Comentário sobre Levítico 14:11

'לפני ה BEFORE THE LORD — i. e. in the gate of Nicanor and not in the court itself (Sifra, Metzora, Section 3 6; Sotah 8a), since he was still short of atonement (as the sin-offering had not yet been brought, and under such circumstances he was not permitted to enter the court).

והעמיד הכהן המטהר, and the priest administering the purification rites will place, etc. this is best explained in light of a comment in Keylim 1,8 that someone whose atonement is not complete is not allowed to enter the courtyard of the Temple intended for the Israelite public. Here the Torah commands that the person undergoing the purification rites stand outside at the entrance to the Nikanor gate as stated in Sotah 7, based on the Torah writing the words לפני השם, "in the presence of the Lord." The Torah charges the administering priest with ensuring that the former "leper," the מטהר, not cross the threshold into the courtyard. He must not even stretch his hand inside and perform סמיכה on the sin-offering. According to Torat Kohanim the Torah permitted him only to place his head inside that area so that the priest could place the oil on his right earlobe and on his respective right thumbs. The principal reason the priest was charged with this task was to prevent the מטהר accidentally crossing the borderline with a substantial part of his body.

ואותם, the sheep under discussion.

At the Nicanor Gate. [This gate] was in the eastern section of the Courtyard and a person who stands there and faces the west sees the entrance to the Sanctuary, and that is “before Hashem.” The interior space of Nicanor Gate was not sanctified with the holiness of the Courtyard so that the metzoro, who was missing atonement could stand there in order to put his hand inside [the Courtyard], to sprinkle on him. This was because someone who is lacking atonement that enters the Courtyard is liable koreis. Therefore, the Sages did not sanctify it [the interior space of Nicanor Gate] with the holiness of the Courtyard. See Re’m.

ואותם, “together with them;” (the sheep under discussion) (Rash’bam)

הכהן המטהר, the priest who performs the purification rites; the reason both these words are necessary is this. If the Torah had only written הכהן, I would not have known that this particular part of the commandment could not be performed by any priest but had to be performed by the priest who administered all the rites. If, on the other hand, the Torah had written only the word המטהר, I would not have been sure that this chore had to be supervised by a priest at all; there are, after all, functions in the total purification procedure which may be performed by a non-priest. Hence the Torah had to write הכהן המטהר.

האיש המטהר ואותם, the man who must be purified and these things; the Torah had to write both the word האיש and the word המטהר, so that we would not conclude that the word האיש excludes a minor as not being included in this part of the legislation although he is liable to be afflicted by צרעת and such affliction makes him ritually impure. Hence the Torah had to add the word המטהר. On the other hand, this word would not have sufficed without the additional word האיש as I might have reasoned that the need for the priest to supervise where the former "leper" had to stand applied only to a minor who had been afflicted and who might not take care where he stood. I would have assumed that an adult could be trusted to watch where he stands at the entrance to the courtyard. The Torah indicates that we do not trust an adult without supervision either. This is why the additional word איש is in place.

Torat Kohanim explains the reason that the Torah added the word האיש as excluding the sin-offering and the burnt-offering from the need to undergo the תנופה, the waving, which the Torah demands for the guilt-offering in verse 12. The Torah then writes another exclusion by means of the word אותו in verse 12 excluding also the man himself, meaning that only the guilt-offering and the log of oil need to be waved. Should you ask that if the word אותו excludes the איש המטהר from the need to undergo the "waving," how could it serve to exclude others from a procedure which does not even apply to itself? This is no problem. We can always use the exclusion by falling back on the exegetical tool אם אינו ענין, that if a word is superfluous in one situation, it may be applied to another situation where it is felt to be appropriate. This is the reason the author of Torat Kohanim chose his words very carefully in this instance. We quote: "The Torah wrote האיש, לא חטאת ולא עולה. You note that the word תנופה is not even mentioned here." Torat Kohanim meant to say therefore that the word האיש excludes חטאת ועולה by using the same reason although the הלכה whose application is being excluded did not apply to the איש in the first place. Our sages were authorised to know where to apply this exclusion seeing the word is evidently unnecessary in its own context. This makes the language of Torat Kohinim on our verse easily intelligible. The alternative explanation given by Korban Aharon seems very forced to me.