레위기 10:12의 인용 해설

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.

בקרבתם לפני ה' וימותו, “when they approached the presence of Hashem and died.” Ibn Ezra comments that this verse is proof that the sons of Aaron died because they had dared to bring the incense into the Tabernacle. Nachmanides disagrees, as the Torah always mentions the sin of anyone who died an untimely death at the hands of Hashem. The Torah had already told us on a number of occasions that the cause of death was that they introduced “strange fire” which they had not been authorised to do. (Leviticus 10,1) However, this was described as בהקריבם אש זרה, “when they introduced alien fire,” whereas here the Torah wrote about בקרבתם, i.e. when they personally entered a domain which was out of bounds to them. It is therefore completely reasonable that the Torah should now warn Aaron not to enter the wrong place at the wrong time. Although he is permitted entry to the Holy of Holies, even, something no other priest is allowed to enter, he cannot do so at times of his choosing. It is quite possible that the correct interpretation of our verse is in line with what our sages said (Mechilta Beshalach ויסע ו) that the people had come to the conclusion that the incense contained poisonous herbs which had caused the death of Nadav and Avihu, the 250 men who offered incense during Korach’s rebellion, etc. The Torah, countering these wild accusations leveled against the incense offering, wanted to make the point that it had not been the incense which had killed them but their unauthorised entry, both in terms of place and time. Aaron therefore had to be especially on guard, seeing he would offer incense on a daily basis he would be more exposed to such a danger than any other individual. The Torah defines precisely when, where, and who is fit to offer this special offering (verses 12 and 13). Some scholars feel that we must take careful note of the difference in meaning of the word בקרבתם as opposed to בהקריבם, the former referring to the act of entering a forbidden domain regardless of the purpose why it was entered and regardless of what the person entering had in his hands as an offering. In order to make plain that mere entering the sacred domain by Nadav and Avihu was a mortal sin by itself, the Torah now instructs Aaron: בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקוד'ש, “only when accompanied by the following is Aaron allowed to enter these holy domains.”

ששה משמותם על האבן האחת, "Six of their names on the one stone, etc." Why did the Torah use the unusual expression משמותם, "of their names," instead of saying simply ששה שמות, "six names," etc.? Besides, the word הנותרים, "the remaining ones," is quite unnecessary as we all know that there were only a total of twelve tribes. We are therefore forced to conclude that the adjective "the remaining ones," implies that the latter six tribes were inferior to the the first six. We find something similar after the death of Nadav and Avihu, where the Torah describes Eleazar and Ittamar as the "remaining" sons of Aaron (Leviticus 10,12). Our sages in Yuma 87 describe the word הנותרים as referring to something inferior, using the word in Leviticus as their example. Bereshit Rabbah 73,9 discusses Genesis 30,36 where the Torah speaks about "the remaining flocks of Laban," and also describes the word "remaining" as referring to something inferior. If the meaning of the word הנותרים in our verse were to indicate that these tribes were inferior, this is most surprising seeing that the Torah underlines that they were recorded כתולדותם, "in the order of their (their founder's) birth." Why would the sons born to Jacob later be inferior to those born to him earlier? This seems especially unlikely seeing that Joseph was Jacob's favorite and is known as "Joseph the righteous." How could he be considered "inferior?" Moreover, we find that amongst the first 6 names listed are sons of the maidservants whereas several of the names inscribed on the second stone were of sons born by Jacob's true wives!

פתח אהל מועד BY THE ENTRANCE OF THE APPOINTED TENT — the whole court is thus named (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:11).