Parshas Bechukosai
1. Regarding the laws of maaser beheimah (the animal tithe) at the end of our parsha, on the verse1 "לא יבקר בין טוב לרע" ("He shall not inspect between good and bad"), Rashi comments: "He shall not inspect, etc. — Since it says2 'וכל מבחר נדריכם' ('and all the choicest of your vows'), one might think he may select and take out the beautiful one; therefore the verse states, 'He shall not inspect between good and bad': whether unblemished or blemished, holiness takes effect upon it — and not that a blemished animal should be offered, but rather it is eaten under the status of maaser, and it is forbidden to be shorn or worked."
Now, the beginning of Rashi's comment, "Since it says … therefore the verse states, 'He shall not inspect between good and bad,'" has its source in the Toras Kohanim3. However, it is known that it is not Rashi's way to cite a derashah of our Sages unless it is necessary for understanding the plain meaning of Scripture; and why Rashi cites the derashah of the Toras Kohanim in our case can be explained simply:
According to the plain meaning of Scripture, it is not understood why the verse needed to warn4 "He shall not inspect between good and bad": the law of the animal tithe is explicit in the preceding verse, "כל אשר יעבור תחת השבט העשירי יהי' קדוש לה'" ("Whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to G‑d"), whose plain meaning is that the order must be that the animals pass under the rod and the tenth is holy — and not that one selects and takes out one from among the ten (and in addition — "yaavor" ("passes") (and not "ya'aviru" — "they shall cause to pass") implies by itself)5. Thus it is already known that a person may not inspect and choose which will be holy — so why must the verse warn, "He shall not inspect, etc."? Therefore Rashi explains, "Since it says 'and all the choicest of your vows,'" and therefore one could have initially assumed that "he may select and take out (the tenth to be) the beautiful one — therefore the verse states, 'He shall not inspect between good and bad.'"
However, according to this, the conclusion "(therefore the verse states, 'He shall not inspect between good and bad') whether unblemished or blemished, holiness takes effect upon it" is not understood, for the end does not fit the beginning, etc.:
a) The initial assumption is only that he must select and take out the beautiful one, and therefore it says "He shall not inspect"; but from where would we derive that "and all the choicest of your vows"6 is indispensable, so that holiness does not take effect (at all) if he did not take out the beautiful one — such that, to negate this, Rashi concludes, "whether unblemished or blemished, holiness takes effect upon it"?
b) He opens with "beautiful" and concludes with "unblemished"?
For it must be said that in the initial assumption that "he may select and take out the beautiful one" specifically, the intent is not to exclude a blemished animal, since it would not occur to us to exclude a blemished animal on account of "all the choicest of your vows," for there the discussion concerns those "which you vow to G‑d," and a blemished animal, which is forbidden to be consecrated and offered to G‑d7, is not in the category of "your vows" at all. Rather, the intent here8 is that he should take an animal that is beautiful in the simple sense (fat), and not an inferior one of poor appearance9 (in the manner of a lean one10)11 — and if so:
a) What is the conclusion "whether unblemished or blemished, holiness takes effect upon it" — who mentioned "unblemished" and "blemished" at all? b) Since the meaning of the verse "He shall not inspect between good and bad" is that he should not select the beautiful one from among the rest of his flock that are not beautiful (though both are fit to be offered) — from where do we learn from this verse that "whether unblemished or blemished, holiness takes effect upon it"?
c) It also requires explanation: at the beginning of his comment, Rashi quotes only the words "He shall not inspect," alluding to the words "between good and bad" with "etc.," while in the middle of his comment he quotes "between good and bad" as well?
d) The conclusion of Rashi's words also requires explanation: his lengthy wording, "and not that a blemished animal should be offered," is seemingly superfluous, for the Torah already stated explicitly earlier, "כל אשר בו מום לא תקריבו" ("Whatever has a blemish you shall not offer")12.
e) From where does Rashi derive, in the plain meaning of Scripture, the two details in his comment, that "it is eaten under the status of maaser, and it is forbidden to be shorn or worked"13?
2. The explanation of this:
The word "(lo) yevaker" can bear two interpretations:
a) Selection — in our case, to inspect and take out one animal from among the ten in his flock.
b) From the term "bikores" (examination)14 — in our case meaning (not that one is selected from among the rest, but) to conduct an examination of his entire flock; that is, that each one of the flock of ten animals (from which the tenth will be holy) should be examined.
According to halachah, it is permitted to conduct an examination within one's flock; that is, one may "inflict a blemish upon his entire flock"15 (and consequently the tenth will be blemished). From this it is understood (simply) that, conversely, one may also examine his flock so that all of them will be beautiful (and consequently the tenth will be a beautiful animal).
Now, according to the plain meaning of the verses, if "He shall not inspect between good and bad" means selection — i.e., that one is warned not to select one of the ten so that it be the good one and holy — it has already been stated, "Whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy," from which it is understood, as above, that one may not select one animal from the rest of his flock.
Therefore it is more reasonable that "lo yevaker" is from the term "bikores," meaning that he "should not examine" all the animals in his flock before tithing them — so that they all be as he wishes.
Rashi, however, comes to explain that "lo yevaker" is from the term of selection, not examination. Therefore he quotes in his comment "He shall not inspect" and no more, for it is chiefly these words that he is explaining; but the proof for his interpretation comes from what is said afterward — "between good and bad" — and this he alludes to with "etc.":
Earlier, when speaking of designating an animal for an offering, it says16 "לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו טוב ברע או רע בטוב" ("He shall not exchange it nor substitute it, good for bad or bad for good"). Accordingly, in our verse, if we interpret "lo yevaker" to mean that he should not conduct an examination in his flock — why does it say only "He shall not inspect between good and bad"? It should have added, as earlier, also "between bad and good," for just as one may not examine his flock so that all the animals be beautiful, so too it would be necessary to warn that he not examine them so that all of them be bad17. And since it says only "He shall not inspect between good and bad" and no more — it is proven that "lo yevaker" means he should not select. And should you ask: whence would we come to say that one may select and take out the beautiful one to be the tenth? Rashi explains, "Since it says 'and all the choicest of your vows,' one might think he may select and take out the beautiful one — therefore the verse states, 'He shall not inspect'"18.
Therefore the verse does not add "between bad and good," for since it says "Whatever passes, etc., the tenth shall be holy, etc.," there is no room to say that one may select and take out the tenth to be holy, as above — were it not for what is written, "all the choicest of your vows," which means (to select and take out the) beautiful one. Therefore it needs to say (only) "He shall not inspect between good and bad," i.e., that he should not select and take out the beautiful one.
3. However, there is still a difficulty: since "He shall not inspect between good and bad" is stated only to negate our deriving from "and all the choicest of your vows" that one must inspect — it would have sufficed to write "He shall not inspect" and no more, for then too one would have been compelled to interpret that the subject is inspecting for the beautiful one19 (for without the verse "and all the choicest of your vows," which refers to the beautiful one, there would be no need to negate selecting the tenth, since it already says "Whatever passes, etc.," as above). If so, the words "between good and bad" are superfluous.
From this Rashi deduces that "between good and bad" includes another matter20 — "unblemished and blemished." And the verse comes to say21 "whether unblemished or blemished, holiness takes effect upon it." And although a blemished animal is not offered on the altar, whereas the holiness of the tithe is "to be offered on the altar, etc.," nevertheless we learn from what is said, "He shall not inspect between good and bad" (which also means unblemished and blemished, as above), that upon a blemished animal too "holiness takes effect"22, only that its holiness is "not that a blemished animal should be offered, but rather it is eaten under the status of maaser, and it is forbidden to be shorn or worked," as will be explained below.
4. The explanation of this: regarding the holiness of the tenth (whether unblemished or blemished), it says, "יהי' קודש" ("it shall be holy"). Likewise in the preceding verse, "the tenth shall be holy to G‑d" (with the addition of the word "yihyeh," "shall be"). This implies that in addition to the holiness itself taking effect upon the animal, it must be that "it shall be holy" — the taking effect must come together with a "being" of holiness; that is, immediately when the animal is consecrated, an action of holiness is to be performed with it23.
As Rashi explains on "it shall be holy" (stated earlier regarding an unblemished animal): "It is offered on the altar — its blood and its sacrificial parts, etc. — and the meat is eaten by the owners," which is the positive action of holiness that is incumbent upon the person to perform once the animal has been consecrated.
With regard to a blemished animal, however, it is not understood how one can say of it "it shall be holy," i.e., how it is possible to perform with it a positive action of holiness — for a blemished animal is not offered upon the altar.
Therefore Rashi adds, "and not that a blemished animal should be offered (which is, simply, the principal positive action of holiness), but rather it is eaten under the status of maaser," which is also a positive action of holiness — "it shall be holy."
But this is not sufficient, for eating it "under the status of maaser" is possible only after slaughtering (and the slaughtering of a blemished animal is not part of the action of holiness of the tithe) — and not immediately when "holiness takes effect upon it."
Therefore Rashi adds, "it is forbidden to be shorn or worked," a holiness regarding which one must be careful immediately from when it is consecrated.
It is understood, however, that this alone is not sufficient — for this is not a positive action but a negative one: "it is forbidden to be shorn or worked." Therefore the first matter is "it is eaten under the status of maaser," as above.
5. From the wondrous matters of halachah in our Rashi:
It still requires explanation what this holiness of a blemished animal, which "is eaten under the status of maaser," consists of: being eaten for "two days and one night"24 applies only to an unblemished animal and not to a blemished one; being eaten only within the entire city (Jerusalem)24 also applies only to an unblemished one, whereas a blemished one "is eaten in any place"25, even outside the Land of Israel. So what special law is there in the eating of a blemished tithe animal by virtue of which this eating is called eating "under the status of maaser"26?
[One cannot say that the intent is that "they are not sold in the butcher shop and are not weighed by the litra"27, because (besides the fact that according to several opinions this is Rabbinic (regarding a blemished animal)28): a) this is only a negative matter; b) and primarily — this is not a law concerning the eating of maaser29, whereas from Rashi's wording30, "it is eaten under the status of maaser," it is implied that there is a positive aspect in its eating31.]
It must therefore be said that Rashi's comment is to be taken entirely literally — that the eating must be "under the status of maaser," i.e., that by Torah law one must have in mind that he is eating maaser. Seemingly, this is a great novelty, and it is not mentioned elsewhere.
6. From the "wine of Torah" (its inner dimension) in Rashi's comment:
It is explained in Chassidus32 that in the refinement of physical things and their elevation to holiness there are several levels, among them:
Physical things that have (only) been prepared for performing a mitzvah, before the mitzvah has been performed with them — such as wool prepared for tzitzis, parchment for tefillin, etc.; higher than this are physical things after a mitzvah has been performed with them, where the refinement effected in them at the time of performing the mitzvah, through the performance of the mitzvah (which is then the most exalted refinement), leaves its impression in the object even after the mitzvah has been performed.
And within this itself there is a distinction: the impression of refinement that remains in things that, after the performance of the mitzvah, are "tashmishei kedushah" (articles of holiness)33 is not comparable to that in those that have no holiness after the performance of the mitzvah, such as "tashmishei mitzvah" (articles used for a mitzvah)33, etc.
[Moreover, even in things with which the mitzvah is not performed directly, but through which a mitzvah is performed — such as money given to tzedakah: although these coins have no holiness (they are mundane as before), nevertheless this money, after the mitzvah of tzedakah has been performed with it, is not comparable to how it was before it was given to tzedakah. And there is a further wondrous effect brought about through it — this tzedakah money elevates all the money from which it was donated34.
Seemingly, accordingly, in our case the tenth elevates all the nine together with it; this requires further careful study.]
The reason for this: this is the novelty of the Giving of the Torah, "העליונים ירדו לתחתונים והתחתונים יעלו לעליונים" ("the upper realms shall descend to the lower, and the lower shall ascend to the upper")35. That is, the refinement effected in the physical object at the time of performing the mitzvah is fixed in it (its impression) even after the mitzvah has been performed36.
This matter is alluded to in Rashi: with an unblemished tithe animal, of which it says "it shall be holy," the holiness effected in it is openly visible in it afterward — it is offered upon the altar, its blood and its sacrificial parts, etc. A blemished animal, however, is not offered upon the altar, and seemingly no holiness is visible in it after the holiness of maaser takes effect upon it — only that it is forbidden to shear it or work with it (which is only akin to "it is forbidden to degrade," etc.); but in a positive way, no holiness is visible in it. According to Rashi's explanation, however — since the mitzvah of maaser was fulfilled with it and "holiness takes effect upon it," holiness remains in it that finds open expression afterward as well: "it is eaten under the status of maaser" — when one eats it, one must have in mind that he is eating maaser, as above.
7. Another matter in the "wine of Torah" in our Rashi:
It is known37 regarding "סור מרע" ("turn away from evil") and "ועשה טוב" ("and do good") that the principal drawing down of the holiness of G‑dliness is through "and do good" — specifically positive commandments; but in order to draw down G‑dliness through positive commandments, there must first be "turn away from evil," "like the parable of a mortal king for whom one wishes to make a beautiful dwelling, where one must clear the palace of all filth, etc., and afterward arrange beautiful vessels there, etc."38.
This is what Rashi alludes to39 in the order of matters: "It is eaten under the status of maaser (and afterward) it is forbidden to be shorn or worked." First he explains the principal intent of the service — "it is eaten under the status of maaser," which is a positive matter, "do good," through which the dimension of holiness is openly expressed, as above; and afterward he speaks of "turn away from evil," which is a preliminary and secondary to the drawing down of G‑dliness — "it is forbidden to be shorn or worked."
That is, although in the actual order of things there must first be care in "turn away from evil," that there be no undesirable things, and afterward the service of "do good," nevertheless in Rashi — the "wine of Torah," in which the inner dimension of every matter is emphasized — he emphasizes the essential point and the intent of the service40 — to make for Him, blessed be He, a dwelling place in the lower realms through "do good" — and afterward explains that before this there must be the service of "turn away from evil."
It can further be said (according to the plain meaning within this allusion): he first states what is certain — it is eaten; and afterward what is uncertain — that if there will be wool fit to be shorn and work fit to be done by this animal, it is forbidden to be shorn or worked.
Now, although "turn away from evil" — "the prohibition of shearing, etc." — is only a preliminary and preparation for drawing down holiness openly through "do good" — "it is eaten under the status of maaser" — nevertheless there must be care in "turn away from evil" specifically in all the details. And Rashi explains this in both matters: the prohibition of shearing and the prohibition of work. The care must be both in "work," which is done with the body of the animal — i.e., in principal matters; and in "shearing," which concerns the hair, the hair being "that which is secondary to its flesh"41 — i.e., care also in matters that (seemingly appear) secondary. And through service in this order, the drawing down through "do good" — to make for Him, blessed be He, a dwelling place in the lower realms — will afterward be as it should be.
(From the sichah of Shabbos Parshas Bechukosai, 5725)
Notes
1) 26:33.
2) See Re'eh 12:11.
3) In contrast, its conclusion, "whether unblemished or blemished, holiness takes effect upon it" — see Bechoros 14b (and Rashi there, 14a (in the Mishnah), s.v. Chutz), 57a; Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah 1:1. See also below, notes 18 and 22.
4) See below, notes 18 and 22.
5) Although Rashi did not cite the derashah of the Gemara (Bechoros 58b): "Their mothers are outside, etc., and they bleat and go out toward their mothers. — Let them take them out themselves! — 'Yaavor' ('passes') is written, and not 'that they cause it to pass.'" And as the Maskil LeDovid asked on Rashi's words, "he takes them out through the opening." But simply, "takes them out" does not necessarily mean taking them out by hand; it can be explained as merely causing them to go out (Torah Temimah here). This is especially so since Rashi does not take the word "(kol asher) yaavor" (whose meaning is "by itself") out of its plain meaning, and in general is not occupied with explaining it (which is why he did not quote the word "yaavor"), but only explains the words "under the rod."
6) Note Rashi there: "This teaches that they should bring from the choicest" (and not that one is required to bring it, or the like).
7) Emor 22:19 ff. And Rashi there, 22:13 [OCR unclear]: "…times, to warn regarding their consecration, etc."
8) So too explains the Rash of Shantz on the Toras Kohanim; and the Biur of R. Y. F. Perla (on the Sefer HaMitzvos of Rav Saadia Gaon), vol. 1, positive commandment 66, at the end (318c). See also below, note 22.
However, note the wording of the Rambam at the beginning of Hilchos Issurei Mizbe'ach: "It is a positive commandment that all the offerings be unblemished and choice, as it says, 'It shall be unblemished to be accepted,' etc." (and similarly at the beginning of ch. 6 there). Perhaps "choice" is also included in "It shall be unblemished to be accepted." Or this is an additional detail, and by the word "choice" he means what he writes in ch. 2, halachah 18 (there): "Other sick animals, etc., are not offered, since they are not of the choicest, and the verse says, 'the choice of your vows'" (one cannot say that this refers to a blemished animal, for he concludes there, "and if he offered them, it seems to me that they are accepted," whereas regarding a blemished animal it says "it shall be unblemished to be accepted," "it shall not be accepted for you" — Emor there, 20–21). And at the beginning of ch. 7 there: "One should not bring a lamb that is lean and ugly and say, 'It has no blemish,' etc.; rather, whatever he brings, etc., from the choicest." Similarly (that "choice" and "blemished" are two separate categories) also from ch. 3, halachah 11 (there): "Those forbidden for the altar are fourteen, etc.: a blemished animal, and one that is not of the choicest." See also R. Y. F. Perla there (317c ff.), and note 11.
9) I.e., mainly that it is not beautiful (fat), and not that it has some negative aspect, for an old, sick, or filthy animal was excluded from being an offering (Rashi, Vayikra 1:14 — from Bechoros 41a; Toras Kohanim on the verse).
10) Note (by way of halachah) Rashi on Menachos (64a, s.v. Afilu nimtzeis), that regarding a lean animal there is the prohibition of "הקריבהו נא לפחתך" ("Offer it now to your governor") (Malachi 1:8). See also the following note.
11) From this Rashi* it is implied that in truth, without the teaching of "He shall not inspect," one would have been required to take from the choicest, i.e., a beautiful (fat) animal, and similarly with other offerings (where no exclusion is stated). However, see Gur Aryeh on Rashi (our parsha, 27:14): "For regarding offering, there is no distinction between lean and fat." See also the Rambam cited in note 8, and at the end of Hilchos Issurei Mizbe'ach: "He should bring his offering from the beautiful and most excellent, etc.; he should consecrate from the beautiful" (see Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, end of 248). See also Responsa Tzafnas Pa'neach (New York, 5714), 274 (partly reproduced in Tzafnas Pa'neach on the Torah there); the Biur of R. Y. F. Perla there; Tziyunim LaTorah, principle 13.
However, note that in the Rambam (and Shulchan Aruch) there: a) he begins, "One who wishes to gain merit for himself should subdue his evil inclination, etc.," from which it can be explained that if one directs his heart to Heaven (and cannot bring more), the mitzvah is the same whether with this or with that — see the end of Menachos; Tosafos, Shevuos 15a, s.v. Lilmadcha (and see at length above, p. 10, note 3, and p. 13 ff.). b) He concludes, "And so it says, 'All the fat is to G‑d,'" and did not cite the verse "the choice of your vows," although it can be said that regarding offerings he relied on having already cited "choice" in ch. 2, halachah 8 there (and in [OCR unclear] there), and here he cited "All the fat is to G‑d" because the discussion concerns "anything that is for the sake of G‑d." Or it can be said (according to the Rambam) that "the choice of your vows" excludes only "a lamb that is lean and ugly" (beginning of ch. 7 there) and "other sick animals" (in ch. 2 there)** and the like (i.e., the opposite of the beautiful and choice), whereas "All the fat is to G‑d" includes also "from the beautiful and most excellent"*** (not only the exclusion of what is not beautiful and choice, etc.).
*) In Rashi on Re'eh there he wrote "that they should bring from the choicest," but did not explain what "choicest" is.
**) But an old, sick, or filthy animal is included in the category of blemished (Rambam, end of ch. 7 of Hilchos Bi'as HaMikdash).
***) It can be said that the two are interdependent: regarding the offering itself (see above there), it is necessary only that it be "the choice of your vows," i.e., not "lean and ugly" and the like, for otherwise it would be like degrading sacred things (see what is cited at the end of note 8: "forbidden for the altar … one that is not of the choicest"). And regarding the person: "One who wishes to gain merit for himself should subdue his inclination and bring his offering from the beautiful and most excellent."
12) Simply, it can be said that since he wrote that upon a blemished animal too "holiness takes effect," although in general it is forbidden to consecrate a blemished animal, as above, note 7, one might have assumed that this blemished animal may also be offered (as in the Gemara there, 14b); therefore he explained, "and not that a blemished animal should be offered." But it is even better understood according to what is explained below.
13) One cannot say that Rashi cites these two details (not because they are alluded to in the plain meaning, but) because this is the law of a blemished tithe animal (in truth), and since he wrote "holiness takes effect upon it" (and therefore needed to negate, "and not that a blemished animal should be offered," as in the previous note), he concludes, "it is eaten under the status of maaser, and it is forbidden to be shorn, etc.," because these are the aspects of the holiness of maaser that apply to a blemished animal as to an unblemished one —
for according to this he would not have needed to cite it at all, but only to write, "holiness takes effect upon it, but not that a blemished animal should be offered," and it would be understood that the other aspects of the holiness of maaser apply to it (for even regarding an unblemished tithe animal he did not cite (in the preceding comment of Rashi) all the details of its laws).
14) The wording of the verse in Kedoshim (19:20). See Rashi there: "to examine the matter."
15) Bechoros 36b, and sources cited there.
16) 27:19.
17) And although this would be understood all the more so — one might have assumed that it invalidates after the fact, and it would be necessary to inform us that if he transgressed and made the entire flock bad animals, the holiness of maaser takes effect upon it. See also what is written in Levush HaOrah on Rashi, verse 10.
18) And from the fact that the verse comes to negate the initial assumption that one must select the beautiful one, seemingly there is again no room to say (according to Rashi) that "He shall not inspect" is a prohibition, for this is merely a negation, that he is not obligated to inspect. See below, note 22.
19) But one cannot say that then it would have been assumed that "lo yevaker" is from the term "bikores," and the verse comes to say that he should not conduct any examination in his flock — for it is understood that not all animals enter the pen to be tithed (see Bechoros 57a), and if so, he must necessarily conduct the examination to remove the aforementioned invalid ones from the flock. And although the above (from Bechoros) is not cited in Rashi, nevertheless: a) also in the plain meaning of Scripture several animals were excluded from being offered (see Rashi, Vayikra 1:2; 3:10); b) were it not for the teaching that upon a blemished animal too holiness takes effect, etc., the prohibition of consecrating and offering any of the invalid animals listed in Parshas Emor there would have remained.
20) And this is not one derashah together with the beginning of the comment, as several commentators on the Toras Kohanim combined all of Rashi's words into the explanation of the Toras Kohanim (where only "He shall not inspect" regarding selecting the beautiful one is cited — like the beginning of Rashi's words).
21) The words "between good and bad" are a quotation of the wording of the verse within Rashi's comment — as in many places in Rashi on the Torah (see Likkutei Sichos vol. 11, p. 58, section 3, and note 22 there).
22) Accordingly, it emerges that according to Rashi (in his commentary on the Torah) the verse "He shall not inspect between good and bad" contains no prohibition (lav). Regarding taking out the beautiful one, it is only a negation, that he need not inspect; and regarding a blemished animal, the verse comes to say that "holiness takes effect upon it." This is unlike what is written in the Biur of R. Y. F. Perla there (318d), that from the words "whether unblemished or blemished" onward it is another interpretation, like "another explanation" in Rashi, and that the beginning of the comment, which comes to negate taking out the beautiful one, is not a prohibition, while according to the second interpretation, which refers to unblemished and blemished, it is a prohibition. See there, where he discusses this at length; his view is that this is a dispute: the Toras Kohanim here holds that "good" means beautiful, and it is only a negation (to say that one need not insist that it be from the choicest), while our Gemara (Bechoros 36b; 53b) holds that it is a prohibitive warning, and "good and bad" means unblemished and blemished; and this is also the view of the Sifri on Re'eh (12:11). See also Tzafnas Pa'neach (Mahadura Tinyana 77b; Hashmatos to Hilchos Arachin, p. 83; reproduced in Tzafnas Pa'neach on the Torah here, and on Parshas Re'eh there). And there: the dispute between Rashi and Tosafos (Bechoros 58, beginning of side b) regarding one who selected the beautiful one — whether he transgressed "He shall not inspect."
23) According to this, one can resolve Rashi in Behar (25:12): "Tihyeh — it shall remain in its state," and why he did not ask this regarding the word "tihyeh" in the preceding verse — rather, in the first instance, the reason it says "tihyeh" is according to its plain sense, that there must be an action (and their sanctification — the court [sanctifies] and says, etc., Rashi there, 25:10); and when it is repeated again, this is for the derashah "it shall remain in its state."
*23) Especially since Rashi did not cite on "it shall be holy" the derashah of the Toras Kohanim here, "This teaches that the animal tithe is [taken] standing, and ten" [OCR uncertain], nor the other derashos in the Gemara (Bechoros 53b; 58b).
24) Zevachim 5:8.
25) Rambam, Hilchos Bechoros 6:4.
26) One cannot say that there is a mitzvah in eating it, as with sacred offerings that are eaten by Israelites, where there is a positive commandment for the owners to eat them (Rashi, Pesachim 59a, s.v. Bish'ar yemos hashanah; Ramban on Sefer HaMitzvos, Hashlamos, positive commandment 1) — for the verses cited for this refer only to sacred offerings that are offered upon the altar. And it is also proven (that there is no mitzvah in eating a blemished animal that is not offered) from the blessing, which is "to eat the offering" (Rashi, Berachos there; Tosefta, end of ch. 10 of Pesachim; and see Rashi, Pesachim 121a, in the Mishnah).
27) Bechoros 31a; Temurah 8a.
28) Ramban, Hilchos Bechoros, beginning of ch. 5; Rosh there, section 1; Chinuch, mitzvah 361. See Rashi, Zevachim 75b, s.v. Ufarchinan. See also the Rambam, Hilchos Bechoros there, halachah 6, regarding the prohibition of selling a blemished tithe animal in general.
29) With difficulty one could explain that "it is eaten under the status of maaser" means that one may not sell it to another, but only eat it himself. But (besides the fact that according to this it is only a negative matter, whereas "it shall be holy" denotes a positive matter, as explained in the text): a) this is not an allusion that a five-year-old beginning Scripture would understand; b) he should simply have said "its owners shall eat it" (as in Rashi regarding an unblemished one) or the like; c) according to this — in Rashi's view — the prohibition of selling a blemished animal, whether alive or slaughtered, would be Biblical, a novelty contrary to the implication of the Gemara's discussion (Bechoros 31b ff.; see the sources cited in the previous note) — and Rashi should have explained it, not merely alluded to it.
30) And even if this were Rashi's intent, he should have specified it, especially since he specifies the prohibition of shearing and of work.
31) Although in the Talmud (Temurah there) the expression "it is eaten under the status of maaser" is stated regarding "they are not sold in the butcher shop and are not weighed by the litra," etc., it is difficult to explain it so in Rashi's commentary on the Torah (even regarding halachah in Rashi), which comes to explain and not to leave things vague. See Rashi, Sanhedrin (112b), s.v. Le'olam bevaalei mumin, who writes "that they carry an attached name … a firstborn animal and tithe" (unlike the view of Tosafos, Bechoros 31a, s.v. Chutz, whose version includes the matter of "they are not sold" also in Sanhedrin).
It can be explained by distinguishing between the discussions: in Temurah it is held that "they are not weighed by the litra, etc." is Biblical, whereas in Sanhedrin it is held that the prohibition "they are not sold, etc., and not weighed, etc." is only Rabbinic (and therefore (according to Rashi's version) it is not cited there).
32) See Sha'arei Orah 56a ff., 77b; [OCR unclear: תר"ש], p. 4. See also Sefer HaMaamarim 5709, p. 148, note 4.
33) Megillah 26b.
34) See Tanya, ch. 34.
35) Shemos Rabbah 12:3; Tanchuma, Va'eira 15.
36) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 5, p. 88; vol. 8, p. 59, and the notes there.
37) Likkutei Torah, Balak 70c. See also Likkutei Torah, our parsha, 45c; Shelach 36d; and elsewhere.
38) Likkutei Torah, Balak there. See also there, [OCR unclear] 67, end of side a, ff.
39) Simply, he needed to place "it is eaten, etc." first — because "it shall be holy" denotes a positive matter, and in this it is connected to the preceding (unblemished animal), where Rashi explains (also) a matter of eating.
40) See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 5, p. 120, regarding the change from Rashi's wording, "Yaakov (and afterward) Esav mentioned in the parsha," to the Ramban's wording, "Esav (and afterward) Yaakov mentioned in the passage."
41) Eruvin 4b.
Key Lesson
Even a blemished tithe animal, which cannot be offered on the altar, retains a positive, visible holiness: it must be eaten with the awareness that it is maaser — showing that the refinement a mitzvah brings into a physical object leaves a lasting impression. In our own service, the main goal is "do good," making a dwelling place for G‑d in this world, yet it must rest on careful "turning away from evil" in every detail, even in matters that seem secondary.