ויקרא, פרק כ״א, פסוק כ״ב

A physical blemish prevents a priest from performing the actual labor of offering sacrifices in the Temple, but it does not diminish his internal character or his essential holiness. His standing within the priestly community remains completely intact. As a result, he is fully permitted to eat from the sacrifices. This consumption is not considered part of the physical act of the offering itself, but rather a complementary outcome of the atonement process [רש״ר הירש, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. The holy food consumed by the priests is defined as the bread of God, as it takes on the status of food only after the sacrificial process on the altar is entirely complete [רש״ר הירש, פירושי רד״צ הופמן]. Furthermore, a priest with a blemish does not merely accept whatever food is handed to him. Instead, he actively receives and shares equal portions alongside his brother priests from the same paternal household [רלב״ג, מלבי״ם].

He is allowed to partake in two distinct categories of holy offerings. The first includes the most holy offerings, which carry strict requirements, such as the showbread, the sin offering, and the guilt offering. The second category consists of the lesser holy offerings, which are lighter in nature, such as peace offerings, tithes, and firstborn animals [רש״י, אבן עזרא, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. The primary approach among commentators is that both categories must be explicitly permitted to prevent any misunderstanding that a blemished priest is restricted to only one type.

There are, however, different perspectives on why such a mistake might occur. One prominent explanation points to historical precedent. If only the most holy offerings were permitted, one might assume this leniency exists because a non-priest once ate from them. Moses, who was considered a non-priest after the Tabernacle's installation period, ate from those initial sacrifices. Since a non-priest never shared in the lesser holy offerings, one might incorrectly conclude that a blemished priest is also barred from them. Therefore, the lesser holy offerings are explicitly permitted to remove this doubt [רש״י, חזקוני, שפתי חכמים, משכיל לדוד, גור אריה, דברי דוד, מלבי״ם].

Another perspective contrasts duty with reward. Eating the most holy offerings is a strict obligation placed upon the priests, while receiving portions of the lesser holy offerings serves as payment and reward for the labor of the sacrifice. Since a blemished priest does not perform the labor, one might assume he is not entitled to the reward. Permitting both categories clarifies that he still receives his rightful share [פירושי רד״צ הופמן].

Additionally, the physical requirements of the sacrifices offer another explanation. With the most holy offerings, priests do not perform any physical actions with the meat itself, making a blemished priest completely equal to an unblemished one. However, lesser holy offerings often require a specific waving motion with certain parts of the animal, an action a blemished priest cannot perform. One might think this inability disqualifies him from eating, but the explicit permission ensures he is not excluded [העמק דבר].

Finally, if only the most holy offerings were allowed, it might seem like a purely technical solution designed to prevent sacred meat from spoiling when there are too few valid priests available to eat it. By including the lesser holy offerings, it becomes clear that his participation is not a matter of convenience, but an essential right, allowing him to partake in the holy portions exactly like the rest of his brethren [ביאור יש״ר].