## Ramban on Leviticus Chapter 22

###### Ramban on Leviticus 22:2:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 22:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/22:2:1)

**וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי אֲשֶׁר הֵם מַקְדִּשִׁים לִי** סָרֵס הַמִּקְרָא וְדָרְשֵׁהוּ, וְיִנָּזְרוּ מִקָּדְשֵׁי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֵם מַקְדִּשִׁים לִי וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי. **אֲשֶׁר הֵם מַקְדִּשִׁים לִי**, לְרַבּוֹת קָדְשֵׁי כֹהֲנִים עַצְמָן, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא כ"ב:ב'). וְאִם נְפָרֵשׁ "אֲשֶׁר הֵם מַקְדִּשִׁים לִי" בַּכֹּהֲנִים עַצְמָן, אֵין צֹרֶךְ לַסֵּרוּס הַזֶּה, אֲבָל יֹאמַר הַכָּתוּב, וְיִנָּזְרוּ מִקָּדְשֵׁי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ בָּהֶם אֶת שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי, וַאֲשֶׁר הֵם מַקְדִּישִׁים לִי, שֶׁלֹּא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת אֲשֶׁר אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו עַצְמָם מַקְדִּישִׁים לִי. וּבְתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (פרשה ד א) כָּךְ הוּא נִדְרָשׁ, "וְיִנָּזְרוּ מִקָּדְשֵׁי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל", עַל קָדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּבִים מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא וְאֵין חַיָּבִים עַל קָדְשֵׁי גּוֹיִם מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. "קָדְשֵׁי יִשְׂרָאֵל", אֵין לִי אֶלָּא קָדְשֵׁי יִשְׂרָאֵל, קָדְשֵׁי עַצְמָן מִנַּיִן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "אֲשֶׁר הֵם מַקְדִּשִׁים לִי אֲנִי ה'" לְרַבּוֹת אֶת כֻּלָּם. וְלֹא הֻזְכַּר שָׁם סֵרוּס הַמִּקְרָא כְּלָל. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ הָאֱמֶת, אֲשֶׁר הֵם מַקְדִּשִׁים לִי אֲנִי ה', שֶׁלֹּא יְחַלְּלוּ הַשֵּׁם הַמְקֻדָּשׁ לוֹ, כִּי שְׁמוֹ בְּמִקְדַּשׁ ה'. וּכְבָר רָמַזְתִּי זֶה בְּפָרָשַׁת וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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 verse⁸¹. 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!⁸² 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:⁸³ 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 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*,⁸⁵ 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.⁸⁶ *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 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].⁸⁸ I have already alluded to this in the section of *‘V’yikchu Li Terumah’* (*And they take for Me an offering*).⁸⁹

footnotes:
⁸¹ There 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
⁸² Ramban’s point is as follows: As long as we interpreted the verse as referring only to the holy things which the children of Israel
⁸³ Torath Kohanim, Emor
⁸⁴ “Pigul
⁸⁵ Nothar
⁸⁶ A non-Jew could bring a burnt-offering (Chullin 13 b). See also “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 74.
⁸⁷ “Him.” In Abusaula’s commentary on Ramban, the word is: “Me.” This follows the language of the verse: which they hallow unto ‘Me.’
⁸⁸ Abusaula.
⁸⁹ Exodus 25:2. Ramban’s explanation is found there in Verse 3.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 22:8:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 22:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/22:8:1)

**נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה לֹא יֹאכַל לְטָמְאָה בָהּ** יֹאמַר שֶׁיִּזָּהֵר מֵאֲכִילַת נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה, שֶׁלֹּא יִטְמָא בָהּ וְיִצְטָרֵךְ לְהִנָּזֵר מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים, וְלֹא יֹאכַל בָּהֶם עַד שֶׁיִּרְחַץ בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמָּיִם וּבָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְטָהֵר. וְהַטַּעַם בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁהִזְכִּיר טֻמְאַת הָאָדָם לְכָל טֻמְאוֹתָיו, כִּי הִזְכִּיר הַצָּרַעַת וְהַזּוֹב שֶׁיִּכְלֹל הַזָּכָר וְהַנְּקֵבָה, וְטֻמְאַת הַמֵּת וְשִׁכְבַת הַזֶּרַע וְהַשֶּׁרֶץ, חָזַר לְהַזְהִיר מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים בְּטֻמְאַת הַנְּבֵלוֹת, וְהִזְהִיר בָּהֶם דֶּרֶךְ הַתְרָאָה בַּאֲכִילָתָן. וְהַטַּעַם כִּי בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁנֶּפֶשׁ הָאָדָם קָצָה בַּאֲכִילַת הַשְּׁרָצִים וְלֹא תָּקֹץ בִּנְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה, הִזְהִיר עַל הַטֻּמְאָה בַּהוֹוֶה. וְהַטְּרֵפָה הַנִּזְכֶּרֶת כָּאן טְרֵפַת הָאֲרִי וְהַדֹּב שֶׁהֵמִית אוֹתָהּ בַּשָּׂדֶה, כִּי מֵחַיִּים לֹא תְּטַמֵּא, כִּי מֵעֵת שֶׁתִּטָּרֵף הַבְּהֵמָה מִן הָאֲרִי תִּקָּרֵא טְרֵפָה, בֵּין מֵחַיִּים בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתָה. וְהִנֵּה הִזְכִּיר כָּאן כָּל הַטֻּמְאוֹת כֻּלָּן, כִּי הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּמֵאָה אַחַר שֶׁאָמַר שֶׁאֵין לָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, כַּאֲשֶׁר פֵּרַשְׁתִּי בְּסֵדֶר וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי (רמב"ן על ויקרא י"א:כ"ד), הִנֵּה הִיא בִּכְלַל נְבֵלָה, וְזֶה דֶּרֶךְ פְּשׁוּטוֹ. וּמִדְרָשׁוֹ (ת"כ פרק ד יב יג) גַּם כֵּן לְעִנְיַן הַקֳּדָשִׁים בְּטֻמְאָה הִזְהִיר כָּאן, וּבְנִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁאֵין לָהּ טֻמְאַת מַגָּע וּמַשָּׂא אֶלָּא טֻמְאַת בֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, וַאֲסָרוֹ לֶאֱכֹל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים. וְצָרִיךְ לוֹמַר "וּטְרֵפָה", מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּמִינוֹ טְרֵפָה, יָצָא נִבְלַת עוֹף טָמֵא שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינוֹ טְרֵפָה, כִּלְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא כ"ב:ח'), וְטֻמְאַת שְׁאָר נְבֵלוֹת רִבּוּ אוֹתָהּ בְּת"כ (פרק ד ד) "אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּשֶׁרֶץ" (ויקרא כ"ב:ה'), אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הַשֶּׁרֶץ, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַנְּבֵלָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "בְּכָל":

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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,⁹⁰ 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*.⁹¹ 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,⁹² which includes male and female, and the impurity of the dead,⁹³ (Verse 5), this refers to the dead.” (Torath Kohanim, *Emor* 4:4). of semen,⁹² and of a swarming thing,⁹⁴ 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.⁹⁵ 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,⁹⁶ 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*),⁹⁷, 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] explanation⁹⁸ 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 species⁹⁹ 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*),¹⁰⁰ 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:¹⁰¹ 4:4. “*Or whosoever toucheth ‘b’chol’* (*any*) *swarming thing*.¹⁰² I would only know the swarming thing. How do I know to include *n’veilah*? From the expression *b’chol* (any).”

footnotes:
⁹⁰ With this interpretation Ramban avoids the difficulty as to why the Torah singled out here the priests in mentioning the prohibition of n’veilah
⁹¹ Verse 7.
⁹² Verse 4.
⁹³ This is not expressly mentioned in this section here. But the Rabbis interpreted: “Or a man
⁹² Verse 4.
⁹⁴ Verse 5.
⁹⁵ Therefore even after the animal torn by beasts has died, when strictly speaking it may be referred to as n’veilah
⁹⁶ An animal that may not
⁹⁷ Above, 9:1. — Ibid.
⁹⁸ Chullin 100 b, and mentioned here in Rashi.
⁹⁹ But a bird of a forbidden species has no defiling effect if eaten unintentionally (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Aboth Hatumoth
¹⁰⁰ In other words, since as explained, the verse before us has reference only to the carrion
¹⁰¹ Torath Kohanim, Emor
¹⁰² Above, Verse 5.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 22:14:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 22:14:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/22:14:1)

**וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ** דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לִהְיוֹת קֹדֶשׁ, שֶׁאֵין פּוֹרֵעַ לוֹ מָעוֹת אֶלָּא פֵּרוֹת שֶׁל חֻלִּין וְהֵם נַעֲשִׂים תְּרוּמָה, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא כ"ב:י"ד). וְהִנֵּה טַעַם הַכָּתוּב, כִּי יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ וְיָסַף חֲמִישִׁיתוֹ עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ הַהוּא, וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ הַזֶּה שֶׁהוּא הַקֶּרֶן וְהַחֹמֶשׁ. וּמִפְּנֵי שֶׁקְּרָאוֹ "קֹדֶשׁ" לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהוּא נַעֲשֶׂה כִּתְרוּמָה בְּדָבָר הָרָאוּי לְכָךְ. וְזֶהוּ הַנָּכוֹן בִּפְשׁוּטוֹ וּמִדְרָשׁוֹ. וְכָךְ כָּתַב ר"א (אבן עזרא על ויקרא כ"ב:י"ד), "וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ", טַעְמוֹ "עִם הַקֹּדֶשׁ", אוֹ שֶׁתִּהְיֶה מִלַּת "וְנָתַן" מוֹשֶׁכֶת עַצְמָהּ וְאַחֶרֶת עִמָּהּ, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר, וְיָסַף חֲמִשִׁיתוֹ עָלָיו וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן וְנָתַן אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ. וּלְפִי דַּעְתִּי אֵין צֹרֶךְ, בַּעֲבוּר מִלַּת "עָלָיו":

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND IF A MAN EAT OF THE HOLY THING¹⁰³ (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 priest ‘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).”¹⁰⁴,’ 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, 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.

footnotes:
¹⁰³ Here referring to terumah
¹⁰⁴ In other words, since Scripture states, then he shall add its fifth part ‘to it


###### Ramban on Leviticus 22:15:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 22:15:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/22:15:1)

**וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קָדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל** לְהַאֲכִילָם לְזָרִים. **וְהִשִּׂיאוּ אוֹתָם עֲוֹן אַשְׁמָה** אֶת עַצְמָם יַטְעִינוּ עָוֹן בְּאָכְלָם אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁהֻבְדְּלוּ לְשֵׁם תְּרוּמָה וְקָדְשׁוּ וְנֶאֶסְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶם. וְאוּנְקְלוֹס שֶׁתִּרְגֵּם "בְּמֵיכַלְהוֹן בְּסוֹאֲבָא", שֶׁלֹּא לְצֹרֶךְ תִּרְגְּמוֹ כֵן, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא כ"ב:ט"ז) זַ"ל. וְלֹא הֲבִינוֹתִי דַּעְתּוֹ, כִּי יֵרָאֶה מִדְּבָרָיו שֶׁזֶּה הַלָּאו אַזְהָרָה בַּכֹּהֲנִים הוּא שֶׁלֹּא יַאֲכִילוּ הַתְּרוּמָה לְזָרִים, וְאִם כֵּן רָאוּי שֶׁנְּפָרֵשׁ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה "וְהִשִּׂיאוּ אוֹתָם" כִּנּוּי לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁיַּטְעִינוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל עֲוֹן אַשְׁמָה כַּאֲשֶׁר יֹאכְלוּ הַקֳּדָשִׁים, וְלָמָּה הֻצְרַךְ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לְדָרְשׁוֹ בְּעַצְמָם (ספרי נשא לב), וְעוֹד שֶׁלֹּא הֻזְכַּר זֶה הַלָּאו בַּתַּלְמוּד אֶלָּא הוּא אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן כְּבִשְׁאָר כָּל הָאִסּוּרִין. אֲבָל טַעַם הַכָּתוּב כִּי "בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" נִמְשָׁךְ לְמַעְלָה, וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת קָדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַה', וְהוּא אַזְהָרָה שֵׁנִית בְּזָר שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ, בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁיִּרְצֶה לְהַזְכִּיר בּוֹ הָעֹנֶשׁ. וְאָמַר, וְהִשִּׂיאוּ אֶת עַצְמָם וְגוֹ', כַּאֲשֶׁר יֹאכְלוּ אֶת קָדְשֵׁיהֶם. וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ דָּרְשׁוּ מִפְּנֵי יִתּוּרוֹ בְּאוֹכֵל טֶבֶל, אָמְרוּ (סנהדרין פג), מִנַּיִן לָאוֹכֵל טֶבֶל שֶׁהוּא בְּמִיתָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קָדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַה'", בַּעֲתִידִין לִתְרֹם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, וְיָלֵף חִלּוּל חִלּוּל מִתְּרוּמָה. אֲבָל בְּת"כ (פרק ו ח-י) מָצָאתִי, "וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ", לְהָבִיא אֶת הַסָּךְ וְאֶת הַשּׁוֹתֶה. "אֶת קָדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" עַל קָדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּבִין קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עַל קָדְשֵׁי גּוֹיִם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ. יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּבִין עַל הַתְּרוּמָה שֶׁבַּטֶּבֶל, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "אֵת אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַה'", עַל הַמּוּרָם הֵם חַיָּבִים וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עַל הַתְּרוּמָה שֶׁבַּטֶּבֶל. "וְהִשִּׂיאוּ אוֹתָם עֲוֹן אַשְׁמָה", מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאַף עַל הַטֶּבֶל חַיָּבִין מִיתָה. וְזֶה אֵינוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ הַגְּמָרָא, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר רִבּוּי הַסָּךְ וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה אַסְמַכְתָּא, כִּי שְׁתִיָּה בִּכְלַל אֲכִילָה וְסִיכָה מִדְּרַבָּנָן, כָּךְ מְפֹרָשׁ בַּיְּרוּשַׁלְמִי (מעשר שני פ"ב ה"א). וּמִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמַר בְּטֶבֶל "וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קָדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁהֵם עֲתִידִין לְהָרִים מִמֶּנּוּ לַה', דָּרְשׁוּ מִזֶּה שֶׁהַמּוּרָם הוּא הַנִּקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ, לֹא הַטֶּבֶל, וְא"כ אֵינֶנּוּ בִּכְלַל "כִּי יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה" (ויקרא כ"ב:י"ד) שֶׁיִּתְחַיֵּב בְּחֹמֶשׁ, וּלְכָךְ חָזַר וְשָׁנָה "וְהִשִּׂיאוּ אוֹתָם עֲוֹן אַשְׁמָה", מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאַף עַל הַטֶּבֶל חַיָּבִין מִיתָה, כִּי הַתְּרוּמָה שֶׁבַּטֶּבֶל הִיא שֶׁהֻזְכְּרָה כָּאן. וְהַכְּלָל כִּי הַכָּתוּב הַזֶּה בְּטֶבֶל, וְהִזְהִיר וְעָנַשׁ תְּחִלָּה עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ הַמּוּרָם, וְחָזַר וְהִזְהִיר עַל שֶׁיָּרִימוּ בֶּעָתִיד, כְּפִי מִדְרַשׁ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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.”¹⁰⁵ (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].¹⁰⁶ 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 admonition¹⁰⁷. 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*.¹⁰⁸ is produce from which the heave-offering and the tithes have not been separated. Thus they have said:¹⁰⁹ “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*];¹⁰⁸ 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:¹¹⁰. 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:¹¹¹ 6:8-10. “*And they shall not profane*. This includes one who anoints himself with or drinks [oil of heave-offering].¹¹² *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.¹¹³ 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 *tevel*¹⁰⁸ 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 *tevel*¹⁰⁸ 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].¹¹⁴ 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.¹¹⁵ And since He stated with reference to *tevel*,¹⁰⁸ 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*,¹¹⁶ so that he be liable to pay the additional fifth.¹¹⁷ 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.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁵ For 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
¹⁰⁶ See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 277-278.
¹⁰⁷ The first admonition is in Verse 10 here: There shall no common man eat of the holy thing
¹⁰⁸ Tevel
¹⁰⁹ Sanhedrin 83 a.
¹⁰⁸ Tevel
¹¹⁰ Reference is to Numbers 18:32: Ye shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, that ye die not
¹¹¹ Torath Kohanim, Emor
¹¹² In 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.’”
¹¹³ In our Torath Kohanim, Emor
¹⁰⁸ Tevel
¹⁰⁸ Tevel
¹¹⁴ The discrepancies between the Gemara and the Torath Kohanim are as follows: (a) The Gemara interprets the verse, And they shall not profane
¹¹⁵ Yerushalmi, Maaser Sheini II, 1.
¹⁰⁸ Tevel
¹¹⁶ Verse 14.
¹¹⁷ One might have thought that since tevel


###### Ramban on Leviticus 22:18:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 22:18:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/22:18:1)

**לְכָל נִדְרֵיהֶם וּלְכָל נִדְבוֹתָם** נִדְרֵיהֶם - הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי, נִדְבוֹתָם - הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא כ"ב:י"ח). וְהַנִּרְאֶה בְּעֵינַי בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב (ויקרא כ"ב:כ"א) "לְפַלֵּא נֶדֶר אוֹ לִנְדָבָה", וְכֵן יֹאמַר בְּכָל מָקוֹם, בְּפָרָשַׁת נְסָכִים (במדבר טו ג ח), וְכֵן "כִּי יַפְלִא נֶדֶר בְּעֶרְכְּךָ נְפָשֹׁת" (ויקרא כ"ז:ב'), וְכֵן בְּפָרָשַׁת נָזִיר (במדבר ו ב), כִּי הַנֶּדֶר הוּא הַבָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיִּפָּלֵא מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁיִּדֹּר לַה' בַּצַּר לוֹ, אִם תַּעֲשֶׂה עִמִּי לְהַפְלִיא לְהַצִּילֵנִי מִן הַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת אָבִיא עוֹלָה אוֹ שְׁלָמִים, כְּעִנְיַן "וַיִּדַּר יַעֲקֹב נֶדֶר לֵאמֹר אִם יִהְיֶה אֱלֹהִים עִמָּדִי" (בראשית כח כ), "וַיִּדַּר יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶדֶר לַה' וַיֹּאמַר אִם נָתוֹן תִּתֵּן" (במדבר כא ב), "וַיִּדְּרוּ נְדָרִים" (יונה א טז), וְכֵן כֻּלָּם. וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ אָמְרוּ (קנים פ"א מ"א), אֵי זֶהוּ נֶדֶר, הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה, נְדָבָה - הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹלָה, וּמָה בֵּין נֶדֶר לִנְדָבָה, נֶדֶר - מֵת אוֹ נִגְנַב חַיָּב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ וְכוּ', לְהַגִּיד הַחִלּוּק שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם, כִּי דֶּרֶךְ הַנּוֹדְרִים בְּצָרָתָם לֵאמֹר אִם יִהְיֶה אֱלֹהִים עִמָּדִי בָּזֶה עָלַי לַעֲשׂוֹת עוֹלָה אוֹ זֶבַח, וְזֶה לֹא יִקָּרֵא נְדָבָה סְתָם, וַאֲשֶׁר יַפְרִישׁוּ וְיִתֵּן מִיָּד הוּא נְדָבָה, כִּי בְּעֵת הַמַּתָּן נָדְבָה רוּחוֹ אוֹתוֹ. וְהִנֵּה אָמַר הַכָּתוּב כִּי בֵּין שֶׁיַּקְרִיב עוֹלָה אוֹ שְׁלָמִים אֲשֶׁר נָדַר עַל צָרָתוֹ אוֹ שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אוֹתָם בְּנִדְבַת רוּחוֹ, יִהְיֶה תָּמִים. אוּלַי נַחְשֹׁב כִּי הַנֶּדֶר רָאוּי לִהְיוֹתוֹ תָּמִים יוֹתֵר מִן הַנְּדָבָה. וְזֶה טַעַם הַכָּתוּב:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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].’”¹¹⁸ This is Rashi’s language.¹¹⁹ It appears to me that because Scripture states *‘l’phalei’* (*to clearly utter*)¹²⁰ 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*,¹²¹ and similarly it always uses this [identical] expression in the section dealing with the drink-offerings,¹²² and likewise it is used in the verse, *when a man ‘yaphli’* (*shall clearly utter*) *a vow of persons*,¹²³ and so also in the section dealing with the Nazirite¹²⁴ — [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’¹²⁵ 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;’*¹²⁶ *And Israel vowed a vow unto the Eternal, and said: ‘If Thou wilt deliver this people into my hand;’*¹²⁷ *and they vowed vows*,¹²⁸ and so also all similar verses.
And our Rabbis have said:¹²⁹ “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],¹²⁹ is because the custom of those vowing in the time of their distress is to say, “*If G-d will be with me*¹²⁶ [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*.¹³⁰ 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.

footnotes:
¹¹⁸ The difference between these two kinds of obligations will be clarified further on in the text.
¹¹⁹ Not mentioned in our Rashi.
¹²⁰ The word l’phalei
¹²¹ Verse 21.
¹²² Numbers 15:3.
¹²³ Further, 27:2.
¹²⁴ Numbers 6:2.
¹²⁵ It is for this reason that Scripture uses in all these cases an expression of l’phalei
¹²⁶ Genesis 28:20.
¹²⁷ Numbers 21:2.
¹²⁸ Jonah 1:16.
¹²⁹ In 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.
¹²⁹ In 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.
¹²⁶ Genesis 28:20.
¹³⁰ Exodus 35:21.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 22:23:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 22:23:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/22:23:1)

**נְדָבָה תַּעֲשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ** לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, **וּלְנֵדֶר לֹא יֵרָצֶה** לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אֵי זֶהוּ הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁבָּא לְרַצּוֹת, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא כ"ב:כ"ג). וּלְפִי זֶה צָרִיךְ שֶׁנִּדְרֹשׁ "נְדָבָה תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתוֹ וּלְנֵדֶר לֹא יֵרָצֶה" - יֹאמַר שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ נְדָבָה אוֹ נֶדֶר לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת אֲבָל לֹא לְרָצוֹן עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, כִּי אֵין בֵּין נֶדֶר וּנְדָבָה בָּעִנְיָן הַזֶּה כְּלוּם, שְׁנֵיהֶם מֻתָּרִין לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וַאֲסוּרִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וּכְבָר הִזְכִּיר זֶה הַכָּתוּב בָּעוֹלָה "לְכָל נִדְרֵיהֶם וּלְכָל נִדְבוֹתָם" (ויקרא כ"ב:י"ח), וּבַשְּׁלָמִים "לְפַלֵּא נֶדֶר אוֹ לִנְדָבָה" (ויקרא כ"ב:כ"א), וְכָךְ מִדְרַשׁ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בְּת"כ (פרק ז ו). וְיִתָּכֵן שֶׁנְּתַקֵּן בְּיִשּׁוּב לְשׁוֹן הַמִּקְרָא כִּי בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁרֹב הַנְּדָבוֹת לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר בַּמִּשְׁכָּן "כֹּל נְדִיב לֵב הֵבִיאוּ אֵת תְּרוּמַת ה'" (שמות לה ה), וְכֵן בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ "אֲנִי בְּיֹשֶׁר לְבָבִי הִתְנַדַּבְתִּי" (דברי הימים א כט יז), וְכֵן בְּבַיִת שֵׁנִי "עִם הַנְּדָבָה לְבֵית הָאֱלֹהִים" (עזרא א ד), וְכֵן כָּתוּב בְּבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת "כָּל כֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר יַעֲלֶה עַל לֶב אִישׁ לְהָבִיא בֵּית ה'" (מלכים ב יב ה) וְהוּא הַנְּדָבָה. וְהַטַּעַם כִּי אֵין בְּעִנְיַן בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת חִיּוּב, רַק נִדְבַת הַנֶּפֶשׁ. וּמִנְהַג הַנּוֹתְנִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת כִּי בִּנְדָבָה יָבִיאוּ "הֲרֵי זוֹ לַבִּנְיָן", לְפִיכָךְ כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיַּזְכִּיר נְדָבָה סְתָם הוּא לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, עַד שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ בּוֹ לְעוֹלָה אוֹ לְזֶבַח שְׁלָמִים, כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִזְכִּיר לְמַעְלָה (בפסוקים יח כא). וְהַנֶּדֶר יֵאָמֵר סְתָם לְקָדְשֵׁי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, "לְךָ אֶזְבַּח זֶבַח תּוֹדָה" (תהלים קטז יז), "נְדָרַי לַה' אֲשַׁלֵּם נֶגְדָה נָּא לְכָל עַמּוֹ בְּחַצְרוֹת בֵּית ה'" (שם שם יח יט), "אָבוֹא בֵיתְךָ בְעוֹלוֹת אֲשַׁלֵּם לְךָ נְדָרָי" (שם סו יג), "עָלַי אֱלֹהִים נְדָרֶיךָ אֲשַׁלֵּם תּוֹדֹת לָךְ" (שם נו יג), וְהַנּוֹתְנִים לַמִּזְבֵּחַ בִּנְדָרִים יָבִיאוּ, אִם יַצְלִיחֵנִי אֱלֹהִים אָבֹא לְפָנָיו בְּעוֹלָה. וּלְפִיכָךְ יֹאמַר הַכָּתוּב בְּכָאן וְשׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה שָׂרוּעַ וְקָלוּט נְדָבָה תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתוֹ לְכָל אֲשֶׁר יִדְּבֶנּוּ לִבּוֹ, וּלְנֵדֶר לַה' לֹא יֵרָצֶה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר (ויקרא כ"ב:כ') "לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ כִּי לֹא לְרָצוֹן יִהְיֶה לָכֶם", כִּי לֹא אָמַר הַכָּתוּב "נְדָבָה תַּקְרִיב אוֹתוֹ" כַּלָּשׁוֹן הַבָּא בְּכָל הַפָּרָשָׁה, אֲבָל אָמַר "תַּעֲשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ", כְּלוֹמַר תַּעֲשֶׂה אַתָּה מִמֶּנּוּ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר תִּמְצָא יָדְךָ לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּכֹחֲךָ, אֲבָל לְנֶדֶר לְרָצוֹן לֹא יִהְיֶה. וְהֻצְרְכוּ חֲכָמִים לֵאמֹר כָּךְ כִּי לֹא יִתָּכֵן בְּשׁוּם פָּנִים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַמּוּמִים כֻּלָּם, הַגָּרָב וְהַיַּלֶּפֶת וַאֲפִילּוּ הַמָּעוּךְ וְהַכָּתוּת, אֲסוּרִין בְּכָל קָרְבָּן, בֵּין בְּנֶדֶר וּבֵין בִּנְדָבָה, וְיִהְיֶה הַשָּׂרוּעַ וְהַקָּלוּט אֲסוּרִין בְּמִקְצָתָן וּמֻתָּרִין בְּמִקְצָתָן, וְלֹא יִמָּצֵא כָּכָה בַּתּוֹרָה בְּמוּמֵי הַמַּקְרִיבִים וּבַטֻּמְאָה לְחַלֵּק בַּקָּרְבָּנוֹת. וּלְכָךְ אָמְרוּ כִּי "תַּעֲשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ" אֵינֶנּוּ כְּמוֹ "תַּקְרִיב אוֹתוֹ". וְיִתָּכֵן שֶׁאָמַר כִּי שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה שָׂרוּעַ וְקָלוּט מֻתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ נְדָבָה, לֵאמֹר "הֲרֵי זֶה", אֲבָל אִם נָדַר "הֲרֵי עָלַי שׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה" - אִם יְבִיאֶנּוּ מָשְׁחָת לֹא יֵרָצֶה לוֹ וְאֵינֶנּוּ פָּטוּר מִנִּדְרוֹ. וְנֹאמַר עַל דֶּרֶךְ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, כִּי אֵין "תַּעֲשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ" כְּמוֹ "תַּקְרִיב אוֹתוֹ", וְזֶה אֱמֶת הוּא בְּלִי סָפֵק. וְהִזְכִּיר הַכָּתוּב הֶתֵּר הַנְּדָבָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת בְּשָׂרוּעַ וְקָלוּט, שֶׁהֵן מוּמִין בַּיְּצִירָה מִן הַבֶּטֶן, וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן מוּמֵי הַמִּקְרֶה הַקְּטַנִּים, עַוֶּרֶת אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ עִוָּרוֹן בְּשֶׁכָּהֲתָה עֵינוֹ, וְהַשָּׁבוּר, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בַּעַל הַגָּרָב וְהַיַּלֶּפֶת. וְיִתָּכֵן כִּי הַכָּתוּב דָּבֵק, עַוֶּרֶת אוֹ שָׁבוּר אוֹ חָרוּץ אוֹ יַבֶּלֶת אוֹ גָרָב אוֹ יַלֶּפֶת וְכָל שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה שָׂרוּעַ וְקָלוּט - נְדָבָה תַּעֲשֶׂה לְכָל אֶחָד מֵאֵלֶּה, וּלְנֵדֶר לֹא יֵרָצֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן, שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ עָלוּ יֵרְדוּ. וּבְת"כ (פרק ז ה), מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת כָּל הַפְּסוּלִין שֶׁבְּשׁוֹר וָשֶׂה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "וְשׁוֹר וָשֶׂה שָׂרוּעַ וְקָלוּט" לְרַבּוֹת כָּל הַפְּסוּלִין שֶׁבְּשׁוֹר וָשֶׂה. וְכָלְלוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (תמורה ז) עוֹד בִּכְלַל "נְדָבָה תַּעֲשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ" שֶׁהוּא יֵעָשֶׂה לִנְדָבָה לְכָל אֲשֶׁר יִרְצֶה, אֲבָל לֹא הַתְּמִימִים, שֶׁהַמַּקְדִּישׁ אוֹתָן לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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.”¹³¹ 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 repair¹³² 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*,¹³³ and in the case of the peace-offering, *in fulfillment of a vow-offering clearly uttered, or for a freewill-offering*.¹²¹ And such is the interpretation of our Rabbis in the Torath Kohanim.¹³⁴ 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*) …¹³⁵ *brought the Eternal’s offering*,¹³⁶, 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*,¹³⁷ and so also in connection with the Second Temple it is said, *beside ‘ha’nedavah’* (*the freewill-offering*) *for the House of G-d*,¹³⁸ 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*,¹³⁹ 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*,¹³³ or *an offering of peace-offerings*,¹²¹ 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;*¹⁴⁰ *I will come into Thy House with burnt-offerings, I will perform unto Thee ‘nedarai’* (*my vows*);¹⁴¹, 66:13. *‘Nedarecha’* (*Thy vows*) *are upon me, O G-d; I will render thanks-offerings unto Thee*.¹⁴², 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*.¹⁴³ 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,¹⁴⁴, 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 strength*¹⁴⁵ — *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,¹⁴⁶ or even one whose testicles are bruised or crushed,¹⁴⁷ 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 *avereth*¹⁴⁶ which is blindness [caused] by the dimming of the eye, or a broken animal,¹⁴⁶ and needless to say [an animal that is] scabbed or [suffering from] scurvy,¹⁴⁶ [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*”¹⁴⁷ for him, meaning that even if they had been taken up to the altar, they must be brought down.¹⁴⁸ And in the Torath Kohanim [it is written]:¹⁴⁹ 7:5. “Whence do we know to include all disqualifications in the herd or flock?¹⁵⁰). From the verse, *any of the herd or flock*¹⁵¹] 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 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).

footnotes:
¹³¹ Rashi thus understood the word nedavah
¹³² I.e., they can be sold for common food and the money used for the repair of the Temple.
¹³³ Above Verse 18.
¹²¹ Verse 21.
¹³⁴ Torath Kohanim, Emor
¹³⁵ Exodus 35:22.
¹³⁶ Ibid.
¹³⁷ I Chronicles 29:17.
¹³⁸ Ezra 1:4.
¹³⁹ II Kings 12:5.
¹³³ Above Verse 18.
¹²¹ Verse 21.
¹⁴⁰ Psalms 116:17-19.
¹⁴¹ Ibid.
¹⁴² Ibid.
¹⁴³ Above, Verse 20.
¹⁴⁴ See Verses 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, where the expressions yakriv, yakrivu, thakrivu
¹⁴⁵ Ecclesiastes 9:10.
¹⁴⁶ Verse 22.
¹⁴⁷ Verse 24.
¹⁴⁶ Verse 22.
¹⁴⁶ Verse 22.
¹⁴⁶ Verse 22.
¹⁴⁷ Verse 24.
¹⁴⁸ See Ramban above, 6:2.
¹⁴⁹ Torath Kohanim, Emor
¹⁵⁰ Such as an animal that is too young for an offering (so explained by Malbim ibid.
¹⁵¹ Why is this expression [any of the herd or flock
¹⁵² “For since it states, that mayest thou make for a freewill gift


###### Ramban on Leviticus 22:28:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 22:28:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/22:28:1)

**אֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ** נוֹהֵג בַּנְּקֵבָה שֶׁאָסוּר לִשְׁחֹט הָאֵם וְהַבֵּן אוֹ הָאֵם וְהַבַּת, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בַּזְּכָרִים וּמֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט הָאָב וְהַבֵּן, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא כ"ב:כ"ח). פּוֹסֵק הָרַב הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב (חולין עט), וְכֵן דַּעַת אוּנְקְלוֹס (תרגום אונקלוס על ויקרא כ"ב:כ"ח), וְהוּא הַנָּכוֹן בַּגְּמָרָא בְּדִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ. אֲבָל דֶּרֶךְ הַכָּתוּב כְּשֶׁמַּזְכִּיר הַנְּקֵבָה בְּיִחוּד לִקְרוֹת אוֹתָהּ פָּרָה, וְאִם כֵּן הָיָה רָאוּי שֶׁיֹּאמַר הַכָּתוּב, וּפָרָה אוֹ כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹתָהּ וְאֶת בְּנָהּ, אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִזְכִּיר "שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב אוֹ עֵז כִּי יִוָּלֵד" וְהִזְכִּיר הָאֵם וְהַבֵּן "וְהָיָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תַּחַת אִמּוֹ", אָמַר כִּי בַּמִּינִין הַנִּזְכָּרִים הָאֵלּוּ שֶׁהֵם שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה עוֹד מִצְוָה אַחֶרֶת בָּהֶן, כִּי אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ הַנִּזְכָּרִים לֹא יִשְׁחֲטוּ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND WHETHER IT BE OF THE HERD OR FLOCK, ‘OTHO V’ETH B’NO’¹⁵³ (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 Sage¹⁵⁴ 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]¹⁵⁵ 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),¹⁵⁶ 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*,¹⁵⁷ and He mentioned the dam and its young by saying, *then it shall be seven days under its dam*,¹⁵⁷ 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].

footnotes:
¹⁵³ Literally: “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.
¹⁵⁴ Rabbi Yehudah (Chullin 79 a).
¹⁵⁵ Ibid.
¹⁵⁶ Genesis 32:16, etc.
¹⁵⁷ Verse 27.
¹⁵⁷ Verse 27.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 22:31:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 22:31:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/22:31:1)

וְטַעַם **וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם מִצְוֹתַי** בְּכָאן יַזְהִיר אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לִשְׁמֹר הַמִּצְוֹת, שֶׁיִּזָּהֲרוּ בַּקָּרְבָּנוֹת בַּמּוּמִים, וּבִמְחֻסְּרֵי הַזְּמַן קֹדֶם שִׁבְעָה, וְיוֹם שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה הָאֵם, וְלַעֲשׂוֹת הַזְּבָחִים וְהַתּוֹדָה וּלְשָׁחְטָם לְרָצוֹן, וְיִכְלֹל כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת בְּיַחַד. וּכְבָר הִזְכִּיר לְמַעְלָה בַּחֻקִּים וּבַמִּשְׁפָּטִים "וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת כָּל חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת כָּל מִשְׁפָּטַי" (ויקרא י"ט:ל"ז). וְאָמַר "לֹא תְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי" לִהְיוֹת בָּכֶם נוֹכֵל וְזוֹבֵחַ מָשְׁחָת לַה', כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר בִּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן "וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי" (ויקרא כ"ב:ב'), שֶׁיַּזְהִיר בַּקָּרְבָּנוֹת מִן הַטֻּמְאָה אוֹ הַמּוּמִין:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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;¹⁵⁸ 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*.¹⁵⁹ He states [here], *And ye shall not profane My holy Name*,¹⁶⁰ 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*,¹⁶¹ just as He said with reference to the sons of Aaron, *and they profane not My holy Name*,¹⁶² warning them in connection with the offerings against impurity or blemishes.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁸ Verse 29.
¹⁵⁹ Above, 19:37.
¹⁶⁰ Verse 32.
¹⁶¹ Malachi 1:14.
¹⁶² Above, Verse 2.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 22:32:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 22:32:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/22:32:1)

וְטַעַם **וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל** עַל דַּעַת רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (תו"כ פרק ט ד) מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, שֶׁנְּקַדֵּשׁ אֶת שְׁמוֹ בַּמִּצְוֹת לֵהָרֵג עֲלֵיהֶן וְלֹא נַעֲבֹר. וְזֶה טַעַם "הַמּוֹצִיא אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לִהְיוֹת לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים", שֶׁהוּא טַעַם יִכְלֹל כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁרָאוּי לְקַדֵּשׁ שְׁמוֹ עֲלֵיהֶם בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁאֲנַחְנוּ עֲבָדָיו אֲשֶׁר גְּאָלָנוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND I WILL BE HALLOWED AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. The meaning thereof according to the opinion of our Rabbis¹⁶³ 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.¹⁶⁴ This is the explanation of the following verse, *That brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your G-d*,¹⁶⁵ 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.

footnotes:
¹⁶³ Torath Kohanim, Emor
¹⁶⁴ See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 12-15, for a full discussion of this commandment.
¹⁶⁵ Verse 33.