You should not bring an (animal used to) pay a harlot, (even if) it was exchanged for a dog, to the House of G-d, to fulfill any (sacrificial) vow (Devarim 23,19)
"L'chol neder" - For any vow - The Sifri derives from this that the prohibition of offering a sacrifice of an animal that was either payment for the services of a prostitute or the proceeds of the sale of a dog apply to a "bomoh" altar as well. Toldos Adom says that it is simply derived from the inclusive connotation of the word l'CHOL.
However, the Meshech Chochmah has a most innovative explanation. He notes that the syntax of our verse is difficult. The verse should have either said "Lo sovi esnan zonoh umchir kelev l'chol neder beis Hashem Elokecho," or "Lo sovi beis HaShem Elokecho esnan .." "L'chol neder" seems to be in the wrong place, as it is surely attached to the item brought as a "neder." Why is it dangling at the end? This teaches us that the prohibition applies even to a "bomoh." "Beis Hashem Elokecho l'chol neder" means a house of Hashem for "n'dorim," sacrifices that are voluntarily donated. "Bomoh" altars only accept personal donation sacrifices and not obligatory sacrifices such as a "chatos." This seems to be a brilliant deduction.
There is more to this than the dvar Torah itself, as is found in our sefer Meshech Chochmah. Rabbi Yoseif Adler was the Rov of a town named Turda. The Meshech Chochmah's fame as a child prodigy genius was known far and wide. The Rov had the opportunity to meet Rabbi Meir Simchah was he was but eleven years old. Young Meir Simchoh already knew all the sefer Urim v'Tumim on Ch.M. The Rov tested him on this and saw that he indeed knew it all. During their conversation the Rov became aware of young Meir Simchah's lack of knowledge of Rashi on the Torah.
When asked about the disparity, he answered that since he was a young boy he acted accordingly, and although aware that one should have a solid grounding in Chumash and Rashi he found that one page of Urim v'Tumim had more sharpness and insightfulness than all the comments of Rashi on Chumash combined. (Remember, he was only eleven years old at the time.) The Rov was taken aback and told the youngster, "I plan to be back in about a year. At that time, I expect you to know Chumash and Rashi well, all of it!"
A year later the Rov came and tested Meir Simchah, and was quite satisfied with his knowledge of Chumash and Rashi. Meir Simchoh now told the Rov, "Contrary to what I told you last year, I now realize that there is more wisdom in one explanation of Rashi on chumash than in all the sefer Urim v'Tumim. Take this Rashi, which explains that 'l'chol dovor' teaches us that the prohibition applies even to 'bomoh.' (Note that we do not have this Rashi in our text, but it appears in some older editions.) The 'dibur hamas'chil,' words of the text upon which Rashi comments, is quite lengthy, 'beis Hashem Elokecho l'chol dovor.' Why doesn't Rashi just bring 'l'chol dovor'?"
Meir Simchah answered as above, that the derivation is from the seeming misplacement of "l'chol dovor," and the insight of "beis Hashem Elokecho l'chol dovor" being one continuous phrase, meaning "bomoh."
May this most interesting story and accompanying dvar Torah serve as a springboard to have us appreciate the depth and profundity of the commentary of Rashi on Chumash.
