Kommentar zu Wajikra 21:17

לחם אלהיו THE BREAD OF HIS GOD — This means, any food of his God (not “bread” only); any meal is termed לחם, as e. g., (Daniel 5:1) “he made a great banquet (לְחַם)” (cf. Rashi on Genesis 31:54).

SPEAK UNTO AARON, SAYING: WHOSOEVER HE BE OF THY SEED THROUGHOUT THEIR GENERATIONS. He does not state here “speak unto Aaron and his sons” as He does in all [other] sections,⁵⁵Above, 6:2, etc. because there in the Scriptural portions He commanded the laws of the offerings: This is the law of the burnt-offering;⁵⁵Above, 6:2, etc. This is the law of the sin-offering,⁵⁶Ibid., 6:18. and of the guilt-offering,⁵⁷Ibid., 7:1. and so on [and these laws apply to all priests — Aaron and his sons alike]. But here, if He were to have said “Speak unto Aaron and his sons,” He would have had to continue by saying: “Whosoever of you be throughout your generations” [which would have included Aaron among priests that might have a blemish, which this section discusses], and He did not want to warn Aaron himself about the law of blemishes, because Aaron the holy one of the Eternal⁵⁸Psalms 106:16. is all fair⁵⁹Song of Songs 4:7. And there is no blemish in thee. and there shall be no blemish in him. Instead He admonished him concerning his seed, that he is to teach them these laws and warn them throughout their generations. In the section on impurity immediately following, however, He does say: Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel,⁶⁰Further, 22:2. because it is possible that even Aaron might happen to become impure by touching a corpse or a dead swarming thing.⁶¹Above, 11:29-31. But when He comes to mention the impurity of leprosy or a flux, He again says, What man soever of the seed of Aaron,⁶²Further, 22:4. because this would not happen to the body [of Aaron], for he is the messenger of the Eternal of hosts.⁶³Malachi 2:7. At the end of this section He states, So Moses spoke unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel,⁶⁴Further, Verse 24. [although Moses had been told, Speak unto Aaron, saying, etc.], because Moses wanted to warn Aaron’s sons as well in order that they should receive the instruction directly from his mouth. He also said so to the children of Israel, which means that he warned the court of Israel on this matter.
Now in the Torath Kohanim I have found this text:⁶⁵Torath Kohanim, Emor 3:5. “Whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish.⁶⁶Verse 18. Why is this said [since it has already been mentioned in the preceding verse]? But because it says the seed of Aaron,⁶⁷In Verse 17 before us: Speak unto Aaron … Whosoever he be of thy seed. Also in Verse 21: of the seed of Aaron. I would only know that this law [of blemishes] applies to Aaron’s offspring. How do I know that it applies to Aaron himself? From the verse which states, For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish.”⁶⁶Verse 18. Similarly it has been taught there:⁶⁸Torath Kohanim, Emor 4:1. “The seed of Aaron.⁶⁷In Verse 17 before us: Speak unto Aaron … Whosoever he be of thy seed. Also in Verse 21: of the seed of Aaron. I would only know that this law [of blemishes] applies to Aaron’s offspring. How do I know that it applies to Aaron himself? From the verse which states, For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish. ”⁶⁶Verse 18. Similarly it has been taught there:⁶⁸Torath Kohanim, Emor 4:1. “The seed of Aaron.⁶⁷In Verse 17 before us: Speak unto Aaron … Whosoever he be of thy seed. Also in Verse 21: of the seed of Aaron. I would only know that this law applies to Aaron’s seed. How do I know that it applies to Aaron himself? From the verse and he is a leper, or hath an issue.”⁶²Further, 22:4. Now [that which the Torath Kohanim states] “Aaron himself,” means [any] High Priest that shall be in his stead among his sons,⁶⁹Above, 6:15. [but it does not mean Aaron personally, since, as explained above, Scripture does not mention Aaron’s name with reference to having a blemish or suffering from leprosy or an issue. It did, however, have to include the High Priest in the law of blemishes], because having permitted the High Priest [to officiate] whilst he is an onen, one might perhaps think that it also permits him [to officiate] although he has a blemish or leprosy. For this reason it became necessary to include him in this law. Or it may be that [the Torath Kohanim] is alluding to the law about Aaron himself, for the Torah in its prohibitions does not rely on a miracle. However, it concealed it [the prohibition] in connection with Aaron, in his honor, thus hinting that this would [in fact] not happen to him.

דבר אל אהרון לאמר, "speak to Aaron to say: etc." The reason the Torah added the word לאמר once more, is to tell him that Aaron in his capacity as High Priest is charged with the task to see to it that no physically blemished priests perform service in the Tabernacle. He has to warn all the priests to be careful to abide by this commandment. The result of this wording is that the priests themselves are commanded to observe this directive and Aaron is commanded to see that the priests abide by this directive.

דבר אל אהרן: איש מזרעך, “speak to Aaron saying: ‘any man of your offspring, etc.’” Nachmanides points out that the Torah here does not use the formula דבר אל אהרן ובניו, “speak to Aaron and his sons,” but it refers to his sons, etc, in the third person. The reason is that earlier Moses, i.e. G’d, had spoken in connection with the sacrifices, whereas if here the Torah had used the same form of address it would have had to add the words איש מכם לדורותיכם אשר יהיה בו מום, “if any one of you (the priests) throughout the generations is afflicted with a physical blemish, etc.” The Torah did not want to include Aaron personally in the list of people who might be stricken with a blemish, seeing that Aaron was a paragon of holiness, physical perfection, etc. The possibility of any priest being stricken with a physical blemish in the future therefore had to be approached in a very sensitive manner, not addressed to anyone in particular. It remained Aaron’s task, of course, to caution his offspring against performing priestly duties while in a blemished state. In the paragraph dealing with ritual contamination (chapter 22) where the Torah reverts to its customary formula of “speak to Aaron and his sons, that they should abstain, withdraw from holy domains as soon as they do become contaminated,” there was no need for such sensitivity, as Aaron himself, without being in the least to blame, could become the victim of such ritual contamination, [for instance, if a dead mouse fell upon him. Ed.] Further on in our portion, (22,18) not only Aaron and his sons but all of the Israelites are addressed, the idea being that the courts are warned to intervene in any non observance. When it comes to warn the people about the plague of צרעת, Aaron is mentioned at the beginning of chapter 14, as seeing that we have learned that the High Priest continues to perform his functions even while in a state of pre-mourning, אנינות for father and mother, I might have thought that even if he were struck by tzoraat this would also not disqualify him from performing his duties. To make sure we do not err in this respect, the Torah introduces that legislation by including Aaron by name. (Leviticus 214,33) This confronts us with the statement in Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 22,4 איש איש מזרע אהרן והוא צרוע או זב, “any man from the offspring of Aaron who is either stricken with tzoraat, or zav, etc.” On this verse Torat Kohanim comments that the word והוא means that the legislation might even apply to him personally, if he were to be afflicted with such a dysfunction. This is so, in spite of the fact that on the face of it, the verse appears to restrict itself to the offspring of Aaron. It is possible to understand the word אהרן in all of these verses as the (first) High Priest, and as such Aaron is mentioned by name as representative of High Priests throughout the generations, although he himself had long ceased to be alive. Accordingly, when the Torat Kohanim asks: ‘whence do I know that the legislation applies to Aaron personally,’ and it answers that we derive this from the word והוא, the author had never referred to the actual Aaron but to the respective High Priest officiating, if and when the problem raised by our verse should ever occur. Alternatively, the mention of Aaron is a hint that the Torah’s legislation is not predicated on miracles –i.e. considers the possibility that Aaron might be stricken with either of the two afflictions mentioned in that verse. However, out of sensitivity for Aaron this possibility is obscured by the word והוא so as to preserve our image of him as a physically perfect specimen.

דבר אל אהרן לאמר איש מזרעך, “speak to Aaron saying: ‘any man of your offspring, etc.’” Nachmanides points out that the Torah here does not instruct Moses to speak to Aaron and his sons as it does in all other instances (compare Leviticus 6,18 et al) where Moses is instructed to speak to Aaron, but here only Aaron was to be addressed and told the law that physically blemished priests must not perform service in the Tabernacle. The reason may be that in the other instances such matters as the rules pertaining to the burnt-offering, the sin-offering, the gift-offering, etc., were the subject of the instructions, and Aaron’s sons were directly involved.
Had the Torah written in this instance: “speak to Aaron and his sons,” it should have followed this with the words: איש מכם לדורותיכם, “if any one of your descendants has a blemish, etc.” The Torah did not want to include Aaron himself in a verse referring to physical blemishes. By choosing the wording in front of us, i.e. איש מזרעך לדורותם, “a man of your offspring in their respective generations,” the Torah placed a qualitative distance between Aaron and his future offspring.
Our sages enumerated a multitude of physical defects each of which disqualifies a priest from performing sacrificial service. The Torah here begins the list by mentioning missing or inoperative organs, such as the blind, the lame, followed by relatively minor defects such as a nose without a bridge, or limbs of uneven length. This is followed by priests suffering from broken limbs on their arms or legs. Even priests whose external appearance is aesthetically displeasing are included in the list. Blemishes which are not normally invisible, such as crushed testicles, are also a cause for disqualifying the priest from performing most priestly functions.
When the Torah repeats the words אשר בו מום, “who suffers from a blemish,” this means that regardless of whether the priest has suffered from the blemish from birth or whether the blemish occurred during his lifetime, he is unfit to perform service in the Temple. The Torah continues (chapter 22, 22-24) by listing physical blemishes which disqualify an animal from serving as an acceptable sacrificial offering on the Altar. Included in these animals which do not qualify as sacrifices are the ones which have genetic defects such as uneven limbs or a hoof which is not split. Defects which develop during the lifetime of the animal certainly disqualify it as an offering on the Altar. Defects to the eye are serious even if the sight is not affected but the eye looks diseased.

The food. You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain this above in v. 6 where it says, “The bread of their God they bring, and they must be holy?” The answer is that above you could say that when the verse mentions bread, etc., it is referring to the show bread that was in the sanctuary. But here, where it says “shall not approach to offer,” why do we need [the extra word] “to offer?” Thus, it must be dealing with all the offerings offered on the altar, and therefore he has to explain, “Every food [meal]...”

אשר (יהיה) בו מום לא יגש להקריב, “that has a blemish shall not come close in order to present an offering.” The Talmud in tractate Kidushin, folio 66, raises the question of why the verse in Numbers 25,12: הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום , “here I bless him with My covenant of peace” (to Pinchas) was necessary. It suggests that it was based on what is written here, i.e. that the priest must be שלם, unblemished. The subject needs further study.

איש מזרעך לדורותם, “any of your descendants (afflicted with a physical deformity;)” Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah uses the wording of this verse to rule that a minor,son of a priest is unfit to perform service in the Temple, even if he is physically perfect. As to the question of from what age such a minor is qualified to perform service in the Temple, he rules that when he has grown 2 pubic hairs this demonstrates that he is sufficiently developed physically. In spite of this ruling, his colleagues, the adult priests do not admit him to perform such service until he has reached the age of 20 years. [They imply that spiritual maturity is required also. Ed.] (Sifra)

איש מזרעך, "any man who is a descendant of yours, etc." The Torah did not adhere to the order it had displayed at the beginning of the Parshah, nor did it use the order it employed subsequently, i.e. "speak to Aaron and to his sons that they should abstain, etc." Neither did the Torah use the form of address used in Leviticus 10,9 where the Torah addressed both Aaron and his sons directly about not entering the holy precincts after having drunk wine or alcohol. Why these changes in syntax each time? Perhaps the fact that since neither Aaron nor his sons personally suffered from any of the deficiencies mentioned in this paragraph, G'd did not mention them directly but referred only to their future issue amongst whom there could be someone who did suffer from the blemishes listed in this chapter. Although Aaron's sons are also included in the description זרעך "your seed," the change in the Torah's syntax is intended to alert us that in this instance the sons are not included in the word זרעך. In fact, the Torah made this point even clearer by writing מזרעך, "some of your seed," instead of the usual זרעך, "your seed." This was a promise to Aaron and his sons that they themselves would not be disqualified by a physical blemish during their respective lives. (compare my commentary on 22,4, "והוא צרוע").

אשר יהיה בו מום, “who is afflicted with a physical blemish;” after the Torah had made an overall statement regarding the holiness of the priests, it begins to list blemishes which will disqualify individual priests from performing service in the Temple. (Ibn Ezra)