נדבה תעשה אותו לבדק הבית ולנדר לא ירצה למזבח אי זהו הקדש שבא לרצות הוי אומר זה הקדש מזבח לשון רש"י (רש"י על ויקרא כ״ב:כ״ג) ולפי זה צריך שנדרוש נדבה תעשה אותו ולנדר לא ירצה יאמר שנעשה אותו נדבה או נדר לבדק הבית אבל לא לרצון על המזבח כי אין בין נדר ונדבה בענין הזה כלום שניהם מותרין לבדק הבית ואסורין למזבח וכבר הזכיר זה הכתוב בעולה "לכל נדריהם ולכל נדבותם" (ויקרא כ״ב:י״ח) ובשלמים "לפלא נדר או לנדבה" (ויקרא כ״ב:כ״א) וכך מדרש רבותינו בת"כ (פרק ז ו) ויתכן שנתקן בישוב לשון המקרא כי בעבור שרוב הנדבות לבדק הבית כמו שאמר במשכן (שמות לה ה) כל נדיב לב הביאו את תרומת ה' וכן במקדש (דברי הימים א כט יז) אני ביושר לבבי התנדבתי וכן בבית שני (עזרא א ד) עם הנדבה לבית האלהים וכן כתוב בבדק הבית (מלכים ב יב ה) כל כסף אשר יעלה על לב איש להביא בית ה' והוא הנדבה והטעם כי אין בענין בדק הבית חיוב רק נדבת הנפש ומנהג הנותנים לבדק הבית כי בנדבה יביאו "הרי זו לבנין" לפיכך כל מקום שיזכיר נדבה סתם הוא לבדק הבית עד שיפרש בו לעולה או לזבח שלמים כמו שהזכיר למעלה (בפסוקים יח כא) והנדר יאמר סתם לקדשי המזבח לך אזבח זבח תודה (תהלים קטז יז) נדרי לה' אשלם נגדה נא לכל עמו בחצרות בית ה' (שם שם יח יט) אבא ביתך בעולות אשלם לך נדרי (שם סו יג) עלי אלהים נדריך אשלם תודות לך (שם נו יג) והנותנים למזבח בנדרים יביאו אם יצליחני אלהים אבא לפניו בעולה ולפיכך יאמר הכתוב בכאן ושור או שה שרוע וקלוט נדבה תעשה אותו לכל אשר ידבנו לבו ולנדר לה' לא ירצה כמו שאמר (ויקרא כ״ב:כ׳) לא תקריבו כי לא לרצון יהיה לכם כי לא אמר הכתוב "נדבה תקריב אותו" כלשון הבא בכל הפרשה אבל אמר "תעשה אותו" כלומר תעשה אתה ממנו כל אשר תמצא ידך לעשות בכחך אבל לנדר לרצון לא יהיה והוצרכו חכמים לאמר כך כי לא יתכן בשום פנים שיהיו המומים כולם הגרב והילפת ואפילו המעוך והכתות אסורין בכל קרבן בין בנדר ובין בנדבה ויהיה השרוע והקלוט אסורין במקצתן ומותרין במקצתן ולא ימצא ככה בתורה במומי המקריבים ובטומאה לחלק בקרבנות ולכך אמרו כי "תעשה אותו" איננו כמו "תקריב אותו" ויתכן שאמר כי שור ושה שרוע וקלוט מותר לעשותו נדבה לאמר "הרי זה" אבל אם נדר "הרי עלי שור או שה" אם יביאנו משחת לא ירצה לו ואיננו פטור מנדרו ונאמר על דרך רבותינו ששניהם לבדק הבית כי אין "תעשה אותו" כמו "תקריב אותו" וזה אמת הוא בלי ספק והזכיר הכתוב היתר הנדבה לבדק הבית בשרוע וקלוט שהן מומין ביצירה מן הבטן וכל שכן מומי המקרה הקטנים עורת אשר בו עורון בשכהתה עינו והשבור ואין צריך לומר בעל הגרב והילפת ויתכן כי הכתוב דבק עורת או שבור או חרוץ או יבלת או גרב או ילפת וכל שור ושה שרוע וקלוט נדבה תעשה לכל אחד מאלה ולנדר לא ירצה אחד מהן שאפילו עלו ירדו ובת"כ (פרק ז ה) מנין לרבות כל הפסולין שבשור ושה תלמוד לומר ושור ושה שרוע וקלוט לרבות כל הפסולין שבשור ושה וכללו רבותינו (תמורה ז) עוד בכלל נדבה תעשה אותו שהוא יעשה לנדבה לכל אשר ירצה אבל לא התמימים שהמקדיש אותן לבדק הבית עובר בעשה: 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.”131Rashi thus understood the word nedavah 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 repair132I.e., they can be sold for common food and the money used for the repair of the Temple. 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,133Above Verse 18. and in the case of the peace-offering, in fulfillment of a vow-offering clearly uttered, or for a freewill-offering.121Verse 21. And such is the interpretation of our Rabbis in the Torath Kohanim.134Torath Kohanim, Emor 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) …135Exodus 35:22. brought the Eternal’s offering,136Ibid., 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,137I Chronicles 29:17. and so also in connection with the Second Temple it is said, beside ‘ha’nedavah’ (the freewill-offering) for the House of G-d,138Ezra 1:4. 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,139II Kings 12:5. 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,133Above Verse 18. or an offering of peace-offerings,121Verse 21. 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;140Psalms 116:17-19. I will come into Thy House with burnt-offerings, I will perform unto Thee ‘nedarai’ (my vows);141Ibid., 66:13. ‘Nedarecha’ (Thy vows) are upon me, O G-d; I will render thanks-offerings unto Thee.142Ibid., 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.143Above, Verse 20. 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,144See Verses 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, where the expressions yakriv, yakrivu, thakrivu, 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 strength145Ecclesiastes 9:10. — 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,146Verse 22. or even one whose testicles are bruised or crushed,147Verse 24. 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 avereth146Verse 22. which is blindness [caused] by the dimming of the eye, or a broken animal,146Verse 22. and needless to say [an animal that is] scabbed or [suffering from] scurvy,146Verse 22. [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”147Verse 24. for him, meaning that even if they had been taken up to the altar, they must be brought down.148See Ramban above, 6:2. And in the Torath Kohanim [it is written]:149Torath Kohanim, Emor 7:5. “Whence do we know to include all disqualifications in the herd or flock?150Such as an animal that is too young for an offering (so explained by Malbim ibid.). From the verse, any of the herd or flock151Why is this expression [any of the herd or flock] 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 since it states, that mayest thou make for a freewill gift [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).
22:23
1