that the negative command of “and they shall not profane” also refers to “which they sanctify for Me [i.e., the sacrifices of the kohanim].” On the other hand [we could explain that] if “which they sanctify to Me” refers [only] to “I am Hashem,” and that the verse means as follows: “And let them keep away from the holy offerings of Bnei Yisroel and they shall not profane My holy name.” However, regarding those “which they sanctify for Me [i.e., the kohein’s own sacrifices], I am Hashem,” [ready] to punish them, but they will not transgress [the negative command of] “they shall not profane, etc.” (Re’m). But I discovered in a corrected text that the words “another alternative interpretation” in Rashi’s text above [in the text of Sifsei Chochomim, the words “another alternative interpretation” appeared just before our current Rashi], are a copyist’s error and one should move the words “another alternative interpretation” below. And this is the [correct] text: “They shall separate [themselves] from holy things in the days of their impurity. ’And let them keep away from the holy offerings, etc., and not profane My Holy Name.’ Reverse the verse and expound it. An alternative interpretation. ’Which (they sanctify for Me), etc.’.” I heard that this [alternative interpretation] should be explained as follows: According to the first interpretation, Rashi is explaining that [the phrase] “And let them keep away from the holy offerings of Bnei Yisroel” refers to days when [a kohein] is impure. But according to the alternative interpretation where Rashi explains “They shall separate themselves” [in a new way], he means that the verse [“which they sanctify for Me”] is referring to an animal that was sanctified for a sacrifice. The kohanim are commanded not to not eat them but to offer them on the altar. [The verse says this] so that you do not say, since sacrifices are permitted to kohanim after their organs [of the animal] have been sacrificed, if so, once an animal has been sanctified, it too should be permitted [immediately]. Therefore the Torah commands against this. This is why Rashi reverses the verse and expounds it as if it is written, “And let them keep away from the holy offerings of Bnei Yisroel, which they sanctify for Me,” so that [according to the alternative interpretation, the verse] is referring to a person declaring [that an animal is] sanctified [as an offering, and is commanding the kohanim not to not eat such an animal before it is sacrificed].

ולא יחללו את שם קדשי, “so that they will not profane My holy Name.” The whole purpose of a sacrificial offering is to honour My holy name; anyone presenting such while in a state of ritual impurity will desecrate it instead of honouring it.

וינזרו מקדשי בני ישראל אשר הם מקדשים לי. ולא יחללו את שם קדשי — Invert the words of the verse in the order here set forth and explain it accordingly.

אשר הם מקדישים, “which they are sanctifying;” and do not profane. The heading of this verse applies to both My holy name and the offerings sanctified in its honour.

"Lest they profane" - I saw that Rashi wrote: "Invert the order of the words of the verse and explain it accordingly", (Ed. Note the word דרש in original Rashi) but I do not understand why he has not followed the simple reading: "Lest they profane My holy name" - [After the fact that] they sanctify me through their prayers and sacrifices, and if they were to touch the holy sacrifices when they were impure they would be desecrating my holy name and all their worship would be in vain. This explains the depth of Isaiah's complaints when he says, "[Woe is me; I am dead! ...] I live among a people of unclean lips; [yet] my own eyes have beheld [the King] Lord of Hosts" (Isaiah 6:5) and he fears for his life (see Rashi there).

אשר הם מקדשים לי WHICH THEY HALLOW UNTO ME — This is intended to include in the prohibition the holy things of the priests themselves (i. e. הם refers to אהרן ובניו not to ‎‎בני ישראל‎) (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 1).

‎כל איש אשר יקרב WHOSOEVER HE BE THAT GOETH UNTO [THE HOLY THINGS… SHALL BE CUT OFF etc.] — This “approaching" unto the holy things signifies nothing else but eating of them. Similarly we find that the prohibition of eating holy things in a state of uncleanness is expressed by the term נגע, (which means, as does קרב, “approaching”): (Leviticus 12:4) “she shall approach near to nothing that is holy" — which is explained as a prohibition addressed to one who would eat of the holy things (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 12:4). And our Rabbis derived it (the fact that לא תגע means: she shall not eat) from a verbal analogy. It is indeed impossible to say that one is punishable for touching holy things in a state of uncleanness, because the penalty of excision for eating holy things in such a state is mentioned in the section commencing צו את אהרן (Leviticus 7:20, 21) — twice is the punishment of כרת mentioned there, one immediately after the other; and if one really becomes liable to punishment for the mere touching of holy things it is unnecessary to pronounce him liable to punishment for eating them! In this sense also is it (our passage) expounded in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 7): But is a priest who merely touches holy things when he is unclean really liable to the punishment of excision? Surely not, since Scripture expressly states in the following verse that an unclean priest who eats of the holy things is liable to excision and this latter statement would be unnecessary since eating without touching is impossible. But if this be so, why does Scripture use the term יקרב and not יאכל which means "eating”? It is in order to intimate that this law applies only when an unclean priest eats of it after it becomes fit לקרב, “to be offered” — that one does not become liable on account of his uncleanness until its מתירין (its “permitting portions”) have been offered, and he then eats of it. And if you ask, “Why are three mentions of the כרת-punishment (Leviticus 7:21 and here) necessary in respect to priestly uncleanness? then I reply, they have already been interpreted in Treatise Shevuot 7a, one as being intended as a generalisation, the other as a specification, etc. (see Rashi on Leviticus 7:20).

אמר אלהם, "say to them, etc." Torat Kohanim write that the people addressed in this verse were the ones standing at Mount Sinai. The author tried to answer why the Torah added the apparently superfluous words אמר אלהם seeing that the verse is a continuation of chapter 21 and the opening verses of this chapter. The previous directives had been addressed to the priests, so that this chapter is merely a continuation. If, on the other hand, this chapter is addressed to the Israelites at large, these had not even been mentioned in any of the adjoining verses! It follows therefore that it was addressed to all the people who had stood at Mount Sinai, the time they had become G'd's bride, so to speak. When the Torah does not bother to mention to whom the speaker addresses Himself, we may assume that the speaker is G'd Himself and that He speaks about the whole people. It follows that the retribution threatened in this paragraph for desecrating the holy name of G'd applies to all the people who had heard the revelation at Mount Sinai. [the word אלהם is therefore equivalent to עלהם. Ed.] You may well ask that if this is so why does the Torah in all other instances mention that the Israelites are addressed by writng such formulae as דבר אל בני ישראל, or something similar instead of merely writing אמר אלהם? Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 2,5 already answered this with a parable. A father had an only son and he always mentioned the fact that he was his son by saying to him: "eat my son, drink my son, etc. Similarly, G'd told Moses on an almost daily basis: 'Tell the Israelites, etc.' He mentions their name as a reminder of how fond He is of them." This kind of address is standard procedure in the Torah. Whenever the situation appears to allow for some additional message we endeavour to extract it from that text.

אשר יקרב, in order to eat.

From a gezeroh shovoh. This is according to our text. The text should be amended to read But “oOur sages actually learned it from a hekesh: Is then a kohein who [merely] touches [sacrificial flesh when he is unclean] liable [to koreis]? If so, etc., i.e., if he was liable for touching, the verse would not have to make him liable for eating. Therefore one has to say that the [words] “drawing near” [inof our verse] means “eating”. You might ask: Why not say that “draw near” means touching, and regarding your question that if so, the verses in [the parshah] Tzav es Aharon should not have mentioned eating, [you could answer] that the verses [there] neededs [to mention eating] as one might have said that we do not derive punishment from a kal vachomer. The answer is: We do not derive punishment from a kal vachomer only with regard to human punishments, but regarding Divine punishment, we derive punishment from a kal vachomer.

וטומאתו עליו means, AND THE MAN'S UNCLEANNESS IS UPON HIM (the first word meaning "and his uncleanness”). I might, however, think that Scripture is speaking of the flesh — "the uncleanness of the flesh is upon it” (the first word meaning “and its uncleanness, the word בשר being implied in the term הקדשים that precedes) and that Scripture is thus speaking of a clean person who ate holy things which have become unclean! You must needs admit that from what is implied in it (in the phrase) you must learn that Scripture is speaking of one whose state of uncleanness can fly (pass) away therefrom (since the phrase implies: “whilst the טומאה is still present", presupposing that there is a possibility of the טומאה passing away), and this can only refer to a human being who has a means of purification through immersion in a ritual bath whilst unclean food can never again become clean (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 8; Zevachim 43b).

Unless that which makes it permissible is offered. Meaning, he is not liable unless they offered that which permits the sacrifice to be eaten. I.e., [the burning of] the fat and the sprinkling of the blood.

ונכרתה [THAT SOUL] SHALL BE CUT OFF — I might think that this implies merely that he will be removed from one region (lit., side) to another region — that he will be cut off from his native place but may settle down in another place! Scripture however states, “[that soul shall be cut off from My presence] I am the Lord” — I am everywhere (Sifra, Emor, Section 4 6; cf. Rashi on Exodus 12:15.)

And if you say: Why are there three kerisos. Rashi is saying as follows: I explained earlier, “Since koreis is mentioned regarding eating in [the parshah] Tzav es Aharon: Two kerisos are [mentioned] next to one each another, and if he is liable, etc.” This implies that the [word] koreis here too is also speaking about eating. But if so, the question is even greater — why mention three kerisos? Why does Rashi only ask this question here, after explaining that the drawing near means eating? The answer is: Had he not said this, he could have answered that the three kerisos are [necessary], one to prohibit eating, one to prohibit touching, and one koreis for someone who eats it before that which makes it permissible has been offered. But now that Rashi explained that one is not liable for touching, but only liable after that which makes it permissible is offered, the question arises: why are three kerisos mentioned?

Passes away from him. Since the verse writes “on him,” this implies that the impurity is still on him as he has not yet become purified. Because if it referred to the meat which cannot be purified in a mikveh, the verse should have said “and it is impure” implying that it cannot be purified from its impurity.

מזרע אהרון, "from the seed of Aaron, etc." Why did this prohibition have to be mentioned a second time seeing that it was included in the overall directive in verse 3 that approaching holy things or holy places is forbidden on pain of the penalty of karet? Actually, the purification process for a priest afflicted with צרעת or זיבה or other impurity emanating from his body is not completed until sunset in order for him to be allowed to eat קדשי קדשים, sacrificial offerings of a kind forbidden to be eaten by an ordinary Israelite. If an ordinary Israelite had contracted the same kind of impurity he would be allowed to eat from the peace-offerings (a lower form of sanctity) as soon as he had immersed himself in a ritual bath without awaiting sunset. This is stated in Torat Kohanim. [I have not found it. Ed.]

והוא צרוע או זב, and he is afflicted with tzoraat, or has had involuntary seminal issue;” The Torah here uses a form of construction known as lo zu af zu, “not only this but even that,” meaning that not only the more severe affliction but even the relatively minor affliction is also a cause for the prohibition described, i.e. not to eat holy things. Not only a ritual impurity originating in one’s own body is the cause of the prohibition but merely coming into contact with a corpse are similarly a cause for this prohibition. On the other hand, not only contact with a corpse but even a seminal emission from one’s own body that can be purified by immersion in a ritual bath on the same evening, is also included in this legislation. Conversely, even a ritual impurity due merely to an external cause such as touching a corpse, is similarly triggering this prohibition.

והוא צרוע, "and he suffers from צרעת, the skin affliction, etc." On this word Torat Kohanim write. "From this wording I would only have known that the descendants of Aaron (or another High Priest) would be subject to this legislation. How do I know that the same legislation applies to the High Priest himself? Answer: This is why the Torah added the word והוא, 'and he himself.'" Thus far Torat Kohanim. In this instance we cannot apply what we explained on 21,7, that the words איש מזרעך imply that G'd would protect both Aaron and his sons from becoming afflicted with a מום, a physical blemish of the kind that disqualifies them from performing sacrificial service, seeing the Torah includes impurity caused by emission of semen, something which is not only natural but absolutely necessary in the fulfilment of the commandment to be fruitful and to multiply. We know for a fact that Aaron, -as opposed to Moses- did not separate from his wife and thereby avoid emission of semen. If the Torah had not added the word והוא I could have erred thinking that Aaron himself was permitted to eat sacrificial meat while in a state of such ritual impurities as are described in this verse. Once the Torah included Aaron in this prohibition his sons are automatically included in it also. As a result of these considerations, the earlier verse in which the Torah speaks about priests who suffer from a physical blemish and which did not include Aaron could have been interpreted as Aaron being exempted from this legislation in principle. Torat Kohanim therefore told us that the reason he is exempted is only that G'd promised that neither he nor his sons would suffer such a blemish.

עד אשר יטהר, “until he will become purified.” A process completed by the setting of the sun. (Compare verse 7 in our chapter)

בכל טמא נפש [AND WHOSO TOUCHETH] ANY טמא נפש — This means: who touches a person who has become defiled by a corpse.

בכל שרץ אשר יטמא לו [OR WHOSOEVER TOUCHETH] ANY PROLIFIC CREATURE BECAUSE OF WHICH (לו) HE MAY BE MADE UNCLEAN — This means: who touches any שרץ of the minimum size that is capable of communicating uncleanness, viz., a particle of the size of a lentil (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 4 4; Chagigah 11a).

A lentil. Otherwise Scripture should have written only “Anyone who touches any creeping creature,” and nothing more. Why does it write “that causes impurity to him”? So that you do not say that [he is impure] only if he touched a complete creeping creature.

אשר יטמא לו, “whereby he may become ritually unclean;” the word לו in this verse means בשבילו, “on its account,” on account of the creeping animal. It is parallel to Exodus 1,10, where Pharaoh exerted his people to outsmart the Israelites since he could not outnumber them and said: הבה נתחכמה לו, “let us instead try to be smarter than it,” i.e. “on account of its numerical superiority.” It is also similar to Esther 6,4: אשר הכין לו, “which he had prepared on his account.” (On Mordechai’s account, in order to hang him from that gallows). Our author cites more parallels.

או באדם OR A HUMAN BEING — a dead person (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 4 4).

A dead body. You might ask: Impurity imparted by a dead body requires seven days [for the person to become pure], yet here it is written that one only requires for the sun to set [for the person to become pure, which is] like the impurity imparted by a creeping creature where it is written, “He will be impure until the evening”? The answer is that we are only deriving [the law of] the impurity imparted by a dead body from [the law of] the impurity imparted by a creeping creature regarding the necessity for the sun to set. So that you do not say that once as soon as the seventh day begins he is pure, [on the basis] that part of the day is considered the whole day. I found this.

אשר יטמא לו BY WHOM HE MAY BE MADE UNCLEAN - i. e. by touching the minimum size of a portion of the dead person which is capable of transmitting uncleanness, and this is, a portion as large as an olive (Mishnah Oholot 2:1).

An olive’s-bulk. Otherwise, why write “Which causes uncleanness to him”? This would [already] be implied in “Any person ... [with] whatever impurity he has.”

לכל טמאתו WHATSOEVER UNCLEANNESS HE HATH — This is intended to include in the prohibition of eating holy things one who has touched a man or a woman who has an issue, or who has touched a נדה or a woman in childbirth (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 4 4).

This includes one who touches a zov. Even though this is not the uncleanness imparted by the dead that the verse is discussing, nonetheless it is included in “whatever impurity he has,” since all these are human impurities.

נפש אשר תגע בו THE SOUL WHICH HATH TOUCHED IT — i. e. who touches any one of these unclean persons or things (enumerated in the second half of v. 4 and in v. 5).

Any of these [ritually] unclean [persons]. I.e., the verse should have said, “Anyone touching them.”

כי אם רחץ בשרו במים, “unless he has first washed his body in water. (ritual bath) In case we understood this as piecemeal washing of the limbs of one’s body, the Torah adds the word: במים in water (all at the same time). This is why the words: “when the sun sets he will be ritually clean,” is of importance here. Just as sunset is not a gradual process but it occurs at the same time, so the whole body has to be washed at the same time. (Sifra)

ואחר יאכל מן הקדשים [AND WHEN THE SUN IS DOWN HE SHALL BE CLEAN] AND MAY AFTERWARDS EAT OF HOLY THINGS — This is interpreted in Treatise Jebamoth (74b) to have reference to the heave-offering (not to holy things of every description): that he (a priest who was unclean and has bathed) is permitted to eat it as soon as the sun has set.

כי לחמו הוא, and he need not await his atonement before he may eat what is his regular diet, לחמו. Our sages in Pessachim 35 stated that as soon as the sun has set the priest (who had ritually immersed himself after having contracted ritual impurity) may eat t‘rumah. [he may not yet eat sacrificial meats which are of a higher level of holiness until the following morning as those are not considered his לחמו, regular diet. Ed.]

Terumah. Explanation: This [verse that writes] “of the holy things” and [not] “all holy things,” implying only some holy things, is speaking about the holy terumah.

ובא השמש וטהר ואחר יאכל, “when the sun has setand he has become ritually pure, he may eat, etc.” It is the setting of the sun which causes the purified person to be allows to eat t’rumah, second degree holy matters, not the immersion in the ritual bath preceding that, although that had been a prerequisite. On the other hand, the line:

מן הקדשים accordingly means: some OF THE HOLY THINGS, but not all holy things (the word מן having a partitive meaning: “some of”).

ואחר יאכל מן הקדשים, “and afterwards he may eat from the holy matters,” i.e. holy matters of the first degree. If as apparent in some manuscripts the order were to be reversedit would not make sense if he could already eat holy things of the first degree, why would he have to await sunset to be allowed to eat t’rumah, which is inferior in its degree of holiness?On the other hand, one may argue that seeing that a non priest is not allowed to eat t’rumah even when ritually pure, this requires additional steps when purification is required for the priest. Still another consideration is the fact that when something holy has been allowed to become piggul, unfit to eat because it has not been eaten during the time prescribed for it, a restriction unknown in respect of t’rumah, this could be a reason why the Torah had to mention both separately. (Sifra)

נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל לטמאה בה CARRION, OR THAT WHICH IS TORN HE SHALL NOT EAT TO BECOME UNCLEAN THEREBY — It is with regard to the defilement that Scripture lays down this prohibition: that if he (the priest) eats the carrion of a clean bird — which has no defiling effect through being touched or carried but has a defiling effect only when eaten, as soon as it is in the gullet — he is forbidden to eat holy things (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12 6). And it was necessary for Scripture to mention טרפה also, in order to define what נבלה is here intended, viz., one that can have a טרפה amongst the individuals of its class: therefore the נבלה of an unclean bird is excluded, for in its class a טרפה can never occur (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 17:15).

N’VEILAH’ (THAT WHICH DIETH OF ITSELF) ‘U’TREIFAH’ (OR IS TORN OF BEASTS) HE SHALL NOT EAT TO DEFILE HIMSELF THEREWITH. Scripture is stating that [the priest] should be careful not to eat n’veilah or treifah so that he should not become defiled therewith, and then it will be necessary for him to be separated from the holy things,⁹⁰With this interpretation Ramban avoids the difficulty as to why the Torah singled out here the priests in mentioning the prohibition of n’veilah and treifah, since the law applies to all Israelites (See Exodus 22:30 on treifah, and Deuteronomy 14:21 on n’veilah). Ramban’s explanation is that since the main theme of this section is to warn the priests to separate themselves from holy things when they are in a state of impurity, therefore the Torah mentions here the admonition against their eating n’veilah and treifah, since by so doing they will not only have transgressed a law which applies to all Israel, but they will also have to separate themselves from the Sanctuary and its holy things, as they will have been rendered impure. and he will not be able to eat of them until he bathes his flesh in water, and when the sun is down, he shall be clean.⁹¹Verse 7. And the reason [why He mentioned here the prohibition against eating n’veilah and treifah], is that since He had referred to every sort of impurity which can occur to a person, seeing that He mentioned leprosy and an issue,⁹²Verse 4. which includes male and female, and the impurity of the dead,⁹³This is not expressly mentioned in this section here. But the Rabbis interpreted: “Or a man (Verse 5), this refers to the dead.” (Torath Kohanim, Emor 4:4). of semen,⁹²Verse 4. and of a swarming thing,⁹⁴Verse 5. therefore He goes back [in the verse before us] to warn [the priests to separate themselves] from the holy things when they are impure because of n’veiloth, and He warned them about this by way of an admonition against eating them. And the reason [why He singled out n’veilah and treifah in warning the priests not to eat them, and He did not mention those creeping things which also render the eater impure], is because a man’s soul finds it loathsome to eat creeping things, but it does not find n’veilah and treifah loathsome. Therefore He mentioned here [the prohibition against eating food which conveys] impurity in the case of [that food] which it is common [to eat]. Now the word treifah mentioned here [which renders the eater impure, must perforce] mean an animal that was torn by a lion or bear which killed it in the field, for when it is still alive [and is then slaughtered ritually] it does not convey impurity [although it may not be eaten. The term treifah which the Torah mentions here as conveying impurity to one who eats it, is applicable, however, even to an animal that was not killed when torn by beasts], for from the moment when it is torn by the lion [or any beast] it is called treifah (“torn”), whether it is alive or after its death.⁹⁵Therefore even after the animal torn by beasts has died, when strictly speaking it may be referred to as n’veilah since it was not ritually slaughtered, the Torah still calls it here treifah, for from the moment when it is torn by the beast it is called treifah, whether it is alive or after its death. Thus He mentioned here all sources of impurity, for having stated that animals of the forbidden species [which are not mentioned here, although they do convey impurity to one who eats them], cannot be [made permissible by] ritual slaughtering,⁹⁶An animal that may not be eaten, even if ritually slaughtered, conveys impurity to the one who eats of it [in addition of course to having violated the prohibition against eating it], because there is no law of ritual slaughter regarding it, and it is therefore included under the term n’veilah. An animal of the permitted species, which, when ritually slaughtered, is found to have an organic disease which renders it forbidden for eating, does not convey impurity to the person who eats it, although he has transgressed the law which prohibits the eating of treifah. as I have explained in the section of ‘Vay’hi Bayom Ha’shemini’ (And it came to pass on the eighth day),⁹⁷Above, 9:1. — Ibid., 11:24. it is [automatically] included under the term of n’veilah [which is mentioned here]. This is by way of the plain meaning of Scripture. The [Rabbinical] explanation⁹⁸Chullin 100 b, and mentioned here in Rashi. likewise interprets [this verse as an admonition] about holy things with reference to impurity, namely that the verse speaks of the carrion of a bird of a permissible species⁹⁹But a bird of a forbidden species has no defiling effect if eaten unintentionally (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Aboth Hatumoth 3:14). If there is, however, an intention to eat it, and it has been rendered susceptible to impurity [by having come into contact with liquid], it is like any other food and may itself contract a first grade impurity, but only if it itself comes into contact with an object that conveys impurity. It is not, however, capable of rendering the eater impure, as human beings cannot become impure through contact with food. The case of the carrion of a bird of a permitted species is a special exception, because in that case the Torah declared that it conveys impurity automatically if eaten [but not if merely touched], although it itself has not received impurity from another object. In short, it is, if eaten, a primary source of impurity which renders the eater impure. [i.e., which died by itself, or has not been slaughtered properly], which has no defiling effect by means of contact or carrying, but [conveys] impurity only when in the [eater’s] gullet, and thus it forbids him to eat [subsequently] of the holy things. And we must then explain [that when Scripture states here] ‘u’treifah’ (or is torn of beasts),¹⁰⁰In other words, since as explained, the verse before us has reference only to the carrion of a permitted species of bird, which is n’veilah, why then did Scripture here mention treifah altogether? The answer is: it was necessary for Scripture to state here also u’treifah etc. [it is in order to define the term n’veilah, and to explain that this law of impurity of n’veilah refers only] to those kinds [of birds] that can have a treifah [i.e., to those species which may usually be eaten if slaughtered properly, but which are nonetheless treifah if found to be suffering from certain organic diseases, and consequently forbidden to be eaten], thus excluding the carrion of a bird of one of the forbidden species, for in its class no treifah is ever possible [for such a bird, even if ritually slaughtered, is still n’veilah, since the law of treifah only applies to such birds which, if they were healthy, would be permitted as food by means of ritual slaughter, which does not apply to these forbidden species], as is stated in the language of Rashi [here]. And as far as the impurity of other n’veiloth is concerned, [so that the priest must be careful not to be defiled by them as this will make it necessary for him to be separated from the holy things, although they are not expressly mentioned in Scripture], they have been included in the Torath Kohanim on the basis of the following interpretation:¹⁰¹Torath Kohanim, Emor 4:4. “Or whosoever toucheth ‘b’chol’ (any) swarming thing.¹⁰²Above, Verse 5. I would only know the swarming thing. How do I know to include n’veilah? From the expression b’chol (any).”

נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל, even though they were permitted to eat the sacrificial birds without such procedure as slaughter, by simply snipping off, מליקה, their windpipe or food pipe.

נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל, “He shall not eat from a carcass or a fatally injured animal.” Nachmanides reminds us that our sages in Torat Kohanim Emor 4,4 explain that the news here is that seeing that there are species of birds not subject to the ritual contamination caused by carcasses of mammals, we might have thought that the priests do not need to be on guard against contact with or eating same when they were part of an offering. The Torah therefore had to write our verse, even though, naturally, the priests were included in all the carcasses and treyfah animals mentioned in chapter 11. If we were to look at the plain meaning of the text, [something we must never disregard, Ed.] the injunction for the priests here does not repeat the ordinary prohibition against eating נבלה וטרפה, applicable to all Israelites, but it adds the new dimension of the priest violating their status of ritual purity when they do this, a dimension that does not apply to the ordinary Israelite unless these animals had been sanctified at some time prior to their death. Seeing that the various ways a human being can become ritually contaminated had been discussed in previous chapters, as well as the definitions of such ritual impurity of sperm, and other effluences from the body, this was the place to add this reminder to the priests. In case you wonder why the Torah used the wording “he shall not eat” such animals (on the basis of the פשט), an expression not normally used with the contaminating factor of such repulsive creatures as insects, vermin, rodents, and the like, it is the Torah’s awareness that most people would not eat these creatures even if the Torah had not expressly prohibited this. However, this consideration does not apply to mammals which had died by an arrow or a gunshot wound, or had been fatally wounded but had undergone decapitation immediately afterwards. The word טרפה in our verse refers to animals that had been mauled by predators such as lions or bears or wolves. While prohibited as food, such injured animals do not transmit ritual contamination until after they have died. The Torah here expands the prohibition by referring even to such animals that had not yet died as included in those that confer ritual contamination on contact. The expression נבלה automatically includes this aspect of conferring ritual contamination.

Regarding the matter of uncleanness. Rashi is answering the question: The Torah already wrote [this prohibition earlier], “An animal which has died on its own, or an animal that was fatally maimed, he must not eat,” [earlier, verse (11:40)]? When Rashi writes, “[This verse] warns regarding the matter of uncleanness, etc.,” he means that this prohibition does not pertain to its eating but to its imparting impurity, telling us “That if he ate, etc.” Regarding what he says, “Except for the uncleanness [caused by] eating as soon as it is in the gullet,” see above in parshas Acharei Mos (17:15) in the verse “that will eat an improperly slaughtered animal.”

נבלה וטרפה, “that which dies of itself, or has been torn;” the Torah refers to the carcass of a pure bird, (one that could be eaten if it had been ritually slaughtered) and of flesh from sacrificial meat of mammals which could have been eaten, had it not been removed, but which because it had been removed from the sacred domain within which it could have been eaten had now become treif; or similarly since such a bird had at one point been fit to eat, it is compared to something that had died of its own accord. The priests are not to eat of it as it would confer ritual impurity on them. (Compare Ezekiel 44,31)

Which has no [rule of] uncleanness of touch. You might ask: Why does Rashi mention that it does not impart uncleanness [of touch]? He should have [only] said that if one eats the carcass of a ritually clean bird, he gets the uncleanness caused by eating as soon as it is in the gullet? The answer is: Rashi wants to prove his statement that the verse is talking about the carcass of a ritually pure bird, and not about the carcass of an animal: Since in the verse it is written “An animal which has died on its own, or an animal that was fatally maimed, he must not eat to defile himself with it,” [this indicates specifically] eating. I.e., [the creature spoken of] imparts uncleanness only through eating and not through touching or carrying. But if it was talking about the carcass of an animal, this it would also impart uncleanness through touching and carrying! This problem is resolved if the verse is talking about the carcass of a ritually pure bird, since it imparts uncleanness only through eating. If one ate the carcass of a ritually clean bird, the carcass does not impart uncleanness by touching and carrying. It only imparts uncleanness by eating when it enters the person’s gullet.

ושמרו את משמרתי THEY SHALL THEREFORE KEEP MY CHARGE — not to eat the heave-offering (as mentioned in v. 7) whilst they are in a state of bodily uncleanness (Sanhedrin 83a).

That is that He commanded us to sanctify His name. And that is His saying, "and I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel" (Leviticus 22:32). And the content of this commandment is that we are commanded to publicize this true faith in the world, and that we not fear the injury of any aggressor. And even though an oppressor seeks to coerce us, we may not listen to him, but rather must give ourselves over to dying; and not deceive him to think that we have denied [God or His Torah] - even if we [regardless] believe in Him, may He be exalted, in our hearts. And this is the commandment of sanctifying [God's] name, that the Jewish people is commanded as a whole - meaning, to allow ourselves to die at the hand of the coercer on account of our love for God, may He be exalted, and our faith in His unity. This is like that which was done by Chananiah, Mishael and Azariah at the time of the evil Nevuchadnetsar, when he commanded to bow down to an image and all of the masses bowed down to it, including the Jews; and there was no one there sanctifying the name of the Heavens. Rather all were afraid; and this was a great disgrace for all of Israel, since the commandment was lost from all of them. And this commandment (in such circumstances) is only commanded in such a large and public stand in which everyone is afraid. And this was a designated publicization of [God's] unity which was designated by God through Yishayah - that the disgrace of Israel not be complete during this stand, but that young men would appear at that difficult time; and death would not scare them and they would allow their lives [to be taken], such that they would publicize the faith and sanctify [God's] name among the masses. This is as He promised us when He said, "no more shall Yaakov be shamed, no longer his face grow pale. For when he - that is, his children - behold what My hands have wrought in his midst, they will sanctify My name, etc." (Isaiah 29:22-23). And the language of the Sifra is, "On this condition did I bring you out of Egypt: On condition that you sanctify My name among the masses." And in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 74b), they said, "Is a gentile (ben Noach) commanded about the sanctification of [God’s] name, or is he not commanded? Come and hear - the Children of Noach were commanded to observe seven commandments. And if you say like this, there would be eight." Behold it has become clear to you that it is among the commandments that are obligatory for the Jews. And they brought His saying, "and I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel," as a proof for this commandment. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the seventh chapter of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Emor ; Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah 5.)

אני ה' מקדשם, I have sanctified them (the items sanctified as donations by the ordinary Israelites) It is therefore appropriate that priests who treat these sanctified objects with disdain (as if they were profane), be punished for desecrating them.

Not to eat. Explanation: “They shall keep” is referring to [what is written] earlier where it was discussing terumah, as Rashi explained above.

ומתו בו LEST THEY DIE THEREBY — This phrase teaches us that this means death through Heaven (not through the sentence of the court) (cf. Sanhedrin 83a).

At the hands of Heaven. Re’m asks: From where do we derive that this is death at the hands of Heaven? Is there not a rule that every death mentioned in the Torah without specification is [death by] strangulation? He leaves this question unanswered. The answer is: The death spoken of here must be at the hand of Heaven, because kodshim are more severe than terumah, since [unlike terumah] kodshim are forbidden [for someone who went to mikveh for his impurity] to be eaten kodshim at [after] sunset. Yet even so, if someone ate kodshim when ohine’s body was impure, heone is not liable for death at by the hand of man, because we derive the eating of kodshim from entering of the Sanctuary with a hekesh, as stated above in parshas Ki Tazria (12:4). And entering the Temple in a state of impurity is punished by koreis as it is written (Bamidbar 12:20), “That soul will be cut off from the community; for he defiled the Sanctuary of Hashem.” [If so], how much more is the lenient terumah not be liable for death by the hand of man. Another answer is: Rashi explained earlier in parshas Ki Tazria (ibid), that [the words] “anything holy” come to include terumah. This indicates that the death mentioned in terumah is koreis, similar to [the punishment for] eating kodshim. Another answer is that the verse indicates this by writing “And die because of it, etc., I am Hashem.” Why add “I am Hashem”? This must refer to the beginning of the verse where it states “And die because of it, etc.,” and it means, “I am Hashem,” Who will surely punish and kill him. This is death by the hand of Heaven.

לא יאכל קדש [THERE SHALL] NO [LAYMAN] EAT OF THE HOLY THINGS — Scripture is speaking here of the heave-offering (i. e., the word קדש means here תרומה only, and not any holy food) because the whole section (cf. Rashi on v. 7 and 9) is speaking of this.

וכל זר לא יאכל קודש, even relatively low grade sacred produce such as the tithe given to the priest known as תרומה.

Or his hired hand. Explanation: Not that the indentured person and the hired hand are kohanim, because cshould [you think that] someone who belongs [to ahis master] for [a period of] years lose his kehunah?

תושב כהן ושכיר, “a tenant of a priest or a hired servant;” you could have thought that if a tenant or physically owned slave of a priest is forbidden to eat of these holy things, it is only logical that a hired hand whose has been hired for a limited period only cannot eat from it either, so why did the Torah have to spell this out for us?; The reason is that if the word תושב alone had been written, I would have thought that it refers to someone hired only for a limited period; (Sifra)

תושב כהן ושכיר A SOJOURNER WITH THE PRIEST OR A HIRED SERVANT [SHALL NOT EAT OF THE HOLY THINGS] — These words mean: the תושב of a כהן and his שכיר (not a כהן who is a תושב or a שכיר); on this account this word תושב here is punctuated with a Patach, because it is in the construct state. What is a תושב? One (a Hebrew servant) whose ear has been pierced (cf. Exodus 21:6), who thereby becomes his (the master’s) possession until the Jubilee year. And what is a שכיר? One (a Hebrew servant) who has been acquired as his possession for a limited number of years only — who goes free at the end of six years (cf. Exodus 21:2). Scripture intends to teach you here that it is not his body (that of the תושב or the שכיר), but only his labour for a term of years that has been acquired by his master that he should become entitled to eat of his heave-offering (as is the case with the קנין כספו, with “a person obtained as a property with money”, mentioned in the next verse) (Sifra, Emor, Section 5 17; Yevamot 70b).

Who leaves [his master’s service] in six years. You might ask: If so, the verse should [only] write the indentured person who does not eat terumah even though he belongs to [his master] until the Jubilee year, and then Scripture would not have to write that the hired hand may not eat since [it would be obvious since] he goes out [free] after six years? The answer is: If it did not mention the hired hand, we would say that the verse is speaking of the most likely case. [Thus] we would think that תושב is somebody who belongs [to his master] for [a period of] years and goes out after six years, and this is why he does not eat. But the one [who had his ear] pierced who belongs to him until the Jubilee year may eat terumah. Therefore the verse needs [to mention] the indentured person and the hired hand.

וכהן כי יקנה נפש BUT IF THE PRIEST BUY ANY SOUL… [HE MAY EAT OF IT] — This refers to a Canaanitish servant who has been acquired even in respect to his body (not only as regards his work).

A Canaanite slave. Rashi is answering the question: The previous verse implies that a [slave’s] body does not belong to the master, yet here it is written, “If a kohein shall purchase ... ?” He answers that the verse above is speaking of a Hebrew slave, while here it is speaking of a Canaanite slave.

ויליד ביתו AND THEY THAT ARE BORN IN HIS HOUSE — This refers to the children of his maid-servants. A priest's wife may eat תרומה as may be derived from this verse, for she, too, is “an acquisition obtained by his money” (Ketuvot 57b; cf. Mishna Kiddushin 1:1… ‎'האשה נקנית בכסף וכו‎‎‎, one of the ways in which a marriage may be contracted is by the passing of money or its equivalent from the man to the woman. A wife is therefore a קנין כסף). But it may also be derived from another verse (Numbers 18:11) "[the heave-offering…] everyone that is clean in thy house may eat of it”. Thus is it expounded in Sifrei Bamidbar 117 2.

And [this law] is also learned from another verse. There is a reason for these two sources. If [we would learn only] from here [where it says] “his monetary possession,” I might think that only his wife [may eat], but his yevamah may not eat as she is not his קנין כספו [lit. brought with his money]. Rather, Hheaven gave this wife to him as a possession [without the second husband giving her any money]. Thus “in your house” informs you [that she too eats terumah], because his yevamah is also regarded as “your house.” And if [we would learn] only from there, you might think that only a nesu’ah [may eat] because she is “his house,” but not an arusah. Therefore “his monetary possession” teaches us [that an arusah too also eats terumah]. (Gur Aryeh)

לאיש זר TO A LAYMAN — to a Levite or an ordinary Israelite (i. e. to any non-priest) (Sifra, Emor, Section 5 7).

ובת כהן כי תהיה לאיש זר, "And the daughter of a priest who marries an non-priest," etc. Torat Kohanim uses the restrictive word היא, "she," to exclude her mother, meaning her mother (the wife of a priest) may eat תרומה even though her daughter is not allowed to do so even if the mother had meanwhile become a widow (who had not remarried).

To a Levite or an Israelite. Rashi is answering the [following] question: that It is obvious that she has to marry an איש זר (lit. a nonrelative), because she is forbidden to relatives. He answers that regarding her, a Levite or an Israelite are considered a זר. [See Re’m]

.ובת כהן....ובת כהן, why does each verse have to be written separately and have to be introduced by the words: ובת כהן, “and the daughter if a priest?” We must understand these verses as follows: “if this daughter of a priest gets married to someone who is not a priest, i.e. someone who had actually not qualified for marrying a priest’s daughter, as described in the Talmud, tractate Yevamot folio 68, where the subject is the widow of a High Priest; seeing that this woman had married someone forbidden to her, she has forfeited the right to eat t’rumah something that had been her right from birth until such time. [If the Torah had not written that after becoming divorced or widowed such a woman if she returned to her father’s house could resume eating trumah, if she was still childless, I would not have known that while married to a non priest she had been forbidden to do so. Ed.]

I have seen an allusion of a moral-ethical nature in this paragraph which it is important for people to appreciate. Remember that Sanhedrin 93 taught us that the spiritual level of the Israelites is higher than that of the angels. We have also been taught in the Zohar second volume page 155 that G'd created four different worlds, each one higher than its counterpart. All this is derived from Isaiah 43,7 כל הנקרא בשמי ולכבודי בראתיו, יצרתיו, אף־עשיתיו. "All that is called by My name I have created, for My glory, fashioned it, and completed it." The word לכבודי refers to a higher world called עולם האצילות. The word בראתיו refers to a world known as עולם הבריאה. The word יצרתיו refers to the world known as עולם היצירה, whereas the word עשיתיו refers to our world, the world known as עולם העשיה. You must also appreciate that G'd's glory fills the entire universe including all these worlds we have described. It says in Deut. 33,27 ומתחת זרעות עולם, "and from beneath the arms of the world." G'd's "light" illuminates all four worlds. This is the mystical dimension of the tetragram, the four-lettered name of G'd י־ה־ו־ה. The letter י refers to G'd illuminating the domain called עולם האצילות, the totally spiritual, abstract world which we described. The first letter ה refers to the עולם הבריאה; the letter ו refers to the עולם היצירה, and the second letter ה refers to the עולם העשיה.

The Zohar volume 1 page 80 also states that the vital parts of man are divided into four categories each of which is identified by a different name. One part is called נפש, a second part is called רוח whereas a third part is called נשמה. A fourth, and still more spiritual part, is called חיה. The part called חיה belongs to a domain called אפנים [a domain of the angels supporting G'd's throne Ed.] a celestial domain which may best be described as the "soul of the soul; Kabbalists claim that the vital part of man which is due to the light G'd employs in the עולם העשיה, our physical universe, is relatively weak and provides only the small part of the vitality needed to enable creatures to move. This is the only part of the "soul" that we are conscious of in this life. G'd arranged things in this way seeing the world we live is relatively gross, coarse. This "soul" is commonly referred to as נפש, "a physical life-force." On the other hand, the category of "vitality" which emanates from the light of G'd with which He illuminates the עולם היצירה is commonly known as רוה, spirit. It is a commensurately stronger spiritual force. The "vitality" which originates in the light with which G'd illuminates the עולם הבריה is called נשמה, in accordance with the degree of spirituality which permeates the world it originates in. Finally, the vitality originating in the עולם האצילות is best known as נשמה לנשמה, "the soul of the soul."

The Lord G'd, Master of all the worlds, established some degree of fusion between the various spiritual domains with the physical domain in the creature called אדם, man. The phyical part of man is composed of four basic elements; G'd imposed the laws governing the various levels of spirituality in the different worlds on these elements. You must know that גשמיות, corporeality, opposes fusion with spirituality by definition, by its very nature. This opposition between these two domains is more powerful than the opposition between fire and water. This is why G'd in His wisdom created within man the lowest level of spirituality, i.e. the נפש because it represents only a minimum of spirituality and is therefore not as opposed to corporeality as would be higher forms of spirituality. G'd imbued this נפש with a minute part of the next higher form of spirit, i.e. the רוח. As a result we may view the נפש as sort of a half-way house between body and spirit. The רוח by itself would be unable to maintain an existence due to the fierce resistence by the physical elements in man. In a similar fashion we may view the רוח as a half-way house between the נפש and the נשמה, for the value relationship between the נפש and that of the נשמה which has been illuminated by an immeasurably greater light from G'd is similar to that of the body to that of the רוח. Similarly, the נשמה itself may be viewed like a half-way house between the רוח and the נשמה לנשמה. In other words the נפש is able to to stand on its own, the רוח requires two elements to support it whereas the נשמה requires three elements to support it, whereas the נשמה לנשמה requires four elements to suppport it.

Another statement by the sages of the Zohar volume 2 page 94 describes the progressive strengthening of the pious by means of the לקח טוב, the good lesson, the Torah which enables man to rise to spiritually higher and higher levels. In this fashion the נפש develops into רוח, and רוח in turn develops into נשמה. Eventually, the נשמה develops into נשמה לנשמה, the "soul of souls" known in kabbalistic parlance as חיה. This is the purpose of the creation of man the most advanced terrestrial creature.

Our sages have said further that as a direct result of man achieving the spiritual tasks set for him he in turn will make use of G'd's universe as if it belonged to him. This is the mystical dimension of Psalms 128,2: "When you enjoy the fruit of your labour you will be happy and you will be well off." David assures us that the אשר and the טוב he is speaking about will be "yours." This is also what the sages had in mind when they said that before or upon entering this world the נפש consumes what it enjoys in this world as if she were a grown up daughter [who still depends on her father without contributing to the expense of the household, Ed.], whereas when that נפש returns (after death of the body) she has qualified for the status of a married daughter.

You also need to appreciate that whatever G'd created in this world is dependent on input of sustenance from a higher world called the עולם האצילות. This is an allusion to the light of G'd represented by the letter י in the tetragram. The מזון, sustenance, we refer to is called קדש, holy, the source of all the goodness referred to in the Psalm we quoted. This is the deeper meaning of Nechemyah 9,6 ואתה מחיה את כולם, "and You provide sustenance for them all." The degree and visibility of G'd's contribution to the maintenance of phenomena in our terrestrial world becomes more and more distant looking, much as the source of a plant which grows bigger and bigger seems further and further removed from the source it originally received its nourishment. G'd has arranged things in this manner so that every creature receives what it is entitled to in accordance with its spiritual development. It is also G'd who provides water for physical earth. This is its bounty, i.e. the vitality which corresponds to the vitality called נפש in man. This is the only way earth is able to fulfil its function of growing plants, etc. Indirectly then, earth too contributes to the development of the various levels of vitality in man, i.e. נפש, רוח, נשמה, and נשמה לנשמה. There is no creature in the universe be it the terrestrial regions or the celestial regions which does not depend on the continued input by its holy source, its sacred origin. Each creature, be it totally abstract or totally physical is provided with its respective needs by G'd Almighty.

Another thing which you the reader must know is that some people achieve the highest of the levels of spirituality we have described, i.e. they possess the נשמה לנשמה, whereas others achieve only lower levels respectively. However, if someone has not progressed beyond the level of possessing the נפש which is common to all creatures at birth even his good deeds count for nothing. His deeds do not possess the spiritual power to raise them towards the celestial regions. Our deeds in this terrestrial world impact on higher celestial regions only by means of the רוח, the first higher level of spirituality. The נפש itself is elevated to the level of רוח by means of man's (intentional) good deeds. When man achieves that level, the good deeds he performed previously become "his own," so that he is called in our literature בעל מעשים טובים, "the owner of good deeds." This is the mystical dimension of Proverbs 23,2: אם בעל נפש אתה, "if you have become the owner of the נפש. Ownership of your נפש is the result of having laboured to acquire it. The concept is that the רוח becomes the "owner" of the נפש as a result of fatigue caused by performance of good deeds by the body whom it inhabits. Both the נפש and the רוח ascend together and imbibe from the same holy source of sustenance as equals. The same holds true for the רוח in its value relationship compared to the נשמה, and for the נשמה in its comparative value relationship with the נשמה לנשמה. Acquisiton of the requisite spiritual level by a person may be due to one of two reasons. 1) The spiritual power bestowed by the father at the time of conception of the fetus; I have explained this in greater detail in Genesis 49,3 on the words ראובן בכרי, "Reuben is my firstborn." 2) It may be achieved by the independent effort of the person involved especially if assisted by Torah study. In connection with Leviticus 22,27: שור או כשב או עז כי יולד, "when an ox, a sheep, or a goat is born, etc.." The Zohar volume 3 page 91 describes that a human being through the help of Torah study is capable by his own efforts to achieve the highest spiritual plateau even though at birth he was spiritually under-endowed to the worst possible degree. The key to his success is how much he is prepared to tire himself in the process of Torah study. You should realise that in addition to the positive achievements of a spiritual nature we have described, the residue of Adam's sin which inhabits every human being to a greater or lesser degree affects different categories of people differently according to the level of spirituality they have attained. The reason for this is simply that the impact of that residue on the force called נפש is not to be compared with the impact of that same residue of spiritual pollution on such forces as רוח, נשמה, or נשמה לנשמה respectively.

We know from Ezekiel 18,4 that הנפש החוטאת היא תמות, "that the נפש which sins will die, i.e. that the defect or blemish on the נפש is powerful enough to cause the sinner's destruction, his physical death. If the person who is on the spiritual level of רוח displays such symptoms as צרעת, etc., this is already considered a sign of a very grave defect although it does not result in physical death. Kohelet 17,7 describes this as a situation והרוח תשוב אל האלוקים אשר נתנה, "the spirit ought to return to G'd who has provided it." However, our sages in Shabbat 152 explain that statement as a commandment to man that when the time comes for him to die he is to return the spirit G'd has provided in its original unstained condition, without the spots signifying that the person suffered a צרעת, skin-eczema, i.e. has been guilty of misdemeanours. If man has not managed to get rid of these blemishes (through repentance, etc.) it will prevent his רוח from returning to its celestial origin and his spirit will instead be consigned to the domain of the סטרא אחרא, a spiritually negative domain. Although the immediate impact of a defect in a person of the נשמה spiritual level is "only" the fact that G'd will withdraw the level of Divine light that such a person was bathed in, this very absence is equivalent to a major disgrace for such a person. The impact of any misdemeanour is in direct ratio to the esteem that such a person was held in by G'd before he became guilty of that misdemeanour. The result of a misdemeanour committed by someone who had attained the level of spirituality we defined as נשמה לנשמה, is not the withdrawal of G'd's light but the withdrawal of the automatic protection which G'd grants such people against becoming guilty of trespasses against the laws of the Torah. This is discussed in Tikkuney Ha-Zohar chapter 70 in connection with the verse in Proverbs 12,21 לא יאנה לצדיק כל און, "no harm will befall the righteous." The author of תקוני הזהר understands that the kind of person described by Solomon in that verse is the one who has attained the level of נשמה לנשמה. When such a person will find himself on the threshold of committimg a second sin, the holy soul which so far protected him against actually committing such a sin is withdrawn from him so that he remains unprotected in the presence of his temptation. His situation is comparable to a person who had once enjoyed the privilege of playing host to the King in his home but who had been foolish enough to expel his illustrious guest.

After G'd has informed us about all these aspects of the various parts of the soul, etc., the Torah commenced (verse 10) with the words וכל זר לא יאכל קדש, "that any non-priest must not eat something holy," it is clear that the Torah speaks of different categories of "holy things," i.e. of 1) sacrificial meat, and 2) of things the holiness of which is hidden, i.e. the bounty from G'd who provides spiritual food for the בני אלוקים, the people who have acquired a degree of sanctity.

The words תושב כהן ושכיר allude to the phenomenon of נפש and רוח respectively. The רוח is described as תושב כהן, a permanent resident within a priest, who is by definition the home of the נשמה called כהן, a superior level of spirituality. The word שכיר describes the force we know as נפש, seeing it is this force which carries out all the activities man performs. The Torah tells us that these two aspects of man are not entitled to consume the kind of spiritual food the Torah here calls קדש, seeing that this food is of a very superior level of holiness. It is worthwhile to read what Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai wrote in the Zohar volume 2 page 121 about the difference between the word kodesh and kadosh.

The Torah continues וכהן כי יקנה נפש קנין כספו, "when a priest buys a soul, an acquisition by his money, etc." Here the Torah describes the superior נשמה העליונה by the term כהן. The Torah describes this נשמה as if it were masculine by speaking of the נשמה i.e. as כספו something masculine. The Torah's message is that once a person has achieved this level of spirituality it deserves to be described in masculine terms. [Normally, the Torah would have spoken of the purchase being made by the aspect of a person called נפש, and the Torah would have had to write ונפש כי תקנה instead of כי יקנה. Ed.] The words כי יקנה נפש mean that the means by which this כהן has attained the spiritual level of נשמה is that his deeds were superior enough for him to "acquire" his נפש and to elevate it to the level of his נשמה so that such a person may now be called בעל נפש, as we mentioned in connection with Proverbs 23,2.

הוא יאכל בו, "he may eat of it;" having attained this level of sanctity enables also the normally spiritually lowly נפש to partake of that "holy" nourishment which was out of bounds to it prior to its spiritual ascent.

ויליד ביתו, "and those born in his house." This is a reference to the souls which had descended into a nether domain after Adam's sin, and which are gradually being rescued from that spiritually negative environment through the good deeds of the righteous. The good deeds are like a magnet which attracts the sparks of goodness which existed in isolated form in different parts of the universe. They are here described as "children of the נשמה," the Torah telling us that even they will experience such a spiritual ascent.

The Torah continues (verse 12) ובת כהן. Here the Torah refers to the נשמה which has become defective and defiled through the deeds it performed so that it has forfeited the right to enjoy G'd's spiritual nourishment, the one described by the Torah previously as kodesh. When the Torah writes כי תהיה לאיש זר, "who will be married to a stranger," the reference is to the fact that she (the soul) has betrothed herself to the forces of Satan (the stranger). והיא בתרומת הקדשים לא תאכל, "and she must not eat portions set aside from holy things." The Torah makes a point of singling out בתרומת to tell us that even things of which only 2% are sanctified must not be eaten by someone whose soul has been demoted due to a misdemeanour; such a backsliding person must certainly not eat from the קדש itself. The emphasis, i.e. repetition of the word והיא is intended to separate this law from what follows in the next verse seeing the next verse starts with the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of the word ובת. The denial of this kind of food to such a person who had achieved the level of נשמה is a true affliction for his life-force and that soul will feel painfully demoted as a result of forfeiting the divine light which had illuminated its life previously.

אלמנה וגרושה [BUT IF A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER BE] A WIDOW OR DIVORCED WIFE of the layman mentioned in the preceding verse,

ובת כהן כי תהיה אלמנה, "And if a priest's daughter will become widowed, etc." In this verse the Torah speaks of the person who had achieved the most spiritually advanced level that of being נשמה לנשמה. We have explained that as a result of such an ascent this kind of person is separated from sin almost absolutely, his whole lifestyle being one of avoiding even the proximity of sin. The Torah hints at this by describing such a בת כהן as "married," i.e. closely attached to her holy roots. This is the kind of soul of which Solomon had spoken in Proverbs 12,21 when he described it as not becoming the victim of any mishap, i.e. sin. When such an elevated soul somehow commits a sin, the result is that it will lose its status of being "married" to her holy roots and will become "widowed or divorced," as the case may be, in either case forfeiting the source of its sustenance, the most holy domain, the עולם האצילות. The example גרושה refers to the nature of its misdemeanour having been more serious than the one in which it is described as אלמנה, widowed. When the Torah adds וזרע אין לה, that she (the soul of souls) did not have any seed, this is a simile for such a soul (person) not having performed the kind of good deeds in this world that are known as פרות, "fruit." Nonetheless, the punishment is "only" that "she will return to her father's house," to eat of the food dished out at the table of her father such as she did before her soul had begun to ascend to spiritual heights. The fact that she has to eat once more the kind of food she used to eat when she had been only on the level of נפש or רוח, is a very painful experience for such a soul. It is equivalent to a person who had sinned and who had never ascended beyond the נפש level of existence, having to die as a punishment for his sin. If the person who had attained the spiritual level of being a נשמה לנשמה had also performed the kind of good deeds on earth known as פרות, its punishment for having committed a trespass would be "only" that she is considered as eating at her own table.

From him. I.e., even if she has children from another person who is a kohein, even stillso she may not eat [terumah] if she has children from him. [See Re’m]

כי תהיה אלמנה או גרושה, “the daughter of a priest who after having married a non priest had become widowed or divorced; the Torah speaks of a woman divorced or widowed from an Israelite or a Levite;

וזרע אין לה AND SHE HATH NO DESCENDANTS — from him (from the layman) (Sifra; Yevamot 87a),

She is forbidden. Even though this is obvious, Rashi needs to mention this here since the Torah’s [actual] intent is only to tell us the prohibition, and not to tell us the a leniency as one would [normally] [implied by the simple] understanding of the verse. It is as if the verse said, “If a kohein’s daughter is either widowed, etc., and she has children from him, she may not eat terumah.” [See Re’m]

וכל זר לא יאכל קדש, "any non-priest must not eat sacred things." Here the Torah provides a rationale why G'd does not display His mercy to such a soul, permitting her to eat sacred things if not as a matter of right then at least as a matter of G'd's grace. When a soul which had once ascended to lofty spiritual heights had allowed herself to backslide and make common cause with spiritually negative forces known as זר, as alien, she can no longer qualify for partaking from קדש, "G'd's table," as it were.

אלמנה וגרושה, why does the Torah not only write: גרושה without adding: אלמנה widow;? I would then have reasoned that if even a divorcee would be permitted to revert to the status of being single in her father’s house, a widowed woman surely would be able to do no less; this is why it says: אלמנה וזרע אין לה, “a widow who has no child.” By the same token, if the Torah had only written: אלמנה, “widow,” and had not mentioned a divorced woman, I would have reasoned that a widow who did not have a child could return to her father’s house and her former status as belonging to a priest would be reinstated, but a divorced woman would be reinstated even if she did have children from her ex husband who is not a priest. This is why the Torah had to write: גרושה וזרע אין לה “divorced but childless.” In the case of the widow the addition of “without child,” was a restriction for the widow, whereas the same words were an easing of the rules for the widow.

ושבה THEN SHE MAY RETURN [UNTO HER FATHER'S HOUSE AS IN HER YOUTH AND MAY EAT OF HER FATHER’S BREAD] — if, however, she has descendants from him she is forbidden to eat as long as the descendants (cf. Yevamot 87a) are alive.

The children live. But after his death she returns [to her father’s home]. Even though with regard to yibum, if her husband died and afterward her child died, the child is considered as living and she is no longer [considered] attached for yibum. Nonetheless, with regard to terumah, if her son child died [after she was widowed or divorced], she returns [to her father’s home] and the child is not considered as living, for it is written, “she has no children” as explained in Yevamos chapter 7.

ושבה אל בית אביה, “when she returns to live in the house of her father.” This excludes the case where because she had no children she is awaiting a levirate marriage to the brother or one of them, of her late husband. This is not called: “returning to the house of her father.”

וכל זר לא יאכל בו BUT THERE SHALL NO LAYMAN EAT THEREOF — The repetition of the prohibition already mentioned in v. 10 intends nothing else than to exclude from it the אונן — i. e. that he (the אונן) is permitted to eat תרומה. [Scripture, as it were, says here:] The status of being a non-priest, I tell you, debars one from eating תרומה but not that of being an אונן (Yevamot 68b).

כנעוריה, as when she was less than 12 years and 6 months old, i.e. when she was not yet pregnant. (Sifra)

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”?

'‎ולא יחוללו וגו‎‎ AND THEY SHALL NOT PROFANE [THE HOLY THINGS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] — by giving them to non-priests to eat of them.

AND THEY SHALL NOT PROFANE THE HOLY THINGS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — “by giving them to non-priests to be eaten.” 16. AND SO CAUSE ‘OTHAM’ (THEM) TO BEAR THE INIQUITY THAT BRINGETH GUILT. “[The word otham here means] ‘themselves,’ meaning that they [the priests) cause themselves to bear iniquity when they [the non-priests] eat the holy things which have been set aside as the heave-offering, and have become sanctified as such, and forbidden to them [the non-priests]. And Onkelos who rendered the verse: ‘when they [the priests] eat them in impurity’ has translated it so unnecessarily.”¹⁰⁵For since the preceding verse [14] speaks of a non-priest eating the heave-offering, it is logical to interpret Verse 16 before us as being an admonition to the priests against giving the heave-offering to be eaten by non-priests [as Rashi first interpreted the verse]. According to Onkelos’ interpretation, however, that it is an admonition to the priests that they themselves should not eat it when in a state of impurity, then it properly belongs in the section above. For this reason Rashi rejected Onkelos’ interpretation as “unnecessary,” meaning to say, that while it is of course true that the priests are not permitted to do so, it is unnecessary to derive this prohibition from our verse, as it may be derived by logical deduction from Verse 6 above, which states concerning a priest who has become defiled, he shall not eat of the holy things (Verse 4; Makkoth 14 b). Thus far is the language of Rashi, of blessed memory.
But I did not understand Rashi’s opinion. For it would appear from his words that this negative commandment constitutes a prohibition to the priests, that they are not to give the heave-offering to non-priests to eat of it. And if so, it would be fitting to explain [the word ‘otham’ in the phrase] and so cause ‘otham’ (them), as a pronoun for “Israel,” meaning that the priests will thereby burden the Israelites with the iniquity that beareth guilt, when they [the Israelites] eat the holy things! Why then did Rabbi Yishmael find it necessary to interpret the word otham [as a reflexive form], meaning “themselves” [as Rashi mentioned]? Besides, this negative commandment is not mentioned [specifically] in the Talmud, but instead the priest is forbidden to do so as is the case with all other prohibitions [where we are forbidden to help or cause another person to commit a transgression].¹⁰⁶See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 277-278. Rather, the explanation of the phrase the children of Israel [in Verse 15] is that it refers back to the beginning [part of that verse, thus making it as follows]: “and the children of Israel shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel which they set apart unto the Eternal,” the verse thus constituting a second admonition¹⁰⁷The first admonition is in Verse 10 here: There shall no common man eat of the holy thing. to the non-priest that he is not to eat of the holy things, [and the reason why it is repeated is] because He wanted to mention the punishment for the transgression thereof, stating and they will cause themselves to bear the iniquity etc. when they [the non-priests] will eat their holy things.
Now our Rabbis explained [that the reason for] the repetition of this admonition was to forbid the eating of tevel.¹⁰⁸Tevel is produce from which the heave-offering and the tithes have not been separated. Thus they have said:¹⁰⁹Sanhedrin 83 a. “Whence do we know that one who eats tevel is liable to death [by the hand of Heaven]? From the verse, And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel which ‘yarimu’ (they shall set apart) unto the Eternal. Now the verse refers to that which is yet to be offered [namely, the verse refers to the holy things — the heave-offering and the tithes — which are not yet set apart from the produce, so that it is all tevel];¹⁰⁸Tevel is produce from which the heave-offering and the tithes have not been separated. and then an identity of law is learned from the use of ‘profanation’ here and in the case of the heave-offering:¹¹⁰Reference is to Numbers 18:32: Ye shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, that ye die not. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II pp. 143-145, where this whole subject is discussed at length. [just as there the penalty is death by the hand of Heaven, so here too].”
However, in the Torath Kohanim I have found this text:¹¹¹Torath Kohanim, Emor 6:8-10. “And they shall not profane. This includes one who anoints himself with or drinks [oil of heave-offering].¹¹²In Tractate Niddah 32a this is explained as follows: “This includes a case where a non-priest anoints himself with the oil of heave-offering, so that he is as liable as if he had drunk it; but for drinking itself we need no verse to include it in the prohibition, since drinking is always included under the term of ‘eating.’” The holy things of the children of Israel. For the things [declared] holy by the children of Israel, [a non-priest who eats of them by mistake] is liable to pay the priest their value and the added fifth [in fruits], but for the things [declared] holy by non-Jews, he [a non-priest] is not liable to repay [the priest] their value and the added fifth.¹¹³In our Torath Kohanim, Emor 6:8-10, the reading is as follows: “For the holy things of the children of Israel, [a non-priest who eats of them by mistake] is liable to add a fifth [to the original value], but for the holy things of non-Jews, he is not obliged to pay the added fifth.” The original value he must of course repay, since they were not his. I might think that he is liable [to pay a fifth] for the heave-offering that is in the tevel¹⁰⁸Tevel is produce from which the heave-offering and the tithes have not been separated. [as will be explained further on]; Scripture therefore states, that which ‘yarimu’ (they will set apart) unto the Eternal. For that which has been set apart they are liable to pay [an added fifth], but they are not liable to pay [an added fifth] for the heave-offering in the tevel [which has not yet been set apart]. And so they will cause them to bear the iniquity that bringeth guilt. This teaches us that for eating tevel¹⁰⁸Tevel is produce from which the heave-offering and the tithes have not been separated. one is also punishable by death [by the hand of Heaven].” Now this [Beraitha of the Torath Kohanim] is not in accord with the way of the Gemara [mentioned above].¹¹⁴The discrepancies between the Gemara and the Torath Kohanim are as follows: (a) The Gemara interprets the verse, And they shall not profane etc. as referring to that which is yet to be offered [as explained above in the text], and the Torath Kohanim explained it to include anointing oneself with or drinking oil of heave-offering. (b) In the Gemara the Rabbis derived from the Scriptural use of the word yarimu (they shall set apart) in the future, that this establishes the prohibition against eating tevel [as explained in the text], while the Torath Kohanim interpreted it to teach that for the heave-offering in the tevel he does not pay a fifth, if he ate it in error. But I say that the inclusion of anointing and drinking [in the prohibition of our verse] is only a Scriptural support for a Rabbinic ordinance, since drinking is included in the term eating [and just as a non-priest is Scripturally forbidden to eat the heave-offering, so too he is Scripturally forbidden to drink it, without the necessity for a special inclusionary phrase], whilst anointing oneself with it is [only] prohibited by Rabbinic ordinance. It is so clearly explained in the Yerushalmi.¹¹⁵Yerushalmi, Maaser Sheini II, 1. And since He stated with reference to tevel,¹⁰⁸Tevel is produce from which the heave-offering and the tithes have not been separated. And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, because they are going to set aside a part thereof for the Eternal [as the future tense in the word yarimu — “they will set apart” — indicates], the Rabbis deduced from this that [only] the portion which is set apart [as the heave-offering] is called “holy”, and not the tevel. And if so, [eating tevel] is not included in the terms of the law, And if a man eat of ‘the holy’ thing through error, then he shall add its fifth to it,¹¹⁶Verse 14. so that he be liable to pay the additional fifth.¹¹⁷One might have thought that since tevel contains the heave-offering which will be set apart for the priest, a non-priest who eats it by mistake should therefore make restitution to the priest by giving him its value and an added fifth, just as if he had eaten separately heave-offering which has already been removed from the produce. To preclude us from such reasoning, Scripture states here that he does not have to pay the additional fifth. However, the Divine punishment for eating tevel is the same as for eating the heave-offering, as Ramban continues. It is for this reason that He teaches again, and so cause them to bear the iniquity that bringeth guilt, thereby teaching that eating tevel is also punishable by death [by the hand of Heaven], for it is the heave-offering in the tevel that is mentioned here. In brief, this verse speak of tevel and warns with reference to that which is yet to be offered in the future, according to the interpretation of our Rabbis.

ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל, “and they shall not desecrate the holies of the Children of Israel,” according to Rashi this is a warning not to feed any consecrated gifts to ordinary Israelites. [Verses 14,15, and 16 all speak of the same type of holy gifts, the first describes non priests eating such inadvertently, the second speaks of the same people eating same knowingly, the third speaks of priests feeding such to non priests not entitled to eat them. Ed]

והשיאו אותם means, and they (the priests) would burden themselves with sin, באכלם את קדשיהם WHEN THEY (the non-priests) EAT THEIR HOLY THINGS which have been set apart for the purpose of heave-offering and have thereby become holy and forbidden to them. [Onkelos who translated באכלם את קדשיהם by “when they (the priests) eat them in their uncleanness” has translated it thus quite unnecessarily] (But cf. Rashi on Sanhedrin 90b).

והשיאו אותם עון אשמה, they themselves, when they declared the items in question (for instance t’rumah) as sacred cause themselves to become guilty in the event they would trespass and make profane use of them. The Torah does not allow you to apply the principle הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר, that just as one may declare something forbidden, the same person can also declare it as allowed. (D’mai,6,11) The reason why we cannot apply this principle in this case is אני ה' מקדשו, seeing that G’d Himself elevated this item to a status of holiness, a mere mortal, even the donor, cannot remove such sanctity at his own discretion.

והשיאו אותם עון אשמה, "and so cause them to bear the sin which brings guilt, etc." The meaning of the verse is that if the guilty person did not make restitution of both the value of the amount of holy things consumed plus the 20%, the parameter of the sin will grow wider so that it will be classified as if it had been committed intentionally (i.e. עון). The justification for this is that when one fails to correct a sin inadvertently committed although one has been given an opportunity to correct it, the original sin becomes so much more serious. The word והשיאו is equivalent to ינשאו "they will have to bear them;" הם i.e. the combined sins. The Torah adds: באכלם את קדשיהם, the sin will now be considered not merely failure to pay the penalty but it will be considered as if they had eaten their holy things on purpose. Compare my comments on the last verse.

באכלם, a reference to the non priests mentioned in verse 13.

והשיאו אותם עון אשמה, “and they would cause themselves to bear the sin of guilt.” They would bring the punishment of their guilt upon themselves, etc. Nachmanides writes that he has not understood the meaning of Rashi, whom he understands as saying that our verse is a warning for the priests not to give non priests to eat produce which had already been set aside as תרומה, the priest’s share of the farmer’s harvest. If that were so, the words there would not be needed to explain the wordsוהשיאו אותם עון, as applying to themselves, i.e. the people eating this תרומה, as the sin had been committed by the priests, and they would be the guilty ones, having burdened the ordinary Israelite consuming these קדשים, sacred things, with guilt. Furthermore, we do not find this prohibition Rashi speaks about being mentioned in the Talmud as a separate negative commandment, although misleading an Israelite into eating food forbidden to him because it is reserved for priests of their households, is of course, forbidden, no more and no less so than feeding the unsuspecting other categories of food which the Torah has placed out of bounds for the individuals it is given to. The proper meaning of our verse is that the verse is conceptually a continuation of verses 14 and 15 which are addressed to the Israelites and warn them not to eat such food that is described here as קדשים. The reason the legislation is repeated is to spell out that there is a punishment for disobeying it. According to our sages the punishment is even death at the hands of heaven, if the forbidden food is grain that has not been tithed, or harvest products, known as טבל. The reason is simple, and the word קדשים alludes to it. All טבל still contains the portion which was meant to be set aside as תרומה, sacred heave produce for the priest. (Midrash Hagadol Devarim, page 579)

And Onkelos who translated “in their eating, etc.” Explanation: Onkelos seems to think that “They shall not profane” refers to above [verse 2], “And let them keep away from the holy offerings of Bnei Yisroel.” I.e., they [kohanim] should be careful with terumah, not to profane it and thereby burden themselves with sin by eating it in impurity. Therefore, Rashi writes that this is unnecessary since it is possible to explain that “they shall not profane” refers to the prohibition not to of feeding it to non-kohanim. Re’m

.והשיאו אותם עון אשמם, “and so cause them to bear the guilt brought on by their iniquity.” This is a reference to the people who desecrated holy things by feeding them to non priests. They will have to bear the burden of their sin, not the people who ate them, who were unaware of their status as being holy.

והשיאו אותם — This (the word אותם) is one of the three cases of את with a pronominal suffix occurring in the Torah which R. Ishmael explained as speaking of (referring to) the person himself who is the subject of the sentence (i. e. as being reflexive and not accusative pronouns). In the same sense did he explain (Numbers 4:13) “[And this is the law of the Nazarite] when the days of his Nazaritehood are fulfilled, יביא אותו [to the entrance of the appointed tent]” as meaning: he shall bring himself (i. e. present himself) to the entrance etc. Similarly he explained (Deuteronomy 34:6) “ויקבור אותו in the glen” as meaning: he (Moses) buried himself (i. e. he went into a cave and died there cf. Avot 5:9 and יד משה on Shemot Rabbah 10). Thus is it explained in the Sifrei Bamidbar 32 (on Numbers 6:3).

את קדשיהם, T’rumah

את קדשיהם, ”their holy things.” This teaches that the farmers can give their t’rumah to any priest of their choosing.

מקדשם, “who sanctify them.” This refers to holy matters that had been sanctified by Israelites

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.

לרצנכם — The meaning is: bring such a thing (animal) as is fitted to cause רצון, propitiation for you before Me. The word לרצנכם means: so that it may be to you for propitiation; apaisement in old French And which animal is it that is fitting to effect propitiation?

לרצונכם , as a sacrifice that will confer G’d’s goodwill upon you, and not for the Temple treasury.

לרצונכם תמים זכר, “without blemish, male, that you will be well received,” earlier in the portion of Vayikra,1,3, the Torah spoke of mandatory offerings, when mentioning that the offering needs to be such that G-d will look at the donor with fondness. No mention was made there of any blemishes in the animal offered. The author wonders why the Torah here did not mention other categories of sacrifices.

תמים זכר בבקר בכבשים ובעזים A MALE WITHOUT BLEMISH OF THE CATTLE, OF THE SHEEP, OR OF THE GOATS — but in the case of a burnt-offering that consists in a bird, the unblemished condition and the male sex are not essential, and it does not become unfit for sacrifice by reason of a mere blemish (a bodily defect), but only by reason of the loss of a limb (Sifra, Emor, Section 7 2).

תמים זכר, it must be male and unblemished seeing the Creator is described as having produced work which is perfect, unblemished, when He created the universe. (Compare Deuteronomy 32,4)

כל אשר בו מום לא תקריבו כי לא לרצון יהיה לכם, as elaborated on by Maleachi 1,8.

לפלא נדר means, expressing it by speech (not expressing it mentally,‎ בלב).

After the Torah has warned that the burnt offering, עולה, is of such a high rank of such sacred items, קדשי קדשיםthat only unblemished male animals may be used for such offerings, and that this requirement pertains only to cattle and sheep or goats, i.e. conditions which are not applicable to bird offerings, (compare Kidushin 16) it continues with ואיש כי יקריב 'זבח שלמים לה, to inform us that although this kind of meat offering is of a lower ranking sanctity, קדשים קלים and the Torah does not insist that such an animal must be male, in order to confer G’d’s goodwill on the donor, it must still be a perfect, unblemished animal of its species. We know from Leviticus 3,1 that such offerings are acceptable also if a female animal is offered. Verse 22 explains that it is simply not acceptable to offer a blemished animal to G’d as a sacrifice. An additional rule why blemished animals are not acceptable are the words ואשה לא תתנו מהם על המזבח לה'. The Torah informs us with these words that even if the blemish in the animal designated as the sacrifice originated only after it had been sanctified, the parts which are normally burnt on the altar, i.e. certain fat parts and membranes over the kidneys, because it simply is not acceptable that even if the parts designated for the altar are unblemished, anything which before getting to this stage had had a disqualifying blemish disqualifies the whole as it is looked upon with dismay by G’d.

לפלא נדר או לנדבה, “to fulfill a promised vow or making a voluntary offering.” Nachmanides writes: “it appears to me that seeing that the Torah uses the expression לפלא נדר או נדבה, that both here and in other situations where this expression is used it refers to people who when making such a vow they felt that they were under extreme stress which prompted them to make this “vow.” (Compare Leviticus 27,2, and Numbers 6,2, for instance) The vow goes something like this: “If Hashem will perform some kind of miracle, פלא so that I will be extricated from the predicament I find myself in at this time, I promise to do such and such as a thanksgiving offering.” The whole situation is analogous to Yaakov having made a vow after his dream with the ladder, and his being penniless on the way to get a wife for himself. The basic difference in the formula of a vow called נדר and one called נדבה, is that the נדר is a personal obligation that has to be seen through, i.e. if the item vowed has been lost or stolen before it was paid, the person who vowed it has to make restitution, seeing he had said “I accept the obligation on myself to do or give such and such.” The person vowing a נדבה, on the other hand, declared a certain item as holy for G’d, and once he had declared it as such, if something happened to it, it is no longer his responsibility to make restitution. Seeing that in the case of the נדר the party vowing it does not make the selection at once, the Torah applies more stringent rules to the state of physical perfection used for such an animal. [There are, of course, numerous other distinctions between the two kinds of vows, but they do not concern our verse. Ed.]

By his speech. [Rashi says this] so that you do not think that if he [merely] thought in his heart to bring a vowed [sacrifice], he must bring the vowed [sacrifice]. Therefore Rashi explains, “To express, etc.” You might ask: Nevertheless, why does Rashi say “by his speech,” once he already explained “to express” obviously it implies speech? The answer is: You might have thought he [only] expressed [the word] “animal” [and mentally thought whether it would be a vow or a free-will-offering], and thus, [according to this premise], there would be no [verbal] difference between a vow and a free-will-offering. Therefore Rashi explains [that he expresses everything] “by his speech,” [and his obligation depends on] whether he [actually] says “I am obligated [to bring this sacrifice],” or “Behold, this [I will bring].”

ואיש כי יקריב, “and when an individual will bring a peaceoffering, etc.;” only individuals can offer this type of peaceoffering.

לפלא נדר, “in fulfillment of a vow;” there are two diametrically opposite ways of explaining the word לפלא. One is the one we just used, the other we find in a verse in Deuteronomy 17,8: כי יפלא ממך דבר, where it means “if something is concealed from you;” another example where the same expression is used in a similarly contradictory manner is the word דשן, and לדשנו, in Exodus 27,3 which can mean to remove ashes and dross, and which can mean: to saturate, to have a surfeit of, (in the positive sense, such as when applied to a harvest.) Also, in Zachariah 3,4 מחלצות, where it means fancy priestly robes, whereas in Psalms 7,5, ואחלצה צוררי, it means: “I stripped my oppressors, (removed their protective clothing)” The author quotes another example or two of the same phenomenon.

‎עורת is a noun denoting the blemish of blindness (עִוָּרֹן), being, however, a feminine form of the latter. The text therefore means that there shall not be the defect of blindness in it (in the sacrifice).

עורת או שבור, “blind or having a fractured limb.” Nachmanides writes that seeing the Torah had already listed the blind and broken limbs as disqualifying such an animal it did not have to lengthen the list of disqualifications. It is therefore quite possible that the whole list of disqualifications in our verse applies to the נדבה kind of vow, which was not intended as an offering on the altar in the first place, but was intended as a gift to the Temple treasury. The verse therefore has to be understood as telling us that all the blemishes listed are acceptable in a vow called נדבה, but are not acceptable in a vow called נדר.

[This is] the noun. Explanation: עורת is not the adjective of a female [noun], i.e., a blind animal, because [in] this whole subject [of blemishes, the adjectives are] expressed in the masculine form. Rather, it is a noun like ivaron (blindness), excepting that ivaron is a masculine term and עורת is a feminine term. It is as if the verse said, “The blemish of blindness shall not be in it” (Gur Aryeh). Gur Aryeh means that עורת cannot be the adjective of “animal,” because if so שבורה (broken-limbed) too should have been feminine. Rather it is a noun, like tzedakah and tzedek [righteousness] that both have the same meaning.

או שבור, “or broken;” just as we have the expression שבר יד, and ,שבר רגל, describing a broken hand or a broken foot as examples of blemishes seen by all, so here too it describes a very visible blemish due to a fracture of a bone, that is not visible to all as it his hidden by one’s clothing.

או שבור nor shall it be a broken animal.

נדבה תעשה אותו, “you may donate it under the heading of nedavah.” Rashi says that it may be donated to the Temple treasury.

It shall not be. Rashi does not write “it shall not have [the blemish of] broken-limbed” as he wrote concerning blindness, because שבור (broken-limbed) is an adjective, i.e., the sacrifice shall not be broken-limbed. Therefore it is suitable to write that “it shall not be” [broken-limbed]. But regarding the noun of עורון (blindness) it is suitable to write “It shall not have.” I.e., it shall not have the blemish of blindness.

חרוץ, “maimed,” as in Kings I 20,40: משפטך אתה חרצת, “you yourself have released (decreed) it.”

חרוץ CHAPPED — an eye-lid that is split or has a piece cut out of its edge; and similarly, its (the animal’s) lip that is split or has a piece cut out of its edge (Sifra, Emor, Section 7 12; Bekhorot 38a).

ולנדר לא ירצה, “but it is not welcome as a vow made under the heading נדר.” Animals with the above-mentioned blemishes are not acceptable as gifts for the altar. The expression ירצה is used to make plain that the Torah speaks about a gift vowed which by definition requires G’d’s goodwill, ירצה, in order to be acceptable. Nachmanides writes that in accordance with this interpretation we need to read the previous line as follows: נדבה תעשה אותו ולנדר, “you may vow it as either a נדבה according to the definition we mentioned, and as a נדר according to the definition we mentioned, i.e. personal responsibility, in the event it disappeared, etc., but, -and that is important- as a gift for the altar which requires goodwill by G’d, it is not welcome. In that respect it does not matter which formula the vow had been phrased as. Nothing that is blemished is acceptable as a gift for the altar. On the other hand, both types of vows if intended as gifts to the Temple treasury are acceptable in spite of the animals having the blemishes mentioned in the Torah. It is possible that we can understand the wording of the Torah as primarily thinking of the type of gift to the Temple treasury in terms of נדבה, because during the donations the Jewish people made prior to the building of the Tabernacle the Torah constantly referred to the generosity of the people’s hearts prompting them to make such gifts, terming them נדיב לבו, as emanating from the generosity of his heart. (Compare at length in Exodus chapters 25,35,36 where this word appears in this context repeatedly.) It is not mentioned in connection with animals but with lifeless objects, clearly unfit for the altar. Wherever the word נדבה without further adjective is mentioned, it refers to gifts to the Temple treasury. The very fact that we do not find the expression תקריב אותה, “you shall bring it near as a sacrifice,” mentioned in connection with נדבה, but only the words תביא אותה, “you shall bring it,” supports our theory.

A type of lichen. Why does Rashi explain here what he already explained by [in the section of] the blemishes of a kohein? Because since the Torah lists here blemishes that are not mentioned over there, one may have thought that these [too] are blemishes [sharing the same names] that were not mentioned there. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

יבלת, scabbed;

יבלת is called verrue in old French, (English = wart).

גרב is a kind of lichen and so too is ילפת. The word ילפת is connected in meaning with (Judges 16:29) “And Samson took hold (וילפת) [of the two middle pillars]”. The blemish is so called because it keeps its grasp on him (the sick person) until the day of his death, since there is no cure for it (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 21:20).

ואשה לא תתנו YE SHALL NOT MAKE A FIRE-OFFERING [OF THEM] — This contains the prohibition of burning them on the altar (Temurah 6b).

לא תקריבו YE SHALL NOT OFFER — Three times is the expression לא תקריבו used in this section (here and in v. 20 and 24), in order to lay down a separate prohibition regarding designating them (blemished animals) as sacrifices, slaughtering them and sprinkling their blood (cf. Temurah 6b).

שרוע is an animal that has one limb larger than its fellow-limb (Bekhorot 40a).

ANY OF THE HERD OR FLOCK THAT HATH A LIMB TOO LARGE OR TOO SMALL, THAT MAYEST THOU MAKE FOR ‘NEDAVAH’ (A FREEWILL-OFFERING) — “for keeping the Temple in repair.”¹³¹Rashi thus understood the word nedavah here not as a freewill-offering for the altar [as we have understood the word till now], but as a freewill gift for the Temple repair. Ramban will further on afford a satisfactory explanation for this interpretation. ‘UL’NEDER’ (BUT FOR A VOW-OFFERING) IT SHALL NOT BE ACCEPTED — “for the altar. What hallowed thing is it that effects propitiation? I must say that it is something dedicated to the altar.” This is Rashi’s language. But according to this explanation, we must interpret the verse, that mayest thou make for ‘nedavah’ (a freewill-offering), ‘ul’neder’ (but for a vow-offering) it shall not be accepted as stating: that [a blemished animal] may be given as a freewill gift or as a vow [to be sold so that its money is used] for the Temple repair, but not for acceptance [to be offered up itself] on the altar; for there is no difference between a neder (vow-offering) and nedevah (freewill-offering) in this respect at all, both being permissible for the Temple repair¹³²I.e., they can be sold for common food and the money used for the repair of the Temple. and prohibited for the altar [on account of the blemish in them], and Scripture has already mentioned this in the case of the burnt-offering, whether it be any of their vow-offerings, or any of their freewill-offerings,¹³³Above Verse 18. and in the case of the peace-offering, in fulfillment of a vow-offering clearly uttered, or for a freewill-offering.¹²¹Verse 21. And such is the interpretation of our Rabbis in the Torath Kohanim.¹³⁴Torath Kohanim, Emor 7:6.
It is possible that we can improve the explanation as to the language of Scripture [i.e., why it uses here the term nedavah for a freewill gift for Temple repair]. For since most freewill gifts are given for Temple repair, as it is said with reference to the Tabernacle, all that were ‘n’div leiv’ (willing-hearted) …¹³⁵Exodus 35:22. brought the Eternal’s offering,¹³⁶Ibid., Verse 24. and similarly with reference to the Sanctuary it is said, As for me, in the uprightness of my heart ‘hithnadavti’ (I have willingly offered) all these things,¹³⁷I Chronicles 29:17. and so also in connection with the Second Temple it is said, beside ‘ha’nedavah’ (the freewill-offering) for the House of G-d,¹³⁸Ezra 1:4. and it is likewise written about the Temple repair, all the money that cometh into any man’s heart to bring into the House of the Eternal,¹³⁹II Kings 12:5. therefore it is [called] the freewill gift [without qualification, and Scripture here uses the term nedavah as referring not to a type of offering, but to the freewill gift for Temple repair]. And the reason for [this expression] is that there is nothing in connection with gifts for Temple repair which is obligatory, for [they are all brought only as a consequence of] willingness of the soul, and the custom of those who give a donation for Temple repair is that they bring it with [the language used in offering a] freewill-offering, “‘This is’ for the building.” Therefore wherever Scripture mentions nedavah without any qualification, it is for Temple repair, unless [the donor] expressly says that it is for a burnt-offering,¹³³Above Verse 18. or an offering of peace-offerings,¹²¹Verse 21. as mentioned above. But the term neder (vow) without any qualification is said with reference to the holy things of the altar: I will offer to Thee the offering of thanksgiving … I will pay ‘nedarai’ (my vows) unto the Eternal, yea in the presence of all His people, in the courts of the Eternal’s House;¹⁴⁰Psalms 116:17-19. I will come into Thy House with burnt-offerings, I will perform unto Thee ‘nedarai’ (my vows);¹⁴¹Ibid., 66:13. ‘Nedarecha’ (Thy vows) are upon me, O G-d; I will render thanks-offerings unto Thee.¹⁴²Ibid., 56:13. And those who give for the altar bring [their animals] with [the language used in offering a vow-offering], saying, “If G-d will prosper me, I will come before Him with a burnt-offering.” It is for this reason that Scripture says here, Any of the herd or flock that hath a limb too large or too small, that mayest thou make ‘nedavah’ (a freewill gift) [for Temple repair], for whatever his heart offers freewillingly, but for a ‘neder’ (a vow) for G-d [i.e., for His altar] it shall not be accepted, just as He said, that ye shall not bring, for it shall not be acceptable for you.¹⁴³Above, Verse 20. For Scripture did not say here, “nedavah ‘takriv’ otho (thou mayest ‘offer’ it as a freewill-offering),” which would have been similar to the expression [of thakrivu — “they shall offer” on the altar] used in this whole section,¹⁴⁴See Verses 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, where the expressions yakriv, yakrivu, thakrivu, are used. Now these words signify the bringing of an offering. But not so ta’aseh (thou shalt “make”), as Ramban continues to explain. Hence since it states here: “a freewill-offering ta’aseh otho,” the reference is not to making it an offering, but that we may make a gift of a blemished animal to the Temple treasury for necessary repairs. Rashi’s interpretation [“that mayest thou make for a freewill-offering — for keeping the Temple in repair”], is thus well-founded in the language of the verse. but instead it says ‘ta’aseh otho’ (thou mayest ‘make’ it) — meaning to say, you may make of it whatever thy hand attaineth to do by thy strength¹⁴⁵Ecclesiastes 9:10. — but for a vow-offering it shall not be accepted. Now [the reason] the Sages were forced to say this [interpretation, i.e., that nedavah ta’aseh otho here means that you may give the blemished animal as a gift to the Temple treasury, but may not bring it as an offering] is because it is in no way whatsoever possible to say that [an animal suffering from] any blemishes [mentioned in the preceding verses], namely, scabbed and scurvy,¹⁴⁶Verse 22. or even one whose testicles are bruised or crushed,¹⁴⁷Verse 24. be forbidden for any kind of offering, whether as a vow-offering or a freewill-offering, and then an animal which has any limb too long or too short [as mentioned in the verse before us] be forbidden for use only for some offerings, [i.e., vow-offerings] and permissible for others [i.e., freewill-offerings]! Such a distinction [between the kinds of offering] is not found in the Torah with reference to blemishes or impurity in those who perform the rites of the offerings [i.e., the priests]!
It is possible that He said that any of the herd or flock that hath a limb too large or too small, one may make into a freewill-offering [for the Temple repairs] by saying, “This shall be [nedavah — a gift];” but if he had vowed [for the Temple repairs by saying] “I pledge myself [to donate] of the herd or flock,” then if he brings a blemished animal it will not be acceptable for him, and he is not freed of his vow. We may thus say in accordance with the way [of interpretation] of our Rabbis that both [nedavah and neder mentioned in the verse before us] refer to gifts for the Temple repairs, since the expression ‘ta’aseh otho’ (thou mayest ‘make’ it) is unlike takriv otho [“thou mayest ‘offer’ it” on the altar]. This is without doubt the truth.
Now Scripture mentioned the permissibility of making a gift for the Temple repairs in the case of an animal that has a limb too long or too short, which are congenital blemishes in the formation of the animal, and it follows all the more so that an animal having small blemishes by [later] occurrence, such as avereth¹⁴⁶Verse 22. which is blindness [caused] by the dimming of the eye, or a broken animal,¹⁴⁶Verse 22. and needless to say [an animal that is] scabbed or [suffering from] scurvy,¹⁴⁶Verse 22. [may be given as gifts for the Temple repairs]. It is possible that the verse [before us] is connected [with the preceding verse, thus]: “Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wart, or scabbed, or scurvy … and all herd or flock that hath any thing too long or too short, thou mayest make a freewill gift of any of these, but for a vow-offering [for the altar] none of these will be acceptable”¹⁴⁷Verse 24. for him, meaning that even if they had been taken up to the altar, they must be brought down.¹⁴⁸See Ramban above, 6:2. And in the Torath Kohanim [it is written]:¹⁴⁹Torath Kohanim, Emor 7:5. “Whence do we know to include all disqualifications in the herd or flock?¹⁵⁰Such as an animal that is too young for an offering (so explained by Malbim ibid.). From the verse, any of the herd or flock¹⁵¹Why is this expression [any of the herd or flock] mentioned here at all, when it would have sufficed to state “and one that has a limb too large etc.”? The Torath Kohanim answers that it forms a sort of “similar expression” with Verse 28 further on, stating: And whether it be one of the herd or flock, ye shall not slaughter it and its young both in one day, this being a case of “lacking time,” and the verse before us thus establishes the principle that anything disqualified for offering in the herd or flock, must not be brought as an offering. that hath a limb too large or too small, which includes all disqualifications of the herd or flock.” Our Rabbis have further included [a principle] within the expression that mayest thou make for a freewill gift, meaning that he may make [a blemished animal] as a gift for whatever [purpose in the Temple that] he pleases, but not unblemished animals, so that one who dedicates unblemished animals [which are fit for the altar] for Temple repairs, transgresses a positive commandment.¹⁵²“For since it states, that mayest thou make for a freewill gift [for Temple repairs], it teaches that only a blemished animal we may so dedicate, but not an unblemished animal, and a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment carries the force of the positive commandment” (Temurah 7b).

נדבה תעשה אותו, even though numerous blemishes may be apparent you may donate them for the Temple treasury although the donor thought that on account of these blemishes they would be rejected by the Temple treasurer. The Torah differentiates between gifts for the Temple treasury and animals destined for the altar. Whereas even minor blemishes disqualify an animal from being offered on the altar, no such restrictions apply to gifts known as נדבה. This is possible because the bodies of such animals do not possess any sanctity, such sanctity only applies to their value, i.e. to the money realised from the sale of such animals. This enables the body which was donated to be treated as if it had never been sanctified in any way.

וקלוט, unsplit hooves.

Whose hooves are uncloven. I.e., an animal that has cloven hooves, except that the hoof of one foot is uncloven and not cloven like the others. Instead, its foot is like that of a horse or donkey.

[the next four verses detail certain blemishes which disqualify animals as sacrifices to be offered on the altar, regardless of whether they have been donated by Israelites or gentiles; in the case of the latter, they must not even be accepted by the Temple treasury as gifts while still alive so that they could be sold by him and the proceeds be used for repairs of the Temple. The Torah also forbids us to inflict these kinds of blemishes on human beings deliberately; one of the most serious such disfigurations would be castrating either animals or human beings. I have just summarized this. Ed.]

וקלוט is an animal which has uncloven hoofs (the sign of uncleaness; cf. Leviticus 11:4—6. It is a שור or a שה which, being a clean animal, is fitted to be sacrificed, but abnormally its hoofs are uncloven) (Bekhorot 40a).

נדבה תעשה, as a gift for the Temple treasury

Dedicated for the altar. With this Rashi is answering the question: How do we know that “You shall make it as a free-will-offering” means “for the repair of the Temple,” and that “For [the fulfillment of] a vow” means “for the altar”? Perhaps it is the opposite? He answers: “What dedicated thing ... Say: this is the dedicated [animal intended] for the altar.” Therefore, since “it will not be favorably accepted” refers to the altar, then “you shall make it as a free-will-offering” obviously refers to dedication “for the repair of the temple.” Re’m explains that since most freewill-offerings are for the repair of the temple, and most vows are for the altar, the Torah therefore refers to repair of the house as a “freewill-offering, and to the altar [sacrifices] as a “vow.”

נדבה תעשה אתו THOU MAYEST DESIGNATE IT FOR A FREE-WILL OFFERING for the purpose of repairing the breaches in the Temple from the proceeds of its sale,

ולנדר, but as sacrifice to be offered on the altar.

ולנדר BUT AS A VOW — i. e. as an animal vowed for the altar (for sacrifice), it shall not be accepted.

לא ירצה [BUT AS A נדר] THERE SHALL NOT BE PROPITIATION — What dedicated thing is it that is intended to effect propiation? You must admit that it is something dedicated to the altar. Consequently נדר can only mean a sacrifice for the altar (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 7 6).

ומעוך וכתות ונתוק וכרות are forbidden as sacrifices whether the mutilation be in the testicles or the membrum.

ומעוך וכתות, after the Torah spoke about the kind of physical blemishes which are of ritual consequence only in connection with sacrificial animals, and which must under no circumstances be caused to such an animal once it has been sanctified, the Torah turns to the kind of internal blemishes which one must not cause even to animals which have never been sanctified, are totally secular in their use.

ובארצכם לא תעשו, “and in your land you shall not do so.” Seeing the Torah had mentioned such defects as damage to the reproductive organs earlier in our verse, the Torah adds that it is forbidden to castrate animals in the land of Israel even if such animals were not intended as offerings. Even animals which are not fit for consumption by Jews must not be castrated. Contrary to the first impression that the word בארצכם, “in your land,” suggests that only in the land of Israel is it forbidden to castrate animals, this is misleading, and castrating G’d’s creatures is forbidden everywhere. The only reason the Torah wrote that word was to emphasize that even in our land where many of these animals cannot serve the general population as food seeing the animals in question are ritually impure, we must still not castrate such animals as a means of keeping down their numbers.
It is also possible that the use by the Torah of the word תעשו here points out that castrating an animal is equivalent to “undoing it;” G’d made it, we undo it but allow it to live at the same time preventing it from procreating. We find a similar use of the word לעשות in Kohelet 4,17 where Solomon speaks about כי אינם יודעים לעשות רע, “for they do not know that they are to destroy the evil and remove it.” At first glance we would have translated the verse as “they do not know how to do evil,” something that clearly does not fit the context of the verse.“ [Rashi does not have trouble with the ordinary meaning of the word לעשות in that verse. Ed.] Another verse in which the word עשה does not have the meaning which it usually has is Genesis 9,24 where the Torah speaks about אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן, normally translated as “which his younger son had done to him,” (Noach who had been naked in his tent). On the face of it, the son (Cham) had done nothing except tell his brothers that their father had uncovered himself while drunk. Nonetheless, our sages in Sanhedrin 70 use the word to mean that he had castrated his father. So we see that the word עשה, though normally meaning “did” in a constructive sense such as when G’d created the universe, may appear in exactly the opposite sense such as when depriving the animal of its regenerative potential by castrating it. This may also be the meaning of the word יעשנה in Proverbs 6,32, where Solomon writes משחית נפשו יעשנה, which at first glance looks as if he says that “he who destroys his life is really creating it.” Instead, the meaning is “if he wants to destroy himself let him do such a thing (commit adultery).” When someone destroys his soul, his life, he most certainly deprives (יעשנה) it of the opportunity to achieve its lofty aims..”

But they are still in the pouch. It is written in the name of Moreinu Harav Hendel that if they were cut off completely with the pouch and the pouch was missing, this would obviously invalidate it, because even for a bird and for non-Jews it is invalid. So how could can [the sages] say that [non-Jews] are permitted [to offer such animals on] altars in the fields? (Divrei Dovid)

מעוך means, one whose testicles have been pressed by hand.

To castrate. It cannot mean that you should not offer a crushed and mangled [animal] in your land [whereas elsewhere you can], because sacrifices are not offered outside the land. Therefore “you shall not do this thing” refers only to castration.

The author raises the question of whether the prophet Samuel castrated Agag, King of the Amalekites before killing him, and concludes that under the circumstances prevailing that was justified. (Samuel I 7,9, Midrash Shmuel on the subject. Ed.] Apparently, the prohibition was limited to when it was done inside the boundaries of the Land of Israel, as stated in verse 24.

כתות CRUSHED — it implies more severely crushed than מעוך.

Even a [ritually] unclean one. Explanation: You cannot say that “And in your land you shall not inflict” means that they need only observe the prohibition against castration in the land and not outside the land, and that [therefore] it does not come to include everything in your land, even including unclean animals, because [the prohibition against] castration is an obligation [pertaining to] the person and it is not dependent upon the land. Perforce [“in your land”] comes to include even an unclean animal. (Re’m)

נתוק — they have been torn off by the hand, so that the threads on which they hang have snapped but they are still in the scrotum, the scrotum itself not having been torn off.

וכרות — they have been cut away by an instrument but are still in the scrotum (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 7 9; Bekhorot 39b).

וכתות, however, is translated by the Targum ודי רסיס “and that which is smashed”, (a stronger term than מרס), similar to, Amos 6:11) “The great house shall be smitten into רסיסים‎” i. e. into small fragments; similar is the Talmudical expression (Shabbat 80b) a reed crushed to pieces (מרוסס‎‎‎‎)].

[ומעוך — Its translation in the Targum is, ודי מריס; this is its exact translation in Aramaic, because this Aramaic root has the meaning of pounding.

ובארצכם לא תעשו NEITHER SHALL YE DO IN YOUR LAND this thing — to castrate any cattle or beast even if it be unclean. That is why Scripture adds “in your land” — to include every animal that is in your land under this law (cf. Chagigah 14b and Tosafot there). For it is impossible to say that they are here commanded to abstain from mutilating animals in the Land of Israel only, (and that the word must be translated: “In your land you must not do this”, implying, but you may do it elsewhere) for surely the command regarding mutilation is a personal duty and any personal duty has to be practiced both in the Land and outside the Land (Kiddushin 36b; cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 7 11).

ומיד בן נכר AND FROM ANY STRANGER’S HAND who has brought a sacrifice through the agency of a priest to offer it to the Lord, לא תקריבו YOU SHALL NOT OFFER a blemished animal on his behalf. And though blemished animals are not forbidden as sacrifices of the “Sons of Noah” (the non-Israelite world) except such as lack one of their limbs (as derived from the text: Genesis 6:19; cf. Avodah Zarah 5b) — this rule applies only to animals offered to God by the “Sons of Noah” themselves on a Bamah (an altar, lit., an elevated place) in the open field, but on the altar in the Tabernacle shall you not offer blemished animals on their behalf (cf. Temurah 7a). An animal, however, that has no blemish you may accept from them as an offering on your altar. It is for this reason that Scripture says above (v. 18): איש “Any man… who offers”, in order to include in this law the heathens also — that they, too, are permitted to undertake to bring vowed animals (נדרים) and free-will offerings (נדבות) just the same as the Israelites (Chullin 13b).

Even though gifts for the Temple treasury are accepted from pagans, no blemished animals are to be accepted from them as such. Even if the animal became blemished through a deliberate surgical procedure, such as castrating it, something which generally improves the value of the animal so castrated, it disqualifies it from use by the Temple treasury, not to mention as a sacrifice on the altar. Seeing that the gentiles consider such animals as superior, we could not apply to such gifts the criticism voiced by Maleach 1,8 which we referred to twice already. We might therefore have thought that seeing that in the donor’s eyes he presents a superior gift to G’d this would be acceptable; the Torah takes a dim view of castrating animals which were created to proliferate. The Torah describes such castrated animals as

A blemished [animal]. Explanation: Specifically concerning the offering of an individual, if [a gentile] brings it to a kohein to sacrifice we only refuse to accept blemished [animals]. But if they are nonblemished we accept them as Rashi explains, “’Any man’ — to include non-Jews.” [But concerning public communal sacrifices, a gentile may not contribute to them at all even if the animal has no blemish]. But if they [the offerings of an individual brought by a gentile] are non-blemished we accept them as Rashi explains, “’Any man’ — to include non-Jews.” In the first chapter of Chullin (13) Tosfos asks: Why do we need “any man” to include non-Jews? Derive it from the verse, “And from a stranger’s [non-Jew’s] hand you shall not bring (offer) the bread of your God from any of these,” i.e., blemished animals, which indicates that we may accept non-blemished animals from them? Tosfos answers: One may have thought [that sacrificing their] blemished animal incurs a negative and positive commandment, and [that sacrificing] a non-blemished animal nevertheless incurs a prohibition. Therefore “any man” informs us [otherwise]. (Nachalas Yaakov)

For their corruption [משחתם] is in them The language of corruption [השחתה], as in "Surely his visage is too marred [משחת] to be that of a man" (Isaiah 52:14). And from our master and teacher Eliezer of Mainz I have heard: "for they are corrupted" -- even though "their fatness is in them", the language of anointing [with oil] and fatness, as in "to anoint [למשחה] them" (Exodus 29:29). Since castrated animals are fatter than those uncastrated; even so, "there is a blemish in them and they will not be accepted."

משחתם THEIR CORRUPTION — Translate this as the Targum does: חבולהון, their wound (defect).

כי משחתם בהם מום, for their corruption is within them, (not only external). When disqualifying blemished animals for the altar the Torah did not only have in mind visible blemishes, which are after all, only external, but invisible blemishes also, the latter often being more serious.

To atone for you. Explanation: Since לא ירצו לכם indicates that “they are not acceptable for you,” the word “for you” is inappropriate unless one adds the word “to atone.” Rashi also alters the word לכם to עליכם (for you), because the word atonement is only used in conjunction with the word על, such as in the verse “And it will be favorably accepted from him to atone for him (לכפר עליו)” (above 1:4).

לא ירצו לכם THEY SHALL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR YOU — i. e. to atone for you.

כי יולד WHEN [ANY OX etc.] IS BORN… [FROM THE EIGHTH DAY, AND THENCEFORTH, IT SHALL BE FAVOURABLY ACCEPTED AS A FIRE OFFERING…] — The expression יולד “that is born” excludes the case of an animal delivered through the abdominal wall (i. e. by Caesarian section) (Chullin 38b).

שור או כשב, after the Torah had mentioned the various defective animals that are disqualified from being offered on the altar, it now mentions a number of situations in which even a perfectly healthy specimen of the ritually qualified animals may also not yet (or no longer) be fit as a sacrifice on the altar. Just as we learned that the monetary value of the animal is not the only criterion regarding its acceptability for the altar, so we shall hear now that there are still other considerations which can disqualify an animal frrom its being welcome to G’d as an offering.
If an animal has not yet reached the eighth day of its life, it cannot be used as a sacrifice. If the owner of said animal, or the priest offering it on his behalf, intends to consume it or part of it outside the holy precincts allocated for such eating by the Torah, or said owner plans to eat it past the deadline set by the Torah for consumption of such sacrificial meat, the sacrifice not only becomes disqualified but the penalty is extremely harsh. The technical terms for such disqualify cations are מחוסר זמן, too young, or אותו ואת בנו, if the mother animal had been sacrifice already on the same day, or פיגול, if the donor or priest had planned to deviate from the halachah governing where and for how many days such an animal could be eaten after it had been slaughtered. The intention known as חוץ לזמנו, eating part of it beyond the deadline set by the Torah even carries the karet penalty. The time limits are spelled out in our verses here.

שור או כשב או עז וגו', “an ox or goat that will be born, etc.” After the Torah had given us a list of animals unwelcome on the altar due to various kinds of blemishes, it now adds a new type of disqualification, i.e. being under age, less than seven days old. Even though these animals do not display any blemish, being too young (or too old) can also disqualify an animal as a potential sacrifice. Some commentators claim that the reason is that if one were to sacrifice an animal on the very first day it was born, some onlookers might construe this as homage to that day, the first day heaven and earth existed. Similarly, offering such a young animal on any other of the seven days of its first week on earth might be misinterpreted as some form of idolatry. Hence, after a whole week has elapsed, such a misinterpretation of the owner’s intention is impossible. By waiting at least seven days before offering a newly born animal as a sacrifice, this amounts to an acknowledgment that G’d created the universe in six days and that He rested on the seventh day.

It shall stay seven days with its mother. In case the animal is non-viable. And further -- everything which separates from a place of impurity and a place of stench needs separation before it enters into the camp of God's Presence; according to this rule is the zav, the metzora, and the tamei meit [all of whom have an intermediate period after the cause of their impurity ceasing before they re-enter the camp of the Jewish people].

.שור או כשב או עז, “a bullock or sheep or goat;” these animals are named here to remind us that animals that have the distinctive features making them pure, as stated in Leviticus chapter eleven, are nonetheless not fit as sacrifices if they are the product of crossbreeding, or even if they were born by caesarean birth as opposed to being born from the womb. This is why the Torah added the words: כי יולד, “when born.” The word עז in our verse but not in verse 28, is meant to exclude any animal that does not look like its mother, i.e. cannot easily be identified as the same species though we witnessed by which animal it had been born. Such animals do not qualify for ritual slaughter. (Sifra)

כי יולד, the restriction of caesarean birth do not apply to human beings, who are treated in all respects as if born normally. [The exception being that a son born by caesarean incision does not qualify as “firstborn,” the father not having to redeem such a son. Ed.] He may offer it as a sacrifice, just like an animal born from the womb.

והיה שבעת ימים תחת אמו, “it shall remain under the care of its mother for seven days.” This may best be understood by means of a parable (Tanchuma Emor 12). A king who visited a country issued a decree that no one would be allowed an audience with him until after they had paid their respects to a certain lady of high society. Similarly, G’d said to the people of Israel: “you may not offer Me a sacrificial offering until after that animal has paid its respects to My daughter, (society lady in the parable) i.e. to the Sabbath. Just as there is no week one day of which is not a Sabbath, so there cannot be a circumcision until the baby in question has experienced at least one Sabbath. (compare Tanchuma Emor 12). The “society lady” in the parable should be the first thought in the mind of the party offering the animal.

והיה שבעת ימים, “it has to remain for a period of seven days;” these seven days are applicable to an animal after it had gone through five or nine full months of pregnancy (depending on what species it is) in its mother’s womb; if it had been born prematurely, or we have reason to think so, seven days are not enough before it qualifies as a potential sacrifice. תחת אמו, “with its mother;” the legislation does not apply to an orphaned calf. This commandment had already been written in Parshat Mishpatim, 22,29, in connection with the firstborn.

ומיום השמיני, “and commencing on the eighth day of its life;” in the same legislation in Mishpatim, the version is slightly different, i.e. “on the eighth day,” instead of “from the eighth day onward.” The reason is that there the Torah speaks of the first day of its life that that animal is subject to be sanctified as being a sacrificial animal.

ירצה לקרבן, “it becomes welcome as a sacrificial offering;” after the Torah dealt with offerings that are not welcome due to certain circumstances, it now deals with those that are welcome, for instance from the eighth day onwards of the life of the animal in question.

אתו ואת בנו [AND WHETHER IT BE AN OX OR A SHEEP YE SHALL NOT SLAUGHTER] IT AND ITS YOUNG [BOTH IN ONE DAY] — This law applies only to the female parent, although Scripture uses the masculine term אתו — that it is forbidden to slaughter the dam and its male or female young in one day, but it does not apply to the male parent, and it is permissible to slaughter the father animal and its young whether male or female in one day (Chullin 78b; cf. also Onkelos).

AND WHETHER IT BE OF THE HERD OR FLOCK, ‘OTHO V’ETH B’NO’¹⁵³Literally: “him and his young” — in the masculine. Since the law, as will be explained, applies only to the mother and the young, the question appears why Scripture uses here the masculine. Ramban will further on explain it. (IT AND ITS YOUNG) YE SHALL NOT SLAUGHTER IN ONE DAY. “[The law] applies only in the case of the female parent, it being forbidden to slaughter the dam and its male young, or the dam and its female young, but it does not apply to the male parent, and it is therefore permissible to slaughter the male parent and his young.” This is Rashi’s language.
The Rabbi [Rashi] thus decided that the conclusive decision of the law is in accordance with the opinion of the Sage¹⁵⁴Rabbi Yehudah (Chullin 79 a). who says that we do not take into consideration the male parentage [of animals]. And such also is the opinion of Onkelos [who translated: “and whether it be the dam or the ewe, her and her young ye shall not slaughter in one day”]. This is the correct decision [reached] in the Gemara [of Tractate Chullin]¹⁵⁵Ibid. concerning the law of “It and its young.” But the way of Scripture when mentioning specifically the female [of the herd], is to call it parah (cow),¹⁵⁶Genesis 32:16, etc. and if so it would have been proper that Scripture say, “and whether it be parah (cow) or ewe, her and her young.” But since He had mentioned [at the beginning of this section], When any of the herd, or a sheep or a goat is brought forth,¹⁵⁷Verse 27. and He mentioned the dam and its young by saying, then it shall be seven days under its dam,¹⁵⁷Verse 27. He therefore states [in the verse before us] that concerning these kinds of animals mentioned, namely, the herd and the flock, there is yet another commandment that it and its young mentioned above, must not be slaughtered in one day [and thus it is self-evident that the law applies only to the female parent].

אותו ואת בנו, “it together with its offspring.” This legislation applies only to the females of the species, not to the males. [Although according to the masculine mode employed by the Torah we might have been misled. Ed.] Nachmanides writes that actually we could have expected the Torah to write instead of the words שור או כשב או עז, the feminine equivalent i.e. פרה או כבשה אותה ואת בנה, the reason why the Torah did not do so was that the paragraph began with the legislation that the species cattle and sheep etc., must not be used as sacrifices on the same day.

ושור או שה, אותו ואת בנו לא תשחטו ביום אחד, “and an ox and its (son) young, you shall not slaughter on the same day.” Seeing that the Torah has already mentioned that there is a special commandment regarding sacrificial animals and their offspring, i.e. that the young must not be separated from the mother for at least seven days before it may be offered up as a sacrifice, the Torah immediately lists another related commandment, namely not to offer both the mother animal and the young on one and the same day. First of all, contrary to the impression gained from the grammar in the verse, the ruling applies to female animals, i.e. mother and young, not father and young. It is perfectly in order to slaughter the calf’s father with the calf on the same day (Chulin 79). This also corresponds to the way Onkelos translates the words, i.e. ותורתא או שיתא לה וברה, “and a cow and a sheep, her and her “son.” In other words, the law applies to mother animals. According to this halachah, the difficulty is that the Torah should have written ופרה ובנה, instead of ושור ובנה. Or, at least, if the Torah considered the word שור as the generic term for the category of cattle, it should have continued with the words אותה ואת בנה, instead of the misleading אותו ואת בנו. However, seeing that the Torah already spoke about a female animal and her son when mentioning the law not to offer the young animal during the first seven days, by continuing with this legislation immediately the Torah hinted that here too we are speaking about a law applying to the mother animal and its young. This is the interpretation of Nachmanides.

The mother [together with] the son or daughter. We derive this from the sending away [of the mother bird from] the nest as [we derive other things from the mother bird] later below [in the next S.C.]. Just as over there females are also included because it says “on the fledglings” which includes both males and females, here too, it makes no difference whether they are males or females.

, ושור, “and a bullock,” as opposed to a free roaming mammal;

אתו ואת בנו IT AND ITS YOUNG — The prohibition of slaughtering the young first and then it (the dam) in one day is also implied (Chullin 82a).

A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Emor 13 draws a parallel between Proverbs 12,10; “the righteous man knows the soul (needs) of his beast; but the compassion of the wicked is cruelty.” The “righteous one” in that verse is a reference to the Almighty who has said that mother animal and its young are not to be slaughtered on the same day; by contrast the compassion of the wicked cited by Solomon refers to someone like Haman who decreed that all Jews of all generations be killed on the same day (Esther 3,13). Another example of the righteous (G’d) knowing the needs of his beast is reflected in the legislation in Deut. 22,6 that the mother bird is to be sent off before its nest is to be robbed of its chicks or eggs. By contrast, the “compassion for the wicked which is cruelty” was demonstrated by Sancheriv the wicked of whom it is written (Hoseah 10,14) “when mothers and babes were dashed to death together.”

And it is permitted to slaughter the father and the son. We derive this by comparing this case to the sending away [of the mother bird from] the nest. The mitzvah of “it and its offspring” applies to parents and offspring, and the mitzvah of sending away [from] the nest applies to parents and offspring. Just as over there it [only applies] to offspring and a mother as it is written “And the mother is sitting,” so here [it only applies to] offspring and a mother. You might ask that it should have said אותה ואת בנה, “she and her offspring”? The answer is that since it is written earlier, “an ox or a lamb” in the male gender, therefore Scripture also writes the adjacent אותו ואת בנו, [lit.] “he and his son” in the male gender.

או שה, “or a lamb,” as opposed to a bird.

Even its offspring and it. I.e., if one slaughtered the offspring before it, one is also liable since לא תשחטו [“you shall not slaughter” in the plural] implies that there is a case where two slaughterers are liable, both the one who slaughtered the mother and the one who slaughtered the daughter. Where do we find such a case? The case must be that there are three cows, a daughter, a mother, and a granddaughter, and the first [slaughterer] is always exempt. You cannot say the case is that one person slaughtered the mother and the two other people each slaughtered a daughter, because in that case it would be obvious that the last two are liable as both are [cases of] “it and its offspring.” Thus the case must certainly be that one person slaughtered a cow, and one person [then] slaughtered its mother and is liable, and another person slaughtered its daughter. Why is the person who slaughtered the mother liable when the first person had slaughtered its daughter beforehand? This indicates that one is also liable when the offspring is slaughtered before the mother. You need not ask: Perhaps [the Torah writes] תשחטו so that you do not think that only if one person slaughtered [both] it and its offspring is he liable, but if one person slaughtered the mother and another person slaughtered the offspring he would not be liable, and therefore it writes תשחטו, [to teach] that even though one person slaughtered the mother and a second person slaughtered the offspring, the second person is liable. Because if so, the Torah should have said לא ישחט (“it shall not be slaughtered”), [see Re’m]. This is easy to understand. (Rav Yaakov Taryosh).

אותו ואת בנו, the older generation, i.e. the “mother” or “father;” the one who models itself after the mother, i.e. a female calf. This would exclude a male lamb. According to Rashi, slaughtering a male animal and its male offspring on the same day is not prohibited. Let us agree that there is no penalty of lashes for slaughtering both “father” and “son” on the same day, nonetheless there is a prohibition to do so. This has been spelled out in the Talmud tractate Chulin, folio 79. [Rabbi Chavell, in his annotations, shows that later authorities are all agreed on this. Ed.]

לרצנכם תזבחו‎ ‎ [AND WHEN YE WILL SLAUGHTER A SACRIFICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT UNTO THE LORD], SLAUGHTER IT SO THAT IT MAY EFFECT PROPITIATION FOR YOU — i. e. take care from the very outset of your slaughtering that it should effect acceptance for you; and wherein consists the assurance of its acceptance?

לרצונכם תזבחו ביום ההוא יאכל, your intentions at the time of performing the sacrificial procedure must be to eat it on the same day, (compare Rashi), the reason for these rules bein אני ה', seeing that I am perfect and My work is perfect, I will not tolerate deviations by you either by shortening the period or lengthening it. [seeing that this legislation has been dealt with in the Torah already in Leviticus 7,15-17 may have prompted the author to refer to Rashi’s explanation on our verse that the beginning of the time frame is meant, i.e. the same day, one must not wait until the second day to start eating from it.. Ed.]

וכי תזבחו זבח תודה, “when you slaughter a thanksgiving offering, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that the reason this verse appears adjoining the law not to slaughter mother and its young as a sacrifice on the same day, is that the offering called תודה must be consumed on the same day it is offered.

ביום ההוא יאכל in the intention that IT SHALL BE EATEN ON THE SAME DAY — Scripture intends by these words only to express the warning that the slaughtering shall be made with this intention: — do not slaughter it with the intention of eating it on the morrow, because if you then harbour any intention which will lead to its disqualification it shall not be favourably accepted for you. Another explanation of לרצנכם is: sacrifice it wittingly (with full knowledge of what you are doing); hence we may derive that if one is “handling” the sacrifices when slaughtering them (i. e. when he does the act of שחיטה without the intention of doing this) they become invalid (Chullin 13a). And (referring again to the first explanation) though Scripture has already specifically stated this (the fact that the slaughtering must be made with the clear intention not to eat the flesh beyond the prescribed time) with regard to such offerings that may be eaten during two successive days (cf. Leviticus 7:18), it specifically states here again of those sacrifices which are permitted to be eaten on one day only that their slaughtering must take place with the clear intention to eat them within the time prescribed for them.

ביום ההוא יאכל IT SHALL BE EATEN ON THE SAME DAY — Scripture only intends by these words to express the warning that the slaughtering shall be done with this in mind (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 9 2), for if it intended to fix the time for eating it they would be redundant, since it is already stated (Leviticus 7:15) “And the flesh of the sacrifice of his feast offerings for acknowledgment [shall be eaten the same day that it is offered]”.

Again detailed. In parshas Tzav (above7:18) where it says, “If it will be eaten, of the flesh of the peace-offering on the third day, it will not be favorably accepted.” [The verse] again detailed [it here], regarding [those] eaten for one day. Because the peace offerings mentioned here are peace offerings that are eaten for one day.

אני ה׳ I AM THE LORD — Know Who it is that has decreed this matter, and let it, therefore, not be a light thing in your eyes!

ושמרתם — This implies the study of the commandments,

AND YE SHALL KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS. The meaning of this is that here He admonished Israel to keep the commandments, that they should be careful with the offerings [that they should not have] blemishes, or be wanting in time, such as before completion of the seven days [after birth of the animal], and [that they may not be slaughtered] on the day that the dam had been slaughtered [or conversely], and that they bring the peace-offerings and the thanks-offering [properly as ordained], and that they slaughter them with the intention that they be accepted for them;¹⁵⁸Verse 29. thus He included therein all commandments together. Now He has already mentioned above with reference to the statutes and ordinances, And ye shall observe all My statutes, and all Mine ordinances.¹⁵⁹Above, 19:37. He states [here], And ye shall not profane My holy Name,¹⁶⁰Verse 32. which means to say that there should not be among you one who dealeth craftily, [whereas he hath in his flock a male, and voweth,] and sacrificeth unto the Eternal a blemished thing,¹⁶¹Malachi 1:14. just as He said with reference to the sons of Aaron, and they profane not My holy Name,¹⁶²Above, Verse 2. warning them in connection with the offerings against impurity or blemishes.

ושמרתם מצותי, “You shall observe My commandments, etc.” Nachmainides writes that this verse is meant as a warning to the people of Israel to be very circumspect that their offerings are not blemished, are not offered too soon, and that the thanksgiving offering not be eaten for longer than the day on which it had been slaughtered. The various offerings must be presented in a manner that will secure Hashem’s goodwill for those on whose behalf they are being presented. The reason that the Torah adds the words לא תחללו, “do not desecrate, etc.,” is to warn you not to tolerate amongst yourselves anyone who would present unfit offerings on the altar. This is parallel to a similar injunction to Aaron and the priests in verse 2 of our chapter.

This [refers] to study. I.e., to study and preserve all the mitzvos in one’s heart, and afterwards “[you shall] fulfill” what that which is preserved in the heart. Because For actionperformance always follows thought, i.e., what is preserved in the heart.

'ועשיתם אותם, אני ה, “you will carry them out, I am The Lord.” G-d uses this expression when He wants to impress the reader with the fact that He examines our minds and hearts. Here it is treated as separate.

ועשיתם, the doing of them (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 9 3).

ולא תחללו YE SHALL NOT PROFANE [MY HOLY NAME], by transgressing My commands willfully. Having regard to what is implied in the statement: You shall not profane [My holy name] (viz., that it must be hallowed), what is the meaning of ונקדשתי? But, this implies a positive act of sanctification: Abandon yourself to martyrdom and hallow My name! I might think that this command applies even to the Israelite when he is alone (i. e., when no other Israelites are present when the heathen bids him transgress a Divine command)! Scripture, however, states: בתוך בני ישראל [AND I SHALL BE SANCTIFIED] AMIDST THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. — And when offering oneself to martyrdom, one should offer himself with the firm determination (lit., under the condition) to die if necessary, for he who abandons himself on condition (i. e. cherishing the hope) that God will not exact the sacrifice and that a miracle will happen to save him will have no miracle wrought for him; for thus we find in the case of Chananyah, Mishael and Azariah that they did not offer themselves for martyrdom expecting a miracle, as it is said (Daniel 3:17, 18) “[And God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace and He will deliver us out of thy hand, O king]. But if not, be it known unto thee that we will not serve thy gods etc. — Whether He saves us or whether he does not save, “be it known unto thee etc.” (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 9 5)

AND I WILL BE HALLOWED AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. The meaning thereof according to the opinion of our Rabbis¹⁶³Torath Kohanim, Emor 9:4: “When it states, And I will be hallowed it means: ‘be ready to die and hallow My Name.’” is that it constitutes a positive commandment, that we sanctify His Name by observing the commandments, and that [under certain circumstances] we submit to death rather than transgress them.¹⁶⁴See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 12-15, for a full discussion of this commandment. This is the explanation of the following verse, That brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your G-d,¹⁶⁵Verse 33. which is a reason including all the commandments, meaning that it is fitting for them to sanctify His Name because we are His servants whom He has redeemed from Egypt.

ולא תחללו את שם קדשי, seeing that you the priests of all people are more aware than anyone of the perfection of My works, if you do not take care not to deviate from My commandments, this would be the greatest desecration of My holy name. The verse is reminiscent of Ezekiel 36,20 where the prophet laments that the exiles who come to host countries behave in such a way that the leaders of the host countries exclaim in dismay that surely these cannot the people of whom they have heard that they emulate the ways of their G’d!

To transgress My words. I.e., if someone wants to cause you to transgress the Torah, do not listen to him to transgress My words.

ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל, to continue to perform miracles for them as I had vowed to do when I said in Exodus 34,10 “I shall display miracles in the presence of your whole nation as proof that אני ה' מקדשכם, I, the Lord sanctify you.”

Surrender yourself. Without [Rashi’s previous comment] I would say that one [phrase, “You shall not profane My holy Name”] refers to inadvertent sin, and one [phrase, “I will be sanctified among Bnei Yisroel”] refers to deliberate sin, and the [purpose of the] verse is to instructing us to be careful to avoid both severe, intentional sins, and also less severe sins, unintentional sins. But now that Rashi explained that the phrase [“to transgress My words”] is speaking of intentional sins, why do I need [the words] “I will be sanctified among Bnei Yisroel?” I think Rashi means as follows: Since “You shall not profane My holy Name” means that one should not transgress My words intentionally but observe them, why does the Torah need to write “I will be sanctified,” [commanding us to sanctify] Hashem and to observe themHis words?. Is this not obvious, since the opposite of to sanctify is to profane? Rather, the verse means as follows: Even if you can avoid transgressing and profaning [My name], even so, [you must] surrender yourself and sanctify [My Name]. And since it is forbidden to just avoid [profaning Hashem’s Name] but rather one must surrender himself [to sanctify Hashem’s Name], one should therefore surrender himself to death, since by surrendering himself to death he is sanctifying the Name. But if one surrenders himself [to death] relying on a miracle to occur, it is not considered as though he is surrendering himself to death, and this is not a sanctification of the Name. Thus Rashi concludes, “’Who brought you out’ — for this purpose,” i.e., so that you surrender yourself to death without relying for a miracle to occur. (Nachalas Yaakov)

המוציא אתכם THAT HATH BROUGHT YOU OUT [OF THE LAND OF EGYPT] — for the sake of this (that you should hallow His name).

המוציא אתכם מארץ מצרים להיות לכם לאלוקים. I wanted to become your immediate leader, not employing any intermediaries, just as I am an immediate leader for disembodied beings. Of course, this was based on the premise that you would walk in the path of My Holiness, as mentioned by Jeremiah 10,2 “do not learn the ways of the nations and do not be in awe of the portents you believe to see in the sky.”

Faithful to give reward. Rashi writes this so that you should not say: Since Rashi just said that He took us out of Egypt for this purpose, if so this mitzvah does not have a reward., for wWe are obligated to fulfill it, since He took us out of Egypt for this purpose. So he [Rashi] tells us [that this is not so]. (Divrei Dovid) The Torah writes this here so that one should not say: Once a person surrenders himself to death and is killed he will no longer be able to fulfill mitzvos, so better that he profane the Name of Heaven once [and not allow himself to be killed] in order that he will fulfill the entire Torah [later]! Therefore it says, “I am Hashem,” faithful to give reward in the World to Come and at the Resurrection of the Dead [and will consider it] as if he had fulfilled the entire Torah. (Kitzur Mizrachi in the name of Moreinu Harav Hendel)

'אני ה‎‎ I AM THE LORD — Who is faithful in paying you your reward (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 9 6).

'אני ה; I have not changed and I will continue to perform miracles as I have done in former times, unless you erect barriers between yourselves and Me by not walking in the paths I have assigned for you. We have this promise spelled out in Micha 7,15 “as in the days when you came out of Egypt I will display miracles.”

That is that we were commanded that any animal sacrifice that we offer be eight days old or more - and not less. And this is [the commandment of] that which is lacking time in its body. And that is His saying, "it shall stay seven days with its mother" (Leviticus 22:27). And this commandment has already been repeated with a different language. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "seven days it shall stay with its mother" (Exodus 22:29). And this commandment completely includes all of the sacrifices. And there is a proof that it is not accepted before then from His saying, "and from the eighth day, it will be accepted as a burnt-sacrifice to the Lord" (Leviticus 22:27). Behold the prohibition of offering that which is lacking time has already been demonstrated. However it is a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment. Hence we do not give lashes for it. So one who sacrifices [an animal] which is lacking time does not receive lashes, as it is explained in the chapter [entitled] Oto ve'et Beno (Chullin 80b). And there, it is said, "Leave that which is lacking time, as Scripture rectified it by a positive commandment." And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the Sifrei and at the end of Tractate Zevachim. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 3).

That is that He commanded us that all of that which we offer Him be consummate for its type - flawless from blemishes that appear in Scripture and those that they pronounced as such from tradition. And this is His saying, "it must, to be acceptable, be flawless" (Leviticus 22:21). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra Emor, Section 7:9) is, "'It must, to be acceptable, be flawless' - is a positive commandment." And they already brought a proof that the wines of the libations and their oils and the fine flour must be the best and clean from any corruption - from His saying, "flawless for you, with their libations" (Numbers 28:31). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 8 of Menachot. (See Parashat Pinchas; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 6.)

And that is that He commanded us that one who does certain sins must offer a guilt-offering sacrifice. And that is what is called a definite guilt-offering. And the sins for which one is liable for this sacrifice are misappropriation; theft; one who has sexual intercourse with a designated maidservant; and one who swears falsely with an oath over a deposit. And that is one who misappropriated in error and derived benefit worth a perutah (a small coin) from sanctified property - whether sanctified for Temple upkeep or whether sanctified for the altar; one who robbed the value of a perutah or more from his fellow and took an oath; one who had sexual intercourse with a designated maidservant, whether inadvertent or volitional. [In these cases,] he is obligated to offer a sacrifice for his sin, and it is not a sin-offering sacrifice; indeed, it is a guilt-offering, and it is called a definite guilt-offering. And He said regarding misappropriation, "and he sinned in error, etc. and he shall bring his guilt offering" (Leviticus 5:15). He [also] said, "and he denied his countryman [...] and swore falsely, etc. his guilt offering shall he bring." (Leviticus 5:21-25). And He said, "and she is a designated maidservant for a man [...]. And he shall bring his guilt offering" (Leviticus 19:20-21). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Keritot. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions 9.)