Commentaire de citation sur Le Lévitique 21:17

In the Torah portion of Emor (Leviticus 21:17), it will be explained, with God’s help, that any physical blemish is not so disqualifying in itself, but rather because it indicates some negative trait in the body, whether in animals or humans. Therefore, it is written which has a blemish, any evil thing, because the blemish indicates some evil thing as mentioned. For this reason, they were careful that the Sanhedrin [high court] members should be free from any blemish. Thus, they said: “Just as they were clean in righteousness, so were they clean from blemishes.” Why did they connect blemishes with righteousness? Certainly because one depends on the other.
And by way of allusion, we can say that we learn the unclear from the explicit. It is written here blemish, and it is written there And if there is a blemish in it, lame or blind (Deuteronomy 15:21) — just as there it refers to lameness or blindness, so too here. From this, derive also regarding the blemish that disqualifies one from the Sanhedrin: it refers to one who takes bribes, for this leads to blindness, and to the perversion of justice, for he limps on his thigh and his foot does not stand on level ground; rather he wavers between two opinions and he totters. As it is written and takes no bribe against the innocent; he who does these things shall never be moved (Psalms 15:5). This implies that one who takes bribes totters, and a lame person typically totters.

[If a woman was betrothed] on condition that she has no bodily defects, and she was found to have defects, she is not betrothed. If he married her without making any conditions and she was found to have defects, she leaves without her ketubah. All defects which disqualify priests also disqualify women. The same rule concerning a woman subject to vows is also true with regard to a woman who has physical defects. If he specifically stipulated that she not have any physical defects (assumedly ones that he could not detect when she was clothed), and she does, the betrothal is invalid. If he did not make a stipulation, the betrothal is valid but he may divorce her without paying the ketubah. With regard to physical defects, it is essential for us to know what physical defects are significant enough that they invalidate the betrothal or allow the husband to divorce her without paying the ketubah. The answer is that any defect that disqualifies a priest from serving at the altar (see Lev 21:17), also disqualifies a woman. These defects are listed in the seventh chapter of tractate Bekhorot.

[If a woman was betrothed] on condition that she has no bodily defects, and she was found to have defects, she is not betrothed. If he married her without making any conditions and she was found to have defects, she leaves without her ketubah. All defects which disqualify priests also disqualify women. The same rule concerning a woman subject to vows is also true with regard to a woman who has physical defects. If he specifically stipulated that she not have any physical defects (assumedly ones that he could not detect when she was clothed), and she does, the betrothal is invalid. If he did not make a stipulation, the betrothal is valid but he may divorce her without paying the ketubah. With regard to physical defects, it is essential for us to know what physical defects are significant enough that they invalidate the betrothal or allow the husband to divorce her without paying the ketubah. The answer is that any defect that disqualifies a priest from serving at the altar (see Lev 21:17), also disqualifies a woman. These defects are listed in the seventh chapter of tractate Bekhorot.