Halakhah zu Wajikra 21:78

The host enters first into the house, then the guest after him. And when the guest leaves, the guest leaves first, then the host after him.¹⁷Derekh Eretz Rabba 4. One must beware of saying birkat ha-mazon if one’s father, or teacher, or someone greater in wisdom than he is at the table, unless he gets permission from them. And if there is a kohen among them, one should defer to the kohen, for thus it is written, “And you shall make him holy,”¹⁸Lev. 21:8 and the sages interpreted this in a midrash to mean, “you shall make him holy in everything that involves holiness, such as letting him open first, say a blessing first, take the nicest portion first, since a person is required to bestow honors upon the seed of Aaron.¹⁹B.Gittin 59b. And if there’s a kohen who’s a talmid hakham (i.e., a Torah scholar)²⁰Lit., “disciple of a sage,” i.e., someone learned in rabbinic Torah. and an ordinary Jew who’s a talmid hakham, and the kohen wishes to bestow an honor on him, he may. For it is said about a kohen, “You shall make him holy [ve-kidashto]” but it is also said about ordinary Israelites “Set bounds about the mountain and make it holy [ve-kidashto],” and in the entire Torah there are only these two occurrences of “ve-kidashto:” one at the beginning of the verse, the other at the end of the verse.²¹Lev. 21:8 and Ex. 19:23. In Ex. 19:23, Moses says to the Lord, “The people cannot come up to Mount Sinai, for you warned us saying, “set bounds about the mountain and make it holy [ve-kidashto].” However, R. Bahya takes the “it” in the pronominal suffix of ve-kidashto to refer to “the people [ha-‘am],” i.e., the Israelites, not the mountain. Grammatically both are masculine singular. This comes to teach about the kohen, that his greatness comes when he begins things, like opening first, or saying a blessing first. But the talmid hakham, his greatness comes at the end, which we derive from what is written, “to the holy ones [la-kedoshim] who are in the land,”²²Ps. 16:3. which the sages interpret in a midrash to mean the holy ones are not called “holy ones” until they have been given their “land.”²³Midrash Tehillim on Ps. 16:3. as it is said, “they become holy ones [la-kedoshim]- those who are in the land.”²⁴The midrash seems to read la-kedoshim (“to the holy ones) as if it were in the Hebrew grammatical construction “hayu le-:” “they became holy ones.” But about them during their lifetime it is written, “He should not trust that he is among His holy ones.”²⁵Job 15:15, as R. Bahya creatively reads the verse, which the JSB translates “He puts no trust in His Holy ones.”

Said R. Levi: Because of Aaron's awe of the Holy One, blessed be He, he was privileged to be given this section which does not depart from him, his sons or his grandsons, until the end of all generations. Which [section] is it? It is the section of [defilement of] the dead, as it is said, "And God said to Moses: Speak unto the priests, the sons of Aaron…" (Leviticus 21:1).

A few points need to be clarified before we begin our discussion. The Torah (Vayikra 21:1) forbids kohanim to come in contact with the dead. This restriction, however, applies only to male kohanim (Sotah 23b, cited by Rashi to Vayikra 21:1). Contact with the dead includes being in the same building as a dead body (Bemidbar 19:14). ²For a summary of whether this rule prohibits kohanim from entering hospitals, see Nishmat Avraham (2:209-210). For further discussion of this issue, see Techumin (19:323-334). Although children are not personally obligated to observe this restriction, adults cannot deliberately cause even the youngest of kohanim (even an infant) to come in contact with a dead body (Mishnah Berurah 343:3 and Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 373:1).

Marriage between a person of Aharonic descent and a divorcée is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 21:7. As recorded by Shulḥan Arukh, Even ha-Ezer 6:8, marriage between a kohen and a female convert is also prohibited. The late Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, of blessed memory, is widely quoted as having ruled that ba'alei teshuvah, i.e., newly-observant young men, whose fathers were not observant may be permitted to marry divorcées or converts to Judaism despite the fact that they have held themselves out as kohanim. The reasoning, it is reported, is that the assumption of priestly descent on the part of such a person is derived entirely from his father's genealogical claim. Since the father was, and remains, non-observant, his testimony, it is claimed, as a matter of Halakhah, can be given no credence.

Sometimes the reasons for commandments are similar to negative commandments and are thought of as being included in that which should be counted by itself. And this is like its stating, "Then the first husband who sent her away shall not take her to wife again [...] you must not bring sin upon the land" (Deuteronomy 24:4): Its stating, "you must not bring sin upon the land," is the reason for the prohibition that preceded it. It is as if it is saying that if you do this, you will cause great loss to the land. An it is [also] like its stating, "Do not profane your daughter and make her a harlot, lest the land fall into harlotry" (Leviticus 19:29). For its stating, "lest the land fall into harlotry," is the reason. It as if it said that the reason of this prohibition is so that "the land not fall into harlotry." And so too, its stating, "you shall not make yourselves unclean therewith and become unclean with them" (Leviticus 11:43): After mentioning the prohibition of the various species that are forbidden to eat, it gave a reason for this and said, "you shall not make yourselves unclean" by eating them. It is as if it is saying that which caused this to be prohibited is the making of oneself impure. And to explain that which He, may He be blessed, said after He prefaced not taking ransom from a murderer, "You shall not defile the land" (Numbers 35:34) - they said in the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 160:13), "The verse is telling us that spilling blood defiles the land." Hence behold it is clear that this negative statement is the reason for the previous negative commandment, not something else. And likewise regarding that which is stated, "He shall not go outside the sanctuary and not profane" (Leviticus 21:12) - if he does go outside, he profanes. And someone besides us already erred about this principle as well, and counted all of these [as] negative commandments, without observation. However whoever counted them will be embarrassed when they ask him and say, "What thing does this negative commandment prohibit?" And he will not have anything to answer at all. So through this, it becomes clear that it is not be counted. And this is what we intended to clarify about this principle.

As recorded in Leviticus 21:1-4, other than in conjunction with the burial of a close relative, kohanim, the descendants of Aaron, are forbidden to defile themselves through contact with a corpse. Late in the summer of 2001 Rabbi David Morgenstern of Jerusalem was approached by a newly-observant Israeli pilot who relayed a question raised by a colleague: How is it that kohanim are permitted to embark on flights leaving Lod that pass over a cemetery in Holon? Upon investigation it was discovered that the situation has been in existence since some time in 1984 when flight patterns were altered to minimize flights over densely populated areas north of Ben Gurion airport and to avoid overflying a military area south of the airport. Although the details are not clear, it seems that some night flights departing to the United States use an alternate route but that all flights to European cities fly over Holon. It is reported that government officials have given assurance that flight plans would be altered in order to obviate the problem but that, in actuality, such changes have not been implemented.

A Cohen who comes to a possible prostitute (or a possible divorcee or a possible released woman - Tur), this is possible desecration and the offspring is a possible halal, and is given the restrictions of Cohanim and the restrictions of Israel. He may not eat Trumah and may not be exposed to a dead body, may only marry a woman permitted to a Cohen, and if he ate (trumah) or was exposed (to a dead body) or married a divorcee, they strike him with a stroke of rebellion. And this is the ruling regarding a halal of their words [i.e., rabbinic]. But the confirmed halal of Torah is like a Zar and may marry a divorcee and be exposed to the dead, as it is said "Say to the Cohanim the sons of Aaron" (Lev. 21:1) even though they are the sons of Aaron, not until they are serving as Cohanim.

A daughter of priests may be married to a hallal (the son of a priest through a forbidden relationship), or to a convert, or to an emancipated slave, women with fitting ancestry not having been warned against marrying those unfit for priesthood, as the verse says, "Sons of Aaron" (Lev 21:1) and not 'daughters of Aaron."

Exactly parallel to this is His, may He be exalted, saying "Let no one be found among you who passes his son or daughter through the fire, or who is an augur, a soothsayer, a diviner, a sorcerer. One who casts spells, or one who consults ghosts or familiar spirits, or one who inquires of the dead" (Deuteronomy 18:10-11)." For each one of these things is counted as a separate negative commandment; and they have nothing to do with the first of the two divisions of the second type. The proof about this is His saying, "a soothsayer, a diviner," in the middle; whereas each of them was already clarified to be a separate negative commandment. And that was His saying [this verse], after a soothsayer and a diviner were each also mentioned separately in another verse - and that was His saying, "do not divine and do not soothsay" (Leviticus 19:26). And just like soothsayer and diviner are separated, so too do they separate those before them and after them (in the verses in Deuteronomy), [to be] like soothsayer and diviner - as we explained, about bread, parched grain and fresh stalks. And someone besides us already erred about this topic - whether because his mind did not comprehend all of these things, or whether [because] he forgot them. So he counted His saying, "A harlot or a profaned woman they shall not marry; a woman divorced from her husband they shall not marry" (Leviticus 21:7), as one commandment. And it was already clarified in the Gemara, Kiddushin (Kiddushin 77a), that he is liable for each and every one [separately], even if it is [all included] in one woman - as we will explain in its place (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 161). And we can grant him an excuse for counting a harlot and a profaned woman as one commandment - as he thought it to be a general negative commandment. And in his thinking, His saying, "A harlot or a profaned woman they shall not marry," was for him, like His saying, "Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in any way." And he did not know that the one was to be separated and the other was not to be separated. And likewise did he not distinguish between His saying, "you shall not eat bread, parched grain and fresh stalks," and His saying, "he may not diminish her food, her clothing or her conjugal rights." However I will not attack him about this. Yet [regarding] his counting a divorcee together with a harlot and a profaned woman as one commandment - he has no argument for this at all. For it's - meaning the divorcee - being separate is clear. And that is His saying, "a woman divorced from her husband they shall not marry." Behold we have explained this great principle - meaning to say, the general negative commandment - and its questions. And we have informed you of those that are separated and those that are [limited] only to the general negative commandment, such that we are only liable for it once; and that the content which is separated is counted as several commandments and that which is not separated is counted as one commandment. And always place this principle in front of your eyes; for it is a great key in verifying the count of the commandments.

Another major problem exists with implementing hafka'at kiddushin today. The Gemara records many objectionable marriages that are binding, indicating that the Rabbis do not annul them. For example, Chazal do not annul the marriage of a kohein and a divorcee, although such a marriage is explicitly prohibited by the Torah (Vayikra 21:7).⁴See Teshuvot Binyamin Ze'ev (106) for a list of objectionable marriages where Chazal do not invoke hafka'at kiddushin. While criteria presumably exist to determine when marriages may be annulled, the Gemara never articulates them. The Rashba (Ketubot 3a) provides some insight:

(9) And if he whom he spoke about were a Cohein, and he demeaned him thus to his face, he also transgresses (Vayikra 21:8): "And you shall sanctify him," whereby we have been exhorted to accord them [the Cohanim] much honor. And since he speaks lashon hara or rechiluth against him and shames him, he certainly does not honor him thereby, and he transgresses.

Tiferet Yisra'el, Bo'az, Oholot 8:6, declares that although members of this class do not have the status of a "tent" even for purposes of constituting an interposition, nevertheless, they themselves do become defiled. That is indeed the position of a host of early-day authorities.⁷See sources cited by Rabbis Halberstadt and Goldmintz, Kanfei Yonah, p. 8 and idem, Teḥumin, XXII (5762), 507, note 8. However, one early-day authority, Rabbenu Shimshon (Rash), Tohorot 4:3, maintains that members of this class neither constitute a “tent” nor do they themselves become defiled. In effect, Rash maintains that a flying object is not susceptible to defilement as a “tent” or overhanging object. Thus, the passenger in the airplane, who is also in motion, cannot become defiled. That is also the position of Rash, loc. cit.; however, Rosh contradicts that view in his comments on Nazir 55a, s.v. ve-ha-tanya, and in his Tosafot ha-Rosh, Berakhot 19a, s.v. rov. The theory underlying Rash’s position in difficult to fathom. He presumably maintains that defilement extends ad coelum only in the presence of an overhanging tent. Hence, since a flying object does not constitute an overhanging “tent,” even that object cannot become defiled. Cf., R. Chaim ha-Levi Soloveitchik, Ḥiddushei Rabbenu Ḥayyim ha-Levi al ha-Rambam, Hilkhot Tum’at Met 11:5. See Rabbi Halberstadt, Kanfei Yonah, p. 9, note 4. Rabbi Spitzer, Kol ha-Torah, no. 52, p. 179, cites numerous early-day authorities who contradict the view of Rash. Teshuvot Kappei Aharon, no. 25, sec. 14 and no. 50; Ḥazon Ish, Tohorot 4:13 and Yoreh De‘ah 211:9; and R. Yosef Shalom Eliashiv, Yeshurun, X (Nisan 5762), 566f., all rule contrary to the position of Rash. R. David Samuel Pardo, in his commentary on the Tosefta, Ḥasdei David, Tohorot 3:14, also expresses astonishment with regard to Rash’s position.
Citing the comments of Rash and Rosh, Oholot 8:5, regarding a “house on a boat,” Kappei Aharon, no. 50, asserts that, even according to Rash, a “flying” object is immune to defilement only if there is no “roof” over that object; if, however, the flying object is covered by its own roof, even if the roof itself is moving, it does become defiled by the corpse below the flying object. Thus, a kohen in an airplane that overflies a cemetery, asserts Kappei Aharon, becomes defiled because the plane is enclosed on top.
R. Eleazer Moshe ha-Levi Horowitz of Pinsk, Teshuvot Ohel Mosheh, II, no. 122, develops the novel view that even according to Rash, since there is no interposition between himself and the corpse, a kohen who leaps over a corpse transgresses the prohibition against “entering” the tent containing a corpse even though he does not transgress the prohibition against becoming defiled. The prohibition against actual defilement is formulated in Leviticus 21:1; the verse “upon a dead body he shall not come” (Numbers 6:6) is understood by the Gemara as referring to entering into a tent in which a corpse is present and, according to Ohel Mosheh, Nazir 42a, constitutes a transgression even if such entry does not lead to defilement. That thesis is also tentatively advanced by R. Elchanan Wasserman, Koveẓ Shemu‘ot, Ḥullin, sec. 31, and is reflected in the comments of R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinski, Teshuvot Aḥi‘ezer, III, no. 65, secs. 5–7. An airplane flying through the sky is certainly comparable to a ship sailing in the sea and a bird flying in the air. Accordingly, since an airplane is not a "tent" but does itself become defiled, it cannot serve as an interposition preserving persons within the plane from defilement. That fundamental point was noted in the early days of airplane travel by R. Aaron Epstein, Teshuvot Kappei Aharon (Munkàcz, 5693), nos. 25 and 50, and repeatedly confirmed in the intervening decades by a host of authorities.⁸See Ḥazon Ish, Yoreh De‘ah 211:9, Even ha-Ezer 144:9 and Oholot, addenda; Teshuvot Har Ẓevi, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 280; Teshuvot Ḥelkat Ya’akov, III, no. 209; Yerushat Pleitah, no. 34; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, III, no. 347; and R. Yosef Shalom Eliashiv, Yeshurun, X (Nisan 5762), 566–567.

Rabbi Telushkin, although he does not base his argument upon the earlier-cited comment of Rashi, contends that, at least for some authorities, the restriction against intercourse is limited to instances in which external genital organs have been mutilated. He notes the juxtaposition of the prohibition against causing sterility which is derived from Leviticus 22:24 and the listing of the physical defects which disqualify a priest from performing the sacrificial rituals recorded in the same scriptual section. The latter are limited to external blemishes. The prohibition against mutilating sexual organs, suggests Rabbi Telushkin, is recorded subsequent to the proscription dealing with priestly blemishes as an indication that the prohibition against mutilation, and the pursuant prohibition against sexual intercourse, are limited to mutilation of external organs.⁸In point of fact, the regulation governing disqualification of priests suffering from physical defects is recorded in Leviticus 21:16-23. Rabbi Telushkin may have expressed himself unfelicitously but actually may have intended to note the juxtaposition of Leviticus 22:24 with the immediately preceding regulations disqualifying animals marred by certain physical blemishes from being brought as sacrificial offerings. The latter regulations are found in Leviticus 22:19-23.

If a Jew engages in sexual relations with a female idolater, derech ishut (that is, for the purpose of marriage), or a Jewess engages in sexual relations with a male idolater, that Jew or Jewess is given lashes on a Biblical level. As it is written (Deuteronomy 7:3): "You shall not marry them." (There are those who disagree with this ruling). However, if he engages in sexual relations derech zenut (that is, for licentiousness), casually, he is culpable only on a Rabbinic level for idolatry and for engaging in relations with a prostitute and he is given makat mardut (that is, lashes on a Rabbinic level). And, if he sets her aside for licentious activity, he is culpable on a Rabbinic level for having sexual relations with a nida (that is, menstruant), having sexual relations with a shifcha, (that is, slavewoman), idolatry, and having sexual relations with a prostitute. And, if he is a Kohen (that is, a priest), even if he engages in sexual relations casually, he receives lashes on a Biblical level, as it is written (Leviticus 21:7) ["(A kohen) may not marry a prostitute..."]

An opposing view is adopted by Magen Avraham, Oraḥ Hayyim 526:20. Rebutting the argument formulated by Hagahot Maimuniyot, Magen Avraham asserts that placing a nefel in a "pit" as described by the Tosefta was, in fact, a form of burial. His principal argument in support of his own position is based upon a comment of Sifra, Leviticus 21:2, adducing an exegetical basis for prohibiting a kohen from defiling himself in conjunction with the burial of a child who is a nefel. The implication, argues Magen Avraham, is that a nefel requires burial. Moreover, argues Magen Avraham, it may be inferred from the comments of the Gemara, Niddah 57a, that it is forbidden to leave a nefel unburied overnight.¹⁴The grounds for this inference are far from unequivocal; see Teshuvot Noda bi-Yehudah, Mahadura Kamma, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no.16. Cf., however, Maḥaẓit ha-Shekel in his comments on Magen Avraham, ad locum, and Binah le-‘Ittim, Hilkhot Yom Tov 1:23.

The comments of the Midrash are problematic to say the least. According to Rashi's understanding of Numbers 33:53 there exists no biblical commandment with regard to dwelling in the Land of Israel. Even according to Ramban there certainly existed no commandment regarding domicile in the Land of Israel prior to the divine utterance, "And you shall inherit the land and dwell therein." The Patriarchs, to be sure, did fulfill mizvot without having been formally obligated to do so, and they indeed fulfilled such commandments even prior to the revelation of mizvot. Nevertheless, it is clear that they did not fulfill all mizvot. For example, "ve-kidashto—and you shall sanctify him" (Lev. 21:8) constitutes a mizvah pertaining to the priesthood. However, prior to the establishment of the Aaronic dynasty and the sanctification of the progeny of Aaron as priests, this mizvah would have been completely vacuous.

That is that He commanded us to honor the seed of Aharon, to adorn and glorify them, and that we should place them on a level of priority and precedence. And even if they decline, we should not listen to them - this is all aggrandizement of God, may He be exalted, since He took them and chose them for His service and to offer His sacrifices. And this is His, may He be exalted and may His name be blessed, saying, "And sanctify him, since he offers the bread of your God" (Leviticus 21:8)." And the explanation appears - "And sanctify him," in every matter of holiness: To start first, to bless first and to take a nice portion. And the language of the Sifrei is, "'And sanctify him' - against his will." This means to say this is a command that we are commanded, and it is not the priest's choice. And likewise did they say, "'They shall be holy to their God' (Leviticus 21:6) - against their will; 'and they shall be holy' - to include those with blemishes." This is so that you not say, "Since this one is not fit to serve the bread of His God, why should we give him the level of priority and honor?" Hence His saying, "and they shall be holy" - all of this honored seed, both unblemished and blemished. And the stipulations required by them, such that it will be fit to treat them with this practice, have already been explained in scattered places in the Gemara - in Chullin, in Shabbat, in Bekhorot and in the other [tractates]. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 4).

(In the case of) one whose betrothed (woman) died - if the betrothed man is a Cohen, he may not defile himself because of her, as it is written: “except for his relatives” (Leviticus 21:2), and this means near kin. And a betrothed is not his near kin, even if he has betrothed her by (an act of) intercourse, since she is (supposedly) prohibited to him (for further intercourse) until the marriage.
If he (the one who betrothes) dies, she is not obligated to defile herself because of him, even though it is a commandment to defile oneself for all near kin. Nevertheless, (defiling herself) for her betrothed man is no “mitsvah” (good deed) but doing it constitutes no prohibition, even if she is a female Cohen, for the daughters of Aaron were not commanded regarding the defiling, as it is written” “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron” (Leviticus 21:1); (it says) “the sons of Aaron” and not “the daughters of Aaron” (i.e. the prohibition against defiling oneself applies to men only).

(In the case of) one whose betrothed (woman) died - if the betrothed man is a Cohen, he may not defile himself because of her, as it is written: “except for his relatives” (Leviticus 21:2), and this means near kin. And a betrothed is not his near kin, even if he has betrothed her by (an act of) intercourse, since she is (supposedly) prohibited to him (for further intercourse) until the marriage.
If he (the one who betrothes) dies, she is not obligated to defile herself because of him, even though it is a commandment to defile oneself for all near kin. Nevertheless, (defiling herself) for her betrothed man is no “mitsvah” (good deed) but doing it constitutes no prohibition, even if she is a female Cohen, for the daughters of Aaron were not commanded regarding the defiling, as it is written” “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron” (Leviticus 21:1); (it says) “the sons of Aaron” and not “the daughters of Aaron” (i.e. the prohibition against defiling oneself applies to men only).

The verse "Speak unto the priests, the sons of Aaron and say unto them…." (Leviticus 21: 1) serves as a prefatory comment to the prohibition against priestly defilement through contact with a corpse. The Gemara, Yevamot 114a, takes note of the double expression "speak" and "say unto them" in declaring that Moses was instructed to transmit two prohibitions: 1) a commandment addressed to adult priests forbidding them to defile themselves; and 2) a directive commanding adults not to defile young priests who have not yet attained the age of halakhic majority. The latter prohibition is recorded in Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 373:1. Rema adds that the prohibition is limited to the performance of an overt act on the part of an adult causing defilement of the minor. As explained by Shakh, Yoreh De'ah 373:1, intervention to restrain a child from defiling himself is mandated only by virtue of a father's obligation with regard to ḥinnukh, i.e., "training," and hence is limited to the child's father and, moreover, becomes applicable only at an appropriate age. The opinion of Baḥ, Yoreh De'ah 373, to the effect that even an infant must be prevented from defiling himself is not accepted by other authorities. However, Magen Avraham, Oraḥ Hayyim 343:2, and Mishnah Berurah 343:3 emphasize that actively causing defilement is forbidden even in the case of a child completely lacking in reason.

R. Landau's lenient ruling with regard to shaving apparently gained wide acceptance in his own city of Prague. In volume II, Oraḥ Hayyim, no. 101, Noda bi-Yehudah reports that he caused the Jewish barbers of his city to take a solemn oath not to shave their clients with a razor, as this is prohibited by Leviticus 21 :5. However, during the festivals many Jews, finding the Jewish barber shops closed, were wont surreptitiously to patronize gentile barbers. Of course these barbers did utilize razors as shaving implements. As documented in this responsum and in the one previous, no. 100, it was this breach in observance of Jewish law which Noda bi-Yehudah sought to repair by permitting Jewish barbers (at least those who were poor) to keep their establishments open during the intermediate days of the festival.

That He prohibited a priest with a temporary blemish - such as scurvy or a scab or that which is similar to them - to serve [in the Temple] so long as he has the blemish. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "For any man who has a blemish shall not approach" (Leviticus 21:18). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Emor, Section 7:3) is, "'Anyone of your offspring, through [all] their generations who will have a blemish' (Leviticus 21:17) - I only [know about] a permanent blemish. From where [do we know the same for] a temporary blemish? [Hence] we learn to say, 'For any man who has a blemish shall not approach.'" And the regulations of permanent and temporary blessings have already been explained in the seventh [chapter] of Bekhorot. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 6.)

That He prohibited a priest that has immersed on that day (tevul yom) from serving [in the Temple] - even though he has has purified himself - until [that evening]. And that is His saying about the priests, "and not desecrate the name of their God" (Leviticus 21:18). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. Yet a clear verse did not appear about it, but it has rather been passed down. [...] And in Chapter 9 of Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 83b), they said in the explanation, "'They shall be sacred to their God and they shall not desecrate the name of their God' (Leviticus 21:6). If [this verse] is not written with regard to the matter of an impure priest who performed the service, [as that has already been explained,] then apply it to the matter of a priest who immersed that day who served. And it learns it out from [a verbal analogy of the word,] desecration [in both places]." And they listed him among the group of those liable for death. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 4.)

Moreover, as is evident from the discussion of the Gemara, Nazir 42b, and Rambam's own terminology in Hilkhot Nezirut 5:19, any leniency with regard to simultaneous contact with a second corpse is predicated upon the consideration that a kohen is prohibited from coming into contact with a corpse because of the admonition "He shall not defile himself… to profane himself" (Leviticus 21:4) which is regarded as excluding from the prohibition an instance of a kohen who confronts no additional profanation in the act of contact. To be sure, a kohen defiled through contact with metal suffers no additional defilement but, since his contact with metal does not constitute an act of profanation of his priestly status, he remains bound by the prohibition against coming into contact with a corpse since that act represents not merely an act of defilement but also an act of profanation.

The commandment of anointing the high priest and the kings of the House of David with anointing oil: To make the anointing oil according to the way that the Torah commanded to make it, as it is stated (Exodus 30:25), "And you shall make it, a holy anointing oil, etc." [This is] so that it be ready to anoint every high priest that is appointed, as it is written (Leviticus 21:10), "The priest who is exalted above his fellows, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured." And so [too], we anoint some of the kings. And so [too,] they also anointed the vessels of the Temple with it, but they will not need to anoint [them] in the future, as they will be sanctified by their service. And this is [the meaning] of what is written (Exodus 30:31), "and it will be for Me for the generations." And so did they, may their memory be blessed, say in Sifrei Bemidbar 44.

That is that He commanded us that a metsora (a person with tsaarat) be known to all, such that people will separate from him. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "As the person with a leprous affection, his clothes shall be rent [... and he shall call out, 'Impure; impure!]'" (Leviticus 13:45). And the proof about its being a positive commandment is their saying in the Sifra (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 12:5-6) "Because it is stated (of the high priest, Leviticus 21:10), 'his hair he shall not grow long and his clothes he shall not rend, etc.,' I might think (that this holds) even if he is afflicted. And how will I fulfill, 'his clothes shall be rent and his hair shall grow long?' With all other people besides the high priest. [Hence] we learn to say, 'with a leprous affection' - even if he be the high priest - his clothes shall be torn; 'and his hair shall grow long' - he shall grow out his hair." And it is clear that a high priest is [prohibited] with a negative commandment from renting [his clothes] and growing [his hair] long. And the principle with us is that any place you find a positive commandment and a negative commandment - if you can fulfill both of them, that is best; but if not, the positive commandment pushes off the negative commandment. And since we have found that their language instructs that when the high priest has tsaarat, he grows [his hair] out and rents [his clothes], it indicates that it is a positive commandment. And the tradition has already come [to teach] that people with other impurities are also obligated to make a sign about themselves, such that other people will distance themselves from them. And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 12:9) is, "From where [do we know that the same holds for] someone impure from a corpse or one who had sexual intercourse with a menstruant woman? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and he shall call out, "Impure; impure!"'" And the explanation is that anyone impure must announce his impurity and place a sign upon himself, through which it will be known that he is impure, and one touches him is impure - hence they will distance themselves. And behold it has been explained that women are not obligated in [providing for] the recognition of a metzora. And that is their saying (Sotah 23a), "A man grows [his hair] out and rents [his clothes], but a woman does not grow [her hair] out and rent [her clothes]." But she does cover the lip and makes known that she is impure, like other impure people. (See Parashat Tazria; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 6.)

If he became ritually impure due to a dead body that was not one of the seven obligatory deceased [relatives], he is invalid for the platform [for the blessing] and for all other priestly privileges, until he repents and commits not to continue to defile himself over dead bodies. Some say that for one who has a daughter that became an apostate that converted to idol worship or that committed adultery, it is no longer incumbent to sanctify him [as a Kohen], "for she degrades her father" (Lev. 21:9) (Mordechi in chapter "Nigmar Ha'din").

That the priests not enter the Temple with torn clothes: That the priests not enter the Temple with torn clothes, as it is stated (Leviticus 10:6), "and you shall not rend your clothes" - the understanding is, do not tear your clothes. And the prevention is repeated with the high priest, as it is stated about him (Leviticus 21:10), "and he shall not rend his clothes." And repeating the prevention about it is because of the addition of a thing with him: That he is not permitted to tear for a dead when he dies - and even not during the time of the service. And they said in Sifra, Emor, Section 2:3, "'And he shall not let his hair be wild and he shall not rend his clothes' - for his dead, as [other] people do for their dead. Behold, how is it? The high-priest rends from the bottom (of his garment), and common [priests], from the top."

That the priests not go out from the Temple at the time of the service: That the priests not go out from the Temple at the time of the service, as it stated (Leviticus 10:7), "And from the entrance of the Tent of Meeting you shall not go out, lest you die." And this prevention was repeated likewise with the high priest, and it stated (Leviticus 21:12), "And from the sanctuary he shall not go out." And the language of Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 42-43 is "'And from the entrance of the Tent of Meeting' - it could be [that they shall not go out] at the time of the service and [also] not at the time of the service. [Hence] we learn to say, 'And from the sanctuary he shall not go out and he will not profane' - [...] it would be said, when he is officiating. [...] 'For the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you' - I only have Aharon and his sons who were anointed with the oil of anointment, if they went out while serving, they would be liable for death; from where [do I know] for all of the priests of the generations? As it is stated, 'for the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you.'"

That He prohibited a high priest from taking (marrying) a widow. And that is His saying, "A widow, a divorcee, etc." (Leviticus 21:14). Moreover, He repeated the prohibition of the high priest with a divorcee, a desecrated woman and a zonah on account of the content that is written in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 77a). And that is when it happens that the same woman is a divorcee, a widow, a desecrated woman and a zonah, and a high priest has sexual relations with her - he is lashed four [sets of] lashes; and if he is an ordinary priest, three. And there they said, "'A widow, a divorcee, a desecrated woman and a zonah' - when they are in order - he is liable for each and every one." And they explained that that is with one woman; and the matter of their saying, "in order," is that they [happened to] her in the order of the verse - that she first be a widow, and afterwards a divorcee, and after that a desecrated woman and afterwards a zonah. However we required this on account of her being one woman and it being one intercourse, since we wanted to obligate him with four [sets of] lashes. And the principle with us is that one prohibition cannot take effect on top of [another] prohibition, unless it is a [more] comprehensive prohibition, an additive prohibition or a prohibition that came together [with it], as we explained in [various] places in Keritot in our commentary (on the Mishnah). So when they are in this order, each one of them will be an a additive prohibition, as is explained there. But if there are several women - such as if he had sexual relations with a widow, with another woman who is desecrated, with another woman who is a divorcee and with another woman who is a zonah - there is no doubt that he would be lashed for each and every one. But it is possible that you will ask and say, "Since it is a principle with us that we do not give lashes for a general negative commandment, in what way can we give lashes for each and every one?" Know that it is for this matter that the prohibition of a divorcee, a zonah and a desecrated woman were repeated for a high priest - so that it would teach us that his law about them is the same as that of an ordinary priest: Lashes for each and every one. Indeed, the ordinary priest is liable for lashes for each and every one on account of one of them being separated as a [separate] negative commandment, such that they were all differentiated. And that is His saying, "and they shall not take a woman divorced from her husband" (Leviticus 21:7) - that since the divorcee was separated as a negative commandment, he is lashed for the divorcee on its own. And this is the content of their saying in the Gemara, Kiddushin (Kiddushin 77b), "Just like a divorcee, a desecrated woman and a zonah are differentiated for an ordinary priest, so too are are they differentiated for a high priest." And there, it is [also] explained that when the women are different entities (four distinct women), he is lashed for each and every one - whether they are in order or whether they are not in order. Behold it has already been made clear to you that the prohibition about each one of them is a separate commandment, and therefore he is lashed for each one. And there, it is explained that an ordinary priest is not liable for lashes until he marries and has sexual relations. And they said (Kiddushin 78a), "If he has sexual relations, he is lashed; if he does not have sexual relations, he is not lashed. [The verse] is saying what is the reason. What is the reason of, 'he shall not take?' That 'he shall not desecrate' (Leviticus 21:15)." And the regulations of this commandment - meaning to say, these four commandments - have already been fully explained in Yevamot and Kiddushin. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 17-19.)

That He prohibited a high priest from taking (marrying) a widow. And that is His saying, "A widow, a divorcee, etc." (Leviticus 21:14). Moreover, He repeated the prohibition of the high priest with a divorcee, a desecrated woman and a zonah on account of the content that is written in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 77a). And that is when it happens that the same woman is a divorcee, a widow, a desecrated woman and a zonah, and a high priest has sexual relations with her - he is lashed four [sets of] lashes; and if he is an ordinary priest, three. And there they said, "'A widow, a divorcee, a desecrated woman and a zonah' - when they are in order - he is liable for each and every one." And they explained that that is with one woman; and the matter of their saying, "in order," is that they [happened to] her in the order of the verse - that she first be a widow, and afterwards a divorcee, and after that a desecrated woman and afterwards a zonah. However we required this on account of her being one woman and it being one intercourse, since we wanted to obligate him with four [sets of] lashes. And the principle with us is that one prohibition cannot take effect on top of [another] prohibition, unless it is a [more] comprehensive prohibition, an additive prohibition or a prohibition that came together [with it], as we explained in [various] places in Keritot in our commentary (on the Mishnah). So when they are in this order, each one of them will be an a additive prohibition, as is explained there. But if there are several women - such as if he had sexual relations with a widow, with another woman who is desecrated, with another woman who is a divorcee and with another woman who is a zonah - there is no doubt that he would be lashed for each and every one. But it is possible that you will ask and say, "Since it is a principle with us that we do not give lashes for a general negative commandment, in what way can we give lashes for each and every one?" Know that it is for this matter that the prohibition of a divorcee, a zonah and a desecrated woman were repeated for a high priest - so that it would teach us that his law about them is the same as that of an ordinary priest: Lashes for each and every one. Indeed, the ordinary priest is liable for lashes for each and every one on account of one of them being separated as a [separate] negative commandment, such that they were all differentiated. And that is His saying, "and they shall not take a woman divorced from her husband" (Leviticus 21:7) - that since the divorcee was separated as a negative commandment, he is lashed for the divorcee on its own. And this is the content of their saying in the Gemara, Kiddushin (Kiddushin 77b), "Just like a divorcee, a desecrated woman and a zonah are differentiated for an ordinary priest, so too are are they differentiated for a high priest." And there, it is [also] explained that when the women are different entities (four distinct women), he is lashed for each and every one - whether they are in order or whether they are not in order. Behold it has already been made clear to you that the prohibition about each one of them is a separate commandment, and therefore he is lashed for each one. And there, it is explained that an ordinary priest is not liable for lashes until he marries and has sexual relations. And they said (Kiddushin 78a), "If he has sexual relations, he is lashed; if he does not have sexual relations, he is not lashed. [The verse] is saying what is the reason. What is the reason of, 'he shall not take?' That 'he shall not desecrate' (Leviticus 21:15)." And the regulations of this commandment - meaning to say, these four commandments - have already been fully explained in Yevamot and Kiddushin. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 17-19.)

He prohibited a high priest - that he not have sexual relations with a widow, even without marriage. And that is His saying, "And he shall not desecrate his seed among his people" (Leviticus 21:15). And its explanation is that an ordinary priest is forbidden to marry [various categories of women], as He said, "they shall not take" (Leviticus 21:7)" - and that is a prohibition of marriage. However he is not lashed until he has sexual relations, as we explained previously. Nevertheless, if he has sexual relations without marriage - even though it is forbidden, he is prohibited about her and he disqualifies her from the priesthood - he is not lashed on account of this, because the prohibition is not explicit here. But behold [in the case of] the high priest, two negative commandments are explicit: One is, "he shall not take" - which is the prohibition about marriage. And the second is, "And he shall not desecrate his seed" - and that is the prohibition about sexual relations even without marriage. And in the Gemara, Kiddushin (Kiddushin 78a), they said about a high priest with a widow, that if he has sexual relations and he did not marry, he is lashed: "What is the reason? The [Torah] said, 'And he shall not desecrate.' And behold, he desecrated." Indeed, this is limited to a widow because the negative commandment is specific to the high priest, whereas she is fit [to marry an ordinary priest] - but with this intercourse, he disqualifies her to the priesthood. However the law of a divorcee, a zonah and a desecrated woman is like the law of an ordinary priest - meaning to say, that each and every one [of these] is disqualified to the priesthood from the beginning. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 17-19.)

He prohibited a high priest - that he not have sexual relations with a widow, even without marriage. And that is His saying, "And he shall not desecrate his seed among his people" (Leviticus 21:15). And its explanation is that an ordinary priest is forbidden to marry [various categories of women], as He said, "they shall not take" (Leviticus 21:7)" - and that is a prohibition of marriage. However he is not lashed until he has sexual relations, as we explained previously. Nevertheless, if he has sexual relations without marriage - even though it is forbidden, he is prohibited about her and he disqualifies her from the priesthood - he is not lashed on account of this, because the prohibition is not explicit here. But behold [in the case of] the high priest, two negative commandments are explicit: One is, "he shall not take" - which is the prohibition about marriage. And the second is, "And he shall not desecrate his seed" - and that is the prohibition about sexual relations even without marriage. And in the Gemara, Kiddushin (Kiddushin 78a), they said about a high priest with a widow, that if he has sexual relations and he did not marry, he is lashed: "What is the reason? The [Torah] said, 'And he shall not desecrate.' And behold, he desecrated." Indeed, this is limited to a widow because the negative commandment is specific to the high priest, whereas she is fit [to marry an ordinary priest] - but with this intercourse, he disqualifies her to the priesthood. However the law of a divorcee, a zonah and a desecrated woman is like the law of an ordinary priest - meaning to say, that each and every one [of these] is disqualified to the priesthood from the beginning. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 17-19.)

That He prohibited the priests from entering the Temple with overgrown hair, like that of mourners who do not cut their hair. And that is His saying, "you shall not let your head be wild (tifraau)" (Leviticus 10:6). And Yechezkel explained and said (Ezekiel 44:20), "and they shall not send forth locks (fera)." And likewise did He say with the metzora, (Leviticus 13:45), "and his head shall be wild." And we say in the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 25:1), "He grows locks."And the language of the Sifra (Sifra Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2:40) is likewise, "'You shall not let your head be wild' - do not grow hair." And this prohibition was already repeated with a high priest, when He said, "and he shall not let his head be wild" (Leviticus 21:10). However it was repeated so that you not think that His saying to Elazar and Itamar, "you shall not let wild," was only for the sake of the dead - but if one did it not in the way of mourning, it is permitted. And hence it comes with the high priest, to [teach] that it is on account of the [Temple] service. And one who transgresses this negative commandment - meaning he serves [in the Temple] with unkempt hair - is [punished] with death. And among those things [listed in Sanhedrin 83a as things punished] by death is unkempt hair. [This is] on account of what He said, "so that you do not die." However if one enters the Temple with unkempt hair but does not serve, behold that it is [only] a prohibition, and not [punished] with death. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1.)

That He prohibited the priests from entering the Temple and having torn garments. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "and do not rend your garments" (Leviticus 10:6). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2:41) is "'Do not rend' - do not tear." And this prohibition was already repeated when He said about a high priest, "or rend his garments" (Leviticus 21:10). And know that even when not during the [Temple] service, a high priest is forbidden to tear his clothes for his dead [relatives] that died upon him. And it is because of this supplement that this negative commandment was repeated. And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Emor, Section 2:3) is, "'He shall not let his head be wild or rend his garments' - for his dead, as others let wild and rent for their dead. How so? The high priest rends from the bottom (of his garment), and ordinary priests, from the top." And also anyone who serves [in the Temple] and his garments are torn is liable for death, since the law of those with unkempt hair and those with torn clothes is the same. However if he [just] went in to the Temple in this manner, it is [only] a negative commandment (and not punished with death). And only in the case of a high priest is he always forbidden to let [his hair] be wild or to rent his clothes - even if he does not enter the Temple. And that is the difference between him and an ordinary priest. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1.)

That He prohibited the priests from leaving the Temple at the time of the [Temple] service. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "And from the door of the Tent of Meeting, etc." (Leviticus 10:7). And this prohibition was already repeated when He said about a high priest, "And out of the sanctuary shall he not go" (Leviticus 21:12). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2:42-43) is "'And from the door of the Tent of Meeting he shall not go out' - I might think [even] not during the service. [Hence] we learn to say, 'shall he not go out and he will not desecrate.' I would [hence] say, [only] at the time of the service. 'For the anointing oil of the Lord [is upon you]' - I only know [about] Aharon and his sons, that if they went out at the time of the service, they would be liable for death. From where [do we know] about the priests in all the generations? [Hence] we learn to say, 'for the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you.'" And know that there is a supplement with the high priest, that he may not accompany his dead [relatives]. And this is the simple understanding of Scripture, from His saying, "And out of the sanctuary shall he not go." And it has already been explained in the second [chapter] of Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 18a) that if [a relative] of his died upon him, he may not follow the [procession of the] bier. And they brought a proof from His saying, "And out of the sanctuary shall he not go [and he shall not desecrate]." And we learn from this that it is permissible for him to serve [in the Temple] on the day that his [relative] dies. And so did they explain, "And out of the sanctuary shall he not go": "Behold another, if he did not go out [but served], he desecrated" - meaning to say, an ordinary priest. For the service is not permitted for him when he is grieving. Rather he is prohibited from this - meaning to say that he may not serve [while] grieving. And this principle has already been explained to you in Horayot (Horayot 12b). And that is that an ordinary priest that is grieving may not serve, but a high priest may serve when he is grieving. And behold that it has been made clear to you that His saying, "and he shall not desecrate," is a negation - not a prohibition - to say that his service is not desecrated, even thought he is grieving. But the simple meaning is [that] when He said, "and He shall not desecrate" - it is a reason for the previous prohibition, which is [that] he shall not go out, so that he shall not desecrate. And according to these things - as has been explained - this negative statement is inappropriate to count separately [as a negative commandment], as has been explained to the one who understands the original principles of this essay. And it has already been explained that these three negative commandments - which are, "and he shall not let his head be wild, or rend his garments [...] And out of the sanctuary shall he not go" - have already been repeated with a high priest, to explain their content. [This is] like the prohibition about the divorcee, the zonah and the desecrated woman is repeated to explain some content about these three things that were prohibited to them. For these three negative commandments [to the high priest] are exactly that which was forbidden to them when He said, "you shall not let your head be wild and do not rend your garments [...] And from the door of the Tent of Meeting he shall not go out." And that was what our teacher, Moshe - peace be upon him - said to Elazar and Itamar: That in your excitement about this great distress, the content that is forbidden to you has not become permitted; rather you are [still] in your holiness of being forbidden about unkempt hair, tearing garments and leaving the Temple during the service. And [here] the prohibition was repeated with the high priest, such that we understood that this prohibition [for which one is] liable for death is only during the service. As you see that they brought a proof to explain the matter of His saying, "And from the door of the Tent of Meeting, etc." - from His saying, "And out of the sanctuary shall he not go." And even though there is a supplement in each of these negative commandments that were repeated with the high priests - as we explained - there is no expansion of the count of the commandments with this, for the one who understands our introduction. For the essence of the verse is that he should not do any of this during the service. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 2.)

It is the prohibition that the entire tribe of Levi was also prohibited from taking a portion in the booty, when [the Jews] conquered the Land [of Israel]. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part or inheritance" (Deuteronomy 18:1). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 163:2-3) is, "'No part' - in the booty. 'Or inheritance' - in the land." Yet you are able to challenge me and ask, "Why did you list these matters as two commandments, for they are a prohibition about taking a portion in the spoil and the territory of the land, and both of them are within one negative statement?" You, the questioner, should know that this negative statement has already been divided by His saying, "The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part" - and that is the prohibition about the taking of the booty of the city. Whereas the second is, "And they shall have no inheritance" (Deuteronomy 18:2) - and that is the prohibition about the taking of a portion in the land. And the prohibition of these very two matters has already been repeated to the priests - and that is His saying to Aharon, "You will have no inheritance in their land," at the time of division of the land; "and you will not have a share among them," in the booty. And maybe you would think that these two laws of the priests are two [additional] commandments, such that it is fitting to count them. [However] know that when the prohibition comes to the whole tribe of Levi, the priests have surely already been included. Rather it was repeated with the priests to strengthen [it]. And likewise [with] anything similar to this of general categories and specific items - it is indeed repeated to strengthen [it] or to round out the law when it would not have been complete from [only] one prohibition. However if we were to count His saying to Aharon, "You will have no inheritance in their land," as an addition to that which He said, "The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no" - you would surely be obligated according to this very comparison to count the divorcee, the desecrated woman and the zonah to the high priest as three negative commandments besides the three negative commandments that came from the general category of priests, whether a high [priest] or an ordinary [one]. And if one would say that those are also appropriate to be counted - behold we would say to him that perforce the high priest with a divorcee would be liable twice: Once on account of [being] a priest, and a divorcee is forbidden to him; and secondly on account of [being] a high priest, since she is also forbidden to him with a different negative statement. Yet it has already been explained in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 77a) that he is only liable once. Behold it has been confirmed that a prohibition that is within a general category is the only one to be counted; and that a prohibition which appears about that very content for the individual item - it is in fact only to teach one of the regulations or to round out the law, as I explained in Commandment 165 of these (positive) commandments. And from this very category is the prohibition in which He prohibited the priests, "They shall not make baldness on their heads [...]" (Leviticus 21:5). And all of Israel as a general category had already been prohibited with these three negative commandments already when He said, "You shall not round off the corners of your head" (Leviticus 19:27); "you shall not gash yourselves" (Deuteronomy 14:1); and "lacerations for the dead" (Leviticus 19:28). So it was actually repeated for the priests just to round out the law - as it is explained at the end of Makkot (Makkot 20a), when they explained the regulations of these three commandments. But were they negative commandments specifically for the priests and were not to round out the law - but rather commandments themselves - the priest would have been liable two [sets of] lashes for each such act, due to his being an Israelite, and due to his being a priest (respectively). But the matter is not like this. Rather there is one [set of] lashes, like [for] other Israelites, as is explained in its place. And understand this. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 13.)

He prohibited us from making a bald spot on the head for the dead, as is done by the fools. And that is His saying, "nor make any baldness" (Deuteronomy 14:1). And this prohibition was repeated for the priest with His saying, "They shall not make baldness, etc." (Leviticus 21:5) - to round out this law: As from His saying, "between the eyes," we could have said that it would only be forbidden when one makes himself bald on his head near his forehead. And so He explained and said (in the other verse), "on their heads" - to make liable [for anywhere] on the head, like [he is for] between the eyes. Yet also if He [had only] said, "They shall not make baldness on their heads," we would have [then] said whether for the dead or not for the dead. So He already explained [in Deuteronomy], "for the dead." Thus anyone who makes a bald spot the size of a barley seed specifically for the dead is lashed. Whether he is an Israelite or a priest, he is lashed one [set of] lashes for each and every bald spot. And likewise that which He repeated with the priests - "neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, etc." - certainly came to round out the law of the commandment, as is explained in Makkot (Makkot 21a). (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 12.)

That a common priest not become defiled with a dead body except for the relatives elucidated in Scripture: That a common priest not become defiled with a dead body except for the relatives elucidated in Scripture, as it is stated (Leviticus 21:1), "shall not become impure for his people" - meaning to say, each one of the priests should not become impure for a dead soul. And even though a good soul does not die, the verse referred to the body with the name, soul, since it is the essence [of a person].

It is from the roots of the commandment [that] since the priests were chosen for the service of God, blessed be He - as the verse stated, "they shall be holy to their God" (Leviticus 21:6) - therefore, He distanced them from the dead. And I have already written above (Sefer HaChinukh 159) that the substance of impurity is something that is disgusting and vile. And the Sages explained about the body of a dead person that it is the primary source of the primary sources (avi avot) of impurity - meaning to say that it has very strong impurity, above all [other] impurity. And the matter is that in the separation from him of the living, good form of the intellect, [the body] remains by itself, as 'he is also only flesh' - base and inferior, and seeking evil things; and also in its great evil, it led the precious soul to sin when it was still dwelling with it. Hence it is fitting that it make impure all that is around it, in the stripping of its glory from it - and that is the soul - and [when] only the evil substance remains in it. And it is truly fitting that the servants of God, may He be blessed, distance themselves from it - except for the relatives that are permitted to them, as they are their brothers, their flesh. As all the ways of the Torah 'are pleasant and its paths are peace,' and it did not want to grieve them so much. As their hearts would be heated about the dead relative, that they could not approach into the tent that he is in and pour out their spirits and satiate their souls with crying about him. And I saw a hint about the reason which I wrote about the impurity of the dead; as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Talmud Yerushalmi Berakhot 3:1) that the completely righteous do not render impure. And from what appears, the intention is [that it is] because their bodies are pure and clean and they did not bring their soul to sin, but [rather] aided it to receive merit. And therefore their soul rose in a 'kiss,' and upon their cadaver sown light will shine forever.

The commandment of the matter of the impurity of the priests for their relatives, and included in it is that each one in Israel should mourn for their six relatives [the identify of which is] well-known: That the priests should become impure for the dead bodies (the relatives) that are mentioned in the Torah, as it is stated (Leviticus 21:3), "for her, he shall become impure." And this is a positive commandment, as so did the explanation come. And so is it explained in Sifra, Emor, Section 1:12, "'For her, he shall become impure' - is a commandment. If he does not want to become impure, we make him impure by force." And were it not that we received this explanation from our Sages, I would have reasoned to say that it be optional - if he wants, he becomes impure; if he does not want, he does not become impure - since Scripture prevented him from becoming impure for the rest of his relatives. And I would have said that regarding these mentioned in the section of the Torah, they were permitted to become impure if they wanted. Hence the explanation about it came to us - that it is not optional, but rather a commandment. And the Sages, may their memory be blessed, mentioned a story that Yosef the priest came when his wife died on the eve of Pesach and he did not want to become impure, and the Sages pushed him and made him impure by force. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 37), "And this itself is the commandment of mourning - meaning to say that each person in Israel is obligated to mourn for his relatives, meaning the six relatives mentioned in Scripture." And the verse that the Rabbi brought [as a source] (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Mourning 1:1) for the commandment of mourning is that which is stated by Aharon, "if I had eaten the sin-offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord?" (Leviticus 10:19). And he said, "And for the strengthening of this commandment did they elucidate about the priest that he is warned about impurity, that he should become impure regardless like other Israelites, in order that the laws of mourning not become weakened. And it was already elucidated that mourning of the first day is by Torah writ - and that is the day of death and burial. And they said in the elucidation in Moed Katan 14b [that] it is not practiced on the holiday - the positive commandment of the many comes and pushes off the positive commandment of the individual. And behold, it is elucidated [from this] that the obligation of mourning is from Torah writ and that it is a positive commandment - but only on the first day. And the remaining six [days] are rabbinic. And even a priest observes mourning on the first day, as he becomes impure for his relatives. And understand this." To here [are his words].

That a priest who immersed that day (tevul yom) not serve until his sun set: That a priest who immersed that day not serve until his sun sets. And even though he immersed and became pure, he needs the setting of the sun - since he is like a secondary impurity until his sun sets. As so did they, may their memory be blessed, explain, "it shall be brought into water and be impure until evening and become pure" (Leviticus 11:32): The verse called one who immersed that day impure, even though he immersed, until his sun set (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Other Sources of Defilement 10:1). But nonetheless he is not impure like he was before the immersion. As at the beginning, he was a primary impurity and after the immersion he is called a secondary impurity. And about this is it stated (Leviticus 21:6), "and they shall not desecrate the name of their God." As so did the received explanation come about it, and so is it in the ninth chapter of Sanhedrin 83b. As there they said, "'Holy shall they be to their God, and they shall not desecrate the name of their God'; if it is not regarding one impure - as it was already elucidated (Sefer Hachinukh 178) - teach it for the matter of the one who has immersed on that day." And it is learned over there from [the inferential comparison] of "desecration" [and] "desecration."

That a priest not marry a licentious woman (zonah): That a priest - whether a common priest or a high priest - not marry a licentious woman as a wife, as it is stated (Leviticus 21:7), "A woman who is licentious or profaned they shall not take." And the expression, "take," implies by way of marriage. Therefore he is not lashed for her unless he marries her and has intercourse with her. As so did the explanation come, that there is no liability until he has intercourse with her, as we shall write with God's help.

That a priest not marry a profaned woman (challalah): That a priest - whether a high [priest] or a common [one] - not marry a profaned woman, as it is stated (Leviticus 21:7), "A woman who is licentious or profaned they shall not take." And profaned is called one who was born from those disqualified from the priesthood - such as the daughter of a widow from the high priest or the daughter of a divorcee from a common priest - or was profaned by the intercourse of one of those disqualified to the priesthood.

A priest that has intercourse with a possibly licentious woman, such as a possible convert or freed [maidservant], or with a possible divorcee; and so [too,] a high priest who has intercourse with a possible widow - behold this is a doubtfully profaned woman and the offspring is a doubtfully profaned priest. It comes out that there are three [types of] profaned priests: a profaned priest from Torah writ; a profaned priest from the words of [the Rabbis]; and a doubtfully profaned priest. And we give upon any doubtfully profaned priest or profaned priest from the words of [the Rabbis], the stringencies of the priests and the stringencies of the Israelites. He does not eat from the priestly tithe and does not become impure for the dead and he must marry a woman that is fitting for a priest. And if he ate priestly tithe or became impure or married a divorcee, a profaned woman [or a] licentious woman, we strike him with rabbinic lashes of rebellion. But behold, a certainly profaned priest from Torah writ is like a non-priest and marries a divorcee and becomes impure for the dead; as it is stated (Leviticus 21:1), "Speak to the priests, the sons of Aharon" - even though they are sons of Aharon, [not] until they are in the [their] priesthood. And they, may their memory be blessed, also received (Sifra, Emor, Section 1:2) as the explanation of that verse, "'The sons of Aharon,' and not the daughters of Aharon - from here that fit women are not warned (prohibited) from marrying disqualified ones." And so a priestess is permitted to marry a profaned priest, a convert and a freed [slave]. And therefore they, may their memory be blessed, said (Kiddushin 73a) that a convert is permitted to marry a priestess and a mamzeret: a priestess for the reason we said, that they were not warned from marrying ones disqualified; and a mamzeret on account that the congregation of converts is not called a congregation - and with the prohibition of the mamzer, it is written (Deuteronomy 23:3), "A mamzer shall not come into the congregation of the Lord." And that which they said (Kiddushin 77a) that all the seed of a profaned priest that married a fit woman are profaned priests and disqualified to the priesthood; since the offspring goes after the father in this matter, as it is stated (Numbers 1:18), "and they shall be pedigreed by their families [according to the houses of their fathers]." And any widow from a family into which a possible profaned priest was mixed is forbidden to a priest at the outset. But if she married [him], she should not leave (be divorced) - since there is a double doubt. And we are not concerned about a double doubt, even in a [law] of Torah writ. But if a certainly profaned priest is mixed into a family, every woman from it is forbidden to marry a priest, until he examines [her lineage]. And the rest of its details are in Kiddushin and Yevamot.

That a priest not marry a divorcee: That a priest - whether a high [priest] or a common [one] - not marry a divorcee, as it is stated (Leviticus 21:7), "and a woman divorced from her husband they shall not take."

The commandment of sanctifying the seed of Aharon: To sanctify the seed of Aharon - meaning to say, to sanctify them and to bring them in to the sacrifice - and that is the essence of the positive commandment - and likewise to have them precede in every thing of holiness. And if they refuse this, we do not listen to them. And this is all for the honor of God, may He be elevated, since He took them and chose them for His service. As it is stated (Leviticus 21:8), "And you shall make him holy" - for every thing in holiness: to open first; to bless first; and to take a nice piece first. And the language of Sifra, Emor, Chapter 1:13 is "'And you shall make him holy,' against his will" - meaning to say that we are commanded in this commandment and it is not the choice of the priest. And they also said (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 1:13), "'Holy shall they be to their God' (Leviticus 21:6) - against their will; 'and they will be holy' - to include those with blemishes, that we not say, 'Since those are not fitting "to offer the bread of their Lord," why should we have this one precede and we honor him?' Hence, its stating, 'and they will be holy'" - meaning that all of the seed is holy, [both] those unblemished and those with blemishes.

The commandment of sanctifying the seed of Aharon: To sanctify the seed of Aharon - meaning to say, to sanctify them and to bring them in to the sacrifice - and that is the essence of the positive commandment - and likewise to have them precede in every thing of holiness. And if they refuse this, we do not listen to them. And this is all for the honor of God, may He be elevated, since He took them and chose them for His service. As it is stated (Leviticus 21:8), "And you shall make him holy" - for every thing in holiness: to open first; to bless first; and to take a nice piece first. And the language of Sifra, Emor, Chapter 1:13 is "'And you shall make him holy,' against his will" - meaning to say that we are commanded in this commandment and it is not the choice of the priest. And they also said (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 1:13), "'Holy shall they be to their God' (Leviticus 21:6) - against their will; 'and they will be holy' - to include those with blemishes, that we not say, 'Since those are not fitting "to offer the bread of their Lord," why should we have this one precede and we honor him?' Hence, its stating, 'and they will be holy'" - meaning that all of the seed is holy, [both] those unblemished and those with blemishes.

That a high priest not enter the tent of a dead body: That a high priest not enter the tent of a dead body - and even for one of the six commanded dead [relatives], as it is stated (Leviticus 21;11), "And for all dead souls, he shall not come" - meaning to say, he should not enter into the house with them. As the expression, "he shall not come" implies entering [entering a house].

That the high priest not become impure with any impurity: That the high priest not become impure - even with a dead body from among his relatives, and all the more so with all the other dead bodies in the world - with a type from the types of impurity, whether through touching or whether through carrying, as it is stated (Leviticus 21:11), "for his mother or for his father, he shall not become impure." [This is] meaning to say, even for these which are his relatives. And even though it forbade him from becoming impure for all souls at the beginning of the verse, that is impurity of coming into the tent of a dead body, as we explained there (Sefer HaChinukh 270). As behold, there it is written, "he shall not come," which implies coming into a tent. Whereas here all of the other types of impurity are forbidden more generally. And do not think that that which it stated, "for his father and for his mother, etc.," is an explanation of the beginning of the verse that stated, "And for all dead souls, etc." - as the matter is not like this. But [rather,] they are two [distinct] negative commandments, "he shall not come," and "he shall not become impure." And the language of Sifra, Emor, Section 2:4 is "He is liable for 'he shall not come,' and he is liable for 'he shall not become impure.'" And they, may their memory be blessed likewise said, that a common priest is liable for "he shall not come," and "he shall not become impure" - even though it is not written about him - stemming from the law of an inferential comparison; as both of them were forbidden from becoming impure with a soul, and as it appears in the Gemara. However we should not count "he shall not come" and "he shall not become impure" for a common priest as two negative commandments, such as we counted them for a high priest. [This is] as they are written explicitly with a high priest; while with a common priest, one is learned from an inferential comparison. And the elder has already instructed - that is Rambam, may his memory be blessed - that we should only count those that are explicit in Scriputre in the tally of the six hundred and thirteen commandments, but not those that are learned through the hermeneutic principles through which the Torah is expounded.

The commandment of a high priest to marry a virgin maiden: That a high priest marry a virgin maiden, as it is stated (Leviticus 21:13), "And he shall take a woman in her virginity." The proof that this is considered to be from the positive commandments is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Ketuvot 30a), "Rabbi Akiva would make a mamzer (one illegitimate) even from those liable from a positive commandment." And they elucidated that this is when a high priest has intercourse with a woman who is not a virgin, who is prohibited to him by a positive commandment. As it is a principle with us that a negative commandment inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. And they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Horayot 11b), "He is cautioned about the widow and commanded about the virgin."

That a high priest not marry a widow: That only a high priest not marry a widow, as it is stated (Leviticus 21:14), "A widow and a divorcee and a profaned woman, a licentious woman - these he shall not take." And the verse did not need to repeat the prohibition of "a divorcee and a profaned woman, a licentious woman" with a high priest - as they were forbidden more generally to any priest, and he is the head of the priests. And therefore, they, may their memory be blessed, explained (Kiddushin 77a), that the repetition of this warning of "a divorcee and a profaned woman, a licentious woman" with a high priest comes to teach us this matter: And they said in the Gemara in Kiddushin that it comes to teach that at a time that it happens that all of these prohibitions happen with one woman in this order - that at first, she is widowed; and afterwards she divorces; and afterwards she is profaned; and afterwards she becomes a licentious woman - and the high priest has intercourse with her, he is liable four [sets] of lashes for one intercourse. And this is when he was warned about [the] four negative commandments. And if a common priest had intercourse with her, he will be lashed three [sets]. And the reason that they are liable for several [sets of] lashes when [her status changed] in this order is because there is a supplementary prohibition in this matter. And [it is] as we wrote above close by in the commandment of the prohibition of a divorcee to a priest (Sefer HaChinukh 268) - that a prohibition does not rest upon [another] prohibition except when it is a supplementary prohibition or [it was] an inclusive prohibition (issur kollel) or [several prohibitions come] at one time, as it is explained in Tractate Keritot 14b. And it is not necessary to say that if he had intercourse with four women and one of them was a widow, one was a divorcee, one was a profaned woman and one was a licentious woman and he was warned about all of them, he is liable for four [sets] of lashes - whether he has intercourse in the order or not in the order - since they are different bodies.

And if you will ask and say, how can he be lashed several [sets of] lashes - whether for one woman or several - take heed, it is established for us that we do not administer lashes for a general negative commandment; [and] behold, this is a general negative commandment, as behold the prevention of all of them comes from one negative commandment - and as we wrote above (Sefer HaChinukh 7) according to the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed! The answer is - know that they, may their memory be blessed, elucidated this matter; and that is their saying in the Gemara Kiddushin 77b about that which is written about a common priest (Leviticus 21:7), "and a woman divorced from a man they shall not take," that it is for this reason that the divorcee was separated with [its own] negative commandment - to teach that we administer lashes for the divorcee on her own. And [just] like we administer lashes for the divorcee on her own, so do we administer lashes for the profaned woman and for the licentious woman on her own. And they said there, "In the same way that a divorcee and a profaned woman and a licentious woman [are] divided [into separate negative commandments] with a common priest, so too [are they] divided with a high priest." And to teach these things was the prevention repeated with a high priest, as we said.

That a high priest not have intercourse with a widow: That a high priest not have intercourse with a widow - and even without designation (kiddushin), as it is stated (Leviticus 21:15), "And he shall not profane his seed among his people." And they said in Kiddushin 78a, "A high priest with a widow is lashed two [sets], on account of 'he shall not take,' and on account of 'he shall not profane'" - meaning that if he married her and had intercourse with her, he is lashed two [sets of] lashes. But if he had intercourse with her without having designated her, he is lashed on account of "he shall not profane"; and like Rava says there: "Rava concedes in [the case of] a high priest with a widow, that if he had intercourse and did not designate [her], he is lashed. What is the reason? As [the Torah] states, 'And he shall not profane his seed,' and behold, he profaned." If he designated her and did not have intercourse with her, he is not lashed on account of 'he shall not take' - as behold, we say there, "For what reason is he commanded 'he shall not take?' On account of 'he shall not profane.'" It is implied that the whole time that he does not profane, he is not lashed.

That a priest with a blemish not serve in the Temple: That a priest with a blemish not serve in the Temple service, as it is stated (Leviticus 21:17), "A man from your seed in their generations who has a blemish shall not approach to offer the bread of his God." [This is] meaning that he may not approach for the service, because all types of food are called bread in many places (see Rashi on Genesis 31:54). And this blemish [referred to in this context] is permanent. As so did they explain in Sifra, Emor, Section 3:5, "'Who has a blemish shall not approach' - I only have a permanent blemish. From where [do we know] a transient blemish? [Hence] we learn to say in the same section (Leviticus 21:18), 'any man who has a blemish shall not come close'" (meaning it is from another verse and not this one). And a permanent blemish is like a boil-scar or a protrusion, and that is a growth.

That a priest with a blemish not serve in the Temple: That a priest with a blemish not serve in the Temple service, as it is stated (Leviticus 21:17), "A man from your seed in their generations who has a blemish shall not approach to offer the bread of his God." [This is] meaning that he may not approach for the service, because all types of food are called bread in many places (see Rashi on Genesis 31:54). And this blemish [referred to in this context] is permanent. As so did they explain in Sifra, Emor, Section 3:5, "'Who has a blemish shall not approach' - I only have a permanent blemish. From where [do we know] a transient blemish? [Hence] we learn to say in the same section (Leviticus 21:18), 'any man who has a blemish shall not come close'" (meaning it is from another verse and not this one). And a permanent blemish is like a boil-scar or a protrusion, and that is a growth.

The laws of the commandment: That which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bekhorot 43a) that there are three kinds of blemishes. There are some blemishes that disqualify a priest from serving, and if they are in a beast, they disqualify it from being offered. And there are some other blemishes that only disqualify a person from the service, but do not disqualify a beast from being offered. And there are some blemishes that disqualify neither man nor beast, and [our concern] is because of [their] appearance. Any priest that has any of these three types of blemishes may not serve. Only revealed blemishes that are revealed (external) disqualify a person, but blemishes that are inside of his body, such as a removed kidney or spleen, or a punctured intestine - even though they render him a treifah (terminally ill) - his service is still fit. As it is stated (Leviticus 21:9), "a broken leg or a broken hand" - just as those are revealed, so too must all disqualifying blemishes be revealed. The Sages enumerated (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Admission into the Sanctuary 7-8) that the blemishes that disqualify both people and beast are fifty, besides the blemishes that are unique to beasts and they are twenty-three; and [so] it comes out that there are seventy-three in beasts. And there are also blemishes that are unique to people and they are ninety; and [so] it comes out that the blemishes in people are one hundred and forty. This is the grouping of the ninety that are unique to people: there are eight in the head; two in the neck; four in the ears; five in the eyebrows; four in the eyelids; eleven in the eyes; six in the nose; three in the lips; three in the belly; three in a man's back; six in the hands; four in the genital organs; fifteen in the thighs and legs; four over the entire body; eight in the skin of the flesh. And there are also four more big blemishes in people and they are not external, and these are them: a deaf[-mute]; one mentally incapacitated; an epileptic, even if [only on certain] days; and one who is bewildered by an evil spirit, even [only] at set times. In addition to these there are two more that disqualify because of their appearance, and these are them: one whose eyelashes have fallen off, even though the hair remains at the root; and one whose teeth have been removed.

That a priest with a transient blemish not serve: That a priest with a transient blemish not serve, as it is stated (Leviticus 21:21), "Any man that has a blemish from the seed of Aharon the priest shall not come forth" - [the] word, "any," is an inclusion; and it includes a transient blemish. As at the beginning, it warns about a permanent blemish, such that I would reason that it is permitted to serve with a transient blemish which is less weighty than it. Therefore it warned about the transient, and that is the garav and the yalefet.

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Kiddushin 66b) that both one with a permanent blemish or [ one with] a transient blemish disqualifies the service and is lashed - if he served (transgressed) volitionally. And that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishnah Middot 5:4) that the Great Court would sit in the chamber of hewn stone and their main constant activity was to check the priests in their pedigree and their blemishes. And any priest that was found to be disqualified in his pedigree wears black, wraps himself in black and goes out of the [Temple] yard. But one found complete and fit wears white, enters and serves with his brother priests. And one who was found fit in his pedigree but a blemish was found on him sits in the chamber of wood and removes the wormy wood for the arrangement [of wood]. And he divides the holy foods with his clan and eats, as it is stated (Leviticus 21:22), "The bread of His God from the holy of the holies and from the holy he may eat." And the rest of the laws of all of the blemishes are in Bekhorot, the seventh chapter.

That one with a blemish not enter the entire sanctuary: That one with a blemish not enter the sanctuary in its entirety - meaning to say the altar, between the chamber and the altar and all the rest of the places in the sanctuary, as it is stated (Leviticus 21:23), "But to the curtain he shall not come and to the altar he shall not come." And it is elucidated in Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3:10 that these two negative commandments of the curtain and the altar do not suffice, one without the [other]. And each of them comes to complete the law as one matter - and it is to distance the place that is forbidden for them to enter in [from them].

However the man that is a nazirite to God is holy to God all the days of his nazirite vows and - as the verse attests to him (Numbers 6:7) - "as the crown of his God is upon him," he will not become impurified with worldly desires, and he will not be found at parties and the banquets of his companions. As his separation from wine shows about him that he has given his heart to prepare himself and to afflict himself before God, to improve the ways of his soul and to leave the pleasures of the benighted body. And since he has placed all of his heart and all of his thoughts towards his dear soul and he has abandoned all of his own needs and those of his flesh, what would be his desire for the drawing close of his companions and his friends - besides for the commandment, without a doubt. As with the raising of the soul, the pleasures of the body and all of its matters become very light in its eyes. All the more so will it not seek the company of other bodies, whether they be relatives or [others], and it will not find delight in any of their things, besides the holy service to which it is connected and to which its eyes are always directed. And hence from his great holiness and separation from his brothers, the Torah prevents him from becoming impure for them. And [it is] like the matter of the high priest - as since his matters are very elevated and he is separated from the company of his friends, and his pursuits and thoughts are only about the service of his God, may He be blessed, the Torah prevents him from becoming impure for anyone of his relatives. And the stated explanation for his distancing from impurity is also stated about the nazirite; except that with the priest, it mentions oil, since he is anointed with it, but with the nazirite, it does not mention oil. As with the priest, it states (Leviticus 21:22), "as the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him." But with the nazirite, it [only] states, "as the crown of his God is upon him." And maybe you will think to respond to me, that when a temporary nazirite finishes his time, he will return to his obliviousness and chase after his desires; and, if so, why should he be more stringent than a regular priest? The answer is that after a person takes on being a nazirite one time, there is hope for him to sanctify himself and to add to his goodness each day. And he will be agreed to from the Heavens and like the matter that they, may their memory be blessed, said (Shabbat 104a), "One who comes to purify himself, is assisted." And since he has taken on being a nazirite even one day, he is assisted and will finish all of his days in purity.

To not make a bald spot for the dead: To not make bald the hair of the head [in mourning] for the dead, like those lacking intellect do. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 14:1), "and do not place a bald spot between your eyes for the dead." And this prohibition is repeated about the priests, as it is stated about them (Leviticus 21:5), "They shall not shave a bald spot upon their heads." And we learned from there to make liable [for] upon the head like between the eyes, as it comes in Tractate Makkot 20a. And from this verse [in Deuteronomy], they also learned that there is only liability for a bald spot when it is a bald spot specifically for the dead. And it comes out that with the two verses, there is completion of the commandment and its elucidation: That all - whether Israelite or whether priest - are liable for the whole head, like between the eyes. And you should not ask in this place and in any thing similar to it, why all of the elucidation of the verse is not in one place. For is your mind not put to rest about these matters in many places with my introduction that I wrote to you at the beginning of this book of Deuteronomy?

That the tribe of Levi not take a portion in the spoils: That the whole tribe of Levi not take a portion in that which Israel despoiled upon their entering into the land (see Sefer Hamitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 170), and in that which they would despoil from their enemies afterwards. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 18:1), "There shall not be a portion and inheritance for the priests." And so [too,] does it appear in Sifrei Devarim 163, "'Portion' in the spoils, 'inheritance' in the land." And let not the matter of a general prohibition be difficult for you about this negative commandment (as there appear to be two prohibitions from the same phrase); since two prohibitions come in Scripture about these two negative commandments - and they are, "There shall not be a portion and inheritance for the priests, the Levites," and also afterwards, "And no inheritance shall be for him, etc." (Deuteronomy 18:2). And these two negative commandments themselves are repeated for the priests, as it is stated with Aharon (Numbers 18:20), "In their land you shall not inherit, and there will not be a portion for you among them." And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sifrei Bamidbar 119), "'In their land you shall not inherit' - at the time of the division of the land; 'and there will not be a portion for you among them' in the spoils." And even thought the priests were in the tribe of Levi, the prevention is repeated about them for strengthening. And so [too,] all that is similar to this in the Torah, such that it repeats negative commandments in many places - it is all to strengthen the matter or to complete the law when it is not complete from the one negative commandment. And you will understand why God made it lack in one place and completed in another from that which I wrote at the beginning of the book of Eleh HaDevarim (Deuteronomy). And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer Hamitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 170), "If we had counted these negative commandments, which are 'In their land, you shall not inherit, etc.' about the priests, additionally to the negative commandments stated about the Levites, etc., it would, according to this comparison, be fitting likewise for us to count the prohibition of the divorcee, the challalah and the zonah for the high priest as three additional negative commandments in addition to the three that came on every priest - whether common or high. And if the speaker say that this is so, we shall answer him with what they, may their memory be blessed, said in Kiddushin 77b that a high priest is only liable one [punishment] for a divorcee. And were the law to be [that a high priest is transgressing two commandments], he would be liable two for it - one because of [being] a priest, since a divorcee is forbidden to him, and a second from the angle of his being high priest, since she is forbidden to him in a different negative commandment. And from this type itself are the preventions that came to the priests for 'They shall not make a bald spot on their heads, and they shall not shave their beards and their flesh they shall not gash with a gash' (Leviticus 21:5); as they were already preceded for all of Israel more generally, in its stating, 'You shall not round off the corner, etc.' (Leviticus 19:27), 'and you shall not place a bald spot' (Deuteronomy 14:10), 'And a marking for a soul, you shall not put onto your flesh, etc.' (Leviticus 19:28). However these were repeated with the priests to complete the law, as is elucidated at the end of Tractate Makkot 20a. And therefore a priest that transgresses one of these is only liable for one [set] of lashes. And understand this principle and guard it."