Commentaire sur Le Lévitique 21:3

הקרובה [AND FOR HIS SISTER A VIRGIN] THAT IS NIGH UNTO HIM — This is intended to include the sister who was only betrothed and has therefore not yet left her father's house and who is consequently still near to him (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 1; Yevamot 60a), for it continues

The betrothed. You might ask, why not say the opposite, that it comes to exclude the betrothed, that he may not become defiled for her? The answer is that if so, the verse need not have written “closely related,” and I would still know that the betrothed is excluded because it says “who has not yet been married” (לא היתה), since “married” (הויה) generally means betrothal. Perforce, “closely related” is coming to include, that he may become defiled for her. And [therefore], “who has not yet been married” must mean “consummated,” as Rashi explains nearby. You might ask: why say that [“closely related”] come to include “the betrothed”? Perhaps “closely related” comes to include “someone [whose signs of virginity were] struck by a stick,” so that you do not exclude “someone struck by a stick” because of the verse “virgin” which [seems to] exclude a non-virgin; and “who has not yet been married” [actually] comes to exclude the betrothed? The answer is that if so, the verse should have written neither “virgin” nor “closely related,” and I would have known that he is permitted to defile himself for “someone struck by a stick.” Therefore we must say that “closely related” comes to include the betrothed, and “who was not married” means “consummation,” and “struck by a stick” is automatically included since she became a nonvirgin without consummation. Do not ask that the verse should write neither “virgin” nor “who was married to a man,” because in that case I would have said that “closely related” comes to exclude the betrothed. Therefore it has to write “who was not married to a man, [which], as Rashi explains above [means that the marriage was consummated], and automatically we also include “struck by a stick.” (Gur Aryeh and Divrei Dovid) You might ask, why is [the phrase] “closely related” [written in the verse dealing with] his sister different such that we expound from it, “to include the betrothed,” whereas regarding “his kin to whom he is closely related” we exclude the betrothed? The Yerushalmi explains that regarding his [the kohein’s] betrothed, so long as she has not had nisu’in she remains in the house of her father and brothers, and therefore we [expound to] exclude her. But regarding his sister, she is [regarded] his close relative until the nisu’in [as] she is in the home of her brothers. Therefore, we expound to include [her].

ולאחותו הבתולה, “and his sister as long as she is still a virgin;” The Talmud in tractate Nazir, folio 47, commenting on this verse, sees in the repetition of the word ולאחותו, “and on account of his sister,” an allusion to the contrast with a corpse who has no one claiming it, and which therefore even the High Priest is not only permitted but commanded to defile himself and bury, out of consideration for human dignity. We find the following comment on this subject in Maimonides, laws concerning mourning, chapter 3, halacha 8: if a High Priest encounters a corpse along the way, and he finds himself so far from the nearest human being that even if he yells at the top of his voice no one can hear him, he is obliged to proceed with burying this corpse. This ruling is based on the Talmud, tractate Yevamot folio 89: ”If the High Priest calls out in order to attract the attention of other human beings, and no one answers his call, this is the situation known as מת מצוה, “a corpse that anyone is called upon to bring to burial forthwith.” This is a decree of great severity, i.e. if there is anyone else available the High Priest must not defile himself in order to perform this last act of kindness for the dead.