레위기 21:1의 주석

אמר אל הכהנים SAY UNTO THE PRIESTS [… AND THOU SHALT SAY UNTO THEM] — “Say" and again “thou shalt say unto them" — this repetition is intended to admonish the adults about their children also — that they should teach them to avoid defilement (Yevamot 114a).

SAY [UNTO THE PRIESTS] … AND THOU SHALT SAY UNTO THEM. “[The repetition of the verb say … and thou shalt say is] to warn the adults about the children” [that they observe this law]. This is Rashi’s language on the basis of the words of our Rabbis.¹Yebamoth 114 a. Now the meaning of this “warning” is to state that we are not to assist with our hands in the defilement of children [but it does not intend to warn us that we are obliged to prevent them from becoming defiled]. There are many admonitions in the Torah of this nature according to the interpretation of our Rabbis,¹Yebamoth 114 a. such being the prohibitions against eating blood and swarming things, and against the defilement [of priests], and from them we learn that [it is applicable to] all prohibitions of the Torah, that we must not assist children in any case to transgress the law. But if they are doing it of their own accord, we²I.e., the court. But his father is obliged to rebuke him and prevent him from doing that which is forbidden (ibid., and such is the final decision of the law, Shulchan Aruch, Hilchoth Shabbath, 343). are not commanded to prevent them [from so doing since they have not yet reached the training period of minors for religious practices, but if they have reached that stage, everyone is commanded to prevent them from doing a prohibited act].³Shulchan Aruch ibid., Rama, and Mishnah Brurah, 7. The meaning of the verse according to its interpretation is then: “say unto the priests … and thou shalt say it over again to them, that they are not to defile themselves,” the purpose of the many warnings being [to teach] that all sons of Aaron are to be guarded from defilement, even the young ones. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said by way of the plain meaning of Scripture, that say unto the priests refers to the section mentioned above [i.e., Seder Kedoshim], since they [the priests] are the teachers of the Torah and it is they who admonish the people; and thou shalt say unto them, meaning those specific commandments which devolve upon them alone to observe, [as mentioned in this section]. But it is not correct [to interpret two such adjacent phrases as referring to two different sections].
In my opinion the plain sense of the verse is as follows: The meaning of emor (say) is like that of dabeir (speak): Give ear to ‘amarai,’ O Eternal⁴Psalms 5:2. is like d’varai (my words). A similar case is ‘imrei’(words of) truth.⁵Proverbs 22:21. This is equivalent to ‘divrei’ emeth (words of truth) — Ecclesiastes 12:10. So also: for it hath heard all ‘imrei’ (the words of) the Eternal.⁶Joshua 24:27. Here too it is like ‘divrei’ Hashem (the words of G-d) in Exodus 24:3. And the expression Go in unto Pharaoh ‘v’dibarta’ (and thou shalt speak) to him⁷Exodus 9:1. is like v’amarta (and thou shalt say). ‘Vayedabeir Mosheh’ (And Moses spoke) unto Aaron, and unto Elazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left: ‘Take the meal-offering,’⁸Above, 10:12. is like vayomer Mosheh (and Moses said). And so also you find in many places that both [amor and dabeir are used in one verse, such as:] ‘Dabeir (Speak) unto the children of Israel, ‘v’amarta’ (and say) unto them,⁹Numbers 15:38. such usage [of the two verbs] being found in those sections where He wishes to warn them strongly [about a certain law] either because of the stringency of the matter, or on account of their habit to commit that sin. Thus ‘emor’ (say) unto the priests … ‘v’amarta’ (and thou shalt say) unto them [is like ‘dabeir’ (speak unto the priests) ‘v’amarta’ (and thou shalt say), as will be explained further on]. Similarly, Thus saith the Eternal, the G-d of Israel: Go ‘v’amarta’ (and say) to Zedekiah king of Judah ‘v’amarta’ (and say) unto him: Thus saith the Eternal etc.¹⁰Jeremiah 34:2. means “Go dabeir (speak) to Zedekiah.” Similarly, ‘Vatomer ha’ishah ha’t'ko’ith’ (And when the woman of Tekoa said) to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and prostrated herself, ‘vatomer’ (and she said): ‘Help, O king’¹¹II Samuel 14:4. is like: “vatedabei’r ha’ishah (and the woman spoke) to the king vatomer (and she said), ‘Help, O king.’” The meaning of Say unto the priests … and thou shalt say unto them is thus like “speak to the priests and say to them,” similar to [that which we find elsewhere], ‘Dabeir’ (speak) unto the children of Israel, ‘v’amarta’ (and say) unto them,⁹Numbers 15:38. the meaning thereof being: “speak to the people in My Name, and say thus to them,” like, Go in unto Pharaoh, and say unto him: [‘Thus saith the Eternal: Let My people go’].¹²Exodus 7:26. — In brief, Ramban up to this point has explained that there is no difference between emor and dabeir, and that the double use of each of these verbs or the use of the two together is to indicate the importance of the subject discussed. I have found a similar view in Yonah ibn Ganach’s Sefer Hashorashim, root dabeir. Now many scholars¹³I have not identified these scholars. say that the meaning of ‘dabeir’ unto the children of Israel is like that of the term kriah (calling), thus: “call unto the children of Israel that they assemble themselves before you, and you shall say to them the following,” and similarly ‘emor’ to the priests means [“call them] to assemble themselves and to listen.”
[SAY UNTO] THE PRIESTS. The reason for [His mentioning the term] the priests [in this section is as follows]: In commandments relating to matters of the offerings He says, Command Aaron and his sons¹⁴Above, 6:2. Or: Speak unto Aaron and his sons (ibid., Verse 18). and does not refer to them by the name “the priests,”¹⁵“The priests.” In the Tur quoting Ramban: “and He does not refer to them by the term of priesthood.” because those subjects concern the offerings or the various degrees of holiness of the Sanctuary. But here He warns the priests that they should never defile themselves for the dead, even at a time when they do not come into the Sanctuary, this being a mark of distinction to them personally; therefore Scripture mentioned here the priests, meaning to say that it is because they are the priests of the Eternal and the ministers of our G-d that He told them to conduct themselves in a manner reflecting honor and greatness, and that they should never become defiled. Thus the priests who are unfit for the priesthood [i.e., those who are born from a marriage forbidden to their father], are excluded from this principle [i.e., they are permitted to defile themselves for the dead].
The explanation of ‘lo yitama’ (he shall not defile himself — in the singular) is that you [i.e., Moses] are to tell the priests that none of them is to defile himself for the dead among his people. Or it may be that [the use of the singular in lo yitama] is connected with the expression of ‘ba’al b’amav’ (a chief man among his people) mentioned below in Scripture,¹⁶Verse 4. and the meaning thereof [here] is: “the chief man among his people is not to defile himself [for the dead].” And the meaning of ba’al b’amav¹⁶Verse 4. is like the expressions: ‘miba’alei Yehudah;’¹⁷II Samuel 6:2. ‘ba’aleigoyim,’¹⁸Isaiah 16:8. namely “the dignitaries” or “the lords” among them [i.e., Judah¹⁷II Samuel 6:2. and the nations¹⁸Isaiah 16:8.], similar to the phrase: ‘ba’alav ein imo’¹⁹Exodus 22:13. — “the master is not with it; “‘ba’al habayith’ — “the master of the house;” as honored people are called “lords.” The verse here is thus stating: “the honored one among his people [i.e., the priest] is not to defile himself for the dead, [in which case] he would be treating his honor with irreverence.” Scripture is thus explaining that it is because of the distinction of the priest, seeing that he is fit to become the highest and most honored one among his people [i.e., the High Priest] that it warns him not to profane his distinction with the impurity of the dead. By means of this statement, Scripture intends to teach us that it should not occur to us to say that the warning [against the priests defiling themselves for the dead] is only when they come into the Tent of Meeting to perform the holy Service. Similarly in this whole section He states that all restrictions [on the priests mentioned here] are due to their distinction. Thus: she profaneth her father;²⁰Verse 9. and he shall not profane his seed.²¹Verse 15. Onkelos likewise translated [Verse 4]: “The chief among his people shall not defile himself, to be profaned thereby.” But in the Torath Kohanim²²Torath Kohanim, Emor 1:15. [ba’al b’amav]¹⁶Verse 4. is interpreted [literally] to refer to “a husband” with reference to his wife, as Rashi has written.²³Thus: “A husband [a priest] shall not defile himself for his wife’s corpse while it is among his people, meaning where there are other persons who can attend to her burial, this applying only to a wife who disqualified him from serving as a priest, because she was forbidden to him in marriage.” But otherwise the priest is to defile himself for his wife, even if there are other people to attend to her burial.

ויאמר ה' אל משה אמור אל הכהנים, what has been written earlier so that they will understand and instruct each other in the various categories of ritual impurities and contaminations, including the difference between ritually pure domestic beasts and birds, for these are the aspects of foremost concern to the priests on a regular basis as we read in 10,10-11 ולהבדיל בין הקדש ובין החול, ובין הטמא ובין הטהור ולהורות, “and to separate the sacred from the profane, and the ritually impure, and between the ritually contaminated, and to teach these values.”

ויאמר ה׳ אל משה, אמור וגו׳ G'd said to Moses: "say! etc." Why does this paragraph begin with the word אמור instead of the word דבר which is the customary introduction when G'd announces legislation? Furthermore, why did the Torah mention the "adjective," i.e. the priests before mentioning the noun that the "adjective" belongs to, i.e. the "sons of Aaron?" The correct description should have been בני אהרון הכהנים! Our sages both in Torat Kohanim and elsewhere have offered a number of explanations why the Torah chose this order. Perhaps the Tanchuma is worth quoting. "G'd said to Moses: 'it is not fitting that someone who goes in and out of My Tabernacle should be exposed to looking at dead bodies all the time, etc.'" Thus far Tanchuma. The address with the word אמור implies a compliment, an advantage; the words אל הכהנים is intended to justify the compliment, i.e. because the priests go in and out in the Tabernacle, i.e. in G'd's Presence where they perform service for the King of Kings. What does this compliment or advantage consist of? The priests are not to defile themselves through contact with the dead, as mentioned in Tanchuma. Seeing the כהנים are privileged to enter the Tabernacle and to be in G'd's presence most of the time, their present superior status is mentioned first before the Torah tells us how they came to be priests, i.e. through being descendants of Aaron. If the Torah had used the customary phraseology this point would not have come across.

לנפש לא יטמא בעמיו, a man belonging to the “nation” of priests must not defile himself by contact with a dead human being. The word בעמיו “of his people,” is used here in the same sense as in verse 14 later on where the Torah decrees that the only suitable marriage partner for a High Priest [if he was not married at the time of his appointment. Ed.] is בתולה מעמיו, “a virgin from his people.” If the Torah had written here לעמיו instead of בעמיו, the meaning would have been more restrictive, i.e. that the priest must only not defile himself by contact with a Jewish corpse. Similar constructions involving the expression לעמיו are found in Numbers 6,7 The expression לנפש allows leeway, as we know from the subsequent verse where it is permitted for the priest or even mandated that he defile himself on the corpses of his closest relatives.

אמור אל הכהנים, “say to the Priests, etc.” The repetition of the words: אמור ואמרת, are intended to signal that the adults are meant to train their youngsters in Judaism and its mores. Nachmanides writes that the warning by the Torah to train the children while they are still small occurs several times in the Torah. It occurs in connection with the legislation not to eat blood, as well as in the prohibition not to eat creepers and the ritual contamination caused by the dead bodies of such creepers. (Compare Midrash Proverbs 14,33) We learn from these various instances that under no circumstances are minors to be encouraged to do things the Torah forbade for adults. However, if such minors, on their own initiative, engage in activities for adults, the adults are not legally required to interfere. It seems to me, (Nachmanides continuing) that as far as ritual contamination is concerned the adults are required to prevent their youngsters from doing this even if the children had themselves initiated these activities forbidden to their parents. This is the reason why the sages did not say –as they had done in respect of eating dead carcasses-“that if a minor is observed eating such meat from dead animals that have not been ritually slaughtered that the court does not need to interfere.” [if the youngster has no father whose duty it is to raise him. Ed.] Nachmanides quotes Psalms 5,2 הקשיבו לקול שועי in support of his view, as well as the extraneous words לא תאכלום, “you must not eat them,” which appear in connection with the legislation to eat neither blood nor creepers. (Leviticus 11,42) The sages interpret this as if the Torah had written לא תאכילום, “do not feed them, etc.” (Yevamot 113) The only reason that the Torah had added this little statement after having forbidden the eating of these reptiles outright previously even with the rider that eating such creepers even contaminates one’s clothing, must be to add the prohibition not to feed such to anyone else with one’s own hands. In our verse here, where the Torah is concerned with the state of ritual purity to be maintained by the priests at all times, the wording is such that it even imposes the need to restrain youngsters from eating such contaminating food when the youngster got hold of it by himself and was not fed by an adult. The reason is that the ritual purity of the priests, even their minors, is to be inviolate as far as is humanly possible. Nachmanides, adding an aggadic interpretation to our verse, adds that the repetition of the words אמור ואמרת, are both addressed to the same priests, a second time, i.e. the Torah feels the need to repeat these instructions again and again to impress upon them the importance of their maintaining their ritual purity. Not only priests engaged in Temple service, not only adult priests, but any male born to the priesthood is charged with preserving his status of ritual purity. Some commentators claim that seeing the Torah had seen fit to alter its mode of address by writing here אל הכהנים בני אהרן instead of simply אל בני אהרן, the meaning is that the כהנים are to transmit the instructions to בניהם, their children even while they are still minors. Ibn Ezra writes that after the Torah had requested that the whole Jewish nation be careful of their ritual purity, the Torah now repeats this theme once more when addressing the priests to whom this is so much more important in their daily lives. It is possible that the interpretation of the words אמור אל הכהנים is a reminder that it is these priests who are charged with teaching the people the laws of the Torah, and it is their duty to warn the people not to become negligent in their observance of the laws of ritual impurity even when there is no immediate requirement to be ritually pure in their daily tasks. Nachmanides writes concerning the last mentioned interpretation that he does not agree with it, and that in his opinion the word אמור here is similar to the word דבר elsewhere in the Torah. אמור אל הכהנים is equivalent toדבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם, [such as in connection with זב or ציצית et al. Ed.] The wording is dictated either by reason of the importance the Torah places on what follows, or because people were in the habit of disregarding the particular laws which followed. Concerning the word הכהנים in our verse, Nachmanides points out that when the Torah addresses the priests in their capacity as functionaries in the Temple carrying out the sacrificial service, etc., the term is simply דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו, “speak to Aaron and his sons,” the fact that they are also priests is not even mentioned, whereas here when the subject is ritual purity, in other words something touching the essence of their being, the Torah does draw attention to this. The message is that not only must the priests be on guard not to enter the Tabernacle while ritually impure, etc., but, they must maintain such purity also “off duty,” so to speak. [This was important in later years when there were thousands of priests and each one had only two weeks’ service, and even during those two weeks only served on a single day in each week. Ed.] As a result of our verses here, priests who do not take part in funerals do not do so because they consider themselves superior, but because the Torah forced them to act in what to some might appear in the wrong light. They maintain a state of purity for G’d’s sake, so as always to be on “call,” if the occasion should arise.

Say (אמור), and you shall say. The verse should only have written, “Speak, to the kohanim.” Therefore [the apparent redundancy teaches us that], “speak” is to warn [the adult kohanim] themselves, “and you shall say” is to warn the adults regarding the minors. You might ask why Rashi does not also say this answer [regarding the verse] “Speak (דבר) (to the entire congregation [of] Bnei Yisroel) and say (אמרת) (to them)” in parshas Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:2). The answer is that דבור is a general [command to speak] and does not explain what the statement will be, while אמרת implies something specific, i.e., say this [particular] thing. Here however, where אמור is [already] specific, Rashi is asking why one needs [a command to say] two specific [statements].

The sons of Aharon. Don’t we already know that the kohanim are the sons of Aharon? The answer is that Aharon was holy to Hashem; he was the source of the holiness of kehunah. Holiness was drawn from him to his sons as well. However, they were not like him in every way, because they were removed from the source. Therefore, Aharon, the source of holiness, was not permitted to become impure for any relative, even for his father or mother. Each Kohen Godol from his descendants resembles him in every way, because he receives the influence of holiness in essence from Hashem, as it is written (21:12), “For the crown of his Hashem’s anointing oil is upon him.” The sons of Aharon, however, who received holiness through Aharon, have two aspects: In and of themselves they have no holiness, but from the aspect of their being Aharon’s sons they do have holiness. Therefore, their laws are split: From the aspect of their portion of holiness they must not become impure for distant relatives, but since they are somewhat removed from the source of holiness they are permitted to become impure for close relatives. Therefore the Torah repeats the statement; the first statement was said to the kohanim the sons of Aharon, on the side that they are the sons of Aharon it is proper to command them: “Let him not defile himself with the dead.” The phrase, “And you shall say to them,” is a second command to the aspect of their essence, which does not have so much extra holiness. This is alluded to by the word aleihem [to them], as if they were not the sons of Aharon. Therefore, it is proper to command them, “except to his kin to whom he is closely related” — it is permitted for them to become impure for close relatives.

[לנפש לא יטמא בעמיו], “he must not ritually defile himself on account of the dead [members] of his people.” If he cannot defile himself in order to bury his relatives, how much less may he do so for people not related to him!

(1) "Say to the priests” - After [the Torah had] warned the Israelites to become holy [19:2], it warns the priests to protect themselves from ritual impurity, given that they are dedicated to God’s service and are considered the members of G-d’s “household” on earth.

בני אהרן THE SONS OF AARON — One might think that חללים (priests who have lost their priestly status for reasons connected with their birth or marriage) also may not defile themselves by the dead, Scripture therefore states, "Say unto the priests", — thus only those sons of Aaron are included who have not lost their priestly character; consequently חללים are excluded (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 1) .

ואמרת אליהם, that the need to exercise caution in addition to these categories of the ritually pure and that which is not, also in regard to impurity conferred through contact with the dead as well as through desecrating their seed.

לנפש לא יטמא, “he shall not contaminate himself for an ordinary dead person.” According to Nachmanides the word לנפש is to be read as part of what follows, i.e. “he must not contaminate himself on account of a dead person.”

The verse says: The kohanim. You might ask, why does Rashi explain the verse in reverse order? He should have first explained “the sons of Aharon” and then [explained] “you shall say to them.” You might also ask, how does he derive all these lessons from “the sons of Aharon”? The answer is that Rashi is explaining as follows: Once I have explained that “you shall say to them” is to “to warn the adults regarding the minors,” why then does the verse need to write “the kohanim, the sons of Aharon”? Without [the first explanation regarding minors] there would be no difficulty as I could say that, if it wrote “the kohanim” and not “the sons of Aharon,” I would think the law only applied to adults and not to minors. Therefore it had to write “the sons of Aharon” in order “to warn the adults regarding the minors.” But now that I derived this from “you shall say to them,” you might ask, why write “the kohanim”? Rashi answers, if it wrote “the sons of Aharon” and not “the kohanim,” I would think even those who are unfit. Therefore the verse says “the kohanim,” i.e., he must be a complete kohein. Rashi then answers another question. How can you explain that “the kohanim” excludes those who are unfit? Perhaps it is needed [for something else], since if it did not write “the kohanim,” but only “the sons of Aharon,” I would think they must be perfect like the sons of Aharon, and it would exclude those who are blemished. Therefore you need “the kohanim” to include the blemished. [To this] Rashi answers that “the sons of Aharon” implies the blemished as well and therefore this would not answer why the verse writes “the kohanim.” Rather, you need it as I answered above, to exclude the unfit. Rashi then answers why the verse writes “the sons of Aharon.” It should only have written “the kohanim” and from that I could exclude the unfit and include the blemished, because both of these [laws] are implied in the word “the kohanim.” He answers that if it did not say “the sons of Aharon,” I would think that even daughters of Aharon are implied in “the kohanim,” because wherever the Torah writes a masculine term, women are also included. Therefore it has to write “the sons of Aharon” and exclude the daughters of Aharon. See Mizrachi who explains in a different way, as follows: You need them both because if it only wrote “the sons of Aharon,” it would imply even the unfit and if so, there would be no exclusionary phrase for the unfit, and they would be included in “sons of Aharon.” [Therefore] it writes “the kohanim” to exclude the unfit. [Rashi] then says, from where do you include even the blemished? Because the verse says “the sons of Aharon.” I.e., there is no exclusionary phrase to exclude them as “the kohanim” came to exclude the unfit, and therefore “the sons of Aharon” implies that even the blemished [should be included]. Thus we are left with a situation where “the sons of Aharon” includes the blemished and [the Torah writes the phrase] to exclude the daughters of Aharon. Whereas if it were only written “the kohanim” one would have thought that women kohanim are included because men and women are [generally] treated the same regarding all the punishments of the Torah. You cannot say the other way round, which would be stringent [as follows]: “’The kohanim.’ You might think, but not the unfit, so the verse says ’the son of Aharon,’ and even the unfit are included in the sons of Aharon.” Because if so, for what would you use the exclusionary expression “the kohanim.”

ואמרת אלהם לנפש לא יטמא בעמיו, "and say to them not to defile himself for the dead amongst his people." Why is the word ואמרת i.e. אמור ואמרת repeated? Our sages in Yevamot 114 as well as in Torat Kohanim offer a variety of commentaries on this. I believe that there is room for still other approaches not yet explored by our classical commentaries. We may do well to refer to what Maimonides wrote in chapter 3 of his treatise on the rules to be observed by mourners. This is what he wrote: "If someone deliberately defiles a priest and the priest co-operates of his own free will, the priest is subject to the corporal punishment of 39 lashes, whereas the person who initiated the defilement is guilty of transgressing the injunction not to place an obstacle in the path of a blind man (Leviticus 19,14). Neither Radbaz nor Maharik comment on this. The problem is whence does Maimonides get the ruling that the priest is liable to 39 lashes? Lechem Mishneh comments as follows: "Maimonides wrote in his treatise on kilayim that if someone dresses a fellow Jew in garments containing a mixture of wool and linen such a person is guilty of 39 lashes provided the person wearing this mixture is unaware of committing a sin." Kesseph Mishneh (Rabbi Joseph Karo) queries this ruling mentioning that the Rosh asked this question of the Rashba without receiving an answer. Perhaps Maimonides' source was Nazir 44 according to which the person who defiles a Nazir is not treated in the same way as the Nazir who became defiled as a result of that person's doing. This is based on Numbers 6,9: וטמא ראש נזרו which means that under normal circumstances the same guilt applies to the person causing the sin as to the one committing it. This is why Maimonides writes in chapter 5,20 of his treatise about the laws of the Nazirite that in this case if the Nazir himself was unaware of committing a sin neither he nor the person defiling him deliberately is subject to מלקות, corporal punishment. Maimonides quotes the verse in Numbers 6,9 as the basis for his ruling. He understands that verse to mean that culpability does not occur until the Nazirite himself defiles his head. This ruling appears incomprehensible. 1) Why should the Nazirite legislation not serve as a בנין אב, as a model for many other similar situations where two parties are involved in committing a sin, the first one being guilty of לפני עור לא תתן מכשול? Furthermore, the situation involving the Nazirite required a special verse to exclude culpability because I could have learned a קל וחומר from the situation in which he shaved his hair and is guilty. Seeing that defiling himself is a more serious sin than shaving off his hair, the Torah had to write a verse to tell us that even defiling himself does not carry the penalty of מלקות. If this is so, it follows that had it not been for this קל וחומר, I would not have needed to write a single verse to exclude the Nazirite's not being guilty of מלקות if someone had deliberately defiled him. In fact the query against Maimonides's ruling in chapter 3 of his treatise on the laws for mourners would have been still stronger!

בני אהרן, “the sons of Aaron,” including minors;”

בני אהרן THE SONS OF AARON — This implies also those of Aaron's sons who have a bodily blemish;

לנפש לא יטמא בעמיו, no one of the priestly caste must ritually defile himself through dead bodies belonging to his nation., i. e. any dead person who is not one of the seven family members for whose sake he is to ritually contaminate himself to arrange for their burial, etc.

Among his people. Because if not so, why say “among his people?” Therefore, it is saying [that this law only applies] when the deceased is among his people and there are many people involved in his burial.

I believe the true reason why Maimonides ruled as he did is based on the Talmud in Nazir 44. This is what the Talmud writes there: "if in the case of someone defiling the Nazirite we do not treat the person causing the impurity as equally guilty as the person who has become defiled (although as a result of this action the preceding days of the Nazirite's abstention are completely invalidated), then in the parallel case of someone shaving off the Nazirite's hair I most certainly would not treat such a person as guilty of corporal punishment (seeing the result of his action did not cause the Nazirite to lose more than a maximum of thirty days of the preceding days during which he had not shaved)! The Torah therefore had to write the word תער לא יעביר על ראשו that the Nazirite must not allow someone else to shave him, to insure that I do not learn such a קל וחומר. According to the Talmud we equate the spelling לא יעביר with the spelling לא יעבור, i.e. that he himself must not apply the razor to his own hair or to someone else's hair. Rashi corrects this wording by saying "someone else must not apply a razor to the hair of the Nazirite." We now need to examine why the Talmud assumes that the word לא יעביר (which is spelled defective) refers to someone other than the Nazirite himself applying the razor to his hair. If the Talmud applied the principle of using our tradition as the basis for the spelling, the word יעבר should have been spelled יעביר with the letter י to indicate the fact that it is meant transitively, i.e. לשון הפעיל. Even if we were to argue that the absence of the letter י is not crucial to the meaning, at least the word לו is missing without which I would not know that the meaning of יעבר without the letter י is transitive and that the Nazirite must not shave others!

לא יטמא בעמיו, “he must not defile himself on account of any Israelite that had died, i.e. although they are all of “his people.”

בני אהרן THE SONS OF AARON — but not the daughters of Aaron (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 1).

The sons of Aharon. And not the daughters of Aharon. Rambam wrote in Hilchos Aveil that this is the reason why women are not obligated to become impure for the dead. [Only] the males are commanded to become impure for them. Since they are not included in the prohibition of “let him not defile himself with the dead,” therefore they are not subject to the commandment of becoming impure …

Excluding a mes mitzvoh. I.e., [when] there is no one to bury [the deceased], he is permitted to become defiled and bury the deceased. A mes mitzvoh is every case where one [the finder of the body] calls [for help] and no one responds. (Gur Aryeh) Re’em raises a difficulty: Why do we need a verse to permit mes mitzvoh? Why not derive this from the Kohein Godol and nazir who may defile themselves for a mes mitzvoh even though they may not defile themselves for their relatives. How much more so should a regular kohein who does defile himself for his relatives be permitted to defile himself for a mes mitzvoh. Should his being a regular kohein make the law more stringent for him than that of a Kohein Godol? It seems that if not for [this] verse, I would think that the verse “he shall not become [ritually] impure” [said of the Kohein Godol] means that he may not defile himself for no purpose, [and is] not [speaking about] for the sake of a mitzvah. But to deal with a corpse in order to bury it, where there is a mitzvah, he is permitted, and it is only forbidden when not for the purpose of a mitzvah. Therefore the Torah writes regarding the regular kohein that whenever the dead body is “among his people” he may not defile himself, and if so, the leniency of the Kohein Godol [too] is [only in] a case of mes mitzvoh that has no one to bury the deceased. But if there are people available to bury the deceased, he is forbidden to become defiled for it even though he would be performing a mitzvah [by doing so].

I believe that the Talmud concentrated on the fact that the Torah used the expression תער לא יעבר על ראשו, "a razor must not pass over his head," instead of the simple לא יגלח את ראשו, "he must not shave his head," or at least לא יעביר על ראשו with the letter י to indicate the transitive meaning of the expression. If the Torah had used the simple expression we would have known that the prohibition applied to the person who was commanded not to shave rather than to the action of the razor. The word יעביר would refer to the Nazir himself who is mentioned adjacently in that verse. The Torah would then have attributed the prohibition to the person committing it and not to the action of the razor. This would not be the impression if we accept the wording תער לא יעבור על ראשו, "a razor must not be applied to his head;" this wording suggests that the principal concern of the Torah is the fact that the hair of the Nazirite is shaved, regardless by whom. This is what the Talmud had in mind with the words: קרי ביה לא יעבור הוא ולא יעביר לו אחר, "read as if it said: 'neither he himself nor someone else must apply the razor to his head.'" Clearly the word is meant to prohibit shaving the Nazirite either by himself or someone else. The words קרי ביה in the Talmud are not really accurate but they describe a concept rather than a grammatical comment.

לא יטמא בעמיו THERE SHALL NONE BE DEFILED BY THE DEAD AMONG HIS PEOPLES — This means, as long as the dead is among his peoples (i. e. so long as there are some of his people — Jews — who can occupy themselves with his burial) thus excluding the case of a מת מצוה (a corpse of a person whose relatives are unknown or which lies in a place where there are no Jews, nor are there any in the near vicinity; cf. Nazir 43b) in which case the priest is allowed to make himself unclean by handling the corpse (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 3).

We can now extrapolate to the laws of כלאים in 19,19 where the Torah wrote: ובגד כלאים שעטנז לא יעלה עליך, "a garment made of a mixture of linen and wool shall not cover you" (יעלה עליך) instead of writing לא תעלה עליך. The word תעלה is transitive and applies to the person putting such a garment on the wearer. The word יעלה is intransitive and applies to the garment rather than to the person putting it on. The Torah's wording makes it plain that it is immaterial who puts the garment on the wearer. If he wears it knowingly he is guilty of violating the prohibition of כלאים. This is why Maimonides rules in chapter 10 subsection 1 of his treatise Hilchot Kilayim that "if someone deliberately places a garment containing a mixture of linen and wool on a fellow Jew he is subject to 39 lashes." Similarly, any ruling in our situation dealing with the defilement of the priest is based on the wording לא יטמא, "he (the priest) must not become defiled." The fact that the Torah does not add a pronoun indicating that it is only the priest himself who must not defile himself makes the verse a warning to anyone else not to contribute to the defilement of the priest. It follows that anyone who defiles a priest, be it the priest himself or someone else, is subject to the penalty of 39 lashes. Maimonides is consistent in all his rulings then.

This brings us to the reason why the Torah saw fit to repeat the word אמר, by writing אמר ואמרת. It is simply that the Torah commands both the priest himself and anyone else not to defile him. The word אמר tells the priest not to defile himself, whereas the word ואמרת tells others not to defile the priest. Perhaps the word אלהם, "to them," refers back to the Israelites (not the priests) who are commanded to observe all the commandments. You will note that at the very end of this chapter (verse 24) the Torah writes: "Moses spoke to Aaron, to his sons and to all the children of Israel." This indicates that the legislation in this chapter is addressed to all of the Israelites. This justifies our explanation that also at the beginning of the chapter the Torah extends a warning to the whole people, not just to the priests, that they must not cause the priests to become ritually defiled. Torat Kohanim on 21,24 writes as follows: "The words וידבר משה are a warning to Aaron through his children whereas the words אל כל בני ישראל are a warning to the sons by the Israelites. They are each warned to ensure that the others do not become guilty of the sin of ritual impurity." Both what we read in Torat Kohanim and what we have written ourselves are דברי אלוקים חיים, legitimate exegesis of the text of the Torah.

בני אהרן, “sons of Aaron,” etc. Our sages in Sotah 23 understand this as excluding female descendants of priests, i.e. “the sons of Aaron but not the daughters of Aaron.” I have explained the reason why the female offspring of priests is not considered as priests in the full sense of the word in my commentary on Parshat Tzav (Leviticus 6,19) as due to the woman having been the one who brought death into the world. This does not make them fit to act as priests, i.e. people who are concerned with preserving and extending life.
The reason that this paragraph of special laws for the priests has been written immediately after the verse prohibiting the law of how to deal with sorcerers, various kinds of performers of magic, is explained in the Midrash as justified by subsequent Jewish history. King Saul killed an entire city of Priests (Nof), compare Samuel I 22,18 appointing Doeg their accuser to be the executioner. [There had not been the kind of evidence that the priests had committed treason against Saul which would stand up in court. Ed.] Subsequently, when King Saul found himself in a quandary when he did want advice from G’d and was refused it, he turned to a necromancer despite the express prohibition to even allow such people to live in Leviticus 20,27. G’d had foreseen all this and had written these two commandments, i.e. to give precedence to the priests and to abhor necromancers as a warning to Saul and others not to become guilty of the sin described.
Isaiah 8,19 deals with this subject when he writes addressing the common folk who might be asked to practice the art of necromancy by saying: “should the people say to you, ‘inquire of the ghosts and familiar spirits that chirp and moan, for a people may inquire of its divine beings, of the dead on behalf of the living, for instruction and message;’ by responding: ‘surely for one who speaks thus there shall be no dawn.” Isaiah’s point is that if such a practice is raising its head in Israel the people have to respond that they get any information they are desirous of from their G’d directly, not from charlatans, etc. The prophet Elijah had remonstrated with King Achazyah who had sent inquiries to idols of other nations, and had challenged him saying: “are there then no representatives of the true Lord in Israel that you saw fit to inquire from deities like Baal Zevuv and others?” (Kings II 1,6). In the event that the people feel that they have no legitimate address from which to inquire about their future, the Torah goes on record in Deut. 17,9: “you will come to the priests, the Levites, or to the judge who will officiate in those days; when you inquire they will tell you.”
Rabbi Yehoshua from the village Sakinin said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that G’d showed Moses a bird’s eye view of all subsequent generations and their respective leaders. He showed him King Saul, his sons, and his death by the sword of the Jewish people’s enemies. This was part of the panorama G’d showed to Moses. Moses was aghast and exclaimed: “the first King of the Jewish people should have such a tragic end, should be stabbed by a sword?” Thereupon G’d told Moses to write down the paragraph we are now dealing with. Thus far Rabbi Yehoshua (compare Tanchuma Emor 2). I plan to explain the details about the various forms of necromancy, etc., in connection with Parshat Shoftim, (seeing there are different views about this subject).

לנפש לא יטמא, "he must not become defiled through a dead body." Torat Kohanim derives from this word נפש that contact with an amount of blood equivalent to 86 grams (רביעית) is sufficient to confer ritual impurity on the priest. I have seen that Maimonides writes as follows in chapter 3 subsection 1 of his Hilchot Avel: "There is no halachic difference between impurities of the body of the dead and impurities which emanated in the body of the dead (such as blood which oozed out) seeing the Torah used the expression נפש when prohibiting ritual defilement through the dead." Commentators attack Maimonides for this statement basing themselves on a Baraitha in Torat Kohanim which writes as follows: "From our verse (21,1) I only learn that one defiles oneself through contact with the dead body itself. Whence do we know that one also becomes defiled through contact with the blood (of the dead person?)" Answer: This is why the Torah wrote the otherwise extraneous word לנפש. How do I know that all other excretions from the dead body also confer ritual impurity on contact? This is why the Torah added the word אלהם." Thus far Torat Kohanim. Kesseph Mishneh defends Maimonides by pointing out that he must have thought that the word לנפש is sufficient to teach us that everything which originates in the dead body confers the same degree of ritual impurity on all those who come in contact with it; there is no need for further scriptural proof; any additional word in the Torah is only in the nature of an אסמכתא, something to jog our memory. Thus far Kesseph Mishneh. I do not accept the comment by the author of Kesseph Mishneh. What gave Maimonides the right to come up with a new approach other than the one of the Baraitha?

The fact of the matter is that Maimonides bases himself on another Baraitha which he found in Pessikta. This is what is written there: "The words אמר ואמרת are meant to tell us that the adults are warned to see to it that the minors do not become ritually impure; the words לנפש לא יטמא are intended to tell us that even a רביעית דם, a small amount of 86 grams of blood is enough to confer ritual impurity on contact if it has escaped from the dead body." Thus far the Pessikta. The Baraitha we just quoted is mentioned in Yevamot 114. We are entitled to understand that Baraitha as including all other excretions from the dead body as being included in this legislation based on the word לנפש, seeing the author used the repetition of the words אמר ואמרת as commanding the adults to warn the minors concerning this legislation. I am quite certain that the author of the Kesseph Mishneh had not seen or remembered this latter Baraitha. Proof of this is to be found in something the same author wrote in the same chapter we have quoted earlier in subsection 12. "Adult priests are responsible to see that they do not cause a priest who is a minor to become ritually impure. If, however, the priest who is a minor causes himself to become ritually impure it is not the task of the Jewish court to prevent this." So far Maimonides on the subject. According to Kesseph Mishneh this is in accordance with Rashi's interpretation of the meaning אמר ואמרת. Clearly, if the author of Kesseph Mishneh had known about this Baraitha he would not have written that Maimonides based his ruling on Rashi's exegesis which is of much more recent origin.

There remains the question of how anyone derived from the word לנפש that a רביעית of blood confers ritual impurity on contact? Perhaps we must understand that the meaning of the word לנפש is confined to the ability of blood to confer ritual impurity to the category of impurity called טומאת מת, as distinct from other categories of ritual impurities. It would have sufficed for the Torah to write למת לא יטמא that the priest must not become ritually impure through a dead body. The fact that the Torah added the word לנפש led our sages to conclude that an amount of blood which is sufficient to keep an organism alive is the amount which is capable of conferring the ritual impurity associated with dead bodies. People who are themselves ritually impure only through indirect contact with the dead are not included in that definition of לנפש.

לא יטמא. "He must not become defiled." The Torah switched to the use of the singular although the verse had commenced with G'd addressing the Israelites in the plural, i.e. אלהם. According to the reasoning of the scholar who explained the repetition of the words אמר ואמרת as a warning that a person other than the priest himself should also not cause the priest to become defiled, the switch from plural to singular is easy to understand, i.e. the people (pl.) are commanded not to defile the priest (sing.).

In addition, the Torah may have been afraid to write לא יטמאו, "they shall not become defiled" as the impression would have been that the Torah only minded if the priests as a group became defiled, not if an individual priest became defiled. The Torah therefore worded the commandment in the singular i.e. יטמא to show the Torah shows its concern for the defilement of each individual priest.

Furthermore, the Torah had to avoid the comparison of this legislation with Leviticus 10,9 where the Torah commanded that the priests were not to enter the Tabernacle while intoxicated. In that instance the legislation was phrased as applicable only in connection with the priests entering the precincts of the Tabernacle drunk when they were about to perform the sacrificial service. The impression left was that at times when the priests were not engaged in service they were free to indulge in wine and alcohol. It would have been easy to deduce from there that when the priests were not about to engage in sacrificial service they are at liberty to defile themselves. The Torah used the singular when legislating this commandment to make it clear that the priests are not to defile themselves at any time, except for the occasions listed in subsequent verses. This teaches that the prohibition for a priest to defile himself is totally unconnected to the Temple-service and its requirements. The Temple-service, after all, is not in danger of becoming defunct due to the temporary impurity of a single priest. The duty of the priest to remain in a state of ritual purity is one that devolves upon him independent of any consideration for the function he can perform only while in such a state.