אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא לדידך שלישי דפרשת קדושים תהיו מאי דרשת ביה ההוא מיבעי ליה למקום שיהא משולש בדם בבשר ובאימורין
- That is needed to teach [that the illegitimate intention must concern] a place which has a threefold function, viz. , in respect of the blood, the flesh, and the emurim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is disqualified only if he intends to eat it in a place where the blood is sprinkled, the flesh is eaten, and the emurim (q.v. Glos.) are burnt, e.g. without the Temple court. This excludes an intention to partake thereof in the hekal, since the flesh is not eaten, nor are the emurim burnt there. So Rashi. Tosaf. gives several other explanations.');"><sup>6</sup></span> But I may deduce that from the earlier text, viz. , 'And if [it] be at all eaten', since the Divine Law expresses it by the word 'third'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Third' intimates after time, and in the same verse without bounds is hinted at too, as already explained. Hence 'third' here can have that same significance as is now attributed to it in the pericope 'Ye shall be holy'.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
Sefer HaChinukh
And yet its warning – meaning to say, the explicit negative commandment, besides the punishment that is mentioned here – is from that which is written in the inauguration [of the tabernacle], "it shall not be eaten, as it is holy" (Exodus 29:34). And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Pesachim 24a) that this verse includes in its warning all that which has been spoiled of the [sacrifices] and is not fitting to eat, like notar and piggul. And likewise did they, may their memory be blessed, say (Avodah Zarah 66a) that they are included in the warnings, "You shall not eat any abomination" (Deuteronomy 14:3) – which they expounded (Chullin 114b), "Anything that is abominable for me, is forbidden to eat." And since this is so, we shall say that [that warning (negative commandment) is to make one liable for] additional negative commandments; and the verse here is speaking about the punishment of the one who eats it, as so did the explanation come about it. And that which it stated (Leviticus 7:18), "If it shall surely be eaten on the third day," is meaning to say that he thought about it to eat it on the third day. As so did they, may their memory be blessed, expound (Zevachim 29a), "'And if it shall surely be eaten, etc.' – that is piggul." Bend your ear to hear that the verse is speaking about one who thinks to eat his sacrifice on the third day, that it is spoiled with this thought. And one who eats it is liable for excision, as it is stated about it, "and the soul that eats from it will carry his iniquity." And it is stated about notar (Leviticus 19:8), "And the one who eats it will carry his iniquity, as he has profaned the holy of the Lord, and he shall be excised." And we learned [about] it in Keritot 5a, "Let not an inferential comparison (gezara shava) be light in your eyes; as behold piggul is one of the [important] bodies of Torah, and Scripture only taught it through a gezara shava." As we learn it] from notar, from [the use of] ‘iniquity’ [in both cases] – "just like there it is excision, here too it is excision."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
