פרשת אמור — שני (Aliyah 2)

לחם אלהיו THE BREAD OF HIS GOD — This means, any food of his God (not "bread" only); any meal is termed לחם, as e. g., (Daniel 5:1) "he made a great banquet (לְחַם)" (cf. Rashi on Genesis 31:54).

THE BREAD OF HIS GOD. The reference is to the sacrifices offered on the altar. The kohanim spoken of in our verse refer to common priests. Scripture therefore states anyone who is of the seed of Aaron the kohen.

דבר אל אהרון לאמר, "speak to Aaron to say: etc." The reason the Torah added the word לאמר once more, is to tell him that Aaron in his capacity as High Priest is charged with the task to see to it that no physically blemished priests perform service in the Tabernacle. He has to warn all the priests to be careful to abide by this commandment. The result of this wording is that the priests themselves are commanded to observe this directive and Aaron is commanded to see that the priests abide by this directive. איש מזרעך, "any man who is a descendant of yours, etc." The Torah did not adhere to the order it had displayed at the beginning of the Parshah, nor did it use the order it employed subsequently, i.e. "speak to Aaron and to his sons that they should abstain, etc." Neither did the Torah use the form of address used in Leviticus 10,9 where the Torah addressed both Aaron and his sons directly about not entering the holy precincts after having drunk wine or alcohol. Why these changes in syntax each time? Perhaps the fact that since neither Aaron nor his sons personally suffered from any of the deficiencies mentioned in this paragraph, G'd did not mention them directly but referred only to their future issue amongst whom there could be someone who did suffer from the blemishes listed in this chapter. Although Aaron's sons are also included in the description זרעך "your seed," the change in the Torah's syntax is intended to alert us that in this instance the sons are not included in the word זרעך. In fact, the Torah made this point even clearer by writing מזרעך, "some of your seed," instead of the usual זרעך, "your seed." This was a promise to Aaron and his sons that they themselves would not be disqualified by a physical blemish during their respective lives. (compare my commentary on 22,4, "והוא צרוע").

כי כל איש אשר בו מום לא יקרב FOR ANY MAN THAT HATH A BLEMISH SHALL NOT APPROACH — This means: it is not right that he should approach; It expresses the same idea as (Malachi 1:8) "[And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame or sick, is it not evil?] offer it now unto thy governor! [will he be pleased with thee?]". חרם A FLAT-NOSED MAN — one whose nose is sunk between his two eyes so that he is able to paint both his eyes (for medical or cosmetic purposes) with one stroke (Sifra, Emor, Section 3 7; Mishna Bekhorot 7:3). שרוע HE THAT HATH A LIMB TOO LARGE — i.e. one of whose limbs forming a pair is larger than the other, e. g. one of his eyes is large and the other small, or, one of his legs is longer than the other (Bekhorot 40b; cf. Sifra, Emor, Section 3 9).

MAIMED. Charum (maimed) is the reverse of saru'a (too long). Note, charum is related to the word cherem (destruction).65According to I.E. saru'a refers to a person who has an extra-large limb while charum refers to a person who has a limb that is undersized. TOO LONG. Saru'a (too long) is related to the word me-histare'a (to stretch himself) (Is. 29:20).

כי כל איש אשר בו מום לא יקרב, to stand and perform the Temple service. The principle is familiar to us from when Esther was aghast when her uncle Mordechai appeared wearing sackcloth in the courtyard of the Royal Palace (Esther 4,2).

שבר רגל, an example of blemishes not caused by the priests' bodies themselves.

או גבן — sourcils in O. F. — is one whose eye-brows have their hair long so that they lie over his eyes (Bekhorot 43b) או דק — one who has in his eye a membrane which is called "toile" (web) in old French The word is similar in meaning to (Isaiah 40:22) "It is He that stretcheth out the heavens like a web (כַּדֹּק) (Bekhorot 48a). או תבלל — (from בלל "to mingle") denotes anything that causes a mingling in the eye, e. g., a white line which extends from the white of the eye and intersects the סירא (the iris), which is the ring that encloses the black of the eye which is called prunelle in old French This white line intersects the circle and runs into the black (so that the white and the black of the eye mingle). The Targum rendering of תבלל is חילוז, connected in meaning with חלזון (a kind of worm); he translates it thus because that line resembles a worm. Thus, too, the Sages of Israel name it (the while line) among the blemishes of first-born animals: חלזון נחש עינב (worm, snake, wart) (cf. Bekhorot 38a,b). גרב וילפת — These are kinds of boil; גרב is identical with חרס (mentioned in Deuteronomy 28:27) — a boil which is dry both inside and on the surface. ילפת is identical with the Egyptian lichen, (חזזית) (Sifra, Emor, Section 3 15). Why is it called ילפת (root לפת "to embrace")? Because it continues to cling to the body until the day of death. It is wet on the surface and dry inside. In another passage, however, Scripture gives the name גרב to a boil which is wet on the surface and dry inside, as it is said (Deuteronomy 28:27) "[The Lord will smite thee…] ובגרב ובחרס", where גרב necessarily denotes a wet boil since חרס (identical with חרש, potsherd) denotes the dry species. But the explanation is as follows: חרס always denotes the dry skin disease, ילפח always the wet one; as to גרב it depends: When Scripture mentions גרב together with חרס it is calling a ילפת by the term ,גרב and when it mentions it (גרב) together with ילפת (as is the case here) it is calling a חרס by the term גרב. Thus is it explained in Bekhorot 41a. מרוח אשך, according to the Targum, מרס פחדין, which signifies one whose פחדין are מרוססין, i. e., one whose testicles are crushed. פחדין has the same meaning as (Job 40:17) "and the sinews of his stones (פחדיו) are wrapped together".

OR CROOK-BACKED. The word gibben (crook-backed) is most probably related to the word gavnunnim (peaks) in ye mountains of peaks (Ps. 68:17).66According to I.E. gibben is someone who is extremely tall. The nun67Of gibben. is a root letter.68Hence we can relate gibben (crook-backed) to gavnunnim (peaks). Gibben is an adjective. Similarly the word dak (a dwarf) is to be interpreted according to the plain meaning.69Of the verse. Dak means short of stature.70Dak stands in contrast to gibben. If gibben means a peak, then dak is its opposite. HATH HIS EYE OVERSPREAD. Some say that tevallul (overspread) is related to the word tevel (corruption) in they have wrought corruption (Lev. 20:12). Tevallul means a corruption.71A blemish. Others say that tevallul is related to the word belullah (mingled) in mingled with oil (Lev. 2:5).72A streak of white going into the iris or pupil. See Rashi and Ibn Janach (Sefer Ha-Rikmah). According to both interpretations the tav of tevallul is superfluous.73For the root of tevallul is bet, lamed, lamed. According to the opinion of many the scab (garav) is also in the eye. OR SCURVY. Yalefet (scurvy) means sticking.74It refers to boils which stick to the body. It is related to the word va-yilpot (took fast hold) in And Samson took fast hold (Jud. 16:29). There are others who say that yalefet means crooked.75A kohen with a crooked hand, foot, fingers, etc. It is related to the word va-yillafet (turned) in that the man was startled, and turned (Ruth 3:8). The yod of yalefet is superfluous.76For its root is lamed, peh, tav. It is like the yod of yitzhar (oil) (Num. 18:12).77The root of which is tzadi, heh, resh. CRUSHED. Mero'ach (crushed) is an adjective. It is related to the word ru'ach (wind).78See Nachmanides: "One who has wind [and a result of which] his testicles are swollen" (Chavel translation). STONES. Ashekh (stones) refers to the testicle. After listing specific blemishes the Torah issues a general statement and says, no man…that hath a blemish (v. 21).

או גבן, (eyebrow) an example of blemishes caused by the body being deficient in some of its essential moisture.

כל איש אשר בו מום NO MAN THAT HATH A BLEMISH… [SHALL COME NEAR] — This is intended to include in the prohibition (besides the blemishes expressly mentioned in vv. 18—20) also other bodily blemishes (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 1). מום בו HE HATH A BLEMISH — These apparently redundant words imply: so long as he has the bodily blemish he is unfit for priestly service; (the translation is: מום בו while the blemish is in him, '‎לא יגש וכו‎ he shall not approach to offer); consequently, if his blemish disappears, he becomes again fit for it (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 6). לחם אלהיו THE BREAD OF HIS LORD — any food is called לחם (cf. Rashi on v. 17).

The meaning of hath a blemish is similar to he hath cursed his father or his mother (Lev. 20:9).79The repetition is for emphasis. See I.E. on Lev. 20:9.

כל איש…מזרע אהרון, "Any man of the descendants of Aaron..who has a blemish,etc." The reason the warning has been repeated is to alert the Israelites that they must not allow a priest who suffers from such a blemish to perform sacrificial service. The Torah phrased this warning in indirect speech to make clear it was not addressed to the priest directly.

מקדשי הקדשים OF THE MOST HOLY — These are what are technically known as קדשי קדשים — of them he may eat. ומן הקדשים יאכל AND OF THE HOLY HE MAY EAT — these are what are technically known as קדשים קלים. But if קדשי קדשים are mentioned as being permitted to him as food, why are קדשים קלים also mentioned? Could this not be inferred by a conclusion a fortiori? But the explanation is as follows: If קדשים קלים were not expressly mentioned as being permitted, I might have said: of the sacrifices holy in the highest degree the priest with a bodily blemish may eat — because we find that these had on one occasion been permitted to be eaten even by a non-priest, for Moses (who was not a priest) ate the flesh of the installation offering (cf. Leviticus 8:29; and this was holy in the highest degree since Scripture continues there: "Seethe the flesh at the entrance of the appointed tent… etc., a law that only applies to קדשי קדשים) — but he (a priest who is בעל מום) must not eat of the breast and the shoulder of sacrifices holy in a minor degree, since we do not find that a non-priest ever took a share in them. On this account sacrifices holy in a minor degree are expressly stated as permitted to be eaten. Thus it is explained in Treatise Zevachim 101b (cf. also Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 8-9).

THE BREAD OF HIS GOD…OF THE MOST HOLY. The showbread, the guilt offering, and the sin offering, which in comparison to the peace offerings are most holy, for the peace offerings are also holy. AND OF THE HOLY. The tithe and the first-born.

אך אל הפרכת ONLY [HE SHALL NOT GO IN] UNTO THE PARTITION VEIL for the purpose of applying the seven sprinklings which are to be made upon the partition vail (cf. Leviticus 16:17). ואל המזבח [NOR SHALL HE COME NIGH] UNTO THE ALTAR — i. e. the outer altar. Both (פרכת and מזבח) must be mentioned here and the reason is explained in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 10). ולא יחלל את מקדשי THAT HE PROFANE NOT WHAT IS HOLY TO ME — Consequently, if he performs the service it is profaned and thus becomes invalid (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 11).

ONLY HE SHALL NOT GO IN UNTO THE VEIL. Although he is a kohen gadol.80If the kohen gadol is struck with a blemish he is prohibited from going unto the veil. A common kohen may not go unto the veil. Hence I.E.'s comment. He shall also not approach the altar.

וידבר משה AND MOSES TOLD this command, אל אהרן ואל בניו ואל כל בני ישראל UNTO AARON AND UNTO HIS SONS AND UNTO ALL THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — He told it to the Israelites although they were not directly concerned with these commands in order to admonish the court regarding the priests (i. e. that the authorities should watch over the sanctity of the Sanctuary and prevent priests with a bodily blemish from officiating) (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 12).

[AND UNTO ALL THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.] If it were not for the tradition81Which permits kohanim who are blemished to slaughter peace offerings for the children of Israel we would interpret and unto all the children of Israel as meaning that those who are blemished should not slaughter peace offerings for the children of Israel. Now, since Scripture mentions that a blemished kohen may eat that which is holy, it warns82In the section which follows. that the one who eats sacred food must be clean.

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). 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 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).

THAT THEY SEPARATE THEMSELVES. Ve-yinnazeru (that they separate themselves) is similar to ve-hizzhartem (thus shall ye separate) (Lev. 15:31).1Both words come from the root nun, zayin, resh. Ve-yinnazeru is a nifal. It means they shall distance and separate themselves. It is related to the word nazir (nazirite).2A nazir separates himself from wine and uncleanliness. AND THAT THEY PROFANE NOT. And that they profane not applies to what immediately follows it and to what follows later. Our verse is to be read as follows: And that they profane not My holy name, and that they profane not that which they hallow unto Me. The meaning of I am the Lord is, I the Lord am holy.

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.

‎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). 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). 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.)

[FROM BEFORE ME: I AM THE LORD.] This means since he is cut off from God, he will cease to exist.3God is the cause and sustainer of existence. To be cut off from God thus means to be cut off from the source of life; i.e., his soul following his death ceases exist. I have explained the latter in my comments on the secret of God's name.4The name YHVH indicates that God alone exists forever and the existence of all things is contingent upon Him. See I.E. on Ex. 3:15 (Vol. 2, p. 67).

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.

1 Among Aaron's offspring: I know only that Aaron's offspring. How do I know that he himself is also included]? Talmud says, "if he has tzara'ath "; for one might think that since he is allowed to offer up holy sacrifices when he is an onen , he would also be allowed to offer them up if he has tzara'ath or if he had a discharge. Talmud, therefore, says, "if he…" 2. Until he cleanses himself: At sunset , or, perhaps, it means only immersion. It says here, וְטָהֵר, and it says below (verse 7), וְטָהֵר, Just as there it means sunset, here too, it means sunset. בכל טמא נפש [AND WHOSO TOUCHETH] ANY טמא נפש — This means: who touches a person who has become defiled by a corpse.

UNTIL HE BE CLEAN. Until the days necessary for his cleansing have passed.

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, "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.

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

WHEREBY HE MAY BE MADE UNCLEAN. The word lo means whereby.5Lo literally means to him, or to it. Hence I.E.'s comment. Compare the word li (of me)6Li literally means to me. in say of me: He is my brother (Gen. 20:13). All those mentioned7In our verse. shall become unclean until evening.

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).

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

AND WHEN THE SUN IS DOWN, HE SHALL BE CLEAN. It is known that he shall be clean refers to the unclean, for there is no mention of the word day in the verse.8Hence ve-taher (and he shall be clean) cannot refer to the day. Compare, and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean (Lev. 12:8). However, the rabbis of blessed memory transmitted to us the law that even if the sun sets he shall not eat until it is completely dark.9According to the rabbis ve-taher (and he shall be clean) refers to the day. They render ve-taher as, and it shall be clean; i.e., the day shall be cleared away. See Berakhot 2a,b. They used this verse as a support.10The Rabbinic interpretation is not the real meaning of the verse. I have explained the latter11The Rabbinic use of a verse as a support for their traditions. in my comments on the verse unto a foreign people (Ex. 21:8).12See Vol. 2, p. 458. The rabbis therefore13Because they used this verse as a support. said that ve-taher (he should be clean) means that the day shall be clean. BECAUSE IT IS HIS BREAD. His food.14His bread means his food. I have previously explained this.15That lechem (bread) means food. See I.E. on Ex 16:4 (Vol. 2, p. 316).

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.]

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).

Those whose brains are empty explain the verse in Ezekiel, which reads, The priests shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself, or is torn, whether it be fowl or beast (Ezek. 44:31), as meaning that the priests shall not eat anything brought down or torn by animals or fowl.16Ex. 22:30 prohibits an Israelite from eating that which is torn (terefah). Deut. 44:21 prohibits an Israelite from eating meat which dies of itself (nevelah). Ezek 44:21 seems to limit the prohibition to eat nevalah and terefah only to kohanim. In order to harmonize Ezekiel and the Torah, there were those who claimed that Ezekiel spoke of an animal that has been properly slaughtered and then ripped apart and befouled by birds and beasts. In other words, the Torah prohibits any Israelite from eating the meat of any animal that has been ripped apart by an animal of prey, while Ezekiel adds that a kohen is also prohibited from eating kosher meat that has been befouled. It should be noted that according to this interpretation the word nevelah is not to be taken literally but means flesh which is as disgusting as meat that dies of itself (Filwarg). For other interpretations see Sarim and Meijler. However, this is nonsense, for the Torah states all that dies of itself or is torn he17The kohen. shall not eat.18I.E.'s paraphrase of verse 8, which literally reads: that which dies of itself, or is torn, he shall not eat. The meaning19Of verse 8 and Ezek. 44:21. is if he eats20That which dies of itself or is torn. he shall not minister.21The meaning of our verse and that of Ezekiel is, if a kohen eats that which was torn or died of itself he is ritually unclean and shall not serve in the tabernacle or eat sacred food.

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). 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).

THEY SHALL THEREFORE KEEP MY CHARGE. Mishmarti (my charge) alludes to the sanctuary. Scripture therefore reads, lest they bear sin for it (alav), and die therein (vo).

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.

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. 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).

THERE SHALL NO COMMON MAN. One who is not of the seed of Aaron.

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). 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.

THEY MAY EAT OF HIS BREAD. Males and females.

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

THAT WHICH IS SET APART FROM THE HOLY THINGS. The thigh and the breast (Lev. 10:15).

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

SHE MAY EAT OF HER FATHER'S BREAD. As at first. BUT THERE SHALL NO COMMON MAN EAT OF IT. The reference is to a son, if she has one. She cannot eat of the holy food because of her son.

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. 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.

כי יאכל קדש AND IF [A MAN] EAT OF HOLY THINGS — the heave-offering. 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).

AND SHALL GIVE UNTO THE PRIEST THE HOLY THING. The meaning of ve'et ha-kodesh (the holy thing) is, with22In other words, et here has the meaning of with. the holy thing.23According to I.E. our clause is to be interpreted as follows: And shall give the fifth part thereof along with the holy thing. And shall give unto the priest the holy thing implies that only the holy thing is to be given to the kohen. The question thus arises, what is to be done with the fifth part? Hence this interpretation. On the other hand, and shall give unto the priest might apply to what precedes it and to what follows it. Our verse is to be interpreted as follows: Then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it and shall give it unto the priest, and he shall give unto the priest the holy thing. I believe that there is no need for this interpretation, for Scripture reads unto it.24Unto the holy thing. Thus, and shall give unto the priest the holy thing takes in the fifth part.

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.

'‎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.

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 — 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).

AND SO CAUSE THEM TO BEAR. Ve-hisi'u (and cause…to bear) is a hifil. Its meaning is, they shall caution them and teach them so that they do not err.25If the kohanim do not teach the Israelites they cause them as it were, to bear the iniquity of profaning the holy food.

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.