*1 That is mixed seeds are PROHIBITED to use like
a TEMPLE SACRIFICE. Notice how all we can say
is that they are LIKE a HOLY object. HOW this
LIKENESS manifests itself may be unknown. This
distinction between (a) assertion of metaphoric
likeness vs (b) the details of HOW this likeness
manifests itself will be felt thoroughout this
list *11

*2 All we know is that the touched item is HOLY=TREATED
like a HOLY MINCHAH. We are not aware HOW this
TREATED-LIKE manifests itself.*11 (Rashi gives
further legal details)

*3 All we know is that the touched item is HOLY=TREATED
like a HOLY OFFERING. We are not aware HOW this
TREATED-LIKE manifests itself.*11 Rashi gives further
details. *12

*4 (My wording, not Rashis but clear). Just as the
death of the sacrificed animal makes
owner aware of the seriousness
of his transgression (That he/she should die) so too
the death of Moses and Aaron make the Jews aware
of the seriousness of their sin(That perhaps they
are worthy of death). This awareness is healthy
and leads to repentance.

*5 Interestingly Rashi offers the following insights
on WHICH HOLY object these TITHED animals are compared
to
-----------------------------------------------
HOLY here refers to a TEMPLE SACRIFICE
Indeed, an argument of silence would show that
- these are not priestly gifts mentioned in Nu18
- these are not mentioned as eaten by Priest in Lv06,Lv07
- Hence we conclude that the owners eat it!!!
-----------------------------------------------

A most unusual argument-by silence *11

*6 This is a SIMILE (Explicit) not a METAPHOR
-----------------------------------------
It will be holy LIKE THE FORBIDDEN FIELDS
-----------------------------------------
See Nu18-14 for the explicit statement that
these fields are priestly gifts

*7 Nu06-20a refers to the 3 items mentioned in Nu06-19.
At least one of them (THE SHOULDERS OF THE NAZARITE
OFFERING) is a priestly gift (eg Lv07-34)). Thus
the comparison (LIKE HOLY) is justified (It is
not explicitly mentioned by Rashi)

*8 Again we point out difference between SIMPLE MEANING
and TALMUDIC INFERENCE. The SIMPLE MEANING is one
of METAPHOR--the 4th year fruits are LIKE a holy
object. But it then requires Talmudic discourse to
determine WHICH holy object it is LIKE.*11

In this case the idea is simple....FRUIT HOLINESS of
4th Year fruit should be compared to other produce
holiness such as TITHED PRODUCE (It wouldnt make
sense to compare it to eg ANIMAL OFFERING HOLINESS)

*9 We know from LIST870a that Tithes are called HOLY
Lv22 seems to naturally divide into two sections
- Lv22-01:09 talking about HOLY SACRIFICES
- Lv22-10:16 talking about HOLY FOOD eaten in house
Thus the context seems to be the priestly gifts
that can be eaten like the TERUMAH

*10 For a list of items that are EXPLICITLY called
HOLY see LIST870a. This list (LIST870b) by
contrast gives items that are METAPHORICALLY
called HOLY.

*11 There is a subtle point throughout this whole list.
We must distinguish between SIMPLE MEANING and
TALMUDIC ANALYSIS. In each case of this list
- THE SIMPLE MEANING is METAPHORIC use of HOLINESS
Some object is treated LIKE OTHER HOLY OJBECTS

- Talmudic logic is then required to clarify
WHICH HOLY OBJECT the item is compared to.
This talmudic logic can often be long,
protracted and non-intuitive.

The point!? The point is that we should separate
the SIMPLE and the ADVANCED. The advanced nature
of TALMUDIC DISCOURSE does not negate or
contradict the idea that the simple meaning
of the verse is one of METAPHORIC TRANSFER
The Talmud simply clarifies the RANGE OF
APPLICABILITY OF THE METAPHOR.

*12   Offhand I would supplement Rashi as follows
----------------------------------------------------
You cant argue that EVERYTHING that touches the
altar gets offered since this would eg contradict
the harsh language in Lv22-17:25 that blemished
animals should NEVER be offered.

Thus it becomes reasonable to restrict the idea
that ANYTHING THAT TOUCHES ALTAR IS OFFERED LIKE
A SACRIFICE--we restrict it to items which were
FORMERLY eligible to be offered but became
ineligible as a result of an accident (like
ritual impurity). (We do not however offer items
like blemished animals that were NEVER eligible)
-------------------------------------------------

I think this supplement to Rashi makes Rashi
more palatable. (Technically Rashi dwells on
the restrictiveness of the word THIS in the
next Biblical paragraph---I do not think this
argument BY ITSELF to be forceful enough)