Komentarz do Kapłańska 21:5

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.