2. that they keep apart. The syntactical interpolation of the clause after this one makes the sentence slightly unclear, but the evident motive is to effect a strong thematic juxtaposition of the antonyms, qodashim, “sacred donations,” and yeḥalelu, “profane,” with the verb’s direct object, shem qodshi, “My holy name,” reinforcing the link between divine sacredness and the sacred donations. It may at first seem puzzling that the priests should be enjoined to keep apart from the sacred donations of sacrificial animals that were, after all, their sustenance, but the next verse makes clear that this warning to the priests obtains in cases when they are in a state of ritual impurity (and so Rashi observes).

3. who draws near. As Jacob Milgrom repeatedly notes, this all-purpose verb in contexts of ritual prohibition means “to encroach,” though when the ritual act is permitted, it means, more neutrally, “to enter into the sacred zone.”

shall be cut off from before Me. The more common locution in Leviticus is “cut off from his kin.” This variation may suggest divestment from priestly privileges, being cut off from the sacerdotal line.

5. a human being. This noun is the object of the double-duty verb “touched.”

7. for it is his bread. As often elsewhere, “bread” is a synecdoche for food. In fact, the typical sacred donation would have been meat.

9. bear offense for it and die through it. Both of the pronouns here are masculine, though the only adjacent noun that might be a candidate for an antecedent, “watch,” is feminine. Various efforts to rescue grammatical consistency—e.g., that the antecedent is an elided shem qodshi, “My holy name”—seem strained. It is more likely that the requirements of gender consistency of modern Western languages did not altogether obtain for biblical grammar and that it seemed natural to use a masculine form for impersonal constructions such as “bear offense for it” regardless of the antecedents.

10. A priest’s resident hireling. Avraham Melamed, followed by Jacob Milgrom, argues persuasively that the phrase toshav kohen wesakhir—literally, “priest’s resident and hireling”—is a hendiadys, like the use of toshav in other combinations, and does not refer to two entities.

15. And they shall not profane. As the end of this sentence, in the next verse, makes clear, “they” refers to the priests, who would profane the sacred donations by allowing unfit laypersons to incur guilt by eating them (thus Rashi). This whole clause mirrors the language of the opening verse, thus forming an envelope structure to bring this entire unit of the chapter to a close.

19. to be acceptable for you. Literally, “for your favor”—i.e., for your finding favor, being acceptable, in the eyes of God.

20. Whatever has a defect you shall not bring forward. As many commentators have noted, the list of deformities for the animals unfit for the cult parallels the list of deformities for priests unfit for the cult in the previous chapter. The terms used, however, are different.

22. Anything blind. The Hebrew uses the term for the disease, “blindness,” but then switches to the male singular beast bearing the defect, “broken” (presumably, brokenlimbed), and “lacerated,” and then to symptoms of disease (“wen,” “scab,” “skin flake”). Category consistency does not appear to have been a requirement of ancient Hebrew idiomatic usage.

24. crushed or smashed or torn-off or cut-off. The list appears to be arranged in ascending order of the severity of mutilation.

and in your land you shall not do it. This sounds like a general ban on gelding, which, however, would have had a necessary role in animal husbandry. One may tentatively adopt Milgrom’s proposal that the reference is to regional sanctuaries beyond the principal one, since Leviticus does not assume that there is one exclusive sanctuary. “Do it,” then, would mean “perform the sacrifice.”

25. from the hand of a foreigner you shall not bring forward . . . from any of these. This warning is intended to preclude the notion that a maimed animal is permitted for sacrifice in cases where the maiming has not been done by an Israelite but by a foreigner from whom the animal is purchased.

27. it shall be seven days under its mother. A humanitarian rationale for this law is unconvincing because, after all, on the eighth day the suckling animal can be slaughtered and offered up on the altar. It is more likely that the newborn beast was not regarded as a viable living creature, and hence fit for sacrifice, until it had attained its eighth day of life (the day designated for the circumcision of Israelite males). This correspondence of eight days between man and beast may be another instance of analogical thinking.