Komentarz do Kapłańska 21:25

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.

כי אם לשארו BUT FOR HIS KIN [THAT IS NEAR TO HIM] — שאר here denotes his wife (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 4; Yevamot 22b).

כי אם לשארו, except to his wife, etc. Torat Kohanim explains that the meaning of the word שארו is "his wife." The words הקרוב, "who is close," a word which is not really necessary, refers to the exclusion of ארוסה, a woman betrothed to a priest who does not yet live in his home, the final marriage vows not having been completed as yet. She is excluded from relatives for the sake of whose burial a priest must defile himself as a mourner. The word אליו "to him," another extraneous word, teaches that the death of a divorced wife of a priest also does not qualify as an excuse for her erstwhile husband to defile himself ritually. The reason is that such a woman is no longer קרוב, close to her former husband the priest. Why does the Torah add the words לאמו ולאביו? Seeing the mother is not of the same tribe as the son (or is subject to being demoted in status if she survives her husband the priest), I might have thought that the son may not defile himself at her death. The Torah therefore had to tell us that the son is to defile himself at his mother's death. Once we have established this, why would I have thought that the son must not defile himself over the death of his father unless the Torah spelled this out for us? Would I not have reasoned that inasmuch as the son must defile himself at his mother's death even though the mother was most likely not the daughter of a priest, the son most certainly has to defile himself at his father's death seeing the father was a priest also (and is not subject to lose his status through the death of his spouse)? The Torah had to write that the son who is a priest must defile himself due to the death of his father although we do not know for a fact that the man who described himself as his father really was his father. Paternity is established only by reason of חזקה not by reason of definitive knowledge such as maternity. The scholars of Luneil raised an objection to this Torat Kohanim. They felt there was no need for the Torah to mention that the son must defile himself at the death of his father as I could have arrived at this legislation by learning a קל וחומר from his mother. They reasoned that the son has to defile himself precisely because either the father is a priest who does not cause himself to be demoted and as such qualifies as a close relative even more than the mother who is subject to demotion in status; or there is no certainty that his father is his real father in which case the son is not a priest and there is no reason he cannot defile himself at the death of this man. [the scholars of Luneil described the son as a bastard, something I have not been able to understand. Why could the father not simply have been a non-priest claiming to be a priest? Ed.]

כי אם לשארו הקרוב אליו, לאמו ולאביו, “except for a near relative; (or) on account of his mother or of his father, etc.” If he is a priest of the regular category, he may or must contaminate himself on account of the above-mentioned (and some other) relatives. This is why the mother here is mentioned before the father. In the case of the High Priest when even contamination on account of wife, father and mother, is prohibited, the Torah mentions the father ahead of the mother (verse 11). The Torah does not differentiate between mother and father, though we might have thought that the “father” does not need to be mentioned separately, since even the mother whose identity as mother is beyond question is out of bounds.

כי אם לשארו, “except for his wife.” The sages explain that the word שאר means “wife,” i.e. someone whose relationship is that of shared flesh. The Torah adds the word הקרוב, “which is physically close,” to exclude a wife who has been betrothed to him but has not yet completed the marriage ceremony and moved into her husband’s home (חופה). Similarly, a divorced wife is also no longer considered part of her former husband’s flesh so that her ex-husband if a priest may defile himself in order to actively participate in her funeral (compare Sifra Emor 1,4).
Even though a priest is called “holy,” and the Torah warns us that due to his elevated status he must not defile himself with a corpse, it is a positive commandment that he does defile himself when his wife has died. It is incumbent upon him to actively participate in her funeral. Should he be unwilling to do so, the court may force him to do so against his will. Sifra 1,12 reports of a certain priest by the name of Joseph whose wife died on the eve of Passover and he did not want to defile himself at her funeral and thereby forego the Passover offering. The court forced him to defile himself by participating in his wife’s funeral. The defilement the Torah speaks about is being in the same house, or even standing under the branches of the same tree as the body concerned. Not only direct contact with the corpse is forbidden. Whatever applies to the priest’s participation in his wife’s funeral also applies to his participating in the funeral of his mother and father. However, subsequent to the funeral, this same priest must not again defile himself by visiting the grave of his wife or parents in the cemetery and defying the rules of ritual purity. Even at the time of the funeral the priest is not allowed to roam in the cemetery and thereby contaminate himself through the proximity of other graves he has come too close too. This is what the sages (Shemot Rabbah 5,14) had in mind when they asked the rhetorical question: “who has ever seen a priest in a cemetery?”

“His kin” [refers] to none other than his wife. I.e., “his kin” that is written here, (see Tosefos Yom Tov in Bava Basra chapter Yeish Nochalin [Mishnah 1]. You might ask that it should have written הקרובה (to whom he is closely related) in the feminine form? The answer is that wherever it is written שאר (kin) it means שאר בשר (blood kin) and thus it is as if the verse had written שאר בשר. And since בשר is masculine, it writes the masculine form הקרוב. (Divrei Dovid) You might ask that if so, it should have said “and for his mother” with a vav, since שארו refers to something else. It seems that שארו actually refers to his mother and his father mentioned afterwards as they are his close relatives and his flesh. However, since one could ask [that if so], why does the Torah writes שארו, since afterwards it explicitly says to whom he may become defiled. To answer this they said that it includes his wife, because besides his wife there is no close relative of his [not already mentioned]. We need to find a reason why, in truth, the Torah does not mention the wife separately as it mentions his mother and father. It seems that we learn from this that regarding his wife too, there is a distinction [to teach us] that he does not defile himself for his betrothed. This is what the Torah is saying: he defiles himself for his wife whose marital status is similar to that of his mother and his father, but for his betrothed he is forbidden to defile himself. (The Pa’anei’ach Raza writes) that here it says “for his mother and his father,” and regarding the Kohein Godol it says “for his father and his mother,” because in both cases it goes from the obvious to the less obvious. Here, regarding the regular kohein who defiles himself for them, it says that not only for his mother who is certainly [his mother] does he obviously defile himself, but even for his father who is in doubt [as maybe his mother conceived from someone else] he defiles himself. And regarding the Kohein Godol who does not defile himself, it says that not only for his father does he obviously not defile himself, but even for his mother he should not defile himself. (Divrei Dovid)

כי אם לשארו הקרוב אליו, “except for his kin that is close to him;” according to Torat Kohanim, the word הקרוב אליו, excludes a girl only betrothed to him who has not yet become his wife in the full meaning of the word. Seeing that the priest may not defile himself on account of a woman only betrothed to him, it is clear that he may defile himself on account of a sister who is betrothed but not married yet. Concerning the words הקרובה אליו, Rashi explains that they include a sister who is betrothed. This makes sense, as seeing that an ordinary priest may not defile himself in order to bury a woman betrothed to him, it is logical that he should be allowed to defile himself for a sister who is only betrothed. If his sister’s husband to be had been a priest, he would not have been permitted to busy herself with her funeral. The Talmud in tractate Yevamot folio 22, understands the word שארו as referring to the priest’s properly married wife. This is also in agreement of what is written in verse 4: לא יטמא בעל בעמיו להחלו, “a husband shall not defile himself for his wife’s corpse if she had not been legally permitted to be the wife of a priest.” Unless the clause להחלו, “to disgrace him,” applied to his “wife,” he would, of course, be permitted to defile himself on her corpse. Furthermore, the fact that the Torah makes a distinction between a sister who has remained a virgin, (verse three) and it describes such a sister as הקרובה אליו, “who is close to him seeing that she had not been married,” by adding: “he may defile himself on her account,” it is clear that if she had been married already, her brother the priest, would not be permitted to defile himself at her funeral. The reason is simply that in that event her husband is considered as closer to her than her brother, though the former is a blood relative. The degree of relationship through marriage has been spelled out in the Torah already in Genesis 2,24, where the Torah described the bond of marriage as making “one flesh” out of husband and wife. There is no greater degree of קרובה, physical intimacy, than that.

הקרובה אליו, “who is related to him;” she is related to him only as long as she has not married. As soon as his sister is betrothed this relationship has ended, halachically. (Talmud tractate Yevamot folio 29)

לאמו ולאביו, “for his father or his mother” he may defile himself. In this instance the Torah mentioned the mother first, whereas in verse 11 where the Torah prohibits the High Priest from defiling himself on account of his parents’ death the Torah mentions the father before the mother. Perhaps seeing that the Torah had first mentioned a female relative of the priest when introducing the subject of ritual defilement and using the priest’s wife as an example of whose funeral overrides the legislation, the Torah felt that it wanted to continue with female examples. Had the Torah written: כי אם לשארו לאביו ולאמו, the sequence would not have been consistent as female, male, and female, in that order would have seemed illogical. Alternatively, the Torah mentioned the mother first as there is no doubt about the maternity of a person’s mother, whereas there is always some doubt about the paternity of someone claiming to be the father. The Torah therefore proceeds from that which is obvious, i.e. the duty to defile himself on account of one’s mother’s death, to the less obvious and to include the father in that legislation although there is no absolute certainty that he was indeed the father.
When it comes to prohibiting the High Priest to defile himself on account of the death of his parents, the opposite consideration is in place. Not only must the High Priest not defile himself on account of a father (who may not be a father), but even the death of his mother does not entitle him to defile himself at her funeral.
The reason the Torah limits the sister to one who is still a “virgin,” something that is presumed seeing she has not yet been married, is to exclude an unmarried sister who has been the victim of a rapist. The word הקרובה, “who is close to him,” means that even though his sister may have been betrothed, as long as she was not fully married her status as a close relative of her brother the priest has not been affected. The apparently extraneous word אליו, “to him,” in our verse refers to an unmarried sister who is past the age of puberty. The words אשר לא היתה לאיש, “who has not been wed to a man,” include a girl whose hymen has been ruptured through penetration by some instrument other than a man’s member. She retains her status as a virginal sister. Maimonides (Hilchot Aveilut 2,10) rules that a priest must defile himself on account of such sisters.

Our author does not consider the objection of the scholars of Luneil as serious seeing our verse is concerned with permitting something which had so far been forbidden to the parties concerned. We cannot permit something which was forbidden by using the קל וחומר (according to the principle דיו לבוא מן הדין כנדון) as our exegetical instrument. All a קל וחומר can accomplish is to teach that a situation is similar to the one which forms the basis of the קל וחומר; It cannot teach additional halachot of a more stringent nature. The Torah permits the son to defile himself for the sake of near relatives whereas the prohibition to defile himself at the death of more distant relatives remains in force. Furthermore, in the event that the son does not want to defile himself, he is forced to do so as part of honouring his father who has died. This is the meaning of the words לה יטמא, "he must defile himself for her sake." Torat Kohanim explain these words by saying: "it is a positive commandment for every priest to defile himself at the death of any of the seven relatives mentioned in our verse." While it is true that the Torah wrote this expression only next to the sister of the priest, Torat Kohanim already explained this in connection with a true story involving a priest called Joseph whose wife died on Passover eve and the priest did not want to defile himself so as not to forego the commandment to offer the Passover sacrifice, etc. The local rabbinic authorities forced that husband to defile himself and take part in the burial of his wife. Thus far the story related in Torat Kohanim. The story proves that the authorities did not restrict the meaning of the words לה יטמא as applicable only in the event a priest loses a sister. What all this proves is that one must defile oneself for the sake of any of the relatives enumerated in verses 2 and 3. It follows that if I had derived the directive to defile oneself at the death of one's father based on exegesis alone I could not have arrived at such a law as I would not have been able to be certain that the man who died was indeed the father of the son described here. I certainly would not have been entitled to refrain from offering the Passover sacrifice if such a "father" had died on the eve of Passover. Doubts concerning the application of a biblical commandment cannot be resolved through abrogation of that commandment, even temporarily. Not only would such a son not be permitted to defile himself on the father's grave based on the doubt (according to Maimonides and Pri Chadash who hold that doubt concerning a biblical commandment's applicability may be resolved by a lenient ruling), but even according to those who hold that we never apply a lenient ruling when the doubt concerns a biblical injunction the son could still not defile himself merely on the chance that the deceased was not his real father and as a result postpone celebrating the Passover on time. After all, no doubt exists about the need to perform the commandments connected with Passover. The Torah therefore had to write both the words לאמו ולאביו to tell us that a son who is a priest must defile himself for the purpose of bringing either his father or his mother to burial.

לאמו ולאביו, “but for his mother and his father’s [funeral] etc;” just as he may only defile himself for burying mother and father who had been fully alive, so this exception for other members of his closest family applies only to those who had been alive for at least thirty days. He must not defile himself on account of stillborn children, for instance. Seeing that the Torah saw fit to mention the mother before the father when discussing the rules for ordinary priests, why, when discussing the parents of the High Priest in verse eleven, does the Torah mention the father ahead of the mother? If it is forbidden for the ordinary priest to defile himself ritually at his mother’s funeral, there is no need to repeat this as there is no doubt who was one’s mother, whereas there is no certainty as to who was one’s father. The father is added therefore to tell us that notwithstanding this uncertainty, he may defile himself at his father’s funeral. In the case of the High Priest, the Torah mentions his mother last in order to tell us that in spite of our being certain the woman being buried was his mother, he is still not permitted to defile himself on her account.
לאחיו ולאחותו, “concerning his brother or his sister, etc.;” we find that according to Torat Kohanim that we might have thought that the Torah speaks of a brother and sister of the same mother; in order to show us that this is not so, the Torah adds the words: ,לבנו ולבתו, “and concerning his son and his daughter.” Just as the son and daughter are his potential heirs, so the brothers and sisters that are meant here are only those that are potentially heirs, i.e. they have the same father. The law of inheritance excludes the mother.

לאביו ולאמו, to his father or his mother;” the letter ו before the word לאמו means: “or,” instead of “and.” The same applies in לבנו ולבתו, or in ולאחיו ולאחותו. In each of these words the prefix ו means “or” instead of “and. As to the question why the word ולאביו, “or to his father,” was needed to permit the son to defile himself at his father’s funeral, seeing that the relationship is of a lower level as that of the mother, [being only presumptive as we do not know for sure that he is the father, Ed.], we might have thought that on account of this the Torah would not have allowed the son the priest to defile himself at the funeral; on the other hand if the Torah had only mentioned that the son could defile himself at his father’s funeral, we would have taken for granted that if even this was allowed, attending his mother’s funeral would certainly be allowed. However, I could have argued the reverse: if I cannot defile myself on account of my father’s funeral when he had disgraced himself and lost his status as a functioning priest, I can certainly not defile myself on account of my mother’s funeral, if my mother had lost her status as legitimately married to a priest. In light of these problems, the Torah decided to mention father and mother separately. לאמו ולאביו, “to his mother or father;” when the Torah speaks of an ordinary priest, it mentions the mother before the father, whereas when speaking of the prohibition for the High Priest to defile himself for the death of his parents, it mentions first the father and then the mother. (verse 11) The logic runs as follows: if an ordinary priest may defile himself at his mother’s funeral, seeing that we are certain that she is his kin, the Torah broadens this to also include the father, though he is by no means definitely a blood relative. When speaking of the prohibition for the High Priest to attend even his closest relative’s funeral, it mentions the father first, seeing that he is not definitely a blood relative. It continues by saying that this High Priest may not defile himself even for the sake of his mother’s funeral, although we know definitely that he is her son. ולבנו ולבתו, “and on account of his son or his daughter,” (he may defile himself) if the Torah had only written about either son or daughter, why would this not have been enough to tell us that the priest may defile himself at the funeral of any of his children, G-d forbid? Not only that, but we could have reasoned that if the priest may defile himself on account of children’s death neither of whom he was obliged to honour during their lifetime, is it not logical that he has to do the same on account of his parents whom the Torah commanded him to honour and revere? Answer: if the Torah had not spelled out both son and daughter, I might have thought that for preemies who did not survive their birth, the priest would also be permitted to defile themselves; therefore the Torah spelled out that only children who qualify for the title son or daughter, are a legitimate cause for the priest to defile himself. Another reason why the Torah had to write: לבנו ולבתו, “to defile themselves on account of his son or daughter,” is that son and daughter do not have the same relationships to their respective parents. A son is obligated to perform the commandment of honouring and revering his parents throughout his life, whereas a daughter’s obligation to do this takes second place to her honouring her husband upon marriage, as is evident that while her father could invalidate certain of her vows before marriage (depending on her age) after marriage only her husband has the right to do this. Therefore, the fact that they rank equally concerning the rights of their parents to defile themselves at their funerals had to be spelled out.

Furthermore, we are dealing here with a situation where the son's status as a priest is based only on the assumption that his father who claims to be his father is also a priest, another assumption which is itself not based on definitie evidence. In view of the fact that neither son nor father can establish a definitve claim as to their paternity and priesthood respectively, I would not have allowed the son to violate his legal status and defile himself on the basis of a חזקה that the man he knew as his father was indeed his father unless the Torah had decreed this specifically

ולאחיו ולאחותו, “and concerning his brother or his sister, in case either of them died; this too could not be derived from the Torah having written this concerning son and daughter. Neither brother nor sister was obligated to perform acts by which to honour the other. We could have assumed therefore that the family ties to one another was therefore weaker than the other relatives mentioned by the Torah which would have prohibited them defiling themselves at each other’s funeral. The Torah also had to make a distinction between a sister who is still a virgin, i.e. too young to have been married, and one who has left her father’s house already to live with her husband.

ולבנו ולבתו ולאחיו, "and for the death of his son, his daughter or his brother." Torat Kohanim comment as follows on this verse: "The Torah should have been content to mention the son and the daughter; why did the Torah also have to write that the son must defile himself for the sake of burying his father and his mother? If the Torah wrote that a father must defile himself in order to bury his son or daughter whom he is not obligated to honour, is it not logical that he certainly has to defile himself for the sake of burying his father or mother whom he is obligated to honour?" If this reasoning were correct, I would have had to conclude that the words "son or daughter" were meant to apply to children who were aborted and had never drawn a breath of life. The Torah therefore had to write the words "son and daughter" to ensure that I would not apply the קל וחומר we just described. The Torah told us that only sons and daughters who had demonstrated viability qualify for their father the priest defiling himself at their burial." Thus far Torat Kohanim. I find this difficult to understand. If it were correct, all the Torah had to write were the words לאמו ולבנו, and I would have derived this information from these two examples. The word לאביו would have been quite unnecessary. Also, according to the argument that seeing the mother is a definite blood-relation therefore I could not have concluded that the father also qualified for the son defiling himself at his grave unless the Torah had stated so specifically, we could have extrapolated this from the words "his son or his daughter." Whose father is known with certainty? Yet the Torah spelled out that the father must defile himself at the grave of a son whose identity as his son is based on an assumption, חזקה only. We cannot even argue that the identity of the father is less certain than the identtiy of either son or daughter (as far as their respective paternity is concerned) for we find that the author of Torat Kohanim used their identities as the basis for his קל וחומר to include the father in the same legislation. So we are back to the question of why the Torah had to spell out that the "son" has to defile himself at the burial of his "father?" If the only reason the Torah wrote "his father" was to teach that the commandment to defile himself applied only to children who were viable, so that the term "father" applied in the full meaning of the word, we could have derived this from the fact that the Torah wrote לאמו though this too could have been derived from קל וחומר seeing we already have the words בנו ובתו. There is no reason to say that we need both the words לאביו ולאמו together in order to exclude aborted fetuses; why would the word "father" or "mother" not be sufficient to teach us that rule? Besides, if we really needed both these words why did the author of Torat Kohanim go to the trouble to demonstrate that each word by itself was required separately? We already needed both words together to exclude the aborted infants from the regulation discussed by the Torah in our verse?

For his mother and his father. It leads with “his mother,” since his mother is not a descendant of Aharon, but [he may become impure for her] only from the aspect that she is like her husband himself, and this is a greater chiddush [novel idea]. Regarding the Kohen Godol, however, it says, “For his father and mother he shall not become impure,” it leads with “his father,” for this is the greater chiddush, since he is from the descendants of Aharon [and yet he still may not become impure]. Alternatively, this can be explained in the way of “not only this, but even this”: It is easier to hear that he should defile himself for his mother because she endured a lot of pain for him, in pregnancy, birth, and raising him, which is not so regarding the father … Furthermore, it is more certain that she is his mother than that he is his father … Additionally, a woman’s disgrace is greater than a man’s disgrace, and that is why it leads with “his mother.” This teaches us that if he has to take care of both of their bodies he is obligated to take care of his mother first.

However, another statement concerning the words לאמו ולאביו at the end of Torat Kohanim presents a problem. We read there as follows: "If the Torah had only written the word לאביו and had not also written the word לאמו I would have reasoned that if the Torah demanded that the son defile himself for the burial of his father whose identity is based merely on חזקה, an assumption, such a son most certainly would have to defile himself at the death of his mother who is his biological mother beyond any doubt! I would then have countered that the mother's status as a priest's wife is not constant since she stands to lose it on the death of her husband or through a divorce. Therefore the Torah had to write the word לאמו to also include her in the number of blood relations for whose burial the son who is a priest has to defile himself." We see that the Torah had to write the word לאמו to include a mother who had already forfeited her status as a priest's wife prior to her death! If so, what word is there left for exegetical use to exclude aborted infants from the legislation that the father who is a priest must defile himself on their account? On the other hand, if you use the word to exclude these aborted fetuses, which word is left to include that the son, the priest, must defile himself over a dead mother who had become נתחללה, lost her former status as the wife of a priest? Besides, whence do I know that the father the priest has to defile himself on account of a daughter who had lost her status as the wife of a priest? One could argue that case in either direction! One could say that seeing the son has to honour his mother regardless of her marital status, he also has to defile himself on her account when she dies; on the other hand, one could argue that the Torah had already made it plain that the fact that a woman forfeited her marital status as the wife of a priest did not affect her blood relationship to her son and therefore should have no bearing on the need of her biological son the priest to defile himself at her funeral; also that just as the son has to defile himself for his mother, so, in the event that he has a daughter he has to defile himself if she dies.

Let us examine precisely how the author of Torat Kohanim arrived at the conclusion that the son the priest must defile himself on account of a mother who had lost her status as the wife of a priest. Was this conclusion based on the extraneous word לאמו? Perhaps the word לאמו was not at all superfluous and we needed it to prove that defilement is in order seeing the mother's status was inferior as she was subject to becoming מתחללת, losing her privileges as the wife of a priest, something that cannot happen to the father except if he does something wrong himself. Similarly, the author of Torat Kohanim had been careful to point out already at the beginning of his discourse: "What distinguishes the father? The fact that he is not subject to losing his status as a priest." This meant that this consideration established the basis for a certain asymmetry in the status of the "father the priest" and the "mother the priest's wife." The remarkable thing is that even though in effect the mother died without ever losing her status as the wife of a priest, the fact that she might have done so is considered as sufficient reason to rate her priestly status as inferior to that of her husband. Following this train of thought, we are entitled to the conclusion that if the mother had indeed already been disqualified from being the wife of a priest her son would really not be allowed to defile himself at her burial. We are therefore compelled to say that the author of Torat Kohanim proceeded from the premise that mention of the word לאמו means that a priest has to defile himself for his mother regardless of whether or not she has in effect been disqualified from being the wife of a priest. Now the fact remains that if the Torah had only written the word לאביו I would have been entitled to argue that the mother is inferior in status to her husband the priest even while she enjoys her status as the wife of her husband the priest because of her potential disqualification. Now that the Torah also wrote the word לאמו the Torah made clear that even if she had become disqualified her son the priest has to defile himself on her account when she dies. You can apply the same reasoning to the word ולבתו, and on account of his daughter. By the simple expedient of mentioning the daughter the Torah included a daughter who had become disqualified as a possible wife for a priest. Her father the priest must defile himself on her account in the event she dies. The only factor which governs all this legislation is the biological relationship. Seeing a mother or daughter who do not qualify as a wife for a priest have not ceased to be called mother or daughter respectively, the legislation for the son or father to defile himself is in place. This brings us back to the question why the Torah had to write the word לאמו, seeing we could have derived the law for the mother from the word בתו?

Nonetheless, if the Torah had not written the word לאמו, I would not have concluded that the word לאביו was meant to exclude children which had been aborted before they became viable, but I would have concluded that it excluded אמו, his mother. It is far more more reasonable to exclude the mother of the priest than to search for such far-fetched exclusions as the need to defile oneself at the death of premature stillborn children. The reason I would have excluded the mother would be her status, i.e. the fact that she is constantly subject to losing her status as a priest's wife and the privileges which accrue to her thanks to that fact. We would have limited the fact that the daughter qualifies for her father defiling himself as applying to a daughter who had not actually jeopardised her status as a priest's wife, or at least as potentially a priest's wife, whereas I would have limited the exclusion of the priest's mother to a mother who had actually lost that status. A mother who had not jeopardised her status as the wife of a priest would qualify for her son the priest defiling himself at her funeral. I would have used a קל וחומר extrapolating from the word בתו to arrive at that conclusion. When discussing the status of a daughter, even one who had forfeited her status, we would have remembered that she is still called "his daughter" in the Torah regardless of whether she qualifies for marriage to a priest or not. We would then have reverted to apply that same reasoning to a daughter who had jeopardised her status by comparing her to a mother who had jeopardised her status, based on the unnecessary word לאביו. We would have reasoned that just as a mother who has jeopardised her status as the wife of a priest does not cause her son the priest to defile herself on account of her funeral, so a daughter in her condition most certainly does not confer the duty on her father the priest to defile himself on account of her death. We would have argued this in spite of the fact that the very word בתו in the Torah implies that this daughter did not jeopardise her status as a blood relative by losing her status as a woman a priest may marry. The word בתו would only commit us if I did not either have a restrictive clause or a קל וחומר to counter our reading of the text. We would therefore read the word בתו as applying only to a daughter who had not lost her status, i.e. לא נתחללה.

What emerges from all these examinations of the deeper meaning of our text is that if the Torah had not written the word לאביו which could have misled us into thinking that it was intended to exclude the son the priest defiling himself at his mother's funeral, there would indeed have been no need to write the word לאמו. I would have derived all the הלכות I needed from the words בנו ובתו, his son or his daughter as mentioned earlier. If the Torah had not written the word לאמו from which the error concerning excluding the father whose status is based only on חזקה would have resulted, there would have been no need to write the word לאביו. If so, you would ask why does the Torah not simply write only לאביו, leaving out the word לאמו altogether? In order to forestall this question Torat Kohanim explained that the word was intended to exclude premature stillborn infants. Seeing that this is so there is no more room to argue that the word לאמו or לאביו should have been written by itself. The moment the Torah would write only one of these two words I would arrive at an erroneous conclusion and demolish the whole pyramid we have built thus far. The Torah was therefore very clever in writing exactly what it did. Torat Kohanim was conscious of this and informed us of a possible error we could make if the Torah had not written precisely the words we find in our text.

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.

ולאחותו הבתולה הקרובה אליו “and in respect of a sister, a virgin, and therefore still closely bound to him by family ties; regardless of whether she is a sister through a common mother or a common father; when Rashi commented here on the sister including one who is already betrothed to a husband to be, he does not refer to some priest’s betrothed but not yet married fiancee. Similarly, when the Torah wrote about a sister who is a virgin, it is understood that she is below twelve years of age at the time of her death. Had she been married already she would have been part of her husband’s family, not that of her father. This is why the Torah used the expression לשארו, “to his family.” (verse 2).

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

[It is] a [positive] command. Because before it is written, “Let him not defile himself with the dead among his people. Except to his kin ... for his virgin sister...” This implies that he may defile himself for everyone mentioned. If so, why also write, “For her, he may be defiled”? Therefore, it must be to add a positive command.

אשר לא היתה לאיש, “who had never belonged to a man.”According to Sifra, this somewhat clumsy wording implies that if that sister had lost her virginity through a cause other than being penetrated by a man’s genital organ, she is considered as still a virgin with regard to the prohibition of her brother defiling herself at her funeral. If she lost her virginity through marital relations with her husband, he (her brother) may not do so.

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).

לה יטמא, “he will defile herself on her account;” not only may he defile himself at her funeral, but he is commanded to do so. If he declines to do so, the court forces him to do so. The Sifra relates that a certain priest by the name of Joseph whose wife had died on the eve of Passover, and he did not want to defile himself at her funeral as then he would not be able to fulfill the commandment of eating from the paschal lamb on the night following, was forced by the sages to do so nonetheless.

לה יטמא, but he must not additionally engage in burying other people seeing that he is already ritually impure. It is always forbidden for a priesteven nowadays when all priests (and non priests) are ritually impure, to add impurity unnecessarily to their bodies seeing that they cannot purify their bodies in the absence of the ash of the red heifer. Ed.] The Rabbis derived this from the word לה, understanding it as restrictive, i.e. he may only defile himself through her body, not through anyone else’s that happens to be nearby. He may also not defile herself through contact with her limbs, if, for instance, she had been mutilated, and only parts of her body are available for burial.

לא יטמא בעל בעמיו להחלו This means: he shall not defile himself for his wife if she is really unfitted to be his wife (because he is a כהן) and through whom he consequently becomes profaned as a priest, so long as she remains with him (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 15). The following, therefore, is the literal exposition of the verse: לא יטמא בעל, a husband shall not defile himself for his wife's corpse while it is among its people, which means that there are persons who can bury her so that she is not a מת מצוה (cf. Rashi’s explanation of בעמיו on v. 1). And with reference to what kind of wife do I say this? With reference to such a one who להחלו, i. e. who leads to his being profaned and therefore disqualified from his priestly duties so long as she remains with him (cf. Sifra, Emor, Section 1 15; Yevamot 90b).

לא יטמא בעל בעמיו להחלו, the reason why a priest is not to defile himself through contact with the dead except those of his next of kin, is that also the priest is indeed a בעל בעמיו, a distinguished, highly placed member of his people, it is his task to understand and teach these laws as we know from Maleachi 2,7 “for the lips of the priest are meant to guard knowledge, and Torah and the people will enquire concerning these from his mouth.” This makes him a person to be treated in the manner one treats a politically highly placed person, a king. Seeing he is supposed to be ever ready to serve the King of Kings, in His Temple, it is not appropriate for such a person to desecrate his status even temporarily in order to participate in the burial rites of ordinary people. According to our sages in Sanhedrin 47 the prime purpose of burying and eulogising the dead is to render honour to them. This conflicts with the honour the priests have to accord to G’d on an ongoing basis. However, the Torah exempts the priests from this restriction for burial and eulogising of near relatives from this rule. [some of the last line is my own wording, though it corresponds to the thoughts expressed by the author. Ed.]

לא יטמא בעל בעמיו, no husband among the tribe of the priests is to defile himself ritually

לא יטמא בעל בעמיו, “A husband among his people shall not contaminate himself to desecrate himself.” Rashi understands this verse as referring to a priest who has married someone forbidden to him as a wife, but whose marriage is recognized in Jewish halachah as such. Nachmanides understands the word בעל here as similar to that same word in Samuel II 6,2 מבעלי יהודה, from the “notables of the tribe of Yehudah.” [And other similar verses]. Accordingly, the message appears to be that priests are not only warned by the Torah not to defile themselves legally, but to be conscious of their position among the people at all times and to conduct themselves accordingly, so that they do not bring shame on the institution of the priesthood. One such example would be marrying someone obviously not suited, such as a harlot. Defiling himself by attending funerals of the people not his near relatives is among the things he must not do.

לא יטמא בעל בעמיו להחלו, “a husband [a priest, of course, Ed.] among his people, shall not contaminate himself to one (his wife) who had become his wife as a result of her having desecrated him.” According to the author of b’chor shor, we must understand this as if the Torah had written: לבעל בעמיו, even if he is a High Priest.” [The word בעל is being used by that commentator as “the highest authority,” not only the husband, i.e. his wife’s authority. Ed.] Even in the situation described, an alternate priest who is not allowed to defile himself except to the relatives mentioned in our portion may not substitute for the High Priest to save him from performing the commandment of מת מצוה.

לא יטמא בעל בעמיו, “a husband (who is a priest) may not defile himself for his wife’s corpse;” if there are other people available who can do this without delay. According to the Targum, there is a letter ב missing here at the beginning of the word בעל which should be understood as if it had been written בבעל. The reference then would be to the High Priest not being allowed to bury his wife as he is the highest ranking priest. According to our author, this construction is not unique, and he cites Genesis 38,11 שבי אלמנה בית אביך, where Yehudah tells his daughterinlaw to spend the period of her widowhood in her father’s house pending his son Shelah becoming of age so that he could marry her. In other words, the word בית there should really have been: בבית, “in the house.” Our author claims that there are numerous such constructions to be found elsewhere. According to Ibn Ezra, the verse speaks of an ordinary priest not being allowed to defile himself on his wife’s body, as she is not a blood relative.

להחלו, as he would thereby desecrate his status as a priest. According to the words of our sages (compare Rashi) he is not to so defile himself if his dead wife had been someone whom a priest should not have married in the first place, such as a divorcee; however, he is entitled or obligated to defile himself for the sake of burying a wife whom he was legally entitled to have married.

לא יקרחו קרחה THEY SHALL NOT MAKE BALDNESS [UPON THEIR HEAD] for the dead. But were not the ordinary Israelites also forbidden in respect of this? Why then is this law especially stated with reference to the priests? But because in the prohibition addressed to the ordinary Israelites it is stated, (Deuteronomy 14:1) “[Ye shall not make anybaldness] between your eyes [for the dead]”, I might think that one is not liable to punishment for making baldness on any other part of the whole head, Scripture therefore states here: “upon their heads”; and now that we have both commands, the law regarding the Israelites may be derived from that addressed to the priests from a similarity of terms used in both prohibitions: the term “קרחה” is used here, and in the prohibition regarding the Israelites it also uses the term “קרחה”; what is the case here? The prohibition applies to the whole head! So, also, there the whole head is included in the prohibition. And, on the other hand, how is the case there? The prohibition is limited to making baldness for the dead! So here too it applies only to such baldness as is made for the dead (Makkot 20a; Kiddushin 36a).

לא יקרחו, even though I have permitted the priests to defile themselves to bury their close relatives and express mourning rites, I have not permitted them to exaggerate such displays of mourning to include the making of bald spots on their heads and to make incisions in their flesh. As our sages phrased it, “just as the previous verses dealt with the dead, so the verses in front of us deal with honour for the dead.”(Torat Kohanim 1,3)

לא יקרחה קרחה, both he and an ordinary Israelite are not to make bald spots on their heads as a sign of mourning. (compare Deuteronomy 14,1)

לא יקרחו קרחה, “They are not to make bald spots, etc.” The reason why the word קרחה is spelled with the letter ה at the end instead of the letter ו which would signal the normal plural mode, is to teach that people making more than one such bald spot (not only the priests, by the way,) are culpable for each such bald spot. Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why the Torah commands this only to the males is because the males who are the only priests performing service in the Temple, must not appear before G’d with their heads shorn or their beard shaved off. Nor must they appear before Hashem when they had made incisions on their flesh or skin.

For a deceased person. As Rashi proves from a gezeroh shovoh.

לא יקרחה קרחה בראשם, “they shall not make a bald spot on their heads.” Although the word יקרחה is spelled with the letter ה at the end, it is read as if it had been spelled with the letter ו and the vowel shuruk.

ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו NEITHER SHALL THEY RAZE THE CORNER OF THEIR BEARD — Because it is written in the prohibition addressed to the ordinary Israelites, (Leviticus 19:27) “thou shalt not destroy (תשחית) [the corners of thy beard]”, I might think if one took it (the hair) off with a מלקט or a רהיטני, tweezers or plane-like or file-like tools that may be used for destroying the hair, he is guilty of violating the law! Scripture therefore states here "they shall not raze off (לא יגלחו) the corner of their beard", the two statements supplementing each other, thus teaching that one is liable only for the use of an instrument the employment of which is termed גילוח (razing), and ,which at the same time, involves the destruction of the hair, and this results only from the use of a razor (Makkot 21a).

So too further on the entire head. You might ask, perhaps [we should say] the opposite? Just as later [it says] specifically between the eyes, so too regarding kohanim it means specifically between the eyes and not the whole head? The answer is that one cannot learn kohanim from Israelites in this manner, because the verse here explicitly writes “on their heads,” which implies the entire head. Do not ask that now, how can you learn that regarding Israelites too it means the entire head if the verse writes “between your eyes”? The answer is that it certainly means the entire head, and it only writes “between your eyes” for the purpose of another gezeroh shovoh, so that we can learn tefillin from it, as it is written, “They will be totafos between your eyes,” so that you do not say it means literally between your eyes. So [to avoid this mistake] we learn a gezeroh shovoh. It is written here [regarding tefillin], “between your eyes,” and later it is written, “You shall not make any baldness between your eyes.” Just as later it refers to a place where one makes baldness, so regarding tefillin it is a place where one makes baldness. Do not ask, how could we think [in our first question] that we should learn kohanim from Israelites that [the prohibition of kohanim] is specifically between their eyes? If so, why would I need the verse “They shall not make baldness”? Are they not [included in the prohibition of] Israelites? The answer is that you would use [our verse] in order to learn from it that if one made many bald patches at once he is liable for each [instance of making a] bald patch. With all this we have answered the question of Re’m. He asks, how the sages could expound: Since it says, “You shall not make any baldness between your eyes,” I would think the prohibition is only between your eyes. From where do we include the entire head? Because the verse says, “On their heads.” [Regarding this Re’m asks]: But it is written, “Between your eyes,” And if the verse “on their heads” comes to include the entire head,” why do we explain the verse “between your eyes” [which implies only part of the head]? On the contrary, the sages should expound the opposite, that because it says, “They shall not make baldness on their heads,” I would say it means the entire head. And therefore the verse says “between your eyes” [to tell you], I only said between your eyes! And now you could not object, that it is written “on their head,” because between the eyes is also on their heads, because even part of the heads is called “their heads.” And the reason it writes it again regarding kohanim is only because of the superfluous [word] קרחה written there, to make one liable for every bald patch, etc. Re’m left this unanswered; analyze this.

ובבשרם לא ישרטו שרטת NOR SHALL THEY MAKE ANY INCISION IN THEIR FLESH — This is stated in addition to the law in Leviticus 19:28 for the following reason: Because it is said there of the ordinary Israelites “and ye shall not make a cutting in your flesh for the dead”, I might think that if one made five incisions at the same time he is liable to the punishment of lashes only once, Scripture therefore states here: לא ישרטו שרטת “they shall not incise an incision" to make one liable for each and every incision — for this word (שרטת) would be redundant if it added nothing to the previous prohibition and must therefore have been added for the purpose of deriving an Halacha, since it ought to have written only לא ישרטו and I would then have known that it refers to making incisions and consequently the intention of Scripture by using the term "they shall not incise an incision" is to make one liable to punishment for each incision (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 1 4).

Perhaps for plucking with tweezers. I.e., they should be liable for this as well. [In conclusion] we derive Israelites from Kohanim to whom the Torah gave more mitzvos, and even so, they [kohanim] are not liable except for shaving. How much more so an Israelite.

To make him liable for each and every gash. And we learn Israelites from kohanim with a gezeroh shovoh. But you cannot say that we learn Israelites from kohanim through a plain comparison that they are liable for every gash, because you could disprove it, since what [makes kohanim liable for every gash]? [The fact] that the Torah added many mitzvos for them. Therefore we need the gezeroh shovoh. Even though Rashi does not mention this [gezeroh shovoh], this is because he relied on his writing the gezeroh shovoh of “baldness, baldness” [earlier], and he did not want to be lengthy.

קדשים יהיו THEY SHALL BE HOLY — even against their will — the court shall force them to remain holy in respect to this (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 1 6).

THEY SHALL BE HOLY UNTO THEIR G-D. Holiness signifies separateness, as I have explained in the section above.²⁴In the beginning of Seder Kedoshim. Scripture is thus stating that even in those things which are permissible to Israelites, the priests should exercise self-control, avoiding the impurity of the dead, and marrying of women who are unfit for them in purity and cleanliness.

ולא יחללו שם אלוקיהם, even though all of the aforementioned were expressions of grief over the loss of relatives, the priest is not permitted to disregard the dignity which his status as priest imposes upon him. Even though the priests, no doubt, mean to honour G’d in what they are doing, when they disregard the restrictions their status imposes upon them, they indirectly desecrate the name of the Lord.

קדושים יהיו, “They shall be holy, etc.” Nachmanides writes that קדושה is a term describing a certain type of abstinence, as he had explained on previous of occasions. In the case of the priests, the Torah re-emphasises this to teach that even though the Torah had already made holiness a state every Israelite is to strive for, the priests must abstain even from things that are perfectly permissible for the ordinary Israelite. The most prominent example of these is the mitzvah to busy oneself with the burial of the dead. Another, well known example, is the restriction the Torah imposes on the priests in the type of woman that is eligible to become the wife of a priest.

קדושים יהיו לאלוהיהם, “they are to remain holy to their G’d.” This apparently superfluous comment means that the priests should practice a degree of abstinence, caution of coming close to temptation, over and above what is required of ordinary Israelites. Matters which are permitted to ordinary Israelites, and which therefore are not displeasing in the eyes of the Lord per se, are nevertheless out of bounds for the priests. These include marrying divorcees, women who had been unchaste at one time or another, etc. It is not appropriate for people who derive their food from G’d’s Altar to associate with the categories of people listed in an intimate relationship The word זונה in our verse includes a woman who had sexual relations with someone forbidden to her as a marriage partner. The word חללה refers to someone born of one of the five categories of marriages forbidden to be entered into by priests. On the other hand, priests (other than the High priest) are permitted to marry widows. This is the meaning of the verse in Ezekiel 44,22 והאלמנה אשר תהיה אלמנה מכהן יקחו, “but some priests may marry a widow;” (i.e. a priest who is not High Priest).

The court shall sanctify them against their will. [Re’m explains]: Because it is not written “They (are) holy” (קדושים הם), but rather, “They shall be holy” (קדושים יהיו), which indicates [even] against their will. The explanation of his explanation is: יהיו is in the third person, speaking of the kohanim to the beis din. Even though the verse could not say “you shall be” (תהיו) in the second person because the whole subject is said in the third person, “They shall not make baldness,” “They shall not shave,” etc., nevertheless, it could have said “They (are) holy” (קדושים הם). This is easy to understand (R. Yaakov Taryosh) Even though above (Vayikra 19:2) it says [regarding the Bnei Yisroel], “You shall be holy” (קדושים תהיו), and there it is not mentioned that this is against their will? The answer seems to be: Above, it first said “You shall be holy” and afterwards explained how they should be holy, by restricting themselves from wives who are forbidden to them. Here, however, it first commanded the kohanim about what is forbidden, such as defilement of the dead; if so, what is it adding when it says “They shall be holy,” since “They shall be holy” cannot be an explanation of what came before it [as it adds nothing]. Therefore, Rashi answers that it is an additional command to the beis din, in addition to commanding [the kohanim] themselves regarding this. (Divrei Dovid)

והיו קודש, “therefore they shall be holy.” This “holiness” also includes priests suffering a physical handicap which disqualifies them from performing service in the Temple.” (Sifra)

כי אני ה' מקדשכם, ”seeing that it is I, Hashem, Who sanctifies you.” The switch to direct speech (you) again, signals a continuation of the opening line in the chapter that had been addressed exclusively to the priests. Alternately, G’d does indeed refer to both the priests and the people as a whole, but seeing that the priests represents the entire nation being the one who presents G’d’s “food” on the altar, He addresses them in the first instance. The people’s state of holiness necessitates that the priests represent them in the manner prescribed.

זנה is a woman who had sexual intercourse with an Israelite who is forbidden to her as a husband, for instance, with those whom she may not marry under the penalty of excision, or a Gibeonite or a ממזר (that is, a man born from the union of a couple who are liable to excision for such a union) (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 1 7; Yevamot 61b).

כי קדוש הוא לאלוקיו, every member of the tribe is by definition בעל בעמיו, an especially distinguished personage among his people. If he were to marry someone guilty of or unfortunate enough to belong to the categories mentioned in this verse, the husband would no longer be entitled to the sanctity his birthright had not only entitled him to but had expected him to preserve.

וחללה, a daughter of the category of people of whom the Torah had warned in verse 15 that by marrying them he would desecrate his seed.

אשה זונה וחללה לא יקחו, “they are not to marry a woman who is either a harlot (has desecrated herself) or has been desecrated through no fault of her own. (by birth)” When speaking of the ordinary priest, the Torah lists the women disqualified in the order of “harlot, disqualified by birth, divorced,” whereas when speaking of the High Priest the order is reversed “widow, divorced, disqualified by birth, harlot.” My late father of sainted memory [the R’osh, Ed.] explained the reason for this reversal in sequence as follows: in the case of the ordinary priest the Torah follows the pattern of forbidding not only a woman who had disqualified herself by her own conduct, but even women who had been disqualified by accidents of fate, or even women who clearly had once qualified to become the wives of priests but who had been divorced by their first husbands. Seeing that in the case of the High Priest the Torah added another disqualification, i.e. widow, it mentioned this special disqualification first. Having started with a disqualification which is neither genetic nor due to character faults, the Torah proceeds from the relatively minor disqualification to the most severe one, i.e. being a harlot.

Because she had sexual relations in one of the marriages forbidden to a kohein. For example, a widow [who was married] to a Kohein Godol, or a chalutzah to a regular kohein, who becomes profaned from the kehunah. She is called profaned even though she was already forbidden to a kohein, [since] there is a difference. If a kohein had relations with her afterwards, he will be liable for two negative commands, one because of [her being] a widow and a chalutzah, and one because of [her being] profane.

אשה זונה, “a woman who had engaged in a sexual relationship with a partner forbidden to Israelites;” (RashiIf so, why would she on account of that be forbidden to marry an ordinary priest? We find only one single Rabbi in the Mishnah who rules that if an unmarried male Israelite had intercourse with an unmarried Israelite woman that she becomes forbidden to be married to a priest! The opinion of that Rabbi was never accepted as halachah. (Talmud, tractate Yevamot folio 61) The only woman who is known by the stigma zonah, as a harlot, is the one who had had sexual relations with someone disqualified as a priest, as Rashi himself pointed out in his commentary on Ketuvot, foIio 30.ו

חללה — This is a woman born from a marriage which is forbidden to the priesthood alone (Kiddushin 77a), e. g., the daughter of a widow and a high priest, or the daughter of a divorced woman [or one released from levirate marriage by the appropriate ceremony (cf. Deuteronomy 25:9)] and an ordinary priest. So also it denotes a woman who became profaned in respect to the priesthood (who lost the right of marrying a priest) through her having previously entered into a union with one of those priests a marriage with whom comes under the term: "marriages forbidden to the priesthood alone”.

חללה, “a woman who has been profaned;” the letter ו at the beginning of this word means “or,” and substitutes for או. The same applies to the letter ו in ואשה גרושה, “or a woman who had been divorced;”

גרושה מאישה, “divorced from her husband;” according to Rabbi Elazar ben Matya, this must be understood as distinct from someone no longer her husband, as he had abandoned her and emigrated overseas and has not been heard from. In the meantime this woman had remarried, and after a while her first husband turns up and claims her as his wife. Our verse comes to tell us that she can return to her former husband although in the meantime she had received a divorce decree from her second husband, and in the event that her first husband is a priest, she has not lost her status as being legally a priest’s wife. All this the sages derived from the otherwise superfluous words: “from her husband,” as who else could have divorced her? In the scenario just described her “marriage” to her second husband would not have been recognised as a marriage, hence her “divorce” from the second “husband,” was not a divorce at all.

וקדשתו THOU SHALT SANCTIFY HIM — even against his will; it means that if he is not willing to divorce the woman whom he had illegally married flog him (מלקות ארבעים) and chastise him (מכות מרדות) until he divorces her (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 1 13; Yevamot 88b).

FOR I THE ETERNAL, WHO SANCTIFY YOU, AM HOLY. The sense [of the plural form of you] is that it is addressed to the priests, just as He began, Say unto the priests.²⁵Verse 1. Or it may be that the expression I the Eternal, Who sanctify you means “Who sanctifies all of you — priests and [the rest of the] people,” and the meaning thereof is as follows: “Since the priest offers ‘the bread’ of your G-d, he shall be holy unto thee, for through him I sanctify all of you and make My Shechinah (Divine Glory) dwell in your Sanctuary.” It is possible by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala] that the above phrase refers back to the beginning of [this] verse,²⁶The beginning of the verse reads: Thou shalt sanctify him. The sense of the whole verse is thus: “Sanctify him, and you likewise will become holy, because it is I the Eternal Who sanctifies you, and when he [the priest] performs the rites of the offerings to be acceptable upon Mine altar, he thereby sanctifies you and brings you nearer unto Me” (Ricanti). a matter which has already been explained.²⁷Above, 1:9 (towards the end).

וקדשתו, "You shall sanctify him, etc." The Torah refrains from addressing the priests in the plural, i.e. as a group as it had done up to now. Yevamot 88 explains that the word וקדשתו is a warning to a priest who married a divorcee, or some other category of woman forbidden to him and who refuses to divorce her. The court is to administer corporal punishment to such a priest and otherwise afflict him until he agrees to divorce such a woman. The words כי את לחם אלוקיך הוא מקריב "for he offers the bread of your G'd" mean that as long as there are many other priests who are ritually able to perform the service in the Temple there is no need to apply corporal punishment to the dissident priest who refuses to divorce a wife he married in violation of Torah law. This explains why the Torah addressed the priest in the singular in this instance.

Against his will. You might ask: Above too in v. 6 it is written “They shall be holy,” [and Rashi explained], “Against their will”? The answer is that above it is saying that regarding the prohibition against become defiled by the dead, the beis din are obligated to separate him against his will. But here it is discussing an invalid woman, and therefore Rashi says here, “For if he does not wish to divorce, beat him...” Even though it already mentioned that the beis din [forces him to be] sanctified him [even] against his will, it seems that the verse says this again so that you do not say that only when he wants to defile himself does the beis din force him to not defile himself, since he is [still] pure. But if he married a woman forbidden to him, I might think that since he is already profaned and considered like a non-kohein, we should leave him thus [with her]. So it tells us that the beis din is commanded [to see to it] that he must specifically divorce her. (Divrei Dovid)

You shall make him holy. Three times holiness is mentioned in the verse: To [hint that the kohein should] speak first, that he should bless first, and we should give him the nice portion first.

קדוש יהיה לך, “he will be holy as far as you are concerned;” here too the adjective “holy” also applies to physically handicapped priests. (Sifra)

קדש יהיה לך HE SHALL BE HOLY UNTO THEE — holy unto thee: treat him with sanctity (as someone holy) — that he should be the first in all holy matters (e. g., the reading of the law) and that he should have the first right to recite the benedictions at a meal (המוציא and ברכת המזון) (Gittin 59b; cf. Rashi on Nedarim 62b).

קדוש יהיה לך, "he shall be holy unto you." This means that in order for him to be holy he has to be a priest unto you. In other words, it is up to you to see that he conducts himself in a holy manner. The emphasis on the words "for he is holy" stems from the premise that holiness is something that is acquired through one's free-willed effort, one does not achieve it because it is forced upon one. How then can the Torah command us to "force" holiness on the priest? This is why the Torah had to repeat: "for he is holy," that the holiness of the priest is of a different nature than that of ordinary Israelites (if and when they achieve it in some measure). We do not impose holiness on the priest. We are commanded to see to it that he does not lose or abandon the holiness which is his by birth. The Torah underlines this at the end of our verse with the words: "for I the Lord sanctify you." G'd allows His Presence to rest on the whole people only through the priests. When there is no priest there is no sacrificial service; when there is no sacrificial service there is no Sanctuary. When there is no Sanctuary G'd's Presence is not at home amongst us.

כי תחל לזנות means, if she profanes herself through unchastity, i. e. that a marriage-tie of some kind applied to her and she nevertheless prostituted herself either after betrothal (which constituted a kind of marriage-tie, since she would require a bill of divorce to enable her to marry someone else) or after marriage (having left her father's house for her husband’s). Our Rabbis are of different opinions regarding this (whether Scripture speaks here of an ארוסה or a נשואה), but all agree that Scripture is not speaking of a פנויה (a woman who is neither betrothed nor married) (cf. Sanhedrin 51b).

ובת איש כהן, a girl who is already betrothed to be married. The details of this legislation are explained in Sanhedrin 50.

באש תשרף, “she is to be consumed by fire.” Had the Torah written the sequence תשרף באש, I would have understood that the meaning is that the daughter mentioned is to be literally burned to death on a pile of wood set afire. The Torah’s method of execution by what is called שרפה is not similar to burning someone on a pyre. The body of the guilty party is most certainly not destroyed by fire. I have found that the sages in Pessachim 75 when discussing how the Passover is to be prepared for eating, discuss the finer points of what is written. The Torah had stipulated that the Passover has to be eaten after it has been צלי אש, “roasted over the fire.” The sages there say that the words באש תשרף “she is to be burned by fire,” include all possible methods of burning as long as the course of the burning is fire. Rav Matnah stated that the way this penalty is applied is through administering molten lead to the party to be executed and pouring it into the larynx so that instant death occurs. He points to the difference in the wording of the Torah in Leviticus 4,12 when the parts of a bull which serves as a sin-offering for the High Priest is burnt outside the camp except for the parts offered on the Altar. The wording there is that ושרף אותו על עצים באש, “he shall burn it on wood in fire.” You will note that the Torah describes the process of burning before mentioning fire, the reverse of what is written in our verse here. It is therefore likely that the penalty of death by burning applicable to the daughter of the priest mentioned in our verse results in injuries similar to those suffered by the sons of Aaron when heavenly fire entered their nostrils. In other words, the life-force, נשמה, is burned whereas the body remains intact.

When she becomes profaned through fornication. Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies that she is only burnt if she “began (תחל) to fornicate” [and was caught immediately]. But if she had already begun to fornicate and no one knew, and the matter only became known later, she is not burnt. But this is not logical! Therefore Rashi explains: “When she becomes profaned through fornication,” and informs us that the word תחל means “profanity” and not “beginning.”

את אביה, “she profanes her father,” seeing that being a priest he is holy. (legally) and she also causes her father to become belittled in the eyes of his friends who know that he failed miserably in the way he raised his daughter, her guilt is therefore twofold. This is why the Torah decreed the harsher mode of execution by having molten lead poured down her throat.

את אביה היא מחללת SHE PROFANETH HER FATHER — i. e. she profanes and makes light of his honor by her conduct (מחללת does not mean she causes him to become a חלל, one unfit for priestly service), in that people say about him, "Cursed be he who has engendered this woman; — cursed be he who has reared this woman” (Sanhedrin 52a).

Marital tie (זיקת) with a husband. זיקת is an expression of tying. The Targum Yonasan translates (Yeshayahu 60:11) ומלכיהם נהוגים , “And their kings tied up,” as ומלכיהם זקוקין.

היא מחללת, the word היא is spelled with the letter .י

באש תשרף, “she will be burned by fire” (as explained.). Only she has to suffer this harsher mode of execution, not her partner. Her partner dies by the sword. (decapitation)

לא יפרע [THE HAIR OF HIS HEAD] SHALL HE NOT DISARRANGE — i.e. he shall not let his hair grow wild on account of ritual mourning for the death of a near relative (Sifra). And what is called "letting the hair grow wild”? Leaving it uncut for more than 30 days (Sanhedrin 22b).

HE SHALL NOT LET THE HAIR OF HIS HEAD GO LOOSE etc. 11. NEITHER SHALL HE GO IN TO ANY DEAD BODY. The phrase [dealing with his hair, in Verse 10], is connected with any dead body in the following verse, thus stating that the High Priest is not to let his hair go loose nor rend his garments for any dead body, neither is he to enter a tent where there is a corpse.

It shall not grow wild in mourning. As we learn from the sons of Aharon where it is written (Vayikra 10:6), “Do not let your hair grow long (תפרעו),” just as over there [it refers to someone] in mourning, so here [it refers to someone] in mourning. And what is [the definition of] growing [hair] wild? [Leaving it uncut for] more than thirty days as we learn from the [laws of] nazir of whom it is written, “He shall let (יהיה) the hair of his head grow long; the gematria of יהיה is thirty.

את ראשו לא יפרע ובגדיו לו יפרום , “he must not let hishair grow wild, nor must he rend his garments” (as a means of showing the world that he is in mourning). He must not neglect his dignified appearance, even when in mourning.

'ועל כל נפשת מת וגו‎‎ means, he shall not go into a tent wherein is a corpse.

A tent [which is over a] dead body. I.e., because it is written “he shall not enter,” and entering is not applicable except into something that has an interior.

ועל כל נפשות מת לא יבא, “he shall not go to make contact with any corpse.” This is a warning to the High Priest not to be in the same covered airspace with any corpse. Seeing that this could have been derived already from the previous verse, it is clear that here the Torah includes ordinary priests in this legislation also. The linkage known as g’zeyrah shava, is established by the word יבא which is used here in connection with the High Priest, followed by the unnecessary

נפשת מת — The word נפשת, which appears redundant, is intended to include a quarter of a log of the blood of a corpse — to intimate that even this, as a corpse itself, makes men and vessels unclean through being in a "tent” in which it happens to be (Sanhedrin 4a).

A quarter of blood. It seems that Rashi infers this from Scripture’s writing “souls” in the plural, and “dead body” in the singular., as iI It should have said either “the soul of a dead body,” or “the souls of dead bodies.” Thus it is saying that one body can impart impurity similar to that of many souls, and this is [through] the quarter [of a לוג] of blood, since each quarter [of a לוג] from a corpse imparts impurity, and one can call it “soul” as the soul rests in a quarter [of a לוג] of a person. And this is easy to understand. (R. Yaakov Taryosh) You might ask: In parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 19:13) it is also written, במת בנפש, “a corpse,” and Rashi writes, “’Of a [human] soul’ refers to a quarter [of a לוג] of blood.” Why do we need two verses [to teach this lesson]? The answer is: Here it is speaking of a case where it caused impurity in a tent, and there it is speaking of a case where it caused impurity though contact.

ולאביו ולאמו לא יטמא “he must not defile himself on the bodies of either his father or his mother.” This was included in the previous part of the verse that was all inclusive, by the words: כל נפשות מת, “any dead bodies.” By repeating it, apparently, the sages learn that if a corpse is abandoned and has no one to arrange for his burial, the High Priest is commanded to defile himself on his account. (Sifra)

לאביו ולאמו לא יטמא NOR SHALL HE DEFILE HIMSELF FOR HIS FATHER OR FOR HIS MOTHER — By these words which appear redundant, since אביו ואמו are included in כל נפשת מת, Scripture has no other intention than to permit him to defile himself for a מת מצוה (cf. v. 1) (Sifra, Emor, Section 2 4; Nazir 47b).

To permit him [to become impure] for a meis mitzvoh. Because Scripture has already written, “Adjacent to any dead body he shall not enter,” which must be teaching that he may not become impure even for his father and mother. Because if it meant for other people, this would be obvious as even a regular kohein is prohibited as it is written (verse 1), “Let him not defile himself with the dead.” Therefore, “Adjacent to any dead body he shall not enter,” must be coming to prohibit a corpse [for whom] a regular kohein is permitted [to defile himself], e.g., his father and mother. But if so, why do we need [the verse], “for his father and mother he shall not become [ritually] impure”? We must certainly need it [for the following]: If the Torah did not write “his father and his mother,” we would think that since the verse “Let him not defile himself, etc.,” prohibits the Kohein Godol doing even that which is permitted to the regular kohein, and earlier the Torah permitted [the regular kohein to become impure for] a meis mitzvah and for his father and mother, whereas here regarding the Kohein Godol the Torah forbids everything, we would then think that even for a meis mitzvah it is forbidden for him to become impure. Therefore the verse repeats and writes, “For his father and his mother he shall not become [ritually] impure,” [to teach us that] for his father and mother he may not become impure, but for a meis mitzvah he may become impure. So I found.

ומן המקדש לא יצא NEITHER SHALL HE GO OUT FROM THE SANCTUARY — This means that he must not follow the bier (attend the funeral of his father or mother) (Sanhedrin 18a). Our Rabbis further derived from this (Sanhedrin 84a) the Halacha that the High Priest may perform the sacrificial rites when an “Onan”. The following is how this is implied: even if his father or his mother died he is not required to leave the Sanctuary as may be assumed, but may perform the service;

NEITHER SHALL HE GO OUT OF THE SANCTUARY. “He does not follow the bier [of a near relative]. Our Rabbis have further derived from this verse [the principle] that the High Priest may perform [the Divine Service] when he is an onen (a mourner),²⁸See above, Seder Shemini, Note 85. the meaning of the verse thus being as follows: Even if his father or his mother died, he need not leave the Sanctuary but he may perform the Service. Nor shall he profane the Sanctuary of his G-d, means that [the High Priest] does not profane thereby the Service by ministering when he is an onen,²⁸See above, Seder Shemini, Note 85. since Scripture permitted him to minister. From this you deduce that a common priest who officiated when he is an onen, does profane the Service.” This is Rashi’s language.
But these two interpretations [that Rashi mentioned, namely, that the High Priest is not to follow the bier of a near relative, and that he may officiate when he is an onen], are really opposing opinions, for since the verse permitted the High Priest not to leave the Sanctuary on account of his mourning, as a common priest must do, but instead he may [continue to] officiate when he is an onen,²⁸See above, Seder Shemini, Note 85. then there is no admonition here against his following the bier of his near relative.²⁹To understand Ramban’s criticism of Rashi’s interpretation, it is necessary to recall the difference between a statement which is a mere negation and one which is a prohibition. “An admonition is in the nature of a charge; it is in fact the verb in its command-form” (“The Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 391). But a statement of negation merely excludes a particular case from a certain subject (see further, Ramban Vol. II, p. 350, Note 71). Now the verse before us reads, Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary, nor profane the Sanctuary of his G-d. In interpreting the phrase, neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary as a prohibition, meaning that he is not permitted to leave the Sanctuary to follow the bier, how could Rashi continue on the basis of the same phrase to state that he need not leave the Sanctuary, but he may perform the Service, since these two interpretations of the same phrase are contradictory to each other! This is the meaning of Ramban’s succinct objection: “Since the verse permitted the High Priest … then there is no admonition …” Mizrachi, in defense of Rashi, answers that Rashi was not referring only to the first phrase [as if both the permission and the admonition are derived from the same phrase], but rather to both phrases of the verse, the first one [neither shall he go out …] establishing the prohibition, and the second one [nor profane …] constituting the negation. Ramban will also further on defend Rashi’s position from another standpoint. Similarly, nor shall he profane the Sanctuary of his G-d is, according to this interpretation [of Rashi], nothing but a statement that the Service of the High Priest does not become profaned [although performed when he is an onen], from which you are to deduce that a common priest who officiates when he is an onen, does defile the Service. But if so, this verse is merely a negation, not a prohibition, and yet the “masters of the Halachoth”³⁰“Masters of the Halachoth.” From the ensuing phrase [“counted it among the negative commandments in the Hilchoth Gedoloth”], it is obvious that Ramban is referring to one particular work. But if so, why does he speak of “the masters” [in the plural] of that work? It may be that this is because it has long been in doubt whether the authorship of that book is to be ascribed to Rav Yehudai Gaon or to Rabbi Shimon Kairo, or to both. Hence Ramban writes here “the masters of the Halachoth.” See, however, in Exodus 21:7, where Ramban writes of “the master of the Hilchoth Gedoloth” — in the singular. See Vol. II, p. 350, Note 70. counted it among the negative commandments in the Hilchoth Gedoloth! Moreover, I have already quoted the Beraitha³¹For the meaning of this term, see in Exodus, Seder Bo, Note 209. which is taught in the Torath Kohanim³²Torath Kohanim, Shemini Milu’im 42. Ramban quoted it above, 10:6. where it is clearly explained that this verse is a proper prohibition [and not a mere negation], as it is taught: “And ye shall not go out from the door of the Tent of Meeting.³³Above, 8:33. I might think that [upon becoming apprised of the death of a near relative, an ordinary priest may not leave the Sanctuary] whether he is ministering or not; Scripture therefore says, Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary, nor shall he profane. When is he not permitted to go out [so that only by his staying there] he does not profane it? I must say that this applies only when he is ministering.” And it further states there [in the Torath Kohanim]:³⁴Torath Kohanim, Shemini Milu’im 43. “I would only know that this tells me that Aaron and his sons, who were anointed with the oil of anointment, are liable to death [by the hand of Heaven] if they leave the Sanctuary while they are ministering. How do I know that this [prohibition] applies also to all priests of all times? etc.” Thus it is clear that the verse before us constitutes an actual negative commandment, prohibiting the priest from leaving the Service and going out [of the Sanctuary].
Therefore I say in order to maintain the words of all the Sages [i.e., of Rashi and of the author of the Hilchoth Gedoloth, as will be explained], that the main purpose of this verse is to admonish the High Priest not to leave the Sanctuary while he is ministering, on [becoming apprised of] the death of any near relative, and he is not to profane the Sanctuary by leaving its Service for the honor of the dead. Instead, the honor of the Sanctuary and its Service is to be greater to him than his honor of and love for the dead, and it follows all the more so that if he left his ministration for no reason at all, and went out of the Sanctuary, that he has violated this negative commandment. However, Scripture warned him with [especial] reference to the dead, in order [incidentally] to permit the High Priest to perform the Service when he is an onen (a mourner),²⁸See above, Seder Shemini, Note 85. and since it is permissible for him to perform it, therefore if he leaves it voluntarily it constitutes a profanation of the Sanctuary. This is the meaning of this verse, and I have already written it in the section of Vay’hi Bayom Ha’shemini.³⁵Above 10:6.
We find furthermore that our Rabbis have differed in the second chapter of Tractate Zebachim [on this matter, namely whether the verse before us is a prohibition, or a mere negation]. Thus they have said:³⁶Zebachim 16 a. “How do we know that an onen [who performs] profanes the Service? Because it is written, Neither shall he [i.e., the High Priest] go out of the Sanctuary, nor profane; but any other priest who does not go out [of the Sanctuary], does profane it [i.e., if he officiates when he is an onen]. And Rabbi Ilai³⁷Ibid., Rabbi Eleazar. said, We derive it from this verse: Behold, this day have they offered their sin-offering and their burnt-offering³⁸Above, 10:19. The verse refers to the day when Aaron’s two sons — Nadab and Abihu — died, and Aaron the High Priest performed the Service on that day. When Moses was angry with Elazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s two remaining sons, for not eating a certain offering as required, but burning it instead, Aaron intervened by replying: “Did they perform the rites of the offerings? It was I, the High Priest, who ministered, and the High Priest may indeed minister whilst an onen. And as for the reason why that offering was burnt etc.” (see above, 10:19). — it is ‘I’ [Aaron — the High Priest] who offered! From this you may learn that if they [Aaron’s sons — Elazar and Ithamar] had performed the rites of the offerings, they would have acted correctly [in burning them, since common priests who minister when in a state of aninuth (mourning) invalidate the Service] etc. And Rabbi Ilai, why does he not derive this principle from the verse, Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary, nor profane? He will answer you: Is it after all written, ‘But any other priest who does not go out of the Sanctuary does profane it’?” The meaning of [Rabbi Ilai’s answer] is that since Scripture states an admonition with reference to the High Priest, that he is not to leave the Sanctuary and that he should not profane the Service by leaving it [on becoming apprised of the death of a near relative], there is no implication here that a common priest does profane the Service if he officiates when he is an onen [and hence Rabbi Ilai resorted to another verse — Behold, this day etc.³⁸Above, 10:19. The verse refers to the day when Aaron’s two sons — Nadab and Abihu — died, and Aaron the High Priest performed the Service on that day. When Moses was angry with Elazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s two remaining sons, for not eating a certain offering as required, but burning it instead, Aaron intervened by replying: “Did they perform the rites of the offerings? It was I, the High Priest, who ministered, and the High Priest may indeed minister whilst an onen. And as for the reason why that offering was burnt etc.” (see above, 10:19). — from which he learned that a common priest who is an onen profanes the Service]. From this text, then, there is another proof that it is not [merely] a permission [that the Torah extended] to the High Priest, permitting him to perform the Service, and informing him that his ministration will not become profaned [as Rashi had stated it], for if that were the case, it would surely have followed that a common priest does profane it by ministering [when he is an onen]. Thus it appears from the interpretation of the text,³⁹The significance of this phrase of Ramban (“the interpretation of the text”), becomes clearer later on in the text, as another interpretation is offered by the author. At this point here Ramban is saying that the plain interpretation of the Beraitha shows that the First Sage agrees with Rashi’s view that the verse before us is a mere negation, and not an admonition to the High Priest (see following note). that according to the opinion of the first answer [stated above, that we know that an onen profanes the Service from the verse about the High Priest, Neither shall he go out etc., which teaches by implication: “but any other priest who does not go out, does profane it”], it constitutes a mere negation as far as the High Priest is concerned,⁴⁰Ramban’s meaning is as follows: Since the First Sage of this Beraitha derives the admonition against a common priest ministering whilst in mourning from the verse about the High Priest [as explained in the text], this perforce shows that this Sage holds that with reference to the High Priest, the verse is a mere negation, and the reasoning is as follows: “Since Scripture states that the High Priest need not leave his ministration, we understand by implication that the common priest must leave it.” Thus with reference to the High Priest the verse is a mere negation, but, by implication, it is an admonition to the common priest. Rashi’s interpretation quoted at the beginning of this verse, that the verse is a negation, is thus justified and is in accord with the opinion of this Beraitha. — Thus far Ramban argued on the basis of the interpretation of the text of the Beraitha, that it substantiates Rashi’s position. Ramban will now turn his attention to the fact that a cursory reading of the Beraitha does convey the thought that the verse is an admonition to the High Priest, which is the opinion of the Hilchoth Gedoloth [as mentioned above], and he will explain the Beraitha accordingly. Thus Ramban has “validated the words of all the Sages” — Rashi and Hilchoth Gedoloth as he promised above in the text. [to teach us] that he does not profane his Service [and invalidate it if he officiates whilst he is an onen], as is the language of Rashi. However, because in the Beraitha [quoted above] it is clearly stated that it is an admonition [an opinion held by the Hilchoth Gedoloth], we shall say that they⁴¹“They.” The reference may be to “the masters of the Halachoth” (see Note 30 above). hold that since the admonition pertains only to the High Priest, and by implication we reason that a common priest does go out [of the Sanctuary] and leave the ministration, from this we learn that [if the common priest would continue ministering], the Service would be profaned, for if it would have been valid, [the Torah] would not have permitted him to leave it. And so it is taught in the Torath Kohanim in this section:⁴²Torath Kohanim, Emor 2:6. “How do we know that if [the High Priest] officiates [whilst he is an onen] that his Service is valid? Because Scripture says, Nor shall he profane. But if a common priest officiates whilst in mourning, his Service is invalid.”
Now as to the text written in Tractate Sanhedrin:⁴³Sanhedrin 18 a. — Ramban now quotes a text showing that the verse ‘Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary,’ prohibits the High Priest from following the bier of his near relative, so that he should not become defiled thereby and thus “go out from his sanctity” (see Note 44 further). From this text it would then appear that the verse is not an admonition against his going out of the Sanctuary because of the honor of the Service, but because of the honor of his own sanctity, which would thus be a contradiction to what was said above. This, in short, is the intention of Ramban in quoting this text, and further on he will remove the difficulty. “Neither shall he go out ‘min hamikdash’ (of the Sanctuary) — this means that he may not follow after the bier with the bearers, but [he may go forth with them as long as they do not see one another, thus:] when they [who form the funeral cortege] are hidden [from his view, as when entering an alley], he [the High Priest] appears; when they emerge, he disappears [in the alley]. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yehudah says: He may not go forth from the Sanctuary at all, for it is said, Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary.” And [in the Gemara there] the Rabbis explained that the reason of Rabbi Meir is that he interprets the verse as follows: “‘u’min hamikdash — out of his sanctity — he shall not go forth,’⁴⁴That is to say, he is to guard himself against being defiled by the dead. This implies that he is to follow the bier, but must guard himself against touching it or its bearers, and hence he must never be in sight of the funeral cortege. and as long as he has some distinction [to remind him not to defile himself, namely, the fact that he is not in sight of the funeral cortege], he will not come to touch the dead. And Rabbi Yehudah [is of the opinion that] on account of his grief, he might by chance touch it.” [Now this whole text would seem to indicate that the verse before us is an admonition whose purpose is to guard the sanctity of the High Priest, and not, as we have said above, that its purpose is to guard the sanctity of the Service!] However, all this is merely a Scriptural support for a Rabbinic ordinance. It is they [i.e., the Rabbis] who [decided to] guard the dignity of the High Priest, that he should not go out after the bier, because he is not permitted to defile himself for near relatives; and since people are upset about their dead, [they feared] lest he will touch it, similar to that which is written, And Joseph fell upon his father’s face.⁴⁵Genesis 50:1. But a common priest must defile himself for his near relatives, and he is not so upset about other people that there is a fear lest he defile himself; [therefore there was no need for the Rabbis to institute a restriction against a common priest following the funeral cortege of people other than his near relatives]. Thus it is clear that all this is a mark of distinction [for the High Priest] by law of the Rabbis, and they gave it support by reference to this verse, as is the manner of asmachtoth⁴⁶See in Exodus, p. 314, Note 449. in the Talmud. So also have I found in the Tosephta of Sanhedrin:⁴⁷Tosephta, Sanhedrin 2:1. On “Tosephta” see above in Seder Tazria, Note 124. “The Sages said to Rabbi Yehudah: The verse Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary, only refers to his leaving the Sanctuary at the time of ministration.” There are also proofs in the Talmud Yerushalmi there,⁴⁸Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin II, 1. On “Yerushalmi,” see above in Seder Metzora, Note 44. [to the correctness of this explanation], but this is not the place to mention them.⁴⁹In his comments to Rambam’s Sefer Hamitivoth, Principle Five, Ramban does quote this Yerushalmi at length.

ומן המקדש לא יצא. According to Rabbi Saadyah gaon, this means primarily joining the funeral cortege which requires leaving the holy precincts.

ומן המקדש לא יצא, “And he shall not leave the Sanctuary.” According to Rashi this means that the High Priest is not even to walk behind the bier of his father or mother, and that he is even to continue with his daily priestly routine while still in the condition known as onan, a state of pre-mourning before his dead has been buried. Nachmanides, commenting on Rashi’s interpretation, writes that we are faced with two conflicting views about this verse expressed by different midrashim. If we assume that the verse meant to permit the High Priest, or better, to instruct the High Priest, not to interrupt his Temple service even while he is in the state of aninut, pre-burial mourning, there was no need for the Torah to mention that he must not take time out to walk behind the funeral procession and that he is not permitted to leave the Sanctuary for that purpose. It follows that what is meant by our verse is not a warning for the High Priest not to walk behind the bier of his father or mother. On the other hand, the baraitha cited in Torat Kohanim on our verse is quite emphatic that the words ולא יחלל in our verse mean that as long as the High Priest does not leave the Sanctuary he does not desecrate the institution of the Temple even if he does perform the Temple service while in a state of aninut. In other words, the injunction not to walk behind the funeral procession is a definitive negative commandment. The author of halachot gedolot also shares the view cited in Torat Kohanim, listing it as such. He explains that the principal injunction of our verse consists of forbidding the High Priest to leave the Temple and to thereby interrupt or abandon the sacred task he had been entrusted with by preferring participation in the funeral of his parents, etc., to the task at hand. It follows that if the High Priest were to leave the Holy Temple for a lesser reason this would constitute an even graver dereliction of his duties. The reason why the Torah chose our verse to make this point was in order to allow the High Priest to continue performing his service in spite of the fact that he temporarily finds himself in a state of aninut. It follows that if he voluntarily prefers to attend his parents’ funeral, that he would thereby desecrate the Temple. Concerning the Talmud in Sanhedrin 18 where our verse is understood to mean that the High Priest is not to follow the bier, this is not a Biblical injunction, but seeing that by following the bier he might come closer to it than is halachically permitted, [closer than 4 cubits. Ed.,] the sages decreed that he must keep the kind of distance from it that places him a block away from the bier, beyond direct visual contact with the bier. An ordinary priest is not subject to such stringent restrictions. He may contaminate himself in respect of the relatives mentioned in our paragraph, but not for the sake of people not related to him genetically.

May offer [a sacrifice] while he is an onein. Explanation: We derive this from theis verse, “He shall not profane his God’s Sanctuary.” You cannot say we derive this from “He shall not depart (from the Sanctuary),” [because] how could we derive these two teachings from this verse? The teaching that “he does not follow the bier” implies both during the Temple service and not during the service, whereas according to the second teaching, the verse has to be explained [as speaking of] during the service, [whereas not during the service he should follow the bier].

ולא יחלל את מקדש means because he does not thereby (by remaining in the Sanctuary) profane the sacred service, since Scripture permits him to remain and to perform it; it follows therefore that an ordinary priest who officiated when an "Onan" did profane the service (Zevachim 16a; Sanhedrin 84a).

ולא יחלל את מקדש אלוקיו, so as not to desecrate the Temple of his G’d, as people would conclude that giving honour to the dead is more important than to remain within the sphere of G’d’s immediate presence, something he enjoys as the exceptional privilege of being exposed to on an ongoing basis.

AND HE SHALL TAKE A WIFE IN HER VIRGINITY. This means that he is not to wed a woman who is not a virgin, this being a negative commandment which is derived from a positive commandment [which carries the force of a positive commandment].⁵⁰The intention of Ramban’s comment is that this verse is primarily intended to teach that the High Priest is not to marry a woman who is not a virgin. And the reason why it is stated in a positive form, is to make the negative aspect of it carry the force of a positive commandment, because it is an accepted principle that a negative commandment which is derived from a positive commandment carries only the force of a positive commandment. Therefore if he marries a woman who is not a virgin, he does not incur whipping, since the prohibition thereof is derived from a positive commandment, and only carries the force of a positive commandment, for the violation of which the court is not empowered to mete out punishment. This interpretation is made necessary by the following Verse 14, where it is stated again, but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife. As Ramban will explain further on, it is this expression in Verse 14 which established the positive aspect thereof, while Verse 13 before us expresses the prohibitive part thereof. Thus the two verses are not redundant, but instead complement each other. Afterwards [in the following verse] He forbids the High Priest by means of a negative commandment to marry a widow or other disqualified woman, and then says, but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife,⁵¹Verse 14. See preceding note. thus commanding him [in a positive manner] to take a virgin as a wife. It is this which our Rabbis have said:⁵²Horayoth 11 b. “He is forbidden [to marry] a widow, and he is commanded to marry a virgin.” And so the Rabbis taught in the Torath Kohanim:⁵³Torath Kohanim, Emor 2:6. “But a virgin. This teaches that he is commanded to marry a virgin.”

וחללה OR A PROFANE [SHALL HE NOT TAKE] — i. e. a woman born from marriages forbidden to the priesthood alone (cf. v.7) (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 2 3).

כי אם בתולה מעמיו יקח אשה, “but he must take for a wife a virgin belonging to his own people.” These words are the definition of the previous והוא אשה בבתוליה יקח in verse 13. In other words, [if the High Priest was not yet married at the time he was appointed as such, a most unlikely scenario, Ed.] he is not allowed to marry a woman who has already had carnal relations with another man. Verse 13 is what is known as לאו הבא מכלל עשה, negative commandment arrived at by bringing it into line with an existing positive commandment. Now, by repeating the same concept as a positive commandment, it is much stronger. [The author understands the positive message in verse 13 as only an indirect prohibition to marry a woman no longer a virgin. Ed.]

כי עם בתולה מעמיו, “except for a virgin from his people.” Why is this verse necessary, seeing that it has just been written in verse 13 that he must marry a virgin? According to Kidushin 10 the repetition teaches that if the High Priest performed marital intercourse with his wife to be (by mutual consent) relying on this as the act acquiring her as his wife, this is not admissible in his case, [although a legal option to anyone else. Ed.] The reason for this is that halachically speaking, the completion of the act of coitus is when the acquisition becomes effective, i.e. a point in time when the girl in question is technically no longer a virgin. Technically she became a בעולת עצמו, a woman who had already had intercourse with the same man. A High Priest is forbidden to marry a בעולת עצמו no less than he is forbidden to marry someone who had had sexual relations with another male. This prohibition is known in the Talmud as לאו הבא מכלל עשה, “a negative commandment which is the logical result of a positive commandment related to the same subject.”

Born of [a marriage] forbidden to the kehunoh. You might ask: Rashi already explained this above (verse 7)? Furthermore, if Rashi wanted also to explain [the verse] here as well, he should have also mentioned the second explanation [of profaned woman as] he explained above, and also explained the word “harlot” written here. The answer is: he has to explain the meaning of “profaned woman” here, since you may have thought the case is specifically that she was invalidated from kehunoh through having sexual relations with one of those people forbidden to kehunoh, i.e., even if the relations were unnatural [and she remained a virgin according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir (see Yevamos 59a)]. But [you may have thought that] a virgin born from someone invalidated from kehunah would not be considered a profane woman, since the verse specifically writes חללה זונה, which implies, a profane woman who is [also] a harlot. [You might think this] because preceding this, the verse wrote אלמנה וגרושה (“a widow and a divorcee), which implies a widow or a divorcee. If so, here [too] it should have written וזונה (and a harlot), which would have implied “or a harlot.” Therefore, because it writes “harlot” without a ו, this implies that she is a profaned woman who is also a harlot. Therefore, Rashi has to explain that [a daughter] “born of [a marriage] forbidden to the kehunoh” is also considered a profaned woman, and that the word “harlot” is not connected with the word “profane woman.” The reason Scripture does not write “and a profaned woman and a harlot,” is because it is normal for verses to write in this way. For example, above (verse 2) [it says], “Except to his kin to whom he is closely related, for his mother and his father,” it should have said “and for his mother.”

אלמנה וגרושה, “a widow or divorced woman;” seeing that the High Priest is not allowed to marry a widow, is it not obvious that he may not marry a divorced woman? Why did the Torah have to spell this out for us? Answer: I might have thought that seeing a widow is permitted for the ordinary priest to marry, a divorcee who is also forbidden to an ordinary priest and who is certainly forbidden to the High Priest, that if the High Priest had contravened this law, the son from such a union is not only no priest but has the status of a mamzer, someone who is not allowed to marry a Jewish woman. By phrasing it as it does, the Torah limited the fallout from such a contravention to demoting the issue to be like an ordinary Israelite, not a priest. Or, if the Torah had written only that the High Priest must not marry a divorced woman, I would have thought that the son of a marriage between a High priest and a divorced woman would indeed not be a priest, whereas the son of a union between a High Priest and a widow would be considered as a normal priest; therefore the Torah has to state that the consequences are more serious than we would have thought. In short, the unnecessary word גרושה is interpreted as lenient, whereas the unnecessary word אלמנה is interpreted as additional severity. (Sifra)

וחללה זנה, “or a profaned woman or a harlot;“ the missing letter ו in the word זונה is comparable to the missing letter ו in Chabakuk 3,11, “their habitation” in the word זבלה which should have been זבולה, “its respective habitation (orbit)” or as in Deuteronomy 32,42: וכפר אדמתו עמו, where the ו is missing at the beginning, so that it will be understood: “and His people.”

את אלה לא יקח, “these (who have been mentioned) he must not marry.” (publicly, in a ceremony of a wedding)

כי אם בתולה מעמיו, “but he must marry a virgin of his own people.” If she is not a virgin he would have transgressed a positive commandment. (The transgression is not punishable by lashes. If you were to ask what is different here from the commandment that the Passover lamb must only be eaten broiled on the fire, not boiled or steamed, where the sages interpreted this not as a positive commandment but as a negative commandment (Talmud tractate Pessachim folio 41) and they decreed that someone not doing so would receive lashes on account of having transgressed two negative commandments, one for having eaten it raw, the other for not having eaten it broiled? Here too the commandment of marrying a virgin is a positive commandment? Answer: the words: כי אם בתולה, “only a virgin,” refer to the part of the verse that began with the words, and refer to what follows; whereas in the verse speaking of how to eat the Passover lamb, the words כי אם צלי אש, refer to what had already happened, something which is not followed by another positive commandment, i.e. יקח אשה.

ולא יחלל זרעו NEITHER SHALL HE PROFANE HIS SEED — ,thus if he marries one of these women disqualified for a union with him his offspring (זרעו) from her becomes “profaned" (חלל) being exempted from the general law of holiness that applies to the priestly status (cf. Kiddushin 77a).

AND HE SHALL NOT PROFANE HIS SEED AMONG HIS PEOPLE. “Thus if he married one of these women who are disqualified for him, his offspring from her becomes profaned [i.e., disqualified] from the law of the sanctity of the priesthood.” This is Rashi’s language.
The Rabbi [Rashi] thus explained the verse [before us] as a mere negation, meaning: “these shall he not take in order that he profane not his offspring.” But in the opinion of our Rabbis, this constitutes a second negative commandment. Thus they have said:⁵⁴Kiddushin 78 a. “If [a High Priest or a common priest] betrothed and had intercourse with one of the women disqualified to him, he is subject to two penalties of whipping, once on account of he shall not take, and again on account of he shall not profane.” And the Rabbis have also said there: “If he has intercourse without betrothal, he is liable to whipping on account of he shall not profane.” Thus it is clear that these are two negative commandments. They have also explained there the reason why, for [mere] betrothal without [subsequent] intercourse, he is not liable to whipping, because [Scripture says: he shall not take … he shall not profane, meaning:] Why must he not take [her as his wife]? “In order that he may not profane” [his offspring, and therefore if the marriage was not consummated, and he can have no offspring from her, he is not liable merely for the betrothal]. If so, the meaning of the expression, these shall he not take, is “because I [the Eternal] admonish him against profaning his seed,” and from this statement we ourselves deduce that his offspring from one of the disqualified women is profaned, [rendered unfit for the priesthood].

ולא יחלל, “so that he will not desecrate, etc.” Rashi understands the message of our verse, as “he must not take as a wife someone forbidden to him so that he will not desecrate any male children he will have from such a union.” Nachmanides rejects this interpretation saying that if it were correct our verse is not a negative commandment, but merely an explanation of the legislation. Our sages (Kidushin 78) make plain that our verse is an additional negative commandment, i.e. a priest will receive twice 39 lashes for what might have a appeared as violating a single commandment. In fact he violates לא יקח as well as לא יחלל.

Profaned from the status of the holiness of the kehunoh. I.e., his male children are permitted to become impure, to marry a divorcee, and anything similar. (Nachalas Yaakov)

ולא יחלל זרעו, “so that he will not profane his seed,” by marrying these profaned people secretly.”

לחם אלהיו THE BREAD OF HIS GOD — This means, any food of his God (not “bread” only); any meal is termed לחם, as e. g., (Daniel 5:1) “he made a great banquet (לְחַם)” (cf. Rashi on Genesis 31:54).

SPEAK UNTO AARON, SAYING: WHOSOEVER HE BE OF THY SEED THROUGHOUT THEIR GENERATIONS. He does not state here “speak unto Aaron and his sons” as He does in all [other] sections,⁵⁵Above, 6:2, etc. because there in the Scriptural portions He commanded the laws of the offerings: This is the law of the burnt-offering;⁵⁵Above, 6:2, etc. This is the law of the sin-offering,⁵⁶Ibid., 6:18. and of the guilt-offering,⁵⁷Ibid., 7:1. and so on [and these laws apply to all priests — Aaron and his sons alike]. But here, if He were to have said “Speak unto Aaron and his sons,” He would have had to continue by saying: “Whosoever of you be throughout your generations” [which would have included Aaron among priests that might have a blemish, which this section discusses], and He did not want to warn Aaron himself about the law of blemishes, because Aaron the holy one of the Eternal⁵⁸Psalms 106:16. is all fair⁵⁹Song of Songs 4:7. And there is no blemish in thee. and there shall be no blemish in him. Instead He admonished him concerning his seed, that he is to teach them these laws and warn them throughout their generations. In the section on impurity immediately following, however, He does say: Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel,⁶⁰Further, 22:2. because it is possible that even Aaron might happen to become impure by touching a corpse or a dead swarming thing.⁶¹Above, 11:29-31. But when He comes to mention the impurity of leprosy or a flux, He again says, What man soever of the seed of Aaron,⁶²Further, 22:4. because this would not happen to the body [of Aaron], for he is the messenger of the Eternal of hosts.⁶³Malachi 2:7. At the end of this section He states, So Moses spoke unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel,⁶⁴Further, Verse 24. [although Moses had been told, Speak unto Aaron, saying, etc.], because Moses wanted to warn Aaron’s sons as well in order that they should receive the instruction directly from his mouth. He also said so to the children of Israel, which means that he warned the court of Israel on this matter.
Now in the Torath Kohanim I have found this text:⁶⁵Torath Kohanim, Emor 3:5. “Whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish.⁶⁶Verse 18. Why is this said [since it has already been mentioned in the preceding verse]? But because it says the seed of Aaron,⁶⁷In Verse 17 before us: Speak unto Aaron … Whosoever he be of thy seed. Also in Verse 21: of the seed of Aaron. I would only know that this law [of blemishes] applies to Aaron’s offspring. How do I know that it applies to Aaron himself? From the verse which states, For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish.”⁶⁶Verse 18. Similarly it has been taught there:⁶⁸Torath Kohanim, Emor 4:1. “The seed of Aaron.⁶⁷In Verse 17 before us: Speak unto Aaron … Whosoever he be of thy seed. Also in Verse 21: of the seed of Aaron. I would only know that this law [of blemishes] applies to Aaron’s offspring. How do I know that it applies to Aaron himself? From the verse which states, For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish. ”⁶⁶Verse 18. Similarly it has been taught there:⁶⁸Torath Kohanim, Emor 4:1. “The seed of Aaron.⁶⁷In Verse 17 before us: Speak unto Aaron … Whosoever he be of thy seed. Also in Verse 21: of the seed of Aaron. I would only know that this law applies to Aaron’s seed. How do I know that it applies to Aaron himself? From the verse and he is a leper, or hath an issue.”⁶²Further, 22:4. Now [that which the Torath Kohanim states] “Aaron himself,” means [any] High Priest that shall be in his stead among his sons,⁶⁹Above, 6:15. [but it does not mean Aaron personally, since, as explained above, Scripture does not mention Aaron’s name with reference to having a blemish or suffering from leprosy or an issue. It did, however, have to include the High Priest in the law of blemishes], because having permitted the High Priest [to officiate] whilst he is an onen, one might perhaps think that it also permits him [to officiate] although he has a blemish or leprosy. For this reason it became necessary to include him in this law. Or it may be that [the Torath Kohanim] is alluding to the law about Aaron himself, for the Torah in its prohibitions does not rely on a miracle. However, it concealed it [the prohibition] in connection with Aaron, in his honor, thus hinting that this would [in fact] not happen to him.

דבר אל אהרון לאמר, "speak to Aaron to say: etc." The reason the Torah added the word לאמר once more, is to tell him that Aaron in his capacity as High Priest is charged with the task to see to it that no physically blemished priests perform service in the Tabernacle. He has to warn all the priests to be careful to abide by this commandment. The result of this wording is that the priests themselves are commanded to observe this directive and Aaron is commanded to see that the priests abide by this directive.

דבר אל אהרן: איש מזרעך, “speak to Aaron saying: ‘any man of your offspring, etc.’” Nachmanides points out that the Torah here does not use the formula דבר אל אהרן ובניו, “speak to Aaron and his sons,” but it refers to his sons, etc, in the third person. The reason is that earlier Moses, i.e. G’d, had spoken in connection with the sacrifices, whereas if here the Torah had used the same form of address it would have had to add the words איש מכם לדורותיכם אשר יהיה בו מום, “if any one of you (the priests) throughout the generations is afflicted with a physical blemish, etc.” The Torah did not want to include Aaron personally in the list of people who might be stricken with a blemish, seeing that Aaron was a paragon of holiness, physical perfection, etc. The possibility of any priest being stricken with a physical blemish in the future therefore had to be approached in a very sensitive manner, not addressed to anyone in particular. It remained Aaron’s task, of course, to caution his offspring against performing priestly duties while in a blemished state. In the paragraph dealing with ritual contamination (chapter 22) where the Torah reverts to its customary formula of “speak to Aaron and his sons, that they should abstain, withdraw from holy domains as soon as they do become contaminated,” there was no need for such sensitivity, as Aaron himself, without being in the least to blame, could become the victim of such ritual contamination, [for instance, if a dead mouse fell upon him. Ed.] Further on in our portion, (22,18) not only Aaron and his sons but all of the Israelites are addressed, the idea being that the courts are warned to intervene in any non observance. When it comes to warn the people about the plague of צרעת, Aaron is mentioned at the beginning of chapter 14, as seeing that we have learned that the High Priest continues to perform his functions even while in a state of pre-mourning, אנינות for father and mother, I might have thought that even if he were struck by tzoraat this would also not disqualify him from performing his duties. To make sure we do not err in this respect, the Torah introduces that legislation by including Aaron by name. (Leviticus 214,33) This confronts us with the statement in Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 22,4 איש איש מזרע אהרן והוא צרוע או זב, “any man from the offspring of Aaron who is either stricken with tzoraat, or zav, etc.” On this verse Torat Kohanim comments that the word והוא means that the legislation might even apply to him personally, if he were to be afflicted with such a dysfunction. This is so, in spite of the fact that on the face of it, the verse appears to restrict itself to the offspring of Aaron. It is possible to understand the word אהרן in all of these verses as the (first) High Priest, and as such Aaron is mentioned by name as representative of High Priests throughout the generations, although he himself had long ceased to be alive. Accordingly, when the Torat Kohanim asks: ‘whence do I know that the legislation applies to Aaron personally,’ and it answers that we derive this from the word והוא, the author had never referred to the actual Aaron but to the respective High Priest officiating, if and when the problem raised by our verse should ever occur. Alternatively, the mention of Aaron is a hint that the Torah’s legislation is not predicated on miracles –i.e. considers the possibility that Aaron might be stricken with either of the two afflictions mentioned in that verse. However, out of sensitivity for Aaron this possibility is obscured by the word והוא so as to preserve our image of him as a physically perfect specimen.

דבר אל אהרן לאמר איש מזרעך, “speak to Aaron saying: ‘any man of your offspring, etc.’” Nachmanides points out that the Torah here does not instruct Moses to speak to Aaron and his sons as it does in all other instances (compare Leviticus 6,18 et al) where Moses is instructed to speak to Aaron, but here only Aaron was to be addressed and told the law that physically blemished priests must not perform service in the Tabernacle. The reason may be that in the other instances such matters as the rules pertaining to the burnt-offering, the sin-offering, the gift-offering, etc., were the subject of the instructions, and Aaron’s sons were directly involved.
Had the Torah written in this instance: “speak to Aaron and his sons,” it should have followed this with the words: איש מכם לדורותיכם, “if any one of your descendants has a blemish, etc.” The Torah did not want to include Aaron himself in a verse referring to physical blemishes. By choosing the wording in front of us, i.e. איש מזרעך לדורותם, “a man of your offspring in their respective generations,” the Torah placed a qualitative distance between Aaron and his future offspring.
Our sages enumerated a multitude of physical defects each of which disqualifies a priest from performing sacrificial service. The Torah here begins the list by mentioning missing or inoperative organs, such as the blind, the lame, followed by relatively minor defects such as a nose without a bridge, or limbs of uneven length. This is followed by priests suffering from broken limbs on their arms or legs. Even priests whose external appearance is aesthetically displeasing are included in the list. Blemishes which are not normally invisible, such as crushed testicles, are also a cause for disqualifying the priest from performing most priestly functions.
When the Torah repeats the words אשר בו מום, “who suffers from a blemish,” this means that regardless of whether the priest has suffered from the blemish from birth or whether the blemish occurred during his lifetime, he is unfit to perform service in the Temple. The Torah continues (chapter 22, 22-24) by listing physical blemishes which disqualify an animal from serving as an acceptable sacrificial offering on the Altar. Included in these animals which do not qualify as sacrifices are the ones which have genetic defects such as uneven limbs or a hoof which is not split. Defects which develop during the lifetime of the animal certainly disqualify it as an offering on the Altar. Defects to the eye are serious even if the sight is not affected but the eye looks diseased.

The food. You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain this above in v. 6 where it says, “The bread of their God they bring, and they must be holy?” The answer is that above you could say that when the verse mentions bread, etc., it is referring to the show bread that was in the sanctuary. But here, where it says “shall not approach to offer,” why do we need [the extra word] “to offer?” Thus, it must be dealing with all the offerings offered on the altar, and therefore he has to explain, “Every food [meal]...”

אשר (יהיה) בו מום לא יגש להקריב, “that has a blemish shall not come close in order to present an offering.” The Talmud in tractate Kidushin, folio 66, raises the question of why the verse in Numbers 25,12: הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום , “here I bless him with My covenant of peace” (to Pinchas) was necessary. It suggests that it was based on what is written here, i.e. that the priest must be שלם, unblemished. The subject needs further study.

איש מזרעך לדורותם, “any of your descendants (afflicted with a physical deformity;)” Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah uses the wording of this verse to rule that a minor,son of a priest is unfit to perform service in the Temple, even if he is physically perfect. As to the question of from what age such a minor is qualified to perform service in the Temple, he rules that when he has grown 2 pubic hairs this demonstrates that he is sufficiently developed physically. In spite of this ruling, his colleagues, the adult priests do not admit him to perform such service until he has reached the age of 20 years. [They imply that spiritual maturity is required also. Ed.] (Sifra)

איש מזרעך, "any man who is a descendant of yours, etc." The Torah did not adhere to the order it had displayed at the beginning of the Parshah, nor did it use the order it employed subsequently, i.e. "speak to Aaron and to his sons that they should abstain, etc." Neither did the Torah use the form of address used in Leviticus 10,9 where the Torah addressed both Aaron and his sons directly about not entering the holy precincts after having drunk wine or alcohol. Why these changes in syntax each time? Perhaps the fact that since neither Aaron nor his sons personally suffered from any of the deficiencies mentioned in this paragraph, G'd did not mention them directly but referred only to their future issue amongst whom there could be someone who did suffer from the blemishes listed in this chapter. Although Aaron's sons are also included in the description זרעך "your seed," the change in the Torah's syntax is intended to alert us that in this instance the sons are not included in the word זרעך. In fact, the Torah made this point even clearer by writing מזרעך, "some of your seed," instead of the usual זרעך, "your seed." This was a promise to Aaron and his sons that they themselves would not be disqualified by a physical blemish during their respective lives. (compare my commentary on 22,4, "והוא צרוע").

אשר יהיה בו מום, “who is afflicted with a physical blemish;” after the Torah had made an overall statement regarding the holiness of the priests, it begins to list blemishes which will disqualify individual priests from performing service in the Temple. (Ibn Ezra)

כי כל איש אשר בו מום לא יקרב FOR ANY MAN THAT HATH A BLEMISH SHALL NOT APPROACH — This means: it is not right that he should approach; It expresses the same idea as (Malachi 1:8) “[And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame or sick, is it not evil?] offer it now unto thy governor! [will he be pleased with thee?]”.

O (OR) CHARUM O (OR) SARU’A.’ “[Charum] is anyone whose nose is sunk between his two eyes, so that he is able to paint both his eyes [for cosmetic purposes] with one stroke.” This is Rashi’s language. And in the Torath Kohanim⁷⁰Torath Kohanim, Emor 3:7. and in the Gemara of Tractate Bechoroth⁷¹Bechoroth 43 b. we have been taught: “Charum is one whose nose is sunk. [How do I know about] one whose nose is obstructed? or one whose nose is turned up? or whose nose overhangs his lips? From the expression o charum, [the word ‘o’ (or) includes these blemishes]. Aba Yosei says: The word charum means only one who can paint both his eyes with one stroke. But the Rabbis said to him: ‘You have overstated it. Even though he cannot paint both his eyes with one stroke’” [because his nose is not so deeply sunken, he may nonetheless come within the term charum].⁷²Ramban’s objection to Rashi’s interpretation is thus clear. Rashi stated that charum is one whose nose is so far sunk that he is able to paint both his eyes with one stroke. But, as pointed out by Ramban, this is only the opinion of a single Sage, Aba Yosei, while all the other Sages differ with him, as explained in the text. Mizrachi too, writes that he does not know what prompted Rashi to follow the opinion of a single Sage. See also Gur Aryeh.
The term charum is of the expressions: None ‘cheirem’ (doomed) who shall be ‘yachoram’ (doomed of man);⁷³Further, 27:29. ‘v’hacharamti’(and I shall utterly destroy) their cities,⁷⁴Numbers 21:2. the meaning thereof being destruction. Now [a man with a sunken nose] is called charum because the nose determines the beauty of the face, just as the Rabbis have said:⁷⁵Yebamoth 120 a. “Evidence [as to the identity of a corpse] may not be given unless [from proof afforded by recognition] of the face together with the nose,” and if someone’s nose is unlike that of the appearance of normal people, the shape [of his face] is deemed “destroyed.”
‘O gibein o dak o t’valul b’eino.’⁷⁶Verse 20. The expression ‘o gibein’ is connected with the word ‘b’eino’ (in his eye), meaning that he is either a gibein in his eye, or has a dak (membrane) or a t’valul (a speck) in his eye, gibein meaning that the hair of his eyebrows are so long that they lie over his eyes, of the expressions: ‘gav’ (the side of) the altar;⁷⁷Ezekiel 43:13. upon ‘gabi’ (my back) plowed the plowers.⁷⁸Psalms 129:3.
Now Scripture mentioned⁷⁹Ramban now sets forth the thought that the blemishes mentioned in these verses are primary types of blemishes, which are to serve as examples for other defects to be deduced therefrom. Thus the Torah mentioned first, cases of missing limbs, then uneven limbs etc. Thus the list here, although not exhaustive, served as the source for the deduction of other defects enumerated by the Rabbis of the Talmud. first [in Verse 18 before us] blemishes of missing limbs: a blind man, or a lame, and afterwards [it
mentioned blemishes which are a result of] the smallness of the limbs, such as the charum [whose nose is sunk into his face, and consequently is shorter than the normal nose], or a result of the largeness of the limbs, such as the saru’a [meaning “anything too long,” as where one eye is larger than the other, or one leg longer]. Then in the following verse [19] it cites blemishes because of the breaking of bones even though he has all his limbs with him, nonetheless, if the bone is broken, he is disqualified [from ministering the Service]. Then [in Verse 20] He disqualified [a priest from performing the Service] even on account of a hideous appearance, such as one whose eyebrows overhang his eyes, or who has kernel-like growths in his eyes [like a membrane or a speck], and then it mentioned blemishes on the flesh of the body [such as scabs or scurvy], because he [the priest] must be clean and smooth [in flesh]. And afterwards He added [o m’roach ashech, which means] one who has wind [and as a result of which] his testicles are swollen, even though it is a sickness common amongst older people, and is not a blemish in the bone or flesh. Now our Rabbis have explained⁸⁰Bechoroth, Chapter 6. many other blemishes which are deduced from these, for those mentioned in the Torah are merely the primary [categories of those] blemishes [deduced by the Rabbis].

כי כל איש אשר בו מום לא יקרב, to stand and perform the Temple service. The principle is familiar to us from when Esther was aghast when her uncle Mordechai appeared wearing sackcloth in the courtyard of the Royal Palace (Esther 4,2).

חרום ושרוע, the details of this physical blemish have been explained in Bechorot 43 and 40 respectively.

חרום, “someone with a flat nose, without a bridge,” the origin of the word is חרם, as used in והחרמתי את עריהם, “I will utterly deface their cities.” (Numbers 21,2) The nose, i.e. the bridge of the nose, is considered essential to someone having a handsome face. Absence of that bridge deprives a person of his human appearance, [makes him appear like an inferior species, such as an ape. Ed.]

It is not proper that he approach. Because if not so, what reason is the verse giving when it says (verse 17) “Shall not approach... For any man who has a blemish shall not approach.” What is the verse adding with this? Therefore he explains, “It is not proper.” (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

'כי כל איש וגו, “for any man who is afflicted with a blemish” the Torah lists the reason that such priests may not perform service in the Temple as being that seeing that they represent the whole Jewish community, it would not seem appropriate that this community dispatches blemished people as their representatives at the Court of the King of Kings. (B’chor shor)

חרם A FLAT-NOSED MAN — one whose nose is sunk between his two eyes so that he is able to paint both his eyes (for medical or cosmetic purposes) with one stroke (Sifra, Emor, Section 3 7; Mishna Bekhorot 7:3).

Both his eyes with one stroke. Explanation: his nose is sunk close to his eyes so that when he wants to paint both of his eyes, his nose does not prevent him from painting them both together with one stroke.

אשר בו מום, “even if he had been born with the physical abnormality;”

שרוע HE THAT HATH A LIMB TOO LARGE — i.e. one of whose limbs forming a pair is larger than the other, e. g. one of his eyes is large and the other small, or, one of his legs is longer than the other (Bekhorot 40b; cf. Sifra, Emor, Section 3 9).

Longer. You might ask: This is the same as being lame. The answer is that lameness is when his limbs are like everyone else except that one thigh is shorter, while “disproportionate” is the opposite, all his limbs are like everyone else except that one thigh is longer. The expression of שרוע is similar to, “For the bed is too short to stretch oneself out (מהשתרע)” (Yeshayahu 28:20).

חרם, an expression similar to חרם or שבירה, “disgraceful, something to be avoided.” (Ibn Ezra)

שרוע, asymmetrical, too long or too short. Compare Isaiah, 28,20, השתרע.

שבר רגל, an example of blemishes not caused by the priests’ bodies themselves.

או גבן — sourcils in O. F. — is one whose eye-brows have their hair long so that they lie over his eyes (Bekhorot 43b)

או גבן, (eyebrow) an example of blemishes caused by the body being deficient in some of its essential moisture.

מרוח אשך, whose testicles have been crushed.

או גבן, ”or abnormally long eyebrows;” the word appears in conjunction with eyes, as in שגובן בעיניו, describing eyebrows so bushy that they cover one’s eyes. The word is related to גב, “back,” as in על גבי חרשו חורשים, “plowmen plowed across my back” (Psalms 129,3) The Torah began by listing the kind of physical blemishes that consist of visibly missing or malfunctioning limbs or organs, limbs, etc., proceeding to examples of priests whose limbs are all there and functioning, but who suffer from blemishes making them appear ugly. This is followed by defects which were not congenital but the result of bone fractures, etc. At the end, we even hear about blemishes that affect the mind of a person such as knowing that one’s reproductive organs, though not visibly blemished, suffered the kind of injuries which make the organ permanently dysfunctional.

Snake, wart. I.e., he has the form of a snail, or the form of a snake, or something like the pit of a grape in his eyes. Some have the text, “worm, snake, his eyes,” meaning that he has the form of a snail or snake in his eyes. Some say that ענב is an expression of עניבה (coil), because it is the way of the snake to coil itself and עניבה is an expression of coiling. All [the versions] mean the same, [i.e., that he has some kind of a streak in his eye]. מריס פחדין. פחדין means testicles.

גבן, “hunchback;”דק, “a dwarf;”

או דק — one who has in his eye a membrane which is called “toile” (web) in old French The word is similar in meaning to (Isaiah 40:22) “It is He that stretcheth out the heavens like a web (כַּדֹּק) (Bekhorot 48a).

מריס פחדין. פחדין means testicles.

תבלול, “malformed eyes.”

או תבלל — (from בלל "to mingle") denotes anything that causes a mingling in the eye, e. g., a white line which extends from the white of the eye and intersects the סירא (the iris), which is the ring that encloses the black of the eye which is called prunelle in old French This white line intersects the circle and runs into the black (so that the white and the black of the eye mingle). The Targum rendering of תבלל is חילוז, connected in meaning with חלזון (a kind of worm); he translates it thus because that line resembles a worm. Thus, too, the Sages of Israel name it (the while line) among the blemishes of first-born animals: חלזון נחש עינב (worm, snake, wart) (cf. Bekhorot 38a,b).

מרוח, “psoriasis"

גרב וילפת — These are kinds of boil; גרב is identical with חרס (mentioned in Deuteronomy 28:27) — a boil which is dry both inside and on the surface. ילפת is identical with the Egyptian lichen, (חזזית) (Sifra, Emor, Section 3 15). Why is it called ילפת (root לפת “to embrace")? Because it continues to cling to the body until the day of death. It is wet on the surface and dry inside. In another passage, however, Scripture gives the name גרב to a boil which is wet on the surface and dry inside, as it is said (Deuteronomy 28:27) "[The Lord will smite thee…] ובגרב ובחרס”, where גרב necessarily denotes a wet boil since חרס (identical with חרש, potsherd) denotes the dry species. But the explanation is as follows: חרס always denotes the dry skin disease, ילפח always the wet one; as to גרב it depends: When Scripture mentions גרב together with חרס it is calling a ילפת by the term ,גרב and when it mentions it (גרב) together with ילפת (as is the case here) it is calling a חרס by the term גרב. Thus is it explained in Bekhorot 41a.

מרוח אשך, according to the Targum, מרס פחדין, which signifies one whose פחדין are מרוססין, i. e., one whose testicles are crushed. פחדין has the same meaning as (Job 40:17) “and the sinews of his stones (פחדיו) are wrapped together”.

כל איש אשר בו מום NO MAN THAT HATH A BLEMISH… [SHALL COME NEAR] — This is intended to include in the prohibition (besides the blemishes expressly mentioned in vv. 18—20) also other bodily blemishes (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 1).

כל איש…מזרע אהרון, "Any man of the descendants of Aaron..who has a blemish,etc." The reason the warning has been repeated is to alert the Israelites that they must not allow a priest who suffers from such a blemish to perform sacrificial service. The Torah phrased this warning in indirect speech to make clear it was not addressed to the priest directly.

To include other blemishes. Because if not so, why does it repeat “Any man who has a blemish” a second time? It is already written above (verse 17), “Anyone of your offspring, through [all] their generations who will have a blemish, etc.”

מום בו HE HATH A BLEMISH — These apparently redundant words imply: so long as he has the bodily blemish he is unfit for priestly service; (the translation is: מום בו while the blemish is in him, '‎לא יגש וכו‎ he shall not approach to offer); consequently, if his blemish disappears, he becomes again fit for it (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 6).

Every food. You might ask: Rashi already explained this above (verse 17)? Furthermore, here he [only] explains “every food,” while above he [also] explained “the food of his God?” The answer is: Above he is talking about the daily sacrifices that are called bread as it says, “My food [lit. bread] of My fires” (Bamidbar 28:2). But here he is talking about the most holy sacrifices, which one may have thought are not called bread. Therefore, he explains, “Every food is called bread.” [See Re’m]

לחם אלהיו THE BREAD OF HIS LORD — any food is called לחם (cf. Rashi on v. 17).

מקדשי הקדשים OF THE MOST HOLY — These are what are technically known as קדשי קדשים — of them he may eat.

I would have thought: A blemished person may eat of the most holy sacrifices. (Gur Aryeh) Re’m raises a question regarding Rashi’s statement that the holy sacrifices were permitted to a non-kohein: The Gemara in Perek Tevul Yom (Zevachim 101b) says, Moshe, our teacher, was a Kohein Godol and took a portion of the sacrifices of Heaven as it says concerning the ram of inauguration (Vayikra 8:29), “That was the portion of Moshe.” If so, [where is the proof that] it was not permitted to a non-kohein? This is no difficulty, since it is still correct to say that it was permitted to a non-kohein, i.e., to someone whose sons were not kohanim. Also, Moshe was not a kohein regarding everything, as he was not permitted to do service after the Tabernacle was erected, and concerning this he is called a non-kohein.

מקדשי הקדשים, ומן הקדשים, “both of the most holy and the holy.”(he may eat) This poses the question of why we have to be told that he may eat of the ‘holy,” seeing that the Torah had already permitted him to eat from “the most holy?” Answer: if the Torah had only written that he may eat of the קדשי הקדשים, I might have thought that what is meant by this is only the קדשים, “the holy things of a lower level of holiness.” The logic behind such a thought would have been that these קדשים, “holy” things, could be consumed also outside the sacred precincts of the Temple which are also permitted to be eaten by non priests. (Example: Passover lamb) In order to prevent such a misunderstanding, the Torah added the extra words.

ומן הקדשים יאכל AND OF THE HOLY HE MAY EAT — these are what are technically known as קדשים קלים. But if קדשי קדשים are mentioned as being permitted to him as food, why are קדשים קלים also mentioned? Could this not be inferred by a conclusion a fortiori? But the explanation is as follows: If קדשים קלים were not expressly mentioned as being permitted, I might have said: of the sacrifices holy in the highest degree the priest with a bodily blemish may eat — because we find that these had on one occasion been permitted to be eaten even by a non-priest, for Moses (who was not a priest) ate the flesh of the installation offering (cf. Leviticus 8:29; and this was holy in the highest degree since Scripture continues there: “Seethe the flesh at the entrance of the appointed tent… etc., a law that only applies to קדשי קדשים) — but he (a priest who is בעל מום) must not eat of the breast and the shoulder of sacrifices holy in a minor degree, since we do not find that a non-priest ever took a share in them. On this account sacrifices holy in a minor degree are expressly stated as permitted to be eaten. Thus it is explained in Treatise Zevachim 101b (cf. also Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 8-9).

אך אל הפרכת ONLY [HE SHALL NOT GO IN] UNTO THE PARTITION VEIL for the purpose of applying the seven sprinklings which are to be made upon the partition vail (cf. Leviticus 16:17).

To sprinkle seven sprinklings. Because if not so, what has he to do with the Curtain that the verse should warn him from entering there.

אך אל הפרוכת לא יבא, “but he must not go beyond the dividing curtain;” Torat Kohanim demonstrates why the additional mention of the altar in this verse was necessary by stating that if the Torah had only mentioned the dividing curtain, we might have thought that seeing that anything beyond was the Holy of Holies, anyone who was not a priest was forbidden to enter there, and if it had written only that the altar was out of bounds to them that the reason was that they were not allowed to perform sacrificial rituals. By mentioning both the dividing curtain and the altar situated in the Sanctuary, no one could make such an error.

אך אל הפרכת ואל המזבה, “but to the dividing curtain inside the Sanctuary, and to the altar he must not come near.” (on account of his blemish); if the Torah had only quoted the example of the dividing curtain I might have thought that seeing that the dividing curtain is inside the Sanctuary, the blemished person could also not approach the golden altar whereas it would be all right to approach the copper altar outside the Sanctuary. On the other hand, if the Torah had only forbidden the blemished priest to approach the altar, I would have thought that the reason is because the sacrificial animals are slaughtered in it. Seeing that the dividing curtain did not have anything to do with the actual slaughtering of the offering, I might have thought that even a blemished priest could approach it; in order to prevent such faulty reasoning on our part the Torah added a few words.

ואל המזבח [NOR SHALL HE COME NIGH] UNTO THE ALTAR — i. e. the outer altar. Both (פרכת and מזבח) must be mentioned here and the reason is explained in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 10).

The outer [one]. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it is the inner altar? The answer is: If it was speaking about the inner altar, there would be no need to write, “He may not enter beyond the Curtain,” because if he is forbidden to approach the inner altar which is outside the Curtain, he would certainly not be permitted to approach the curtain. But if it is speaking of the outer altar, “both had to be written, and [the reason] is explained, etc.”

כי אני ה' מקדשם, “for I the Lord, sanctify them.” The Torah is speaking about sanctifying the dividing curtain and the altar, and that is why a priest with a blemish is not fit to approach them. (B’chor shor)

ולא יחלל את מקדשי THAT HE PROFANE NOT WHAT IS HOLY TO ME — Consequently, if he performs the service it is profaned and thus becomes invalid (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 11).

His service is profaned. I.e., מקדשי of the verse does not mean the actual Temple, but rather His service, because the word מקדש can refer to the actual Temple and also to the service performed in the Temple.

וידבר משה AND MOSES TOLD this command,

To warn the court. Because if not so, what have Yisroel to do with the warning of the kohanim?

ואל כל בני ישראל, “as well as to all the Children of Israel.” They are warned not to entrust their offerings to priests who are afflicted with blemishes.

אל אהרן ואל בניו ואל כל בני ישראל UNTO AARON AND UNTO HIS SONS AND UNTO ALL THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — He told it to the Israelites although they were not directly concerned with these commands in order to admonish the court regarding the priests (i. e. that the authorities should watch over the sanctity of the Sanctuary and prevent priests with a bodily blemish from officiating) (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 3 12).

That is that He commanded us to honor the seed of Aharon, to adorn and glorify them, and that we should place them on a level of priority and precedence. And even if they decline, we should not listen to them - this is all aggrandizement of God, may He be exalted, since He took them and chose them for His service and to offer His sacrifices. And this is His, may He be exalted and may His name be blessed, saying, "And sanctify him, since he offers the bread of your God" (Leviticus 21:8)." And the explanation appears - "And sanctify him," in every matter of holiness: To start first, to bless first and to take a nice portion. And the language of the Sifrei is, "'And sanctify him' - against his will." This means to say this is a command that we are commanded, and it is not the priest's choice. And likewise did they say, "'They shall be holy to their God' (Leviticus 21:6) - against their will; 'and they shall be holy' - to include those with blemishes." This is so that you not say, "Since this one is not fit to serve the bread of His God, why should we give him the level of priority and honor?" Hence His saying, "and they shall be holy" - all of this honored seed, both unblemished and blemished. And the stipulations required by them, such that it will be fit to treat them with this practice, have already been explained in scattered places in the Gemara - in Chullin, in Shabbat, in Bekhorot and in the other [tractates]. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 4).

That is that He commanded us that we have oil made according to the special recipe, ready to anoint the high priest when he is appointed - as He said, "The priest who is exalted above his fellows, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured" (Leviticus 21:10). And some of the kings were [also] anointed with it, as it is explained in the the law of this commandment. And the Tabernacle and all of its vessels have already been anointed by it. The vessels are not anointed for [all of the] generations (when new ones are made). For they said in the explanation, in the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 44), "That with the anointment of these" - meaning the vessels of the Tabernacle - "all the future vessels were consecrated." He, may He be elevated and may His name be blessed, said, "This shall be an anointing oil sacred to Me throughout the ages" (Exodus 30:31). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the first chapter of Keritot. (See Parasht Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 1.)

That is that the priests were commanded to become impure for the relatives that are mentioned in the Torah. Since, on account of Scripture preventing them from becoming impure, for their glory, yet allowing them to become impure for the relatives, they perhaps would think that the option is theirs - if they want to become impure, they become impure; and if they do not want, they do not become impure. [Hence] He made a decree upon them and made it obligatory upon them. And that is His, may He be exalted and may His name be blessed, saying, "for her he shall defile himself" (Leviticus 21:3) - that is to say, for his sister. And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Emor, Section 2:12) is, "'For her he shall defile himself' - it is a commandment. If he does not want to become impure, we force him to become impure. And it happened with Yosef the priest, whose wife died on the eve of Pesach, and he did not wish to become impure for her, that the Sages pushed him and made him do so against his will." And this is actually the commandment of mourning - meaning that any Israelite is obligated to mourn for his relatives: That is, the six dead [relations about which he is] commanded. And to strengthen this obligation, He explained it with a priest, for whom impurity is prohibited - that he must become impure regardless - so that the law of mourning not be uprooted. And it has already been explained that the obligation of mourning is a positive commandment - however only on the first day, whereas the rest is rabbinic. And in the explanation, they said in Moed Katan (Moed Katan 14b), "He does not observe mourning on the festival. If the mourning is from before, the positive commandment of the many pushes off the positive commandment of an individual." Behold it has been made clear to you that the obligation of mourning is a positive commandment - however only on the first day, whereas the rest is rabbinic. And even a priest is obligated to observe mourning on the first day and become impure for his relatives - and understand this. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Berakhot, in Ketuvot and in the Sifra, Parashat Emor. And women are not obligated in this, that one be obligated to become impure for one's relatives. For the one that is prohibited from becoming impure for others besides the relatives is also the one who is commanded to become impure for the relatives. Whereas women of the priestly order, who were not prohibited from becoming impure with a corpse - as will be explained in its place (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 166) - were likewise not commanded to become impure. But they do practice mourning and are permitted to become impure. And know this. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Mourning 1.)

That is that He commanded a high priest to marry a virgin. And that is His saying, "He shall marry a woman who is a virgin." And they said in the explanation (Ketuvot 30a), "Rabbi Akiva would designate as a mamzer even [a child resulting from the union of] those prohibited by a positive commandment." And the explanation of this is that it is when a high priest would have sexual intercourse with someone who is not a virgin - about which he is prohibited by a positive commandment. For the principle with us is that a negative commandment that is derived from a positive commandment is [also] a positive commandment. And behold the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Yevamot, in Kiddushin and in Ketuvot. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 17.)

For all the near-of-kin for whom the Kohen¹ Glos. defiles himself, viz., his father, mother, son, daughter, [paternal] brother, paternal virgin sister and wife, — one is dutibound to observe mourning rites.¹⁹M.K. 20b. To these they added one's maternal brother and one's maternal sister whether a virgin or married, and one's paternal married sister, — for whom one is dutibound to observe mourning rites, although a Kohen¹ Glos. does not defile himself for them.²⁰Ibid. And even as he observes mourning rites for his wife, so too, does she observe mourning rites for him.²¹The reason being that since a mourner observes mourning rites for all near-of-kin for whom a Kohen defiles himself, it follows that just as a woman defiles herself for her husband, she also observes mourning rites for him — B.Yos. Cf. Mishna Yeb. IV, 10 (41a) and infra par. 6. [This applies] only to one's lawful married wife, but for one's unlawful or betrothed [wife] one does not [observe mourning rites].²² supra § 373, 4 for whom a Kohen defiles himself, and v. Yeb. 29b regarding a betrothed wife with respect to mourning rites. For one's son, daughter, brother or sister, even if they are illegitimate, he observes mourning, save [in the case of] his son, daughter, brother or sister who are [the issue] of a slave or a heathen, for whom one does not observe mourning rites.²³Mishna Yeb. II, 5 (22a). If one quarreled with his wife and decided to divorce her, and then immediately following the dispute, she died, the husband is not dutibound to mourn for her — R. A. Eger on the authority of MaHaRShaL. Nowadays, however, since one cannot divorce his wife against her will, but must obtain her consent, this does not apply — P.Tesh. (to E.H. § 90 n. 8) a.o. Hence, if the husband is a Kohen, he defiles himself and observes mourning rites for her. If she was divorced on a condition and subsequently the husband died, she is not dutibound to observe mourning rites for him. However, if she desires to adopt a stringency, she is permitted to weep over him and to follow his bier — E.H. § 145, 9, Gloss.