Komentarz do Kapłańska 21:3

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.

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.)