Tafsiran Imamat 21:3: Rashi, Siftei Chakhamim, Rav Hirsch & Chizkuni

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].

V. 3. הקרובה: selbst wenn sie ארוסה gewesen, aber אשר .נתגרשה מן הארוסין לא היתה לאיש: schon nicht als ארוסה (Jebamot 60a). – לא רצה ,מצוה :לה יטמא מטמאין אותו בעל כרחו (Sebachim 100a), die Verunreinigung an den Leichen der hier genannten Verwandten ist nicht nur gestattet, sondern Pflicht.

אשר לא היתה לאיש, WHO HATH HAD NO HUSBAND — i. e. who has not yet entered into marital relations with him:

לה יטמא — This is a command, [and the translation is: FOR HER HE SHALL DEFILE HIMSELF, not, “he may defile himself”] (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 12; Zevachim 100a).