Комментарий к Вайикра 7:20

וטמאתו עליו [BUT THE SOUL THAT EATETH OF THE FLESH OF THE SACRIFICES …] HAVING ITS (or HIS) UNCLEANNESS UPON IT (or HIM) — Scripture is speaking here of the uncleanness of the person (i.e., the words mean: And the soul (person) that eateth of the flesh of the שלמים whilst his uncleanness is upon him; it does not mean: the person who eateth the flesh whilst its uncleanness is upon it) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 14 3; Zevachim 43b; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 22:3). But a clean person who eats unclean sacrificial flesh is not punished with excision, as is the case here, but only for transgressing the prohibition in v. 19:“And the flesh, that toucheth any unclean thing [shall not be eaten]”, for which the punishment is lashes. The prohibition referring to the case of “an unclean person who eats holy things” for which our text states the punishment is not expressly mentioned in the Torah but the Sages derived it by means of a verbal analogy (ג"ש) (Makkot 14b). — Three times is the punishment of excision stated in the Torah with reference to people eating holy sacrifices in a state of bodily uncleanness, (here, in v. 21 and in Leviticus 22:3), and our Rabbis explained them in Treatise Shevuot 7a as follows: one is intended as a general statement, the other as referring to a particular case and the third is intended to teach about the קרבן עולה ויורד (the sacrifice of higher or lesser value according to monetary circumstances of him who offers it; Leviticus 5:2, 3), that it is prescribed only as an atonement for communicating uncleanness to the Temple or sacred food by entering the former or eating the latter in a state of uncleanness (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 22:3 and Note thereon).

ונפש אשר תאכל בשר וטומאתו עליו, And a person who eats of sacrificial meat….while he is ritually unclean, etc. Both this and the following verse are interpreted by Torat Kohanim as speaking of personal ritual impurity [as opposed to the meat having become impure, as suggested by the masculine pronoun עליו which does not fit the subject נפש which is feminine. Ed.]. Zevachim 43 states that any verse which has not been interpreted by Rabbi Yitzchak son of Avdimi in this fashion cannot be interpreted in this way. Rabbi Yitzchak son of Avdimi had stated that only if a verse commences with a subject which is feminine and concludes with a subject which is feminine and in between we encounter a masculine pronoun may we interpret that the masculine pronoun refers to the original subject and not to the object which is masculine. Rashi explains that seeing that the verse following displays the same pattern and it is clear in that verse that the person who is the subject of the word ואכל, "and he eats," is a human being, verse 20 must be understood in the same sense. Rashi's words help us understand why the word וטומאתו "while he is impure," do not have to refer to the word בשר, which is the only masculine noun in that verse seeing that we thought that the laws about the meat being impure had already been concluded as Rashi explained in his commentary in Zevachim 43 where the verse is examined.

Bodily uncleanness. We derive a gezeiroh shovoh from the words טומאתו טומאתו: It is written here: “וטומאתו עליו, (while his uncleanness is yet on him),” and it is written there in Parshas Parah (Bamidbar 19:13): “עוד טומאתו בו (and his uncleanness remains upon him).” Just as there it refers clearly to impurity of the person (ibid.): “Whoever touches a corpse,” so too, here, it refers to impurity of the person. Rashi explains the later phrase: “וטומאתו עליו,” before he explains the preliminary [point]: “The warning for an unclean person who ate clean [sacrificial meat], etc.” because at first I might think that “וטומאתו עליו” refers to impure meat, and if so, it has a warning from the strength of the verse (19): “The flesh [of offerings] that will touch [any unclean thing may not be eaten],” and the punishment from the strength of this verse: “while his uncleanness is yet on him, [that person’s soul] shall be cut off.” [It is a generally accepted rule in regard to prohibitions and punishments in Vayikro that every punishment must be accompanied by a warning in another verse]. However, now that he explains that “וטומאתו עליו” refers to bodily uncleanness, it only speaks here of a warning for the meat’s uncleanness and the punishment for bodily uncleanness. The warning [for bodily uncleanness], though, is from the strength of the gezeiroh shovoh. That is: here it is written טומאתו, and [it also says טומאתו] by an impure person who enters the Beis HaMikdash, concerning which it states a warning and punishment. Thus, here, too, it has a warning. Afterwards, Rashi raises the difficulty: If so, why does it need to mention כרת again regarding bodily uncleanness? [He answers:] There are three כריתות (Divrei Dovid). אתו here has a warning.