ולא יחללו את שם קדשי, “so as not to desecrate My holy Name.” According toRashi the verse is truncated and the clause “by performing their Temple duties in an inappropriate state of purity,” are missing. Nachmanides does not consider that there was any need for these words, as the words אשר הם מקדישים, are quite adequate to make the meaning of the verse crystal clear. He explains that the words ולא יחללו את שם קדשי clearly refer to animal and animal parts that these priests had previously sanctified for use on the altar. Why else would the Torah have to add the words: אשר הם מקדישים לי, “which they are sanctifying for Me?”

נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל, “He shall not eat from a carcass or a fatally injured animal.” Nachmanides reminds us that our sages in Torat Kohanim Emor 4,4 explain that the news here is that seeing that there are species of birds not subject to the ritual contamination caused by carcasses of mammals, we might have thought that the priests do not need to be on guard against contact with or eating same when they were part of an offering. The Torah therefore had to write our verse, even though, naturally, the priests were included in all the carcasses and treyfah animals mentioned in chapter 11. If we were to look at the plain meaning of the text, [something we must never disregard, Ed.] the injunction for the priests here does not repeat the ordinary prohibition against eating נבלה וטרפה, applicable to all Israelites, but it adds the new dimension of the priest violating their status of ritual purity when they do this, a dimension that does not apply to the ordinary Israelite unless these animals had been sanctified at some time prior to their death. Seeing that the various ways a human being can become ritually contaminated had been discussed in previous chapters, as well as the definitions of such ritual impurity of sperm, and other effluences from the body, this was the place to add this reminder to the priests. In case you wonder why the Torah used the wording “he shall not eat” such animals (on the basis of the פשט), an expression not normally used with the contaminating factor of such repulsive creatures as insects, vermin, rodents, and the like, it is the Torah’s awareness that most people would not eat these creatures even if the Torah had not expressly prohibited this. However, this consideration does not apply to mammals which had died by an arrow or a gunshot wound, or had been fatally wounded but had undergone decapitation immediately afterwards. The word טרפה in our verse refers to animals that had been mauled by predators such as lions or bears or wolves. While prohibited as food, such injured animals do not transmit ritual contamination until after they have died. The Torah here expands the prohibition by referring even to such animals that had not yet died as included in those that confer ritual contamination on contact. The expression נבלה automatically includes this aspect of conferring ritual contamination.

ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל, “and they shall not desecrate the holies of the Children of Israel,” according to Rashi this is a warning not to feed any consecrated gifts to ordinary Israelites. [Verses 14,15, and 16 all speak of the same type of holy gifts, the first describes non priests eating such inadvertently, the second speaks of the same people eating same knowingly, the third speaks of priests feeding such to non priests not entitled to eat them. Ed]

והשיאו אותם עון אשמה, “and they would cause themselves to bear the sin of guilt.” They would bring the punishment of their guilt upon themselves, etc. Nachmanides writes that he has not understood the meaning of Rashi, whom he understands as saying that our verse is a warning for the priests not to give non priests to eat produce which had already been set aside as תרומה, the priest’s share of the farmer’s harvest. If that were so, the words there would not be needed to explain the wordsוהשיאו אותם עון, as applying to themselves, i.e. the people eating this תרומה, as the sin had been committed by the priests, and they would be the guilty ones, having burdened the ordinary Israelite consuming these קדשים, sacred things, with guilt. Furthermore, we do not find this prohibition Rashi speaks about being mentioned in the Talmud as a separate negative commandment, although misleading an Israelite into eating food forbidden to him because it is reserved for priests of their households, is of course, forbidden, no more and no less so than feeding the unsuspecting other categories of food which the Torah has placed out of bounds for the individuals it is given to. The proper meaning of our verse is that the verse is conceptually a continuation of verses 14 and 15 which are addressed to the Israelites and warn them not to eat such food that is described here as קדשים. The reason the legislation is repeated is to spell out that there is a punishment for disobeying it. According to our sages the punishment is even death at the hands of heaven, if the forbidden food is grain that has not been tithed, or harvest products, known as טבל. The reason is simple, and the word קדשים alludes to it. All טבל still contains the portion which was meant to be set aside as תרומה, sacred heave produce for the priest. (Midrash Hagadol Devarim, page 579*)*

לפלא נדר או לנדבה, “to fulfill a promised vow or making a voluntary offering.” Nachmanides writes: “it appears to me that seeing that the Torah uses the expression לפלא נדר או נדבה, that both here and in other situations where this expression is used it refers to people who when making such a vow they felt that they were under extreme stress which prompted them to make this “vow.” (Compare Leviticus 27,2, and Numbers 6,2, for instance) The vow goes something like this: “If Hashem will perform some kind of miracle, פלא so that I will be extricated from the predicament I find myself in at this time, I promise to do such and such as a thanksgiving offering.” The whole situation is analogous to Yaakov having made a vow after his dream with the ladder, and his being penniless on the way to get a wife for himself. The basic difference in the formula of a vow called נדר and one called נדבה, is that the נדר is a personal obligation that has to be seen through, i.e. if the item vowed has been lost or stolen before it was paid, the person who vowed it has to make restitution, seeing he had said “I accept the obligation on myself to do or give such and such.” The person vowing a נדבה, on the other hand, declared a certain item as holy for G’d, and once he had declared it as such, if something happened to it, it is no longer his responsibility to make restitution. Seeing that in the case of the נדר the party vowing it does not make the selection at once, the Torah applies more stringent rules to the state of physical perfection used for such an animal. [There are, of course, numerous other distinctions between the two kinds of vows, but they do not concern our verse. Ed.]

עורת או שבור, “blind or having a fractured limb.” Nachmanides writes that seeing the Torah had already listed the blind and broken limbs as disqualifying such an animal it did not have to lengthen the list of disqualifications. It is therefore quite possible that the whole list of disqualifications in our verse applies to the נדבה kind of vow, which was not intended as an offering on the altar in the first place, but was intended as a gift to the Temple treasury. The verse therefore has to be understood as telling us that all the blemishes listed are acceptable in a vow called נדבה, but are not acceptable in a vow called נדר.

נדבה תעשה אותו, “you may donate it under the heading of nedavah.” Rashi says that it may be donated to the Temple treasury.

ולנדר לא ירצה, “but it is not welcome as a vow made under the heading נדר.” Animals with the above-mentioned blemishes are not acceptable as gifts for the altar. The expression ירצה is used to make plain that the Torah speaks about a gift vowed which by definition requires G’d’s goodwill, ירצה, in order to be acceptable. Nachmanides writes that in accordance with this interpretation we need to read the previous line as follows: נדבה תעשה אותו ולנדר, “you may vow it as either a נדבה according to the definition we mentioned, and as a נדר according to the definition we mentioned, i.e. personal responsibility, in the event it disappeared, etc., but, -and that is important- as a gift for the altar which requires goodwill by G’d, it is not welcome. In that respect it does not matter which formula the vow had been phrased as. Nothing that is blemished is acceptable as a gift for the altar. On the other hand, both types of vows if intended as gifts to the Temple treasury are acceptable in spite of the animals having the blemishes mentioned in the Torah. It is possible that we can understand the wording of the Torah as primarily thinking of the type of gift to the Temple treasury in terms of נדבה, because during the donations the Jewish people made prior to the building of the Tabernacle the Torah constantly referred to the generosity of the people’s hearts prompting them to make such gifts, terming them נדיב לבו, as emanating from the generosity of his heart. (Compare at length in Exodus chapters 25,35,36 where this word appears in this context repeatedly.) It is not mentioned in connection with animals but with lifeless objects, clearly unfit for the altar. Wherever the word נדבה without further adjective is mentioned, it refers to gifts to the Temple treasury. The very fact that we do not find the expression תקריב אותה, “you shall bring it near as a sacrifice,” mentioned in connection with נדבה, but only the words תביא אותה, “you shall bring it,” supports our theory.

שור או כשב או עז וגו', “an ox or goat that will be born, etc.” After the Torah had given us a list of animals unwelcome on the altar due to various kinds of blemishes, it now adds a new type of disqualification, i.e. being under age, less than seven days old. Even though these animals do not display any blemish, being too young (or too old) can also disqualify an animal as a potential sacrifice. Some commentators claim that the reason is that if one were to sacrifice an animal on the very first day it was born, some onlookers might construe this as homage to that day, the first day heaven and earth existed. Similarly, offering such a young animal on any other of the seven days of its first week on earth might be misinterpreted as some form of idolatry. Hence, after a whole week has elapsed, such a misinterpretation of the owner’s intention is impossible. By waiting at least seven days before offering a newly born animal as a sacrifice, this amounts to an acknowledgment that G’d created the universe in six days and that He rested on the seventh day.

אותו ואת בנו, “it together with its offspring.” This legislation applies only to the females of the species, not to the males. [Although according to the masculine mode employed by the Torah we might have been misled. Ed.] Nachmanides writes that actually we could have expected the Torah to write instead of the words שור או כשב או עז, the feminine equivalent i.e. פרה או כבשה אותה ואת בנה, the reason why the Torah did not do so was that the paragraph began with the legislation that the species cattle and sheep etc., must not be used as sacrifices on the same day.

וכי תזבחו זבח תודה, “when you slaughter a thanksgiving offering, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that the reason this verse appears adjoining the law not to slaughter mother and its young as a sacrifice on the same day, is that the offering called תודה must be consumed on the same day it is offered.

ושמרתם מצותי, “You shall observe My commandments, etc.” Nachmainides writes that this verse is meant as a warning to the people of Israel to be very circumspect that their offerings are not blemished, are not offered too soon, and that the thanksgiving offering not be eaten for longer than the day on which it had been slaughtered. The various offerings must be presented in a manner that will secure Hashem’s goodwill for those on whose behalf they are being presented. The reason that the Torah adds the words לא תחללו, “do not desecrate, etc.,” is to warn you not to tolerate amongst yourselves anyone who would present unfit offerings on the altar. This is parallel to a similar injunction to Aaron and the priests in verse 2 of our chapter.