Leviticus 22:2

Speak with Aharon and with his sons, that they keep apart from the consecrated things of the children of Israel, and profane not the Name of My Holiness (in whatever) they hallow before Me: I am the Lord.

Having mentioned that a kohen with a defect may not eat holy food, Scripture now proceeds to warn the eater that he must also be ritually pure. they must distance themselves as in, “you will keep disassociated” [15:31] — meaning, to detach himself, in order to draw appropriate distinctions. The verb is in the nif‘al form, and comes from “Nazirite” [cf. comment on 25:5].

and not desecrate The verb takes a compound object: they must not desecrate My holy name , and they must not desecrate that which they consecrate to Me.

I am God Who am holy.

SPEAK UNTO AARON AND TO HIS SONS, THAT THEY SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM THE HOLY THINGS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND THAT THEY PROFANE NOT MY HOLY NAME, WHICH THEY HALLOW UNTO ME. “Transpose the verse. 2. and that they profane not My holy Name. 3. which they hallow unto Me. Now since the sense of the verse is that when the priests are in a state of impurity, they are to separate themselves from the holy things which the Israelites have hallowed to G-d’s Name, such as the offerings and the heave-offering, etc., then phrase 3 should follow phrase 1, since the word “they” (in phrase 3) refers back to “the children of Israel” at the end of phrase 1. In other words, since the word “they” in phrase 3 means “the children of Israel” mentioned in phrase 1, and the word “they” in phrase 2 definitely means “the priests,” why did Scripture place phrase 2 between phrases 1 and 3, which both refer to the children of Israel? Therefore Rashi, by way of interpretation, transposed the phrases to be read in this order: 1, 3, 2. This transposed order is followed in the J.P.S. translation. and interpret it thus: ‘that they [the priests when in a state of impurity] separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, which they [the children of Israel] hallow unto Me, and that they [the priests] profane not My holy Name.’ Which they hallow unto Me, this comes to include things hallowed by the priests themselves.” This is Rashi’s language.
But if we explain which they hallow unto Me as referring to [the things] which the priests themselves hallow, then there is no need for this transposition! have hallowed, it was necessary to transpose the phrases, as explained above. But if, as Rashi now suggests, the verse speaks of two kinds of hallowed things — those hallowed by Israelites and those made holy by the priests — then the word “they” in phrase 3 (see Note 81) no longer refers back to “the children of Israel” in phrase 1, and there is no need to transpose the order of the phrases! Hence the last sentence in Rashi contradicts his previous explanation! Rather, [according to this final interpretation mentioned by Rashi, the whole verse can be explained in the order it is written without transposing the phrases, in the following way:] Scripture is stating: “that they [the priests] separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they [the priests] profane not by means …

וינזרו, they are to abstain from eating sacred sacrificial meat while in a state of ritual impurity.

וינזרו מקדשי בני ישראל, they should not think that the senior among them may treat the sacrifices donated by the people as if they were secular in nature as far as they were concerned. We are familiar with the principle alluded to here by the Torah from Moed Katan 16 מנודה לתלמיד אינו מנודה לרב, “if something is legally out of bounds to the student this does not automatically mean that it is equally out of bounds to the student’s teacher.” (although if the situation is reversed what is out of bounds to the teacher is most certainly also forbidden to the student. ולא יחללו את שם קדשי אשר הם מקדישים לי. They shall not desecrate the things the ordinary Jews have sanctified for Me, which now bear My holy name.