This verse speaks of consecrated [animals]. Explanation: the verse is speaking about consecrated animals that were slaughtered outside [the Temple courtyard]. (Gur Aryeh) You cannot say the verse is saying that [even] unconsecrated animals slaughtered outside would make one liable for excision, as we find no commandment against this. You might ask that the Gemara Chulin (16b) says, “Originally, flesh of desire [i.e., unconsecrated animals killed in order to enjoy their meat] was forbidden,” and Rashi explains, “Because it is written, ’Each and every person [of the House of Israel] who will slaughter an ox, lamb, or goat etc.,” indicating that our verse is talking about unconsecrated animals? It seems to me that the correct way to explain Rashi is as follows: The main subject of the verse is not unconsecrated animals because the verse makes one liable for excision, and there is no penalty of excision regarding unconsecrated animals. However, because Scripture writes in general terms, “Each and every person of the House of Israel who will slaughter an ox, lamb, or goat,” instead of writing, “who will slaughter a burnt-offering or a sacrifice,” this indicates that no animal may be slaughtered outside because “meat of desire” was forbidden to them. Because no animal may be slaughtered outside as meat of desire was forbidden to them, the verse did not write, “who will slaughter a burnt-offering or a sacrifice,” as that would have implied that other meat is permitted to slaughter outside. Therefore, since nothing may be slaughtered [anywhere] except for consecrated animals, because they were forbidden to eat meat of desire, the verse did not need to specify consecrated animals and wrote in general terms, “who will slaughter an ox, lamb, or goat.”

Outside the [Temple] courts. I.e., when it is written “within the encampment” here, it does not mean the priestly encampment, i.e., within the Temple courts, making someone liable for excision if he slaughtered a sacrifice outside its correct place north of the altar. [This is not so], because even if one slaughtered in the south, what liability would there be for this, so long as he slaughtered within the Temple courts? [The Toras Kohanim derives from the words “beyond the encampment.” See Re’m]. Therefore it means outside the Temple courts.

As one who shed the blood. I.e., it is as if it said, “It shall be considered [for that person] as blood of a person.” Because if not, would we not know that it is considered bloodshed [of an animal] when a person spills blood during the slaughtering.

Which they were accustomed to slaughter. Because if it refers to their actually slaughtering them, this would mean the same as “their sacrifices” and why would the verse repeat itself? Therefore one must say “they slaughter” means “which they are accustomed to slaughter.” Alternatively, you might ask that “which they slaughter” implies that the animal has already bee slaughtered, yet afterwards it is written, “And slaughter them as peace-offerings”? Re’m

Outside [the Temple Courts]. Because you might ask: What does “who will bring a burntoffering” come to prohibit? If it is to prohibit slaughtering sacrifices outside, it already said “Each and every person etc. who will slaughter” above, (verse 2) in this parsha. Rashi explains that it comes “to make liable one who burns limbs outside as one who slaughters outside.” I.e., even though someone already slaughtered it outside and disqualified the sacrifice, and you might have thought that someone who offered it after this invalid slaughtering would incur no transgression because the first person had already disqualified it. The verse teaches that they both transgressed and are both are liable.

His children will be cut off. (Nachalas Yaakov) Rashi does not explain this above in v. 4), because there it says “from among his people” in the singular form. But “from his peoples” [here], in the plural form, implies to some degree that there are many sorts of excisions. (Gur Aryeh) This is a difference between excision and death: death is decreed on the individual person, whereas excision cuts off him and his children. Death does not affect one’s children because so is the way [of the world], a generation goes and another generation comes. But excision [results in] the person being cut off from the root of life and the fruit is afflicted as well. Because when a tree’s root is removed, the fruit too is afflicted with it.

The verse says: Any blood. Re’m writes: You might ask, why do we need “any” to include not eating the blood of unconsecrated animals? Derive this from the verse in parshas Re’ey, “However, you may not eat the blood; on the earth are you to spill it like water,” where Chazal expound that even where there is no throwing [of blood] on the altar, there is a negative commandment [against eating blood]. He answers: It is written in both places [even though once would have been enough], similar to what the Gemara (Pesachim 28b) says regarding the obligation to eat matzoh nowadays [when there is no Pesach sacrifice]. (Nachalas Yaakov) With all due respect, it seems that Re’m fails to distinguish between the expression חייב(liable), which means [to the punishment of] excision, and the expression “do not eat,” which is [in violation of] a negative commandment. This difference is obvious. Re’m forgot what Chazal said in the first chapter of Kerisus (4a): Rava said, “The three excisions regarding blood, are for what [reason]...” See there.

I will turn from all My [other] concerns. [Rashi says that פני means “free time” and not Hashem’s “face”], because wherever the Torah speaks of Hashem directing his face it is for good, and here it is for bad [Re’m]. It seems to me that Rashi is answering the question of how can [the expression] “I shall direct” apply to anger? It should have said would be “rest” or “set down.” Therefore he explains, “I will turn away etc. and concern Myself with him” to give him according to the fruit of his deeds. This is easy to understand. (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

Depends on the blood. By saying this, Rashi indicates that “flesh” of the verse does not mean actual flesh, but that every creature is called flesh as it says (Bereishis 6:12), “For all flesh (כל בשר) had corrupted [its way on the earth].” He also writes “depends” to indicate that the soul is not in the blood, because the soul has no tangibility. One cannot speak of it being anywhere, but only of dependency, that its existence depends on the blood since without blood the soul is gone. He also says “therefore” instead of saying “And I have given it to you” like the verse, so that the verse is saying: Because the soul depends on the blood, therefore I have given the blood to achieve atonement for the soul of a person. Thus the verse is not saying “And I have given...” as a separate statement. It seems that the verse uses the expression “flesh” to exclude fish and locusts that are not flesh, and [therefore], when Rashi says “every creature,” this is because a soul cannot rest on any flesh that is not [of] a creature, because there is no soul without life, and no life except [in] a creature. (R. Yaakov Taryosh).

[That one should not eat meat without this] preparation. Rashi (Chulin 84a) explains, “As if one hunted [it], that it was not [always] prepared for him. I.e., one should not eat meat constantly lest he become poor.”

Except for [ritually] unclean. You might ask: Perhaps it comes to exclude [even] טריפה [a “torn” animal], for example, if the brain membrane was pierced or if it became טריפה while being slaughtered. The answer is: Here it is written “he shall spill its blood and cover it,” and earlier (verse 4) it is written “he has spilt its blood.” Just as there it is speaking of an unfit slaughter [outside the Temple courts, so here it is speaking of an unfit slaughter], such as slaughtering a טריפה. And even so, it is written, “Cover it with earth.” If so, what does “that is permitted to be eaten” come to exclude? It must come to exclude the ritually unclean. This is in accordance with R. Meir but not the Sages. The halachah however is according to the Sages, and this requires [further]analysis.

For the soul depends on it. Not that a person’s blood depends on his soul, but rather his soul depends on his blood.

The soul is the blood. Rashi is answering the question: Since flesh and blood are words of the male form, why then does the verse write היא [the female form]. He answers: “The soul is the blood,” and the word היא refers to the soul, which is a word of the female form.

The carcass of a pure bird. Explanation: [This law concerns the carcass of a pure bird] because it is written (below 22:8), “He must not eat to defile himself with it,” i.e., [the verse there is speaking of a bird] that causes defilement only by eating it, and perforce it is not speaking of the carcass of an impure animal that [also] causes defilement through touching and carrying. The verse here writes “that will eat,” to teach that [it is speaking of something that] causes defilement through eating but not through touching and carrying. And this applies only to the carcass of a pure bird, because [the carcass of] an animal causes defilement through touching and carrying. [See Re’m )

When it is swallowed. To exclude before a person swallowed, when it is still in his mouth; [in that case] one is [still] pure. And to exclude after one had swallowed it and it is still in his innards and not digested, and he immersed after swallowing it, that he is pure.

Whatever has within its category [the possibility of being] improperly slaughtered. I.e., it was previously kosher and now it became improperly slaughtered. Excluding... i.e., there was never a time when it was kosher.

If he eats holy food. Rashi is answering the question: It should have said “iniquity” [not “his iniquity”]? He answers: The word “his iniquity” implies the specific punishment for someone who enters the Sanctuary when he is impure, i.e., the punishment written regarding other [such] impurities, which is excision. Re’m. Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: Why should he bear his iniquity for [merely] making himself impure?

And for not washing his clothes [he is punished] with lashes. (Mahar”i) Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say “his body?” It should have said “If he does not wash his clothes and does not bathe in water” as it is written nearby (verse 15), “[He] shall wash his clothing and bathe in water.” He answers: The verse writes “his body” [to specify that] “He is punished with excision for not washing his body, etc.” Explanation: if he did not immerse, which is the [ritual] washing of the body, his punishment is excision if he eats holy food or enters the Sanctuary. But if he did not wash his clothes and threw them into the Sanctuary, or even if his clothes touched a corpse while he was wearing them and he entered the Sanctuary while the clothes were still touching the corpse, he is exempt from excision but liable for lashes.