ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף ויקרא 6:11

erhalten ihren Anteil und dürfen ihn verzehren. Dass der mit einem Leibesfehler Behaftete von dem Heiligen essen darf, ist in der Schrift (Lev. 21, 22) deutlich ausgesprochen: Die Speise seines Gottes, von dem Hochheiligen und dem Heiligen darf er essen. Sowohl bei dem Sündopfer (Lev. 6, 22) wie bei dem Schuldopfer (Lev. 7, 6) wie bei dem Mehlopfer (Lev. 6, 11) wird aber noch besonders betont, dass כל זכר jeder Männliche unter den Priestern davon essen soll. Aus dieser dreimaligen Wiederholung wird geschlossen, dass sowohl der von Geburt mit einem Leibesfehler Behaftete wie der erst später von einem vorübergehenden oder auch dauernden Leibesfehler Befallene von dem Heiligen nicht nur essen darf, sondern auch bei dem Verteilen des zu Essenden das gleiche Anrecht hat wie jeder Andere.

The thirty-second allusion found in the words אם בחקתי תלכו is related to the word חקה being applied by the Torah to animal sacrifice as we know from Leviticus 6,11 and 7,36. The words then mean that these sacrifices will be acceptable only if they are the result of observing the commandments pertaining to these sacrifices, i.e. ואת מצותי חשמרו. A stolen animal is not fit to be offered as a sacrifice as we have the principle of מצוה הבאה בעברה, that the fulfilment of a commandment is worthless if one had to commit a transgression in order to fulfil it. Even if the person from whom such an animal was stolen had already abandoned hope to retrieve it such an animal is not acceptable to G'd as a sacrifice. A stolen animal is in the same category as one that is physically flawed, such as a lame animal. Sukkah 30 quotes Rabbi Yochanan interpreting Isaiah 61,8: אני ה׳ אהב משפט שונא גזל בעולה, "I the Lord love justice and hate robbery in a burnt-offering" to mean that G'd hates a burnt-offering consisting of a stolen animal. He compared such an offering to a king who passed the customs house telling his subjects to join him in paying the duties required. The servants asked him: "do not the proceeds of all duties belong to you anyway? The king answered that the travellers were to learn from his personal conduct not to engage in smuggling. Similarly, G'd hates a sacrifice which is a stolen animal although in the last analysis all animals belong to Him. We have learned in Kidushin 39 that if someone is presented with an opportunity to commit a sin and is saved from committing it, he is rewarded as if he had performed a positive commandment. This is the reason the Torah does not want a stolen animal as a sacrifice. We are to train ourselves to escape from anything which smacks of robbery (even if according to legal yardsticks the animal in question had become ownerless prior to its being a sacrifice due to its former owner having mentally given up on ever getting it back). The Torah calls failure to offer such an animal מעשה, a deed, i.e. ועשיתם אתם, even though in the literal sense of the words no deed had been performed.

קריבה משל צבור – as it is written (Leviticus 6:11): [“Only the males among Aaron’s descendants may eat of it, as their due] for all time [throughout the ages from the LORD’s offerings by fire].” This law will be for eternity, meaning to say, from the community, from the sacred donations of the chamber.